Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 09/03/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) When Harvey Struck, People Were a Key Part of the Chemical Industry's Response
Mar 9, 2018 | SmartBrief
By James daSilva
Hurricane Harvey was a unique storm that, months later, still has the Gulf Coast chemical industry and other stakeholders discussing the lessons learned. -
How to Choose the Right Container for Storing Your Leftovers
Mar 9, 2018 | Washington Post
By Becky Krystal
I live for leftovers. -
Cornyn "Concerned" About NAFTA Talks
Mar 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Such comments have stoked fears in Texas's oil and gas industry that the movement of oil and natural gas across both the Mexican and Canadian borders could be interrupted. -
Tariffs Raise Fears of Trade War for Energy Industry
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee, Nathanial Gronewold and Edward Klump
President Trump's planned tariffs on imported steel and aluminum will drive up costs for the energy industry at a critical time and could trigger a trade war that would be even more damaging. -
West Wing Disorder Leaves Energy Officials Feeling Jittery
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender
Thinning White House ranks are leaving the energy industry with few inroads to President Trump and further emboldening agency chiefs to go it alone on important policy, according to sources close to the administration. -
CERAWeek: As OPEC Waits for Appreciation, US Ramps Up Oil Production
Mar 9, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
OPEC ministers came to Houston this week for a “thank you” that never arrived. -
Oil Industry: Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan Could Add $590B to Economy
Mar 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump’s offshore oil and natural gas drilling plan could contribute up to $590 billion to the U.S. economy within two decades, according to new research commissioned by the oil industry. -
Enviros Launch New Legal Assault on Atlantic Coast Project
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
A coalition of environmental groups has issued new legal challenges to the Atlantic Coast pipeline, looking to halt construction on the contentious natural gas project. -
Cheniere Looking to Resolve PHMSA’s LNG Tank Leak Issues Before Hearing
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Federal regulators have agreed to hold a hearing this month to discuss an order issued in February to Cheniere Energy Inc. to shut down two of five storage tanks at the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Louisiana. -
Lawmakers Struggle to Get Pruitt in Front of Them
Mar 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Lauren Gardner
Congressional Republicans are publicly acknowledging what many Democrats have been grumbling about for months — it’s really hard to get EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt into a witness seat. -
West Coast Progressive Climate Strategy Could Come East for First Time
Mar 9, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
From her home in lower South Baltimore, Keisha Allen can see the long queue of train cars that roll by every day a few hundred feet away. -
D.C. Circuit Signals Crude-by-Rail Fee Dispute May Be Moot
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A refining group's quest to revive its complaint over a surcharge imposed by one of the nation's largest freight rail networks for transporting crude oil may have come up against an impenetrable wall: Congress. -
Nearly Invisible Rust Caused D.C. Metro Derailment
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
An outside consultant found that the recent derailment of a Metro train in Washington was caused by rust on the underside of a steel rail that couldn't be seen with visual inspection or ultrasonic scanning technology, Metro officials said at a board meeting yesterday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) When Harvey Struck, People Were a Key Part of the Chemical Industry's Response
Mar 9, 2018 | SmartBrief
By James daSilva
Hurricane Harvey was a unique storm that, months later, still has the Gulf Coast chemical industry and other stakeholders discussing the lessons learned. On Monday, this discussion was amplified in Pasadena, Texas, as CEOs, regulators, senators and other stakeholders met in a daylong session.
The event, organized by the American Chemistry Council and Texas Chemical Council, was opened by LyondellBasell CEO Bob Patel, who noted the vast chemical facility presence along the Texas Gulf Coast and the interconnected supply chain that is at risk when storms strike.
If ethylene capacity is knocked offline, for instance, that can affect other industries and cause shortages in products including medical devices, apparel and construction materials.
Numerous speakers on Monday noted that Harvey won’t be the last hurricane, and yet chemical companies will continue to invest along the Texas Gulf Coast because of its proximity to raw materials, infrastructure and shipping routes. At the same time, Patel noted that Harvey was “much larger than anything we would have imagined.”
So, an underlying theme of the day’s event was resiliency and recovery, both in terms of facilities and people, as well as finding ways to make preparation even better next time.
Patel’s introduction was followed by a panel discussion moderated by ACC CEO and President Cal Dooley. Patel, Covestro CEO and Chairman Jerry MacCleary, Dow Chemical Chief Operating Officer Jim Fitterling and BASF executive Ken Reid discussed how each of their companies weathered the storm, both in terms of how individual facilities responded and how logistics, communication and other support was conducted at the corporate level.The importance of people
At almost every point, panelists inevitably returned to a recurring theme: The importance of people, both employees and the community at large.
Throughout the day, panelists and prepared videos told stories of employees who directed charitable efforts, provided temporary housing for employees, made sure employees could check in on families and their homes. These videos also highlighted employees whose homes were damaged and how they were supported by their employers, sometimes to the point of people being given time off to help their co-workers clean out and repair their homes.
Covestro’s MacCleary repeatedly emphasized how important people are -- that you can’t do anything at a plant with smart, talented people who are kept safe. Fitterling followed by noting that the “first order of business is people: making sure they’re safe. Not just safe at work, but what about their homes?” In some cases, a later panel noted, employees are still out of their homes.
BASF’s Reid discussed how he led the response team that took care of people, along with EHS and other issues. Right away, he said, BASF saw the storm would affect many sites and many employees, so they enacted a plan to support those people from across the country, including buying crated materials that employees could later use to fix their damaged homes.
This people support extended to which decisions corporate officials would make versus which site managers would make. As MacCleary noted, site operators are empowered to decide when a storm-affected site needs to shut down. They need to tell him, yes, but they don't need his approval.Infrastructure and supply lines
Resiliency also has an infrastructure and supply component, whether it's what to do to improve the Houston Ship Channel, keeping supply lines open or making sure facilities can handle a multi-day event, Food and diesel fuel supplies at many sites ran low as the storm dragged on, Patel and other executives said. They also noted the need to look at hardening facilities, and even rethinking aspects of site design for future facilities.
The need for preparation doesn't end after the storm moves on, either: A lunch session noted that small details, like having contracts ready for debris removal, can be an overlooked component of post-storm response but can cause a lot of headaches if not handled efficiently and effectively.
Overall, the mood was optimistic despite the ferocity of Harvey and the knowledge that other storms will hit. Chemical companies will continue to invest in the region, will continue to improve their operations and planning, and all stakeholders expressed enthusiasm about investing in infrastructure, better communications and other improvements.
As LyondellBasell’s Patel said, “What I was most impressed by was the human spirit, and the amount of dedication and ownership of our people to get to the facilities, to help out, when in many, many cases they were personally impacted by the storm. … It’s just remarkable, and it’s why we continue to invest with confidence in the Gulf Coast.”
SmartBrief and ACC publish a daily newsletter on the chemical industry. View the latest issue and sign up for free.
https://www.smartbrief.com/original/2018/03/when-harvey-struck-people-were-key-part-chemical-industrys-response
-
How to Choose the Right Container for Storing Your Leftovers
Mar 9, 2018 | Washington Post
By Becky Krystal
I live for leftovers. Or, more accurately, I live off leftovers.
My weekend routine includes making at least one large-batch dish to have dinners for easy weeknight meals, and my husband often does, too. Peek into our refrigerator at any time and you’ll probably find a motley assortment of containers filled with food.
If only I put as much thought into the storage as I do the cooking.
Many of the containers in my overflowing cabinet are of the plastic takeout variety. Others are standard grocery store quality. Many are missing lids; plenty are cloudy after repeat trips though the dishwasher. Getting new, high-quality containers — and using the right ones at the right time — is one of those things constantly in the back of my mind, but I’ve never quite made it happen.
Where to start?
Because the number of options can make anyone’s head spin, Kim Kimbriel, a buyer for the Container Store, recommends thinking about what you’re going to be using the containers for.
Lunch on the go? Plastic. Storing food in the freezer for oven-ready meals? Glass.
“Generally, glass is the most airtight,” says Sharon Franke, kitchen appliances and technology director for the Good Housekeeping Institute in New York.
Frieling’s Emsa Clip & Close containers are a Good Housekeeping top pick. They can keep air out for 14 days, a claim that Franke and her team tested in a hot, humid lab using silica gel beads that change from blue to pink when exposed to moisture. (For the record, even inexpensive, disposable plastic containers performed respectably for about a week.)
Keep your leftovers fresh and happy in the right container.Franke says containers with silicone gaskets and lids that snap on all four sides are especially effective at keeping food fresh.
There have been other user-friendly developments in food storage. Many manufacturers no longer make plastics with bisphenol-A (BPA), the controversial chemical that has been linked to possible health risks, even though the Food and Drug Administration considers it safe. And in light of the ongoing conversation about food waste, companies are exploring new ways to help consumers hold onto their produce longer. Oxo’s GreenSaver products, for example, feature activated carbon filters, “floating” baskets and adjustable vents that are designed to, respectively, trap ethylene gas (which causes some produce to decay), promote airflow and control humidity.
Kimbriel says container materials also have expanded beyond glass and plastic to include stainless steel and silicone. The Container Store, for example, sells a line of silicone containers that are microwave- and oven-safe.
Some silicone containers collapse for easy storage. Another organizing solution: sets with nesting containers and lids, such as Joseph Joseph’s Nest Food Storage collection. Other brands feature lids that snap onto the bottom of containers, such as Snapware Airtight, which Cook’s Illustrated highly recommended in its rigorous testing of plastic food storage containers in 2010. No more mismatched sets or cascades of tumbling plastic.
The shape of the container is another factor to consider. Most people gravitate toward rectangular pieces, Kimbriel says, as they’re easier to store. The depth of the containers is important as well. Cook’s Illustrated noted that low, flat versions make it easy to stack items above or below them. Moreover, shallower containers facilitate quick cooling, to get food out of the temperature danger zone in which bacteria can thrive (40 to 140 degrees), as well as heating, which means dinner can get on the table that much faster.
Whatever you end up purchasing, follow the manufacturer’s care instructions. Most plastics belong on the top rack of your dishwasher, if you put them in there at all. “I’m an advocate of hand-washing things,” Kimbriel says.
To help you decide what type of containers are best for you, here’s a checklist to consider:
Oven-safe? Glass.
Kid-friendly? Plastic.
Lightweight? Plastic.
Freezer to microwave? Both.
Lids with gaskets and clamps? Both.
Keeps food fresh? Both.
BPA-free? Glass, some plastic.
Dishwasher-safe? Glass, and plastic generally on the top rack.
Stain-resistant? Glass, some plastic.
Odor-resistant? Glass, some plastic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2018/03/09/how-to-choose-the-right-container-for-storing-your-leftovers/?utm_term=.e84d99971d9f
-
Cornyn "Concerned" About NAFTA Talks
Mar 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Sen. John Cornyn said Friday he was "concerned" about the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Trump administration continues to press ahead with what he described as "populist impulses."
The Texas Republican, who serves as the Senate Majority Whip, said during one meeting President Donald Trump raised the possibility of issuing a notice of termination to Mexico and Canada, which would set in motion a U.S. withdrawl.
"I said no, no, no," Cornyn said at the CERAWeek energy conference, hosted by the consulting firm IHS Markit. "We need to convince him trade deficits aren't the end all and be all."
Negotiations on the more than two decade-old trade agreement continue on between the three nations. Trump said at the White House Thursday, "I have a feeling we're going to make a deal on NAFTA" before adding that if no agreement could be reached, "then we're going to terminate NAFTA and we'll start all over again or we'll just do it a different way."
Such comments have stoked fears in Texas's oil and gas industry that the movement of oil and natural gas across both the Mexican and Canadian borders could be interrupted. And now with Trump putting tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, the prospects of a trade war developing are rising.
During his appearance, Cornyn said he worried about the departure of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.
"I'm sorry to see Mr. Cohn leave and the ascent of [Trump adviser Peter] Navarro, who I think has a lot of wrong ideas," he said. "The president needs advice and it can't be one side of the equation."
But Cornyn and Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, who also appeared at CERA, said the administration had changed "everything" for the U.S. energy sector by pulling back environmental regulation and reducing tax rates.
"When you think about where we were last year and where we are this year, it's a world apart.
We've returned to a normalcy when it comes to the agencies," Murkowski said.https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cornyn-concerned-about-NAFTA-talks-12741103.php
-
Tariffs Raise Fears of Trade War for Energy Industry
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee, Nathanial Gronewold and Edward Klump
President Trump's planned tariffs on imported steel and aluminum will drive up costs for the energy industry at a critical time and could trigger a trade war that would be even more damaging.
The tariffs come as U.S. oil and gas production is surging and exports are beginning to pick up. Companies are building thousands of miles of pipelines and billions of dollars in new export facilities — all of which could be affected by the tariffs, according to executives at the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference here.
While many who spoke during panel discussions and on the sidelines of the energy conference said they were still absorbing the details of the tariff, there was little praise, even though the oil explorers and utility operators generally have supported Trump's low-tax, deregulatory agenda.
Trump announced yesterday he'll impose a 25 percent duty on imported steel and a 10 percent duty on imported aluminum. Some close allies, including Canada and Mexico, will be exempt, and the administration will have flexibility to raise and lower the tariffs on other countries (E&E News PM, March 8).
The proposal could break an international stalemate over China's steel production, but it won't necessarily boost the domestic steel business, said Jesse Parrish, chief financial officer of Blackhawk Mining LLC.
"Tariffs are emotionally a great tactical effort on the part of the president to bring people to the table and negotiate better outcomes," he said. "The actual impact to the steel industry, absent higher prices, is going to be somewhat minimal. It's not like people have blast furnaces sitting around idle doing nothing."
The American Petroleum Institute said it was "disappointed" in the proposal and said it would work with the administration to lower the impact on its member companies.
"We remain concerned that implementing tariffs on specialty steel and aluminum, which many U.S. steelmakers do not supply in the quantities and timelines needed for projects, could harm America's energy renaissance and jobs," API President Jack Gerard said in a statement.
The plan could raise prices about 5 percent across the energy industry, Charif Souki, chairman of the gas export firm Tellurian Inc., said in an interview with Fox Business. U.S. companies still have a big advantage over their international competitors, he said, so the immediate impact should be small.
"However, if you start getting into tit-for-tats and retaliation — that's an entirely different story," Souki said. "The part of the population that will suffer the most is the American consumer because everything will go up."Decade of tension
Trump's actions are the result of a culmination of tension over international steel trade that has been building for more than a decade.
For years, Chinese state-owned mills have been churning out steel at a volume far above global demand, dumping the excess onto the world's markets either directly or via trans-shipments through third countries.
The government of China subsidizes this overcapacity to keep workers there employed, while causing job losses in other nations. The flood of cheap steel has delighted fabricators and construction firms, but also has raised the ire of steel producers in the United States, the European Union and Japan.
The European Union and Japan have lobbed complaints against China and Russia on the issue at the World Trade Organization. India has also taken trade action against Chinese steel.
The steel dispute is also a key sticking point in the refusal by the United States, Japan and the European Union to grant China "market economy" status at the WTO. The designation would make it more difficult for nations to take action against Chinese export subsidies and other anti-competitive practices. China is suing the three trading partners through the WTO in an effort to force them to accept it as a market economy, affording it WTO protections against anti-dumping measures.
Critics say Trump's move against multiple nations, not just China, threatens to unravel multilateral efforts to compel China to end the dumping and other state-directed mercantilist practices. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), which is sharply critical of long-standing U.S. trade policy and massive U.S. trade deficits, has characterized the recent tariff action as akin to the Trump administration using a baseball bat where a scalpel is necessary.
"If your price of steel goes up by 30 percent, it's a major cost if you're trying to build pipelines or power plants or other things," said Thad Hill, chief executive of Calpine Corp., a Houston-based power generation company.
Like the rest of the economy, the energy industry is becoming interconnected across the globe.
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems builds gas turbines for the power generation industry at a plant in Savannah, Ga. About 70 percent of its raw materials are from the United States, and the rest are from Japan, said Paul Browning, head of the company's Americas division.
While the company relies on specialty alloys that are unlikely to be affected by the tariff, "when you look at an overall power plant where there's more steel used in construction, there could be consequences," Browning said.
In Mexico, the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) is building power lines and natural gas pipelines as it modernizes its power system. It has awarded contracts to Canadian and American companies such as TransCanada Corp. and Sempra Energy.
"Energy helps us make the case for free trade in the region," CFE General Director Jaime Hernandez said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/09/stories/1060075893
-
West Wing Disorder Leaves Energy Officials Feeling Jittery
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender
Thinning White House ranks are leaving the energy industry with few inroads to President Trump and further emboldening agency chiefs to go it alone on important policy, according to sources close to the administration.
Already operating with few deckhands, the White House has witnessed key departures in the energy space in recent weeks. More are expected soon. Meanwhile, companies aren't sure whom to call at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some worry that another staff exodus would further diminish access. And there's uncertainty about who will be driving the president's energy agenda for the remainder of his term, and who will be refereeing contentious policy issues like fights over the renewable fuel standard and fuel economy standards.
Companies are "very worried about it because you start to run out of people that you trust to know what they're doing, to actually be there anymore to answer the phone," said an executive in the refining industry. "The higher up you go, is this guy as the president increasingly isolated and on his own? ... Who's got his ear at this point?"
Trump's top economic adviser, Gary Cohn — whose office oversees domestic energy policy — announced his resignation this week after losing a high-profile battle on steel and aluminum tariffs. Trump's top international energy and climate aide, George David Banks, left last month. The president's nominee to lead the Council on Environmental Quality, Kathleen Hartnett White, withdrew her nomination earlier this year, as her confirmation prospects appeared grim. There's been no replacement announced for that nomination, and Trump still hasn't named a leader for the White House science office.
Oil and gas firms took Trump's contentious decision on the steel and aluminum levies, which industry opposed, as a sign of growing staffing problems. "The issue has been raised more than once that this tariff thing could've been avoided, or at least winnowed down significantly, if we had just had some more folks in the room on the staff level," said an industry source.
Given the staffing shortages, "the power and force and capability of the interagency process is currently significantly diminished" on the energy and environmental front, said Jim Connaughton, who was White House CEQ chairman during the George W. Bush administration.
But, Connaughton added, "there are some very good professionals that remain, especially in the core energy space and the infrastructure space." He pointed to D.J. Gribbin, a former banker working on infrastructure policy under Cohn, and Mike Catanzaro, the top White House adviser on domestic energy policy. So despite a "significant reduction in capacity," he said, there's "still a relatively good capability to carry out the interagency process that's necessary to advancing almost every significant environmental or energy issue of consequence."
Few expect the administration's overall energy agenda to change. It will still consist of more fossil fuel extraction, more exports and more infrastructure, like pipelines. But some thornier issues might be harder to resolve absent experienced White House staff.
Significant policy measures that pit similar industries against each other require a deft touch at the White House. Managing biofuels producers, agriculture, refiners and oil producers in negotiations over the renewable fuel standard is no easy task. The same goes for the roiling feud between agencies and automakers over fuel economy standards.
"If you look at the overall narrative of they're having a very hard time staffing people, they're looking at, 'How are we going to fill these positions?' when they're already short on staff, the energy conversation fits right in there," said an energy industry lobbyist familiar with the White House.
Some in the energy industry are anxiously waiting to see what happens next.
"There's a little concern," said another energy industry lobbyist close to the administration. "Everyone in town thinks most people in the White House are in danger of leaving."
Cohn's departure in particular is seen as a blow to many in the energy world.
"Gary has played a crucial role in defending policies that don't pick winners and losers and that are based on the facts," said Banks, who left the White House in mid-February.
And the refining industry executive said that Cohn's presence in the White House "has been a great security blanket to the folks in the C-suites." The former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive has been "the default guy" for energy interests to talk to, that person said. "If you can get to Cohn or his folks at the NEC, you know you're going to be heard."Rise of Cabinet bosses?
One consequence of the thinning ranks could be expanded influence of agency bosses like U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
Pruitt, in particular, could get more leverage as the result of a White House exodus.
"I think this means Pruitt's political stock is rising," said the energy industry lobbyist. "Let's look at where the reservoir of energy staff might be. It's sometimes kiddingly said that a lot of energy policy in the United States is really developed by the Environmental Protection Agency."
The EPA chief has already ingratiated himself with Trump by in part reflecting the president's desire to exit the Paris climate accord. Pruitt and Cohn were in opposing camps in that fight, with Pruitt coming out on top.
Since then, Pruitt has faced resistance from within the White House over his plans to advance a public debate to challenge mainstream climate science, although Trump privately told Pruitt he supported the idea (Climatewire, Dec. 15, 2017). It's unclear whether staff shake-ups in the White House might clear the way for that debate.
"Administrator Pruitt has a fair degree of latitude and trust from the president in making the decisions he needs to make," said an oil and gas industry source.
That source said conversations on energy policy are still active with the White House, given the presence of people like Catanzaro, Gribbin, CEQ Chief of Staff Mary Neumayr and Alex Herrgott, who handles legislative affairs for CEQ. On top of that, the National Security Council and Office of Management and Budget bring resources to bear. Vice President Mike Pence's energy aide, Francis Brooke, also has taken on an active role.
Still, the balance is tilting toward agencies, said the industry source, who lamented the steel and aluminum tariffs. The source added that it's getting "tougher and tougher" to be heard in the White House.
"A lot of those conversations on energy and climate stuff are increasingly being shifted to the agency side — Interior, DOE, and (surprising to some) Treasury. EPA too," the source said in an email.
Banks said he's expecting agencies "to become much more active in the energy policy space, simply because in the first year of any administration, the White House is going to take a much more active role in defining the contours of any given policy." He added, "The administration has achieved that, so now it's up to the agencies to implement the president's vision for energy dominance."
It's natural for companies to converse with the agencies that regulate them in addition to the White House, said an agency source who meets frequently with the business community.
That said, the gaps in White House personnel will likely grow in the wake of Cohn's exit. That will strain the administration's capacity to handle competing interests and concerns, the agency source added.
"Cohn was such a stabilizing and moderating force," the agency source said. "He was so constructive. His departure makes it harder for the people who remain."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/09/stories/1060075899
-
CERAWeek: As OPEC Waits for Appreciation, US Ramps Up Oil Production
Mar 9, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
OPEC ministers came to Houston this week for a “thank you” that never arrived.
Since OPEC and non-OPEC producers reached their historic supply cut agreement in December 2016, global oil prices have stabilized above $60/b and supply and demand are nearing the ever-elusive balance, ministers said during the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference.
“Everybody benefited,” OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo said, adding that the agreement put the industry back on a “path of sustainable growth.”
Barkindo said that producers who agreed to the cut “paid a very deep price” and added that the industry should “salute them for their courage.”
But OPEC ministers got a different response.
With Barkindo and many OPEC ministers in the building, US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke preached US energy “dominance” and called US oil and natural gas production “morally better” than imports of OPEC and other foreign crudes.
“I want to thank you all of you for making American energy great again,” Zinke said. “It is better to produce energy in this country.”
Rather than showing gratitude or committing to further global market stability, the message from US producers and the Trump administration was clear: US peak output has yet to come.
“When you look five to 10 years out you could see the Permian Basin doing 6 [million] to 7 million barrels a day all by itself,” Texas Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton said in an interview with the Platts Capitol Crude podcast. “There’s that much oil there. It’s just a question of whether the economics are there to put in the infrastructure and development to go get it.”
Outside of initial speculation that many OPEC producers would fail to comply with their pledges, one of the biggest concerns with the supply cut agreement was that US shale production would undercut its intended result.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih tried to quell that concern at last year’s CERAWeek.
“I think the comeback of shale, to a certain degree, is not only welcome and acceptable but it’s necessary because of the demand growth and the decline elsewhere,” Falih said. “This is a big market.”
But did Falih underestimate US shale’s potential?
As OPEC and non-OPEC producers have cut, US producers have set output records, crossing the 10 million b/d mark in a record-setting November, up from 8.77 million b/d in November 2016. And US imports of OPEC crude have fallen too in the year since the supply cut agreement was reached, dropping to 2.6 million b/d in December 2017 from 3.3 million b/d in December 2016, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
There were some quiet grumblings at CERAWeek that the US was not doing enough to help the market.
“It’s not just a problem for OPEC, it’s a problem for the entire industry,” Emmanuel Kachikwu, Nigeria’s oil minister, told reporters.
While he declined to offer many details, Kachikwu said OPEC ministers are increasingly pressing the heads of US oil majors to take action to stabilize the global market.
It’s unclear what, if anything, US producers could do. Even if major producers decided to cut production, hundreds of independent producers would likely step in to fill the void.
Some US producers met with OPEC ministers Monday night on the outskirts of the Houston conference. The meeting was described as cordial, but OPEC did not push for anything, sources said.
“We are not talking about prices. We are not talking about production cuts,” Barkindo told reporters ahead of the meeting. “This is not the objective of the dialogue.”
Barkindo said ministers and US producers plan to meet again in Houston next year.
It’s unclear if the next meeting will be as cordial.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/03/09/ceraweek-opec-us-oil-production/
-
Oil Industry: Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan Could Add $590B to Economy
Mar 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump’s offshore oil and natural gas drilling plan could contribute up to $590 billion to the U.S. economy within two decades, according to new research commissioned by the oil industry.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) released four studiesFriday, written by Calash and Northern Economics, focusing on each of the areas where the administration is considering allowing or expanding offshore drilling: the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts, as well as around Alaska.
The Atlantic alone could see $260 billion in new economic activity, while the Pacific has the potential for $160 billion, the study said.
The plan has been controversial and seen bipartisan opposition from states along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Opponents say drilling would threaten the environment, tourism and fishing, as well as exacerbating climate change.
But with the studies released Friday, the API is trying to push back, arguing that it would be beneficial not just for the country as a whole, but also specifically for the coastal communities where opposition has been strongest.
“Ultimately, the studies confirmed what the U.S. oil and natural gas industry has supported over the years: opening the currently restricted [outer continental shelf] areas would increase economic benefits, not only specifically for the coastal regions near the offshore development, but also nationally as well,” Erik Milito, the group’s director for upstream operations, told reporters.
“It should be welcome news for U.S. consumers and families that are looking for increased jobs, investment in their communities and energy and national security.”
Milito said the studies, based largely on what offshore drilling has already done in the Gulf of Mexico, show that drilling can coexist with the various interests who are opposing the plan.
“We have not seen, in the experience of this industry, a negative impact when it comes to tourism, commercial fishing and these amenity-type economies,” he said. “In fact, all the data we’ve seen has suggest the opposite, that when you bring in a lot of good-paying jobs to help drive economic stimulus to these economies, they bring investment in, they build up communities, they provide money for infrastructure and transportation, and it’s a win-win-win for all those different economies all together.”
The study came on the day that public comments are due on President Trump’s drilling plan.
It also came days after Oceana, a conservation group opposed to drilling, released its own economic analysis, saying that drilling threatens 2.6 million jobs and almost $180 billion in economic activity in coastal economies.
“From ocean views scattered with drilling platforms, to the industrialization of our coastal communities, to the unacceptable risk of more BP Deepwater Horizon-like disasters, expanding offshore drilling to new areas threatens thriving coastal economies and booming industries like tourism, recreation and fishing that rely on oil-free beaches and healthy oceans,” Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana, said in a statement.
But the API pushed back.
“I would characterize our studies as being a bit more based in reality,” he said. “We’ve seen in the Gulf of Mexico the success of the industry in terms of coexisting and working closely with tourism, commercial fishing as well as the military.”
While Friday is the comment deadline for the plan, it is far from final.
The administration must analyze the input, put out a new proposal, take comments on it, analyze those and then finalize it.
Any new drilling would be years away and come after further environmental review and drilling rights sales, among other steps.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/377618-oil-industry-trumps-offshore-drilling-plan-could-contribute-590b-to
-
Enviros Launch New Legal Assault on Atlantic Coast Project
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
A coalition of environmental groups has issued new legal challenges to the Atlantic Coast pipeline, looking to halt construction on the contentious natural gas project.
The Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices, Chesapeake Climate Action Network and Wild Virginia made two filings in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today. One is a motion to stay construction and wait for the court's decision on a pending case where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has challenged the court's jurisdiction.
The other is a petition for relief under the All Writs Act, which asks the court to halt construction pending FERC's decision on a request for rehearing.
Both claim that FERC has failed to demonstrate the pipeline is in the public interest, and that its primary purpose is profit for stakeholders.
"The fracked gas Atlantic Coast pipeline is dirty, dangerous and unnecessary, and not a single foot of it should be built until the families and the communities that would be threatened by this project have their day in court," said Kelly Martin, Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign director at the Sierra Club.
The pipeline has faced a slew of lawsuits from environmental groups and landowners along its route. In addition to litigation against FERC, opponents have challenged state permits, eminent domain processes, the National Park Service's approval of a right of way for the project, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's review of potential impacts to protected species (Energywire, Jan. 31).
Members of Congress, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), have also asked FERC to reconsider the project's certificate.
FERC's approval of the project, along with the Mountain Valley pipeline, was a rare split decision, with a dissent from Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, who argued the project is not in the public interest (Energywire, Oct. 16, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/09/stories/1060075949
-
Cheniere Looking to Resolve PHMSA’s LNG Tank Leak Issues Before Hearing
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Federal regulators have agreed to hold a hearing this month to discuss an order issued in February to Cheniere Energy Inc. to shut down two of five storage tanks at the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Louisiana. Meanwhile, Cheniere management is hoping to quickly resolve the issues.
In a corrective action order (CAO) issued on Feb. 8, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) ordered Cheniere to shut down the tanks and "take certain corrective actions" after employees discovered on Jan. 22 that LNG had leaked from one tank at the Cameron Parish, LA, facility.
An attorney for Cheniere requested that PHMSA schedule a hearing within 60 days to discuss the CAO. However, attorney Kevin Ewing of Bracewell LLP said the company "expects to withdraw its request for a hearing if the parties can reach satisfactory resolution of these matters in the interim."
Ewing's letter to PHMSA said Cheniere "continues to be working cooperatively with PHMSA informally to develop insight into the root cause of the incident."
Cheniere spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder confirmed to NGI that PHMSA has scheduled a hearing for March 21. "Our intent here is to be as proactive and productive with PHMSA as possible," Burnham-Snyder said Thursday. "We think that this is an incident that can be resolved in a expedient way, while always reserving the right to have that hearing."
According to PHMSA, Cheniere employees discovered that LNG had leaked into the annular space between the inner and outer walls of one tank, S-103. The leak eventually caused a crack in the outer tank wall, allowing LNG to pool in a secondary containment area around S-103. A subsequent investigation by PHMSA found that LNG had also leaked from a second tank, S-101.
PHMSA also reported that all five tanks at Sabine Pass were designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. Three tanks placed into service in 2008 were built by Matrix Service Inc., while two tanks built by Zachry Industrial Inc. went into service in 2009. The two leaking tanks were built by Matrix; the third Matrix-built tank did not have any leaks and remains in service.
There were no injuries from the incident. Each of the five tanks at Sabine Pass has a capacity of 3.4 Bcfe, for a total of 17 Bcfe.
Cheniere has been ordered by PHMSA to conduct a root cause analysis, assess whether the issues discovered at the two tanks apply to the other tanks and develop plans to repair or modify them. Cheniere also has been ordered to provide records of any other leaks or events in which the tank systems were operated "outside design specifications."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113633-cheniere-looking-to-resolve-phmsas-lng-tank-leak-issues-before-hearing
-
Lawmakers Struggle to Get Pruitt in Front of Them
Mar 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Lauren Gardner
Congressional Republicans are publicly acknowledging what many Democrats have been grumbling about for months — it’s really hard to get EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt into a witness seat.
House and Senate transportation committees have asked Pruitt to testify about the administration’s infrastructure plan, but both were rebuffed, according to sources familiar with the moves. And Pruitt is the only one of President Donald Trump’s key three energy officials not currently scheduled to discuss his agency’s fiscal 2019 budget request next week. Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have already announced trips to Capitol Hill.
Other members of Trump's Cabinet have proven more willing to answer lawmakers' questions on the administration's goals and priorities. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has appeared at two hearings in the last eight days to discuss the administration’s infrastructure plan with lawmakers. She’ll return Wednesday to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on the proposal, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross will join her.
Even as they voiced confidence Pruitt would ultimately make the trip, senior Republicans acknowledged it’s been hard to get him in front of their panels.
“I would just say it takes a little more cajoling [with him],” Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee, told POLITICO. “It’s part of the job. He should expect it.”
Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) told POLITICO he’d made clear to EPA that senior officials are expected to testify as he suggested it had been hard to find a time that worked for Pruitt.
“Some people have busier schedules than others, so we look forward to him coming before the committee in the near future to talk about the budget,” he said. “All of them are expected to be there. He knows that. We’ve had conversations and we’ll get a date that works.”
Pruitt never visited Walden's panel for a budget hearing last year, although he did testify in front of the House Appropriations Committee on his agency's request. The lack of a Pruitt appearance on the calendar so far in 2018 led two senior E&C Democrats — ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Environment Subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko of New York — to demand Thursday their counterparts ask for or, if he refuses, compel Pruitt’s appearance at a budget session “as soon as possible.” Pruitt returned to Capitol Hill just two other times since taking office, once for an oversight hearing at E&C and most recently in January at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment Friday. In response to the Democrats' letter a day earlier, an agency spokesman said Pruitt would work with the committee.
Pruitt’s reluctance to testify is not limited to one committee, though. He declined an invitation from the House Transportation Committee to share his views on the administration’s infrastructure plan for a hearing this week, according to a source close to Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.). His refusal to appear comes despite the central role he would play on aspects of the infrastructure plan such as streamlined permitting.
The administrator also declined to appear at a March 1 hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on infrastructure, as ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) referenced during his opening statement: “I was disappointed to learn that Administrator Pruitt declined to testify despite EPA’s important role in the development of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.”
Spokesmen for T&I and EPW committee Republicans did not respond to requests for comment.
And Pruitt’s sudden bashfulness on infrastructure comes despite his central role in unveiling the administration’s plan. He sat two spots over from Trump at a roundtable coinciding with the proposal’s release last month. He stood alongside the president in June 2017 during a speech on infrastructure near Cincinnati. And he’s spoken forcefully of his desire to wage a “war on lead” that would see drinking water pipes replaced.
Some Republican allies said they understood why Pruitt would be reluctant to head to Hill to face a barrage of intense questioning, even as they conceded he’d ultimately have to testify on his budget request.
“I’m going to try to resist having it just [be] a bashing center for two and a half hours,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. “He handles himself very well, but no one should have to go through that.”
Inhofe said the only people to suggest Pruitt was dodging appearances before Congress were “people who don't like him or the far-left environmentalists — the extremists.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/03/lawmakers-struggle-to-get-pruitt-in-front-of-them-398789
-
West Coast Progressive Climate Strategy Could Come East for First Time
Mar 9, 2018 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
From her home in lower South Baltimore, Keisha Allen can see the long queue of train cars that roll by every day a few hundred feet away. Some are loaded with obvious cargo — coal, for instance, rolls by uncovered on its way to nearby export terminals.
But until a few years ago, Allen had no idea that some of the cars that pass just beyond her home are loaded with crude oil, a volatile and toxic substance that has been implicated in a handful of derailments and explosions, including the deadly catastrophe in the small Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic that killed 47 people in 2013.
“The thing that bothers us the most is the fact that it is volatile,” Allen told ThinkProgress. “You trust your government enough to protect you, and that’s not what was happening.”
Railroad transportation is under the purview of the federal government, which has been slow to implement safety regulations to keep up with an increase in crude oil trains spurred by the fracking boom of the late-2000s. So Baltimore residents like Allen — in partnership with local environment and climate groups — are hoping to curb oil train traffic using local action. Their tactic: a bill currently before the Baltimore City Council that would prohibit any new crude oil terminals within the city.
It’s a novel approach that supporters say would help reduce the amount of crude oil train traffic the city sees in the future. And, if it’s successful, it’ll be the first time a progressive climate strategy born on the West Coast has been replicated on the East Coast.
“Anyone who you talk to about this issue, especially if they live right next to the rails, says that they can’t believe it is happening and not being adequately regulated by the federal government,” Jennifer Kunze, a Maryland state organizer with Clean Water Action, told ThinkProgress. “I think that Baltimore is ready to pass this kind of legislation.”‘Wake-up call’
The path towards banning crude oil terminals in Baltimore began in 2014, when the Houston-based energy company Targa Resources proposed expanding an existing crude oil terminal in the industrial neighborhood of Farfield.
The proposed expansion — which would have allowed the company to handle an additional 12.6 million gallons of crude oil — prompted concern from local residents, who worried that an increase in crude oil trains could endanger the health and safety of communities living along the rail line, as well as climate groups, who felt that the expansion would lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.
Together, environmental, public health, and community groups formed a coalition to push back against the proposal. While there was no way for the groups to stop the oil trains from coming into the terminal, they rallied around a particular air pollution permit that the Maryland Department of Environmental Quality would need to issue to Targa, voicing their opposition at public hearings and town hall meetings.
Despite issuing Targa a preliminary approval, the Department of Environmental Quality eventually told the company that it would not issue the permit unless Targa provided more information about the expansion plans. In 2016, Targa announced it would be abandoning plans for the expansion.
For the local residents and environmental groups that had organized in opposition to the issue, the announcement that Targa would no longer be pursuing the plan was a victory, but one tempered by reality. The city still had two operating crude oil terminals, and saw nearly 100 million gallons of crude oil shipped through the city between 2013 and 2014, according to records obtained by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
“It was a really exciting win, but it was also a wake-up call,” Clean Water Action’s Kunze said of Targa’s 2016 announcement. “With Baltimore being such an important port, and with potential more domestic drilling, if the market took an upswing, we could get more terminals and those we might not be able to stop.”
At the same time that activists and residents in Baltimore were organizing against Targa, something very similar was happening across the country in Portland, Oregon.‘The first stone’
In 2014, Pembina — a Canadian energy company — proposed building a propane terminal in Portland. Like in Baltimore, a coalition of community, environmental, and public health groups organized in opposition to the project, eventually pushing then-Mayor Charlie Hales to recant on his initial support for the project. And, like in Baltimore, when the project was eventually abandoned, the coalition celebrated a tentative win — and got to work thinking about ways to prevent new terminals from being proposed in the future.
In Portland, that thinking manifested in a proposal to amend the city’s zoning code to prohibit bulk fossil fuel infrastructure from being built — or expanded — within city limits.
In 2016, after nearly a year of work between environmental groups and city officials, the city council unanimously voted to adopt a new set of zoning codes that carved out a new prohibited land use category for “bulk fossil fuel terminals” — defined as anything with a storage capacity in excess of 2 million gallons of any kind of fossil fuel, from propane to crude oil.
Industry groups immediately challenged the ban, arguing that it ran afoul of the United States Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause, which holds that only Congress can regulate business between states.
Initially, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals — an administrative body that decides land use issues within the state — sided with industry, ruling the ban unconstitutional. But this January, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the Land Use Board’s ruling, effectively paving the way for the ban to go into effect (though the decision will likely be challenged to higher courts).
Despite legal challenges, Portland’s fossil fuel infrastructure ban has already inspired a wave of similar action along the West Coast, from a crude oil ban in Vancouver, Washington to a temporary moratorium — that could become a permanent ban — on unrefined fossil fuel shipments in Whatcom County in northern Washington.
Northwest communities seek to build a ‘green wall of resistance’ against fossil fuels
When Portland’s ban initially passed, Mayor Hales — then in his final month in office — told local media that he hoped the policy would serve as a blueprint for other cities beset by proposals for fossil fuel projects. The ban, he said, would be “the first stone in a green wall of resistance against fossil fuel facilities on the West Coast.”
But with a crude oil terminal ban looking like a distinct possibility for Baltimore, Hale’s vision of a green wall could spread well beyond the West Coast.
“I don’t know that we would have pushed through this zoning code strategy if not for what was happening on the West Coast,” Kuze said. “It has been really inspiring to see the progress that Portland and Vancouver and Whatcom [county] have made on taking local leadership on this issue.”
Unlike Portland’s ban, which prohibits nearly all kinds of fossil fuel infrastructure, Baltimore’s ban would narrowly focus on crude oil export terminals, adding them to a list of banned facilities that currently includes things like nuclear power plants and trash incinerators. The proposal has already survived two rounds of voting in city council — one in a smaller committee and one before the entire council — and is heading to a final full council vote on March 12. If it is passed, it then heads to the mayor’s desk for a signature.
But far from representing the final action on the matter, proponents of the policy hope that the mayor’s signature would kick off a wave of local action similar to what is currently happening in the Northwest. The hope is that it will inspire nearby communities to enact their own crude oil bans — a movement that proponents argue could help make a dent in the amount of oil train traffic that passes through the region.
“It’s not only Baltimore City,” Allen said. “I hope that the surrounding Maryland counties as well as any other state and jurisdiction that runs these kinds of crude oil trains will band together and talk to their legislators about how dangerous this is.”
https://thinkprogress.org/baltimore-crude-oil-ban-2a00dab1d1ec/
-
D.C. Circuit Signals Crude-by-Rail Fee Dispute May Be Moot
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
A refining group's quest to revive its complaint over a surcharge imposed by one of the nation's largest freight rail networks for transporting crude oil may have come up against an impenetrable wall: Congress.
Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today suggested the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers' lawsuit may be moot thanks to a 2015 law.
AFPM is challenging BNSF Railway Co.'s decision to impose a $1,000 tariff on the use of older oil tank cars known as DOT-111s that lack certain safety features.
But as part of the 2015 FAST Act, lawmakers set a schedule for phasing out DOT-111 cars for transporting crude. The deadline was Jan. 1.
"I don't see why this case is still alive," said Judge Gregory Katsas, the D.C. Circuit's only Trump appointee, at oral arguments this morning.
BNSF set its flat, $1,000 surcharge on the older tank cars shortly before the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration published a final 2015 rule that would phase out their use for transporting crude oil.
PHMSA issued the rule because of the growth in demand for crude by rail and the increased risk of train accidents involving the high-hazard material.
AFPM contends the railway company imposed the surcharge to force immediate use of newer tank cars by making it uneconomical to use DOT-111s during the transition period.
The group brought a complaint against BNSF to the Surface Transportation Board, which governs railway rates and practices (Energywire, May 3, 2016). AFPM appealed to the D.C. Circuit after the Surface Transportation Board dismissed the complaint.
"The tariff's point is clear: BNSF does not want shippers to use DOT-111s on its lines, and has imposed a financial penalty for the continued use of authorized DOT-111 tank cars," the refining group said in court documents.
AFPM and the Surface Transportation Board sparred today over whether Congress, which accelerated PHMSA's phaseout schedule in the 2015 highway law, had since mooted the case.
"We believe there is a strong argument that the case is moot," said Carolyn Chachkin, an attorney for the Surface Transportation Board.
But Sean Marotta, an attorney at Hogan Lovells who is representing the refining group, argued that there was still room for the judges to weigh in on the case.
"The legal question is going to recur," Marotta said. He added: "There is nothing that AFPM has done that's created the mootness in this case."
Marotta urged judges to issue a declaratory judgment that could later be used by individual refiners to seek damages for tank-car fees.
The legal question at the heart of the case is whether the Surface Transportation Board erred when it found AFPM should have filed a rate challenge, rather than challenging the tariff as a "practice."
A rate challenge is a much more complex and lengthy process than a challenge to a railway's practice.
The Surface Transportation Board argues that it's bound by a 1989 case in which the D.C. Circuit weighed the reasonableness of fees for transporting spent nuclear fuel.
The court overturned the STB predecessor's decision to review the fee as a practice, instead relegating it to the rate challenge regime.
The three-judge panel today appeared to struggle with the scope of that ruling and how it applies to BNSF's fee. "It's admittedly a gray area between rates and practices," Katsas said.
Marotta argued that AFPM wasn't challenging the monetary amount of the fee but the railway operator's decision to impose any fee at all.
"Even a $1 surcharge would still be improper," he said. "It's about that you have this improper purpose in trying to coerce shippers."
The court is expected to issue a ruling within the coming months.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/09/stories/1060075937
-
Nearly Invisible Rust Caused D.C. Metro Derailment
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
An outside consultant found that the recent derailment of a Metro train in Washington was caused by rust on the underside of a steel rail that couldn't be seen with visual inspection or ultrasonic scanning technology, Metro officials said at a board meeting yesterday.
Three rear cars on a Red Line train carrying 63 passengers derailed Jan. 15. No one was injured, but the train was damaged (Greenwire, Jan. 16).
"The report states that this type of failure would have been undetectable with conventional ultrasonic testing, as it will not pick up a corrosion pit in the base of the rail," Chief Safety Officer Patrick Lavin said, as he tried to reassure board members that Metro's safety is improving.
The rust caused corrosion pitting, leading a piece of steel rail to snap as a train passed over, he said. Outside consultants determined that conventional methods wouldn't have picked up on the problem, according to Metro officials.
Metro also plans to revamp its track inspection protocol, Metro officials told the board, after The Washington Post reported that defects flagged by federal inspectors as urgent "code black" problems were often downgraded by Metro.
The downgrading stemmed from "confusing" terminology, Lavin said. Officials will alter a track inspection manual to better align the terminology of federal inspectors with that of Metro, he said (Martine Powers, Washington Post, March 8).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/09/stories/1060075931
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested