The Sue Pope Fund, totaling 2.3 million, was created by a legal settlement between Holcim Cement and Downwinders at Risk. This fund has awarded grants to small and large projects.
They have decided not to fund or support any natural gas drilling projects. Here is a paragraph from their press release.
In a statement it said would be posted on the Pope Fund website as well as distributed to other North Texas foundations, the Downwinders board stated that "Natural gas could play an important and constructive role in the transition from coal and oil to more sustainable energy sources. But for it to do so, it must be extracted and processed with less waste and pollution."
Read below to see two of the projects they funded:
A CNG-powered bus ferrying workday commuters from Arlington to the TRE station in Ft. Worth, and the conversion of approximately 20 gasoline-powered taxis to natural gas. Those projects will be fully funded, but no new projects centered on gas will be approved.
Downwinders at Risk Director Jim Schermbeck had this to say:
"Our small effort won't make anyone in the industry tremble, but maybe our stand will influence others to do the same thing. We appreciate the value of small stuff adding up - it's how we've won all our own battles", said Schermbeck.
You are so right Jim. A lot of little voices can be very loud when all saying the same thing.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wall Street Journal: Gas Sites Sput Air Worries
This WSJ article is touching on the air quality tests Fort Worth Mayor Moncrief has ordered by an independent company.
On Tuesday, Fort Worth's mayor said the city would follow up on the state-sponsored study with its own air-quality tests and could consider rewriting rules that allow drilling in residential neighborhoods.
"It's time we had some answers," Mayor Mike Moncrief said at a City Council meeting Tuesday evening.
In the past, gas drilling production sites have been monitored individually. There really hasn't been any testing that tells the "big picture". What the total emissions are in an area where there are multiple sites in close proximity.
Michael Honeycutt, director of the commission's toxicology division, said the study didn't suggest that gas production poses an immediate risk to residents' health. But he said the results were concerning because hundreds of wells are being drilled in heavily populated areas, meaning residents could be exposed for years.
"That could turn into an issue, especially with the density of those wells and associated equipment in areas of such population density," Mr. Honeycutt said.
This is the real issue facing communities like Fort Worth, Dish, Flower Mound, Argyle, Bartonville, Double Oak, and others.
On Tuesday, Fort Worth's mayor said the city would follow up on the state-sponsored study with its own air-quality tests and could consider rewriting rules that allow drilling in residential neighborhoods.
"It's time we had some answers," Mayor Mike Moncrief said at a City Council meeting Tuesday evening.
In the past, gas drilling production sites have been monitored individually. There really hasn't been any testing that tells the "big picture". What the total emissions are in an area where there are multiple sites in close proximity.
Michael Honeycutt, director of the commission's toxicology division, said the study didn't suggest that gas production poses an immediate risk to residents' health. But he said the results were concerning because hundreds of wells are being drilled in heavily populated areas, meaning residents could be exposed for years.
"That could turn into an issue, especially with the density of those wells and associated equipment in areas of such population density," Mr. Honeycutt said.
This is the real issue facing communities like Fort Worth, Dish, Flower Mound, Argyle, Bartonville, Double Oak, and others.
Update from Flower Mound Cares
We received the following update from Flower Mound Cares:
We know you all have been waiting to hear where we are in the petition process, so here it goes...
Our attorney is currently looking at two options for the petition drive, he is deciding which one will best address the concerns that affect the citizens of Flower Mound. The issues are complex, but we are expecting the analysis of these two options to be completed next week. The result of this analysis will allow us to draft the petition, then to move forward with collecting signatures.
This week we will be obtaining venues to host signing events as well as coordinating volunteer logistics. Look for e-mails over the weekend on how you can help assist in the signing events to make them successful. We realize several e-mails are being forwarded around, so our volunteer subject line will always start with
"FM Cares Petition:..."
We will keep you posted.
Email
We know you all have been waiting to hear where we are in the petition process, so here it goes...
Our attorney is currently looking at two options for the petition drive, he is deciding which one will best address the concerns that affect the citizens of Flower Mound. The issues are complex, but we are expecting the analysis of these two options to be completed next week. The result of this analysis will allow us to draft the petition, then to move forward with collecting signatures.
This week we will be obtaining venues to host signing events as well as coordinating volunteer logistics. Look for e-mails over the weekend on how you can help assist in the signing events to make them successful. We realize several e-mails are being forwarded around, so our volunteer subject line will always start with
"FM Cares Petition:..."
We will keep you posted.
If you are interested in becoming a volunteer with the Flower Mound Cares Petition drive please send an email to FMCares@verizon.net with the following information:
Name
Address
Phone
Neighborhood/Subdivision
Area your interested in helping with: Event Planning, Volunteer Coordination, Notary, Signage, Legal, Communications or Neighborhood Advocate
Special areas of expertise
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
EPA will research Hydraulic Fracturing and Endocrine Disruption
The EPA budget for 2011 includes 4.3 million for Hydraulic Fracturing Research through their Star Program. Also 17.4 million for Endocrine Disruptor's Research.
Dr. Theo Colburn and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange talks about the Fossil Fuel Connection. Here is a paragraph from the introduction on the TEDX website. It explains how hydraulic fracturing is done. The fracking fluid is sand, water and chemicals. It also mentions that 30% to 70% of the fracking fluid will come back up to the surface, along with other toxic substances that are naturally present, during fracking.
Toxic chemicals are used at every stage of development to reach and release the gas. Drilling muds, a combination of toxic and non-toxic substances, are used to drill the well. To facilitate the release of natural gas after drilling, approximately a million or more gallons of fluids, loaded with toxic chemicals, are injected underground under high pressure. This process, called fracturing (frac’ing or stimulation), uses diesel-powered heavy equipment that runs continuously during the operation. One well can be frac’ed 10 or more times and there can be up to 28 wells on one well pad. An estimated 30% to 70% of the frac’ing fluid will resurface, bringing back with it toxic substances that are naturally present in underground oil and gas deposits, as well as the chemicals used in the frac’ing fluid. Under some circumstances, nothing is recovered.
In 2004, the EPA, under the Bush Administration, conducted a study on Hydraulic Fracturing. The study was released concluding that hydraulic fracturing did not threaten water supplies. Shortly after this study was released, the "halliburton loophole" was passed. But Weston Wilson, a 31 year veteran with the EPA, sought protection under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act told a different story. The following paragraphs are from a article in the Union of Concerned Scientists:
EPA's conclusions are unsupportable. EPA has conducted limited research reaching the unsupported conclusion that this industry practice needs no further study at this time. EPA decisions were supported by a Peer Review Panel; however five of the seven members of this panel appear to have conflicts-of-interest and may benefit from EPA's decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.9
"I think the agency's acted egregiously," said Wilson in an interview a few months after sending his letter to Congress. "It's not fulfilling its responsibility to protect public health."10 Wilson's concern was supported by other scientists both inside and outside of EPA. Geoffrey D. Thyne, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines who is generally supportive of hydraulic fracturing, argued that exempting the practice from regulation "is premature, unwise and goes against the public interest."11 Wilson is correct when he says, "EPA should finish its study and obtain field information to see if this does represent a risk to ground water."12
Now more than 5 years later, with a new group of members in the EPA, they will again revisit hydraulic fracturing. They will study the health impacts and the effects on water, air and soil.
Dr. Theo Colburn and The Endocrine Disruption Exchange talks about the Fossil Fuel Connection. Here is a paragraph from the introduction on the TEDX website. It explains how hydraulic fracturing is done. The fracking fluid is sand, water and chemicals. It also mentions that 30% to 70% of the fracking fluid will come back up to the surface, along with other toxic substances that are naturally present, during fracking.
Toxic chemicals are used at every stage of development to reach and release the gas. Drilling muds, a combination of toxic and non-toxic substances, are used to drill the well. To facilitate the release of natural gas after drilling, approximately a million or more gallons of fluids, loaded with toxic chemicals, are injected underground under high pressure. This process, called fracturing (frac’ing or stimulation), uses diesel-powered heavy equipment that runs continuously during the operation. One well can be frac’ed 10 or more times and there can be up to 28 wells on one well pad. An estimated 30% to 70% of the frac’ing fluid will resurface, bringing back with it toxic substances that are naturally present in underground oil and gas deposits, as well as the chemicals used in the frac’ing fluid. Under some circumstances, nothing is recovered.
In 2004, the EPA, under the Bush Administration, conducted a study on Hydraulic Fracturing. The study was released concluding that hydraulic fracturing did not threaten water supplies. Shortly after this study was released, the "halliburton loophole" was passed. But Weston Wilson, a 31 year veteran with the EPA, sought protection under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act told a different story. The following paragraphs are from a article in the Union of Concerned Scientists:
EPA's conclusions are unsupportable. EPA has conducted limited research reaching the unsupported conclusion that this industry practice needs no further study at this time. EPA decisions were supported by a Peer Review Panel; however five of the seven members of this panel appear to have conflicts-of-interest and may benefit from EPA's decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.9
"I think the agency's acted egregiously," said Wilson in an interview a few months after sending his letter to Congress. "It's not fulfilling its responsibility to protect public health."10 Wilson's concern was supported by other scientists both inside and outside of EPA. Geoffrey D. Thyne, a professor at the Colorado School of Mines who is generally supportive of hydraulic fracturing, argued that exempting the practice from regulation "is premature, unwise and goes against the public interest."11 Wilson is correct when he says, "EPA should finish its study and obtain field information to see if this does represent a risk to ground water."12
Now more than 5 years later, with a new group of members in the EPA, they will again revisit hydraulic fracturing. They will study the health impacts and the effects on water, air and soil.
Texas Industry Groups and Agencies fighting stricter smog limits
Industry groups, mostly oil, gas and chemical industries, along with Texas agency officials are opposed to the new federal ozone standards set by the EPA.
Here is Texas, the oil and gas industry is supposed to be regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. We have mentioned in the past that the TRC top officials are elected and receive a majority of their campaign donations from the very industry they are in charge of regulating.
The air quality is monitored by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, an agency that the members are appointed by Governor Perry. Perry, the TRC, TCEQ, and the Oil and Gas Industry are pretty much admitting that they can't drill right. They complain that it will cost jobs if they are forced to clean up the air.
Read a few of the paragraphs from this article.
But the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce the acceptable level of ground-level ozone to from 60 to 70 parts per billion ran into stiff opposition here, where the oil and gas industry is king and the state environmental agency under Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, has been generally unwilling to crack down on polluters if it means sacrificing jobs.
The members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, appointed by Mr. Perry, have made it plain they will fight the stricter standards and have called them arbitrary, unnecessary and unachievable.
The proposed lower standards also drew fire from manufacturers and oil and gas companies, who fear they will bear the brunt of the costs of cutting down the volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that cause smog. Some issued dire warnings of jobs being cut to pay for it.
“It will have a devastating impact on the chemical industry,” said Christina Wisdom, of the Texas Chemical Council.
Throughout the years, other industries have had to make changes to comply with the Federal Environmental Acts.
But environmentalists and health groups, who generally applaud the proposed rule, scoffed at assertions that the petrochemical industry would be forced to slash jobs to meet the requirements. It was an empty threat, they said, pointing out that the federal government has steadily tightened air quality standards for decades without slowing economic growth.
“Historically, the benefits of cleaning up outweigh the costs three to one,” said Janice Nolen, of the American Lung Association.
The health of all Americans is at stake. Everyone will have to make sacrifices. The Oil and Gas Industry should too.
Here is Texas, the oil and gas industry is supposed to be regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. We have mentioned in the past that the TRC top officials are elected and receive a majority of their campaign donations from the very industry they are in charge of regulating.
The air quality is monitored by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, an agency that the members are appointed by Governor Perry. Perry, the TRC, TCEQ, and the Oil and Gas Industry are pretty much admitting that they can't drill right. They complain that it will cost jobs if they are forced to clean up the air.
Read a few of the paragraphs from this article.
But the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce the acceptable level of ground-level ozone to from 60 to 70 parts per billion ran into stiff opposition here, where the oil and gas industry is king and the state environmental agency under Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, has been generally unwilling to crack down on polluters if it means sacrificing jobs.
The members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, appointed by Mr. Perry, have made it plain they will fight the stricter standards and have called them arbitrary, unnecessary and unachievable.
The proposed lower standards also drew fire from manufacturers and oil and gas companies, who fear they will bear the brunt of the costs of cutting down the volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that cause smog. Some issued dire warnings of jobs being cut to pay for it.
“It will have a devastating impact on the chemical industry,” said Christina Wisdom, of the Texas Chemical Council.
Throughout the years, other industries have had to make changes to comply with the Federal Environmental Acts.
But environmentalists and health groups, who generally applaud the proposed rule, scoffed at assertions that the petrochemical industry would be forced to slash jobs to meet the requirements. It was an empty threat, they said, pointing out that the federal government has steadily tightened air quality standards for decades without slowing economic growth.
“Historically, the benefits of cleaning up outweigh the costs three to one,” said Janice Nolen, of the American Lung Association.
The health of all Americans is at stake. Everyone will have to make sacrifices. The Oil and Gas Industry should too.
Oil & Gas not happy about complaints
Jeff Prince of the Fort Worth Weekly has a brief article touching on the fact that the Oil and Gas Industry is "complaining about the complaints".
He makes a very good point.
And since the guys with the treasure chests command the power in Austin and Washington D.C., toughening laws won’t be easy. Don’t think the battle won’t get noisy.
In addition to that, we have elected officials that profit directly from the Oil & Gas Industry.
One way to make a difference is to get the right people in office. Who you vote for is very important now more than ever.
He makes a very good point.
And since the guys with the treasure chests command the power in Austin and Washington D.C., toughening laws won’t be easy. Don’t think the battle won’t get noisy.
In addition to that, we have elected officials that profit directly from the Oil & Gas Industry.
One way to make a difference is to get the right people in office. Who you vote for is very important now more than ever.
Ethical? Should law makers be able to profit from the laws they write?
A recent article in the Dallas Morning News talks about Rep. Joe Barton and how he has profited from the Barnett Shale. Although this is not a crime, it does raise the question, is it ethical? Rep Barton purchased his minerals from Walter Mize of Cleburne. Before Mize passed away in 2008, he donated to Barton's campaigns and advised him on energy policy. Barton also wrote a law and sat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Congressional experts say deals like this raise ethical questions.
Barton's interest could become controversial at a time when Congress is considering sweeping energy legislation that would boost demand for natural gas. Congressional experts say such deals raise ethical questions for lawmakers, who are expected by the public to maintain a firewall between their personal finances and official duties.
"If you are elected as a public servant to try to do what is right for the public generally and then you use that position to help bring in material wealth, I think it's unethical," said James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University.
It seems that back in 2004, Barton proposed $150 million, 10 year federal program for research and technology for the Oil and Gas Industry. This became part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Yes, the same time that the "halliburton loophole", which allows the industry not to disclosed what is in the fracking fluid, was proposed and passed.
These paragraphs stood out.
Barton remains the committee's top Republican as it considers new legislation that would affect natural gas producers.
He has opposed climate change legislation that could benefit gas producers, but he supported a proposal to subsidize the conversion of thousands of heavy-duty trucks and federal vehicles to run on natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel fuel.
As an elected official, is it ethical to profit from the decisions or laws you make?
That question is being asked over and over again here in Texas.
Congressional experts say deals like this raise ethical questions.
Barton's interest could become controversial at a time when Congress is considering sweeping energy legislation that would boost demand for natural gas. Congressional experts say such deals raise ethical questions for lawmakers, who are expected by the public to maintain a firewall between their personal finances and official duties.
"If you are elected as a public servant to try to do what is right for the public generally and then you use that position to help bring in material wealth, I think it's unethical," said James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University.
It seems that back in 2004, Barton proposed $150 million, 10 year federal program for research and technology for the Oil and Gas Industry. This became part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Yes, the same time that the "halliburton loophole", which allows the industry not to disclosed what is in the fracking fluid, was proposed and passed.
These paragraphs stood out.
Barton remains the committee's top Republican as it considers new legislation that would affect natural gas producers.
He has opposed climate change legislation that could benefit gas producers, but he supported a proposal to subsidize the conversion of thousands of heavy-duty trucks and federal vehicles to run on natural gas instead of gasoline or diesel fuel.
As an elected official, is it ethical to profit from the decisions or laws you make?
That question is being asked over and over again here in Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
