tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82789923955973913762024-03-21T08:18:31.293-05:00RemediationLawA Newsletter for the Energy IndustryRemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.comBlogger242125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-82554220797899619182015-10-15T13:13:00.000-05:002015-10-15T13:15:13.768-05:00IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN: VEHICLES RUNNING ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN</span><br />
<br />
Louisiana has lots of green things. We have foliage, swamps, reptiles, and sometimes even the water. Yet Louisiana is hardly a state often equated with the Green Movement.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe it should be.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Across state metro areas, urban agriculture initiatives are cropping up, pun intended. Local food sourcing is the latest major enviro-health movement to take hold. Solar power panels can be spotted all over New Orleans on new and old houses. There are even electric car charging stations attached to choice Whole Foods parking spaces. You can get all this in a state that is better known for its oil and gas industry. Whoever would have thought Louisiana would embrace alternative fuels? But the truth is that we are not only embracing alternative fuels, we are encouraging them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are tax incentives for owning an alternative energy vehicle (AFV) or converting an existing vehicle to operate on alternative fuel. According to the DMV, LA registered and dedicated AFVs can earn 50% of the cost to convert the vehicle from traditional gasoline; 50% of fueling equipment costs, and even 7.2% (up to $1,500) of the AFV purchase cost. Best part is that the list of alternative fuel sources includes a variety of options such as biofuel and biodiesel, methanol, ethanol, propane, natural gas, and electricity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So we can pick our poison. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ethanol is a familiar alternative fuel that is commonly made from corn biomass. First used as 100% fuel in Brazil in the late 70s, US interest grew over time fueled by federal tax incentives, grants, and mandates. Look to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 that included the first renewable fuel volume mandate with a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS1) provision requiring 2.78% (that is 7.5 billion gallons) of the gasoline sold or dispensed by 2012 be renewable fuel. Fast forward to the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act which codified the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and we see the RFS program expanded. Most compelling is the federal ethanol mandates requiring gasoline refiners to blend from 9 billion gallons of ethanol in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what does that even mean for the consumer now that we have decided to go green?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Department of Energy published the lifecycle of ethanol and in it are impressive kernels of information. First, the use of ethanol reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when coupled with petroleum because ethanol burns cleaner. Additionally, ethanol can help to reduce petroleum use in the transportation sector. However, the total energy used to produce ethanol is greater than the total energy used to produce gasoline. So though it was a great early quasi-renewable energy source, these days it may not seem terribly efficient.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Conversely, the electric car is a very popular option for alternative fuel vehicle right now and it’s no wonder why. According to fueleconomy.gov, not only does the all-electric vehicle emit no tailpipe pollutants, it converts between 59% and 62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Alternatively, conventional gas vehicles only convert 17% to 21% of the energy stored in gas to power at the wheels. Best of all, it is a domestic energy source and reducing dependence on foreign oil is always a hot topic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So this begs the question: is electric green or quite green enough?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The rise of ethanol increased the need for monoculture growing and brought with it a whole host of concerns. Genetically modified (GM) agriculture boomed in order to support the increased need for corn. According to Robert Hahn’s Stanford Law and Policy Review article, Ethanol: Law, Economics, and Politics, ethanol uses 15% of US corn supplies and makes up 3% of gasoline consumption. On top of that soaring (corn based) livestock feed prices plagued ranchers, who were thrilled with the passage of the 2011 Affordable Food and Fuel for America Act that phases out government support for ethanol production over 5 years. Thus, it seems there can be some not so earth-friendly side effects sometimes in going green.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That brings us to the question of the sourcing of the electricity. That is to say, if the power coming from the grid is generated from solar sources, then it is the most excellent of excellent things. On the other hand, if the power is coming from a coal burning plant, then we may not be doing as well as we think.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-86432041671863732402015-10-11T18:40:00.000-05:002015-10-11T18:43:24.578-05:00FAHRVERGNEIN: VOLKSWAGEN EMISSION RESULTS DO NOT MEET US EPA STANDARDS<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By Pepper Bowen</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Back in the 90s, German manufacturer Volkswagen (VW) used
the “Fahrvergnügen” ad slogan to set their brand apart by touting the enjoyment
that comes from driving a VW. This was intended to create a new mental
association for VW cars with consumers as not just the source of billowing
clouds of diesel smoke emanating from their tailpipes. VW introduced clean burning and
environmentally friendly biodiesel and positioned itself for the new millennium
to further expand their sales and profit margins.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That was until the scandal broke.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The 2009 through 2014 VWs have recently become the focus of
EPA investigation. VW said originally that the disparity between EU and US
emissions standards caused a variance in emissions results. So the
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) stepped up and ran their
own tests intended to prove that diesel is clean and safe in the US and up to
emissions standards.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Apparently surprised to learn that the reported VW emissions
did not comport with their own findings, they partnered with West Virginia
University’s Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines and Emissions for more
accurate testing. So between 2013 and 2014, the collaboration undertook a project
aimed to evaluate real-world operating emissions from light-duty diesel
vehicles in the US: a VW Jetta, a VW Passat, and a BMW X5.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
ICCT reports their results were as follows:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li>Real-world
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from the Jetta exceeded the US-EPA Tier2-Bin5
(at full useful life) standard by 15 to 35 times.</li>
<li>For the
Passat, real-world NOx emissions were 5 to 20 times the standard.</li>
<li>The BMW
vehicle was generally at or below the standard, and only exceeded it during
rural uphill operating conditions. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
That sounds pretty bad so now a little bit of clarity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
EPA’s Clean Air Act establishes air quality standards,
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for both stationary and mobile
sources. The emissions standard for new cars is emissions of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide 0.25, 3.4, and 1 gram per mile (GPM)
respectively. Though these seem like really low numbers in and of themselves,
their impact is quite large.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
EPA uses a calculation based on average fuel economy of 21.6
miles per gallon, 11,400 miles driven per year, and the standard of one million
grams per metric ton in order to arrive at the average tailpipe annual
emissions. Look to this example from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions white paper:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
CO2
per gallon 8,887<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Annual CO2 emissions = ------------------ x miles = ------- = 11,400 = 4.7 metric tons Carbon Dioxide<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
MPG
21.6</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From there, the EPA used that result to compare another
source to emissions from passenger vehicles. It is through this comparison that
the global warming potential of a gas can be determined. Carbon dioxide is the
control and its global warming potential (GWP) is established at 1. Nitrous
oxide has a GWP of 298 which is in comparison to that of carbon dioxide.
However, the interesting thing about nitrous oxide is that the value is
completely dependent upon the design of the engine and the emission control
system in the vehicle as opposed to the fuel consumption per mile.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that it’s a little easier to see the true impact of the
ICCT test results being substantially higher than the EPA standards, back to
Volkswagen…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As it turns out, the disparity in standards between the EU
and the US was never really the problem. Volkswagen had installed both “road
calibration” and a “switch” which are auxiliary emission control devices
(AECDs). AECDs are by definition intended to “[reduce] the effectiveness of the
emission control system under conditions which may be reasonably expected to be
encountered in normal vehicle operation and use. Since VW’s “road calibration”
and “switch” are AECDs that were neither described nor justified on the COC
applications, they are illegal defeat devices. Long story short, vehicles
equipped with defeat devices cannot be certified.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the end, VW admitted “it had designed and installed a
defeat device in the vehicles in the form of a sophisticated software algorithm
that detected when a vehicle was undergoing emissions testing.” So in a Notice
of Violation (NOV) to Volkswagen, the EPA communicated its determination that
“VW manufactured and installed defeat devices in certain model years 2009
through 2015 diesel light-duty vehicles… These defeat devices bypass, defeat,
or render inoperative elements of the vehicles’ emission control system that
exist to comply with CAA emission standards.” The emissions standards are there
in part “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as
to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population,” and “to initiate and accelerate a national research and
development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Both the EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
have levied hefty citations on the company. The CEO has stepped down in the
wake of the scandal and the recall will likely cost millions of dollars. In
light of all this, consumers may not experience the fun of driving VWs for a
while.</div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-2429261867454569872015-07-14T06:50:00.001-05:002015-07-14T06:50:56.903-05:00SOMETIMES, IT'S HARD TO BREATHE EASY<span style="font-size: x-small;">By Pepper Bowen</span><br /><br />Summer is a fun time of
year. Longer days and warmer weather mean more opportunity to play. It’s
too hot to turn on the stove, so in the States we have a tendency to
cook out cause there is something about charcoal that just makes it
smell like summer!<br /><br />But what are those little square charcoal jobbers really made out of and where do they come from?<br /><br />The
trusty encyclopedia Britannica informs us that charcoal is “an impure
form of graphitic carbon, obtained as a residue when carbonaceous
material is partially burned, or heated with limited access of air”.
Kingsford Charcoal has contained wood and mineral char, mineral carbon,
limestone, sawdust, and fillers since 2000 and that is pretty much the
same thing all commercial grilling charcoal contains.<br /><br />The process to make charcoal is pretty intense.<br /><br />Traditionally,
a pile of wooden logs is leaned together against a stack of logs, peat,
coal, wood, coconut shell, and/or petroleum in a circle and completely
covered with soil and straw to prevent air from entering in a sort of
kiln. Fuel of some sort is placed on the stack to char the logs and
ensure they burn very slowly transforming them into charcoal over about 5
days. Modern methods use a metal container in lieu of a wooden kiln.
Nevertheless, compressing into form is fairly standard in that a binder
like starch is used to maintain the briquette shape and the briquettes
may even include other additives to improve lightly efficiency and
produce a white ash.<br /><br />It’s not all for fun though. Developing
countries rely heavily on charcoal for cooking as well as a heat source.
In Haiti for instance, Berkeley Lab reports that wood is the
predominate fuel for household cooking. However, a 2003 study, shows 91%
of total cooking fuel measured in urban households was charcoal. The UN
Food and Agriculture Organization reports 84% of Cambodia’s population
depends on wood fuel as the main source of energy; whereas, in the
capital city of Phnom Penh 27% of the residents rely primarily on
charcoal. This dependence upon charcoal creates a problem, which is
two-fold.<br /><br />First the impact on wood in areas like Haiti and
Cambodia, countries with some of the worst deforestation rates the
world, is keen. The Pulitzer Center accounts charcoal production in
Cambodia alone is responsible for 1.4 million hectares of net forest
loss. And US Agency for International Development (USAID) asserts only
2% of Haiti’s forests remain.<br /><br />Secondly, as the cooking is largely
indoors, the charcoal burn pollutes indoor air. According to a USAID’s
2007 study, the average life span in Haiti is shortened by an estimated
6.6 years due to the impacts of indoor air. The World Health
Organization’s Public Health and the Environment study from 2009
attributes 6,600 deaths in Cambodia annually to indoor air pollution.<br /><br />Since cooking outside is difficult in urban areas and the dependence upon charcoal is great, what is the solution? Going green!<br /><br />In
Haiti, Carbon Roots International, a USAID-supported non-profit
operating in Quartier Morin, has created green charcoal and bio-char.
Farmers are taught to make the charcoal from their own agricultural
waste such as dried sugar cane and that charcoal is in turn sold by the
farmers. In Cambodia, the entrepreneurs at the Phnom Penh -based
Sustainable Green Fuel Enterprise have created a charcoal made from
discarded coconut husks in a process where the husks are dried, charred,
crushed, then extruded, they have managed to create a cleaner burning
fuel source.<br /><br />No data is currently available on the emissions
impact of indoor air but these sustainable ventures are already in a
position to curb deforestation. And with that, we can all breathe a
little easier. RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-47420996207815467182015-07-07T07:44:00.000-05:002015-07-07T07:44:26.716-05:00A PENNY SAVED IS A PENNY EARNED<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 2001, Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in <i>Whitman v. American Trucking Associations</i> (hereinafter <i>Amer<wbr></wbr>ican Trucking</i>). <i>American Trucking</i> was
a landmark decision that held the Clean Air Act (CAA) made no implied
authorization to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider
the costs of implementing air quality standards. In fact, explicit
authorization would be required for the EPA to consider such costs.
Therefore the EPA was prevented from considering implementation costs in
setting the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ambient
air is just the natural outdoor air that people and animals breathe.
The air is comprised of gases, largely nitrogen and oxygen, but also has
chemical and industrial pollutants, such as the smoke and ash found in
smog. These NAAQS are an attempt to define an acceptable level of
ambient air pollution for both public health and public welfare
protection (i.e. primary and secondary standards). In allowing for cost
blind and health based drivers to determinations air quality, the EPA
could establish criteria reflecting the latest scientific knowledge of
identifiable effects on and protection of public health or welfare and,
in doing so, was the most agile means available to manage and protect
air quality.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That was until Monday. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
June 29, 2015, Justice Scalia penned another momentous opinion for the Court with <i>Michigan v. E.P.A..</i> In
this decision, the Court held the “EPA unreasonably deemed cost
irrelevant when it decided to regulate power plants.” However, this
decision was considering a deeply fundamental question: the meaning of
the “appropriate and necessary” standard, which governs the initial
decision to regulate.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Power plants produce more CO<sub>2</sub> than
any other industry in the US. The combustion is largely released into
the atmosphere through smoke stacks creating an acute effect on the
ambient air. New regulations would require a reduction of pollution
emitted at a substantial cost to the plant. In fact, the Regulatory
Impact Analysis conducted by the EPA estimated “the regulation would
force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year.” But the EPA
“could not fully quantify the benefits of reducing power plants'
emissions of hazardous air pollutants [and], to the extent it could, it
estimated that these benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though under <i>American Trucking</i> the EPA is not supposed to consider cost, <em>the Majority distinguished American Trucking</em> <em>from Michigan v EPA </em>by pointing out the former was to do with public health and safety. The Court rejected the principle established under <i>American Trucking </i>that
the CAA directs the EPA to regulate on the basis of a factor that does
not include cost, because the Act should be read to imply the
consideration of cost anyway. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Under <i>Michigan v. E.P.A.,</i> for
the EPA to “regulate emissions of hazardous pollutants from power
plants it finds ‘appropriate and necessary’ requires as least <i>some</i> attention to cost.” (<i>Emphasis</i> added)
But most importantly, the cost of compliance must be considered “before
deciding whether regulation of power plants under the Clean Air Act is
appropriate and necessary.”RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-77311327610870076322015-07-06T06:57:00.001-05:002015-07-06T07:00:11.943-05:00WE WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO CONSENT DECREE<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN </span><br />
<br />
New Orleans sits at or about six feet below sea level between Lake Ponchartrain,
Lake Borgne, the Mississippi River (River) and its tributaries. Because of our
geographic orientation, comics have jokingly dubbed New Orleans a bowl
surrounded by soup.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
As would be expected, water is of considerable interest to New Orleanians. Rain
water. Flood waters. Swamp water. Drinking water.<br />
<br />
Here in the "Sportsman’s Paradise" we seem to inherently understand
that what enters the water supply, including pollution, doesn’t remain in that
part of the water way. Rather, it travels, disperses, and touches everything
the water touches. In that way, the pollutants threaten the coast, the
wildlife, even the quality of drinking water if left unabated. It is the
movement of pollutants and the interconnected nature of the waterways which
highlight the fact that tributaries, wetlands, and watersheds all have a
significant nexus to downstream waters which may be used in fisheries,
recreation areas, and drinking water supplies.<br />
<br />
It was that very same concern over the interconnectedness that lead groups of
vocal advocates - the League of Women Voters of New Orleans, the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, the Orleans Audubon Society, and the Louisiana
Environmental Action Network - to Washington, DC, in April 1998 to convince the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to intervene. Fast forward to 2015 and we
see the Third Modified Consent Decree between the EPA and the New Orleans
Sewage and Water Board (SWB) for violations of §301 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).<br />
<br />
§301 requires a permit for all discharge from a single identifiable source into
waterways, whether intentional or inadvertent. In the 90s, the SWB didn’t have
a permit to discharge pollutants into waterways, but what they did have was an
old, non-compliant plant discharging pollutants and untreated sewage into
Lake Ponchartrain and the River canals. This is how the consent decree came
about.<br />
<br />
By definition of “consent decree”, SWB admits neither guilt nor liability, but
agrees to correct the problems which caused the unpermitted discharge into the
waterways. To date, SWB has paid $1.5M total civil penalty to the United States
and has spent no less than $2M on the Supplemental Environmental Project
("SEP") in New Orleans. The goal of the SEP included securing
significant water quality improvement and public health protections. Current
remedial measures include new pump stations, supervisory control and data
acquisition ("scada") system and remote monitoring, as well as cross
connections between sewage and drainage systems. And the work is not yet finished.<br />
<br />
Ironically, the consent decree, substantial investments in infrastructure, and
extra monitoring through regulations would have made New Orleans’ water some of
the safest drinking water in the country. It is this extra security the EPA
hopes to provide to 1 in 3 Americans through the new Clean Water Rule, which
will improve drinking water conditions nationwide, once it is adopted and
operates in full force.</div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-48372995720886636582015-06-11T05:00:00.002-05:002015-06-11T05:00:45.283-05:00SIGNIFICANT NEXUS: NOT ANOTHER HAIR CARE PRODUCT<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN</span><br /><br />The Environmental Protection Agency describes wetlands as those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater and having a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Those of us in South Louisiana can definitely agree on that assessment. Interestingly enough, the Clean Water Act identifies it navigable waters.<br />
<br />The recently released Clean Water Rule, has addressed the definition of navigable waters with a keen eye on what it means to be a wetland. The EPA says in the announcement that it is in part to refine the 3 Supreme Court decisions which have thrown wetland protections into question for 60 percent of the nation’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands. So what are those questions and how have they formed the bases for the Rule?<br /><br />In the 1985 US v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 US 121 (Riverside) decision, the Court first entertained the idea of “significant nexus”. The case arose out of the Army Corps of Engineers filing suit under CWA to enjoin Riverside Bayview Homes from filling in wetlands, “characterized by the presence of vegetation that requires saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction”. The 80 acres of marshy land was the property of Bayview Homes and was adjacent to a body of navigable water. The Corps used CWA’s clause prohibiting discharge of fill materials into “navigable waters” without a permit. The Court reasoned that adjacent wetlands are “inseparably bound up” with the waters to which they are adjacent because they blend into them. By doing so, the Court upheld the inclusion of adjacent wetlands in the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” and deferred to the Corps’ ecological judgment.<br /><br />Next came Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v US Army Corps of Engineers, 531 US 159 (2001) (SWANCC). A consortium of Chicago municipalities chose an abandoned sand and gravel pit as a solid waste disposal site. Because the excavation trenches had become permanent and seasonal ponds, they contacted the Corps to determine whether a landfill permit was required. The Corps attempted to expand its jurisdiction over navigable waters under the “Migratory Bird Rule” which would extend intrastate wasters that provide habitat for migratory birds. The Court held that such an extension exceeded the authority granted to the Corps under CWA, but explained the concept of a “significant nexus” which had informed the Court’s decision in Riverside. The fact that the wetlands in Riverside were adjacent to open water was very different from the isolated ponds in SWANCC. And ultimately, the text of the statute would not support extending jurisdiction to ponds not adjacent to open water.<br /><br />Finally, came the unanimous decision in Rapanos v United States, 547 US 715 (2006) (Rapanos). Rapanos involved four Michigan wetlands lying near ditches, man-made drains that eventually emptied into traditional navigable waters, defined in part as relatively permanent bodies of water. The Court determined that “waters of the United States” encompasses some waters that are not navigable in the traditional sense. This was based on Riverside’s rationale that “the evident breadth of congressional concern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems.” However, the critical factor in determining the CWA’s coverage is whether a water has a “significant nexus” to downstream traditional navigable waters such that the water is important to protecting the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the navigable water. As such, the Court rightly reasoned that the only plausible interpretation of “the waters of the United States” does not include channels through which water “flows intermittently or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall”. Thus any other definition would be arbitrary or capricious under Chevron and would not be permitted.<br /><br />
The new Clean Water Rule attempts to provide a cohesive rule consistent with the previous decisions and based on current science. It hinges on the concept of “significant nexus” and evaluates wetlands on an individual basis whether in- or outside of the floodplains.<br />
<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-7651520581168271482015-06-10T04:37:00.003-05:002015-06-10T04:44:53.883-05:00DECISIONS, DECISIONS… A NEW RULE TO CLARIFY THE PHRASE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES”<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN </span><br />
<br />
The Clean Water Rule is here! It arrived without much fanfare but carries with it clarity the Supreme Court has been trying to give the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) “waters of the United States” for years.<br />
<br />
To give some perspective, CWA was passed in 1972 including the phrase “waters of the United States”. The phrase itself was last codified in 1986. The old definition was “as traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, and adjacent wetlands.”. But no one is really even sure what all that means. <br />
<br />
The Corps of Engineers has tried modifying its jurisdiction in order to address situations pertaining to the ’86 definition. However the Supreme Court has not been terribly lenient on that front.<br />
<br />
The new the definition is a work of policy melding the existing CWA with the trifecta of Supreme Court precedent and Public Comments. The result is a simple definition of something that has proven incredibly complicated to define over the years. The Clean Water Rule gives meaning and scope to “waters of the United States” as “the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources.”<br />
<br />
It is still a mouthful, but it makes the phrase itself more fluid and breaks the binds to a static view of what is and what will continue to be waterways. In an age of Climate Change, that is an incredibly important step in keeping our laws and governances relevant.<br />
<br />
But how important is this definition really? Why does it even matter? How much and how often could such a thing possibly come up anyway?<br />
<br />
To be honest, the “waters of the United States” doesn’t come up often in the CWA. What happens is this… §502(7) declares CWA’s jurisdictional scope to be the “navigable waters”. Navigable waters is then defined as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” And it is “navigable waters” that is found sprinkled throughout multiple regulations, such as:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs §s 402 and 404</li>
<li>oil spill prevention and response program § 311,</li>
<li>water quality standards and total maximum daily load programs (TMDL) § 303, and</li>
<li>state water quality certification process § 401.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Each use comes with a different view, focus, and approach to water, pollution, and prevention. So it is easy to understand that depending upon the regulation, the idea of “waters” could become rather muddied since all of these agencies and regulations look back to a single CWA definition of “waters of the United States.”<br />
<br />
All of that is why this updated rule is a big deal. It helps us move from the trudging through dense wording and open ended verbiage into the crystal clarity of what we now understand to be the “waters of the United States”. RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-57567779215335241142015-05-22T01:19:00.001-05:002015-05-22T01:19:19.240-05:00 YOU NEVER MISS YOUR WATER UNTIL YOUR WELL PERMIT IS DENIED<span style="font-size: x-small;">By PEPPER BOWEN</span><br /><br />Back in 1979 and 1983, Glenn and Jolynn Bragg bought pecan orchards for commercial production. The location was perfect - just north of Hondo, TX, in Medina County atop the Edwards Aquifer, one of the most prolific artesian aquifers and one of the greatest natural resources in the world. The Aquifer is a unique groundwater system that has supported the growth and prosperity of the surrounding region for over a century without the development of surface or other water resources because it discharges about 900,000 acre feet of water per year (that’s a lot). This volume allows it to serve the agricultural, industrial, recreational, and domestic needs of over 2M South Central Texans. To the Braggs, the Edwards Aquifer was simply the groundwater system that maintained their pecan groves in a semi-arid climate.<br /><br />Initially the Braggs used the land’s old drip irrigation system from a well that provided insufficient water. They planned shortly after the 1983 purchase to dig an Edwards Aquifer well capable of dispensing more water to irrigate the crops. This irrigation system would be very important to their commercial investment because pecans are a somewhat water intensive and salt sensitive nut crop requiring 2" of rain or irrigation water per week. Still, the Braggs had a dedicated water source so they were unconcerned about the volume needed … that is until the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) was created in 1995. The EAA established a permit allocation which was incongruent with the Braggs’ needs and that sparked a 20 year battle over the water resources that the Braggs have characterized as the unconstitutional taking of their water source.<br /><br />EAA’s authority stems from the namesake Act passed by the Texas Legislature in 1993. The Act gives all powers, rights, and privileges to manage, conserve, preserve, and protect the aquifer to the EAA. This is accomplished largely by creating a process oriented system of meters and permits which manage water usage.<br /><br />The Braggs applied for two permits to support their well, which was not completed until after the Act went into force. They were approved for volume less than requested for one and completely denied the other. As the result, the Braggs claim that by not granting the volume requested, the EAA adversely impacts their pecan business in what amounts to a taking of resources necessary for the commercial viability of their business.<br /><br />Court documents beginning in 2007 cite the seminal case of Penn Central Transportation v New York (1978) which provides in pertinent part that except where a regulation physically invades a property, as in for public access, the test is whether the regulation unreasonably “interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” Under Penn the primary factors to be considered are “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.”<br /><br />The Braggs argued their orchards had been adversely impacted. The Authority countered with arguments including the Braggs benefited from the Aquifer and the permit system if for no other reason apportioned the volume and ensured they and others could continue to rely upon the Aquifer for years to come.<br /><br />Ultimately, the Texas Court of Appeals concluded the permitting system resulted in a regulatory taking of both orchards based largely on application of the Penn factors. The Braggs believed they owned the water under their land. They had a reasonable expectation through their investment that they could support the orchards with water from wells from the Aquifer. And what may have been most compelling, lack of sufficient water for the crops not only impacts yields of the current crop, but also the quality and size of future crops. Damages were awarded; neither party was appeased; both appealed to the Texas Supreme Court; both were denied writ.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-2312962372089158512015-05-18T02:18:00.000-05:002015-05-18T02:18:00.265-05:00DUKE ENERGY ACQUIRES STAKE IN PIPELINE<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
Duke Energy of Florida announced this week that it has purchased an ownership stake in the proposed Sabal Trail Pipeline Project. Duke Energy’s investment was estimated at $225 million.<br />
<br />
The Sabal Trail Project is a joint venture of Spectra Energy and NextEra Energy, Inc. The pipeline will be operated by Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC. The cost of the pipeline is estimated at $3 billion. It will run approximately 500 miles from Alabama across the state of Georgia into Florida, where it is one of only two major pipelines supplying natural gas to Florida. Once constructed, the pipeline will be capable of carrying over one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. <br />
<br />
The pipeline is scheduled to begin service in 2017. <br />
<br />
For information and updates, call (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-81822654267784614632015-05-15T14:26:00.004-05:002015-05-15T14:26:39.996-05:00 OKLAHOMA GROUPS SEEK MORATORIUM ON WELLS DUE TO EARTHQUAKES<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
A coalition of environmental and advocacy groups is calling for a moratorium on wastewater injection wells in Oklahoma due to recent reports that the wells may have triggered earthquakes.<br />
<br />
Coalition members included Clean Energy Future Oklahoma, Oklahoma Sierra Club, Stop Fracking Payne County, the NAACP, and Peace House Oklahoma City. The groups traveled to the state capitol to deliver signed petitions to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.<br />
<br />
The Oklahoma Geological Survey (“OGS”) released a statement on April 21, 2015, that it was “very likely” that most of the recent earthquakes in the state were triggered by subsurface injection of wastewater from oil and gas drilling operations. According to the OGS, the hundreds of earthquakes which have occurred recently in central and north-central Oklahoma are not very likely to represent a naturally occurring process. The pace of oil and gas drilling has accelerated in these areas of the state.<br />
<br />
Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than earthquake activity in 2008. Spokesmen for the coalition groups described damage to homes from recent earthquakes and urged the Governor and the Oklahoma legislature to act rather than wait for the oil and gas industry to propose a solution.<br />
<br />
For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-57529543648241134292015-05-14T07:45:00.002-05:002015-05-14T07:45:16.073-05:00MORE OIL AND GAS COMPANIES REPORT FIRST QUARTER LOSSES AND FEWER M & A TRANSACTIONS<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />In addition to those losses previously reported in this blog, Apache Corporation reported a net loss of $4.7 billion for First Quarter (“1Q”) 2015. When adjusted, the 1Q loss for Apache totaled $139 million. Apache stated that the company remains on track to meet its 2015 capital spending projections for North America. The company is lowering its international capital spending and anticipates a sale of Australian assets around mid-year.<br />
<br />Chesapeake Energy Corporation reported a 1Q net loss of $3.782 billion, down from a net income of $374 million for 1Q 2014. The company attributed the loss to the impairment for carrying the value of the company’s oil and gas properties amid decreases in oil and natural gas prices.<br />
<br />
Low oil prices impacted the number of merger and acquisition deals in the industry during 1Q 2015. Noble Energy Inc. of Houston has entered into an agreement to acquire Rosetta Resources, Inc., a Houston company, in a deal valued at $2.1 billion. The deal is expected to close in the Third Quarter of 2015.<br />
<br />For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500. RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-47322226498030106032015-05-13T07:45:00.000-05:002015-05-13T07:45:00.539-05:00UPDATE ON FRAUDULENT BP CLAIMS | NECESSITY AND THE MOTHERS' DAY INVENTION<span style="color: #4e96ba; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: #4e96ba; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>UPDATE ON FRAUDULENT BP CLAIMS</b></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: 11px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 11px;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px;">A Grand Island, Louisiana man was sentenced this week to 41 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release for filing a fraudulent claim for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Ronnie P. Vedros filed a claim for $30,173 after the oil spill, claiming that he</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">...</span></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">>> </b><b style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><u><a href="http://www.icontact-archive.com/s370GWDmTFZT1WXl1CnG8Uc4JNtCUhss?w=3">READ MORE</a></u></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<hr style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="color: #4e96ba;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #4e96ba; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>NECESSITY AND THE MOTHERS' DAY INVENTION</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">By PEPPER BOWEN</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Ann
Jarvis is credited with the creation of Mothers’ Day. She had the idea of
setting aside a day to celebrate and educate mothers. The education of women
was to be in the art of caring for their children as a way to reduce disease,
decrease the infant mortality rate, and in general... </span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<b style="font-size: 13px;"><br /></b><b style="font-size: 13px;">>> </b><b style="font-size: 13px;"><u><a href="http://www.icontact-archive.com/s370GWDmTFZT1WXl1CnG8bGwNLN4mRiJ?w=3">READ MORE</a></u></b></div>
</div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-89665228242764576952015-05-12T06:25:00.004-05:002015-05-12T06:25:51.811-05:00NEW CRYOGENIC NATURAL GAS PLANT PLANNED FOR DELAWARE BASIN<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON </span><br />
<br />Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. (“Enterprise”) and Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“Occidental”) announced an agreement to jointly develop a new cryogenic natural gas processing plant. The plant, which will have a capacity of 150 million cubic feet per day of natural gas, will serve the Delaware Basin in west Texas and southern New Mexico. Construction is scheduled to begin in mid-2016.<br />
<br />The plant will be owned by Delaware Basin Gas Processing, LLC, a company which is owned 50/50 by Enterprise and Occidental.<br />
<br />
Cryogenic natural gas processing consists of dropping temperatures of the gas stream to approximately minus 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature drop condenses ethane and other hydrocarbons in the gas stream, allowing 90 to 95% of the ethane to be recovered.<br />
<br />For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-75603075368505896132015-05-11T07:57:00.003-05:002015-05-11T07:57:18.715-05:00HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PROPOSES BILL TO LIMIT DEFINITION OF “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES”<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The White House announced last week that President Obama will likely veto a bill being proposed by the House of Representatives which would restrict reinterpretation of the “Waters of the United States” definition under the Clean Water Act by the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The proposed bill, H.R. 1732, is called the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015. It was sponsored by Representative Bill Shuster, R-Pennsylvania. The bill would require the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule under the Clean Water Act which redefines the definition of “Waters of the United States” to include seasonal and rain-dependent streams and wetlands near rivers and streams, and would bring those areas under Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction. The proposed rule was published at 79 Fed. Reg. 22188 on April 21, 2014.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Under the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015, the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the EPA would be required to develop a new proposed rule and definition of “Waters of the United States” which would take into account public comments and require an economic analysis of the proposed rule. The bill would also require the agencies to “jointly consult and solicit advice and recommendations from representative State and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For more information, call (504) 599-8500.</div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-70700141468146472952015-05-07T06:09:00.005-05:002015-05-07T06:11:52.666-05:00REPORT ON CRUDE OIL PRICES <span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON </span><br />
<br />
The downturn in prices per crude oil in 2014 and 2015 has created uncertainty in the industry. The past two months have seen some ups and downs in the market. In late March, for example, prices for U.S. light sweet crude oil increased slightly following the news that Saudi Arabia and its allied had launched air strikes in Yemen. Even though Yemen is not a major crude oil producer, the air strikes caused concerns about disruptions in the prospective oil supply, due to Yemen’s proximity to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a major oil transporting corridor.<br />
<br />
Despite the downturn in the market for oil and gas, financial analysts and investment bankers believe the oil and gas industry has acted responsibly to prevent major permanent negative impacts. According to Credit Suisse, “Companies are more active in dealing with costs and capital issues in the current environment.”<br />
<br />
Crude oil prices began to decline in June 2014, when prices dropped by 50%.<br />
<br />
For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-26661691611464962852015-05-06T06:10:00.003-05:002015-05-06T06:10:27.825-05:00NORTH DAKOTA IMPLEMENTS ITS OWN RAILWAY SAFETY PROGRAM<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />The State of North Dakota legislature has reached an agreement to fund a $523,000 program designed to improve railway safety. The program will be run by the state. The program established funding for one full time and one temporary railway inspector.<br />
<br />
The program was proposed by legislators in response to accidents involving railcars carrying crude oil. In December 2013, an accident near Casselton, North Dakota created a toxic cloud and caused some residents to evacuate. Approximately 400,000 barrels of crude oil were spilled in the accident. In the last five years, North Dakota has experienced at least 75 railway accidents and equipment breakdowns, resulting in $30 million in damage to the state.<br />
<br />According to reports, rail traffic has increased more than 233% in North Dakota since 2000 due to the state’s oil boom. In 2014, North Dakota was the Number 2 oil-producing state in the country behind Texas. However, North Dakota lacks sufficient pipelines to carry crude oil from the Bakken Region. Over two-thirds of the oil is shipped by rail.<br />
<br />For more information and updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call Toni Ellington at (504) 599-8500.<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-63936720502947558432015-05-05T00:47:00.008-05:002015-05-05T00:47:58.956-05:00OIL AND GAS COMPANIES REPORT LOSSES IN FIRST QUARTER 2015<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />Due to record low prices per barrel for crude oil, a number of oil and gas companies posted first quarter (“1Q”) losses or decreases in profits. Hess Corporation reported an estimated net loss of $389 million for 1Q 2015. This is compared to a net profit of $386 for 1Q 2014. The company stated that exploration and production losses totaled $286 million during the quarter, even though production levels for crude oil and natural gas liquids increased for that time period. Hess has reduced its 2015 projected expenditures for capital and exploration and production. Hess is headquartered in New York City, with offices in more than a dozen countries.<br />
<br />Total SA reported that its 1Q 2015 income was down 22% from $3.3 billion during 1Q 2014. Total cited a 50% decrease in Brent crude oil prices from last year as the cause. Total is a multinational French oil and gas company.<br />
<br />Eni SPA reported a 1Q 2015 decline of 55% in its adjusted operating profits, due to lower crude oil prices. Its losses were offset in part by better performance in upstream activity and other segments of its business. Eni SPA is an Italian oil and gas company with headquarters in Rome.<br />
<br />A number of other oil and gas companies – Anadarko Petroleum, SandRidge Energy, Inc., and Devon Energy -- are scheduled to report their first quarter earnings the first week of May 2015. For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-4940714003707703222015-05-04T02:56:00.000-05:002015-05-04T02:56:17.429-05:00EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED RULE FOR NANOSCALE MATERIALS<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON </span><br />
<br />On April 6, 2015, the EPA announced a proposed rule to require reporting and recordkeeping information on certain chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials. The proposed rule applies to materials designated as chemical substances under the Toxic Substance s Control Act (“TSCA”).<br />
<br />According to the EPA, the rule is necessary to ensure that nanoscale materials are manufactured and used in a way to prevent unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. The rule would require manufacturers of new chemical substances to provide a pre-manufacturing notice to the agency before introducing them into commerce. Also, the rule would require information gathering on new and existing nanoscale materials.<br />
<br />Nanoscale materials are chemical substances which have dimensions at the nanoscale, or which are approximately 100 nanometers or less in width. By comparison, a human hair is approximately 80,000 to 100,000 nanometers wide. Nanoscale materials may have properties which are different than the same chemical substances in a larger form.<br />
<br />The proposed rule can be found at FR 2015-07497. The public comment period ends on July 6, 2015.<br />
<br />For more information, contact Toni Ellington at (504) 599-8500.<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-38809696007618278402015-04-30T20:02:00.003-05:002015-04-30T20:02:11.548-05:00FEDERAL REPORT LINKS EARTHQUAKES TO INJECTION OF WASTEWATER<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The U.S. government released a preliminary report on April 24, 2015, linking increases in earthquake activity in eight states to an increase in the number of wastewater injection wells. The federal report was released a day after the Oklahoma Geological Survey issued a report which reached similar conclusions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The preliminary federal report, issued by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”), was based on a study of increases in seismic activity in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. In these states, crude oil production rates have increased approximately 75% since 2000, and natural gas production rates have increased approximately 35% in the same time frame.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
According to the report, as pressure builds along fault lines in the earth due to the injection of billions of gallons of wastewater generated from oil and gas production, earthquake activity is triggered. According to Mark Peterson, who headed up the USGS National Seismic Hazard Modeling Project, “These earthquakes are occurring at a higher rate than ever before and pose a much greater risk to people living nearby.”</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The report offers the first assessment of how man-made earthquakes have increased in these states where oil and gas activity is booming. The report was based on data about earthquake rates, locations, maximum magnitudes, and ground motions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The USGS intends to expend this research to western states where oil and gas activity has increased.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For more information, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.</div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-56458785092764389712015-04-30T02:54:00.000-05:002015-04-30T02:54:03.643-05:00EXXON MOBIL AGREES TO SETTLEMENT FOR ARKANSAS PIPELINE LEAK<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
Exxon Mobil has settled charges related to an oil pipeline leak in Arkansas which occurred in 2013. Exxon will pay $5 million to the EPA and the State of Arkansas for damages.<br />
<br />
The spill occurred in Mayflower, Arkansas, which is approximately 25 miles northwest of Little Rock, on March 29, 2013. Approximately 12,000 barrels of oil mixed with water were recovered after the spill. Twenty-two homes were evacuated. The EPA classified the incident as a major spill.<br />
<br />
The spill occurred on the Exxon Pegasus Pipeline, which carriers 95,000 barrels per day and stretches from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas. The pipeline was carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude at the time. Since the spill in 2013, there have been conflicting reports as to whether any oil reached Lake Conway, Arkansas. In addition, certain citizens groups have claimed that the leak affected air quality in the area and that air samples showed significant readings of toxic hydrocarbons, benzene, and other harmful substances.<br />
<br />
For more information, contact Toni Ellington at (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-36194486100975414312015-04-29T07:04:00.002-05:002015-04-29T07:04:19.324-05:00PLANS TO PROTECT THE EVERGLADES ANNOUNCED ON EARTH DAY<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In honor of Earth Day – April 22, 2015 – President Obama visited the Florida Everglades to highlight his administration’s climate change initiatives. The focus on the Everglades is key because the rise of sea levels and the influx of salt water into the area have threatened the fresh water supplied by the Everglades as drinking water for the state. The White House will announce some initiatives to protect areas such as the Everglades, using such means as increasing funding for national parks.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Florida Governor Rick Scott issued a statement criticizing the federal government’s past commitment and efforts to maintain the Everglades. According to the Governor, the government should step up the Everglades restoration efforts by repairing the Lake Okeechobee dike. The dike is under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Everglades is a primary outflow of Lake Okeechobee. It is the largest freshwater lake in the state of Florida and the seventh largest in the United States. In February 2015, the Army Corps of Engineers announced new rehabilitation plans for a portion of the Lake Okeechobee dike, at an estimated cost of $85 million. The dike is susceptible to erosion and is considered one of the most likely dikes to fail in the country. Problems with the dike have allowed salt water from deep below the ground to mix with shallower freshwater.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-74392439609075814782015-04-28T07:17:00.001-05:002015-04-28T07:23:30.044-05:00OKLAHOMA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LINKS EARTHQUAKES IN THE STATE TO INJECTION OF WASTEWATER<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
The Oklahoma Geological Survey (“OGS”) released a statement on April 21, 2015, that it was “very likely” that most of the recent earthquakes in the state were triggered by subsurface injection of wastewater from oil and gas drilling operations. The statement was issued by State Geologist Richard D. Andrews and State Seismologist Austin Holland.<br />
<br />
According to the OGS, the hundreds of earthquakes which have occurred recently in central and north-central Oklahoma are not very likely to represent a naturally occurring process. The pace of oil and gas drilling has accelerated in these areas of the state.<br />
<br />
Earthquake activity in Oklahoma in 2013 was 70 times greater than earthquake activity in 2008.<br />
<br />
Following the release of the OGS report, State Representative Cory Williams called for a moratorium on oil and gas wastewater disposal in 16 counties in Oklahoma. Governor Mary Fallin has launched a new website to provide information on how state agencies are responding to help homeowners. The website address is www.earthquakes.ok.gov. The site includes an interactive map identifying earthquake activity and identifying the sites of more than 3,000 active wastewater injection wells in the state.<br />
<br />
For more information, contact Toni Ellington at (504) 599-8500.RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-39548409733683688822015-04-27T06:41:00.004-05:002015-04-27T06:41:42.550-05:00GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES LEASE SALE IN GULF OF MEXICO FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
Last month, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) announced that 21.8 million acres would be offered for oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico this year. The area available for lease is located 9 to 250 miles off the coast of Texas in water depths ranging from 16 to 10,975 feet.<br />
<br />
The lease sale, which will be Lease Sale 246, will offer available unleased areas in the western Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas activity. The lease sale will take place in New Orleans in August 2015.<br />
<br />
The lease sale is a part of the Outer Continental Shelf 2012-2017 Five Year Oil and Gas easing Program.<br />
<br />
For more information, call (504) 599-8500.<br />
<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-37657795772853870532015-04-24T06:18:00.004-05:002015-04-24T06:18:27.949-05:00ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT UPDATE FOR GREATER SAGE GROUSE<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
On April 21, 2015, the Department of Interior made the announcement that it would not designate a small population of Greater Sage Grouse in Nevada and California as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The ruling was limited to these isolated groups of the birds in the two states. A decision is expected this fall on whether ESA protection is warranted for hundreds of thousands of the birds in an area covering eleven western states.<br />
<br />
Populations of the Greater Sage Grouse have declined because of the overgrowth of invasive trees in their native habitat areas, which allows birds of prey to perch and attack the grouse and their chicks. In addition, wildfires have burned off sagebrush, which is the species’ food source. The birds’ habitat has also been impacted by human encroachment.<br />
<br />
The habitat for the Greater Sage Grouse in the eleven-state region has been disturbed by mineral extraction, wind energy development, and wide-spread cattle grazing. The region includes the states of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Arizona. Governors for some of these states oppose listing the bird, because it would limit energy exploration and cattle grazing over a large area of public and private land in the western United States.<br />
<br />
The Greater Sage Grouse was once in plentiful supply in North America. It was a food source for Americans who settled the west. The current population is approximately 5 percent of the species’ historic population.<br />
<br />
For updates, stay tuned to this blog, or call (504) 599-8500.<br />
<br />RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8278992395597391376.post-50834179759689953142015-04-23T04:43:00.003-05:002015-04-23T04:44:37.135-05:00EPA GETS FAVORABLE RULING ON REGULATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS<span style="font-size: x-small;">By TONI ELLINGTON</span><br />
<br />
On April 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling in favor of the EPA on climate change. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants as long as it also regulated other pollutants as well.<br />
<br />
Various industry groups and several stated had asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate the EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The final Tailoring Rule was issued in 2010. It was to apply to facilities which are among the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, including power plants, refineries, and cement producing facilities. The Rule set thresholds for six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxides, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorides. The standards were to be implemented in phases. Smaller source s such as small farms, restaurants, and commercial facilities were shielded from compliance under the initial rule.<br />
<br />
The April 13 ruling by the D.C. Circuit was made after remand by the U.S. Supreme Court in <i>Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA,</i> 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), which found that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it expanded the Act’s Title V and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Programs to include carbon dioxide emissions.<br />
<br />
The opponents to the rule sought to force the EPA to go through a new rulemaking process to regulate greenhouse gases.<br />
<br />
For more information, contact Toni Ellington at (504) 599-8500.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
RemediationLawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14393188534250287968noreply@blogger.com0