Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/27/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Takes the Helm at EPA
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Newly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week revealed his vision for the regulatory agency. -
Five Takeaways from the Scott Pruitt Emails
Feb 26, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A liberal group this week released thousands of pages of emails, obtained under an open records law, detailing communications between new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt and various energy and conservative interest groups. -
Pruitt Picks Inhofe Aide as Chief of Staff
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A longtime aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe has signed on as U.S. EPA boss Scott Pruitt's top staffer. -
How Many Chemicals are in Use Today?
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
No one, not even the Environmental Protection Agency, knows how many chemicals are in use today. -
Trump Issues Regulatory Reform Executive Order
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order on implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. -
Improving REACH Dossiers Remains Big Challenge
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
More than 90% of compliance checks on REACH registration dossiers during 2016 required further information, compared with 82% the year before. -
Energy Transfer Partners Will Not Help Make America Great Again
Feb 27, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Anne Rolfes
On a Thursday evening just a few days before Valentine’s Day, my phone started ringing. I’ve worked to clean up the oil industry for 20 years, and when my phone rings relentlessly, there’s a problem. -
U.S. Exports Pick Up as OPEC Cuts Take Hold
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Oil import and export trends suggest U.S. shale oil production may be rising much more quickly than earlier figures suggested. -
U.S. Set to Rival Russia in Oil and Natural Gas Exports
Feb 25, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Jude Clemente
President Trump has promised to roll back federal regulations to help U.S. oil and natural gas and to open up new areas for development. -
Bill Would Allow More Chemical Discharge into Waterways
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A fast-moving bill in the West Virginia statehouse would permit more toxic waste discharge into the state's rivers and streams. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Extends Time for Input on Mining Finance Rule Following Major Pressure
Feb 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has granted requests from lawmakers as well as the mining and other industries to extend the time for groups to weigh in on its controversial, first-time Superfund financial assurance rule for the hardrock mining sector, even as the agency faces a Dec. 1 court-ordered deadline to take final action on a rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Takes the Helm at EPA
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
Newly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week revealed his vision for the regulatory agency. “Regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate,” Pruitt told EPA staff on his first day in office. “Those that we regulate ought to know what’s expected of them so they can plan and allocate resources to comply.” Pruitt has been criticized by environmental advocates for being too friendly with the fossil fuel industry in his previous position. . . The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade association, welcomed Pruitt’s confirmation. . .
Full Article Found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i9/Scott-Pruitt-takes-helm-EPA.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Five Takeaways from the Scott Pruitt Emails
Feb 26, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A liberal group this week released thousands of pages of emails, obtained under an open records law, detailing communications between new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt and various energy and conservative interest groups.
The emails painted a picture of an office that went out of its way to coordinate with the fossil fuel and conservative organizations.
Pruitt’s staffers often shared talking points, memos, strategy and more with the outside groups or companies and were in frequent conversation with them.
The documents also provided a unique perspective into Pruitt’s priorities and concerns on environmental and other legal matters.
Here are five takeaways from the documents and the stories surrounding them.
The emails probably would not have threatened Pruitt’s confirmation
Senate Democrats argued Pruitt’s confirmation vote should have been delayed until the emails were released.
The GOP refused to budge and voted 52 to 46 on Feb. 17 to confirm him, mostly along party lines.
“Seeing industry representatives fawning over Pruitt’s efforts to attack the EPA, it’s clear that this information should have been closely examined by the Senate as we considered his nomination to run that agency,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse(D-R.I.) said after the records were published.
But it’s unlikely that the emails would have significantly shifted the winds against Pruitt: members already knew about significant coordination between Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry, thanks to a 2014 New York Times story that revealed industry ties beyond what the contents of the emails showed.
The new documents only reinforced what Democrats and liberal groups have long argued: He is a close ally of the fossil fuel industry and his office frequently collaborated with those interests.
“There was no new information in these emails to support the left's anti-Pruitt fever dreams,” said Jeremy Adler, a spokesman for the conservative research group America Rising Squared.
Pruitt’s office frequently worked with Oklahoma companies and groups
One of the major themes that emerged from the emails is that Pruitt’s staffers and top deputies often went to great lengths to assist fossil fuel, utility and conservative interests and often used talking points and analysis from them.
Most of the communications involved groups in Pruitt’s home state.
For example, Devon Energy Corp., an oil and natural gas producer based in Oklahoma City, frequently was in touch with Pruitt’s office, as was the Public Service Company of Oklahoma, a unit of utility giant American Electric Power Co.
Staffers also frequently worked closely with conservative organizations such as the Oklahoma chapter of Americans for Prosperity and the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
“Frankly, he came from an oil and gas state and you would expect that kind of an interchange between he and the constituents in that state, and he was an elected representative of those constituents,” Christine Todd Whitman, an EPA administrator under President George W. Bush and frequent critic of President Trump and Pruitt, told MSNBC.
Pruitt’s office was worried about impacts of the ethanol mandate
The emails provide a window into how Pruitt’s office dealt with the federal ethanol blending mandate for gasoline refiners.
In one 2013 exchange, Clayton Eubanks, Pruitt’s deputy solicitor general, discusses strategies to get the EPA to lower ethanol blending requirements with Richard Moskowitz of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
Specifically, the two discussed the “economic and environmental harm” to Oklahoma from requiring too much ethanol.
Moskowitz asked Eubanks to file a formal petition with the EPA to waive certain aspects of the mandate, to align with one the refiners’ group would file.
Oklahoma did not end up filing the petition. But Pruitt applauded the EPA’s decision later that year to reduce the mandate, saying in a statement that “the decision by the EPA to lower that standard is good news for Oklahoma consumers.”
At his January confirmation hearing, Pruitt declined to go too strongly in favor of ethanol or oil, to the anger of some senators representing corn-heavy states.
He pledged only to “honor the intent” of the standard, telling Sen. Deb Fischer(R-Neb.), “it is not the job of the administrator of the EPA to do anything other than administer the program according to the intent of Congress, and I commit to you to do so.”
More emails are likely coming
The Center for Media and Democracy, the liberal group behind the releases, filed numerous requests for Pruitt’s communications, so more records are likely to be released.
Aides to Mike Hunter, Oklahoma’s current attorney general, are seeking more time to comply with the request, which could delay the release of new records. The state Supreme Court will hold a hearing on Hunter’s request on Tuesday.
The emails are likely to keep dripping out, and they could lead to a stream of potentially negative news regarding the new EPA administrator, similarly to the periodic releases of Hillary Clinton’s email records during the 2016 election cycle by the State Department.
In addition, the office of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) was ordered this week by a court to release documents related to two executions, the Tulsa World reported.
Since Pruitt was the state’s top lawyer, some of the records could provide insight into his role in the cases.
The emails could sow unrest at the EPA
Some of the EPA’s 15,000 employees and union leaders have made no secret about their contempt for their new leader.
Further evidence of his close ties to fossil fuel interests — which are often in the EPA’s crosshairs in pollution enforcement — is likely to sow even more unrest.
EPA employees went so far as to lobby the Senate against Pruitt’s confirmation, an unprecedented step, due to his fossil fuel ties and his frequent litigation against the agency while he was Oklahoma’s top attorney.
“Mr. Pruitt’s background speaks for itself, and it comes on top of what the president wants to do to EPA,” John O’Grady, president of the EPA’s union, told the New York Times.
“It seems like Trump and Pruitt want a complete reversal of what EPA has done. I don’t know if there’s any other agency that’s been so reviled,” Nicole Cantello, a union leader in the Chicago area, told the Times.
http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/321093-five-takeaways-from-the-scott-pruitt-emails
-
Pruitt Picks Inhofe Aide as Chief of Staff
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
A longtime aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe has signed on as U.S. EPA boss Scott Pruitt's top staffer.
Ryan Jackson, who worked for the Oklahoma Republican for more than a decade and was staff director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has been formally hired as EPA's chief of staff, agency spokesman John Konkus said today. E&E News first reported Jackson's likely appointment last month (Greenwire, Jan. 27).
Jackson worked on the team helping to guide Pruitt through the Senate confirmation process, and he will now be central to guiding the Washington newcomer around Capitol Hill. He was at Pruitt's side over the weekend as the EPA chief met with Western governors, as shown by several photos Pruitt posted on Twitter.
Among the jobs Jackson held in Inhofe's office were counsel and chief counsel to EPW and legislative director and chief of staff in Inhofe's personal office. He also spent stints away from Capitol Hill as an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma and as associate director for the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He hails from Oklahoma City and studied political science at the University of Oklahoma before getting a law degree from Oklahoma City University.
Jackson is among several Inhofe alumni who have been hired by the Trump administration to serve in key energy and environmental jobs (Greenwire, Feb. 10).
Former Inhofe aides Mike Catanzaro and George David Banks have been hired as top White House energy aides (Greenwire, Feb. 21). George Sugiyama, a political staffer at EPA, was Republican chief counsel on the EPW committee under Inhofe.
Another former Inhofe staffer has been rumored to be in the running to become EPA deputy administrator under Pruitt, sources told E&E News earlier this month.
Andrew Wheeler, former EPW staff director and chief counsel under Inhofe, has met with Pruitt about the No. 2 job at EPA, the sources said. Wheeler, who is now at FaegreBD Consulting, was an energy adviser to the Trump campaign. Another prospect for EPA deputy administrator is Donald van der Vaart, former secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the sources told E&E News.
Being EPA's chief of staff is a demanding, sometimes frantic job, according to officials who have held the post in past administrations.
Gwen Keyes Fleming, who was Gina McCarthy's chief of staff for several years, had an office attached to McCarthy's on the third floor of the William Jefferson Clinton building in downtown Washington and met with the administrator several times a day.
Michael VandenBergh, who served as the top aide to former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, said in a 2013 interview that being EPA's chief of staff is "like being an air traffic controller for management, regulatory and budget issues."
Peter Robertson, who was also chief of staff to Browner, said the job is about "keeping the trains running on time" as well as the "care and feeding of the administrator, making sure that things are running right." He added in the 2013 interview, "There's always, every single day, a certain amount of crisis management that you have to do".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/27/stories/1060050608
-
How Many Chemicals are in Use Today?
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
No one, not even the Environmental Protection Agency, knows how many chemicals are in use today. EPA has more than 85,000 chemicals listed on its inventory of substances that fall under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). But the agency is struggling to get a handle on which of those chemicals are in the marketplace today and how they are actually being used.
Under revisions made to TSCA last year, EPA is . . .
Full Article Found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i9/chemicals-use-today.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Trump Issues Regulatory Reform Executive Order
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US President Donald Trump has issued an executive order on implementing and enforcing regulatory reform. The move comes just a few weeks after he issued an order requiring regulatory agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one issued.
"Excessive regulation is killing jobs, driving companies out of our country like never before", said Mr Trump at the signing.
"This executive order is one of many ways we're going to get real results when it comes to removing job-killing regulations and unleashing economic opportunity."
The executive order calls on federal agencies to appoint an officer and establish a taskforce to carry out certain regulatory reforms identified by the administration. The taskforces must make recommendations on existing regulations that could be repealed or simplified, and will periodically report on their progress.
The order specifically directs focus toward regulations that:
inhibit job creation;
are "outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective";
impose costs that exceed benefits; and
create a "serious inconsistency" with regulatory reform policies.
"We will stop punishing companies for doing business in the United States,"said Mr Trump. "It’s going to be absolutely just the opposite: they're going to be incentivised for doing business in the United States."
Business leaders welcome directive
Mark Costa, chairman and CEO of Eastman Chemical and chair of the Business Roundtable committee on smart regulation, said that American business leaders welcome the directive, as it will "reduce burdens on the economy."
Two days before the executive order was issued, the Business Roundtable – an association of corporate CEOs "working to promote sound public policy and a thriving US economy" – submitted a list of 'top regulations of concern' to the Trump administration.
Included was a list of regulatory process improvements, comprising:
reducing or eliminating the amount of deference that courts give to agency interpretations of laws or regulations;
setting "more rigorous standards" for guidance documents, such as notice and comment for significant guidances;
requiring all new major rules to include a retrospective review plan;
encouraging greater use of advance notices on proposed rulemakings;
requiring agencies to post current information on all potential regulations, including expected timing and costs; and
expanding cost benefit analysis requirements to independent regulatory agencies.
The business group also called for reconsideration and full repeal by Congress of the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals reporting rule. An executive order to put the rule on hold for two years has been leaked to the press. It remains to be seen if it will be signed into law by the administration.
The roundtable includes representatives from:
Dow Chemical, Eastman, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, LyondellBasell, 3M, and Bayer Corporation;
consumer products conglomerates PG&E, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble; and
retailers Target, Best Buy, Macy's, CVS and Walmart.
Several were present at the signing of Mr Trump's executive order. Andrew Liveris, president and CEO of Dow, and head of Mr Trump's American Manufacturing Council, received the pen the president used to sign the order.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53873/trump-issues-regulatory-reform-executive-order
-
Improving REACH Dossiers Remains Big Challenge
Feb 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
More than 90% of compliance checks on REACH registration dossiers during 2016 required further information, compared with 82% the year before.
Most of the dossiers chosen for evaluation were for high-volume substances with concerns related to carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic properties (CMRs) or persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBTs), in line with Echa’s regulatory compliance strategy.
As a result of these evaluations, 805 standard information requests were made in the draft decisions, Echa says in its 2016 evaluation report. Of these, 550 addressed the higher-tier endpoints. The results confirm that there are "important data gaps" in the dossiers of substances of potential concern.
The report also makes the point that the numbers cannot directly be used to assess the overall rate of compliance of all registration dossiers because they "reflect the effectiveness of screening and selection of dossiers". But the figures clearly show, nonetheless, that for another year running the vast majority of dossiers chosen for evaluation were not in compliance.
Failure to update dossiers
In the report's introduction, Echa executive director Geert Dancet notes that registrants are legally required by the REACH Regulation to update their dossiers "whenever there is a material change, or where new information comes to light".
Last year Echa proposed that supplementary legislation is passed to strengthen the Regulation's provisions regarding this obligation. Most of 2010 and 2013's REACH registration documents have never been updated, says Echa. Many of those that have been were only updated after the registrants received a Decision or letter from the agency.
In 2016 the agency launched a targeted letter campaign on 270 shortlisted substances. This invited registrants to improve dossiers in advance of compliance checks or other processes that could follow the common screening. As a result, 40% of dossiers for substances on the shortlist were updated within four months.
Echa wants industry to take more active ownership of dossiers, including improving and updating information on uses and exposures, as this would help improve the agency's screening programme.
Common areas of non-compliance relate to:
prenatal developmental toxicity;
short- and long-term aquatic toxicity;
substance identification and composition;
mutagenicity or genotoxicity; and
issues related to the chemical safety report.
In addition to dossier compliance checks, the report updates the review of testing proposals and substance evaluation. It also includes recommendations for first-time registrants and companies updating their dossiers on how to ensure they are of sufficient quality.
During the past year, the agency issued 33 statements of non-compliance (Soncs) following a dossier evaluation decision and invited member states to consider enforcement action. At the end of 2016, there were 65 still unresolved Soncs that had been notified to member state authorities since 2012.
Echa's key recommendations for registrants are:
dossiers should be continuously updated to ensure safe use of the substance;
the exposure assessment and risk characterisation must cover all hazards;
registrants should read up on REACH requirements for skin corrosion or irritation, irritation and damage to eyes, acute dermal toxicity and skin sensitisation; and
preparation is vital to meet the 2018 REACH Registration deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53852/improving-reach-dossiers-remains-big-challenge
-
Energy Transfer Partners Will Not Help Make America Great Again
Feb 27, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Anne Rolfes
On a Thursday evening just a few days before Valentine’s Day, my phone started ringing. I’ve worked to clean up the oil industry for 20 years, and when my phone rings relentlessly, there’s a problem.
I turned on the television, and there it was: a Phillips 66 gas pipeline explosion in the town of Paradis, La. The local Sheriff stood in front of the raging fire and spoke with the media. “We’re not anticipating environmental, you know, pollution problems,” Sheriff Champagne said.
This state of denial about the impacts of fossil fuels began long before President Trump signed an executive order pushing pipelines forward. This denial as well as the impact of ongoing disasters illustrates the need to stop the proposed Energy Transfer Partner pipelines in North Dakota, Texas, Louisiana and around the country.
Energy Transfer Partners is not a superhero with new powers to prevent fossil fuel disasters. It’s an oil company with a track record of polluting multiple drinking water sources. The record is there for anyone to look up in the database of the National Response Center, the federal point of contact for oil spills. Records from a two year period (2015-2016) show that the company polluted multiple drinking water sources used by millions of people.
In a proper regulatory environment, Energy Transfer Partners would be chased by squad cars in hot pursuit, sirens blazing. Instead the company gets a police escort and the full support of government. Right into North Dakota. There, the Standing Rock Sioux object to Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access Pipeline for many reasons, including the fact that it threatens the Missouri River, a sacred source of drinking water. The Standing Rock Sioux are right to have mobilized thousands of people as Water Protectors, for the company has already decimated drinking water sources on the east coast.
“Caller stated that there was a discharge of crude oil at dock area. This incident did impact the Delaware River,” reads one report from 2015. The Delaware River is the drinking water source for millions of people in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Another accident created an oil sheen on the river. An industry funded economist from the state university here in Louisiana tried to allay concerns about such accidents by noting that the oil spills are small. This argument is nonsense, and a report of pollution in 2015 into the Schuylkill River, a drinking water source in Pennsylvania, shows why. “Petroleum products are releasing from a remediation unit due to a skimmer failure.” The column that details the quantity says “unknown,” as do 29 percent of Energy Transfer Partners accidents in 2015 and 2016.
Energy Transfer Partners has no idea how much oil they are spilling in our drinking water sources. Or maybe they just aren’t saying.
Here in Louisiana we are fighting Energy Transfer Partners’ proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline. The path would ram right through our Atchafalaya Basin, a swamp that is a national treasure and a source of crawfish. “Keep the oil outta my boil,” has become our rallying cry. We reject the argument about a safe amount of oil, for how much oil do you want in your water or in your crawfish. Half a cup? A barrel?
There’s also a showdown in Texas. There, Energy Transfer Partners is proposing the Trans Pecos Pipeline. “Don’t mess with Texas,” has long been a slogan in that state, but it’s clear there’s an escape clause for the oil industry. In 2015 – 2016, Energy Transfer Partners had 32 accidents that polluted Texas land and rivers with over half a million gallons of oil. These accidents are calamitous, and the laissez faire attitude by public and elected officials makes it worse.
Louisiana Sheriff Champagne is the President of the National Sheriff’s Association and traveled to North Dakota in this capacity to see, as he wrote in a Facebook post, “the protest and the response thereto to the Dakota Access Pipeline Project.” The Sheriff received the loudest boos of a six hour public hearing about the Bayou Bridge Pipeline when he said that the Water Protectors in North Dakota were violent. The Sheriff made no remarks about the violence of fossil fuels, not even when he stood in front of the conflagration in Paradis. That violence sent two workers to the hospital and killed one man.
“That’s somebody’s baby,” Cherri Foytlin of BOLD Louisiana said of the worker who was killed, and she was right. A family has a gaping hole and it doesn’t need to be this way, not when safe jobs in renewable energy are possible.
Officials, regulators and of course President Trump will continue to praise these proposed pipelines. Those of us who oppose these dangerous projects hear their words as a eulogy for an industry that should be nearing its last days. The facts are clear. Over the last two years, Energy Transfer Partners has polluted drinking water sources that millions of people rely on. Their pipelines should be rejected, and until our government wakes up and protects us from a dirty and dangerous industry, we will continue to resist.
Anne Rolfes is founding director of LA Bucket Brigade.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/321126-energy-transfer-partners-will-not-help-make-america
-
U.S. Exports Pick Up as OPEC Cuts Take Hold
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Oil import and export trends suggest U.S. shale oil production may be rising much more quickly than earlier figures suggested.
Past government reporting showed U.S. oil output growth mainly coming from offshore, though shale oil contributed to a net increase.
But over the past two weeks, U.S. crude oil exports have been meeting much of the gap left open by production cuts elsewhere. The trend threatens to sink oil prices unless Middle East output cuts hold or go even deeper.
On Friday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries promised its production cuts would hold. OPEC has reported meeting around 800,000 barrels per day of its commitment to curb its flows of crude by 1.2 million barrels per day beginning in January. OPEC officials told reporters in Vienna that the bloc expects to meet full compliance soon.
"The results so far are very promising," said Issam Almarzooq, Kuwait's oil minister and chairman of an OPEC joint technical committee charged with monitoring compliance with a Dec. 10, 2016, agreement among OPEC, Russia and other non-OPEC nations.
Thus far, the agreement is good for six months, but Almarzooq said an extension of the deal to a full year may be in order. "We will review the data at the end of the six-month period, and we will meet in Vienna in May, and we will consider the extension as required."
Data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) suggest thus far the OPEC cuts may not be enough to draw down the global oil storage glut.
EIA says U.S. exports of crude oil have more than doubled in the past two weeks, a sign that suppliers here are moving swiftly to fill in the hole OPEC left open in the oil supply stream.
At the end of January, EIA estimated the U.S. was exporting 549,000 barrels a day. By Feb. 17, EIA recorded more than 1.2 million barrels a day of U.S. crude oil exports.
U.S. oil exports grew by almost 200,000 barrels a day in a week. Imports fell by 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period.
The huge swing to higher oil export volumes caught the market off guard. Those figures also arrived in tandem with those showing further builds in U.S. oil inventories, a strong indication that U.S. oil production is expanding more quickly than the markets thought.
Not everyone is surprised by these figures.
"You can talk about OPEC making cuts, and that's fine, but there are plays here in the United States that are plenty economic right now, and people will step forward to fill that supply gap if they're convinced there's one there," noted Jimmy Fortuna, senior vice president at Drillinginfo.
More information will be needed to determine whether the export surge is a one-off or indicative of a growing trend. Oil traders shaved less than 1 percent off the value of major oil benchmarks in reaction to the news. Fortuna argued that industry observers haven't fully acclimated to the idea that the U.S. may now be the major swing producer to replace barrels OPEC takes off the table.
"The world is probably still readjusting to this notion of the rapid ability of the U.S. oil and gas industry's unconventional plays to be able to very quickly increase supply," he said. It "is something that everybody's mentality is still probably not adjusted to."
More U.S. crude to come
Sandy Fielden, an analyst with Morningstar, called the trend "unsustainable in the near term."
Fielden tied the U.S. oil export surge to tightness in supplies in Asia due to the OPEC cuts and seasonal refinery maintenance that's left rising output from the Gulf of Mexico available for sale abroad. But rising offshore oil production is only part of the picture. "Trafigura and BP are said to have shipped cargoes of Eagle Ford crude to Singapore and China," Fielden noted.
Analysts at ESAI Energy LLC predicted more to come in a Friday note. "While the Permian has already been growing, as more wells are drilled and completed, production growth in other basins will start to take off."
Fielden doesn't agree, seeing the two-week increase in oil exports as a sign of traders taking short-term advantage. It is not an instance of large volumes of crude seeking new longer-term markets, as is the case with shale gas and the resultant liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects.
"What should be noted is that despite record volumes, U.S. crude exports remain opportunistic, driven by price arbitrage and negotiated by traders on a cargo-by-cargo basis," Fielden argued for clients. "There is no grand plan to systematically export U.S. crude."
Drillinginfo's market researchers see the potential for ongoing instability in oil prices and even the possibility of a hard dip lower, in light of the renewed drilling push in U.S. shale basins. But companies squeezed by lower oil prices may see comfort from the natural gas side of the equation, as major new demand hubs come online this year.
"More gas-intensive plays have a probability of becoming more interesting in coming quarters, because what we see right now is not enough drilling to clear the gas market from today's oil activity," Fortuna explained. "There's not enough right now to clear the gas market in the U.S. because the demand for gas has come up quite a lot: power generation, industrial processes, LNG facilities and other things."
Mitch DeRubis, an energy analyst at S&P Global Platts, concurs.
"In 2017, we'll have all four trains of Sabine Pass running, and we'll have, it's expected, the first train running from Cove Point, as well," he pointed out.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/27/stories/1060050567
-
U.S. Set to Rival Russia in Oil and Natural Gas Exports
Feb 25, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Jude Clemente
President Trump has promised to roll back federal regulations to help U.S. oil and natural gas and to open up new areas for development. The administration's energy priority is to "unleash America's $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves."
Note: given our low prices, drilling in new areas might not seem so critical today but will becoming increasingly so because oil and gas aren't yet replaceable at scale, and demand will continue to mount "as far as the eye can see."
Overall, to say that we will now be implementing more pro-oil and pro-natural gas policies might be the biggest understatement you will hear this year. Think about it: former Texas governor Rick Perry is head of the U.S. Department of Energy and former ExxonMobil CEO is head of the U.S. Department of State.
Thus, the U.S. could rival Russia as the world's largest oil and gas exporting machine.
Russia accounts for over 20% of the world's exported natural gas, and gas is easily the world's most important fuel going forward given climate commitments: gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal and 30% less CO2 than oil. In 2016, "Russia tops Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil exporter," and oil is the world's most important fuel, with no significant substitute whatsoever.
With flexible liquefied natural gas (LNG) export contracts, a stable democracy and legal system, and transparent and technically advanced companies that countries desperately seek to do business with, U.S. oil and gas is highly desirable.
The U.S. is now slated to have the capacity to export 10-12 Bcf/day of LNG to the world by 2020, this is 1/3 of the current global market and a boom from virtually nothing a year ago.
At about 2 Bcf/day, we are now exporting LNG to some 20 nations, with U.S. supplies steadily moving across the spectrum in a single year: first to Latin America, then to Asia, and now over to Europe, Russia's most vital energy client. In fact, U.S. LNG is so desired in Europe that some nations have offered to accept higher prices for it, willing to lose money to lower the reliance on Russia.
U.S. oil and gas exports are crucial to the domestic and global security benefits of lowering Russia's influence around the world, clearly explaining why they have bi-partisan support.
Given the problems that our main LNG competitors face, we could easily become the go-to source of LNG around the world: Australia confronts huge cost overruns, and Qatar has placed a moratorium on new capacity projects.
Exports are expected to be streamlined under the Trump administration, especially since Perry and Tillerson, two oil and gas supporters from Texas, know how crucial exports are to U.S. producers. Our natural gas prices, for instance, would be about 50% lower if not for the Mexican export valve. Mexico is now taking in about 4.1 Bcf/day of U.S. piped gas, with the capacity to import 15 Bcf/day by 2020, double the capacity today.
Moreover, in the past two weeks or so, the U.S. had been exporting 1 million b/d of crude oil, up from basically nothing (or at least only to Canada) 14 months ago.
U.S. oil and gas exports can also help alleviate energy deprivation around the world: 6 in every 7 humans live in undeveloped nations and require access to modern fuels like oil and gas to up human development. Again Mr. Gore, exporting modern energy to a sadly and unacceptably mostly undeveloped world is the real "moral imperative of our time."
The Trump administration is expected to pull back many of the oil and regulations that were installed under President Obama, such as the Clean Power Plan. The environmental groups therefore are surely gearing up for a fight, so the U.S. oil and gas business will need all the help it can get - and so will the energy deprived and poor nations that could greatly use our energy to develop.
Overall, the oil and gas industry must be feeling good about a more supportive executive branch and federal government, and Putin's energy machine is surely feeling the heat.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/02/25/u-s-set-to-rival-russia-in-oil-and-natural-gas-exports/#7dbc61091e2e
-
Bill Would Allow More Chemical Discharge into Waterways
Feb 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A fast-moving bill in the West Virginia statehouse would permit more toxic waste discharge into the state's rivers and streams.
Industry groups and Gov. Jim Justice's (D) administration support the measure, which would also ease water quality rules across the board. The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee last week.
The legislation is supported by the West Virginia Manufacturers Association. It would set new discharge limits for both cancer-causing and non-carcinogenic chemicals.
Critics say the changes would allow large increases in legal pollution.
"There's no question this bill is a favor to industrial polluters," said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. "It simply comes down to a policy decision: Does the Legislature want to allow more toxic and cancer-causing chemicals in our water?"
The core of the bill would change the state stream flows that state environmental regulators use in pollution limit calculations. For decades, the state has used strict water flow models, despite periodic opposition from industry groups.
The state House was scheduled to conduct a hearing on the bill this morning.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/27/stories/1060050607
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Extends Time for Input on Mining Finance Rule Following Major Pressure
Feb 27, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has granted requests from lawmakers as well as the mining and other industries to extend the time for groups to weigh in on its controversial, first-time Superfund financial assurance rule for the hardrock mining sector, even as the agency faces a Dec. 1 court-ordered deadline to take final action on a rule.
The agency announced Feb. 24 that it is extending the comment period for the rule by 120 days, shifting the new deadline for comments to July 10, according to EPA and a Feb. 24 press release from Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV). EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a Feb. 24 statement that the extension demonstrates "we are listening to miners, owners and operators all across America and to all parties interested in this important rule."
Both Heller and Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) praised the move. EPA "should not rush through duplicative regulations that could have serious economic consequences," Barrasso said in the release. "I am pleased to hear the agency is allowing for more time to review the public's comments."
The decision to significantly lengthen the comment period for the much-watched rule comes after heavy pressure from lawmakers, industry and others.
A host of industry groups and advocates, and western states have been pressuring the agency in recent weeks to extend the comment period, while environmental groups have argued no extension should be granted if it compromises the agency's ability to issue a final rule within the court deadline.
On the congressional side, 11 senators signed a Feb. 17 letter to Pruitt, asking that the 60-day comment period for the agency's proposed financial responsibility requirements under Superfund be extended by 120 days, citing the extensive docket for the rule that EPA has added to over the past several weeks, as well as the financial burden they foresee the rule will have on the mining industry. The comments echo a host of other comments submitted by other lawmakers and industry groups, including the mining and oil industries.
EPA had set March 13 as the initial deadline for comments, but the 11 senators argued that "is woefully inadequate to review, evaluate, and prepare meaningful public comments on this complex rulemaking."
In addition, they pointed out that the proposal is a "Tier 1 rule, reserved for the most important and complex rules, and establishes an entirely new federal regulatory program." The senators who signed the letter are all Republicans: Sens. Dean Heller (NV), Lisa Murkowski (AK), James Risch (ID), Mike Crapo (ID), Orrin Hatch (UT), Dan Sullivan (AK), James Inhofe (OK), Mario Rubio (FL), Steve Daines (MT), Cory Gardner (CO) and Michael Lee (UT).
EPA's proposed rule would require owners and operators of certain types of hardrock mines and mineral processing facilities to give financial assurances of their ability to pay for potential releases of hazardous substances from their facilities, including Superfund cleanup costs, health assessment costs and natural resource damages. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA) section 108(b) set out a 1983 requirement for EPA to identify classes of facilities, and called for then issuing financial assurance rules for those classes. Financial assurance mechanisms include insurance and surety bonds, among other mechanisms.
The Dec. 1 deadline for final action on a rule came about as part of a legal agreement with environmentalists who sued the agency to force issuance of the rule by a date certain. EPA published the proposed rule in the Jan. 11 Federal Register.
Lawmakers' Pressure
Pressure also came on the House side from three committee chairmen that oversee environmental and mining issues. They also urged EPA to extend the comment period by 180 days. Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR) -- who leads the Energy & Commerce Committee -- Rob Bishop (R-UT) -- who chairs the Natural Resources Committee -- and Bill Shuster (R-PA) -- who heads the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee -- wrote to EPA officials Feb. 17, pressing for the extension.
The lawmakers joined with a slew of others -- mostly industry groups -- that made similar requests for extensions. These include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association, RCRA Corrective Action Project, American Iron and Steel Institute, Federal Recycling and Remediation Coalition, and a host of other industry groups, along with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Western Governors Association (WGA).
Generally, many of those parties seeking a longer comment period cited similar reasons for an extension. They said they needed a much longer comment period due to the rule's complexity, particularly noting the large number of technical supporting documents and cross-referenced materials made public, in some cases only recently; the expected cost to industry of the rule; alleged failures by EPA to seek adequate public input on the draft rule; the fact that the rule would set precedent for future regulation of other industrial sectors; and the potential that the rule will overlap with existing financial responsibility programs and be overly prescriptive.
For instance on the cost and complexity issues, the House lawmakers argued for a much longer comment period in light of the considerable impact the rule would have on the mining industry -- with EPA estimating industry's financial responsibility amount will be $7.1 billion -- as well as the rule's complexity. They noted the rulemaking docket includes more than 200,000 documents and the draft rule includes a complex statistical model for calculating financial assurance obligations.
In its comments, Arizona DEQ cited the potential for overlapping requirements. "Careful examination is needed to comment thoughtfully given the multiplicity of modern state and federal operational engineering controls, industry best practices and existing financial responsibility regulations for modern mining operations."
EPA's Flexibility
Several of the commenters also argued that EPA has some flexibility in seeking an extension to the Dec. 1 deadline. "As EPA is well aware, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit anticipated that an extension of the date could be required and provided procedures for securing such an extension," ACC and 12 other industry groups said in their Feb. 7 extension request.
And in a Feb. 21 letter to EPA, WGA -- which represents 19 western states -- also called for a 120-day extension, reiterating previously expressed concerns that EPA failed to substantively engage states on the rule development and that the proposed rule could preempt existing state regulations. WGA requested "that EPA reexamine the necessity of the Proposal, particularly in light of existing and effective state and federal programs."
But environmental groups argued the regulation is long overdue. "A lengthy extension of the comment period on the proposed hardrock mining rule threatens to further delay a rule that has already been unreasonably delayed for decades, at tremendous financial and environmental cost to the public," Earthjustice wrote in Feb. 10 comments submitted to EPA's docket. Earthjustice submitted the comments on behalf of Earthworks, Idaho Conservation League, Sierra Club, Great Basin Resource Watch, Amigos Bravos, and Communities for a Better Environment.
Earthjustice asked EPA not to extend the comment period "if such an extension would compromise EPA's ability to issue the final rule by December 1, 2017."
The environmental law firm alludes to the fear that without a rule, future cleanup liabilities could result, borne by the public.
EPA has also received a few substantive comments so far on the proposed rule. In Feb. 1 comments, the Lands Council, a non-profit group in the Northwest, says it supports strong financial assurance regulations, referencing the need "to protect the American taxpayer from the burden of clean-up costs associated with [the] mining industry."
In particular, the group says EPA should follow through on its preferred option named in the draft rule, which would bar the use of corporate guarantees as a financial assurance instrument.
"Such guarantees are not backed by real assets, cash or cash equivalents," the Lands Council said. "It conflicts with the purpose of the rule-making because it places the financial risk primarily on the American taxpayer, rather than the polluter." The council also echoes previous statements by environmentalists that the CERCLA rule would require financial assurance mechanisms to cover liabilities related to hazardous substance spills, natural resource damages and public health assessments -- which it says are not covered by other regulatory programs.
In Feb. 9 comments submitted by the National Ground Water Association (NGWA), which represents groundwater professionals, the group offers detailed comments. Among these, NGWA cautions EPA about reducing mine owners or operators' financial responsibility amounts if they provide extensive plans to manage stormwater and other environmentally sound best practices.
Rather, NGWA says while plans are a step toward protecting groundwater, "actual implementation requirements for protective steps must be included in the regulation. Furthermore, the protective steps should be adequately characterized and modeled, including uncertainty of their performance, to enable decisions about their prospective success to be well informed."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-extends-time-input-mining-finance-rule-following-major-pressure
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested