EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
BP Fights to Limit Controls on Shale Gas Drilling
Oil company wants to see off potential opposition from US Environmental Protection Agency
The London-based oil company wants decisions on drilling techniques such as hydraulic fracturing – which uses high-pressure liquids to force fissures – to be taken at state level, rather than being left to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whose specialist committee meets on Wednesday to discuss its concerns.
Environmental groups fear that the chemicals used in fracturing are highly toxic and are worried about them filtering into reservoirs. (REUTERS/Dylan Martinez) BP is also opposed to the public disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing, on the basis that the information is commercially sensitive – something that will anger environmentalists, who are highly suspicious of the process.
Although BP was unable to comment, the New York Times published a "discussion draft" said to have been produced by BP which says: "States with existing oil and gas regulatory programmes have the authority to and are best situated to continue regulating hydraulic fracturing processes and procedures."
Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, said in a recent speech that abundant shale gas had the potential to transform the US's dependence on foreign gas imports.
The shale gas deposits have been known about for decades but recent technological developments have opened the way for supplies to be exploited in North America – and potentially in Europe and Asia.
Environmental groups fear that the chemicals used in fracturing are highly toxic and are worried about them filtering into reservoirs.
Oil companies have found significant shale deposits in New York state and Pennsylvania, close to densely populated areas. Requests to drill have met opposition from green groups, as well as from local politicians.
But the EPA is seen as an even tougher potential opponent. The environmental engineering committee of the agency's science advisory board is scheduled to meet on 7 and 8 April to evaluate "fracking", as it is known.
The EPA is well known to BP, having recently challenged a permit given by the state of Indiana allowing the company to expand its Whiting refinery for use as a centre for treating crude from the controversial Canadian tar sands.
BP was once seen as one of the most environmentally conscious oil companies but that reputation is now under strain as it becomes a vocal supporter of and active participant in the carbon-intensive tar sands extraction in Canada.
The green rhetoric of its former chief executive Lord Browne has been toned down since Hayward took the reins three years ago, although the company retains the use of the slogan "Beyond petroleum" – adopted under Browne's leadership – for some of its activities.
Hayward has promised to boost annual profits at BP by $3bn (£2bn) over the next two or three years and committed the company to increasing production by 1%-2% a year until 2015.
BP will face further questions about its attitude to the environment when directors appear before shareholders at the annual meeting next week.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show Allit is nice to see that at least a newspaper in a city 3000 miles across the ocean is concerned about the Marcellus shale drillers in Western Pennsylvania.
The idea that they subject us to unknown poisons in our water in the name of a "trade secret" is filthy and vile.
No more pleading with these capitalists to be nice. Someone need to get this information even if threats of, or actual use of, deadly force is needed.
The papers here are too busy filling us with endless rhetoric about tea partier v.s mainstream Democrat instead of alerting us to things that are actually poisoning us like environmental depredation. And it doesn't help of course when we on the activist left play along by putting 3 comments here and 300 on the items about MSM ginned up "controversies."
Of course it's easier to pick on an out group than deal with a depressing real issue like this idn't it?
PLEASE sign this petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/stop-unregulated-natural-gas-drilling
Done,
we may disagree on a few things pjd but I'd never let that get in the way of doing the real work.
As of current, there isn't much in the way of environmental regulations as it is. My guess is that BP and the rest of Big Oil are going desperate because Peak Oil is catching up to our global economy that is currently tied to and entrenched in oil. In the past, Big Oil never had to be this desperate about winning their business deals with the crooked politicians and DOE idiots. I have friends who work for the Dept of Energy and they know exactly how Big Oil wins every time. The environmentalists and proponents of alternative technologies such as solar and wind come to the meeting feeling all riled up and ready to be reactive while the Big Oil crooks come feeling like they know they'll win. Meetings start out and the idiots in the dept are dumb and dull to the core ready to accept anything that's appealing to them. The green technology guys try to make their case on the need to switch but the Big Oil crooks easily slip banana peels for the good guys to slip on. They'll say "but solar costs more money... maintenance isn't easy... and ..." and they'll make the good guys lose their calm. The good guys react and try to make it clear that Big Oil is lying and pushing for more environmental destruction but Big Oil finds ways to win over the dept people at the meetings on the money. By the end of the meeting, Big Oil and the dept idiots are happy to do business while the good guys are framed into saying "yup yup" in conceding to defeat. The environmentalists and the green technology advocates need to find a balance between appealing on both the money and the environment or Big Oil wins every time.
>>My guess is that BP and the rest of Big Oil are going desperate because Peak Oil is catching up to our global economy that is currently tied to and entrenched in oil. In the past, Big Oil never had to be this desperate about winning their business deals with the crooked politicians and DOE idiots.
There is actually a GLUT Of natural Gas on the market which is causing prices to plummet. So it makes me wonder why the all out rush to find new sources while the price so low? Would it not make more sense to study the science first so as to ensure there no threat to the enviroment?
Then I am reminded of something an exec said at Exxon several years back in a meeting to Shareholders. There were concerns that not enough of Exxon controlled oil reserves were being delivered to market. He more or less stated that by NOT producing the Oil for market and choosing to sit on it instead, Share Prices in Exxon went UP due to the total value of the resources under their control going up.
I expect this behind the mad rush to find all this Natural Gas. They will find it....sit on it and watch the prices for it climb , thus increasing shareholder value. If you sit on 20 TCF for twenty years find 10 TCF more in reserves and then watch the price double and triple , you have yourself better then a Gold Mine.
The more of the "Free not found" natural gas that is locked up by these handful of Companies, the more they can manipulate the price in the best of Capitalist traditions.
The Government looks good too. As the price is manipulated upwards this is reflected in increased GDP numbers when the economy starts to consume it at that higher price.
I thought that the so-called oil glut of the 1980s was all pure bunk given that oil production in the US peaked in the 1970s. Given what you described about those oil tycoon goons, it's no coincidence that the little guy is basically prohibited from growing oil even from algae. I can only hope that Peak Oil comes sooner since politicians don't want to put a damper on Big Oil from US or Canada.
"As of current, there isn't much in the way of environmental regulations as it is."
There isn't much in the way of environmental regulations?
The rivers here in western Pennsylvania didn't turn from red-acid stained, sewage filled and lifeless, back into clean inviting waters filled with fish where they have bass masters tournaments, over just a couple decades, if there weren't any regulations.
And automobiles emit only a tiny fraction of the NO, CO and HC's that cars in the 1960's did. This didn't happen without regulations either.
Power plant and industrial emissions are also likewise heavily reduced - although not enough for some pollutants - particularly mercury and heavy metals.
The only thing we need to do now is recognize that CO2 form any fossil source is a pollutant that must be regulated too.
And of course, remove the Halliburton exemption for oil and gas drilling.
The regulations that you are referring to appear to have been weakened or gotten rid of slowly ever since the 1980s. What am I missing here?
As for CO2, oil from algae has the chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil but it carbon neutral so it can replace a significant amount of fossil fuels and then it's just a matter of reducing for oil in all sorts of ways.
"The regulations that you are referring to appear to have been weakened or gotten rid of slowly ever since the 1980s. What am I missing here?"
I am a civil engineer who works for and with regulatory agencies, and none of the regulations promulgated by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and thw Safe Drinking Water Act have been weakenbed or gotten rid of. The environment IS much cleaner than 30 years ago - with one, very big exception - grenhouse gases, and now in some areas, oil and gas drilling, both of which are excmpt from the above acts.
In you local area, the air may have gotten dirtier due to the very large increases in car usage, which have offset the far lower emissions (except CO2) of the cars.
You are starting to sound like AVE fan with that algae stuff. The best solution, which whould increase quality of life in so many other ways, is to move to (really return to) communities where cars aren't needed. And don't buy the notion that people will refuse to live in such communities, since nearly everyone who gets a taste of such communities love them.
"I am a civil engineer who works for and with regulatory agencies, and none of the regulations promulgated by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and thw Safe Drinking Water Act have been weakenbed or gotten rid of."
That is good stuff, thanks for your public service.
It probably explains the contradiction though between your self started Troskyism and your rush to defend policies by the Dims though IMO.
"The best solution, which whould increase quality of life in so many other ways, is to move to (really return to) communities where cars aren't needed. And don't buy the notion that people will refuse to live in such communities, since nearly everyone who gets a taste of such communities love them."
I also agree there. What is AVE?
Isn't biofuel properly done somewhat better than fossil fuel in the taken up a roughly equal amount of C02 to what is released when burned? While I think burning crops as fuel is wrong, and agree walking and biking are better as is seen in downtown Curitiba Brazil, might algae fuel be a good interim solution on the way there? Just a thought...
I am not defending any democrat policiies. None recently anyway.
Aknowleging the reality of the passage of the health care bill while figuring ways to move forward, and make lemonade with the lemons tat got handed to us, is not "defending" the bill any more than figuring how to move forward and make improvements after being devastated by a tornado is "defending" the tornado. The bills passage is un-reversable reality, just like a storm passage. Understand?
As far as AVE, a poster here by the nick "AVE fan" used to always comes here pushing a probably-impractical energy generating concept called a "atmosphereic vortex engine". I see a common phenomenon here where people will cling to a simple solve-all solution, and push it ad-nauseum. And invariably, their solve-all solution seems to be finely tuned to keep the proponent from making changes in their lifestyle.
Biofuel from algae or other non-food crops is carbon neutral and will eventually have to be developed. But I sispect the algae farms (one version is to farm them in huge plastic "bags" floating in the open ocean) needed to support current fuel demand would be so huge that there could be very large impacts.
Much closer to home, there places like Portland, OR (don't know enough about Portland ME), San Francisco, Burlington VT, New York of course, and some parts of Pittsburgh where it is easy (liberating really) to live without a car.
Good post, I can't really overall disagree with anything you said there other than being more pessimistic about the health care bill than you, but we've certainly beat that dead horse enough already IMO.
"Atmospheric vortex engine" does sound like some serious quackery. :)
More public transport and walking and biking are IMO are large part of the solution in urban areas. I lived without a car in San Francisco and Boston and it was no sweat. Sadly it's quite a bit harder here in the dying rust belt midwest where everything was built spread out assuming we'd be doing happy motoring as Jim Knustler calls it forever. :(
Yeah. I recently drove off-the-interstate from Marion, IL to Princeton, IN and the towns in-between. This is a coal mining belt (all underground in this area) plus a suprising number of oil wells and oil drilling. Fertile farm land too - although the subsidence from the longwall mining is damaging a lot of farm land. Like any area that relies on resource extraction, average citizens aren't doing very well. In every town, the downtowns and walkable parts of town were pretty much all abandoned and boarded up. No small family-owned businesses anywhere. One couldchalk this up to theeconomy, but there is planty of economic activity was on the un-walkable, commercial strips and by-passes on the outskirts - Applebees, Wal-mart, and the rest.
One of the things I like about Pennsylvania is that most towns and small citys still have working walkable downtowns with family-ownded shops for almost anything you need - especiallty a drink, but that' another topic.
pjd, thanks for the details on the emissions. My place has plenty of gas guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks and I saw it on the rise ever since 2004 thanks to the loophole on giving tax breaks to the guzzlers.
I don't know what you mean by AVE fan but who would not be a lover of algal oil once they find out that it gives us the chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil and is carbon neutral? As an added bonus, since it would cost more to keep up with the demand for oil, that will automatically force the guzzlers off the road and hence reduced demand? No need to drill-drill-drill, bomb a nation for oil, invent those silly carbon taxes, or bash suburban areas completely. Here's to prove my love for algal oil:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/making-renewabl/
I understand the downsides of suburbs but there are some bright spots as well. The closer a portion of a suburb is to the city, the less I see in car traffic compared to the exurbs and the rural areas.
I"m in NY state surrounded by this controversy. We protest on Mondays and have had some of it directed towared stopping this criminal act called fracking. There are groups very involved with local and state officials also, working toward the same ends. My thing is that even with regs developed to be a buffer, watch dog what have you, they will find ways to go around them or break them with no consequences anyway. Corporations always do. They do not give a shit. Like the asshole CEO or president what ever of the oil company on CNN or MSNBC a few nights ago. He was at a press conference regarding the, Obama, okay to drill, in all these new places. Someone(reporter?) asked him "What about the environmental cost?" His response was something like this;
" Look, global warming may very well exist, but it is not a problem, it is a minor glitch."
I wish I had been next to him, I would have punched his lights out.
But since I wasn't, I will continue to protest-on the street, in mail ( letter to Obama, senator etc.). I AM JUST GETTING STARTED. I will write, send petitions, join groups, make my own, and have been trying to recruit for major marches. We all need to make ourselves heard.
The most important thing is to try our hardes to not be part of the poisonous, consumer oriented, materialistic system. The way our economy is set up, if you have a family and have only just become aware the last few years, it makes it difficult to completely sepreate from it. We have done some small steps. I am not satisfied. I will feel better as we work to seperate even more. It's not easy because kids and even husbands don't always agree with everything that needs to be done. But I amslowly wearing them down...
Thanks for protesting!!!!! Much appreciated, lets keep the pressure on the suits in the suites on all fronts!
I really don't think stopping gas well drilling altogether is realistic. Like most poeple, I stay warm in winter and cook my food with gas. But there are methods to assure it can be done without contaminating whole watersheds. We just need to get the drillers to comply with the same water quality regulations that other businesses have to.
This helps illustrate one of the weaknesses of a Federated State as opposed to a Unitary one.
In a Federation wherein each state/province sets their own enviromental standards, the Corporation can play one jurisdiction off against the next in order to both of them lower standards.
Thus if a New York State has restrictions that the Corporation deems too onerous , then it can threaten to move all operations to Pennsylvania.
The water still gets polluted.
Now the hard part is convincing a given population that the job losses that will occur if a BP packed up and left would be worth it and by the same token for the population receiving all those new "jobs" that it not in their best interests.
Here the Corporation can play its trump card, continuing to ridicule or dismiss the science showing that what they do is harmful. The element of doubt tends to convince a given population that the new jobs worth the risk to the enviroment.
How about breaking it down with bioregionalism, some of the most messed up polluted area are unitary nation states as in China and eastern Europe.
Too True, in the Unitary state if the Central Government is not concerned about the Enviroment, then the whole country is sacrificed. I expect this the ultimate goal of the Globalists.
So what does it take to get a given state to more like a Sweden or a Finland?
I suspect it will happen naturally as we run out of oil. I try to look ahead at a 20 year time horizon and not get too caught up in day to day battles. I fight those as well by say signing a petition but I don't let that keep my eye off the ball of the whole society in the long term for very long. It may not be the 7 generations some Native AMericans looked ahead, but I think it's a start.
IMO the media keeps us caught up into a day to day churn of daily *mini disasters, be afraid the militias are coming!!!!!! Etc.
IMO it behooves us to not get too caught up in the hype.
*It's really just Naomi Kleins disaster capitalism zoomed in on the time scale.
I live in the Cayuga watershed. We are having big troubles with this.