ReportWire

Tag: Pipeline construction

  • Environmental groups oppose pipeline expansion in Pacific NW

    Environmental groups oppose pipeline expansion in Pacific NW

    [ad_1]

    SALEM, Ore. — The U.S. government has taken a step toward approving the expansion of a natural gas pipeline in the Pacific Northwest — a move opposed by environmentalists and the attorneys general of Oregon, California and Washington state.

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, announced Friday it has completed an environmental impact statement that concluded the project “would result in limited adverse impacts on the environment.”

    “Most adverse environmental impacts would be temporary or short-term,” the federal agency said.

    A grassroots coalition of environmental groups said the analysis conflicts with climate goals of Pacific Northwest states and fails “to address upstream methane emissions from the harmful practice of fracking.”

    The Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline belongs to TC Energy of Calgary, Canada – the same company behind the now-abandoned Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

    Gas Transmission Northwest proposes to modify three existing compressor stations along the pipeline — in Kootenai County, Idaho; Walla Walla County, Washington; and Sherman County, Oregon — to boost capacity by about 150 million cubic feet per day of natural gas. The company says the project is necessary to meet consumer demand.

    The 1,377-mile (2,216-kilomter) pipeline runs from the Canadian border, through a corner of Idaho, and into Washington state and Oregon, connecting with a pipeline going into California.

    In August, the attorneys general of Oregon, Washington state and California asked the FERC to deny the proposal, saying the expansion is expected to result in more than 3.24 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, including methane and carbon dioxide.

    “This project undermines Washington state’s efforts to fight climate change,” Washington state Attorney General Ferguson said back then. “This pipeline is bad for the environment and bad for consumers.”

    The grassroots coalition said the federal study didn’t adequately address harmful impacts on the climate caused by the project, including by fracking to obtain the natural gas. The energy industry uses the technique to extract oil and gas from rock by injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals. But the technique increases emissions of methane, an extraordinarily potent greenhouse gas.

    “FERC’s approach will worsen the climate crisis, downplaying the impacts of a proposal that will pollute our communities, impact health and safety, and create millions of tons of climate-changing pollution each year,” said Lauren Goldberg, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental group based in Hood River, Oregon.

    The regulatory commission’s study noted that its staff was unable to assess the project’s contribution to greenhouse gases “through any objective analysis.”

    “Climate change is a global concern,” the federal study said. “However, for this analysis, we will focus on the existing and potential cumulative climate change impacts in the project area.”

    TC Energy said Saturday that it is reviewing the environmental impact statement, which recommended a few mitigation measures.

    The company has “secured long-term agreements with customers for 100% of the project capacity,” TC Energy said in an email. “This further demonstrates the need for secure energy to supplement renewables as we work toward a cleaner energy future.”

    FERC is expected to make its final decision on the proposal on Feb. 16, the environmental coalition said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans tout benefits of fossil fuels at climate talks

    Republicans tout benefits of fossil fuels at climate talks

    [ad_1]

    SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — Members of a Republican Congressional delegation took the stage at this year’s U.N. climate talks Friday to tout the benefits of fossil fuels — a bold move at a meeting that’s all about curbing carbon emissions for the good of humanity.

    Scientists overwhelmingly agree that heat-trapping gases such as those released from the combustion of coal, oil and gas are pushing up global temperatures, thereby causing sea-level rise, extreme weather and species extinctions.

    Yet Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, said it would be wrong to demonize fossil fuels.

    “I think we need to decide as a world: Do we hate greenhouse gas emissions or do we hate fossil fuels,” said Curtis, who is known for founding the Conservative Climate Caucus. “It’s not the same thing.”

    Like Curtis, Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., suggested fossil fuels can be a form of clean energy, if only the carbon released by extracting and burning them could be captured and stored safely.

    “One of the things we ought to be doing is not attacking oil and gas, it’s to be attacking the emissions associated with it, to where it can be indistinguishable from other renewable energy technologies,” he told an audience in the U.S. pavilion at the climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh.

    This, Graves argued, would make fossil fuels “an arrow in the quiver as we try to address our objectives of energy affordability, reliability, cleanliness, exportability and security of supply chain.”

    House Republicans’ views are likely to become more important given the expected turnover of the House to Republican control. The comments echo industry efforts in recent years to separate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in public perception.

    Andrea Dutton, a professor of geoscience and MacArthur Fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that’s not possible.

    “Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that are causing temperatures to rise rapidly, and this is the major contributor to the global warming we are experiencing,” she said in an email. “This is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of scientific evidence.”

    While the fossil fuel industry has made some advances in reducing emissions per unit of fuel burned — largely due to government regulation and pressure from those concerned about climate change — neither coal, oil nor gas are anywhere near being a clean source of energy.

    One solution promoted by industry is the idea of carbon capture, to prevent emissions from reaching the atmosphere, usually storing the exhaust gases underground. There is also “direct air capture,” in a nascent stage, that would be able to remove emissions once they are in the air.

    Nobody has demonstrated a cost-effective way of doing either at scale, said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

    “Renewables are presently the cheapest energy — even without carbon capture on fossil fuels — so adding carbon capture is never going to be the economically superior solution,” he said.

    Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said that replacing one fossil fuel — coal — with a slightly cleaner one — natural gas — would already result in big emissions cuts.

    In the United States natural gas has already displaced coal in many cases and is responsible for substantial reductions of one main greehouse gas, carbon dioxide, in recent years.

    “Let them build the pipelines they need, let them build the export terminals they need,” Crenshaw told the audience in Egypt, adding that the effect would be “the equivalent of giving every American solar panels, giving every American a Tesla, and doubling our wind capacity.”

    Several experts contacted by The Associated Press said that was not an ideal solution. Natural gas is made up mostly of methane. Satelites show the powerful greenhouse gas leaking from equipment at every stage of production.

    “To solve the climate crisis we have to stop emitting carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere,” said Jonathan T. Overpeck, dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability. “The production and use of natural gas does both, so we have to stop using natural gas as soon as we can.”

    Overpeck warned that all fossil fuel infrastructure now being built, including for natural gas, risks becoming a stranded asset if governments want to make good on their pledges to curb climate change.

    “This is why we must leapfrog the gas-based solutions to renewable energy-based solutions, plus battery storage, plus hydrogen,” he said in an email to The AP.

    Crenshaw, the lawmaker from Texas, accused “radical environmentalists” of exaggerating the threat posed by climate change and misstating the science.

    “Let’s not lie to our children and scare them to death, then tell them they’re going to burn alive because of this,” he said.

    Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois professor of atmospheric sciences, past assistant director of the Office of Science, Technology and Policy at the White House and former lead author on the U.N.’s independent climate science panel, said the allegation was misplaced.

    “Nobody’s out there saying children are going to burn to death,” Wuebbles wrote. “What we are saying is this is an extremely serious problem, perhaps the most serious problem humanity has ever faced and we need to deal with it.”

    The Republican delegation spoke shortly before U.S. President Joe Biden delivered a speech in a packed hall at the same venue, where he announced additional measures to crack down on methane emissions and promoted his administration’s recent climate bill that’s designed to boost rooftop solar and electric car uptake.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans tout benefits of fossil fuels at climate talks

    Republicans tout benefits of fossil fuels at climate talks

    [ad_1]

    SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt — Members of a Republican Congressional delegation took the stage at this year’s U.N. climate talks Friday to tout the benefits of fossil fuels — a bold move at a meeting that’s all about curbing carbon emissions for the good of humanity.

    Scientists overwhelmingly agree that heat-trapping gases such as those released from the combustion of coal, oil and gas are pushing up global temperatures, thereby causing sea-level rise, extreme weather and species extinctions.

    Yet Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, said it would be wrong to demonize fossil fuels.

    “I think we need to decide as a world: Do we hate greenhouse gas emissions or do we hate fossil fuels,” said Curtis, who is known for founding the Conservative Climate Caucus. “It’s not the same thing.”

    Like Curtis, Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., suggested fossil fuels can be a form of clean energy, if only the carbon released by extracting and burning them could be captured and stored safely.

    “One of the things we ought to be doing is not attacking oil and gas, it’s to be attacking the emissions associated with it, to where it can be indistinguishable from other renewable energy technologies,” he told an audience in the U.S. pavilion at the climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh.

    This, Graves argued, would make fossil fuels “an arrow in the quiver as we try to address our objectives of energy affordability, reliability, cleanliness, exportability and security of supply chain.”

    Their comments echo industry efforts in recent years to separate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in public perception. House Republicans’ views are likely to become more important given the expected turnover of the House to Republican control.

    Andrea Dutton, a professor of geoscience and MacArthur Fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that’s not possible.

    “Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that are causing temperatures to rise rapidly, and this is the major contributor to the global warming we are experiencing,” she said in an email. “This is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of scientific evidence.”

    While the fossil fuel industry has made some advances in reducing emissions per unit of fuel burned — largely due to government regulation and pressure from those concerned about climate change — neither coal, oil nor gas are anywhere near being a clean source of energy.

    One solution promoted by industry is the idea of carbon capture, to prevent emissions from reaching the atmosphere, usually storing the exhaust gases underground. There is also “direct air capture,” in a nascent stage, that would be able to remove emissions once they are in the air.

    Nobody has demonstrated a cost-effective way of doing either at scale, said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

    “Renewables are presently the cheapest energy — even without carbon capture on fossil fuels — so adding carbon capture is never going to be the economically superior solution,” he said.

    Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said that replacing one fossil fuel — coal — with a slightly cleaner one — natural gas — would already result in big emissions cuts.

    In the United States natural gas has already displaced coal in many cases and is responsible for substantial reductions of one main greehouse gas, carbon dioxide, in recent years.

    “Let them build the pipelines they need, let them build the export terminals they need,” Crenshaw told the audience in Egypt, adding that the effect would be “the equivalent of giving every American solar panels, giving every American a Tesla, and doubling our wind capacity.”

    Several experts contacted by The Associated Press said that was not an ideal solution. Natural gas is made up mostly of methane. Satelites show the powerful greenhouse gas leaking from equipment at every stage of production.

    “To solve the climate crisis we have to stop emitting carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere,” said Jonathan T. Overpeck, dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability. “The production and use of natural gas does both, so we have to stop using natural gas as soon as we can.”

    Overpeck warned that all fossil fuel infrastructure now being built, including for natural gas, risks becoming a stranded asset if governments want to make good on their pledges to curb climate change.

    “This is why we must leapfrog the gas-based solutions to renewable energy-based solutions, plus battery storage, plus hydrogen,” he said in an email to The AP.

    Crenshaw, the lawmaker from Texas, accused “radical environmentalists” of exaggerating the threat posed by climate change and misstating the science.

    “Let’s not lie to our children and scare them to death, then tell them they’re going to burn alive because of this,” he said.

    Donald Wuebbles, a University of Illinois professor of atmospheric sciences, past assistant director of the Office of Science, Technology and Policy at the White House and former lead author on the U.N.’s independent climate science panel, said the allegation was misplaced.

    “Nobody’s out there saying children are going to burn to death,” Wuebbles wrote. “What we are saying is this is an extremely serious problem, perhaps the most serious problem humanity has ever faced and we need to deal with it.”

    The Republican delegation spoke shortly before U.S. President Joe Biden delivered a speech in a packed hall at the same venue, where he announced additional measures to crack down on methane emissions and promoted his administration’s recent climate bill that’s designed to boost rooftop solar and electric car uptake.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Spain, Germany discuss energy crisis before EU summit

    Spain, Germany discuss energy crisis before EU summit

    [ad_1]

    MADRID — The leaders of Spain and Germany held talks in Spain Wednesday, two days before both participate in an European Union summit to discuss Europe’s energy crisis derived from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez hosted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the northwestern city of A Coruña. The two center-left leaders were accompanied by 15 ministers from their governments.

    The EU summit in Prague on Friday will likely include discussions on Germany’s plan to subsidize gas prices for its consumers and businesses, a move that has raised questions from France and Italy.

    Sánchez said that he “empathizes” with Germany due to its pressing need to find alternatives to Russian gas and oil, while adding that the EU should find common solutions. Both Sánchez and Scholz support reforming the EU’s energy market.

    “The consequences of the war in Ukraine impact us all, but clearly it has a greater impact on the countries with a higher dependency on Russian carbon-based fuels … so we empathize with the situation that Germany is in,” Sánchez said. “(And) Germany is Europe’s leading economy, so it is in all our interests that Germany does well.”

    Scholz, meanwhile, reiterated his support for Spain’s push to build another, larger pipeline with France that could pump natural gas, and potentially green hydrogen, northwards to the rest of Europe. That plan, however, has received zero support from French president Emmanuel Macron.

    Scholz said that they did not discuss Germany’s suggested European anti-missile defense shield as some local media had anticipated.

    On Thursday, leaders of over 40 EU and non-EU countries will meet in Prague to launch a “European Political Community” championed by Macron and aimed at boosting security and prosperity across the continent. The next day the leaders of the 27 EU members will gather to talk about energy and the war in Ukraine.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ruptured oil pipeline off California approved for repairs

    Ruptured oil pipeline off California approved for repairs

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES — A Texas oil company was granted permission to repair an underwater pipeline that ruptured off the coast of Southern California a year ago, spilled tens of thousands of gallons of crude, and forced beaches and fisheries to close.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers granted the approval Friday to Amplify Energy Corp., clearing the way to rebuild the aging pipeline that burst months after it was apparently weakened when it was snagged by the anchors of ships adrift in a storm.

    The Oct. 1, 2021, rupture spilled about 25,000 gallons (94,600 liters) of oil into the Pacific Ocean, closed miles of beaches for a week, shuttered fisheries for months and coated birds and wetlands in oil.

    The approval to rebuild the pipe running from an oil rig off Huntington Beach to tanks in Long Beach comes less than a month after Amplify pleaded guilty to federal charges of negligently discharging oil. The Houston-based company and two subsidiaries also agreed to plead no contest in state court to polluting water and killing birds.

    Amplify said the approval will allow it to remove and replace the damaged segments of pipe from the ocean floor.

    It estimated the work would take up to a month after a barge is in place. If it passes a series of safety tests after being fixed, the company said it expected to begin operating in the first quarter of 2023.

    Environmentalists who want the pipeline shut down criticized the permit approval and renewed calls to put an end to offshore oil operations.

    “The Biden administration just ramped up the risk of yet another ugly oil spill on California’s beautiful coast,” said Brady Bradshaw of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Unfortunately, people living near offshore drilling infrastructure are all too familiar with this abusive cycle of drill, spill, repeat.”

    On Wednesday, the environmental group sued the federal government for allowing the platform where the pipeline originated to operate under outdated plans that indicated the platform should have been decommissioned more than a decade ago. The lawsuit also said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to review and require plan revisions, despite the spill.

    Amplify contended that the spill wouldn’t have occurred if two ships hadn’t dragged their anchors across the pipeline and damaged it during a January 2021 storm. It said it wasn’t notified about the anchor snagging until after the spill.

    While the size of the spill was not as bad as initially feared, U.S. prosecutors said the company should have been able to turn off the damaged line much sooner had it recognized the gravity of a series of leak-detection alarms over a 13-hour period.

    The first alarm sounded late on the afternoon of Oct. 1, 2021, but workers misinterpreted the cause, according to the federal plea agreement.

    When the alarm sounded throughout the night, workers shut down the pipeline to investigate and then restarted it after deciding they were false alarms. That spewed more oil.

    It wasn’t until after daybreak that a boat identified the spill and the line was shut down.

    As part of a federal court agreement to pay a $7 million fine and nearly $6 million in expenses incurred by agencies including the U.S. Coast Guard, the company and subsidiaries agreed to install a new leak-detection system and train employees to identify and respond to potential leaks.

    The company agreed to plead guilty to six state misdemeanor charges and pay $4.9 million in penalties and fines as part of a settlement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link