The Romney Energy Plan: Drill, Baby, Drill — Again

The soon-to-be Republican nominee offers a familiar — and ineffective — mix of stepping up production and standing down on the environment

By Bryan Walsh

The start of the Republican national convention in Tampa was delayed at least a day due to Tropical Storm Isaac, churning around the Florida Keys and headed for the Gulf Coast. Tampa was fortunate enough to avoid a direct hit — though the buckets of rain the storm dumped in its path threatened to turn the Florida city into a tropical aquarium. But New Orleans and much of the rest of the Gulf Coast may not be so lucky. Already the effect of the storm is being felt by the  oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico itself, where refineries and rigs alike could be at risk from Isaac. The Interior Department estimates that 78% of Gulf oil production has been halted ahead of the storm. As the Gulf is still responsible for almost a quarter of total U.S. oil output, the temporary closure has already pushed gas prices up by more than 2%.

In all likelihood, Isaac will  prove only a minor inconvenience to the Republican convention, but the storm and its likely economic effects provide a valuable backdrop for considering the energy policies of soon-to-no-longer-be-just-presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In a speech he gave in New Mexico last week — and a white paper the campaign published on August 23 — Romney outlined an energy vision built around two things: domestic oil and domestic natural gas. Romney promised to boost U.S. fossil fuel production by de-emphasizing federal environmental regulations for drilling, and empowering individual states to do as they will with their energy riches. If Alaska or Montana or Virginia wanted to drill for oil and gas within their borders — or along their shoreline — a President Romney wouldn’t let the federal government get in the way.

Romney claims those changes will help make the U.S. energy independent by 2020, thanks largely to vastly increased domestic oil production, with the only imports coming from North American allies Canada and Mexico. That prediction depends heavily on the shale oil revolution in states like Texas and North Dakota continuing to grow. Along with oil sands crude from Canada — Romney is in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama temporarily rejected earlier this year — Romney believes oil production throughout all of North America can more than double from 15 million barrels a day over the next decade. “The net net of all this, as you can see, is by 2020, we’re able to produce somewhere between 28 million barrels per day of oil and we won’t need to buy any oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or anywhere else we don’t want to,” Romney said in New Mexico last week.

Is Romney’s goal realistic? It’s a long shot. The U.S. produced 5.7 million barrels of oil a day in 2011, a number that has been growing in recent years — awkwardly for Romney, since those are the same years  President Obama has been in office. But even though a mini-oil boom is underway in the U.S., current domestic production is still well beneath the 10 million barrel a day peak of the late 1960s, simply because so many of the old oil fields in Alaska and the Gulf have been tapped out. Even with greatly increased imports from other North American countries, it would likely take a miracle to get domestic oil production online with what Romney is promising. And while shifting control over oil and gas permitting to the states — a reversal of more than a hundred years of federal law — would likely speed up drilling, it would almost certainly come at an environmental cost. It’s only been a little more than two years since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill — even if it feels a lot longer — and taking regulators off the jobs seems like a good way to ensure a new accident.

But what’s really wrong with Romney’s energy plan is the goal itself. Romney trumpets energy independence as a way to kick-start the economy and reduce costs for the middle class, but as long as the U.S. remains overwhelmingly reliant on oil, the country won’t be independent — wherever that oil comes from. Crude is traded on a global market, and there’s little to no hometown discount. That’s why a supply disruption causes gas prices to go up, whether that disruption is happening in a Mideast exporting nation we can’t stand or in our own backyard in the Gulf of Mexico. Shifting more of our oil imports from Saudi Arabia to Canada might be good for politics, but don’t expect it to do much to relieve the pain at the pump. The Canadians, after all, aren’t interested in cutting us a North American discount. It’s true we’ve been pumping more oil at home over the past few years, but that’s done little to reduce the price of gas, which is now more expensive than it has ever been at this point in the calendar. What was true in 2008 is true now — we can’t “drill, baby, drill” our way to cheap energy.

That isn’t to say that the next President shouldn’t try to increase domestic oil production. More U.S. oil means lower imports, which is good for the economy and good for the trade deficit. But there should be more to energy policy than just drilling. Reducing America’s disproportionately huge demand for oil — the U.S. holds less than 3% of the world’s crude reserves but consumes more than 20% of the global supply— is at least as important as increasing supply. President Obama can claim that he’s tried to moderate demand, pushing through significant increases in U.S. fuel economy standards. Romney, though, opposes those fuel efficiency standards, just as he opposes increased aid for solar, wind and other alternatives — with the Iowa-friendly, politically expedient exception of biofuels — that might help the U.S. break its dependency on oil. It’s a blueprint for addiction — not independence.

Romney’s Acceptance Speech to Fire Up Fossil Fuel Following

Ken Silverstein

When GOP-Hopeful Mitt Romney accepts the Republican nomination for the U.S. presidency Thursday night, he’ll give a nod to coal-based power generation and point out its role in building this country. He will also vow to slow down and to try and reverse some adverse regulatory rulings affecting coal.

But he will then quickly move to the next subject, realizing he is up against something more potent than President Obama: market forces and his own record. The economic reality is that the abundance of shale gas is pushing natural gas prices to 10-year lows, or less than $3 per million Btus. And because such fuel is considered a cleaner option than coal, the utilities using it are having an easier time getting those kinds of permits.

While towing the line, Romney will be walking a fine line: He once supported a northeastern-based cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions -- a position that devolved into modest penalties on coal-related emissions. Now, his views are markedly different. 

“If you don't believe in coal, if you don't believe in energy independence for America, then say it,” Romney said recently before an Ohio audience with coal-miners as his backdrop.

President Obama’s position, conversely, is that coal will remain vital to America’s energy picture but only if those digging for it or using it will invest in the most modern technologies. The environmental regulations that his administration have ushered in -- all part of the 1990 Clean Air Act -- are designed to achieve those aims. His words as a 2008 contender have come back to bite him, however; he imfamously noted that coal-based investments may result in “bankruptcy.”

For what it is worth, coal’s share of the electric generation market has fallen from 52 percent a few years ago to 42 percent today. But is that because of adverse regulatory rulings or lower natural gas prices? And if it is because of the competition, what is the likelihood that natural gas prices will remain low?

Let’s address those topics: Electric utilities have made great strides when it comes to cutting their primary pollutants, which is as much as 67 percent since 1980, says the EPA. Southern Company, for example, says that it has spent $8.3 billion installing pollution controls while FirstEnergy says that it has paid $10 billion for the same since 1970, albeit they did so under court order.

EPA's Role

Coal groups are also emphasizing that their emissions have fallen by 84 percent since the original passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act while the use of coal-based electricity has tripled. They add that they have invested $100 billion over the last 20 years to facilitate the use of modern technologies.

Using industry’s own numbers, one might conclude that with proper federal regulations -- the earlier EPA proclamations -- production won’t suffer. Perhaps, but coal groups are adamant that President Obama’s EPA is forcing too many changes too fast. That will ultimately hurt reliability and affect electricity prices.

Romney now subscribes to that view. Under his administration, it would be unlikely that he could reverse case law or existing rules. But he could slow down or derail certain provisions that are slated to go into effect.

Would that help slow coal’s decline? That, of course, remains to be seen. But what is more easily forecastable is the direction that natural gas prices will take. As more and more utilities shift over to natural gas, it will put upward pressure on those rates. At the same time, the United States could become a net exporter of natural gas to Europe and to Asia where such prices are $11 to $14, respectively.

Furthermore, with gasoline prices nearing $4 a gallon, people are clamoring for relief. More drilling is one answer. But so too is shifting over to natural gas to move cars, buses and light trucks. Compressed natural gas, in fact, is about one-third the cost of gasoline. Right now there are about 110,000 natural gas vehicles on the road in the United States but more could be coming. 

Romney will thus advocate for more shale gas production, pointing out that it could be a “life-saver.” But he’ll add that the demand for it will force up those prices, necessitating the continued use of coal. Given his previous disposition, it will be delicate balancing act for him.  

During his acceptance speech, the Republican nominee will say that he is the only candidate who will truly advocate for an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy -- positions that will get parsed by his Democratic foes. Needless-to-say, before election day in November, both he and Obama will get sufficiently dirtied.

Pipeline repairs continue after leak in Palos Park

By Ashley Rueff, Chicago Tribune reporter

Traffic on Illinois 83 between La Grange Road and Southwest Highway in Palos Park has been closed since Monday and likely won't reopen until at least Thursday afternoon to protect crews working in the area, Palos Park police said.

Authorities also shut down about seven miles of the Cal-Sag Channel when fuel from the leak made its way into a drainage ditch and then the waterway, but it was reopened Tuesday evening, officials said.

Federal, state and local agencies responded, and the timeline for cleanup and site restoration likely won't be known until next week, said an official with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

No evacuations were necessary because there are no homes in the immediate area of the leak. Air quality is being monitored and there have been no signs of negative effects on wildlife, said Stavros Emmanouil, on-scene coordinator with the EPA.

"I think the nearby residents are very safe," he said.

Early estimates are that less than 1,000 barrels, which equals 44,000 gallons, of fuel escaped from the pipeline, Emmanouil said. Less than 250 gallons were thought to have made it into the Cal-Sag Channel, he said.

The exact amount will not be known until the pipeline is repaired and working again, allowing the company to complete meter readings, said Patrick Hodgins, health, safety, security and environmental director for West Shore Pipe Line Co.

The leak occurred about 2:40 a.m. Monday in the Badger Pipe Line System, he said. Owned by West Shore and operated by Buckeye Partners LP, it transfers fuels from East Chicago, Ind., to the Chicago area and then into Wisconsin.

It's expected to take at least a few more days to excavate the contaminated soil around the leak and repair the pipeline, Hodgins said.

The cause of the leak won't be determined until an investigation is completed by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Agency spokeswoman Jeannie Layson said in an email that the agency will examine the faulty piece of pipe and review the pipeline operator's compliance with safety regulations.

arueff@tribune.com

Impoverished Americans Face Environmental Health Problems

The Huffington Post  |  By James Gerken

Chronic poverty grips regions across the United States, and leaves urban and rural residents alike in struggles for employment, housing and some of life's basic necessities. It often also leaves poor Americans exposed to pollution and environmental degradation which can produce a range of health problems.

Natural resource extraction has affected environmental quality in areas of the U.S., leaving impoverished communities exposed. Appalachia, a region with a poverty rate nearly five percent higher than the national average in 2008, is home to mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining. MTR, which uses explosives to expose coal seams under the surfaces of mountains, has been the target of protests across the region as the coal industry challenged and defeated EPA rules in court.

In a 2011 study, the mining practice was linked to greater instances of birth defects. HuffPost's Travis Donovan reported that the study, published in Environmental Research, "examined over 1.8 million live birth records from 1996 to 2003 using National Center for Health Statistics data from the central Appalachian states of West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee." They found that babies born near MTR sites had "significantly higher" rates of several birth defects.

In June 2012, House members introduced the Appalachian Communities Health Emergency (ACHE) Act (H.R. 5959), to "place a moratorium on permitting for mountaintop removal coal mining until health studies are conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, and for other purposes," according to GovTrack.

Author and HuffPost blogger Jeff Biggers noted:

Over the past few years, as impacted coal mining residents have pleaded for basic civil rights and environmental protection, around 20 peer-reviewed studies have suggested higher risks and links between reckless strip mining and devastating health impacts, including birth defects, cancer and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Another method of fossil fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has also been linked to environmental degradation in rural areas. Although the extent of groundwater contamination as a result of fracking remains debated, a study in April 2012 in the journal Ground Water found that rock layers in the Eastern United States' Marcellus Shale region are "not impermeable," and fracking chemicals could potentially reach the surface in "just a few years," reported ProPublica.

Nationwide Insurance recently became the first major U.S. insurer to announce that it would not cover damage related to fracking. According to AP, Nationwide said in an internal memo, "We have determined that the exposures presented by hydraulic fracturing are too great to ignore."

The Marcellus Formation lies primarily under parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virignia -- states with large rural, and often impoverished, areas. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia noted in a 2011 report that "Most of the [natural gas drilling] development is occurring in relatively small communities that lack the infrastructure and support necessary to accommodate rapid, intense population growth and economic and workforce expansion."

In December 2011, the EPA released a draft of findings which showed "that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals," reported the Associated Press. In May, AP found that Wyoming Governor Matt Head persuaded the EPA to postpone the announcement "giving state officials – whom the EPA had privately briefed on the study – time to attempt to debunk the finding before it rocked the oil and gas industry more than a month later."

Urban Americans in poverty also face negative health consequences in their environment. HuffPost's Lynne Peeples reported earlier this year on a study that found "low-income and minority groups -- in particular, poor children of color -- tend to be most exposed to air pollution." As a result, these children may be more likely to suffer from chronic respiratory conditions. In fact, almost one in four impoverished Hispanic and Puerto Rican children in the U.S. have asthma, compared to "about one in 13 middle-class or wealthy white children." Activists have also alleged a connection between diesel fumes from garbage trucks and asthma among poorer New York City children.

There are many other environmental threats that burden the health of Americans living in poverty. What other cases of the environment, health and poverty intersecting have you seen or experienced?

Smart Filter Technology Uses Gravity, Not Chemicals, to Clean Up Oil Spills

Megan Treacy August 29, 2012

Oil spill cleanup can be a messy endeavor. With the Deepwater Horizon Spill, chemical surfactants and dispersants were added to the water to aid in collecting the oil, but they only helped so much and they were carried health risks themselves. Researchers at the University of Michigan believe that they have developed a next generation oil cleanup technology that could forgo chemicals and could cleanup water through gravity instead.

The smart filter technology is able to essentially strain the oil from the water because of a novel nanomaterial coating that repels oil, but attracts water.

The university explains, "The researchers created a filter coating that repels oil but attracts water, bucking conventional materials' properties. Most natural substances soak up oil, and the few that repel it also repel water because water has a higher surface tension...The new coating is a blend of a rubbery, commercially-available polymer and a novel nanoparticle. The polymer can readily form hydrogen bonds with water. The nanoparticle, developed by project collaborators at the Air Force Research Laboratory, is very low in surface energy and does not get wet by oil."

Essentially, the coating creates a smart filter that only lets the water through, but not the oil.

To test the material, the team dipped postage stamps and small scraps of polyester in the solution, cured them with ultraviolet light and tested them in various oil and water mixtures and emulsions, including things like mayonnaise. Amazingly, with 99.9 percent efficiency the material was able to separate out all the different oil and water combinations.

"This is one of the cheapest and most energy efficient ways to separate oil and water mixtures," lead author Anish Tuteja said. "It has never been demonstrated before."

"We've shown that, even when you add surfactants and dispersants to the mixture, as was done in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, we can efficiently separate the oil from the water. The important thing is that we don't need any additional chemicals or high-pressure sources. We can do it with gravity alone."

The coating proved to be resilient to repeated use too with the researchers able to use the coated filters for more than 100 hours without clogging.

The researchers have filed a patent and are looking for commercial partners to develop the smart filters, which could also be used in wastewater treatment. Below is a video demonstrating the technology.

Walmart Joins Kellogg, Monsanto in Field to Market Alliance

Walmart has joined sustainable agriculture group Field to Market, making it the largest member and first retailer in the alliance whose members include Cargill, General Mills, Kellogg, Monsanto, Coca-Cola Company and World Wildlife Fund, among others, Reuters reports.

An initiative of the nonprofit Keystone Center, Field to Market’s members include producers, agribusinesses, food companies and conservation organizations.

Field to Market is developing indicators to estimate the environmental, economic, social and health outcomes of US agriculture. In 2009, it launched its Fieldprint Calculator, a free online tool that helps growers analyze how their farming practices impact natural resources. The group’s July 2012 report found corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice and potatoes are being produced more sustainably in the US than they were 30 years ago.

Walmart has said it will eliminate 20 million metric tons of GHG emissions from its global supply chain by the end of 2015, though to date it has only cut about 120,000 metric tons, according to its 2012 Global Responsibility Report.

Walmart consulted with Field to Market, among others, when launching its sustainable agriculture goals in 2010. These goals include reducing the environmental impact of its farming, cutting food waste, helping small- and medium-sized farmers expand their businesses, and asking suppliers about the water, energy, fertilizer and pesticide they use per unit of food produced.

In 2010 Walmart also committed to doubling the amount of locally grown produce it sells in the US by the end of 2015.

Shortly after Walmart announced its sustainable agriculture goals, PepsiCo rolled out its new global crop management system. In May — during the lead up to the Rio + 20 Earth Summit — the two companies along with Anglo American, Grupo Andre Maggi, Vale and Votorantim partnered to develop business strategies that protect the ecosystems in which they operate in Brazil.

CBC News Posted: Aug 29, 2012 11:37 AM ET

The amount of sea ice in the Arctic is at an all-time low, suggesting that climate change is leading to a dramatic shift in the north, according to a new report.

In an analysis released this week, the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said that Arctic sea ice cover has melted to a record low, breaking the previous record set in 2007.

Satellite data from August 26 showed that sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers, the lowest amount ever seen since observations of the polar cap began three decades ago.

On September 18, 2007, the date of the previous record low, sea ice extent was measured at 4.17 million square kilometres.

"By itself it's just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set,” said NSIDC scientist Walt Meier. “But in the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing."

The six lowest ice levels on record have occurred in the last six years, the report noted.

Every summer the Arctic ice cap melts down to what scientists call its “minimum” before colder weather builds the ice cover back up.

With two to three weeks left in the summer melt season, scientists expect that this year’s minimum ice extent could fall even lower. NSIDC will release a full analysis of the melt season in early October.

Arctic sea ice cover has been in a long-term decline, falling about 13 per cent per decade, a figure scientists say is a strong signal of global warming.

“I think we’re going to see in the not too distant future is that areas like the North Pole will even become ice-free briefly in summer,” said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at NSIDC, adding that the Arctic Ocean could become ice-free by 2030.

The NSIDC findings echo measurements taken earlier this month by the European Space Agency, suggesting that the thinning of Arctic ice is progressing 50 per cent faster than many polar scientists had previously predicted. It pointed to global warming and rising greenhouse gases as possible contributing factors.

The declining ice may affect fish and animal populations in the north, according to the World Wildlife Federation.

“Migrating whales, migrating birds may arrive in the Arctic at a time when there's really not as much life to sustain them as there would have been in previous times,” said Clive Tesar of the WWF Arctic Initiative.

People living in Canada’s northern communities, who rely on local fauna, are already feeling the impact of the changing environment and are being forced to adapt.

Lawrence Amos, a hunter in N.W.T., said that there used to be sea ice year-round surrounding Banks Island, on the cusp of the Arctic Ocean. But lately, once the ice melts in June, it doesn’t return until the fall.

This is leading to fewer seals and sea animals in the area, preventing people from hunting and fishing as often as they used to, Amos said.

“We have to buy more store-bought food and that changes our diet,” Amos said. “Stuff like that costs a lot of money.”

Back to Menu