Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

October, 2015:

Big oil, big tobacco, big lies

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/big-oil-big-tobacco-big-lies-358320.html

Kelle Louaillier and Bill McKibben

Just as big tobacco deliberately misled the public on the cancer-causing effects of smoking, big oil attacked scientists who warned of the impending climate disaster and their attempts now to help ‘solve’ the problem should be shunned by governments, write Kelle Louaillier and Bill McKibben

OVER the last few years, a growing number of people have been taking a hard look at what is happening to our planet — historic rising sea levels, massive floods — and acknowledging, finally, that human activity is propelling rapid climate change. But guess what? Exxon (now ExxonMobil) had an inkling of this as early as 1978.

By the early 1980s, Exxon scientists had much more than an inkling. They not only understood the science behind climate change, but also recognized the company’s own outsize role in driving the phenomenon.

Recognizing the potential effects as “catastrophic” for a significant portion of the population, they urged Exxon’s top executives to act. Instead, the executives buried the truth.

There may be a silver lining to this infuriating story: The recent investigation that exposed Exxon’s deceit could end up catalysing the action needed to address the looming climate crisis. After all, similar revelations about the tobacco industry — what the major cigarette companies knew and when they knew it — transformed the public-health landscape.

In 1996, a series of lawsuits forced tobacco companies to release millions of internal documents, which confirmed what public-health advocates and policymakers had long suspected: As early as the 1950s, the industry knew that nicotine was addictive and that cigarettes caused cancer.

But, to protect its own interests, big tobacco deliberately misled the public, doing everything possible to cast doubt on scientific findings that it knew to be accurate. Such tactics enabled the industry to delay, for more than 50 years, regulation that could have saved millions of lives annually.

After the revelations, however, it was clear that the tobacco industry was a malevolent force that did not belong in the policymaking process. With big tobacco out of the picture, and armed with evidence of the real effects of tobacco consumption, health advocates were finally able to compel their governments to act.

In 2003, world leaders agreed to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. Today, the treaty covers 90% of the world’s population and has contributed to a significant decline in sales for global tobacco corporations. Over time, it will save hundreds of millions of lives (and save governments’ health budgets huge sums).

Big oil, it is now clear, has been following big tobacco’s playbook. In 1997, almost two decades after it began studying climate change, it quashed its research, claiming that climate science was “far from clear” and thus it did not “support mandated cuts in energy use.”

Beyond suppressing its own findings, ExxonMobil (and its peers) funded and promoted junk science and attacked scientists who warned of the impending climate disaster. The fossil-fuel companies’ approach was so effective that the media are only now beginning to recognise the leading role the industry played in creating — almost out of whole cloth —the so-called climate debate.

But perhaps big oil’s biggest success was diminishing the political will to implement appropriate regulation. Even after the international community adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, the fossil-fuel industry managed to block meaningful progress — to the point that, if serious action is not taken soon, the entire process could unravel.

In Europe, Royal Dutch Shell’s lobbying so diluted the EU’s efforts that there are now no binding targets for renewables or energy efficiency for individual countries. The company even sent a letter to the European Commission’s president claiming that “gas is good for Europe.” Shell and other oil companies are now promising to work as “advisers” to national governments on how to deal with climate change.

Just as the tobacco files drove the tobacco industry out of policymaking processes, the Exxon investigation should compel world leaders to eliminate the fossil-fuel industry from efforts to solve the climate crisis. After all, no policy can succeed if those who shape it are betting on its failure.

The turning point for tobacco-related public-health policy came when the industry’s depravity became indisputable. Now, that moment has come for the climate movement.

We cannot simply hope that the fossil-fuel industry will change its ways. As an alliance of human-rights groups, environmental activists, and corporate-accountability advocates already is demanding, we must kick the industry out of the policymaking process altogether.

Exxon’s scientists were right: The effects of climate change on many communities are catastrophic. With so many lives at stake — and such clear evidence of the threat big oil, like big tobacco before it, should be treated for what it is: big trouble.

Kelle Louaillier is president of Corporate Accountability International. Bill McKibben, a scholar in environmental sciences at Middlebury College and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, is co-founder of 350.org.

What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic

Download (PDF, 657KB)

DC Water develops $470m waste-to-energy project in US

http://www.energy-business-review.com/news/dc-water-develops-470m-waste-to-energy-project-in-us-081015-4688252

DC Water has opened a $470m waste-to-energy project, designed to generate clean, renewable energy from the sewage solids generated after wastewater treatment process, at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington, D.C, US

The 10MW power facility is expected to generate power to meet about one-third of energy needs of the Blue Plains plants.

DC Water board chair Matthew Brown said: “The Board of Directors approved this voluntary investment to create a better class of biosolids and generate 10MW of power to cut the electricity bill at the Blue Plains plant, which is the single largest consumer of electricity in the District.”

Featuring a dewatering building, the facility comprises 32 sleek thermal hydrolysis vessels, four concrete 80ft-high anaerobic digesters with a capacity of 3.8 million gallons of solids each and three turbines equivalent to the size of jet engines.

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser said: “DC Waters Blue Plains facility is converting waste to clean water and a nutrient-rich soil byproduct, producing energy and helping to put the District on the path towards a zero waste future.”

The CAMBI thermal hydrolysis technology at the facility uses high heat and pressure to “pressure cook” the sewage solids, which are the byproducts of the wastewater treatment process.

The sewage solids are treated as a sterile food source (carbon) for the microbes in the digesters, which then converts the carbon to methane.

The resulting menthe is then captured and fed to three large turbines in order to produce electricity while the generated steam will be captured and directed back into the process.

The solids at the end of the process are a cleaner Class A biosolids product, which can be used as a compost-like material for urban gardens and green infrastructure projects.

“Additionally, the cleaner biosolids can be applied locally, saving millions of dollars in hauling costs,” Brown added.

DC Water CEO and general manager George Hawkins, said “This project embodies a shift from treating used water as waste to leveraging it as a resource.

“We are proud to be the first to bring this innovation to North America for the benefit of our ratepayers, the industry and the environment.”

DC Water also seeking ways to bring a compost-like product to market.

Methane emissions fall for 3rd consecutive year — EPA

EnergyWire: Wednesday, October 7, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060025987

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector are on the rise, but methane leakage continues to fall, according to new U.S. EPA data.

Petroleum and natural gas systems emitted 236 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere in 2014, up from 228 million metric tons CO2e in 2013, yesterday’s update to EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) shows. Methane emissions ticked down from 77 million metric tons CO2e in 2013 to 73 million metric tons CO2e last year, marking the third consecutive year that measurement has declined.

“The EPA expects that the GHGRP will be an important tool for the Agency and the public to analyze emissions and understand emissions trends,” EPA wrote in its oil and gas emissions profile.

It could also serve as the basis for regulations like EPA’s proposed methane rule (Greenwire, Sept. 29). The agency’s latest numbers seem to undercut its own claims that emissions could rise more than 25 percent without new federal controls, said Steve Everley, spokesman for North Texans for Natural Gas.

“EPA has claimed that without new regulations, methane emissions will go up,” he said. “What’s that based on?”

Reductions in methane emissions appear to be the result of existing regulation, and further cuts will be made possible only by additional rulemakings, said Matt Watson, associate vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund’s climate and energy program.

A table toward the bottom of EPA’s energy industry profile indicates that the bulk of emissions reductions between 2011 and 2014 came from gas well completions and workovers, a regulated source, he said.

“This data shows that regulations work, and promises of voluntary action don’t,” Watson said in an emailed statement. “The largest methane reductions come from a practice that is subject to national standards, while the biggest increases come from sources that remain largely unregulated.”

EPA cautioned that its data are limited. By the Environmental Defense Fund’s estimation, the data set covers about half of U.S. wells.

Alstom to supply power transformers for Karadeniz Powership in Turkey

http://www.power-technology.com/news/newsalstom-to-supply-power-transformers-for-karadeniz-powership-in-turkey-4687183

Karadeniz-Powership_Copyright-Karadeniz-Energy

Karadeniz Energy Group has awarded a contract to Alstom to supply power transformers for the 486MW Karadeniz Powership Osman Khan (KPS12) power plant in Turkey.

Under the terms of the contract, Alstom will manage the design, engineering, production, supply, testing and commissioning of the 200MVA power transformers.

The transformers will be produced at Alstom Grid’s manufacturing site in Gebze, Turkey. The company is expected to deliver the transformers by early 2016.

Alstom Grid Power Transformers commercial director Tunc Tezel said: “Alstom is very pleased to work with Karpowership, the world leader in floating power plants, on this powership concept.

“This contract reflects the quality and the high-performance of Alstom’s transformers, as well as its technical expertise in this field.

“The ability to help countries meet short-term energy demand quickly and in a cost-efficient manner is an important step to providing more people access to sustainable and reliable electricity.”

Floating power plants or powerships are barge or ships mounted, converted from bulk carriers, heavy-lift vessels and they supply electricity to the countries falling under the purview of agreements signed under the Power of Friendship project.

Powerships are capable of connecting to the electricity grid immediately upon berthing, solving short-term energy problems.

According to Alstom, Karadeniz Powership Osman Khan is the world’s largest floating power plant.

Karadeniz aims to increase the installed power, from 1,500MW with nine energy ships, to more than 5,000MW by the end of 2017.

A New Kind of Frackademia? New Environmental Inspectors Offered Free Industry-Funded Classes on Fracking

At an industry conference in Philadelphia last month, oil and gas executives gathered to hear about a little-known public relations effort with a very precise target: newly hired state and federal environmental inspectors.

At a seminar titled “Staying Ahead of Federal and State Regulations: A Partnership with Academia and Government,” officials from Pennsylvania State University and the University of Texas described how gifts from companies like ExxonMobil allowed their universities, along with the Colorado School of Mines, to offer state regulators free classes on oil industry best practices, travel and accommodations included.

“We’re targeting inspectors – oil and gas inspectors – who have three years or less of experience, although we do have lots of inspectors with different experiences on the course,” Dr. Hilary Olson, director of Education, Training and Outreach at the College of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas told attendees at Shale Insight 2015.

The program showcases the industry’s technical prowess as it conveys detailed information about the science involved in oil and gas drilling and fracking. “We don’t teach them about regulations specific to their state or talk to them about policy; what we’re interested in teaching them is the engineering, the science, the technology and how to communicate about that technology,” Dr. Olson explained.

The five-day TopCorp course includes both time in the classroom and visits to working oil and gas sites, taught by professors from many disciplines. Sample lesson footage reveals an online course featuring slick CGI graphics as professors lecture on topic ranging from basic principles of geology to complex technological advances that the industry has made in recent years.

All three universities involved have made national headlines in the past for their “frackademia” scandals.

In 2009, a Pennsylvania State University study, which claimed Pennsylvania alone could create 175,000 jobs by promoting fracking in the state, made headlines because the study’s lead author, Timothy Considine, had concealed the fact that the research was funded by the shale industry.

In 2009, questions of academic freedom were raised at the Colorado School of Mines when Prof. Geoffrey Thyne said his job was threatened after he made comments that the fracking industry found objectionable (the school’s president serves as a director of a number of shale-industry companies).

And in 2012, the University of Texas found itself in hot water after the lead investigator in a study disclaiming a connection between fracking and groundwater contamination was forced to resign and had the paper retracted by the university because he failed to disclose that he sat on the board of directors of a company engaged in fracking.

In this case, the universities involved are upfront about the fact that TopCorp is company-funded. “So these different organizations gave us gifts to develop this program,” Dr. Olson explained. “When a university receives a gift, it means there are no specific deliverables, so we maintain our autonomy and our independence on what material goes into the curriculum and how we deliver that.”

But scientific research funded by companies tends to slant favorably towards the funder, experts say.

“[E]ven though the vast majority of scientists would never consciously allow the potential for personal financial gain or loss to influence the outcome of their research, that potential should be disclosed to the reader so that the readers can decide for themselves whether to discount the reported results,” University of Texas law professor Thomas O. McGarity told The New York Times in the wake of the frackademia scandal at that university. “In that regard, dozens of studies have shown strong correlations between sponsored research and favorable outcomes for the sponsors.”

The TopCorp curriculum seems to anticipate that there could be an appearance of unseemliness. “Discuss ways to react to accusations of alleged regulatory coziness” is one learning objective in a sample class module posted on TopCorp’s website.

Generally speaking, scandals surrounding “frackademia” have centered on cases where new research is financially connected to the fracking industry, but those ties are concealed. Last week, a Boulder Weekly investigation, built from documents and emails obtained by Greenpeace, revealed that a University of Colorado Boulder paper was not just funded by the American Petroleum Institute, but also that API was allowed to edit the report and to write up quotes attributed to a researcher at the school.

The TopCorp program represents an entirely different tack. Instead of funding research showing fracking to be benign, the TopCorp program communicates directly with the field personnel responsible for policing the industry, helping to shape their understanding of complex – and controversial – topics like whether and how drilling and fracking can cause groundwater contamination. And while the shale industry has for years taken an aggressive approach to beating back regulators, this new program adopts a more collegial tone.

Of course, state regulators who are aware of the program’s funding can be expected to take the industry’s “educational” programs with a grain of salt. But TopCorp reps told Shale Insight attendees that many regulators who start out with doubts can be won over.

“It was almost a conversion experience,” said Pennsylvania State University’s Jim Ladlee, describing how one skeptical government official changed her views on the course after attending. “And that’s what happens with many of our regulators. They come into the class, they’re slightly skeptical of what might be going on in the class. But after we start, we involve somewhere between 15 and 20 different faculty for each of the sessions that we do. We involve a lot of faculty. And as we do that, we start to see that people begin to trust what it is.”

At the Shale Insight conference, the ability of academics to gain trust was emphasized repeatedly.

“You know, when you look at a lot of surveys of whom the public trusts to give them information, many times, academia is at the top of that list,” Dr. Olson told the gathered oil executives.

A long list of oil and gas companies, including Anadarko, Shell Appalachia, and Halliburton, have provided resources to TopCorp and even made areas of drilling sites that are usually off-limits to visitors accessible for the program’s photographers and videographers.

“Exxon Mobil and GE were the founding sponsors of our program and they helped us really spectacularly in the development phase,” Dr. Olson explained.

While oil and gas companies have contributed millions of dollars to TopCorp, which Olson described as a “Cadillac version” experience, a contribution from the Environmental Defense Fund of $125,000, announced July 16th, allows program administrators to describe TopCorp as a collaboration between environmental groups, industry and academia.

“Oil and gas inspectors need to be prepared to meet the challenges presented by the complexity and scale of industry operations,” Scott Anderson, senior policy director for EDF, said in a TopCorp press release when that funding was announced. “Effective training will equip inspectors to enforce the regulations that protect our environment. That’s why programs like TOPCORP are so important.”

The program disclaims the idea that the oil and gas industry decides what goes into the course or how it is taught.

“What role do funding corporations or other entities have in setting the detailed curriculum content?,” a Frequently Asked Questions section on TopCorp’s website says. “None, the detailed curriculum is at the sole discretion of the three universities (principal investigators and instructors).”

As the shale rush swept across the U.S. into areas with little recent history of oil booms, often-underfunded and under-staffed state regulators have repeatedly been forced to scramble to learn to police a highly complex industry with vast resources.

So far, TopCorp been very successful at attracting newly hired regulators from across the country.

“We’ve had people from different state agencies, we’ve had young people who have 18 months of experience, maybe 6 months of experience. We’ve had people go through who have several decades of experience with us,” Dr. Olson explained. “We’ve had people go through from state agencies as well as from federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Bureau of Land Management.”

“We also invite our sponsors to come to our training so that they can see what we are doing,” she added.

The reception from many new inspectors has been enthusiastic, according to teasers for the classes posted on TopCorp’s website.

“I feel like I’ve got a little bit more of an educated opinion, and I know my colleagues will benefit from what we’ve learned here,” one attendee says in a promotional video for the program.

At the Shale Insight luncheon, TopCorp officials touted their ability to promote a friendly connection between the industry and those charged with policing it.

“The other thing I’d like to say is – they’re all smiling,” Mr. Ladlee said as he showed pictures of attendees at a recent TopCorp training. “So, great to see regulators smiling for a change.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/10/05/new-kind-fracademia-environmental-inspectors-offered-free-industry-funded-classes-fracking-and-drilling