Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/7/2017
-
EPW Democrats Name Four New Subcommittee Leaders
Mar 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Minority Democrats on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee have named new ranking members for all of the panel's four subcommittees in the 115th Congress. -
Is Your Company Prepared for the New TSCA Chemical Reporting Rule?
Mar 6, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Almost all companies across most industries are subject to a new, one-time reporting requirement imposed by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Chaotic' REACH Processes Need to be Addressed – AmCham EU
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The chemicals industry and society are being damaged by the "very high level of uncertainty" brought about by REACH processes, the American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels (AmCham EU) says. -
New York Senators Press EPA to Regulate Drinking Water Contaminants
Mar 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), the Senate minority leader, have introduced a bill that would direct EPA to develop enforceable drinking water standards for several toxic chemical compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). -
OECD Advises Apparel and Footwear Sector on Chemicals Management
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has published guidance advising companies in the garment and footwear sector on how to manage hazardous chemicals. -
EU Testing for Developmental Neurotoxicity Inadequate, Says CHEM Trust
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Current chemical testing approaches are not adequate for picking up developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), according to a report on the impact of chemicals on children's brain development. -
ChemSec Updates SIN List
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has added 30 substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to its Substitute It Now (SIN) list. -
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon’s $20 Billion Spending Plan Points to U.S. Energy Surge
Mar 6, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to spend about $20 billion on refineries, petrochemical plants and other projects in and around the Gulf of Mexico, Chief Executive Darren Woods said Monday, underscoring how the giants of the global energy industry are turning to America. -
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Says Gulf Coast Investments Could Total $20bn over 10 Years
Mar 6, 2017 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest listed oil company, has said the investments it is making or could make in chemicals and liquefied natural gas plants and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast of the US could be worth $20bn over the ten years from 2013-22. -
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil to Invest $20B in U.S. Manufacturing Capacity
Mar 6, 2017 | Powder Bulk Solids
Positioning to take advantage of what it calls “the American energy revolution” ExxonMobil is planning to invest $20 billion to expand its U.S. refining and chemical manufacturing operations along the Gulf Coast, the Houston headquartered firm announced Monday. -
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Plans to Spend $20 Billion on Gulf Coast Projects
Mar 6, 2017 | Daily Comet
By Jordon Legendre
ExxonMobil plans to invest $20 billion in the Gulf Coast over 10 years, an initiative the oil company's CEO says will create more than 45,000 jobs. -
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Plans $20B Investment to Expand in U.S. Gulf Region
Mar 6, 2017 | KBTV Fox 4 Beaumont
Exxon Mobil Corporation is expanding its manufacturing capacity along the U.S. Gulf Coast through planned investments of $20 billion over a 10-year period to take advantage of the American energy revolution, Darren Woods, chairman and chief executive officer said Monday. -
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Confirms Plans for $20bn of Investments over a Decade
Mar 7, 2017 | Plastics in Packaging
Investments of $20 billion are being planned by ExxonMobil Corporation over the next ten years as the company takes advantage of the North American energy revolution. -
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon in Decade-Long $20bn US Gulf Investment
Mar 6, 2017 | Natural Gas World
By Mark Smedley
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Cera Week March 6 that the US supermajor plans to invest $20bn expanding its manufacturing capacity along the US Gulf Coast during the ten-year period from 2013 to at least 2022 to take advantage of... -
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon Mobil Plans to Invest $20bn in US Gulf Coast Refining and Chemical Projects
Mar 7, 2017 | Energy Business Review
Oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has announced plans to invest $20bn in its refining and chemical manufacturing projects in the US Gulf Coast through 2022. -
Trump’s New Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Drilling Proposal Looks a lot Like Obama’s
Mar 6, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
The Trump administration on Monday announced an offshore oil and gas drilling proposal in the Gulf of Mexico that appears to mirror a plan offered by his predecessor a few months ago. -
Two Rural Texas Towns Debate Whether Exxon's Proposed Steam Cracker Plant Would be Blessing or Curse
Mar 7, 2017 | Houston Press
By Dianna Wray
Mayor Celestino Zambrano eases his battered 17-year-old baby-blue pickup truck to the left side of the road on the very edge of Gregory’s city limits, a predominantly Hispanic, low-income town of fewer than 2,000 residents located just north of Corpus Christi. -
U.S. LTO Leading Worldwide Oil Growth Charge to 2022, Says IEA
Mar 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The United States will be the No. 1 source of global oil supply growth to 2022 with light tight oil (LTO) from unconventional plays expanding the most, the International Energy Agency said Monday. -
N.C. Moves to Ditch Challenge to EPA Methane Regs
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The state of North Carolina wants to drop its challenge to Obama-era regulations for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Must Safeguard Chemical Facilities, Communities
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Cal Dooley
There is no doubt that Congress has a lot on its plate right now. As a former member of the House, I remember all too well what it was like to have many critical issues competing for attention all at once. -
Why is Train Crash Avoidance Tech Not Yet Implemented?
Mar 6, 2017 | Sacramento Bee (In Government Technology)
By Tony Bizjak
Nine years ago, Union Pacific Railroad supervisor Ricky Durrant was called to a ghastly scene in Southern California. -
Workers’ Compensation Law Bars Toxic Vapors Case
Mar 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
OSHA violations alone aren't enough to satisfy a Louisiana workers’ compensation law exception that permits tort actions for an employer's intentional acts that injure workers, the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled March 3... -
(ACC Mentioned) The Hearing Was Titled, ‘Making EPA Great Again.’ Scientists are Afraid the Opposite Will happen.
Mar 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A hearing held Tuesday by the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology promised to focus on “Making the Environmental Protection Agency great again” — but its panel of industry-affiliated witnesses and its discussion of possible new legislation... -
Bills to Revamp Scientific Reviews Up for Committee Vote
Mar 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are renewing their contentious quest to overhaul U.S. EPA's handling of scientific reviews with a Thursday markup of two freshly introduced bills. -
A Lesson Trump and the E.P.A. Should Heed
Mar 7, 2017 | New York TImes
By William D. Ruckelshaus
In March 1983, President Ronald Reagan asked me to return to Washington to run the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Air Pollution Around the World Takes a Staggering Toll
Mar 5, 2017 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Despite calling for clean air and clean water in his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Trump is reportedly aiming to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff by a fifth. -
Get Ready for Trump’s Climate-Denial Offensive
Mar 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Lost in the din of Donald Trump’s Twitter rampages was the report last week that the White House is “fiercely divided” over Trump’s campaign promise to “cancel” the Paris climate accord. -
The One Fight We Can’t Lose
Mar 6, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Much of the damage to public health and the environment that the Trump administration is putting forward – such as cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, or gutting clean air and water rules – is terrible, but can be reversed when a new president takes office.
Industry and Association New
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
EPW Democrats Name Four New Subcommittee Leaders
Mar 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
Minority Democrats on the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee have named new ranking members for all of the panel's four subcommittees in the 115th Congress.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) takes over as the top Democrat on EPW's air subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over EPA's climate change programs, according to a March 3 press release. That slot had been held in the 114th Congress by the new ranking Democrat on the full committee, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).
The new ranking member of the water subcommittee is Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). Whitehouse last held that position.
On the transportation panel, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) will serve as ranking Democrat, and the waste panel's top Democrat will be Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). Those positions were last held by former Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), respectively.
The latest announcement fills out EPW's subcommittee rosters, after majority Republicans named two new subcommittee chairmen last month. In that move, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) became the new chairman of the transportation panel, and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) was picked as the new chairman of the water subcommittee.
Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) retained her chairmanship of the air panel, and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) kept the top slot on the waste panel.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epw-democrats-name-four-new-subcommittee-leaders
-
Is Your Company Prepared for the New TSCA Chemical Reporting Rule?
Mar 6, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Almost all companies across most industries are subject to a new, one-time reporting requirement imposed by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Beginning in the third quarter of 2017, companies will have 180 days to identify and report to the EPA each chemical it has manufactured or imported in the past 10 years. Chemicals not reported will be designated “inactive,” and thus illegal to manufacture or use in the US.
As attorney James G. Votaw from the lawfirm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips writes in an Industry Week post, “all chemical processors and users have an interest in assuring that the chemicals they use are on the ‘active’ list.” Votaw also discusses six things to know about reporting for the TSCA reset.
More than 85,000 chemicals fall under TSCA regulations, but many of these are no longer made or imported into the US. The amendments made to the TSCA last year require the EPA to designate each of the chemicals on the TSCA inventory as either in “active” or “inactive” use by June 19. By the same deadline, the agency must also finalize the scope of its risk evaluations for 10 high-priority chemicals that the agency selected for review late last year.
Here are some of the things Votaw says your company should know about the new reporting requirement. You can read his full list here.
Each manufacturer and importer has a legal duty to report the chemicals it uses and/or imports, even if its affiliates or other companies have reported the same substance.
Reporting is not required for pesticides, food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, R&D materials, impurities, byproducts that are disposed (and not used) and some naturally occurring substances.
Companies must separately report each chemical making up an imported mixture as well as substances that are made — intentionally or not — through secondary or recovery processes and reused in some way.
Companies can better prepare for the chemical reporting rule by having a strong management system in place, Votaw writes: “All reporting companies will need a system to manage the investigations of the chemical identity of individual products (including documenting source information and extent of the search to meet recordkeeping requirements). Processors should identify with particularity the substances they currently use, then compare their findings to the initial list of active substances prepared by the EPA based on manufacturers’ reports.”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/03/company-prepared-new-tsca-chemical-reporting-rule/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Chaotic' REACH Processes Need to be Addressed – AmCham EU
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The chemicals industry and society are being damaged by the "very high level of uncertainty" brought about by REACH processes, the American Chamber of Commerce in Brussels (AmCham EU) says.
In its submission to the European Commission’s second REACH review, the organisation says despite efforts made by the EU executive, Echa and member states, the implementation of REACH processes "remains somewhat chaotic". And, it adds, this can lead to inconsistencies or contradictions.
AmCham EU is one of several industry groups, NGOs and public sector bodies, to submit comments to the consultation. The review's findings are due to be completed later this year.
"Given the number of different REACH processes and the plurality of actors involved in their implementation, it is sometimes difficult to understand which substances are targeted under which process and why," AmCham EU says.
It is "particularly difficult", it goes on, to see why the same substance would be targeted by different processes led by different member states. "We would encourage the Commission and Echa to clarify everyone’s obligations and rights."
It adds that "significant improvements" are needed in predictability to support investment in existing and new substances.
And in its general comments on the REACH review, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) also calls for simplified and improved implementation. It notes that "a perceived lack" of robust evaluation of hazard data – rather than risk – leads to substances essential for health, such as Vitamin D, being identified as hazards
AmCham EU says there is no mechanism to prevent two member states from running two risk management option analyses (RMOA) in parallel and reaching different conclusions. It recommends formalising the RMOA process through the use of guidance, or by developing a new REACH annex.
Both US bodies want improvements to guidance documents. The ACC says "more transparency" is needed and stakeholders should be given multiple opportunities to provide input into documents. AmCham EU says it is not clear whether industry comments are even considered in the final decisions.
The Commission and Echa should take on a more “"central role"in implementing REACH by consulting with registrants and other stakeholders for major substances, AmCham EU says.
It adds that it "deplores" significant regulations being advanced outside of REACH that "jeopardise the legitimacy of the entire REACH framework", citing developments to the occupational safety and health (Osh) directive and Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation.
Overlaps between REACH and other EU legislation, ACC says, often lead to "inconsistencies and deadlocks", such as those between REACH and Osh. One example, AmCham EU says, is where Echa's risk assessment committee (Rac) and DG Employment's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel) "continuously apply different limit values" as their methodologies differ on the reprotoxic solvent 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).
Eye on enforcement
Compliance checks sometimes lead to "multi-year processes with no predictability of compliance", AmCham EU says. REACH restrictions, if not enforced, are a "de facto competitive advantage" for non-compliant European and third-country industries, it adds.
For example, the restriction on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) has meant that tyre companies manufacturing in Europe, including US ones, have spent more than €100m on research, development and testing for compliance and alternatives assessment, it says.
Competent authorities must be constantly updated on the most recent interpretation of the Regulation and apply guidelines agreed at EU level, AmCham EU says. And better training of enforcement officials and greater coordination between different departments of national competent authorities is needed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54017/chaotic-reach-processes-need-to-be-addressed-amcham-eu
-
New York Senators Press EPA to Regulate Drinking Water Contaminants
Mar 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
New York Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and Chuck Schumer (D), the Senate minority leader, have introduced a bill that would direct EPA to develop enforceable drinking water standards for several toxic chemical compounds under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The bill, S. 519, would require EPA to develop a health-based maximum contaminant level goal for the perfluorinated compounds PFOA, PFOS, as well as 1,4 dioxane and perchlorate in public water systems -- all known carcinogens that are currently unregulated under SDWA. The bill also requires EPA to promulgate a national drinking water regulation within two years of passage.
The senators noted in a March 6 statement recent incidents of drinking water contamination in their state, as well as high-profile drinking water crises such as lead contamination in Flint, MI.
“We've seen very clearly how much damage can happen to our local drinking water supplies when toxic chemicals like PFOA, PFOS, 1,4 dioxane, and perchlorate aren't monitored by the EPA,” Sen. Gillibrand said in the statement. “My legislation would require the EPA to come up with strong and enforceable safety standards for these toxins, so that no other community has to experience what Hoosick Falls, Newburgh, and Long Island have gone through over the last year. New Yorkers should be able to drink water without having to worry about whether it’s safe. Anything less than that standard is unacceptable.”
Under SDWA, EPA evaluates substances for potential regulation through a Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process which lists contaminants that may be harmful but are not currently subject to any national drinking water regulations, and then makes a determination as to whether the contaminants on that list are likely to occur in public water systems with frequencies and levels of public health concern. The contaminants in the New York senators' bill are listed on the current CCL, but the bill, if passed, would move them immediately to the next phase of the process by requiring EPA to issue a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, also known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), for each of the chemicals.
EPA last year issued health advisories for PFOA and PFOS but suggested that drinking water impacts from the two chemicals would be localized rather than national. An EPA water official in December said the agency has enough information to make a formal determination as to whether the chemicals should be regulated under SDWA but declined to say what that decision would be.
New Jersey, which has a higher incidence of PFOA in its drinking water than the nation as a whole, is moving closer to setting an MCL for PFOA, with an advisory board to the state Department of Environmental Protection recommending last month an MCL of 14 parts per trillion (ppt), significantly stricter than EPA's health advisory of 70 ppt. EPA has rebutted New Jersey's criticisms of the health advisories.
The bill also follows calls from Gillibrand and Schumer last August for EPA to “prioritize and accelerate” the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane following the release of an EPA survey which showed that the compound had contaminated Long Island's water, exceeding the national average.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW); Sen. Gillibrand is a member.
The proposal, first reported by Newsday, was cheered by environmentalists, including Mae Wu, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)'s health program. “Drinking water is one of these issues that should be pretty consistent across this country, in that everybody wants to know their water is safe to drink,” she said in a statement to the paper.
“If President Trump is serious about providing 'crystal clear, clean drinking water' to all Americans, he should leap at the chance to sign this legislation,” Environmental Working Group Senior Vice President Scott Faber said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-york-senators-press-epa-regulate-drinking-water-contaminants
-
OECD Advises Apparel and Footwear Sector on Chemicals Management
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The OECD has published guidance advising companies in the garment and footwear sector on how to manage hazardous chemicals.
Module 8 of the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains in the garment and footwear sector suggests companies:
· identify higher-risk stages, in their own operations and in the supply chain, for the use of harmful, hazardous and restricted chemicals;
· identify higher-risk countries for the use of hazardous substances. These should include those that do not adequately regulate the use of chemicals, or enforce existing regulations;
· establish an inventory of chemicals being used in the production and manufacturing of the enterprise's products;
· scope the chemicals commonly used in the production of goods with an emphasis on identifying harmful, hazardous and restricted substances;
· support the development of common industry-wide manufacturing restricted substances list (MRSL) for the sector; and
· implement robust chemical plans at site-level, including safe chemical storage, labelling of chemicals, use of personal protective equipment and the availability of safety data sheets to anyone that handles chemicals.
The guidance also advises companies on how to identify and prevent potential negative impacts related to human rights, labour, the environment and corruption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54028/oecd-advises-apparel-and-footwear-sector-on-chemicals-management
-
EU Testing for Developmental Neurotoxicity Inadequate, Says CHEM Trust
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Current chemical testing approaches are not adequate for picking up developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), according to a report on the impact of chemicals on children's brain development.
The testing approaches rely heavily on available data, chemical structure and effects on the nervous system in adult rodents, says the NGO CHEM Trust. However, human brains are far more complex and "vulnerable" than rodent brains.
The report identifies an over reliance on the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) approach, in which toxicity limits for chemicals are derived. The approach uses chemical structures and human exposure threshold values derived from groups of substances and is not appropriate for assessing DNT properties, says CHEM Trust.
Its report suggests that regulators should assess and control groups of similar chemicals with a potential for DNT, rather than relying on a substance-by-substance approach.
It also raises the possibility of a classification system for DNT chemicals similar to that used for carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins.
Food contact
The No Brainer report recommends that chemicals and chemical mixtures used for food contact materials (FCMs) be routinely screened and tested for DNT properties.
With reference to 2017's REACH review, it calls for a focus on exposure to chemical mixtures and a "regulatory approach for cumulative risk assessment". A risk assessment focusing on a single substance should no longer be used for other substances reported to follow the same mechanisms of action, it suggests.
The report praises the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) for its work on cumulative risk assessment of pesticides, focusing on the nervous system and thyroid hormone system. However, the approach should be expanded to include chemicals from all other sources. These should include indoor air pollution, dust and FCMs, the report says.
It calls for all extended one-generation reproductive toxicity studies (Eogrts) to include assessment of DNT properties. Currently, the standard test – as outlined in Echa guidance – does not include a DNT cohort.
Finally, CHEM Trust recommends setting up an EU expert taskforce on protection of the brain to identify and develop better ways to screen chemicals for DNT. This group should develop a "rapid screening framework", including in silico and in vitro high-throughput tests, it says.
Maricel Maffini, an independent consultant based in Maryland, wrote most of the report. She describes chemical exposures as being ubiquitous, leading to 'pre-polluted babies'. Dr Maffini picks out sets of chemicals linked to DNT properties:
· bisphenol A;
· brominated flame retardants;
· phthalates;
· per- and poly-fluorocarbons; and
· perchlorate, a food contaminant related to the use of certain fertilisers and hypochlorite bleach.
"We definitely need to move away from the current situation, where regulatory agencies rely on tests that do not reflect neurotoxic potentials," says Philippe Grandjean from the University of Southern Denmark who peer-reviewed the paper, together with Barbara Demeneix from the Laboratory of Evolution of Endocrine Regulations, CNRS, in Paris.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54045/eu-testing-for-developmental-neurotoxicity-inadequate-says-chem-trust
-
Mar 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has added 30 substances of very high concern (SVHCs) to its Substitute It Now (SIN) list.
The new substances originate from the NGO's addition of Cas numbers for the newly agreed group ofheptylphenols added to the candidate list in January. This is one entry on the candidate list, but consists of several Cas numbers.
The NGO has also added Cas numbers to existing entries:
· two salts of nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA); and
· three varieties of octylphenol ethoxylates.
This information comes from supporting documents for each substance placed on the REACH candidate list.
In addition to these substances, ChemSec has also included newly classified category 1A and 1B carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances from the 9th and 10th adaptation to technical and scientific progress (ATP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/54047/chemsec-updates-sin-list
-
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon’s $20 Billion Spending Plan Points to U.S. Energy Surge
Mar 6, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
Updated March 6, 2017 11:12 p.m. ET
Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to spend about $20 billion on refineries, petrochemical plants and other projects in and around the Gulf of Mexico, Chief Executive Darren Woods said Monday, underscoring how the giants of the global energy industry are turning to America.
Mr. Woods outlined the 11-project spending plan, largely aimed at creating new outlets for U.S. natural gas, in a speech at the annual CERAWeek conference. It came after a meeting with analysts last week in which he said Exxon is poised to nearly double its production from U.S. shale basins in the next decade.
The spending plans were cheered by President Donald Trump , who released a statement Monday calling Exxon’s projects “exactly the kind of investment, economic development and job creation that will help put Americans back to work.”
Exxon’s $20 billion in Gulf Coast spending began in 2013 and will continue through at least 2022, according to the company.
Chevron Corp. is expected to unveil similar plans this week, ramping up its operations in the already booming Permian basin in West Texas and New Mexico. The company’s output from the region could reach 900,000 barrels a day by 2020 if oil prices continue to rise, according to energy investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. That would mean production from one company in just one area would rival output from major world producers such as Azerbaijan.
Exxon’s announcement underscored the extent to which new technology has unlocked vast new resources in the U.S., upending the balance of power in global oil. Even as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other nations moved late last year to put a floor under the oil price by cutting production, U.S. operators have vowed to return to the oil fields almost en masse to make up the difference.
“Hydraulic fracturing has opened up a whole new energy future for the United States, and potentially for many other countries,” Mr. Woods said Monday. “We have managed, in the United States, to accomplish what was practically unthinkable only a decade ago.”
The conference is expected to be defined by similar bravado as energy titans from companies and governments gather, eager to show off their resilience after prices fell from more than $100 in mid-2014 to below $30 in February of last year before beginning a partial recovery. Prices have been hovering steadily above $50 for weeks.
In his remarks, Mr. Woods also praised industry efforts to respond to the threat of climate change, spending much of his high-profile address discussing what Exxon is doing to reduce emissions. The remarks, as well as others he has made since taking over as chief executive, such as expressing support for the 2015 Paris climate deal, have signaled the company’s plan to stay the course in its environmental stance.
That comes even as some in Mr. Trump’s inner circle have pushed to walk away from the deal, while others have urged the president to keep the country’s part in the agreement.
“We have an opportunity to contribute and help mitigate that risk through technology,” Mr. Woods said.
He also extolled the virtues of free trade as having an elemental role in the U.S. energy renaissance.
Global energy executives have shown mixed responses to plans by U.S. Republicans to change tax policy in a way that would favor exports and burden imports into the country.
“It’s hard to be in our business and not support open markets and free trade,” he said.
The U.S. will be the greatest contributor to new global supply through 2022, with production from shale rising to 1.4 million barrels a day if prices remain around $60 a barrel, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. If prices rise to $80, output from shale fields alone could reach 3 million barrels a day, about the same as Kuwait, the IEA said Monday.
Companies such as Exxon are making immense investments in their refining, chemicals and export operations to take advantage of the new opportunity. From 2010 to 2020, such investments are expected to reach almost $180 billion, according to the American Chemistry Council, about 70% of which will go to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
In addition to Exxon’s plans to build new plants or expand facilities to turn natural gas into the building blocks of common plastics, companies including Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron Phillips Chemical and others plan similar investments or will expand production of fertilizer, polymers used to make lubricants, and even tennis racket strings.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxons-20-billion-spending-plan-points-to-u-s-energy-surge-1488834918
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Says Gulf Coast Investments Could Total $20bn over 10 Years
Mar 6, 2017 | Financial Times
By Ed Crooks
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest listed oil company, has said the investments it is making or could make in chemicals and liquefied natural gas plants and refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast of the US could be worth $20bn over the ten years from 2013-22.
Speaking at the CERAWeek conference in Houston, Darren Woods, the chief executive of Exxon who took over at the start of the year, said the projects were intended to take advantage of low-cost resources released by the shale revolution.
He added that they would be “export machines, generating products that fast growing nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living.”
The company said its planned projects, some of which have not yet been given a final investment decision, could create about 47,000 jobs: 35,000 in construction of the facilities, and 12,000 in direct and indirect employment at the plants.
The planned projects have all been announced before, but this is the first time that Exxon has aggregated the amount of spending and disclosed the total number of jobs that could be created.
Low-cost gas and oil produced from previously uncommercial shale reserves have created a boom in oil refining, liquefied natural gas and petrochemical investment in the US, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico coast.
Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, said Exxon’s investment programme “shows the decisive role of American energy in spurring a U.S. manufacturing renaissance, with the chemistry industry helping to lead the way.”
He added: “Plentiful supplies of energy and feedstock have made the U.S. chemical industry one of the world’s lowest-cost producers.”
President Donald Trump issued a statement saying, “This is exactly the kind of investment, economic development and job creation that will help put Americans back to work… This is a true American success story.”
Per a statement from the White House, Mr Woods added: “Investments of this scale require a pro-growth approach and a stable regulatory environment and we appreciate the President’s commitment to both.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d9ecbd21-6a02-3138-b2b6-837459702701
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil to Invest $20B in U.S. Manufacturing Capacity
Mar 6, 2017 | Powder Bulk Solids
Positioning to take advantage of what it calls “the American energy revolution” ExxonMobil is planning to invest $20 billion to expand its U.S. refining and chemical manufacturing operations along the Gulf Coast, the Houston headquartered firm announced Monday.
“The United States is a leading producer of oil and natural gas, which is incentivizing U.S. manufacturing to invest and grow,” the company’s chairman and chief executive officer Darren Woods said in a press release. “We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials. In this way, an upstream technology breakthrough has led to a downstream manufacturing renaissance.”
Under the investment, 11 proposed and existing sites – including chemical refining, lubricant, and liquefied gas projects – will generate “thousands” of jobs and some $20 billion in economic activity increases in Texas and Louisiana, according to Woods, who announced the investment at the CERAWEEK 2017 conference on Monday.
“All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year. And these jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the communities that service these new investments,” Woods stated.
With the expansion, ExxonMobil said the new manufacturing capacity will primarily serve overseas markets. Exports of chemicals linked to shale gas are forecasted to reach $123 billion by 2030, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living,” said Woods. “Those overseas markets are the motivation behind our investments. The supply is here; the demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dots.”
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/ExxonMobil-to-Invest-20B-in-US-Manufacturing-Capacity-03-06-2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Plans to Spend $20 Billion on Gulf Coast Projects
Mar 6, 2017 | Daily Comet
By Jordon Legendre
ExxonMobil plans to invest $20 billion in the Gulf Coast over 10 years, an initiative the oil company's CEO says will create more than 45,000 jobs.
Termed "Growing the Gulf," ExxonMobil's investment, announced today, includes 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at new and existing facilities in Louisiana and Texas. Investments began in 2013 and will continue until 2022.
"All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs," Darren Woods, the oil giant's CEO and chairman, said in a news release. "Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year. And these jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the communities that service these new investments."
Company officials said 12,000 of the jobs will be permanent and 35,000 will be involved with construction.
Local business leaders welcomed the news as positive amid an oil bust that has lasted two-and-a-half-years, costing thousands of jobs in the local oil-based economy. Nonetheless, there was no immediate indication of any direct economic impact locally.
"While we absolutely welcome any investment in Louisiana and the region such as this one, we don't anticipate it having a direct impact on operations in Port Fourchon," said Chett Chiasson, executive director at the oilfield service hub in south Lafourche.
Exxon announced the spending plan at a major energy-industry conference in Houston that draws executives and oil ministers from around the world.
The company said it plans 10 expansion projects at current facilities in and around Baton Rouge as well as Beaumont and Baytown, Texas. Exxon also said it wants to build a new chemicals plant at a location yet to be determined along the Gulf.
Most of ExxonMobil's planned new chemical capacity investment in the Gulf region is targeted toward export markets in Asia and elsewhere, the company said.
In its news release, Exxon cites figures from the American Chemistry Council that say chemical manufacturing is one of America's top exporting industries, accounting for 14 percent of overall U.S. exports in 2015. Exports of specific chemicals linked to natural gas extracted from U.S. shale fields are projected to reach $123 billion by 2030.
"These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living," Woods said. "Those overseas markets are the motivation behind our investments. The supply is here; the demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dots."
President Donald Trump praised Exxon's announcement via Twitter, saying "Buy American & hire American" are among principles at the core of his agenda.
Woods said such investments "require a pro-growth approach and a stable regulatory environment, and we appreciate the President's commitment to both."
-- This story includes information from The Associated Press.
http://www.dailycomet.com/business/20170306/exxonmobil-plans-to-spend-20-billion-on-gulf-coast-projects
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Plans $20B Investment to Expand in U.S. Gulf Region
Mar 6, 2017 | KBTV Fox 4 Beaumont
Exxon Mobil Corporation is expanding its manufacturing capacity along the U.S. Gulf Coast through planned investments of $20 billion over a 10-year period to take advantage of the American energy revolution, Darren Woods, chairman and chief executive officer said Monday.
The projects, at 11 proposed and existing sites, are expected to generate thousands of new high-paying jobs and $20 billion in increased economic activity in Texas and Louisiana, Woods said,
highlighting the company’s Growing the Gulf initiative in a keynote speech today at the CERAWeek 2017 conference.
“The United States is a leading producer of oil and natural gas, which is incentivizing U.S. manufacturing to invest and grow,” said Woods. “We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials. In this way, an upstream technology breakthrough has led to a downstream manufacturing renaissance.”
ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity.
The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.
Woods said that ExxonMobil’s Gulf expansion projects are expected to provide long-term economic benefits to the region, noting the creation of direct employment opportunities and the multiplier effects of the company’s investments.
“Importantly, Growing the Gulf also creates jobs and lasting economic benefits for the communities where they’re located.” Woods said. “All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs.
Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year. And these jobs will have a multiplier effect, creating many more jobs in the communities that service these new investments.”
According to the American Chemistry Council, chemical manufacturing is one of America’s top exporting industries, accounting for 14 percent of overall U.S. exports in 2015, and exports of specific chemicals linked to shale gas are projected to reach $123 billion by 2030.
Most of ExxonMobil’s planned new chemical capacity investment in the Gulf region is targeted toward export markets in Asia and elsewhere.
These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living,” Woods said. “Those overseas markets are the motivation behind our investments. The supply is here; the demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dot.
Congressman Brian Babin applauded the move in a statement released to media outlets:
This is more good news for our community, Texas and the United States,” said Rep. Babin. “The decision by ExxonMobil to invest another $20 billion here in the United States demonstrates their commitment to the American people and the American worker. It will create tens of thousands of jobs, following on the billions of dollars invested in our region over just the past few years. Congress and the Trump Administration have been working overtime to create a jobs-friendly environment that says to companies—who could go anywhere else in the world—that America is open for business and we want you to invest and create jobs here at home. Today’s announcement is another positive step in that direction.
ExxonMobil’s Beaumont integrated operations include a refinery and chemical, lubricants and polyethylene plant. ExxonMobil has more than 2,000 area employees and its operations account for approximately one in every seven jobs in the region.
Recent and proposed investments include:
• Increased capacity to an existing crude unit by 20,000 barrels per day and added flexibility to process light crudes. The increase was made possible in large part by abundant, affordable supplies of U.S. light crude from shale.
• Construction to increase production of ultra-low sulfur fuels by approximately 40,000 barrels per day. Startup of the technology, which uses a proprietary catalyst system to remove sulfur while minimizing octane loss, is expected in 2018, producing gasoline that will meet EPA’s Tier 3 specifications.
• Construction of a new production unit at the polyethylene plant that will increase capacity by 65 percent to meet growing demand for high performance plastics that are especially well-suited for applications such as liquid and food packaging, construction liners and agricultural films; startup is expected in 2019.
• Potential expansion of light crude refining capacity. If the project proceeds, construction would begin in 2019, followed by unit startup in 2022. New facilities would be integrated into the existing facilities to minimize environmental impact.
http://fox4beaumont.com/news/local/exxonmobil-plans-20b-investment-to-expand-in-us-gulf-region
-
(ACC Mentioned) ExxonMobil Confirms Plans for $20bn of Investments over a Decade
Mar 7, 2017 | Plastics in Packaging
Investments of $20 billion are being planned by ExxonMobil Corporation over the next ten years as the company takes advantage of the North American energy revolution.
Projects spread across 11 proposed and existing sites are expected to generate thousands of new high-paying jobs and $20bn in increased economic activity in Texas and Louisiana, explained chief executive Darren Woods at the CERAWeek 2017 conference.
“The US is a leading producer of oil and natural gas, which is incentivising US manufacturing to invest and grow,” said Woods. “We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials. In this way, an upstream technology breakthrough has led to a downstream manufacturing renaissance.”
ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the US Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity. The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.
Woods said that ExxonMobil’s Gulf expansion projects are expected to provide long-term economic benefits to the region, noting the creation of direct employment opportunities and the multiplier effects of the company’s investments.
“Importantly, Growing the Gulf also creates jobs and lasting economic benefits for the communities where they’re located,” Woods said. “All told, we expect these 11 projects to create over 45,000 jobs. Many of these are high-skilled, high-paying jobs averaging about $100,000 a year.”
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), chemical manufacturing is one of America’s top exporting industries, accounting for 14 per cent of overall US exports in 2015, and exports of specific chemicals linked to shale gas are projected to reach $123bn by 2030. Most of ExxonMobil’s planned new chemical capacity investment in the Gulf region is targeted toward export markets in Asia and elsewhere.
“These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living,” Woods said. “Those overseas markets are the motivation behind our investments. The supply is here; the demand is there. We want to keep connecting those dots.”
In January ExxonMobil posted 2016 earnings of $7.8bn.
https://plasticsinpackaging.com/online/exxonmobil-confirms-plans-for-20bn-of-investments-over-a-decade/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon in Decade-Long $20bn US Gulf Investment
Mar 6, 2017 | Natural Gas World
By Mark Smedley
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Cera Week March 6 that the US supermajor plans to invest $20bn expanding its manufacturing capacity along the US Gulf Coast during the ten-year period from 2013 to at least 2022 to take advantage of "the American energy revolution" and generate thousands of new high-paying jobs.
Exxon’s ‘Growing the Gulf’ expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and LNG projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. “The US is a leading producer of oil and natural gas, which is incentivising US. manufacturing to invest and grow. We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials,” said Woods.
Exxon’s March 6 statement said that, according to the American Chemistry Council, chemical manufacturing is one of the top US exporting industries, accounting for 14% of US exports in 2015, and that exports of specific chemicals linked to shale gas are projected to reach $123bn by 2030. Exxon said most of its planned new chemical capacity investment in US Gulf is targeted at export markets in Asia and elsewhere.
“This is exactly the kind of investment, economic development and job creation that will help put Americans back to work,” said US President Donald Trump in a statement congratulating Exxon. Former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is now US Secretary of State in Trump's administration.
http://www.naturalgasworld.com/exxon-partway-through-20bn-us-gulf-investment-36258
-
(ACC Mentioned) Exxon Mobil Plans to Invest $20bn in US Gulf Coast Refining and Chemical Projects
Mar 7, 2017 | Energy Business Review
Oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has announced plans to invest $20bn in its refining and chemical manufacturing projects in the US Gulf Coast through 2022.
Exxon Mobil CEO and chairman Darren Woods said that the firm intends to expand its manufacturing and export capacity at 11 proposed and existing sites located in the US Gulf Coast.
The investments, which began in 2013, are expected to create about 35,000 temporary construction jobs and 12,000 permanent jobs.
Woods said during the CERAWeek 2017 conference: “We are using new, abundant domestic energy supplies to provide products to the world at a competitive advantage resulting from lower costs and abundant raw materials. In this way, an upstream technology breakthrough has led to a downstream manufacturing renaissance.”
Exxon said that the investments at the 11 chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, are expected to provide long-term economic benefits in the regions.
Woods said: “These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living.”
According to the American Chemistry Council, chemical manufacturing has accounted for 14% of overall exports in the US in 2015.
It also estimated that the exports of specific chemicals linked to shale gas could reach $123bn by 2030.
ExxonMobil said that its planned new chemical capacity investment is targeted towards export markets in Asia, among others.
Woods added: "Exxon Mobil is building a manufacturing powerhouse along the US Gulf Coast.
"These businesses are leveraging the shale revolution to manufacture cleaner fuels and more energy-efficient plastics."
Recently, the company said it plans to startup five major upstream projects in 2017 and 2018. These projects are expected to contribute an additional working-interest production capacity of 340,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day.
http://refiningandpetrochemicals.energy-business-review.com/news/exxon-mobil-plans-20bn-investment-in-us-gulf-coast-refining-and-chemical-projects-070317-5756723
-
Trump’s New Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Drilling Proposal Looks a lot Like Obama’s
Mar 6, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
The Trump administration on Monday announced an offshore oil and gas drilling proposal in the Gulf of Mexico that appears to mirror a plan offered by his predecessor a few months ago.
In one of his first acts after last week’s Senate confirmation, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed leasing 73 million acres off Florida, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi over five years starting in August. The offer includes more than 13,700 lease blocks extending three miles to 230 miles offshore, according to an Interior Department statement.
“Opening more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling is a pillar of President Trump’s plan to make the United States energy independent,” Zinke said in the statement. “The Gulf is a vital part of that strategy to spur economic opportunities for industry, states and local communities, to create jobs and homegrown energy and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
But the plan is similar to a five-year proposal by the Obama administration to lease 66 million acres in the same location, the gulf’s “Western, Central and Eastern planning areas” where water is as shallow as nine feet and as deep as 11,000 feet. As he prepared to leave office, President Obama banned drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans for the next five years, but allowed it in the gulf with lease plans offered primarily off gulf states other than Florida.
Obama’s interior secretary, Sally Jewell, said the proposal’s leases were focused “in the best places — those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict and established infrastructure — and removes regions that are simply not right to lease.” The gulf, an area that has seen intense drilling, would see more compared with the Arctic and Atlantic, where little drilling occurs.
Like the Interior Department under Obama, Trump’s department pointed out that the lease terms would stipulate protecting “biologically sensitive resources, mitigate potential adverse effects on protected species, and avoid potential conflicts associated with oil and gas development in the region.”
The Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management of the Interior Department estimates that the outer continental shelf holds about 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 327 trillion cubic feet of gas.
The gulf was the scene of one of the worst environmental disasters in American history, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill off Louisiana that spewed about 215 million gallons of crude from a damaged underwater well.
The ecosystem is still feeling the effects, as scientist found hydrocarbons in 90 percent of pelican eggs tested a thousand miles away in Minnesota, a 75 percent mortality rate of the endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, a major drop in bottlenose dolphin reproduction and an untold number of fish kills. British Petroleum’s penalty for causing the explosion reached $61.6 billion in July.
“Bottom line, we think this is a terrible idea, whether it was done by the Obama administration or the Trump administration,” said Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “It’s time to keep oil in the ground.”
But what the Interior Department announced Monday, Manuel said, is “not really news, it’s kind of old. When we first saw it we were nervous, but it does look like it’s kind of par for the course. It’s interesting politically that they’re following the Obama administration’s five-year plan. We expected them to throw out the Obama plan and start anew.”
Like other conservationists, Manuel called the gulf “a sacrifice zone for the oil and gas industry. All the onshore infrastructure that comes with oil and gas drilling is starting to ruin the gulf coast ecosystem. We would urge the Trump administration to change their mind, though we’re not holding our breath on that one.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/06/trumps-new-gulf-oil-and-gas-drilling-proposal-looks-a-lot-like-obamas/?utm_term=.44fa57d33b04
-
Two Rural Texas Towns Debate Whether Exxon's Proposed Steam Cracker Plant Would be Blessing or Curse
Mar 7, 2017 | Houston Press
By Dianna Wray
Mayor Celestino Zambrano eases his battered 17-year-old baby-blue pickup truck to the left side of the road on the very edge of Gregory’s city limits, a predominantly Hispanic, low-income town of fewer than 2,000 residents located just north of Corpus Christi. Zambrano, 67, stares at the naked black fields, usually planted with cotton or sorghum.
Growing up the son of migrant farm workers in Gregory, Zambrano picked cotton in these fields, sporting an oversize sombrero that protected him from the sun as he worked alongside his father, mother and seven brothers and sisters. Whenever he needed inspiration to keep studying as a boy — he was in school only about six months of the year because the family followed the harvest season, so he worked at a furious pace to ensure he could advance to the next grade — he would think of being out in the fields. Now he cannot stop studying this expanse.
The 1,400-acre tract is wedged between Gregory and Portland, just outside the city limits of both towns, in San Patricio County, on the bluff edge of the South Texas coast. The land has been owned by the same family for more than a century, but they’ve signed an agreement to sell the property to ExxonMobil Chemical, a subsidiary of the behemoth energy corporation, and Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation, a massive chemical company partially owned by the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Spurred by the glut of cheap natural gas on the market due to the gas-rich U.S. shale plays, the two companies, longtime partners in Saudi Arabia, want to turn this raw farmland into a new petrochemical plant with the world’s largest ethane steam cracker at its heart. Exxon is leading the effort, sending in its own people to represent the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures Plastics Project, the umbrella company created for the joint venture, in San Patricio County.
Zambrano can already picture the plant rising out of the soft, damp earth, an enormous intricate system of pipelines, compressors and tanks, with winking lights and the trails of steam and smoke billowing out of funnels. “You live for moments like this,” he says. He’s been working to make Gregory into a healthy town ever since he came back from serving in the Peace Corps in Peru and saw how shabby his hometown really was. “Gregory has been surrounded by prosperity, and it has come to everyone but us,” he says. “But this time, this plant is going to be good for our town. We’re going to get something out of this.”
The $10 billion petrochemical plant will convert ethane into ethylene, which will be used to make polyethylene, a base component for plastics, and ethylene glycol, for industrial chemicals such as antifreeze. Exxon says the $10 billion project will bring in more than 10,000 construction jobs, 600 permanent jobs and millions in property taxes for Gregory-Portland Independent School District and San Patricio County.Many in San Patricio County, particularly those in the neighboring town of Portland, an idyllic community of about 16,000, mostly white, middle-class residents, are dismayed by the news. They insist the plant will destroy the community, which is known for its low crime rate, well-manicured parks, small-town atmosphere and excellent schools (shared by Gregory and Portland, and a source of pride for both towns). The proposed facility will be just over a mile from Gregory-Portland High School and within about two miles of a junior high, an elementary school and Wildcat Stadium.
A horse struts around the front pasture, and it’s so quiet on Larry Baker Jr.’s land, located off Wildcat Drive, directly across from Exxon’s preferred location, you can hear each hoof clop.
“For more than 40 years I’ve been able to live out here and hear the birds sing,” Baker says. “I don’t want a plant across the street. All that aside, though, there’s so much we don’t know. It seems like so much could go wrong, and it’s so close to Portland.” (He doesn’t mention that Gregory will be even closer.)
Exxon officials have not announced whether the company will ultimately build the plant here, but the chance that it will has carved a divide between Portland and Gregory. “This is the worst stress I’ve seen this area under since the free pancake breakfast got the 1990 Gregory-Portland High School football team kicked out of the state finals for a UIL violation,” Portland resident Mary Caldwell says.
The tension is palpable when the Gregory-Portland ISD school board convenes to discuss Exxon and Sabic’s requested tax exemptions on a balmy Tuesday night in January. Before the meeting starts, protesters and supporters array themselves outside the Gregory-Portland ISD Training Center. Those against the project are decked out in red “Portland Citizens United” T-shirts. Some sport air pollution masks and gas masks. The people in favor of the plant don green “United For Growth” T-shirts.
Chanting turns into yelling and nearly degenerates into a fight before the two groups pour into the boardroom to snag seats, those in red T-shirts seated on the right and those in green T-shirts on the left. A woman holding a green T-shirt strides down the aisle and slides into one of the last vacant seats on the right. Abruptly, a woman seated two places over, who’s sporting a gas mask, looks up, pulls off the mask and hisses. The two start to argue, their voices growing louder. A school district police officer hurries over and whispers sharply to both as the meeting begins. “She started it,” the woman in the gas mask tells the officer.
Portland resident Adair Apple, one of the founders of the grassroots opposition organization, Portland Citizens United, rises and speaks on behalf of those who are against the plant. As the right half of the room cheers and whoops, she insists the petrochemical plant will destroy Portland. Exxon and Sabic do not care about the dangers of putting this plant so close to town, she declares. “Would anyone who cares about kids build a steam cracker so close to schools?” she asks.
They have only to look at Corpus Christi’s Refinery Row across the bay to picture the worst-case scenario with the smells, the air pollution, the crowds and the pressure on infrastructure, she contends. “They act like we should be grateful Exxon wants to build here, but I don’t see why,” Apple says later. “They’re going to ruin everything good about this place.”
Rob Tully, Exxon’s project executive for the joint venture, starts out cool as he addresses the board. “We want to come in as a good neighbor,” Tully says. “We want people to say, ‘They really did try to blend in with the community and didn’t just stick a plant there.’”
“Liar!” someone yells from the back of the room.
Gulf Coast Growth Ventures sent out pamphlets showing the proposed plant nestled in the center of a bucolic man-made creation with gently curving walking trails wrapping around placid ponds on the half-mile perimeter around the facility.
During his speech, Tully builds on the image, highlighting how safety is an Exxon priority, an intrinsic part of the company culture, stating the plant will be a boon to the area. The audience continues to snicker as Tully, visibly rattled, finishes his pitch.
“Exxon isn’t used to having people go up against them like this, I guess,” Baker says, chuckling. “It shook him up a bit.”
Tully told the via email that he and other Exxon officials understand “the prospect of growth and change can be challenging,” but say many members of the community support the project because of what it could mean for the county. Tully maintains the facility will be perfectly safe.
However, San Patricio County Judge Terry Simpson, an ardent supporter of the project, admits that petrochemical plants always come with a risk. When something goes wrong at an ethylene facility, the consequences can be deadly. A U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigation found the 2013 explosion that killed two and injured more than 150 employees at a Louisiana polyethylene plant — similar to the one Exxon and Sabic want to build, and partially owned at that time by Sabic — was the result of human error. “The industry is highly regulated, and we depend on that to protect our citizens, but there are no guarantees,” Simpson says.
That lesson was underscored in mid-February when a natural gas pipeline in nearby Refugio County ruptured and caught fire. The flames soared into the sky and were visible from San Patricio County, 50 miles away.
Maybe this is why Exxon officials seem intent on fostering an agreeable environment. They’ve made careful presentations to the Gregory-Portland ISD school board and the San Patricio County Commissioners as they have requested tax abatements from both entities. They have also been solicitous of the officials in Portland and Gregory even though neither city has any say in the matter.
“The location is outside our jurisdiction, so we don’t have a lot we can do, but we have a good relationship with the companies so far,” Portland City Manager Randy Wright says. “We’re prepared to make the best of this no matter what happens. It’s the only choice we have.”
Exxon officials didn’t realize Gregory and Portland were separate entities until Zambrano asked for a meeting in January. Zambrano has been running Gregory off and on since he was first elected mayor at age 26 in 1976. He’s dealt with raw sewage flowing in the streets, the city nearly defaulting on its loans, and almost no tax revenue coming in. Exxon could change everything, Zambrano says.
Unless opponents manage to drive Exxon away.
On the other hand, Exxon is a multibillion-dollar company that survived the Exxon-Valdez oil spill public relations disaster; is currently facing charges on alleged human rights violations, including torture and murder; and routinely deals with the most corrupt and oppressive governments in the world. It’s possible a clutch of protesters in a small Texas town won’t make much of a difference.
Gregory and Portland are not industry virgins. Both started out as farm and ranch communities in the 1890s, but in recent years industrial plants and factories began springing up nearby. Across the bay, Corpus Christi became a hub for refineries and petrochemical plants. But while the area teamed with oil and gas activity, San Patricio County was predominantly agricultural until Reynolds Metals opened in 1950.
More companies followed. “There were jobs before, but they weren’t high-paying,” Simpson says. “You could get by, but you could never buy a house or have a really big life.”
Over the past five years Cheniere, a liquefied natural gas exporter; TPCO, a Chinese corporation that crafts seamless steel pipe; and Voestalpine, an Austrian business specializing in producing high-quality steel for the German auto industry, have begun constructing facilities in the county.
Initial giddiness at the prospect of more jobs and the accompanying influx of tax dollars quickly gave way to frustration after Voestalpine’s plant, the first new one completed in more than a decade, opened last October. Built next to Northshore, one of Portland’s toniest neighborhoods, the facility is already seen by many as a nuisance. “It was supposed to be silent with minimal lighting. That’s what Voestalpine promised,” Tree Baker (no relation to Larry Baker), a Portland resident who moved away from Cheniere’s project site only to buy a home just over a mile from Voestalpine, says. “The thing is lit up like a Christmas tree and I can hear their machines inside my house.”
When Tree Baker learned about Exxon’s petrochemical plant, he was wary. “Some people are excited because it’s a big name,” Tree Baker says. “I don’t want to raise my children next to this stuff. That’s why we live here.”
Rumors swirled for months about a project codenamed “Yosemite.” It started with a blind request for information from an unnamed company submitted to the Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation by the Governor’s Office for Economic Development.
Lawyers representing the companies told Iain Vasey, the organization’s president, they were looking for at least 1,000 acres on the Gulf Coast, close to a deepwater port, near a commercial rail line and with access to natural gas pipelines. The right location would also offer a local workforce and provide tax break incentives to make building such a property more affordable.
Vasey and his team worked to find a property to fit the requirements, with little expectation. But since he was going to have to spend money on the mystery company, Vasey demanded to know who was behind the request. After he signed a strict confidentiality agreement, lawyers pulled back the curtain to reveal Exxon and Sabic. “When you learn it’s a company like Exxon, well, I didn’t mind spending the money then,” Vasey says now.
The duo has been building petrochemical plants together in Saudi Arabia since 1980, but the natural-gas-rich shale boom has prompted the two longtime partners to undertake this joint venture on the Gulf Coast. Plentiful, cheap natural gas, used as feedstock, has sparked the rapid growth of chemical plants and manufacturing facilities as companies work to put together the infrastructure to cash in.
Subsequently, there have been more than a dozen new ethane steam cracker projects constructed in the United States in the past decade. All but one have been located on the Gulf Coast, an area with a long history of producing petrochemicals, particularly polyethylene, the substance used to make various plastic containers and other products.
Workers are slated to break ground on the Exxon plant by 2020 and it could be online by 2021, according to documents filed by Exxon with the Texas Comptroller. The plant is expected to produce about 1.8 million metric tons of ethylene to be transformed into polyethylene in two facilities and into ethylene glycol in a third, all to be built on the site.
The only question was where to build.
At the end of July, Exxon took a step toward making the plant a reality by announcing it was then considering four locations: St. James Parish and Ascension Parish, both located near the petrochemical hub of Baton Rouge in Louisiana; Victoria, situated about two hours from Corpus Christi; and San Patricio County. The locations offer vacant land, a history with the petrochemical industry, access to water and a potential workforce to draw on. Officials from all four areas lobbied hard.
“Exxon represents jobs and prosperity and the potential for a future right in our backyard, but it also means the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice of us,” Foster Edwards, president of the San Patricio County Economic Development Corporation, says. “When Exxon moves in, the industrial community pays attention.”
There are drawbacks, Simpson acknowledges. “In the beginning it’s going to cost a significant amount of tax dollars because we’re going to have to beef up our infrastructure,” he says. With more people in the county, law enforcement will need to hire more officers or pay overtime. The construction crew trucks will be hard on the roads, which were originally designed to handle farm and ranch traffic, although both companies have said they will help rebuild the roads around the site. Simpson says the money added to the tax rolls — it is estimated property tax revenue for Gregory-Portland ISD alone will get an increase of more than $400 million — will easily offset the initial cost for taxpayers.
There’s also the water to consider, Ed Hirs, an energy economics professor at University of Houston, points out. The plant will get its industrial water from Corpus Christi and its drinking water from Portland and Gregory, but it will be drawing about 20 million gallons of water per day in an area that is already looking at building a desalination plant to supply its water needs in the coming years.
However, the jobs would come at a good time, Simpson says. Last year Sherwin Alumina, the company that bought Reynolds Metals, announced it was closing the factory. The facility used to employ about 600 people in its heyday. “Exxon means we’ll have a major long-term employer in our county. Young people will be able to get trained in high school and in community college here and they will be able to get jobs that will offer a future for them right here in San Patricio,” Simpson says. “We need this.”
It is a tantalizing prospect: More than 10,000 construction jobs and up to 600 permanent positions, that’s what Tully and the other representatives have touted repeatedly. However, Tully told the that 50 of the 600 permanent jobs will be filled by current Exxon employees brought in to oversee plant operations. On top of that, the tax abatement applications Exxon and Sabic submitted to the Texas Comptroller’s office offer much more conservative employment estimates. The Gulf Coast Growth Ventures application pledges to create 11,820 temporary jobs and 230 permanent positions, Sabic’s application promises 1,750 construction jobs and 85 permanent positions, and Exxon’s application says it will create 85 permanent jobs.
A plant is not the community savior it once was, Mark Muro, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, explains. “In general, technology gains have made these plants far less labor-intensive than they were in the past, so plants have a different profile now. They are extremely capital-intensive, and that may well be good for the tax rolls, but they don’t offer the kind of employment they offered 20 years ago,” Muro says. “The recent discussion about bringing back manufacturing has elevated expectations of also bringing back millions of jobs. Unfortunately, that just is not in the cards.”
Bill Gilmer, director of the Institute for Regional Forecasting at the University of Houston’s Bauer College of Business, says the number of jobs Exxon is promising publicly is probably tactical. “Remember, those numbers are the ones Exxon uses to negotiate tax rates and concessions from the county. These are state-of-the-art facilities, and they will be automated. Those numbers matter, but only because of how they will be used in negotiations.”
There was an eruption of response, mostly from Portland residents, when people learned Exxon had optioned the McKamey farmland after Exxon submitted applications for tax abatement to the school board in September. The Facebook group, Portland Citizens United, quickly gathered more than 2,000 followers. Protesters have shown up outside city council, county commissioner and school board meetings ever since. A petition on Change.org, asking Exxon to pick a different location, has garnered more than 2,600 signatures.
Victoria Regional Economic Development President Dale Fowler was thrilled when he learned of the protests. “Victoria residents want the plant,” he says. “Things can always change. It’s not over until that company breaks ground.”
Zambrano insists companies like Exxon can benefit the community. Cheniere has not opened, but Zambrano has already parlayed the proximity of its factory into getting the Houston-based company to renovate Gregory’s Children’s Park, help repair the water tower, which is in danger of a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality violation, and give Gregory $1 million for the next 20 years. “It’s all in how you work it,” Zambrano says.
But the plant may have other costs. Ever since his ten-year-old grandson started having asthma attacks as a baby, Dewey Magee has scrutinized everything from the paint in the boy’s bedroom to the wood used to construct his grandson’s furniture, intent on minimizing exposure to any toxins or allergens. (Magee crafted the child’s bedroom set himself.) The family lives in two houses on the edge of Portland — Magee built both — across the street from the petrochemical plant site.
It’s still unclear what chemicals the facility will emit. Exxon officials have told Magee they won’t know until they are further into the permitting process with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and TCEQ. “Change is inevitable. I know that. I’m not stupid. But this isn’t just change,” Magee says.
Magee has tried to figure out what could come out of the plant by reviewing air quality permits for similar Texas facilities, only to become more alarmed. Air pollution from an ethane steam cracker can include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. Steam crackers can also spew large amounts of ethylene, propylene and other volatile organic compounds, substances that can turn into ground-level ozone. Exposure to volatile organic compounds has been tied to various health problems, including respiratory disease and asthma. “I’m not a paranoid person. I’m just talking about the logical dangers of this thing,” Magee says.
Once the plant is built, what or how much is being vented still may not be spelled out, Neil Carman, clean air director for the Texas branch of the Sierra Club, says, because the state regulatory agency does not require companies to measure what they put into the air, only estimate.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a report last year on the health effects of living near Corpus Christi’s Refinery Row. Although the study could not directly link illnesses to chemicals in the air around the ten-mile-long corridor of factories and chemical plants, the review of years of air quality data found people living in the area had higher rates of asthma, birth defects and cancer.
“There won’t be any health studies once the plant gets started, because TCEQ doesn’t do that,” Carman says. “Nobody is going to be looking at what this pollution actually does to the people living there.”
Exxon touts its safety record — its risk management team has even analyzed why employees get paper cuts — but there have been incidents at these types of plants over the years.In October 1989 an explosion ripped through the Phillips 66 Company’s Houston Chemical Complex (located, confusingly, in Pasadena) after more than 85,000 pounds of highly reactive gas escaped from an open valve in a polyethylene reactor. The blast, which killed 23 people and injured more than 300, was equivalent to an earthquake measuring 3.5 on the Richter scale. Debris was flung six miles away.
These incidents are part of the deal with ethane steam crackers and petrochemical plants, Gilmer says. “There’s always a risk. Ethylene is a very dangerous gas,” Gilmer says. “But the odds are 30 years from now, that plant will be humming along so quietly people may forget it’s there.”
Nothing significant had ever gone wrong at the Williams Olefins Plant in Geismar, Louisiana, opened in 1968, until one morning in June 2013 when the plant — co-owned by Sabic, but run by Williams Olefins — erupted, shaken by a blast felt all through Ascension Parish. The plant was undergoing a $300 million expansion to produce more ethylene when the accident happened, killing two workers and injuring 167. It was chaos, with employees sprinting for the exits and scrambling over the gates, according to the New Orleans . More than 30,000 pounds of chemicals were released into the air and a shelter-in-place order was issued for a two-mile radius around the plant. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigation concluded years of safety management program deficiencies were behind the accident.
Hirs, the energy economist, took a sharp breath when he learned the Exxon plant would be located within two miles of the high school. “Mostly, these plants are fine and nothing ever happens, but I understand why people are upset. Putting it there is fine unless something happens.”
Exxon company officials insist there is nothing to worry about. “Health, safety and environmental protection are core values for ExxonMobil and Sabic, who are industry leaders in these areas. Both companies operate chemical facilities safely every day along the U.S. Gulf Coast and we will do the same for this project,” Tully told the . The project cannot be built without a TCEQ permit, Tully notes, adding the companies will work with the state environmental regulatory agency to ensure the “best available control technologies are implemented” at the facility, he says.
But Carman, a former inspector with the Texas Air Control Board, the previous iteration of TCEQ, dismisses the notion that state regulators will be effective. “They’re an industry-friendly agency in an industry-friendly state,” he explains. Even if TCEQ inspectors put out enforcement actions, they often do not issue citations for every infraction and fines are negotiated down. “It’s one thing if the plant is located out in the boondocks, miles from anybody, but this is a nasty situation,” Carman says. “You’ve got schools and communities right next to it.”
Larry Baker is struggling with what to do. He watched as workers put in a 48-inch-wide natural gas pipeline across the street from his home, pondering how the plant will transform the empty farmland into a site crisscrossed with similar pipelines. His granddaughters raise animals on his land to compete in livestock shows. There’s no telling what being exposed to chemical-laced air will do to cattle and chickens, he says, let alone him and his family. He is not even sure he can sell his place. “Who would buy me out so they could live next door to a plant?”
Still, Jessica Ortiz, a lifelong Gregory resident, is counting on the plant being built. In January another group sprang to life, We Are United For Growth. It has more than 1,000 Facebook followers. Ortiz has become one of the most vocal members. “People are quick to look at the bad side, but they aren’t considering the possibilities,” Ortiz says.
Once the facility is built, Ortiz is hoping other businesses will open offices in Gregory. She can already see the long-empty buildings gleaming with fresh paint and new signs. With the plant located less than a mile from Gregory, her daughter, slated to graduate with an associate’s chemistry degree this summer, could eventually work at the plant, close to home.
“In order to grow, you have to build,” Ortiz says. “People who have dreamed of bringing something new to town, even something small like an ice machine — we don’t have one in Gregory — could do it. Something larger, like a Buc-ee’s gas station, could be possible. With Exxon here, the rest might finally happen for us.”
n early February, Larry Baker went to a meeting between Tully and some Portland locals. At the end, Baker pulled Tully aside and leveled with him. “I think you’re going to put your petrochemical plant here no matter what the school board or the county commissioners or anybody else does. I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you face-to-face if that’s the case, though. Is that how it is?”
“Exxon needs the school district tax abatement,” Tully replied. He didn’t elaborate.
Exxon and Sabic have both stated they could make a “preliminary investment decision” on the plant in the next few months.Baker sighs now, remembering the exchange. Despite the protests, he knows the school board should probably approve the tax abatement request, he says. Otherwise the district will lose bargaining power, the Exxon tax revenue will go to the state, and the plant may still be built. “I want them to fight, but I worked in oil all my life. I know it would be a losing battle.”
Since the tumultuous school board meeting in January, everyone has backed off. The county commissioners have yet to vote on the proposed tax abatement. The February school board meeting came and went without a word about Exxon.
Zambrano was once ashamed of being from Gregory, embarrassed by the dirt road in front of his house and the way Portland kids treated him. As an adult, he’s seized any opportunity to improve Gregory. He has not missed a beat this time around. The Portland City Council passed a nonbinding resolution asking Exxon to choose another location, but Gregory City Council voted unanimously to support the project.
Zambrano dismisses the concerns of Portland residents, but he was surprised and angry when Gregory residents commented about the vote on Facebook. “They call me corrupt, but they don’t say it to my face,” he says. “I don’t even know these people.”People are leaving Gregory — the population has been falling since 2000 and was only about 1,900 according to the last census. About a fifth of the homes have been abandoned. A local diner, the last restaurant in the city limits, closed last year. For Zambrano, it is worth any risk to give Gregory another chance. “If the plant blows up, it blows up,” he says. “We were dying anyway.”
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/two-rural-texas-towns-debate-whether-exxons-proposed-steam-cracker-plant-would-be-blessing-or-curse-9253666
-
U.S. LTO Leading Worldwide Oil Growth Charge to 2022, Says IEA
Mar 7, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The United States will be the No. 1 source of global oil supply growth to 2022 with light tight oil (LTO) from unconventional plays expanding the most, the International Energy Agency said Monday.
Executive Director Fatih Birol unveiled "Oil 2017," IEA's medium-term global oil outlook to 2022, on the opening day of CERAWeek 2017, the annual five-day energy confab in Houston. An estimated 3,000 global leaders are expected to descend on the George R. Brown Convention Center this week, including oil and gas executives, legislators and regulators and one prime minister, Canada’s Justin Trudeau.
"In our forecast period, the Americas will continue to dominate growth...The United States is the No. 1 source of extra supply, adding 1.6 million b/d by 2022. LTO output is forecast to expand by 1.4 million b/d over the period, with growth strongest in the early years before stabilizing in the absence of higher prices or further technological breakthroughs."
The global energy watchdog said global oil supplies could struggle to keep pace with demand after 2020 and risk a sharp increase in prices, unless new projects are approved soon. Worldwide, the oil supply picture "appears comfortable" for the next three years but growth slows considerably after that, Birol said. Spare production capacity in 2022 is expected to fall to a 14-year low.
Over the next five years or so, the United States is seen as the largest contributor to worldwide supply growth outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel. Unconventional investments should continue to surge.
U.S. Supply's 'Second Wave'
"We are witnessing the start of a second wave of U.S. supply growth, and its size will depend on where prices go," said Birol. "But this is no time for complacency. We don't see a peak in oil demand any time soon. And unless investments globally rebound sharply, a new period of price volatility looms on the horizon."
Oil demand is expected to rise in the next five years, passing the symbolic 100 million b/d threshold in 2019 and reaching about 104 million b/d by 2022. Developing countries account for all of the growth, and Asia dominates, with about seven out of every 10 extra bbl consumed globally. India's oil demand growth will outpace China by 2022. While electric vehicles are an "important factor" for oil demand, the IEA estimated they will displace only limited amounts of transportation fuel by 2022.
The United States is seen responding much more rapidly to price signals than other producers in the medium term.
"If prices climb to $80/bbl, U.S. LTO production could grow by 3 million b/d in five years," according to IEA. "Alternatively, if prices are at $50/bbl, it could decline from the early 2020s."
Lifted by increased drilling and aided by cost deflation and efficiency improvements, U.S. output is seen "expanding by nearly 1.6 million b/d through 2022, even assuming stable crude oil prices of around $60/bbl over the period," Birol said. "Roughly half the gains are expected to come from natural gas liquids (NGL) as infrastructure developments, both in terms of expanded export capacity and new U.S. petrochemical plants, support growth in coming years."
U.S. crude and condensate production is forecast to rise by 800,000 b/d, as declines in conventional production partly offset output gains from LTO formations. West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices have recovered from below $30/bbl at the start of 2016 to around $55, which sets the table for LTO production to "return to growth" in 2017.
"After hitting a low of 316 last May, the number of active oil rigs in the U.S. has risen steadily, reaching a total of 525 at the end of 2016 and 602 by the end of February. The pace of the increase picked up markedly toward the end of 2016 and at the start of 2017, as the OPEC/non-OPEC agreement to restrict output appeared to set a floor under prices, providing operators with enough certainty to increase activity."
With only the best acreage tapped in the U.S. onshore last year, operators continued to show impressive productivity gains, IEA researchers noted. "According to data from Rystad Energy, average well performance, as measured by cumulative production by well, increased by 25% in 2016. The Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Drilling Productivity Report shows similarly improvements in production per rig."
Strongest LTO Growth in 2018
Through 2022, LTO production in the onshore is forecast to see its strongest growth in 2018, according to IEA.
Because of the time lag between spudded and completed wells, which generally averages between four to six months, growth this year may be restricted to around 180,000 b/d.
"Output picks up rapidly, however, rising by more than 500,000 b/d during the course of the year to a new all-time high by end-2017. More substantial growth will come in 2018, when annual average output is expected to be 530,000 b/d higher."
Beyond 2018, growth in the United States is expected to taper off, as producers are unlikely to support further increases in activity "in the absence of incremental price increases and/or additional cost/technology improvements. As production rises, more wells will have to be drilled just to maintain output levels."
As the best resources are developed and less productive areas in the United States are tapped -- and as input costs such as steel, labor and sand increase -- the economics of new wells again will deteriorate, according to IEA.
"The estimate for LTO production is nevertheless higher than last year's report," IEA noted. "Not only have cost reductions and efficiency improvements over the past two years lowered the financial breakeven price for most plays, but crucially, the total resource estimate for recoverable reserves has been lifted."
The EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2016 increased the estimate for technically recoverable LTO resources to more than 100 billion bbl from 88 billion bbl, "which suggests that a higher number of wells will be economical at a given set of prices."
U.S. natural gas liquids (NGL) are forecast to be a leading source of non-OPEC production growth in the medium term as new export terminals and domestic petrochemical plants offer outlets for products. Production of NGLs -- including ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline -- is forecast to increase by 900,000 b/d by 2022 to 4.5 million b/d.
"The supply of NGL has expanded by an impressive 1.4 million b/d, or nearly 70%, to 3.5 million b/d over the past six years. Crude oil output grew at nearly the same rate, adding 3.36 million b/d. During our forecast period, however, the share of NGLs in total U.S. oil supplies, already at 28% (when excluding biofuels) in 2016, will increase as more liquids are stripped out of the gas stream."
Ethane Exports Fueling Growth
Ethane is set to drive NGL growth over the coming years. New deepwater export facilities in Pennsylvania (Marcus Hook) and Texas (Morgan's Point) will fuel the growth, forecasters said. Domestic demand for ethane is expected to increase as new ethylene production facilities are completed. This year, feedstock capacity at ethylene cracking plants is set to rise by the equivalent of an additional 400,000 b/d of ethane feedstock.
Meanwhile, crude and condensate production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to average slightly below 1.7 million b/d by 2022, 80,000 b/d more than in 2016. "Spending cuts have resulted in lower activity in the Gulf, and relatively few new projects are due to come online in the coming years. Growth will taper off entirely by 2020 unless further projects are brought forward."
Canada should remain a key contributor to non-OPEC supply growth to 2022, despite the slump in prices and deferred projects. "In 2016, growth was derailed by devastating wildfires across Alberta, but, as infrastructure was largely left intact, production is set to rebound sharply in 2017, and indeed this was already seen toward the end of 2016," IEA said. "Recently completed oilsands projects, and sites already under construction, will drive growth to 2022."
Oilsands production, including upgraded synthetic crude, is forecast to expand by 900,000 b/d over the outlook period to reach 3.3 million b/d in 2022. Total Canadian oil supplies are forecast to grow by 820,000 b/d, to 5.3 million b/d in 2022, from 4.5 million b/d in 2016.
Mexico Needs Time
While Mexico has made "good progress" toward opening up of its upstream sector to foreign and domestic competition, it is going to take time for new projects to reverse the declining trend in oil output, said researchers. Mexican oil production is set to decline to a low of only 2.2 million b/d in 2019.
"From 2020 onwards, however, increased investment is set to reverse the trend,” IEA said. “Total oil production, including NGLs, is forecast to average 2.4 million b/d in 2022, only slightly lower than the 2016 average. Of this, crude oil and condensates account for roughly 2.1 million b/d."
Global oil supply could struggle to keep pace with demand after 2020, risking a sharp increase in prices, unless new projects are approved soon, however.
Within OPEC, the bulk of new supplies are expected to come from major low-cost Middle Eastern producers including Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with declines in Nigeria, Algeria and Venezuela will decline. Production from Russia is forecast to remain stable over the next five years.
IEA also highlighted changes in international oil trade flows and investments in storage infrastructure.
"Asia will need to look beyond the Middle East to meet its growing import requirements," researchers said. "With OPEC countries focused on boosting domestic refining capacity to meet local demand and ramp-up exports of refined products, additional crude oil exports from Brazil and Canada will be higher than those from the Middle East."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109654-us-lto-leading-worldwide-oil-growth-charge-to-2022-says-iea
-
N.C. Moves to Ditch Challenge to EPA Methane Regs
Mar 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The state of North Carolina wants to drop its challenge to Obama-era regulations for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
Attorney General Josh Stein (D) made the request today to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to allow North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to voluntarily withdraw from sprawling litigation over U.S. EPA's New Source Performance Standards for oil and gas facilities.
North Carolina was part of a coalition of 14 states that challenged the methane standards after they were finalized last summer.
The state has since seen major political changes, including the election of new Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who appointed former EPA official Michael Regan to lead DEQ.
Late last month, Regan and Stein announced that North Carolina would also seek to withdraw from massive litigation over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. Stein noted that participation in that lawsuit would frustrate the state's goals of addressing climate change (Energywire, Feb. 24).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/06/stories/1060051010
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Must Safeguard Chemical Facilities, Communities
Mar 6, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Cal Dooley
There is no doubt that Congress has a lot on its plate right now. As a former member of the House, I remember all too well what it was like to have many critical issues competing for attention all at once. Despite the constant bustle, there was one concern that always took priority and helped to focus our efforts faster than anything else — and that was ensuring the security of our nation.
Today, America faces a national security concern that has nothing to do with border protections or travel restrictions. And unlike other controversial measures, there’s a solution readily available to Congress that will help address it.
The problem is as straightforward as its potential solution.
In the final days of the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule making significant and problematic regulatory changes to its Risk Management Program (RMP). EPA’s changes would permit sensitive information about chemical sites to be made publically available — information that if in the wrong hands, could be used to plan and execute dangerous and potentially deadly attacks on chemical facilities.
The RMP has been one of the more important regulatory programs to advance safety and reduce the chance of an accidental chemical release at facilities that use hazardous substances. For many years, it has been, and continues to be, an effective program that has the strong support of the chemical industry as an accident prevention program. In fact, the chemical industry has achieved a dramatic decrease in accidental chemical releases — close to a 60 percent reduction — since the original RMP was adopted in 1996.
Despite this success and without adequate evidence to justify changes, the Obama administration’s revisions to the program will force companies to provide facility-specific chemical information to anyone who requests it — information that in situations in the past, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deemed as being sensitive and in need of protection for security reasons.
The new rule does not allow facilities to deny requests that may raise red flags, and it provides no safeguards to ensure those requesting the information have a need-to-know for purposes of community emergency preparedness.
Ironically, the very incident that caused the Obama administration to review the RMP program — the arson that caused the devastating explosion of a fertilizer storage facility in West, Texas — could more easily be replicated with the kind of “on demand” disclosure of sensitive information that the Obama administration mandated with its rule changes.
While it is certainly appropriate for the Agency to use its regulatory authority to make necessary modifications to the RMP to bolster safety, EPA is required to consider stakeholder input, sound science and cost-benefit analysis to ensure any proposed changes will not create new problems. In this case, Obama’s EPA failed to meet its statutory obligations for clearly demonstrating the need for additional requirements and how these requirements would improve chemical safety commensurate with their additional regulatory burdens. And furthermore, the new requirements will not bolster safety. They will undermine safety.
During the rulemaking process the regulated community, members of Congress, Attorneys General, the Conference of Mayors and other local officials voiced strong concerns that EPA’s changes to the RMP could endanger chemical facilities and communities across America. Public documents from the interagency review process show that even Obama Administration security agencies stated that they “believe… sharing this information with the public could assist terrorists in selecting targets and/or increasing the severity of an attack by decreasing first responder capability.”
Companies will have no choice but to comply with EPA’s misguided new requirements unless Congress approves H.J. Res. 59, which was introduced by Congressman Mullin and now has the support of more than 40 cosponsors and S.J. Res. 28, which was introduced by Senator Inhofe. The resolutions appropriately utilize the Congressional Review Act to block this rule from jeopardizing national security. Furthermore, this action by Congress will not impact the successful aspects of RMP that existed before EPA’s new rule, which will ensure that robust chemical safety regulations remain in place.
Our industry is fully committed to working with federal agencies to enhance safety, but deterring potential attacks is challenging enough without creating new regulatory problems that jeopardize the security of chemical facilities. Congress cannot afford to sit on the sidelines on this one and must approve the resolutions introduced by Congressman Mullin and Senator Inhofe to protect chemical facilities, safeguard communities and protect our national security.
Cal Dooley is president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. Dooley represented the 20th District of California as a Democratic member of the House from 1991 until 2004. He served on the House Agriculture Committee, as well as the House Resources Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/322527-congress-must-act-quickly-to-safeguard-chemical
-
Why is Train Crash Avoidance Tech Not Yet Implemented?
Mar 6, 2017 | Sacramento Bee (In Government Technology)
By Tony Bizjak
Nine years ago, Union Pacific Railroad supervisor Ricky Durrant was called to a ghastly scene in Southern California.
A Metrolink commuter train had run head-on into a freight train, killing 25 people. The UP train had just come out of tunnel. “Our guys said, ‘We saw a flash of white and said, Ahh, sh--” and hit the brakes, two seconds before impact.
Federal investigators concluded the Metrolink engineer had been texting on his cell phone and failed to see a red track light.
The Chatsworth crash sent shock waves through the industry. A month later, Congress passed a law requiring major passenger and freight railroads to install a computer-based crash avoidance system that will take over control of trains and bring them to an emergency stop if the engineer makes an error that could cause a crash.
The system, based on global positioning technology, tracks where trains are, constantly feeding the computers in the locomotive cab with information about how fast the train should be going and what is happening on the tracks ahead.
Nearly a decade later, amid recriminations, that mandate has not yet been met.
Federal officials set an initial 2015 deadline for full rollout of the new navigation system, called Positive Train Control, or commonly PTC. However, industry representatives persuaded officials to extend the deadline to 2018, with the provision that it might be extended again – to 2020.
Critics say the railroads are taking too long and federal officials are letting them get away with it. Railroads counter that PTC is hardly the “plug and play” technology that some critics want to believe. The system is both costly and complicated to design and install, they say.
Durrant, a 46-year UP veteran, now finds himself at the center of UP’s modernization efforts.
As general director of PTC implementation, he heads an Omaha-based team that is teaching 9,800 engineers from Roseville to Chicago to use the new system.
Durrant has a midwestern twang and a laid-back air, but says he was put on the PTC team for a reason. ““I will work my way through barriers even if I have to walk through people,” he said.
UP said it has spent more than $2 billion on PTC since the mandate was issued, and ultimately will invest $3 billion. That includes installing signal stations along 20,000 miles of tracks, wiring computers into 5,600 locomotive cabs, setting up communications offices, and training 40,000 employees.
The safety effects could be notable in Northern California. UP, a freight giant with a major railyard in Roseville, runs 10,000 freight trains a year through the Sacramento region, many of them sharing tracks with Amtrak, Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin service passengers trains.
Its freight trains run through downtown Sacramento as well as rural areas designated high-risk for derailment, including the Dunsmuir site of an infamous chemical spill in 1991, the Feather River Canyon, and Donner Pass.
In November, the Federal Railroad Administration warned railroads publicly they need to step up the pace to meet the 2018 deadline. Recent FRA progress reports suggest that UP is among the railroads that are lagging.
Durrant and other UP officials say that’s not really the case. FRA’s way of presenting the data doesn’t fully capture UP’s progress, they say, because it counts only fully completed tasks.
The FRA database shows that only 111 locomotives of Union Pacific’s 5,656 locomotives are equipped with the new system. UP’s Durrant counters that 3,610 locomotives in effect are PTC-equipped, minus the “black box” crash recorder, which got held up because of a supplier-related problem that has since been resolved. Once those get installed in the coming months, the federal data will reflect that, UP said. Last week, in the Roseville yard, teams of electricians wired PTC circuitry into locomotive cabs.
And while the federal reports say Union Pacific does not have PTC in operation on any of its tracks, that also is not the case, the railroad says. The first PTC-equipped locomotives are running on 12 percent of UP’s tracks, much of that in California, including in the Sacramento area, in “demonstration” or testing mode. That progress will be reflected once the FRA approves the operations safety plan that UP has submitted to the feds, UP says.
Durrant says UP intends to meet the 2018 deadline. That means adding solar panels to power the wayside signals being installed in some rural sections of tracks that are not electrified, and teaching PTC the proper braking levels for smaller, lighter trains. “Right now, our plan is to be done by the end of next year,” he said.
BNSF, the other major freight rail hauler in the West, similarly reports it expects to make the 2018 deadline, as does Amtrak, which operates the Capitol Corridor passenger trains through Sacramento. That includes an unusual amount of interaction among freight and passenger railroads, all of which must design PTC systems that can communicate with each other so each can share tracks.
Visiting the Roseville diesel locomotive yard last month, Durrant described the effort as more than just a numbers game. It’s also culture change, he said. Engineers as a breed are tradition-bound and take pride in handling their machines their way.
But they have generally embraced the idea that they will now have a computer as copilot, even though it will be looking over their shoulder and ready to take train control out of their hands.
“We’ve had very little push back because they can see where this can be a good thing,” he said.
Durrant, an eighth-generation railroader who has worked as a switchman, surveyor, fireman, engineer and train master, calls PTC “the biggest safety change of a generation.”
“I love it,” he said. “As an engineer, it’s like a Garmin (GPS system) on steroids. It’s giving me information I never had before allowing me to know what I need my train to be doing” miles before it has to be done.
Normally, engineers can see little more than a mile or two ahead – if weather and terrain allow that much. In contrast, the PTC screen shows them what’s happening in detail five miles ahead, where the track switches are, where the curves are, whether signals ahead are red or green, and how fast or slow they need to have their train going at every point.
If the engineer heads too quickly into a turn or fails to stop soon enough for a red signal, the PTC monitor in the locomotive cab will flash a warning and give the engineer a 60-second countdown “to get his train under control,” Durrant said. If the engineer fails to do that, PTC will take over and stop the train.
PTC is not a panacea, however. It can’t tell if a track ahead is broken. It also can’t stop a train from hitting a car crossing the tracks or stop trains when a pedestrian walks onto the tracks. Nor can it do anything about a train malfunction, such as the broken axle that caused an oil train to explode in Casselton, N.D. in 2013.
PTC would not have stopped a fiery oil train derailment in Mosier, Oregon last summer – caused by broken bolts – that forced evacuation of residents within a quarter mile of the tracks. (That crash helped persuade the Benicia City Council to say no last year to a Valero Refinery plan to run oil trains daily through Northern California, including downtown Sacramento.)
PTC also would not have prevented a freight train carrying cans of tomato products from derailing south of Elk Grove last month, sending 22 cars into a flooded field next to the Cosumnes River. That incident appears to have been caused by a slumping track on waterlogged ground underneath the train.
The PTC technology should, however, prevent trains from crashing into each other, like they did in Chatsworth, as well as derailing because of excessive speed.
The National Transportation Safety Board concluded PTC would have prevented a 2015 Amtrak crash in Philadelphia that killed eight and injured more than 200. In that incident, the engineer was distracted and allowed his train to go into a curve twice as fast as it should have.
PTC also likely would have averted an incident on the Capitol Corridor line in December near Davis where a passenger train apparently went through a track switch at a high a speed, causing the train to jolt violently, injuring five people.
Metrolink, whose 2008 crash helped prompt the federal PTC mandate, is among the earliest adopters nationally. Officials report they have run trains 70,000 miles with PTC since 2015, and say there have been a handful of times PTC stopped a train because engineers were not slowing the trains appropriately. Those instances led to further training for engineers, Metrolink officials said.
Los Angeles attorney Ronald Goldman, whose firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman represented victims in the Metrolink crash as well as others, said he fears the federal government will let railroads delay full implementation a second time, leading to more lives lost from crashes that should have been prevented.
“My (sense) is that the current delay will result in further delay, and each and every member of Congress and the administrative bodies who vote for it will have blood on their hands,” he said.
National Transportation Safety Board officials, who say they have been calling for a PTC-like system for 45 years, this year urged railroads not to apply to federal officials for an extension to 2020.
“Safety delayed is safety denied, and every day without these lifesaving advances holds the possibility of another accident like the ones in Philadelphia and Chatsworth,” the NTSB says on its website.
For its part, the Association of American Railroads, which serves as the voice for the industry, will only say railroads “are on track” to have the system installed by 2018, but officials there declined to say if that means the system will be tested and fully operating by that date.
At Union Pacific, Durrant said his rail company sees the federal mandate as merely a step among many toward improved safety. UP officials are studying whether “cruise control” can be integrated into PTC systems, allowing the train to automatically adjust its speed as it travels.
“We’re in the baby step of the whole product,” he said. “Where we go with it, nobody knows yet.”
http://www.govtech.com/fs/Why-is-Train-Crash-Avoidance-Tech-Not-Yet--Implemented.html
-
Workers’ Compensation Law Bars Toxic Vapors Case
Mar 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
OSHA violations alone aren't enough to satisfy a Louisiana workers’ compensation law exception that permits tort actions for an employer's intentional acts that injure workers, the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled March 3 (Hernandez v. Dedicated TCS, LLC, 2017 BL 67077, E.D. La., No. 16-cv-03621, 3/3/17).
Joendel Hernandez and Anthony Duckworth didn't adequately allege that their employer, Dedicated TCS LLC, “consciously desired that they sustain their injuries” in assigning them to clean a tank rail car containing hazardous chemicals last year, the court said.
Hernandez and Duckworth may pursue their claims only through the state's workers’ compensation system, the court said in dismissing the case.
The ruling is the latest in which a court has grappled with a state law that permits tort actions against employers for intentional acts likely to harm workers.
Here, the workers were overcome by toxic fumes and they alleged the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited DTCS for violations in the incident, some of them “willful.”
But that evidence wasn't enough to meet Louisiana's “extremely high” standard, which requires proof that an employer “consciously desired” the injuries and that the result was “substantially certain to follow,” the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said.
Last year, federal courts in Washington State and Kentucky similarly ruled that state workers’ compensation laws provided the exclusive remedy for “deliberate injury” claims advanced by workers.
But the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho also ruled last year that workers could pursue tort claims after they were ordered to retrieve radioactive plates without proper protective gear.
U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Bruno & Bruno represented the plaintiffs.
Sher, Garner, Cahill, Richter, Klein & Hilbert, as well as the Austin Law Group represented DTCS.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106690625&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106690625&jd=106690625
-
Mar 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Chelsea Harvey
A hearing held Tuesday by the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology promised to focus on “Making the Environmental Protection Agency great again” — but its panel of industry-affiliated witnesses and its discussion of possible new legislation had some lawmakers and scientists worried the opposite may occur.
The hearing’s focus, broadly, was intended to be an examination of the EPA’s “process for evaluating and using science during its regulatory decision-making activities.”
“Today we will examine how the EPA evaluates and uses science in the regulatory process,” said committee chair Lamar Smith, a Republican representing Texas, in his opening remarks. “Unfortunately, over the last eight years the EPA has pursued a political agenda, not a scientific one.”
Smith argued that under the Obama administration, the EPA passed regulations that were “expensive, expansive and ineffective” and suggested that the agency had “relied on questionable science based on nonpublic information that could not be reproduced, a basic requirement of the scientific method.”
Under the new administration, he said, there was now an opportunity to “right the ship of the EPA and steer it in the right direction.”
Other lawmakers took issue with what they perceived to be an assault on the agency’s ability to produce sound science-based regulations.
“I’m disappointed but not really surprised our very first hearing in this Congress will be focused on attacking the EPA,” said Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, the ranking Democrat on the committee, in an introductory statement at the hearing.
She also expressed concern about the industry ties of witnesses called by the Republican majority to testify. These included Jeffrey Holmstead, a former deputy EPA administrator who is now a lobbyist and lawyer representing fossil fuel energy companies; Kimberly White, senior director of chemical products and technology with the American Chemistry Council, a group representing chemical manufacturers; and Richard Belzer, an independent industry consultant who specializes in environmental and chemical risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. The fourth witness, called by the Democratic minority, was Rush Holt, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“This is not a panel likely to produce an objective examination of EPA’s activities,” Johnson said in her introductory remarks, adding that “limiting the science EPA uses only serves to limit the actions EPA may take to protect public health and the environment.”
Johnson was likely referring to a piece of legislation, slated to be reintroduced soon by conservative lawmakers, which became a particular focus of the hearing’s discussions on Tuesday. Dubbed the “Secret Science Reform Act,” the legislation would require EPA regulations to rely only on science that is both reproducible and publicly available.
The bill, which has been introduced in previous congressional sessions, has generated widespread criticism from scientists who point out that some large-scale environmental studies — for instance, those that examine the effects of oil spills or natural disasters — may be nearly impossible to reproduce. And, they’ve noted, certain pertinent scientific information relating to industry or the personal health of individuals may not legally be made publicly available.
While endorsed by Holmstead as a way to make government science more transparent, Holt expressed concern about the legislation’s potentially stifling effects on EPA research and regulation.
“The Secret Science Reform Act, as it has previously been introduced, has been based on a misunderstanding of how science works,” he said. “The gold standard is to find other approaches to come up with the same conclusions. Rarely can you repeat an experiment in exactly the same way. What makes more sense is that you approach the problem with a new perspective — that’s not where this secret science legislation is heading.”
Tuesday’s hearing comes at a time of intense controversy regarding the EPA’s future. Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s pick for EPA administrator, has ties to the fossil fuel industry, has expressed doubt about the extent of human-caused climate change, and as the attorney general of Oklahoma, has sued the agency on multiple occasions over various environmental rules. His nomination, which may be confirmed this week, has met with sharp criticism from liberal policymakers, former EPA employees and environmental groups alike. Since the Trump administration assumed office, it has also been roundly criticized by scientists and activists for certain restrictions it has placed on the agency, including limits on employees’ ability to communicate science and news to the public, as well as a temporary freeze on all EPA grants and contracts (which has since been lifted).
More generally, many Republicans in Congress have criticized what they see as excessive heavy-handedness in past EPA regulations, particularly those aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel sector, while Democrats have defended these decisions as being based on the best available science. In fact, while the Secret Science Reform Act may be on the table soon, some Republicans have already introduced a bill that would abolish the EPA altogether.
Republican concerns about the agency’s rulemaking process remained stark in Tuesday’s hearing. In addition to discussions of the Secret Science Reform Act, the majority’s witnesses testified about bias in the agency’s science advisory board and what they perceived as a tendency to overstate the benefits of environmental regulations.
And in an additional effort to highlight problems with the integrity of government science, several committee members, including Smith, pointed to claims made last weekend by retired National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist John Bates, who asserted that the authors of a high-profile 2015 climate change study flouted a number of data management procedures while conducting their research. However, while it remains unclear whether procedural problems took place at NOAA before the study was published, multiple scientists have defended the paper’s scientific conclusions, which have been independently verified by other studies.
Several members of the committee also made remarks expressing doubt about either the science of human-caused climate change or the effectiveness of EPA’s previous climate policies. In his own introductory remarks, Smith suggested that under the Obama administration the agency was known for introducing legislation that would have “no significant impact on the environment,” pointing to the Clean Power Plan as an example.
It’s an argument that many Republicans have used to justify doing away with the controversial regulation and others like it. But as many scientists have pointed out, while U.S. climate policies may make only a small impact on the planet alone, they are an integral part of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and international climate goals are unlikely to be met without them.
“Smith is making a concerted effort to turn a committee meant to foster the innovation of the future into one that does the bidding of 19th century fossil fuel companies — and it’s deeply dangerous,” said Liz Perera, climate policy director for the Sierra Club, in a Tuesday statement. “Yelling at science will never change its findings that climate change is a very real threat to every one of our communities.”
Other members of the committee defended the EPA’s activities. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) commented that the hearing’s title should be to “keep EPA great,” rather than make it great again.
“This committee should be leading the charge to protect the planet and our environment for future generations,” he said. “Instead, it attacks the credibility of scientists.”
And in his own testimony, Holt, the minority’s witness, also defended the agency’s scientific process, commenting that scientists should be able to conduct their work without intimidation and that “policymakers should never dictate the conclusions of a scientific study.”
“I’m here to say don’t try to reform the scientific process,” he said. “It has served us well and will serve us well.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/07/the-hearing-was-titled-making-epa-great-again-scientists-are-afraid-the-opposite-will-happen/?utm_term=.ba2924ba2c76
-
Bills to Revamp Scientific Reviews Up for Committee Vote
Mar 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee are renewing their contentious quest to overhaul U.S. EPA's handling of scientific reviews with a Thursday markup of two freshly introduced bills.
The first measure, sponsored by committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), would require EPA to publicly post online the underlying data used to justify new regulations, so that they can be subject "to independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results," according to the text. Trade secrets, personally identifiable information and privileged business information would be exempt.
For too long, the public has had to foot the bill for new regulations based on "hidden science," Smith said in a news release. The bill, dubbed the "Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act," "is about ensuring public access to the very science that underpins rules and regulations by EPA," he added.
The second measure, sponsored by committee Vice Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), would revamp the membership requirements for the Science Advisory Board, a key EPA panel, with a mandate that at least 10 percent of members come from state, local or tribal governments, and further require that the board "fairly" balance scientific and technical points of view.
The legislation would also strengthen the board's "accountability and transparency" by requiring members to disclose their professional backgrounds and eliminating potential conflicts of interest, Lucas said in the release.
Critics, however, argue that the two bills are intended to hamstring EPA's ability to impartially weigh scientific evidence and open up the agency's work to more industry lawsuits. Similar legislation introduced in the 114th Congress passed the House but then died in the Senate after the Obama administration threatened vetoes.
"Don't try to reform the scientific process; it has served us well and will serve us well," Rush Holt, a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey who now leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said at a committee hearing last month (E&E Daily, Feb. 8).
After the hearing, Smith had hedged on whether he planned to reintroduce what in the 114th Congress was labeled the "Secret Science Reform Act," saying he wanted to first consult with Scott Pruitt, who has since won Senate confirmation to head EPA. As of last night, neither bill had been assigned numbers, according to a committee spokeswoman.
Schedule: The markup will be Thursday, March 9, at 9:30 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/07/stories/1060051030
-
A Lesson Trump and the E.P.A. Should Heed
Mar 7, 2017 | New York TImes
By William D. Ruckelshaus
In March 1983, President Ronald Reagan asked me to return to Washington to run the Environmental Protection Agency. I had been the E.P.A.’s first administrator, from 1970 to 1973, and over the agency’s first 10 years, it made enormous progress in bringing the country’s worst pollution problems under control despite resistance from polluting industries and their lobbyists. A worried and outraged public had demanded action, and the government responded.
Yet the agency and its central mission came under attack during the 1980 presidential campaign. The Clean Air Act was criticized as an obstacle to growth. The agency was seen as bloated, inefficient, exceeding its congressional mandates and costing jobs. The Reagan administration and its new administrator were going to fix that. Sound familiar?
The E.P.A. I returned to in the spring of 1983, only some 18 months into President Reagan’s first term, was dispirited and in turmoil. Its administrator, Anne M. Gorsuch, had been cited for contempt of Congress. Its budget had been reduced by almost 25 percent, with more cuts promised. Staffing had been slashed.
There were internal conflicts, resignations of key officials, complaints of documents being destroyed and reports of secret meetings with officials from companies under investigation by the agency. One political appointee, Rita Lavelle, was facing accusations of lying to Congress, for which she would later be convicted. And voters were taking notice. President Reagan discovered that government backsliding on protecting Americans’ health and the environment would not be tolerated by an awakened, angry and energized public.
While I awaited Senate confirmation hearings that April, several chemical industry chief executives asked to meet with me. I expected to hear complaints that over-regulation was stifling economic growth, just as I had heard 10 years earlier.
Instead, I was stunned by their message. The public, they told me, was spooked about the turmoil at E.P.A. Americans didn’t believe anything was being done to protect their health and the environment. They didn’t believe the E.P.A., and they didn’t believe the chemical industry. These executives had concluded that they needed a confident, fair and independent E.P.A. They knew that an environmental agency trusted by the public to do its job gave their businesses a public license to operate.
A strong and credible regulatory regime is essential to the smooth functioning of our economy. Unless people believe their health and the environment are being safeguarded, they will withdraw their permission for companies to do business. The chemical industry executives who came in to see me that day felt this loss of public support and were asking me to reassure Americans that the government would do its job to protect them.
Our collective freedom and well-being depends on a set of restraints that govern society and how it operates. Those restraints need to be clear and effective. They were not in 1983.
The E.P.A.’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, comes to his job with this historical backdrop. Are there changes that can be made to improve how the agency operates? Certainly. But those changes can never be seen as undercutting or abandoning the E.P.A.’s basic mission. That was the mistake made during the early Reagan years and why I was asked to return.
One of the factors leading to the creation of E.P.A. was the recognition that without a set of federal standards to protect public health from environmental pollution, states would continue to compete for industrial development by taking short cuts on environmental protection. The laws that the E.P.A. administers create a strong federal-state partnership that has worked well for over 40 years. The federal government sets the standards and the states enforce them, with the E.P.A. stepping in only if the states default on their responsibilities.
Budget cuts that hurt programs that states now have in place to meet those duties run the risk of returning us to a time when some states offered industries a free lunch, creating havens for polluters. This could leave states with strong environmental programs supported by the public at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with weak programs. In other words, it could lead to a race to the bottom.
Voters may have supported Donald J. Trump believing his campaign rhetoric about the E.P.A. But they don’t want their kids choking on polluted air or drinking tainted water any more than Hillary Clinton voters, and as soon as the agency stops doing its job, they’re going to be up in arms.
To me, the E.P.A. represents one of the clearest examples of our political system listening and responding to the American people. The public will tolerate changes that allow the agency to meet its mandated goals more efficiently and effectively. They will not tolerate changes that threaten their health or the precious environment.
These are the lessons President Reagan learned in 1983. We would all do well to heed them.
William D. Ruckelshaus was the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/a-lesson-trump-and-the-epa-should-heed.html?_r=0
-
Air Pollution Around the World Takes a Staggering Toll
Mar 5, 2017 | Washington Post
By Editorial Board
Despite calling for clean air and clean water in his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Trump is reportedly aiming to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff by a fifth. Maybe Mr. Trump really believes there are enough “superfluous” EPA programs — such as, apparently, those addressing climate change — that his administration will throw out only bathwater and no baby. In reality, focusing only on the pollution challenges of the past, not those of the present or the future, ignores vast volumes of evidence on the ecological and human damage various types of pollution still cause. Imagine what the country would be like now if politicians had folded years ago to industry complaints about environmental protections now considered rudimentary.
Actually, you may not have to imagine. A group of American and Canadian researchers recently released a global air pollution death toll, finding that two major types of air pollution were associated with 4.2 million deaths in 2015, which was a staggering 7.6 percent of all deaths.
“Studies of long-term exposure to air pollution demonstrate that people living in more polluted locations die prematurely, compared with those living in areas with lower levels of pollution,” the report explained. The other side of the coin is that “when air quality improves, so does population health.”
Fine particulates from fuel burning, among other things, penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream, encouraging heart disease, strokes, lung cancer, chronic lung disease and respiratory infections. The researchers concluded that exposure to particulate pollution was the fifth deadliest health risk of all 79 they studied, ranking behind high blood pressure, smoking and high blood sugar, and about matching high cholesterol — conditions many people upend their lives in order to mitigate. Air pollution exposure was deadlier than having high body mass index or alcohol use.
No wonder the EPA has cited reductions in particulate matter to justify many Obama-era clean air regulations. Decades of environmental rules have resulted in relatively low — though not necessarily comfortable — particulate pollution levels in the United States and other developed nations. American air could still be cleaner; the researchers found that the nation’s levels of ozone — which also contributes to respiratory disease — were about the same as Nigeria’s and higher than China’s.
Yet Americans do not know how good they have it. Fully 92 percent of the world’s population lives in areas where fine-particulate levels exceed World Health Organization guidelines. The misery is concentrated: Half of air pollution’s death toll was in China and India alone.
Some particulate pollution is natural. But humans burning things — such as coal — is also a principle driver. Some of the pollution, such as that from archaic cooking and heating stoves, might abate with economic development. Yet if that very development relies on ramping up coal burning, people’s health will still be threatened.
Beyond appreciation for effective environmental enforcement, there are at least two lessons. First, major developing nations such as China and India must find a way to grow their economies without substantially degrading their air quality. Second, if world governments continue to press major developing nations on cross-border pollution matters, they will be aided by popular internal demand for cleaner air.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/air-pollution-around-the-world-takes-a-staggering-toll/2017/03/05/be4b50d8-f300-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.c25252c0825a
-
Get Ready for Trump’s Climate-Denial Offensive
Mar 7, 2017 | Washington Post
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Lost in the din of Donald Trump’s Twitter rampages was the report last week that the White House is “fiercely divided” over Trump’s campaign promise to “cancel” the Paris climate accord. The news came as the president is planning to launch his climate-denial offensive, including an executive order to begin repealing former President Barack Obama’s climate plan, gutting the budgets of various agencies engaged in climate work such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and potentially withdrawing from the Paris accord.
The White House divide is said to pit Trump’s Rasputin, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, against his daughter Ivanka Trump and hapless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Yes, in the carnival mirror that is the Trump White House, the climate’s best defender is the former chief executive of ExxonMobil, an anomaly akin to Hannibal Lecter espousing vegetarianism.
Tillerson argued in his confirmation hearings that “it’s important that the United States maintains its seat at the table about how to address the threat of climate change, which does require a global response.” For the United States to abandon its commitments under the Paris accord embraced by virtually every country in the world would devastate Tillerson’s credibility. As the respected career diplomat Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, put it: “In international politics, trust, reliability and keeping your commitments — that’s a big part of how other countries view our country. I can’t think of an issue, except perhaps NATO, where if the U.S. simply walks away, it would have such a major negative impact on how we are seen.”But the secretary of state is playing a weak hand. Trump once scorned climate change as a Chinese “hoax.”Bannon, the ex-Breitbart publisher who featured such conspiratorial tripe, is pushing Trump to keep his campaign pledge to tear up the Paris accord. Trump isn’t likely to value the credibility of the United States over his own campaign rhetoric.
Missing in action is a broader sense of what is at stake. Put aside that catastrophic climate changes could render the world uninhabitable. Trump simply dismisses that threat. But given that he pledges to “make America great again,” to bring back jobs and make the economy hum, he needs to learn one key thing about the future: The country that captures the lead in building the technologies and energy systems needed to deal with climate change will dominate the growth industries of the 21st century.
U.S. economic preeminence in the past 150 years was built on its strength in the fossil-fuel industries that were the foundation of the industrial revolution. Rapid development of oil and coal in the United States gave this country a real advantage. And when our needs outstripped our production after World War II, we made certain — for better or worse — that we controlled the seamless supply of oil, priced in dollars, from our neighbors to the South and from the Middle East.
No matter what Trump is saying, climate change is already a clear and present danger. And renewable energy — wind, solar, water, nuclear — plus energy efficiency will fuel growth in this century.
Trump would certainly hear this view if he asked some of the Goldman Sachs alumni in his administration, starting with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, who stepped down as Goldman’s president and chief operating officer to head the National Economic Council. Goldman officials understand that climate change is real and its economic effects are profound. They are already figuring out how to profit from it. Sadly, it seems Mnuchin and Cohn are too focused on cramming through banking deregulation to join a debate central to our economic future. Or have they just decided not to take on Bannon, who after all had his own Goldman Sachs sojourn?
It’s not just Goldman: China understands this as well. Its leaders recently announced plans to invest more than $360 billion in renewable energy through 2020. Their National Energy Administration projected the creation of more than 13 million jobs in renewable energy by 2020. The country is the fastest-growing market for electric vehicles — vehicles that the government ensures are made in China.
Trump can dismiss the threat of climate change, but China is pushing to dominate the renewable energy industry across the globe. And that leadership will have far wider implications. If Trump disavows the Paris climate agreement, “China’s influence and voice are likely to increase,” senior Chinese climate change official Zou Ji noted, “which will then spill over into other areas of global governance and increase China’s global standing, power and leadership.”
The United States isn’t out of the running yet. We still have significant advantages. We’re better at innovation — inventing the batteries, the efficient appliances, the LED light bulbs and the more productive solar and wind applications. Obama created the beginnings of an industrial policy — investment in R&D, fuel-efficiency standards, appliance-efficiency standards, renewable energy requirements at the state level, tax breaks and credits — that demonstrated the potential of green energy industry in the United States.
As Forbes magazine summarized, clean energy industries employ 2.5 million Americans. Trump boasts about green-lighting the Keystone XL Pipeline, but solar installation alone has created more jobs than oil and gas pipeline construction and crude petroleum and natural gas extraction combined since 2014. Solar is adding workers at a rate nearly 12 times faster than the overall economy.
But the president now plans to go after all this with a meat cleaver. His early budget plans calls for disemboweling the EPA with a 25 percent budget cut, including reducing its staff by 20 percent, and chopping 42 percent off the agency’s research and development office. He plans to truncate the budget of NOAA by 17 percent, eliminating among other things the funds for “coastal resilience,” which aids coastal areas to withstand major storms and rising seas. It would cut one fifth of the funds for NOAA’s satellite program, which is critical to weather forecasting.
A staple of Trump’s campaign stump speech was his complaint that “We don’t win anymore.” And his central promise, as he repeated to the Conservative Political Action Conference after his election, is that “We’re going to win big, folks. We’re going to start winning again, believe me.” If Trump continues his assault on common sense about climate change, the outcome is clear: The United States will export less, innovate less and lose out big-time on the fastest-growing markets and sources of jobs across the world. America is going to lose and lose big.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/get-ready-for-trumps-climate-denial-offensive/2017/03/07/0b3efe70-028e-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.71fec2055cac
-
Mar 6, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Much of the damage to public health and the environment that the Trump administration is putting forward – such as cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget, or gutting clean air and water rules – is terrible, but can be reversed when a new president takes office.
But proposed statutory changes that would make it virtually impossible for agencies such as the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to even create rules to protect public health will likely stay on the books for a generation.
Almost unnoticed amid the flood of bad news out of Washington, Republicans and some Democrats in the Senate are preparing to introduce a new version of the Regulatory Accountability Act. Sounds good, right? Who could be against “regulatory reform?”
The new administration has directed agencies to wipe two rules off the books for every new rule they create. That’s bad enough.
But the Regulatory Accountability Act would make matters even worse. This act and similar proposed laws would create a never-ending gauntlet of regulatory obstacles that public health agencies would find nearly impossible to clear. This is what Steve Bannon, the president's chief strategist, meant when he recently told conservative activists that one of the administration's top priorities is the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”
The Regulatory Accountability Act and other bad bills would:Create an endless loop of agency studies of potential alternatives to regulations.Require agencies to pick the alternative that is least costly to polluters.Limit the science that agencies can use to make these decisions.Create more delays through administrative hearings.Allow judges to second-guess agency experts.Create new hurdles to lawsuits when agencies break the law.Require Congress to approve new rules before they go into effect.Allow Congress to eliminate dozens of rules at a time.
Some of these bills would force agencies that are supposed to operate independently, such as the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and Consumer Product Safety Commission, to subject their decisions to White House review.
Taken together, these statutory changes could require all federal agencies to review every conceivable alternative before picking the alternative most favorable to industry. But before finalizing a rule, agencies could also have to run two more gauntlets – judicial review by an administrative law judge and by an appellate court.
If either round of judicial review found that the agency missed a potential alternative, the whole process would start over. Even if the agency cleared all those hurdles, both the House and Senate would also need to approve the rule.
No rule will ever clear the bar. For proof, look to history. This obstacle course of review by the White House, Congress and the courts is precisely why the EPA has not been able to ban asbestos. If enacted, the regulatory reforms included in the Regulatory Accountability Act and other bills would apply the same obstacles that have kept asbestos legal to all federal agencies.
Some industry lobbyists may say that’s good thing. But agency rules don’t just protect consumers and workers – they’re also good for business.
When I worked for the food industry, we fought for food safety rules, to restore consumer confidence after a series of food safety failures and to help us weed out bad actors. Having predictable rules of the road told us what we could and couldn't say on food packages. They allowed to reformulate our products with confidence that the goal posts wouldn’t move. A level playing field also helped smaller innovators gain entrance to the market.
Most importantly, rules that protect public health and our workers were consistent with our values. So it’s disappointing to see companies that trade on consumer trust lending their names to efforts to weaken these protections.
Polls show that voters, regardless of party, overwhelmingly support tougher rules. It’s no wonder: One study shows that 10 rules adopted between 2009 and 2014 saved more than 10,000 lives and annually prevented more than 300,000 cases of illness.
We could see a new Senate version of the Regulatory Accountability Act soon. As expected, a terrible version of the bill has already passed in the House.
Are there ways to improve the ways rules are written? Sure. But the version of the Regulatory Accountability Act that passed the House is not reform, but instead the culmination of an assault on the ability to govern. It’s the one fight we can’t afford to lose.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/03/one-fight-we-can-t-lose
Industry and Association New
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested