Top Obama aide Heather Zichal worked the Pavillion fracking investigation

 by Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter, EnergyWire: Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Pavillion, Wyo., is a tiny community of fewer than 300 people, nearly 2,000 miles from Washington, D.C., in a deeply Republican state that President Obama never had any chance of winning.

But Obama's top aide on energy issues, Heather Zichal, took a significant interest in the community's water supply in late 2011 and early 2012.

Documents show that Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, monitored and managed developments behind the scenes as U.S. EPA prepared to release its findings that hydraulic fracturing had contaminated groundwater in Pavillion.

Those findings had outsized implications for the country's oil and gas drilling boom. They would serve as the first documentation of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. Advances in the process have been behind the surge in domestic production.

Industry had long held that there had never been a documented instance of such contamination. But the EPA report stood to puncture that talking point. Nearly three years later, EPA has abandoned the investigation, and the implications of its findings are unclear.

Emails obtained by EnergyWire through the Freedom of Information Act show that Zichal got briefings from top EPA officials as they prepared to release the report, was informed the afternoon before the report was rolled out in December 2011 and sought to manage the fallout when it came under criticism.

"Can we get some talking points on this asap?" Zichal wrote to then-Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe on January 3, 2012, above a news story on flaws in EPA's handling of the sampling process.

The FOIA documents also show that Zichal emailed with then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on the Pavillion investigation. Jackson herself showed considerable interest in the case, sending nearly 100 emails involving Pavillion between November 2010 and April 2011, including a few from her personal email account.

Jackson had also taken a close interest in a drilling contamination case in Texas that was dropped in 2012 (EnergyWire, Feb. 13).

White House officials say there is nothing unusual in Zichal’s involvement in Pavillion. But environmentalists and other groups say it indicates that politics might have been intruding on science.

EPA's Pavillion report found fracking fluids to be present in deep groundwater but not the area's shallower drinking water. The drilling and fracking that took place in Pavillion bears little resemblance to the mile-deep, high-volume drilling taking place in shale formations in Pennsylvania and North Dakota. But the report became a go-to example for environmentalists and others worried that fracturing could contaminate groundwater.

The findings ran into a buzz saw of criticism from the oil and gas industry and state officials. They deemed it sloppy and lacking in transparency. And when the U.S. Geological Survey said it couldn't replicate the results from one of the wells, they said their criticisms were validated.

EPA abandoned the Pavillion investigation earlier this summer with little explanation (EnergyWire, June 21, 2013). It was EPA's third retreat from a drilling contamination investigation during the Obama administration, joining methane migration cases in Texas and Pennsylvania.

The agency handed the investigation to Wyoming state officials, though the people with fouled water say the state long ignored their concerns and the state had fought EPA on the study. Wyoming will continue with the help of a $1.5 million grant from Encana Oil & Gas, Inc., the company accused of contaminating the water.

EPA says it stands by its results but will not rely on them in the future.

The White House emails add to questions from environmentalists and conservative groups about the role politics played in bringing the Pavillion investigation and in abandoning it. Similar concerns have been raised about the other two cases.

EPA scientists had already found merit to the case by the time the emails show the White House getting involved, said Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council. But Zichal's interest makes Mall wonder what role the White House played in EPA's retreat in Pavillion and the other two cases.

"This leaves open to question whether political involvement played a role in dropping these three cases," Mall said.

Food & Water Watch, which wants fracking banned, is calling on EPA to reopen all three pollution investigations, said Emily Wurth, the group's water program director.

Conservative lawyer Christopher Horner has already been pursuing evidence he says he obtained that the Obama administration retreated from the Pennsylvania case, in Dimock, out of fear that the investigation might hurt Obama's re-election chances in 2012 (EnergyWire, July 30, 2013). He said White House involvement in the Pavillion case strikes a similar chord.

"That is consistent with the information presented to me about the Dimock case," Horner said, "that politics were guiding the proceedings and political considerations were at play."

Asked for comment, a White House official said Zichal’s involvement was not unusual and didn’t interfere with EPA’s scientific decision making.

“The White House has a coordinating role across agencies, and it is common practice for agencies to let the White House know about major announcements that are coming,” the White House official said. “As the correspondence shows, the EPA conducts these analyses, not the White House, and this specific engagement is consistent with the administration’s strong commitment to scientific integrity.”

“Furthermore,” the official said, “in recognizing that many agencies are involved in policy around natural gas, the president created an interagency working group with the White House to coordinate policy issues and engage in long-term planning on natural gas.”

Zichal led the working group.

Zichal's role in regulations

Zichal, a former aide to then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), started in the White House as the assistant to energy and climate "czar" Carol Browner, who left in 2011. In the past year or so, Zichal has taken on an increasingly high-profile role as the White House's chief ambassador to oil and gas companies.

That role arose in part from industry lobbying. The working group on drilling that Obama tapped Zichal to head was requested by the American Petroleum Institute. Her handling of that assignment has earned her some praise from people in the oil and gas industry and criticism from environmentalists who follow drilling issues.

Zichal has played an important role in the administration's handling of proposed regulations for fracking on public lands. She met more than 20 times in 2012 with industry groups and company executives lobbying on the proposed rule, according to an EnergyWire review of White House visitor records (EnergyWire, April 12).

Environmental groups, which had far fewer meetings with her on the rule, have complained that the increased access is related to the administration's decisions to weaken the rule.

White House visitor records show Zichal met with another top EPA official, senior policy counsel Bob Sussman, in the White House complex three times from October to December 2011. Those records offer no details of what gets discussed. But emails released by EPA under FOIA indicate that Sussman was Zichal's point of contact at EPA on the Pavillion issue.

About three weeks before the rollout, Zichal noted to Sussman in an email that EPA had done a briefing on the report for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and asked whether the agency had done the same for Wyoming's congresswoman and two senators. When he hadn't replied the next day, Zichal followed up -- "Sorry, any update here?"

In November 2011, EPA gave the results of its testing to residents at a community meeting in Pavillion. The next morning, Sussman wrote Zichal that he had the details. Zichal replied, "Great. Will call as soon as this meeting wraps."

The night before the report came out in December, Sussman notified her it would be out the next day and added, "Happy to provide more details."

Dozens more emails between Zichal and Sussman, Jackson and other top EPA officials were withheld under exemptions to FOIA, but their subject lines indicate they concerned the Pavillion investigation.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059987018

Read More

Call Sacramento. Vote NO on SB4

Dear fellow Californians, Big Oil is trying to frack up our state and it's time to put a stop to it. They've used their money to create a disaster of a bill that would give them free rein to frack away. Will you join us in telling our representatives in Sacramento to vote down SB4? This legislative session, we've been watching as various bills were introduced to regulate the dangerous practice of fracking in California. We were hopeful that something would emerge to help California put an end to this practice in the state...and had some hope when environmental champion Senator Fran Pavley introduced her bill, SB4. But then Big Oil came in and threw their cash around -- pushing to remove the bill of its moratorium provision, adding loopholes to avoid disclosing chemicals and inserting a provision that could even block Governor Brown's authority to ban fracking should he determine it is unsafe. Just as Big Oil tried to kill California’s global warming bill in 2010 with Prop 23, they’re now trying to use their millions to frack freely around our state.  We can’t let that happen. That's why we're now joining with our allies in the Californians Against Fracking coalition to tell Sacramento to stop SB4. Click here to join the fight and call your Assemblymember today. SB4 has gone from a potentially decent step in the effort to slow fracking in California to what it is now: a bill riddled with loopholes that will allow fracking to boom in our state. And our communities and climate simply can't afford it. A vote in the Assembly could come as soon as today or tomorrow, so now is the time to stand up and tell our representatives in Sacramento to oppose this bill.  Our friends at CREDO have set up a great tool to help you call your Assembly member. Click here to use the tool to call your Assemblymember today!  California has for a long time been a leader on climate and protecting our environment. We have beaten Big Oil before, and we can do it again.1 SB4 is a step back when we must be surging ahead.  Thanks for your help, David Turnbull Oil Change International San Francisco, California 1 See Oil Change International’s analysis of how Big Oil spent millions to lose on Proposition 23:http://prop23.dirtyenergymoney.com/	Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Donate now
Oil Change International campaigns to expose the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitate the coming transition towards clean energy. We are dedicated to identifying and overcoming barriers to that transition. We are a 501c3 organization and all donations are fully tax deductible. Check out our blog at PriceOfOil.org and find out how much oil and coal money your Representatives take atDirtyEnergyMoney.com.

Read More

URGENT: phone your CA rep to prevent industry amendments to fracking bill

Your call urgently needed: We have four days to stop a bill that could frack California

SB 4, an already weak fracking bill, was amended Friday to exempt fracking from California's most important environmental law: the California Environmental Quality Act. The amendments could even block Governor Brown's authority to ban fracking should he determine it is unsafe. We only have four days to kill this bill—call your Assembly member today and tell him to vote 'NO' on SB 4. Click below for a sample script and the number to call:

Dear Karin, We want to update you on what’s happening with a bill that could open the floodgates to fracking in California without review under our state's most important environmental law. This email may be longer and more detailed than usual, but our fight to stop fracking in California is facing a watershed vote in the Legislature. We feel it’s imperative to share our thinking on what’s happening with you immediately. On Friday, dangerous, last-minute amendments were attached to Senator Fran Pavley's fracking bill, SB 4. With these added amendments, the last fracking bill left standing in the California Legislature just got a whole lot worse. Shockingly, the amendments give state regulators authority to exempt fracking from California's strongest and most important environmental law: the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The new amendments could even block Governor Brown's authority to ban fracking in California should he determine fracking is unsafe and want to take executive action to protect our citizens and our water. Call Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer: Vote 'no' on Senator Pavley's dangerous fracking bill and support a ban on fracking. Click here to call. Senator Pavley has long been one of our greatest environmental champions in the California Legislature. But SB 4 falls far short of the standard of uncompromising advocacy that she's set. Groups like CREDO, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity and dozens of others oppose this bill. We cannot support a bill that would allow fracking to move forward in California, endangering public health and the climate, and providing political cover to the fracking industry to claim that fracking is safely regulated. In this case, an incredibly weak bill is worse than no bill at all. CREDO knew that the bill would be further weakened during the legislative process and that earlier support for the bill from environmental groups could be used by legislators as an excuse for voting for the bill even after it was further compromised and those groups withdrew support. What happened on Friday was even worse than we could have predicted. The amendments added on Friday make it even more urgent that environmentalists unite and kill this bill. Call Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer: Vote 'no' on Senator Pavley's dangerous fracking bill and support a ban on fracking. Click here to call. Even before it was amended on Friday, SB 4 was a dangerously weak bill. It allows the fracking industry to keep secret the volumes and concentrations of the dangerous chemicals it injects underground by designating them "trade secrets." That means Californians won't know whether the industry is trucking teaspoons or tons of toxic chemicals through our communities. And SB 4 won't stop fracking from expanding rapidly in California while polluting our air, contaminating our water, and accelerating climate change. But Friday's amendments are by far the worst part of the bill. The California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, is California's environmental safety-net. It requires the government to notify the public about any environmentally destructive project, thoroughly analyze and mitigate its environmental risks, and provide the public with an opportunity to voice concerns about the project. The new amendments to SB 4 could be used by state regulators to make an end-run around CEQA’s bedrock environmental review and mitigation requirements and could also prevent our state’s air and water boards, local land use jurisdictions and other agencies from carrying out their own CEQA reviews of fracking. Under existing law, the governor and state regulators can deny approvals for wells that involve fracking or place a partial or complete moratorium on fracking. The new language states that state regulators "shall allow" fracking to take place until regulations are finalized in 2015 provided that certain conditions are met. This could be interpreted to require every fracked well to be approved between now and 2015, with environmental review conducted only after the fact and could be used to prevent the governor or state regulators from issuing a moratorium on fracking prior to 2015. Call Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer: Vote 'no' on Senator Pavley's dangerous fracking bill and support a ban on fracking. Click here to call. The California Legislature is legendary for last-minute shenanigans, so we can't know what will happen to SB 4 in the next few days. It could change dramatically—probably for the worse. What we do know is that Friday's amendments make SB 4 a must-kill piece of legislation, and we only have four days before the end of the legislative session to stop it. It's time to pull the plug on the Legislature's dangerous push to pass fracking legislation before things get any worse. Our friends in Sacramento are telling us that it's possible to stop SB 4 in the Assembly, where it's currently awaiting a floor vote. Call Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer: Vote 'no' on Senator Pavley's dangerous fracking bill and support a ban on fracking. Click here to call. The bottom line is that SB 4 would actually pave the way for more fracking in California and roll back existing legal protections, leaving us worse off. The legislative session ends this week and the Legislature has a lot of important issues left to resolve. What happens next for SB 4 is impossible to predict, but here are the most likely scenarios: The Assembly doesn't vote on, or votes against SB 4, which would mean the bill doesn't become law. The Assembly passes SB 4 in its current form, it goes to the Senate for a final up-or-down vote, and then off to Governor Brown for his signature, making SB 4 law. The Assembly sends SB 4 back to a policy committee for amendments. That could mean the CEQA loophole is removed, but it would also give pro-fracking lobbyists another shot at amending the bill and making it even worse—which we know they want to do. After that, the bill would either pass or fail. Assembly leadership and moderate democrats decide that SB 4 is untenable, so they "gut and amend" an entirely unrelated bill (which means they strip a bill of everything but its bill number and amend it with totally new language) to produce a last-minute fracking bill even worse than SB 4. What happens this legislative session may depend on whether we put enough pressure on our elected officials not to vote with the fracking industry. The chaotic last days of the legislative session often privilege powerful interests like the oil industry, who have the clout in Sacramento, and the armies of trained lobbyists swarming the Legislature, to get what they want while the public isn't watching. To make sure that doesn't happen, we need to make it clear that we are watching and that we will hold our elected officials accountable if they pass a bill that kneecaps our efforts to ban fracking in California. Call Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer: Vote 'no' on Senator Pavley's dangerous fracking bill and support a ban on fracking. Click here to call. Thanks for fighting fracking. Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets Click below for a sample script and the number to call:

Read More

Steve Horn: The Flip Side of Obama’s Keystone XL Delay

Even as President Obama cast a veneer of caution over the Keystone pipeline’s northern half, he quietly expedited dozens of similar projects.

 

by Steve Horn, Mint Press News, September 7, 2013

While President Obama made a big deal out of delaying the northern half of the Keystone pipeline’s construction, he compensated by signing an executive order to expedite similar infrastructure projects everywhere else. (Photo/Matt Wansley via Flickr)

Large segments of the environmental movement declared a win on Jan. 18, 2012, the dawn of an election year in which partisan fervor reigned supreme.

On that day President Barack Obama kicked the can down the road for permitting TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline’s northern half until after the then-forthcoming November 2012 presidential election.

“Northern half” is the key caveat: just two months later, on March 22, 2013 – even deeper into the weeds of an election year – President Obama issued Executive Order 13604. Among other key things, the order has an accompanying memorandum calling for an expedited review of the southern half of Keystone XL stretching from Cushing, Okla., to Port Arthur, Texas.

The day before, March 21, Obama flew on Air Force One to a pipe yard in Cushing – the “pipeline crossroads of the world” – for a special stump speech and photo-op announcing the executive order and memorandum.

Dubbed the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project by TransCanada – 95% complete and “open for business” in the first quarter of 2014 – the 485-mile tube will ship 700,000 barrels of tar sands crude per day from Cushing to Port Arthur, where it will then reach Gulf Coast refineries and be exported to the global market. It will eventually have the capacity to ship 830,000 barrels per day.

The subject of a large amount of grassroots resistance from groups such as Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance and the Tar Sands Blockade, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project – when push comes to shove – is only the tip of the iceberg.

That’s because Obama’s order also called for expedited permitting and review of all domestic infrastructure projects – including but not limited to pipelines – as a reaction to the Keystone XL resistance.

A months-long Mint Press News investigation reveals the executive order wasn’t merely a symbolic gesture.

Rather, many key pipeline and oil and gas industry marketing projects are currently up for expedited review, making up for — and by far eclipsing — the capacity of Keystone XL’s northern half. The original TransCanada Keystone pipeline – as is – already directly connects to Cushing from Alberta, making XL (short for “extension line”) essentially obsolete.

Keystone XL’s northern half proposal is key for marketing oil obtained from the controversial hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) process in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale basin.

Dubbed the Bakken Marketlink Pipeline, the segment has lost its importance with the explosive freight rail boom for moving Bakken fracked oil to market and other pipeline proposals. One of those pipelines, in fact, has received fast-track approval under the March 2012 Obama Executive Order.

Feeling the pressure from protest against the Keystone XL from groups such as the Tar Sands Action, Indigenous Environmental Network and others, Obama pulled a fast one: “wait and see” for XL’s northern half – which many claimed as a victory – and expedited approval of everything else via executive order.

Breaking down the Keystone XL executive order

Obama’s Keystone XL southern half March 2012 memo reads like Big Oil talking points.

“[W]e need an energy infrastructure system that can keep pace with advances in production,” Obama states in the Memo. “To promote American energy sources, we must not only extract oil — we must also be able to transport it to our world-class refineries, and ultimately to consumers.”

A metaphorical slap in the face to environmentalists who spent months working on opposing Keystone XL, Obama argued a more efficient, less bureaucratic means of approval was compulsory.

“[A]s part of my Administration’s broader efforts to improve the performance of Federal permitting and review processes, we must make pipeline infrastructure a priority … supporting projects that can contribute to economic growth and a secure energy future,” the memo reads.

Though the order issued an expedited permitting process for Keystone XL’s southern half, it also foreshadowed that expedited permitting would become the “new normal” going forward for all domestic oil and gas pipeline projects.

“To address the existing bottleneck in Cushing, as well as other current or anticipated bottlenecks, agencies shall … coordinate and expedite their reviews … as necessary to expedite decisions related to domestic pipeline infrastructure projects that would contribute to a more efficient domestic pipeline system for the transportation of crude oil,” the memo states in closing.

The memo also notes all projects placed in the expedited permitting pile can have their statuses tracked on the online Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard, with 48 projects currently listed.

Little time was wasted building the XL’s southern half after Obama issued the Order and within a slim two years, TransCanada will have its first direct line from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries in southern Texas.

Muted opposition: “eco-terrorists,” SLAPP lawsuit threats

It’s not as if the Keystone XL southern half expedited permit has gone unopposed. It’s just that activists who have chosen to resist the pipeline have paid a heavy price for doing so.

A case in point: opposition to Keystone XL’s southern half has earned many activists the label – on multiple occasions – as potential “eco-terrorists,” named as such by TransCanada, the U.S. FBI and Department of Homeland Security’s Nebraska-based “fusion center” and local undercover police.

Other activists were threatened by TransCanada with a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), all of whom made an out of court settlement in January 2013.

Activists agreed to “no longer trespass or cause damage to Keystone XL property including the easements within private property boundaries,” explained FireDogLake’s Kevin Gosztola in a January 2013 article.

The agreement was a quintessential “lesser of two evils” choice, given activists could have found themselves bogged down in legal fees from TransCanada and may have eventually owed the corporation big bucks.

“The activists had a choice: either settle or face a lawsuit in court where TransCanada would seek $5 million for alleged financial damages … that could have much worse consequences,” Gosztola further explained.

Beyond SLAPP threats, key lawsuits aiming to fend off TransCanada have also failed.

Texas lawsuit highlights expedited permitting corruption

One of those lawsuits in particular – filed on April 25, 2013, by a Douglass, Texas-based citizen named Michael Bishop representing himself in court – paints a picture of what President Obama meant when he said he would fast-track permitting for infrastructure projects going forward.

Before filing the lawsuit, Bishop penned a four-part series for EcoWatch in February and March of 2013 on his experiences as a landowner living a mere 120-feet from pipeline construction and dealing with TransCanada in Texas.

“I am amazed by the lack of understanding about this project by the general public and even more amazed that people in other parts of the country are so focused on the ‘northern segment’ while the pipeline is actually being laid right here in Texas and will begin transporting diluted bitumen, tar sands crude oil, to Gulf Coast refineries by the end of the year,” Bishop wrote in Part III. “So many seem oblivious to this fact.”

Bishop alleges in his Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandamus that on-the-books bread-and-butter environmental laws were broken when fast-tracked permitting for Keystone XL’s southern half unfolded.

The permitting mechanism utilized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – following Obama’s March 2012 executive order and memorandum – was a Nationwide Permit 12.

Nationwide Permit 12 has also been chosen for fast-tracked permitting of Enbridge’s Flanagan South Pipeline. That pipeline is set to fill the gap – and then some – for Keystone XL’s northern half, bringing tar sands crude along the 600-mile-long, 600,000-barrels-per-day pipeline from Pontiac, Ill., to Cushing, Okla.

Bishop cited the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), arguing Nationwide Permit 12 as applied to Keystone XL’s southern half violated the spirit of that law because no environmental assessment was conducted and no public hearings were held.

“Given the fact that the Corps was involved in the preparation of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline XL for the State Department … knowledgeable of the toxic nature of the material to be transported and massive public opposition to the project, public hearings should have been held in accordance with the law,” wrote Bishop.

In following the dictates of the March 2012 executive order and memorandum, Bishop argues the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acted in total disregard for long-established environmental law.

“The use of Nation Wide Permit-12 is not a substitute for following NEPA and the Corps, while having some degree of latitude, failed in its ministerial duty,” Bishop wrote. “There was a blatant disregard for established environmental law…which not only included public input, but also directed the agency to consider human health and safety.”

To date, the lawsuit has not been heard in court.

Hastening Bakken shale development

While the environmental community hones in on Keystone XL’s northern half, the business community has focused on expediting permits in the Bakken Shale and filling in the gap left behind by the lack of a TransCanada “Bakken Marketlink.”

Big Business has done so – in the main – by using pipelines to ship Bakken crude to key rail hubs.

One of the pipelines listed in the Federal Infrastructure Projects Dashboard is the Bakkenlink pipeline – not to be confused with the “Bakken Marketlink” – a 144-mile-long tube set to carry fracked oil from the Bakken to rail facilities that would then carry the product to strategic markets.

“Currently, crude oil from this region of the Bakken field is transported to rail facilities via truck,” explains the Dashboard. “The proposed BakkenLink pipeline provides an opportunity to eliminate a vast amount of overland truck traffic.”

Petroleum News Bakken, an industry news publication, explains Bakkenlink was proposed when the northern half of Keystone XL was put on hold by the Obama Administration.

“Originally the BakkenLink was intended to run all the way to Baker, Mont., where it was to connect to the Keystone XL pipeline, but when the Keystone XL project was put on hold in 2011, BakkenLink LLC modified its plan and opted to terminate the pipeline at the Fryburg rail facility,” Petroleum News Bakken explained.

The Bismarck Tribune explained Great Northern Midstream LLC – which wholly owns BakkenLink LLC as a subsidiary –  has built capacity to load fracked Bakken oil onto 110-car-unit trains that can carry up to 300,000 barrels per day to market via the Fryburg rail facility.

For sake of comparison, TransCanada’s Bakken Marketlink Pipeline – aka Keystone XL – was slated to bring 100,000 barrels per day of crude to market.

The freight trains scheduled to carry this oil are owned by Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF). BNSF itself is owned by Warren Buffett, the fourth richest man on the planet and major campaign contributor to President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Another key data point: a 70-unit train carrying 51,428 barrels of fracked Bakken Oil to a Canadian east coast export terminal owned by Irving Oil derailed and exploded in a fireball on July 2013, killing 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, located in Québec province.

Coming full circle, Irving Oil and TransCanada announced a joint venture to develop and construct an export facility in St. John, Canada, on August 1, less than a month after the lethal Lac-Mégantic derailment. That facility would take tar sands crude shipped from the 1.1 million barrels per day proposed TransCanada Energy East pipeline and export it to the global market.

Bakken Federal Executives Group

Bakkenlink isn’t the only game in town for the March 2012 executive order’s impact on expedited permitting in the Bakken Shale.

Enter the Bakken Federal Executives Group – helped along by Obama’s Assistant for Energy and Climate Change Heather Zichal – the Obama White House’s industry-friendly liaison to Big Oil.

“[I]dentified by the President as one of five priority regional initiatives under Executive Order 13604 … [the] [g]roup represents a dozen federal bureaus with review and permitting responsibilities that are working collaboratively to address common development obstacles associated with the Bakken boom…,” explains an August 7 U.S. Department of Interior press release.

Newly-minted U.S. Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell – a former petroleum engineer for Mobil Oil Company – recently took a trip to the Bakken Shale oil fields to advocate for the dictates of the March 2012 Executive Order.

“The group’s August 6 itinerary began with a tour of a rig operated by Continental Resources Inc., followed in the afternoon by a tour of facilities operated by Statoil, which has invested more than $4 billion in the Bakken,” explained the Oil and Gas Journal.

Continental Resources’ CEO is Harold Hamm, who served as energy advisor to Mitt Romney, the Republican Party presidential nominee for the 2012 election.

“Interior continues to be a leader in implementing President Obama’s vision for a federal permitting process that is smarter [and] more efficient,” David Hayes, Department of Interior Deputy Secretary said in a June press release. “By coordinating across the many federal agencies involved in the Bakken region … we are able to offer a better process for industry.”

Obama May 2013 memo: Cut it in half

On May 17, 2013, President Obama issued an updated memorandum titled, “Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures.”

Citing his March 2012 executive order as precedent, this memo called for cutting the time it takes to approve major infrastructure projects – pipelines included – in half.

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to advance the goal of cutting aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half,” he states in the memo, with a final goal to “institutionalize or expand best practices or process improvements that agencies are already implementing to improve the efficiency of reviews.”

Scary math

Adding insult to injury, a recent story appearing in The Wall Street Journal explains Keystone XL’s northern half is no longer a priority for refiners, investors or the industry at large.

With a further delay in the cards due to conflicts of interest in the State Department’s environmental review process, it may start to matter less and less for Big Oil as it plans out its other options for getting its product to market going forward.

“U.S. companies that refine oil increasingly doubt that the controversial Keystone XL pipeline [northern half] will ever be built, and now they don’t particularly care,” explained the Journal.

Enbridge recently proposed an expansion for its Alberta Clipper pipeline (approved by Obama’s State Department in August 2009, now known as “Line 67”) from 450,000 barrels per day to 570,000 barrels per day to the State Department in a November 2012 application.

It upped the ante since the original Clipper expansion application — a move met with activist opposition — requested 800,000 barrels of tar sands run through it per day.

That’s on top of Enbridge’s recently proposed Nationwide Permit 12 – paralleling what TransCanada did for Keystone XL’s southern half – set to bring 600,000 barrels per day of tar sands to Cushing, Okla., from Pontiac, Ill.

The reaction to pressure against building Keystone XL’s northern half has been – put simply – “build more and faster.” Simple math and geography shows – as The Wall Street Journal boasted – project permitting parameters have tilted more and more in Big Oil’s favor under President Obama’s watch.

With full-throttle expansion of the tar sands described as “game over for the climate” by now-retired NASA scientist James Hansen — and with fracked oil and gas found to be dirtier than coal when examined in its entire lifecycle according to a May 2011 Cornell University study — it makes for scary math indeed.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/obamas-keystone-xl-tradeoff-expedite-all-other-pipelines/168569/

Read More

Steve Horn: "Frackademia" By Law: Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Exposed

by Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog, September 3, 2013

With the school year starting for many this week, it's another year of academia for professors across the United States - and another year of "frackademia" for an increasingly large swath of "frackademics" under federal law. 

"Frackademia" is best defined as flawed but seemingly legitimate science and economic studies on the controversial oil and gas horizontal drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), but done with industry funding and/or industry-tied academics ("frackademics"). 

While the "frackademia" phenomenon has received much media coverage, a critical piece missing from the discussion is the role played by Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Although merely ten pages out of the massive 551-page bill, Section 999 created the U.S. Department of Energy-run Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), a "non-profit corporation formed by a consortium of premier U.S. energy research universities, industry and independent research organizations." 

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, RPSEA receives $1 billion of funding - $100 million per year - between 2007 and 2016. On top of that, Section 999 creates an "Oil and Gas Lease Income" fund "from any Federal royalties, rents, and bonuses derived from Federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases." The federal government put $50 million in the latter pot to get the ball rolling. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005's "Halliburton Loophole" - which created an enforcement exemption from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act for fracking, and made the chemicals found within fracking fluid a "trade secret" - is by far the bill's most notorious legacy for close followers of fracking.

These provisions were helped along by then-Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Policy Task Force, which entailed countless meetings between Big Oil lobbyists and executives and members of President George W. Bush's cabinet. Together, these lobbyists and appointees hammered out the details behind closed doors of what became the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a bill receiving a "yes" vote by then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, almost no focus - comparatively speaking - has gone into scrutinizing Section 999, which subsidizes biased pro-industry studies for a decade and in turn, further legitimizes unfettered fracking nationwide.

Speaking at an industry public relations conference in Houston, TX in 2011 - the same conference in which it was revealed the shale gas industry is using psychological warfare tactics on U.S. citizens and recommending the military's “Counterinsurgency Field Manual” for "dealing with an insurgency" of Americans concerned about fracking - S. Dennis Holbrook of Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York stated that it's crucial for industry to "seek out academic studies and champion with universities—because that again provides tremendous credibility to the overall process."

 Section 999: In Service to Big Oil

RPSEA's "FAQ" section makes its raison d'être crystal clear. 

"The objective of RPSEA is to leverage research dollars along with the technical expertise and experience of RPSEA Members to conduct industry led research and development work to help commercialize domestic...Unconventional Onshore Hydrocarbon Resources," RPSEA's website explains. "RPSEA will focus on innovative technologies to reduce the costs of production, expand and extend the nation's hydrocarbon resource base..."

Membership in RPSEA costs between $1,000-$10,000 per year depending on the company size or if the member has non-profit tax status. Industry dues-paying members include ExxonMobil, Chesapeake Energy, Halliburton, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, GE Oil and Gas, Encana, Statoil, Total, Cabot, BG Group, Devon, Anadarko and many others.

22 universities also pay RPSEA membership dues. They include University of Utah, University of Texas-Austin (a well-known "frackademia" hub), Ohio State University (another well-known "frackademia" hub), Colorado School of Mines, Louisiana State University, Oklahoma State University, Stanford University, West Virginia State University, Colorado State University and many others. 

RPSEA's Board of Directors - whose members serve two-year terms - has representatives from the oil and gas industry consisting of GE Oil and Gas, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Baker Hughes, Western Energy Alliance, Petrobas and Total. Its Unconventional Resources Program Advisory Committee features representatives from Devon Energy, Chesapeake Energy, BP, Southwestern Energy, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes. 

The RPSEA Strategic Advisory Committee is more of the same: representatives from GE Oil and Gas, Gas Technology Institute and two "frackademics" from University of Southern California (Donald Paul) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Melanie Kenderdine), respectively. 

Donald Paul serves as Executive Director of USC's Energy Institute, which oversaw the publishing of the "frackademia" study titled, "Powering California." Paul retired in 2008 as Chevron's vice president and chief technology officer.


USC's Donald Paul; Photo Credit: USC

"During his 33 year tenure at Chevron, he held a variety of positions in research and technology, exploration and production operations, and executive management, including service as president of Chevron's Canadian subsidiary," explains his USC biography. "He was extensively involved in forming external research and technology partnerships between Chevron and major universities, governments, and businesses."

Tethered to Obama Secretary of Energy and "Frackademic" Ernest Moniz

RPSEA Advisory Committee member Melanie Kenderdine formerly served as Executive Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, a position she took over when her MIT colleague Ernest Moniz was named U.S. Secretary of Energy in 2013. The Energy Initiative is a who's who of Big Oil powerhouses at the membership level and external advisory board level. Moniz formerly served on the RPSEA Board of Directors.  


Moniz (L) and Kenderdine (R); Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Energy

Kenderdine now serves as one of Moniz's top aides. While at MIT, she co-authored a key "frackademia" study titled, "The Future of Natural Gas" - funded by Chesapeake Energy front group American Clean Skies Foundation - with fellow MIT "frackademics" Moniz and John Deutch. Oklahoma Secretary of Energy Mike Ming - who sat on the Advisory Committee for the MIT study - is also on the RPSEA Advisory Committee. 

MIT frackademic and former CIA Director John Deutch - who sits on the Board of Directors of gas export giant Cheniere Energy - served on the industry-stacked Fracking Subcommittee formed in May 2011 by then-Secretary Steven Chu. He was recently named to serve on Secretary Moniz's Energy Advisory Committee alongside fellow Fracking Subcommittee member Daniel Yergin.


John Deutch; Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons 

Secretary Moniz recently named Paula Gant as his Deputy Assistant Secretary for oil and natural gas. Gant most recently served as the American Gas Association's Senior Vice President for Policy and Planning.

RPSEA In-Action

Section 999 of the Energy Policy Action of 2005, under the auspices of RPSEA, has funded 23 unconventional oil and gas-related studies to-date.

In January 2013, University of Texas-Austin completed a RPSEA-funded study titled, "Evaluation of Fracture Systems and Stress Fields Within the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale and Characterization of Associated Water-Disposal Reservoirs: Appalachian Basin." 

Four of the seven co-authors of the report - Diana Sava, Donald E. Wagner, Robert J. Graebner and lead investigator Bob A. Hardage - had oil and gas industry backgrounds before entering academia. 

Another illustrative RPSEA-funded study is titled, "Geological Foundation for Production of Natural Gas from Diverse Shale Formations." Published in July 2011, the study's lead investigator and sole author is Jack C. Pashin. Pashin is both the Director of the Energy Investigations Program at the Geological Survey of Alabama and Devon Petroleum Corporation Chair of Basin Research at Oklahoma State University.


Jack C. Pashin; Photo Credit: Oklahoma State University 

Yet another example: "Sustaining Fracture Area and Conductivity of Gas Shale Reservoirs for Enhancing Long-Term Production and Recovery," a study co-published in May 2012 by a University of Texas A&M researcher and an employee of oil and gas services giant, Schlumberger.

On top of funding studies, RPSEA also endows fellowships and scholarships for researchers based at University of Michigan, University of California, Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and Georgia Institute of Technology, among other universities. 

RPSEA also plays host to annual conferences. Kathryn "Katie" Klaber, the departing head of the Marcellus Shale Coalition gas lobbying powerhouse, was a featured speaker at RPSEA's 2012 annual conference held in the heart and soul of the Marcellus Shale basin: Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


Kathryn "Katie" Klaber; Photo Credit: SourceWatch

The 2013 conference featured a presentation by one of the original "frackademics," Pennsylvania State University's Terry Engelder. 

Attendees of the 2012 RPSEA conference included representatives from Range Resources, Chesapeake Energy, EQT Production, Chevron, Halliburton, Encana, BP, Baker Hughes and other industry giants. 2011 and 2010 saw similarly prolific guest lists, as did all other previous years dating back to 2006. 

Earning an "F" for "Frackademia"

Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 says the Secretary of Energy "shall carry out the activities under Section 999 to maximize the value of natural gas and other petroleum resources of the United States by increasing the supply of such resources."

But for whose benefit? First and foremost, for Big Oil and its investors.

Some politicians have also found a way to enrich themselves, as well, via shrewd "shalesmanship." Exhibit A: U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX).


U.S. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX); Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons 

"Since 2010, Hall has earned as much as $1 million from a company that holds mineral rights along the Barnett Shale," explained the Sunlight Foundation in a March 2013 article. "The money was disclosed as dividends from a company called North & East Trading Co. (N&E)."

A September 2008 opinion piece written by Hall explains that he helped write Section 999, meaning he's now pulling a personal profit from the same legislation he helped to author.

"This year marks the culmination of a legislative project I spearheaded in the House, creating an R&D program to recover oil and natural gas from ultra-deepwater and other onshore terrains," he wrote. "This program was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and is being carried out through the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA)."

The mission statement laid out in Section 999 doesn't allow for the dangers of fracking - ranging from groundwater contamination, to air contamination, to wastewater injection-caused earthquakes, to gas pipeline explosions, to climate change impacts of fracking - to be studied.

So, it's an "A+" for the industry writing self-serving legislation. And an "F" for both "frackademia by law" and to denote the failure to protect citizens from the negative impacts that unconventional oil and gas drilling will have for human health and ecosystems now and well into the future.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/03/frackademia-by-law-section-999-energy-policy-act-2005-exposed

Read More