The Rachel Maddow Show on the ExxonMobil Spill in Montana and Pipeline Safety

Once again the feisty Ms. Maddow breaks down the facts and fiction of big oil in this recent segment of the TRMS, including an interview with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer-D.

Schweitzer is also a soil scientist and he's signaled a zero tolerance for any shenanigans from ExxonMobil. Something to keep in mind about him though is that he is a big proponent of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Notable statistics on pipelines in the US:

The energy and transportation network of the United States consists of more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines. These pipelines are operated by more than 3.000 private, small and large companies. According to the federal DOT this network includes approximately:

• 168,900 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines

• 320,500 miles of gasoline transmission pipelines

• 2,200,000 miles of natural gas pipelines

Most of the pipeline system in the US in antiquated, forty years plus for some major lines running from Texas to the northeast, and buried only to depths of 3-6 feet in many areas.

The PIPES Act of 2006 was enacted to strengthen regulations and improve safety while protecting our nation's energy supply. Still, the amount of federal inspectors remains low, around 100 employed with positions for 135. That doesn't solve the additional problem of a decrease in state budgets, resulting in less available money for their own programs and inspectors. Less money equals less inspectors and more infrequent inspections.

If you look at recent stats, states are responsible for pipeline safety covering over 92% of 1.9 million miles of gas distribution piping in the nation, 29% of 300,000 miles of gas transmission and 32% of 166,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. If you figure that into budget cuts, furloughs of some workers and a dismal state economic outlook, it can become a real challenge.

Couple that with compliance issues and violations resulting in frequently non-existent civil penalties on a state level (Alabama is linked) and there's a recipe for disaster in the making by not using available civil penalty compensation to help the state programs remain solvent. ADEM uses this tactic as a means to keep their state agency funded, why doesn't the Alabama PSC also do the same with in-state pipeline violations?

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of pipeline safety was discovered by investigative reporting from the San Francisco Chronicle revealing that 2/3 of the safety studies used by federal agencies were funded by pipeline operators:

Industry's access guaranteed influence. The studies launched by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration helped mold national and state safety rules and inspection procedures for 2.3 million miles of pipelines that carry natural gas and hazardous liquids, some underneath neighborhoods.

Three deadly accidents in the past three years involved decades-old pipelines that might have been replaced - saving lives - had the outcomes of the federal agency's research, and the policies they influenced, been different.

The Chronicle's reporting shows who's really in charge of the hen house--the foxes and their corporate lobbyists influencing Capitol Hill to go along with their own biased information and studies  Corporate interests and public interests are rarely aligned in their purposes, and the issue of our aging pipeline infrastructure should be a wake up call to all of us.

Handing responsibility for safety over to the same entities you are supposed to be regulating for the public good is not only foolish, it's ripe for corruption and a deliberate misinformation campaign that ends with proven deadly consequences. 

 Subscribe in a reader

'Elvis' Has Not Left the Building

Mississippi 'Elvis'--Haley Barbour

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour left the presidential stage in favor of the more familiar big business defender stage according to his recent testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform last Thursday:

"Sometimes the federal government is not the easiest group to do business with," Barbour said. "In fairness to BP...everything we asked them to do. they considered, and almost every time, they did."

Barbour goes on to assert the "rest of the country is sucking the Gulf dry and we get nothing." Nothing Mr. Barbour or just not enough to suit your expensive appetite? Gulf states receive hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties from wells in the Gulf, and rather than blame Obama and the democrats, perhaps Mr. Barbour should go after the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the outmoded system they use to determine royalty shares. 

The MMS acts as a partner to big oil and gas rather than the regulatory collection agency for states royalties. Their controversial history ranges from pervasive corruption to sexual scandals that's became so bad Ken Salazar, at President Obama's instruction, ordered a review of the MMS in 2009. How did the MMS become so ineffective? It happened during the Bush years according to a statement from Ken Salazar:

"The president has made it clear that the type of ethical transgressions, blatant conflicts of interest, wastes and abuses that we have seen over the past eight years, will no longer be tolerated."

Barbour, always the consummate showman, is being disingenuous and looking for political points while protecting his former big oil clients from harsh criticism. He's going to need a job when his term expires in Mississippi since he figured out real quick vying for president wasn't going to be a successful endeavor. He has a lot to hide and running for president opens the door on all the closets full of skeletons in a candidate's house--in short, he would have gotten clobbered on his past actions and he knew it.

BP paymaster Kenneth Feinberg also found himself worthy of Barbour's praise when the Mississippi apologist refused to harshly criticize Feinberg and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility:
"I think they're trying to do a good job. We don't get many complaints in Mississippi."
Feinberg and his law firm have made a fortune off BP from the endeavor. Barbour's also made a fortune off big oil. Anything either of them says or does could be juxtaposed to the other's talking head.

Barbour continues to heap accolades of wonderful on BP and roundly criticizes the Obama administration and caution with everything he's got. When the administration ordered BP to put $20 billion in escrow to cover claims resulting from the spill, Barbour cried foul and thought better use of the money would be reinvesting the funds in exploration and drilling. People being made whole isn't as important as the lead act getting as much money as possible from royalties destined for state coffers, that allows for certain governors and their family members benefit first and foremost.

Haley Barbour knows a thing or two about benefiting through federal money from the Katrina disaster. When he says he desires to "position the Gulf states for the best possible recovery" what he really means is himself and his associates, which includes big oil.

And like big oil, Barbour is not in favor of increased regulations and wants permits to be ramped up to the pre-BP spill levels:

Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Elijah Cummings asked Barbour whether he supports an Interior Department requirement that oil companies prove they can cap a well before receiving and drilling permit.

"I would not be in favor of anything that reduces the production of domestic oil," Barbour said. "I think the risks are way too small compared to what you give up."

Barbour's mindset, while popular in certain political and business circles, is backward thinking from another era and seems out of place in the modern day of we really should know better now. He'll get cheers and applause from the audience he's playing to, but in the real post BP spill world his act is outdated and better left in the past.


*Update--"Barbour Breaks With GOP on Disaster Funding" (see Katrina link for why)

 Subscribe in a reader

Fracking Hell--The True Cost of America's Naural Gas Rush

The next time you hear the kittens and popsicles niceties from the Natural Gas Industry about how clean NG is, think again.

NY Times investigative reporting on what the real deal is, complete with explosive, confidential until now EPA documents and never released material that the gas industry does not want in the public eye.

The industry whines about increased regulations; "we're going to have to lay off workers if the regulations are tightened." Meanwhile, the companies are top heavy with fat cat executives and the profit margins for these mega companies are through the roof.

Laying off workers so the company big wigs can maintain their lavish lifestyles is almost like asking you to play a perverted game of Russian roulette-- Do you want your health or a pay check?

Why can't you have both?

Posted by Winger

 Subscribe in a reader

"Poison Fire" Trailer--Shell Oil Gas Drilling in Nigeria

Shell Oil has been notorious in the region for decades and Nigeria remains on the ever growing list of who does not profit from the "promises of community prosperity" from Big Oil and Gas. 

In 2004, the Nigerian senate ordered Shell to pay 1.5 billion dollars in compensation to communities. Shell refused. In 2006 the high court upheld the ruling. Shell appealed and, like in several hundred smaller cases against the oil companies, no money is ever paid. The appeals process drags on for years. Many Nigerian lawyers argue that the oil companies are above the law in Nigeria.

What lessons can we learn from this here in America? That big gas and oil will lie and shirk responsibility when something goes wrong? And that our legal system will help them avoid paying full compensatory damages? 
You think?

Read more here

 Subscribe in a reader

Gas Industry Secrets And A Nurse's Story--High Country News Erin Frankowski

With the debate on hydraulic fracking heating up (HuffPost Mark Ruffalo's Crusade Against Fracking article) this previous published story from High Country News, Writers On The Range Eric Frankowski deserves a second time around:

This July, an emergency room nurse named Cathy Behr wanted to tell Colorado's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission the story of how she nearly died after being exposed to a mystery chemical from a gas-patch accident.

Regulators said she wasn't scheduled to testify and they didn't want to hear it. But anyone concerned about natural gas development should listen.

Behr, who works in southern Colorado, at Durango's Mercy Regional Medical Center, fell ill last April after being exposed for 10 minutes to a gas-field worker who had come into the ER, his clothes damp and reeking. He'd come into contact with one of the "secret formulas" drillers use to hydraulically fracture oil- and gas-bearing formations.

Within minutes of inhaling the nauseating fumes coming off the worker, Behr lost her sense of smell. (She later told her story to the Durango Herald, a daily paper that has done excellent reporting on the incident: durangoherald.com.) The ER was locked down and the room ventilated by firefighters. But when Behr went home after her 12-hour shift, she still couldn't smell anything. Then the headache she'd developed got worse. A week later, her liver, heart and lungs began to shut down. She spent 30 hours in intensive care.

Read more here

The Huff Post story is well above 550 comments at last check, but this story from the High Country News' Erin Frankowski is compelling and thought provoking about the dangers of even passive exposure from fracking. 

Nothing about this process is safe, in fact it's all fracked up anyway you look at it.

What else should we expect from Halliburton?

 Subscribe in a reader

Frack MixPlex Gives Vincent Alabama Confidential and Others A Much Appreciated "Attaboy!"

And we thank them for it, along with their hard work on advancing issues that we all should care about. Kudos to our fellow like-minded bloggers and the mighty keyboards they sit behind. We would add the work of Dr. Robert Bullard as high on our own list, because without him there would be no modern day environmental justice movement.

Mixplex Environmental Justice Blogroll Note

On Martin Luther King Day (MLK Day Jan. 17, 2011), America deserves to be reminded that hard on the trail of King's Civil Rights legacy in Alabama is the way Alabama's poor have been victimized by negligent environmental law.

The daily posts of Max Shelby and his group, blogging in Alabama about the environment, politics, big business and corruption are some of the boldest independent voices writing in the U.S. on environment justice today.

If you're not following writers like Shelby's Vincent Alabama Confidential, Sharon Wilson's Bluedaze, Shelly Thomas on Futurism Now, Ken Ward Jr.'s Coal Tattoo, the late Karen Korell's Splashdown, Bill Wolfe's Wolfenotes, Amy Mall's blog on NRDC Switchboard, Rick Plitz on Climate Science Watch, and the many other personal and professional authors, videomakers, humorists, and journalists located by scrolling through these double pages: Background, Companies, Experts, Government, Legal, Opinions and Press, you are missing out on the most entertaining, free, participatory, First Amendment, punch the bully in the nose shows in this nation.

This writing takes courage and sacrifice and I want to recognize them all here on MLK Day through Shelby's 2010 post as the proudest way that we demonstrate to the World that we will manage our industries without the sacrifice of liberty by ensuring that our laws are fair and just to all.
(2011-01-14, nz.)

 Subscribe in a reader

EPA Confirms Groundwater Contamination From Hydrofracking in Parker County, Texas

After years of "no findings of groundwater contamination" from natural gas drilling, for the first time the EPA now confirms that Ranger Resources hydrofracking has contaminated wells with methane, benzene and toulene in Texas Barnett Shale formations.

Additional links within the WFAA article on the emergency order from the EPA, and much more here on the story of Ranger Resources from one of our favorite Texas warriors Sharon Wilson of Blue Daze Drilling Reform for Texas.

Intro of Sharon's article:

Range Resources lives in an alternate universe where saying something makes it true no matter the facts. Range wrote a letter where they claim the EPA met with them and agreed that they were not responsible for the garden hose turned flamethrower in Parker County. Okay, I’ll play: if saying something makes it true, then I’m a ballerina.

She's a feisty one and Texas is lucky to have her fighting for the truth about the big myth that hyrdrofracking is "safe." As usual, Texas state agencies are in denial along with Ranger Resources and the fight is on to have the EPA decide who they are going to believe: their scientific testing or the BS of the usual suspects-- the Texas Railroad Commission, TCEQ and Ranger Resources.

This case has the potential to set precedent on hydrofracking and will be very important to track to its conclusion. We are not holding our breath that the EPA and Texas politicians who write legislation for TCEQ to follow will stand tough on it though because it is political suicide to go up against big gas.

Texas big mule Governor Perry is at war with the EPA over environmental regulations and never met a big polluter he didn't like. He has done more wrong for the Lone Star state during his reign of destruction than even the "I love Halliburton" G.W. Bush did, but he follows in the same pattern of corporate enabler to great faults.

Another fracked up big business republican governor who gets rich off of federal subsidies and big polluters while his citizens suffer. Good job jackalope.

Additional stories:
Second family has to leave their home in Texas from hydrofracking.
Birmingham based Energen on the move to Texas.

Posted by Winger

 Subscribe in a reader

AP Article Disputes Gas Drilling Industry Claims That Hydrofracking Wastewater is Safe

Pennsylvania Allows Dumping of Tainted Waters From Gas Boom

Oopsy. 

Looks like someone has some explaining to do.

Of course we already knew about this but it has been brushed off as "all cases have been unproven" and they (the industry and their enablers including the EPA) have assured us (the public) that the groundwater is not being polluted and our drinking water is "safe."

Fine. Let them drink it and bathe in it instead of our children.

CBS video Pa. "Fracking Fuels Environmental Concerns"

 Subscribe in a reader

$haleionaires--We're "Fracking" Rich!

Excerpts of commentary on the recently aired CBS 60 Minutes Marcellus/Barnett Shale Natural Gas Drilling (hydraulic fracturing) segment from the James Howard Kunstler site. Go visit, he has more.

*(video follows below)

"So, last night CBS hauled Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, on board their flagship Sunday infotainment vehicle, CBS 60 Minutes, to blow a mighty wind up America’s ass (as they say in professional PR circles). America is lately addicted to lying to itself, and 60 Minutes has become the “go-to” patsy for funneling disinformation into an already hopelessly confused, wishful, delusional, US public". 

    

"McClendon told the credulous Leslie Stahl and the huge viewing audience that America “has two Saudi Arabia’s of gas.” Now, you know immediately that at least half the viewers misconstrued this statement to mean that we have two Saudi Arabia’s of gasoline."

Translation: don’t worry none about driving anywhere you like, or having to get some tiny little pansy-ass hybrid whatchamacallit car to do it in, and especially don’t pay no attention to them “green” sumbitches on the sidelines trying to sell you some kind of peak oil story…. 

"It also prepared the public to support whatever Mr. McClendon’s company wants to do, because he says his company will free America from its slavery to OPEC."

"By the way, CBS never clarified these parts of the story by the end of the show."

Good job Mr. Kunstler!
If you're offended by salty language, he may not be for you, but the tricks of Big Gas should offend you a whole helluva lot more.

The real story of what happened to the family in Texas that Ms. Stahl did not go into nearly enough. Fracking also reduced their land value from $257,330 on the 2010 tax rolls to its current value of $75,340.

Another valuable tidbit "left out" of the 60 minutes piece is that mineral rights and landownership are separate from each other in some of these shale areas, so theoretically the gas companies can just come in and take your land:
September 16, 2009, Christine Ruggiero received a call from her neighbor informing her that her fence had been cut, her horses were loose and there were bulldozers on her property. That's how she learned that Aruba Petroleum was taking almost half of their 10 acres.

They did not need to inform the Ruggiero's of their intentions and dealt only with the mineral lease owners. All they need from the landowner's is surface right's and that's where the campaign of lies begins.  

When the industry spins and says they don't exercise Eminent Domain, they're right, they don't in its legally defined use. But they don't tell you why.

 

Some observations and questions for T. Boone Pickens and his fracked up Pickens Plan:

T. Boone Pickens was on MSNBC'S Morning Joe last week hawking the Pickens Plan with his usual folksy, disarming charm and had them all on his team during the entire 9:00 segment. Not one word was said about the *environmental impacts, but plenty was said about how great and wonderful the Picken's Plan is.

"How can anybody be against this..." the MSNBC cheerleaders rah rah-ed.

...Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens says the United States ought to be producing vehicles to take advantage of domestic shale gas and break its foreign oil dependence. "This is our chance," Pickens told The Philadelphia Inquirer in an interview on the Marcellus shale. "I think it's almost divine intervention that we had all this gas show up at this time in the deal."

Here we go with that God loves pollution talk again...

What happened to the wind farm idea Mr. Pickens? Couldn't seem to get that federal support money huh? Bet you'll get a huge tax write-off from it though. Isn't your wife, Madeline Pickens, a big wild Mustang advocate? That is the Ruby Pipeline she's railing against that's cutting straight through the Mustang herds isn't it?

Don't you two even talk?

One other thing you forgot to mention, you rich old oil dinosaur, is that you are the Clean Fuels Energy Corporation (formerly the Pickens Fuel Corp.) which owns and operates natural gas fueling stations from British Columbia to the Mexican border.

But you're not in it for the money? It's a national security issue right? You're in it mostly for the good of America?

Sure you are...

NOT.

Tim Ruggiero speaks for himself and explains the lies of Big Gas:
(related video with visuals of the drilling on his property)

See our previous posting on Big Gas in Texas: "The Canary of Wise County, Texas"
November 16, 2010--Pittsburg City Council votes to ban gas drilling.

Energy experts have long touted natural gas as a cleaner fuel than oil. But while natural gas, as an end product, may be cleaner in many ways, its extraction still creates a great deal of environmental damage.

Though the industry had fought the measure by touting the jobs and wealth it can create for the area, the Pittsburgh council was unswayed. "They're bringing jobs all right," City Council President Darlene Harris told CBS. "There's going to be a lot of jobs for funeral homes and hospitals. That's where the jobs are. Is it worth it?"

*ProPublica's investigative series on gas drilling "Buried Secrets"

 

EPA News Release on Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals--Halliburton Refuses

Eight of Nine U.S. Companies Agree to Work with EPA Regarding Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Extraction 

CONTACT: Jalil Isa  (Media Inquiries only)
isa.jalil@epa.gov
202-564-3226
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 9, 2010

Eight of Nine U.S. Companies Agree to Work with EPA Regarding Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Extraction EPA conducting congressionally mandated study to examine the impact of the hydraulic fracturing process on drinking water quality; Halliburton subpoenaed after failing to meet EPA’s voluntary requests for information
 
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that eight out of the nine hydraulic fracturing companies that received voluntary information requests in September have agreed to submit timely and complete information to help the agency conduct its study on hydraulic fracturing. However, the ninth company, Halliburton, has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study. As a result, and as part of the agency’s effort to move forward as quickly as possible, today EPA issued a subpoena to the company requiring submission of the requested information that has yet to be provided.

EPA’s congressionally mandated hydraulic fracturing study will look at the potential adverse impact of the practice on drinking water and public health. The agency is under a tight deadline to provide initial results by the end of 2012 and the thoroughness of the study depends on timely access to detailed information about the methods used for fracturing. 

EPA announced in March that it would conduct this study and solicit input from the public through a series of public meetings in major oil and gas production regions. The agency has completed the public meetings and thousands of Americans from across the country shared their views on the study and expressed full support for this effort.

On September 9,  EPA reached out to nine leading national and regional hydraulic fracturing service providers – BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, RPC, Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford – seeking information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted.

Except for Halliburton, the companies have either fully complied with the September 9 request or made unconditional commitments to provide all the information on an expeditious schedule. 

More information on the subpoena and mandatory request for information on Halliburton’s hydraulic fracturing operations: http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

 

House GOP Probes Cost of EPA Air Rules--Inside EPA

This is similar to the current fight over the proposed EPA changes of coal mining policies and it is a parallel battleground issue between Democrats and the big business Republicans--Democrats support stricter oversight by the EPA while the Republicans favor greater congressional oversight, preferably when they are in charge.

Environmentalists and congressional Democrats are expanding their efforts to support the agency’s crackdown on water pollution from Appalachian coal mines from growing election-year attacks by industry and state officials in some of the states most affected by the agency’s policies.

If we have learned nothing else from past administrations we have seen what happens to regulations and rules when the Republicans are in charge--they are weakened and gutted in favor of the industry giants. The Republicans prefer to let the industry "regulate itself" rather than follow the rules of the CAA and CWA.
The EPA is viewed as an antagonistic, bloated agency with too much power who cannot possibly know what is best for big business. They're labeled "anti-economic development and the job killers of the nation" because following the rules means the obscenely wealthy energy giants will have to spend some of that immense wealth coming into compliance with federal laws and in turn, won't be able to hire as many workers.

What these big polluters won't tell you is that advancements in the processes they use to extract their materials rely more and more on technology than they do human labor resulting in less manual labor jobs being available. They also won't tell you that the fat cats at the top and shareholders are a big reason these companies don't want to see even the slightest percentage drop of their bottom lines.

It really has nothing to do with the worker, the average American, you know the one that is so prominent in PR campaigns by these companies as being their major concern and the "unfortunate victim" who is the one who is the most harmed by increased environmental regulations. Next in line would be the American consumer that is struggling hard in the current unsteady economic climate to simply "get by" and increased regulations and compliance "would only burden them even more" according to big business and the Republicans.

It's all one big fat belching lie served up by the industry to maintain their status quo of being monetarily overfed and bloated to ridiculous proportions. We have rules and regulations in place for a reason--the environment is important, clean water is essential and clean air is a right that we all should have and none of those basic elements of a healthy community should be for sale. But they certainly are every election cycle as evidenced by the enormous campaign contributions from the energy industry that pour into the Republicans coffers.

HuffPost found Koch Industries was a top contributor for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Daniel Coats (R-Ind), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Murray Energy was a top contributor for Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Every one of these Republican candidates for Senate has questioned climate science. (Click on their names for an example.)

Neither company funded a single Democratic candidate for Senate.

In Alaska, the state most coveted by the oil and natural gas industry, Exxon Mobil donated some money to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller and more to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski, who suffered an unexpected defeat to Miller in the Republican primary election.

That mirrors the strategy Exxon Mobil used in the 2008 presidential election when it contributed to both Barack Obama and John McCain. Though McCain would presumably better protect company interests, by donating to both candidates Exxon might hope to curry favor with whoever ultimately won power.

EPA head Lisa Jackson is "sticking to her guns" firing back at them with some hard truth:

“It’s definitely anti-lobbyist rhetoric,” Jackson said. “It’s definitely meant to reflect the fact that, when I go around the country, people want clean air. They are as passionate about clean air and clean water as any of a number of issues; they want protection for their families and their children.”

“I meet with individual businesses all the time, and industry has a huge role to play,” Jackson added. “But I do very much believe that it’s time for us to get past this tired dance, where folks inside this Beltway get paid a lot of money to say things that aren’t true about public health initiatives that this agency is charged by law with undertaking.”

The Republicans have demonstrated their animus of the environment time after time and if we don't pay attention and continue to re-elect the "darlings of big business" we'll lose some of the long overdue (although still falling terribly short) positive forward movement of the EPA to crack down on these big polluters and make them follow the rules that will truly benefit us all.

Published October 14, 2010

Key House Republicans are urging EPA to detail the compliance costs of dozens of pending and recently issued clean air and greenhouse gas (GHG) rules predicted to cost industry billions of dollars, in a possible signal of the EPA regulatory oversight that the GOP is vowing to pursue if it takes over the House or Senate after the midterm elections.

Reps. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Michael Burgess (R-TX), key GOP members of the Energy & Commerce Committee, sent an Oct. 14 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson raising concerns about the “cumulative impacts” of the regulations and asking her to verify the accuracy of agency cost estimates for 40 known Clean Air Act rules, as well as additional measures that may be in the works.

“We are concerned about the highly accelerated pace at which EPA is issuing complex and expensive regulatory proposals” under the air act, the lawmakers wrote.

Many of the rules identified by the lawmakers are predicted to exceed the $100 million cost threshold that the government uses to describe a regulation as “economically significant,” a threshold that House Republicans have also set for rules that they plan to require Congress to approve before the rules can be implemented.

“If a regulation is so 'significant' and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first,” House GOP lawmakers said in their recently unveiled campaign manifesto, “Pledge To America.”

Barton and Burgess also sent Jackson a chart of 40 proposed or finalized air rules and more than a dozen other rules in the pre-proposal stages. EPA estimates at least eight rules will have costs over $1 billion, including $52 billion costs from its final first-time vehicle GHG rules for light-duty vehicles.

Other rules that the lawmakers highlight include $19 billion to $90 billion annual costs from EPA's proposed tightening of its ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS); $9.5 billion in capital expenditures and $2.9 billion in annual costs from its proposed boiler air toxics rule; $3.6 billion by 2020 for its revised nitrogen dioxide NAAQS; and $2.5 billion in capital costs and $1 billion in annual costs from its proposed Clean Air Transport Rule to establish a cap-and-trade program to cut nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in 31 Eastern states and the District of Columbia.

Barton, the ranking GOP member of the energy committee, and Burgess, the ranking member of the committee's oversight panel, ask Jackson to verify whether the compliance costs in the chart are accurate. They also ask whether there are additional air rules not included in the chart that will impose annual compliance costs of $100 million or more, and also to identify any other air rules that EPA is considering.

GOP Eyes EPA Oversight

The GOP lawmakers' focus on the economic costs of the agency's air rules is the latest signal of the type of agency oversight that Republicans could pursue if they win majorities in the House or Senate following the November elections. Barton and Burgess have already asked House Energy & Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) to hold an oversight hearing to investigate what they claim is the Obama administration's “failure to evaluate job impacts in connection with its significant regulatory initiatives” from EPA and other agencies.

But EPA has rejected past requests by Barton and others to analyze the jobs impacts of its rules. For example, Barton and Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) asked whether the agency is complying with section 321 of the Clean Air Act, which requires the administrator to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from” EPA rules. Barton and Walden asked EPA to conduct a section 321 analysis of several GHG rules.

EPA air chief Regina McCarthy in response said the provision does not apply broadly to all rules. She said section 321 is designed to address “situations where employers make allegations that environmental regulations will jeopardize employment possibly in order to stimulate union or other public opposition to environmental regulations. The provision was intended to create a mechanism to investigate and resolve those allegations.” EPA says the provision does not apply broadly to all rules under the air act.

Even though EPA defends itself against having to analyze the jobs impacts of rulemakings under section 321, Republicans are vowing oversight -- and votes -- focusing on the economic impacts of EPA regulations.

In the Senate, GOP lawmakers are planning additional oversight and hope that EPA will be less able to delay responding to Republican questions about rules in a more closely divided chamber.

But there is less enthusiasm among senators for a sweeping effort among House lawmakers to dramatically limit agencies’ abilities to write new rules that House Republicans are advocating. The House GOP's “Pledge To America” campaign agenda proposes requiring that Congress approve major rules that cost more than $100 million to implement -- which would capture several of the air rules in the recent Barton and Burgess chart.

The House Republicans' approach could pose a major problem for EPA as several of its pending rules are expected to cost more than $100 million. EPA currently has one economically significant rule under review at the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), to set GHG standards for heavy duty vehicles.

Scope Of EPA's Authority

In addition to cost concerns, Republicans are also weighing oversight into the reach of EPA's regulatory authority. GOP sources on key House committees with jurisdiction over core EPA programs say that although the election is still weeks away, staff are beginning to sketch out their legislative agenda for the possibility that Republicans could be the majority on committees in either chamber during the 112th Congress.

Oversight hearings could give the GOP a prominent venue to argue that EPA is exceeding its authority through rules including pending stormwater runoff controls and efforts to limit mountaintop mining. “The view of some people is that EPA is pushing . . . their jurisdictional authority to do some of this stuff,” a GOP source says.

Meanwhile, House Oversight & Government Reform panel ranking member Darrell Issa (R-CA) is suggesting Congress should take steps to bolster the independence of agency inspector generals (IGs), and recently met with EPA’s IG -- a role Republicans see as a “critical ally” in oversight efforts. -- Anthony Lacey

 

New High Court FOIA Suit May Limit Access To Industry Data At EPA --From Inside EPA

This is not good news because of the sheer political strength of who's appealing this and will be something to follow very closely. The coal industry and utility giants are behind this one because they like to claim "proprietary information" in response to any scrutiny of their coal ash ponds and sludge holding areas.

This is a huge problem in Alabama with Southern Company, the parent of Alabama Power Company (BARD member), and we went into great detail about two plants in Alabama, E. C. Gaston & Gorgas, that refuse public release of any information on this issue in two previous postings.
Alabama Power Shareholders  Vote Against EPA Regulations
Alabama Power Gorgas Plant Rattlesnake Dam


The withholding of this information serves no public good, in fact, it is the antithesis of it. If the high court rules in favor of the energy giants on this issue we would be foolish to not expect a lot more secrecy in the future from this big polluter gang--that's the last thing that needs to happen given the high level of secrecy already in place.

October 4, 2010

The Supreme Court has agreed to review an appellate decision that, if upheld, could bar public access to industry data held by EPA and other federal agencies under claims that corporations can be shielded from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure rules because they have a right to "personal privacy" akin to that afforded to individuals, public interest groups say.

In briefs urging the high court to back the Obama administration's request to overturn the ruling, a coalition of groups cite several examples where they would be unable to obtain data on industry's pollution releases, including a pending request seeking EPA data on Dow Chemical Co. releases in Michigan, as well as data entities may seek on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Massey coal mining accident in West Virginia.

An attorney for one of the public interest groups says a ruling favoring corporations could have a significant effect on EPA documents because whenever companies cite information from enforcement records as embarrassing -- for instance that they polluted -- they could then claim a privacy interest, seeking to bar disclosure of those documents.

While courts would likely hold that the rights of the public trump a corporation's privacy interest in such cases, the effect of upholding the appellate decision would still have a "chilling effect" on the federal government's release of information, the attorney says, likely resulting in the government deferring release in order to avoid such suits.

The high court Sept. 28 agreed to review Federal Communications Commission (FCC), et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al., a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that barred the FCC from turning over results of an investigation into "irregularities" in the company's billings to a Connecticut school under a special telecommunications access program.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case. Kagan was the U.S. solicitor general who submitted the petition to the court in April.

In its brief urging the court to review the case, the Obama administration argued that the lower court ruling is the first in the law's 35-year history in which a court of appeals has held corporations enjoy "personal privacy" under the statute's Exemption 7(c), which allows agencies to withhold law enforcement records if their disclosure would result in an invasion of personal privacy. "That unprecedented decision creates a new and amorphous privacy concept that finds no support either in FOIA's text or the uniform body of case law and commentary that -- until this case -- instructed that FOIA's 'personal privacy' provisions protect only the interests of individuals," the government's brief says.

AT&T, however, argues that the contention that the 3rd Circuit decision "will wreak havoc with the administration of FOIA is tenuous at best." It points out that the ruling "requires only that agencies consider the privacy interests of corporations in the balancing analysis set forth in Exemption 7(c)." Further, it argues that the ruling was correct, noting that person is defined in statute to include corporations, and Congress' choice to use the adjective "personal . . . must be understood to refer to that definition."

The ruling is the second FOIA case the high court has agreed to hear in its upcoming term: Earlier this year, the court agreed to review Glen Milner v. U.S. Department of the Navy, a case that could decide the reach of an increasingly used exemption from FOIA disclosure requirements that courts have determined allows EPA and other federal agencies to withhold documents that parties can use to circumvent agency regulations.

The court is scheduled to hear arguments in Milner Dec. 1. The Supreme Court convenes its new term next week.

'Personal Privacy' Exemption

In its September 2009 ruling, the appellate court held that because FOIA defines "persons" to include corporations, they should also qualify for the "personal privacy" exemption that the law applies to law enforcement records, known as the 7(c) exemption.

Exemption 7(c) waives from mandatory disclosure records compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent the production of those records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

AT&T argues that the plain text of [the law enforcement exemption] indicates that it applies to corporations. After all, 'personal' is the adjectival form of 'person,' and FOIA defines 'person' to include a corporation. We agree. It would be very odd indeed for an adjectival form of a defined term not to refer back to that defined term," the 3rd Circuit said.

But the federal government and open government groups say the ruling could have broad repercussions for public disclosure of government records.

The Obama administration argued in its petition seeking high court review of the case that letting the lower court ruling stand "threatens to revolutionize the manner in which the federal government must process hundreds of thousands of FOIA requests each year."

"Federal agencies have for decades processed FOIA requests under the previously settled understanding that corporations and other non-human entities have no interest in 'personal privacy' protected by FOIA," the government says in its petition asking the court to review the case. If the lower court ruling stands, it also "threatens to impose barriers to the public disclosure of government records concerning corporate malfeasance in government programs that the public has a right to review," the administration's petition says.

In their brief supporting the administration, the coalition of groups -- including Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- raises special concerns about the exemption limiting access to pollution data.

For example, the brief notes that upholding the 3rd Circuit's ruling could limit public access to major environmental and health and safety data, including the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Massey coal mining accident. "Recent events of national importance show how records obtained or created during government investigations into corporate activities can contain information that is crucial for the public to know," the brief says.

The brief also notes that if the 3rd Circuit's ruling were upheld, they would likely have been unable to receive documents that "shed light" on EPA's oversight of a Dow Chemical plant polluting the Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron.

The group received voluminous documents related to EPA's actions, some casting "a negative light on Dow," the brief says. "If exemption 7(c) covered corporations' 'personal privacy,' the agency likely would have withheld many of these important records."

The attorney says the ruling opens the door to companies arguing that disclosure of documents related to pollution would be embarrassing and therefore should be withheld.

The coalition of groups say that such arguments are at odds with the statute, which the groups say grants privacy protections only to "'valid governmental and individual interests in confidentiality." But the groups' brief notes that if the court upholds the argument, "then each time a request is made for records concerning newsworthy topics like the economic downturn, oil spill, and mine explosion, delay and withholding could result." Suzanne Yohannan

 

The Canary of Wise County, Texas--Natural Gas Fracking Well Effects Cause One Family to Fly Away

The Wise County Messenger published a story in their Sunday Edition paper on September 26, 2010 that disputes Big Gas claims of the process being "clean and safe"--for this particular family it's hell on earth and their mounting health ailments have forced them to flee their home in order to save their own lives.

They're not alone in their plight because Big Gas' invasive and controversial methods affects communities all across America that are unlucky enough to be victims of Mother Nature's geography that draws the energy giants to destructively assail her and wrest the rich deposits of gas she holds deep in her arms. They aren't kind in their methods and more often than not they cause collateral damage that has grave consequences from their desire to have their way with the earth.

But they'll tell you "everything we do is regulated and completely harmless--the country needs this product and it brings good paying jobs to the local economy." That makes a few casualties and whole range of suffering a fair trade-off in these soulless bastards minds and we are convinced that is precisely what they are the more we listen to their propaganda and see the real effects of what they do.

From the story:

"I started to get a little sick," she said. "I thought I was getting the flu. I was just tired and achy and started going through some little problems. "

"Then I started breaking out in a rash. It literally covered my entire body - my scalp all the way down to the bottoms of my feet," Parr recalled. "I made multiple trips to the emergency room. I had six doctors working on me, and they couldn't figure out what it was."

Today, her arms and legs bear pock-like scars from rashes.

Lisa first felt sick in fall 2008. As the immense trees across her 40-acre homestead dropped pecans, Lisa accumulated a host of unexplained ailments. The typical remedies didn't work.

Lisa was treated by eight different doctors over the course of a year. A source of the sickness was never determined. In June 2009, after exhausting everything he knew medically, her internal specialist suggested that something in the environment might be causing her various ailments.

In early fall 2009, she visited an environmental doctor who confirmed the presence of neurotoxins in her blood that matched chemicals used in natural gas production.

Toxic plume

Medical tests confirmed the toxins in Lisa's system matched toxins found in the atmosphere in an air-quality investigation conducted by the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) at a nearby gas well site.

On the evening of July 25, 2010, the Parrs smelled a strong odor emanating from a frac tank at a site operated by Aruba Petroleum of Plano. They reported it to TCEQ. Investigators arrived within hours to capture air samples.

Odors were detected up to a quarter-mile from the well site. The investigator, Damon Armstrong, reported that a "plume" wafting from the tank was "visible with the naked eye." The petroleum-like odor was so intense the investigator himself felt sick in the short time he was there, noting dizziness and sore throat.

The analysis found five compounds that exceeded safe values for short-term health effects, and another 20 exceeded safe levels for long-term effects.

The investigation found elevated levels of ethane, pentane, hexane, octane, xylene and nonane, all potentially toxic chemicals.

Four days later, a medical test discovered the same chemicals inside Lisa. 

Her husband and her 7-year-old daughter, Emma, felt sick as well.

"My daughter began having severe nosebleeds," she said. "She'd wake me up at 6 a.m., crying, covered in blood."

Emma was just diagnosed with asthma. She'd never had any respiratory problems. Emma also started breaking out in rashes and having stomach problems.

Bob also suffered from nosebleeds.

"I'm 50 years old and probably haven't had more than three or four nosebleeds in my entire lifetime," Bob said. "All of a sudden I'm getting them three times a week. It was odd."

"I hired someone to do water and air sampling at the home," she said. "The methane level in my daughter's room was at asphyxiation levels. And it was barely lower than what it was outside our home."

She showed the results to her doctor, who told her to leave her home within 48 hours.

"The doctor told me right then," she said, pausing as her voice cracked and a tear streamed across her left cheek, "I had to move immediately. Because if I did not, we would have to spend more time and money on hospitalization, on chemotherapy and morticians for my whole family."

On Saturday, Aug. 28, the Parrs said goodbye to their formerly idyllic home and moved into Bob's office in Denton. They don't know how long they'll have to stay.

"What we are going through is one of the worst things a family could have to go through," she said. "Having to leave this house and explain to my 7-year-old daughter that we've been run out of our house."

Bob and Lisa Parr aren't the sickly type. Bob built his home in 2001. He's enjoyed a long career in stone masonry and raising cattle. His home reflects the rugged, outdoor lifestyle he enjoys. Walls bear the trophies of big-game hunting in the wilds of Alaska. Black bear, mountain lions and elk are mounted on high wooden walls.

"We love it here," Lisa said while sitting in a wooden rocking chair on the back porch and gripping her husband's hand. "We're secluded, private. We just wanted to be left alone, and we've been run out of our house. It's not right. What's even more not right is we thought *TCEQ would come out and help us - they would clean up this mess."
*(The state regulatory and enforcement agency that compares notes on inefficiency with ADEM)

"We've had no help. We have someone who is contaminating our air. It has affected our cattle. We've lost pets. We've lost chickens. We're all sick, and we've gotten no help," she said. "I want them to fix it so we can come home. I just want to come home."

Several doctors had told Lisa for some time she needed to leave her home, but she couldn't convince herself to do it until the symptoms began affecting her husband and daughter.

"It had only been affecting me, so we stayed," Lisa said. "They thought I was super-sensitive. They called me the canary."

"I told them, 'That wasn't funny because eventually the canary died."

It's enough to make one wax nostalgic for the days of the Old West when disputes were settled in much more direct ways and men who caused harm to women and children realized swift justice from a society that gave a damn in more ways than we do today in the Lone Star State.

Commentary from Winger and the Texas team

 

Sunday Editorial--We've Become A Nation of Enablers

As long as we keep the current system of undue influence "electing" our government officials in place the American people will be kept in the dark because the bottom line is not the truth-- it’s the dollar.

We have became a nation unable to analyze facts by way of logic and reason.

We believe what we are told.

We believe politicians represent us because they tell us they do.

We believe what they say because they tell us what a good guy or gal they are.

Big business and their political accomplices don't want a poor or middle class that can reason for themselves. They don’t want the light of scrutiny turned on in their “houses.”

Is it any wonder we have so few great scientists, mathematicians and conscientiously driven lawyers coming from our universities? The ones that do and intend to embark upon their careers with a purpose higher than themselves are quickly co-opted by the business giants to remain their personal captives for the life of their careers.

"Coal is good, oil is good, industry is good-- it provides good paying jobs and much needed revenues to our struggling economy. It has nothing to do with the fact they paid for my campaign. Honest.…I'm a Christian and I stand for America’s core values why would I lie to you?”

This is the endlessly looped mantra we hear during each election cycle from local to national races, but this year's rhetoric is ramped up by the prominent discussions on coal ash regulation, hydraulic fracturing and the EPAs proposed tighter regulations on the CAA, CAIR and CWA.

This year, more so than subsequent years, the citizens must pay very close attention to who they choose to elect and become active in querying certain politicians about their campaign contributors. Be prepared for mighty resistance and the predictable "political witchhunt" accusations that will be hurled at any person or entity who dares to probe these politician's monetary gifters.

If you question them you are un-American. You’re a liberal. You’re a tree hugger, a no-growth zealot who distorts and misrepresents the facts.  No demonstrable value is placed on being a caring humanitarian and a sense of honor is perceived as a weakness to be “fixed“--a misguided self-imposed character flaw requiring a strong dose of “big energy and big business medication.”

Perhaps the following is closer to the truth and some particularly brazen politicians have attempted to defend themselves using similar language;
"Sure they gave me millions for my campaign, but would a company whose bottom line has always been the dollar really want something in return for their investment? Of course not, they're doing it because they really care about the American people. You record checkers are just being un-American, I voted the way I did because I care about you, it was just a coincidence that the same people who paid for my campaign reaped huge profits from the laws I helped to change. "

We really cannot figure out how we devolved to a nation of people with less logic and reasoning skills than the first humans that started their own fire, but we are well on our way to ensuring our own demise if we persist in blindly assigning our fate to the very culprits who are destroying it by leaps and bounds in the name of profit and power.

So say we the Opinion Board of the Vincent Alabama Confidential 

**Alabama Governor's race campaign contributors in detail will appear on our site soon. The "good" Dr. Bentley-R has some explaining to do and we intend to exert some pressure on him in force.