climate change, energy policy

Common Dreams: Despite Climate Warnings, New Export Rules Open Crude Oil Floodgates

Leave a comment
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/31/despite-climate-warnings-new-export-rules-open-crude-oil-floodgates
Published on
Wednesday, December 31, 2014

The loosened regulations will reportedly ‘please domestic oil drillers, foreign trade partners, and some Republicans’

Opening the door to U.S. crude exports is expected to give relief to some domestic drillers who have been forced to sell their shale oil at a discount of as much as $15 a barrel versus global markets as fast-rising domestic supplies overwhelm local demand. (Photo: WildEarth Guardians/flickr/cc)

Despite warnings about how such a move could accelerate climate change, the Obama administration has quietly loosened its regulations on crude oil exports, “opening the floodgates” for the shipment of as much as a million barrels per day of ultra-light crude, also known as condensate, to the rest of the world.

The obscure rule change by the Department of Commerce “will likely please domestic oil drillers, foreign trade partners and some Republicans who have urged Obama to loosen the export ban,” Reuters reports. “The latest measures were wrapped in regulatory jargon and couched by some as a basic clarification of existing rules, but analysts said the message was unambiguous: a green light for any company willing and able to process their light condensate crude through a distillation tower, a simple piece of oilfield kit.”

According to Bloomberg:

The guidelines could “open the floodgates to substantial increases in exports,” Citigroup Inc. said in a research note. Total U.S. production of light and ultra-light crude oil now exceeds 3.81 million barrels a day, and exports could reach 1 million barrels daily by the end of 2015, Citi Research said.

…In addition to approving applications, the government also allows companies to “self-certify,” that is, to export their products without seeking the permission if they think the law allows for the exchange.

Officials were quick to point out that most untreated crude is still covered by the existing ban.

“It’s a long way from here to a full repeal of the export ban, and they went out of their way to stipulate that this is not, in their view, crude oil,” Jeff Navin, a former deputy chief of staff at the Energy Department, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg. “But it does show how they’re thinking about exporting at least some of our light products.”

But earlier this year, environmental watchdogs warned that any loosening of the decades-old ban on crude oil exports could lead to the release of billions of tons of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“Allowing U.S. crude oil exports will result in increased profits that will in turn result in increased oil production,” read a report (pdf) by Oil Change International, Lifting the Ban, Cooking the Climate. “In the midst of President Obama’s ‘All of the Above’ energy strategy, the ban on crude oil exports is one of the few policies in place that effectively limits oil and gas extraction and protects our climate. The Obama Administration and the U.S. Congress must take a stand for the climate and resolve to leave the crude oil export ban intact.”

As Andy Rowell, of Oil Change International, pointed out in October, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has recommended against lifting the ban, saying greenhouse gas emissions would rise if the ban was lifted—an outcome with serious implications for the climate and environment.

“It is important to remember what the GAO said last week in its report,” Rowell wrote. “It argued that ‘additional crude oil production may pose risks to the quality and quantity of surface groundwater sources; increase greenhouse gas and other emissions; and increase the risk of spills from crude oil transportation’.”

fracking

Progress Florida: Sign Petition to Support S.B. 166 to Ban Fracking in Florida

Leave a comment

The oil and gas lobbyists will stop at nothing to open up our state to fracking, endangering our communities. As a member of the Florida Senate who represents a district that includes our beloved Everglades, I see fracking as a real and immediate threat to our state, and that’s why I need your help.

Sign the petition urging my colleagues in the Florida Legislature to support SB 166, which would ban fracking statewide.

Sen. Darren Soto and I introduced this bill with the hope that Floridians would raise their voices on this issue, and they’re doing just that. I’m truly grateful for Progress Florida and the thousands of Floridians who have already declared their support for this important legislation.

Check out Mark Ferrulo’s email from last week for additional background on what’s at stake. I hope you’ll add your name to the petition and join this critical campaign today. Thanks for all you do to both protect and move our state forward.

For Florida,

Senator Dwight Bullard
District 39

 

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Mark Ferrulo, Progress Florida <info@progressflorida.org>
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:41 AM
Subject: Fracking ban introduced!

We’re at an important moment in the debate over fracking in the Florida Everglades: Senators Darren Soto (D-Orlando) and Dwight Bullard (D-Miami) have introduced SB 166, a statewide ban on this dangerous threat to our land and water and the health of our communities.

Sign our petition to the Florida Legislature saying you support a ban on fracking in Florida, and let’s build momentum behind this important legislation.

Progress Florida has been fighting fracking in our state throughout the year. We’ve helped demonstrate that it’s possible to make progress on this critical issue despite a governor and legislative leadership soaked in Big Oil’s money. Earlier this year, we helped stop two bills in the legislature that would have denied the public’s right to know what chemicals are pumped into the ground during the fracking process. When an illegal acid fracking operation was discovered on endangered panther habitat in the western Everglades, we helped convince the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to pull all drilling permits for the offending company, Hughes Co.

The victories have had an important impact on the debate over fracking. Now that a statewide ban has been introduced, we can’t afford to let up now. Let’s support Sens. Soto and Bullard in this critical effort.

Tell the legislature you support a statewide ban on fracking to protect the Florida we love.

As Sen. Bill Nelson wrote to state environmental officials over the summer, “We cannot tolerate expanded industrial drilling activities that pose a threat to the drinking and surface water so close to the Florida Everglades.” The same goes for the rest of our state. Thanks for your help.

For progress,

Mark and the rest of the Progress Florida team

Keystone XL

Center for Biologic Diversity: Urgent: Tell the Senate to Stop Keystone XL Now

Leave a comment
Keystone XL protest

We’ve reached a critical moment in our fight against the Keystone XL pipeline.

On Tuesday the U.S. Senate will decide whether to force through an approval of this dirty and dangerous project — and we urgently need your help to stop it.

The threat has never been so real. The usual Republican supporters of Keystone may be joined by some Democrats who are supported by Big Oil, and the vote will be very close to the 60 votes needed for a filibuster-proof majority. The House passed a similar bill yesterday.

If Keystone XL is approved, it will transport more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands oil through the heartland of America each day — threatening our communities, water, wildlife and wild places. The pipeline will unlock the potential for a drastic increase in production of Canadian tar sands oil, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, and push us toward climate chaos for generations to come. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Don’t let politicians beholden to oil interests hijack this decision. Please take two minutes to call your senators and urge them to vote no on S.2280 — or any bill that would approve Keystone XL.

You can reach your senators here if you live in Florida:

Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. Marco Rubio


Otherwise, use the capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Here’s a sample script you can use for your call:

Hello, my name is __________, and I’m from __________. I’m calling to urge the senator to vote no on S.2280 — or any bill that approves Keystone XL.

This dangerous, polluting project would threaten our air, water, wildlife and climate while providing no more than a few dozen permanent jobs.

There is a pending decision before the Nebraska Supreme Court about the legality of the pipeline’s route. This case should be heard, and the president should make the ultimate decision on whether the project is in the public interest.

Thank you.

Donate now to support the Center’s work.

Photo of Keystone XL protest by Tar Sands Action

climate change, energy policy, fracking, Keystone XL

Mediaite.com: Why Obama Should Veto the Keystone XL Pipeline

Leave a comment
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-obama-should-veto-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/
by Matt Wilstein | 2:52 pm, November 14th, 2014 VIDEO 444

On Friday afternoon, the House of Representatives voted for the ninth time to approve a bill directing President Barack Obama to take action on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Next Tuesday, the Senate will hold a similar vote that is expected to pass. But it is looking increasingly likely that Obama will veto the bill when it reaches his desk. And he should.

“I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas prices,” the president said at a press conference in Myanmar Friday morning. “Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else.”

Watch video below, via CNN:

 

Republicans in Congress — along with some Democrats like Mary Landrieu, who is now leading the charge for the pipeline in the Senate in a last ditch effort to save her seat — point to a State Department report that says the project will not have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions because the Canadian oil is likely to be extracted at a similar rate with or without the pipeline. Meanwhile, they argue that it will create a large number of American jobs. Of course, for conservatives who don’t believe in man-made climate change, even one job is probably worth more any potential decrease in emissions.

But, as Obama said earlier today, Keystone is not some “massive jobs bill” that is going to solve America’s (diminishing) unemployment problem. Republicans love to cite the State Department report on the pipeline’s environmental impact, but you are not going to hear them talking as much about the section that covers job creation. That’s because while the report estimates the pipeline will create 42,100 jobs annually, only 16,100 of those are directly connected to the pipeline (the rest are predicted to be the result of a “ripple” effect of the project).

But as CBS News’ Amy Picchi points out in a piece published today, those jobs will only exist for the two years during which the pipeline is being built. After that, the State Department estimates there would only be 35 permanent employees needed for the operational phase.

And when the president stated that Keystone won’t lower gas prices, he could have also mentioned that it might actually raise them. In April, Bloomberg’s Tom Randall reported that “in Keystone’s weirdonomics, the pipeline would actually increase prices of gasoline for much of the country, according to at least three studies that have looked into it.” Basically, because the oil would be bypassing Midwest refineries in favor of the Gulf, where it can be shipped to more lucrative overseas markets, there will be less oil to be had here at home, therefore increasing prices for American consumers.

So, the Keystone XL pipeline will not create any long-term jobs and could actually make gas more expensive in the U.S. But what about the environmental impact? While the State Department has said that the project will likely not significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, it definitely will not decrease them, which is what America and the rest of the world needs to be doing in order to avert the worst case scenarios of climate change. On top of that, construction of the pipeline greatly increases the risk of a massive oil spill on U.S. soil.

Ultimately, the Keystone XL pipeline represents more than a simple construction project. It is about the decision to move forward on renewable energy or remain stuck in the past for generations to come, extracting every last bit of crude oil out of the ground until there’s nothing left. As long as Obama is still president, he has the ability to send a message to world that despite the modest benefits Keystone might bring, it is not worth the risks and would send the United States down a long path in the wrong direction.

[Photo via screengrab]

energy policy, marine pollution, offshore oil

The Hill: Opinion | Op-Ed Offshore drilling — the Keystone pipeline of the sea by David Helvarg

Leave a comment

Offshore drilling — the Keystone pipeline of the sea

While half a million people marched in New York and across the nation for climate action this fall and the U.S. launched a new air war in the oil-rich Middle East, President Obama moved forward on one of his least noted but potentially highest impact energy decisions.

Beginning this past summer the Department of Interior has been quietly accepting applications from oil companies to start seismic testing for oil and gas deposits off the eastern seaboard between Delaware and Florida as well as in new areas of the Gulf of Mexico and Arctic Ocean. This decision will open the way for five-year lease sales scheduled to begin in 2017. Like the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, new offshore oil drilling could threaten increased pollution, continued fossil fuel dependence and climate disaster. Environmentalists are also concerned about death and impairment to whales, dolphins and other marine wildlife from the high-volume sonic cannons used in the surveys. The government itself estimates the testing could impact 138,000 marine mammals.

I recently asked Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell why, given all these factors, they were proceeding with this. Her reply, “It’s important to know what we have … and I think anyone would suggest that reducing dependence on foreign oil is good.”But is there an alternative to the Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy strategy that, along with solar subsidies and fracking, could picket the East Coast with offshore oil platforms and risk a BP type disaster in the frontier waters of the Arctic Ocean? There is. It’s called California.

“Get Oil Out” was the battle cry against offshore drilling following the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill, a disaster that helped launch the modern environmental movement. Forty years later, when President Obama sent his first Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to San Francisco to hold hearings on new leasing in 2009, the opposition remained unified and vociferous.

More than 500 people including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the lieutenant governor and four House members testified and rallied for clean energy and against any new offshore oil drilling. Boxer noted that the coast was a treasure and a huge economic asset “just as is,” generating $24 billion a year and 390,000 California jobs.  This, along with a recent strongly worded anti-drilling letter sent to Secretary Jewel from the three West Coast governors, explains why the administration is willing to open up the Eastern Seaboard for the first time ever but ignore the Pacific Coast. “If the states don’t want it, it’s more likely you’ll concentrate where they do,” Secretary Jewell explained. In other words the administration’s energy decisions will be based not on science but on politics, with the biggest drilling conflicts now likely to emerge around Virginia, Alaska, Georgia and the Carolinas.

The best available science already indicates that in order to avoid catastrophic impacts from climate change — if global temperatures rise above 2 degrees Celsius as they are now expected to — we have to choose not to tap two-thirds of the world’s known petroleum reserves.

California as a society has chosen to leave its offshore oil under the seabed, increase its energy efficiency and conservation and, with carbon pricing through cap-and-trade, begin a needed transition to clean energy including wind, solar and hydro.  This has also sparked a wave of innovation, from the Tesla electric car, to Google smart cables for bringing offshore wind power onshore, to solar powered wave gliding sea drones for research and national defense.

While the President’s Climate Action Plan for coal-fired utility emissions would reduce greenhouse gases by some 2 billion tons, there could be 30 times those emissions from the burning of all the estimated offshore oil reserves set to be surveyed and leased in the next few years. And the incentive to keep drilling remains huge for companies like BP, Exxon, Shell and Chevron since the U.S. government (along with other oil and gas producing nations such as Iran, Iraq and Russia) has failed to follow California’s lead by putting a price on carbon.

While Barack Obama talks a good game on climate and innovation it looks increasingly likely that seeing the end of offshore drilling won’t happen until California’s old battle cry of ‘Get Oil Out’ is heard from sea to shining sea. People will also need to make it an issue in the 2016 elections since this president, while willing to battle terrorists on the blood soaked sands of the Middle East, lacks the will to stand up to Big Oil.

 

Helvarg is an author and executive director of Blue Frontier, a marine conservation group. His latest book is The Golden Shore — California’s Love Affair with the Sea.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi