REP. Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) on COMMITTEE Assignment

From an Article by Matt Egan and Ella Nilsen, Cable News Network, October 28, 2021

(CNN) — House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney announced at the end of Thursday’s hearing with top executives from the fossil fuel industry that she plans to subpoena the oil companies and trade groups for key documents related to their conduct around the climate crisis.

Her announcement came after executives from ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, the American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce, testified in front of Congress for the first time about their role in climate disinformation.

Maloney said that while the companies and trade groups did provide many documents that were publicly available, they did not supply “a substantial portion of the key documents the committee requested.”

“We are at code red for climate and I committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet and save it for our children,” the New York Democrat said during her closing remarks. “We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas we will.”

Specifically, Maloney said the oil companies have not produced “detailed funding information” the lawmakers requested to understand their “payments to shadow groups,” public relations firms and others. Other documents requested include corporate strategies around climate change and internal documents and communications from senior executives about their companies’ role in the climate crisis.

“I have tried very hard to obtain this information voluntarily, but the oil companies employ the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy: delay and obstruction,” Maloney said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who chairs the committee’s Subcommittee on the Environment, told CNN later Thursday that he and Maloney had decided during the middle of the fossil fuel hearing to subpoena the companies. “It wasn’t the plan that we were going to do that,” Khanna told CNN. “We’re very cautious to issue a subpoena, and we hadn’t issued any subpoenas up until now.”

Khanna said he and Maloney had huddled and made the decision 20 to 30 minutes before she made the announcement at the end of the hearing, with the congressman calling the decision “very significant.”

Khanna, who said there’s a chance lawmakers will call the CEOs back to testify again, added that the committee’s fossil fuel disinformation investigation could take six months. The committee’s investigation has been ongoing for about three months. Lawmakers particularly want to know more about the companies’ more recent activities, from 2015 to the present, including their presence and ads on social media.

During the hearing, committee members pressed the executives about their knowledge of the climate crisis, the role fossil fuels have played in it and their desire to put profits over a climate solution. An undercover video released this summer appeared to show former ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy admitting the company “aggressively” fought climate policy and the science behind it. Maloney played the video during the hearing.

“Our witnesses today would like you to think that their actions I have laid out and put in the record are ancient history, but they’re not,” Maloney said.

Khanna urged US oil giants ExxonMobil and Chevron to follow in the footsteps of their European rivals in planning to cut production to address the climate crisis. “Are you embarrassed as an American company that your production is going up while European counterparts are going down?” Khanna asked Chevron CEO Michael Wirth.

The Chevron boss responded by pointing out that demand for energy is going up around the world.
Khanna cited calls from the United Nations and the International Energy Agency to cut oil and gas production to save the planet. When Khanna asked if Chevron would commit to lowering production, Wirth declined to do so. “With all due respect, I’m very proud of our company and what we do,” Wirth said.

Democrats took turns pressing the executives for specific answers about their role in the climate crisis and the disinformation surrounding it. Several of them said the executives should resign.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, said that the companies “hide” behind front groups that lobby public opinion against clean energy. “When you look at these ads, they don’t say the name ‘Exxon,’ ‘BP,’ ‘Chevron’ anywhere,” Tlaib said. “Y’all hide and you deceive the public.”

Republicans on the committee questioned the legitimacy of the hearing, saying they should instead focus on the Biden administration’s energy policies and the progress that the US has already made to reduce emissions. Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana — whose constituents face some of the highest flooding risk in the country — delivered a fervent defense of oil executives.

“It’s abhorrent my colleagues across the aisle have called a so-called hearing today to demonize American industry whose products make modern life possible,” Higgins said, later adding: “It’s insane what my colleagues across the aisle are putting these good American men and women through and attacking American workers as our country dissolves around us. You push patriots too far; you’ve gone a bridge too far. We won’t take it anymore.”

Higgins represents an area very vulnerable to climate change impacts. Cameron Parish in southwest Louisiana — which is part of Higgins’ district — is the most vulnerable county in the US to flood risk, according to a recent nationwide flooding analysis by nonprofit research and technology group First Street.

Fossil fuel companies used their time to focus on their commitment to solving the climate crisis, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 and to emphasize the steps they are taking to lower emissions.
“Exxon does not, and never has, spread disinformation regarding climate change,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said in his prepared remarks. “Its public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea this his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”
No CEO responded to Khanna’s question. community at the time.”

Wirth, Chevron’s CEO, said the idea his company is spreading misinformation about the climate crisis is “simply wrong.” Wirth said Chevron accepts that “climate change is real, and the use of fossil fuels contributes to it.” But when Khanna asked the executives to tell the American Petroleum Institute and other groups to stop lobbying against electric vehicles and methane regulations — two initiatives the oil companies themselves support — he was met with silence.

“You could do something here,” said Khanna. “You can tell them to knock it off for the sake of the planet. You could end that lobbying. Would any of you take that opportunity to look at API and say ‘stop it?’” The committee room fell silent. “Any of you?” he asked. “Could you commit? Any of you?”

No CEO responded to Khanna’s question.

Does “rotten to the core” apply ...?

From an Article by Corbin Hiar, E & E News, June 18, 2020

‘White environmental extremists’ is an off-base epitaph

Derrick Hollie is the president of Reaching America, a nonprofit group whose tax-exempt status was revoked by the Internal Revenue Service in 2017 because it repeatedly failed to file required annual reports.

Since then, Hollie has testified twice in the House Natural Resources Committee against efforts to transition the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels. At a February 2019 hearing, he denied receiving any funding from fossil fuel companies or corporations.

“With black communities ablaze, the same nearly uniformly white environmental extremists assure us of their solidarity while at the same time trying to kill high-paying oil and gas jobs that have been the cornerstones of progress in lifting up working-class minority communities,” Hollie was quoted as saying in the CRC email to journalists. “Any program such as their Green New Deal that makes energy more expensive or jeopardizes jobs is counter-productive, reckless, and wrong.”

Reaching America is based in Bennsville, Md., but its sparse website is registered to Domains By Proxy LLC, an Arizona firm that shields the identities of web address owners.

CRC also has a limited online presence.

The group is led by Leonard Leo, President Trump’s informal adviser on judicial nominees, and Greg Mueller, a conservative communications executive. The firm recently hired two Trump White House communications staffers and a Fox News veteran. CRC’s website lists no staff, clients or contact information.

Although Hollie and his group have a long history with CRC, he denied having a formal role with the firm. “Hell no! I wish I did,” he said with a laugh. “This guy named Jay Hopkins is who I deal with. “I knew CRC had an energy client,” he added. “I didn’t know it was Chevron.”

Hopkins, a senior account manager at CRC, has deep ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Prior to working at CRC, Hopkins did communications for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a think tank established in 1984 by the oil barons Charles and David Koch. The group eventually split and formed the tea party groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.

In 2002, Hopkins joined CRC, which was previously known as Creative Response Concepts and CRC Public Relations.

During his time at CRC, he “identified and recruited third-party organizations to serve as surrogates for clients,” “wrote and placed client op-eds in top-line publications,” and “cultivated strong relationships with journalists nationwide, particularly focusing on reporters in energy,” according to his LinkedIn profile.

Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state, has written numerous op-eds over the years in support of the U.S. oil and gas industry as well as Chevron and other CRC clients.

In a 2012 Reuters blog post, Blackwell described Brazilian authorities’ attempt to penalize Chevron for a 3,600-barrel oil leak off the coast of Rio de Janeiro as “one of the most shameless shakedowns of an American company by another country in recent memory.”

Hollie, meanwhile, said that Reaching America works with organizations across the political spectrum. “I don’t appreciate being used as a racial pawn during this time and would appreciate if you leave me out of your vendetta against Chevron and CRC,” he said in a follow-up email.

‘Not being candid’ characterizes Chevron responses

Experts on corporate influence campaigns suggest that CRC is engaged in a shadowy campaign to shape federal policy on climate change. The firm may be “attempting to influence public policy surreptitiously using industry money,” said Marcus Owens, a partner at the law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP. “I’ve been doing this for nearly 50 years now, so I think I have a fairly well-developed sense of who’s not being candid.”

The involvement of the former Ohio secretary of state, in particular, was an indicator for Owens, the former head of the nonprofit division at the IRS. “You don’t hire Ken Blackwell if what you want to do is run a soup kitchen or truly educate people about anything,” he said. “You hire him if you want to run a political organization and you want to court industry or people who donate to right-of-center causes.”

The oil major’s ongoing involvement with CRC is troubling to some of the company’s shareholders. “If Chevron is hiring public relations companies that are putting out a message that is contrary to what the company is publicly espousing, that is a concern,” said Danielle Fugere, the president of As You Sow. “Just hiring these individuals or these groups for public communications purposes raises red flags.”

Her shareholder advocacy group backed a climate lobbying proposal put forth by the French investment group BNP Paribas Asset Management at Chevron’s annual shareholder meeting last month.

It called for the oil company’s board of directors to issue a report describing “if, and how, Chevron’s lobbying activities (direct and through trade associations) align” with the goal of the Paris Agreement, which calls for limiting average global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Chevron’s board urged shareholders to vote against the resolution because the company “shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks” and “adheres to the highest ethical standards when engaging in lobbying and political activities.”

A majority of its investors, however, backed the proposal.

Comey, the Chevron spokesman, indicated that the company doesn’t plan to detail its work with CRC in the climate lobbying report shareholders requested. “They help us with communications,” he wrote, referring to CRC. “They are not involved in lobbying.”

David Pellow, the African-American director of the University of California, Santa Barbara’s global environmental justice project, argued that Chevron’s involvement with CRC shows the oil company is more focused on countering support for the Green New Deal than helping communities of color.

With the U.S. in recession and tens of millions of Americans out of work, “the Green New Deal is now looking much more reasonable as a proposal,” he said. “And that’s got to have big polluters worried.”

Chevron has been criticized for its slow response to the widespread protests over police violence against people of color. The company released a statement on racial injustice on June 5 — two days after CRC pitched a story attacking a resolution that seeks to address that issue and combat climate change.

Comey said that “it’s important that we face and address the systemic racism and discrimination that denies African Americans equal access to opportunities for advancement.” Chevron, he added, is leading by example: “For more than 25 years, diversity and inclusion have been a part of our corporate culture.”

But Pellow, who is also the chairman of UC-Santa Barbara’s environmental studies department, said the company’s actions speak louder than its words. “If you’re perpetrating climate disruption, as Chevron is, then you’re also perpetrating racial injustice,” he said. People of color “the world over are being harmed disproportionately by climate change.”

#########################

See also: Chevron’s Slick Statement on Racial Injustice Makes No Sense, Drew Costley, OneZero, June 11, 2020

The company’s recent ‘Black Lives Matter’ message doesn’t jive with its actions

Fossil fuels are major contributors to climate change problems

From an Article by Corbin Hiar, E&E News, June 18, 2020

The public relations firm CRC Advisors criticized environmental groups for promoting climate policies that it said would hurt communities of color in an email that accidentally included the name of a client: Chevron Corp.

It was an audacious messaging campaign: White environmentalists are hurting black communities by pushing radical climate policies that would strip them of fossil fuel jobs.

The email to journalists, sent by a public affairs firm at the height of national protests over systemic racism earlier this month, accidentally contained the name of a high-profile client.

It was Chevron Corp. It was Chevron Corp. It was Chevron Corp.

The Virginia-based communications firm, named CRC Advisors, urged journalists to look at how green groups were “claiming solidarity” with black protesters while “backing policies which would hurt minority communities.”

“Despite this claimed solidarity, environmental organizations, composed of predominantly white members, are backing radical policies like the Green New Deal which would bring particular harm to minority communities,” wrote John Gage of CRC in an email sent to media outlets including E&E News.

The story pitch included an offer to connect journalists with black conservatives who oppose the Green New Deal, a sweeping government jobs program advanced by progressive lawmakers who champion environmental justice issues for communities of color.

The email ended with a revealing tagline: “If you would rather not receive future communications from Chevron, let us know by clicking here.”

Chevron denied involvement in the messaging campaign, but the email’s accidental nod to the oil giant is renewing suspicions among activists and academics that Chevron’s public statements about climate change fail to match its lobbying activities. While Chevron has promised to do more to slow rising temperatures, observers view the email as a shadowy continuation of the fossil fuel industry’s past efforts to undercut legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Chevron’s fingerprints appear to be on this,” said Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University history professor and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a 2010 book about how scientists with ties to Big Oil worked to obscure the truth about global warming.

Oreskes described previous instances of oil and gas companies working with communications firms to advance industry talking points. But the CRC effort is remarkable, she said, for trying to leverage national unrest about systemic racism and police violence to promote an expansion of oil and gas drilling.

“There’s no socially acceptable language to describe how despicable this is,” she said. “It’s hard for me to contain my fury.”

Chevron, a longtime CRC client whose shareholders recently called on the oil major to detail its lobbying on climate change, says it had nothing to do with the message.

“Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the situation,” Chevron spokesman Sean Comey said in an email.

‘A clerical error’ — (Are you kidding me? ADMIN)

The email received by an E&E News journalist on June 3 included quotes from two black conservatives who oppose the Green New Deal.

They were Ken Blackwell, a Republican who served as Ohio’s secretary of state in the late 1990s and has gone on to stump for a wide variety of conservative causes, and Derrick Hollie, a former advertising executive.

The email portrayed CRC as playing a helpful role in distributing Blackwell’s and Hollie’s concerns with the climate plan and its effect on black communities.

Instead, the firm appears to have organized the campaign. Hollie, who said he doesn’t personally know Blackwell, revealed that CRC approached him with the idea.

“This was like, ‘Derrick, would you mind being a part of something that we’re working on?’ I said, ‘Absolutely.’ And they asked me to put together a quote,” Hollie said in a phone interview.

“I didn’t know what they were going to do with it,” he added. “I figured they were going to put it in an op-ed or something like that.”

Gage, the account executive at CRC, said in an email to E&E News that he had contacted journalists “on behalf of Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Hollie regarding this issue and inadvertently attached a disclaimer from another client’s media list onto that email.”

“This was, in effect, a clerical error,” Gage said.

The Green New Deal is a conceptual resolution that calls for a sweeping public jobs program and asserts that the government should “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers” in a decade’s time.

That would require overhauling the nation’s oil-dependent transportation system “to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions” and invest in “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and high-speed rail,” the proposal says.

Chevron hasn’t directly lobbied on the Green New Deal, but it has pressed members of Congress and the Trump administration about “Energy Transitions, technology, and climate change,” lobbying disclosures show.

Energy prices — another major focus of the CRC pitch — are also an issue Chevron has lobbied on.

“Radical policies like the green new deal that raise the cost of driving to work and heating our homes would target the African-American community and … would make us even more vulnerable and marginalized than we already are,” Blackwell said in the email sent by CRC. He is currently an adviser to Trump’s reelection campaign and senior fellow at the Family Research Council, an anti-abortion group.

Blackwell’s quote was partially featured in the headline of a June 4 story on the website of the conservative Daily Wire.

This story is to be continued tomorrow!

##############################

See also: Chevron’s ‘Black Lives Matter’ Tweet Prompts a Debate About Big Oil and Environmental Justice, Ilana Cohen, InsideClimate News, June 20 2020

CHEVRON premier assets after purchase of Atlas Energy in 2012

From an Article of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, December 11, 2019

California-based energy company Chevron Corp. is putting its Appalachian oil and gas business up for sale, the company reported this week.

It has about 400 employees in the unit and a regional office in Coraopolis. Chevron controls about 890,000 acres in the Marcellus and Utica shales across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio.

The Appalachian shale operations contributed to more than half of a massive impairment charge that the company revealed for the fourth quarter. That charge, which writes down the value of assets on Chevron’s books, will be between $10 billion and $11 billion, the company disclosed Tuesday.

Chevron burst onto the scene in Appalachia in 2011 with a $4.3 billion acquisition of shale gas firm Atlas Energy Inc. Two years later, it paid $17 million for a stretch of land in Moon Township where the company planned to build a new regional headquarters.

In 2014, those plans were put on indefinite hold and never materialized. The following year, the energy giant cut more than 150 positions from its Appalachian division as natural gas prices slumped.

In leaving the region, Chevron follows in the footsteps of other multinationals that tried out the Marcellus and Utica shale regions but moved on in favor of other projects around the globe.

Indian conglomerate Reliance Industries Ltd bought Pennsylvania Marcellus assets in 2010 only to sell them off for a third of the price in 2017.

Noble Energy Inc., a Texas-based firm that also has projects in West Africa and Israel, made a bet on Appalachia with its $3.4 billion joint venture with CNX Resources in 2011. Six years later, it sold its stake in the venture and left this region.

Royal Dutch Shell, the Dutch giant whose chemicals subsidiary is building a massive ethane cracker plant in Beaver County, shelled out $4.7 billion for Warrendale-based East Resources in 2010. For years now, its drilling activity in Pennsylvania has been pared down significantly after underwhelming results and asset sales.

Yet smaller oil and gas firms are instead going all in on Appalachian shales.

Southwestern Energy Co., which began as an oil and gas driller in Arkansas, sold the last of its assets there last year to focus on its Appalachian portfolio in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Texas-based Range Resources Corp., too, pulled back on its operations in Louisiana after its ill-fated 2016 acquisition and rededicated itself to its program in Appalachia.

As did Downtown-based EQT Corp. when its dalliance with geographic diversification resulted in a $2.3 billion impairment charge — meaning the Permian Basin assets in Texas that EQT bought in 2014 and its holdings in Kentucky’s Huron Shale were actually determined to be worth that much less than what the company had on the books.

The Marcellus Shale, in particular, has taken the mantle as the most productive natural gas play in the U.S., and one of the most cost-efficient. Even so, the current price slump is a result of all that productivity — there is too much supply and not enough demand to soak it up.

Oil and gas price slump hanging around

So, with gas coming out of the ground faster than the U.S. can use it, gas producers are rushing to export their product abroad. Those closest to export terminals — most are on the Gulf Coast — have an advantage, according to Bloomberg Intelligence. Last month, Bloomberg analyst Vincent Piazza predicted that the Haynesville Shale in Oklahoma would see a resurgence because of that dynamic.

The low price of oil and gas — both global commodities at this point — means companies are looking to other aspects of their portfolios to set them apart, and those with more options can get picky.

“Good isn’t good enough,” Chevron’s CEO Michael Wirth said in an interview on CNBC’s show Squawk Box this week, explaining the massive write-down of the company’s Appalachian assets. “The assets in the Northeastern U.S. simply don’t compete as well for our investment dollar as others do,” he said, adding, “some of our assets may work better for others.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Chevron’s $11 billion write-down could hit the entire market, CNBC, December 11, 2019

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also the court challenge for farm damages:

Legal Case of Six Counts Seeing Jury Trial ….
Fayette County Court of Common Pleas
Docket # 2176 of 2019 GD, October 4, 2019
Brent G. and Wanda Y. Broadwater v. Chevron Appalachia, LLC et al
https://www.faymarwatch.org/documents/Brent_Broadwater_Chevron_lawsuit.pdf

Brent Broadwater with his cattle

From an Article by Mike Tony, Uniontown Herald Standard, June 3, 2018

Brent Broadwater walks through a pasture of red clover and alfalfa on his East Millsboro angus beef farm and wishes his cows could enjoy it. He knows his cattle would go crazy over the vegetation, but the pasture’s four to five acres are off limits to them now.

After years of seeing reproductive issues among his yearling heifers that grazed in the pasture, Broadwater is convinced that a shale gas well there damaged the health of those cows via a seep that formed at the bottom of the slope on the well’s south side.

“They don’t care about the farmer,” Broadwater said of Chevron and the state Department of Environmental Protection as he stood between the seep and the gas well.

In 2010, Atlas Energy developed the National Mines 26H natural gas well site on Broadwater’s property, and Chevron acquired it in 2011. Broadwater began to have problems with his herd almost immediately. The first two to three years after the well was drilled, only half of the heifers were pregnant, which struck him as highly unusual.

Broadwater bought a new bull, recalling that Chevron blamed his herd’s reproductive issues on the bull. The heifers continued to have trouble breeding, though, and about three years ago, Broadwater stopped making the pasture near the well available to his cattle.

He saw an increase in births right away. This year, the yearling heifers have had a 100 percent calving rate, having not been exposed to the 26H seep water.

But all of the cows that previously grazed in the pasture have continued to struggle with infertility issues and disappointing breeding rates, Broadwater said. He recounted with exasperation that his 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old cows, having been exposed to the seep water, have this year had four stillborn calves and one that was born with a cleft palate and died hours later.

Broadwater has no doubt that the seep is a direct result of the gas well, noting that the seep had killed grass below it for more than 300 feet below.

A lifelong farmer, Broadwater, 68, says he never had to deal with reproductive issues among his herd approaching this scale before. He thinks he and his wife Wanda know how to run a farm after all these years, and he recalled the veterinarian for his herd saying that whatever is killing the grass can’t be good for his cows, especially since the grass is their primary food source.

Broadwater acknowledges that neither Chevron nor the PA-DEP have identified a direct link between the gas well and his cows’ health issues.

Nate Calvert, policy, government, and public affairs advisor for Chevron, said Chevron and the DEP both independently investigated Broadwater’s claims, and based on analytical tests of several water samples and observations made by DEP inspectors during onsite investigation, the DEP determined that the surface water on the property was not an adverse effect of the oil and gas operation.

Calvert said Chevron adheres to all applicable state and federal regulations and responds to documented water complaints in accordance with all state and federal standards, including the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, which regulates the drilling and operation of oil and gas wells. “Chevron is committed to protecting people and the environment, and to operating with integrity,” Calvert said.

PA-DEP carefully reviews and investigates every complaint that it receives, DEP Community Relations Coordinator Lauren Fraley said. DEP received one complaint for Broadwater’s site in Sept. 2016 and conducted an on-site inspection three days later. Chevron’s personnel and consultant were also on site. Both DEP and Chevron sampled two areas of saturatedground: one on the western portion of the site and one on the eastern portion of the site.

Following DEP’s laboratory analysis of the samples, the department determined that the saturated area was not an adverse effect of Chevron’s National Mines Corp. 26H gas well.

In April, DEP released the first four years of data on the structural soundness of oil and gas wells submitted by thousands of Pennsylvania’s operators, indicating that the majority are being operated in a manner that substantially reduces the risk for groundwater impact. Well operators are required to inspect wells on a quarterly basis for structural soundness to prevent gas migration, manage leaks and protect groundwater.

According to the data, submitted in 2014, less than 1 percent of operator observations indicated integrity problems, such as gas outside surface casing, which could allow gas to move beyond a well footprint and potentially cause environmental damage.

PA-DEP is responsible in Pennsylvania for reviewing permits and conducting inspections at oil and gas well sites, pipelines and compressor stations.

“Our members, who produce 95 percent of the natural gas in Pennsylvania, are committed to continuously improving technologies through the application of world-class engineering solutions and the implementation of best practices aimed at safeguarding our environment, which includes protecting groundwater and public health,” Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer said.

CONTINUED CONCERNS EXIST

Still, Broadwater and others in Luzerne Township have seen enough to convince them that gas wells aren’t good for their livestock or their community.

Phyllis Palmer, 67, of East Millsboro said that several of her husband’s cows have suffered unusual deformities in recent years, including two calves born with a deformed foot, in addition to four or five cow miscarriages.

“Don’t jump at the chance to get them on your property,” Palmer said of gas wells. “Because you don’t know what you’re gonna get.” Palmer said that the water she used to get from a well now tastes like a sewer and she buys water at Walmart instead.

Several area farmers and residents objected in February to Chevron’s request for a special exception to the Dogbone Centralized Water Facility in Luzerne Township, citing concerns about what the impact might be on their livestock.

The centralized water facility will serve as a temporary storage site for water that will be used for Chevron’s well development activities in the township, and Calvert said that the facility will significantly reduce truck traffic associated with Chevron operations.

Broadwater cited studies by veterinarian Dr. Michelle Bamberger and molecular medicine professor Dr. Robert Oswald that highlights the impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health based on interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling operations.

A 2012 study by the pair noted eight cases of bovine health being impacted. In all eight cases, the issue was reproduction. Farmers reported an increased incidence of stillborn calves with and without congenital abnormalities such as cleft palate following exposure to affected well or pond water, or wastewater.

In a followup 2015 study, Bamberger and Oswald noted farmers in cases they followed longitudinally over an average of 25 months continued reporting cases of reproductive problems greater than what they had seen in their years of raising cattle, and that health symptoms improved for families moving out of areas with oil and gas industrial activity and living in areas where such activity decreased.

“Without complete studies, given the many apparent adverse impacts on human and animal health, a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health,” Bamberger and Oswald wrote in the 2012 paper, which some have criticized as being an advocacy piece.

In yellow highlighter, Broadwater noted a passage in his copy of the 2012 paper in which a family stopped using well water despite test results indicating the water was safe to drink. Despite losing a year of school, the family’s child gradually recovered after being found to have arsenic poisoning.

Broadwater is concerned about his daughter, who lives about 700 feet from the well, losing at least 10 goats within the past year, which he says is another abnormally high loss.

He’s considering suing Chevron, estimating that he’s lost between $40,000 and $50,000 in production scuttled by the infertility.

He doesn’t care what Chevron or DEP tells him the onsite findings indicate. His farming experience tells him a different story, and he wants Chevron to take responsibility.

“They should fix it,” Broadwater said.

Note Dogbone Shape of Luzerne Township

SPONSOR: Freedom From Fracking, Fayette County, PA

Announcement for Public Meeting on Dogbone Project near US Route 40 in Monongahela River Valley, May 15, 2018

With the apparent approval of the Fayette County zoning hearing board, and a local land owner, Chevron will construct five (5) one million-gallon tanks (5,000,000 gallons) to store and reuse frack water at the intersection of Rush Run Road and Haines School Road in Luzerne Township.

The intended facility will be operational for a period of 5 to 10 years, minimum. Trucks hauling frack and fresh water will run to the proposed facility on a 7 days per week, 24 hour per day basis. Frack water is said to contain radiation along with biocides and other chemicals.

The proposed tanks will not have tops on them and will be open to the air… thanks to our Fayette County zoning hearing board. Not only will the facility harbor many unsafe conditions, it will be a substantial nuisance to the folks who reside all around the area. Major truck traffic, lights at night, pumps and generators running at all hours, an increase in the amount of litter along Rush Run, and the terrible odor from frack water in open tanks. These are just a sampling of what this facility will provide our community.

Neither the township or our county government have done anything to help protect the landowners in the vicinity of the proposed facility. If anything, they are helping to support Chevron’s plans!

Please join us in the effort to keep peace and tranquility in our Agricultural Community. Assist us in battling against big business that just moves in and does whatever it wants to, and also in ghting against our corrupt government agencies that just go along with whatever is best for their pocketbooks… not what is best for the people that live in these communities and have to deal with the problems they both dump on us.

We are a local group formed with the intention of protecting the community we live in. We are local landowners that care about where we live, the air we breathe, water we drink, livestock we raise and the general wellbeing of our community. Come and join us, if nothing else to keep updated on the matter at hand.

The meeting will be held for the community at 7:00 pm on May 15th at the Humbert Barn, located at 289 Heisterberg Road, E. Millsboro (Red Barn Lane). Please come with your questions and concerns.

Ann Carlson, Professor of Environmental Law at UCLA

STEVE CURWOOD: From Public Radio International, this is “Living on Earth.”

CURWOOD: I’m Steve Curwood. Fossil fuel companies are increasingly under legal attack for selling a product that damages the climate. The science that connects what the defendants did to what the cities and counties are experiencing is much stronger than it used to be. Scientists can really connect now the emissions that the defendants put into the atmosphere to harms like sea level rise.

CURWOOD: From PRI, and the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood. Major fights over the fallout of climate change are heating up in state and federal courts in California. The odds are long, but a win by the municipalities could prove historic. San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and other towns and some counties have filed several actions against Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies, claiming the use of their products raises sea level.

The plaintiffs want these companies to pay for some of the infrastructure that is needed to protect against floods. Exxon Mobil and some other defendants allegedly knew for decades about the damaging impacts of carbon fuel on climate stability. To learn more, we called UCLA Law School professor, Ann Carlson. Welcome to Living on Earth Ann!

CURWOOD: So, why now? Why are these cities and counties moving forward with these lawsuits?

CARLSON: Well, there’s several reasons I think the cities and counties are moving forward with suing oil companies for the damages they are beginning to incur from climate change.

First, I think the science that connects what the defendants did to what the cities and counties are experiencing in sea level rise and other harms from climate change is much stronger than it used to be. Scientists can really connect now the emissions that the defendants put into the atmosphere to harms like sea level rise.

Second, there’s really good information that the defendants knew about the harms of climate change long ago, as early as the mid-1960s, planned their own business operations around rising seas and other harms from climate change, and yet engaged in a campaign to try to mislead the public about whether climate change was actually occurring, and that’s really important from a liability perspective.

CURWOOD: Why is that?

CARLSON: That’s because in California where the vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed, the suits are brought under a doctrine known as public nuisance. And the California courts have made clear that when defendants in nuisance litigation are engaged in campaigns to try to mislead consumers about the harms of their products or to try to persuade the government not to regulate those harms, that makes a difference for determining whether the defendants are going to be held responsible for what they did.

CURWOOD: So, there are two lawsuits as I understand it. There’s one in federal court and one in state court there in California and they are really saying pretty much the same thing. Why are they moving ahead in different arenas?

CARLSON: Well, there were a number of suits filed in a number of different California courts by different cities and counties in California, and the defendants in all of those lawsuits brought what’s called a motion to remand to federal court. So, they would rather be in federal court than state court because California law is much more favorable to the plaintiffs in state court. There were two sets of lawyers and therefore two sets of remand motions to different judges. One judge decided that the cases should stay in federal court, and another judge decided that they should go back to state court, even though they’re alleging pretty much the same thing.

CURWOOD: So, what are the likely arguments on each side of this case? I gather by now the oil companies aren’t denying climate change exists, so what exactly is their defense?

CARLSON: The defendants’ principal argument against the plaintiffs is going to be that they pull the oil out of the ground, but they don’t actually burn it. It’s the burning of fossil fuels that creates the emissions that are warming the planet. Instead, they sell their products and then consumers combust the fuel when they drive cars or when they turn on the lights in the house, etcetera, and so I think they’re going to try to argue that they’re not the cause of the harm. They will have a bunch of other ways of trying to get the cases dismissed, but I think that’s going to be their main argument.

You may remember some of the advertisements that ran about how CO2 is actually good for the planet, about how there’s scientific uncertainty about whether humans are causing climate change, all sorts of things funded by the oil industry. They even funded scientists to try to produce studies that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring.

CURWOOD: All at the same time that they were planning their own construction and development based on things like rising sea levels.

CARLSON: That’s correct. There’s very good evidence that they were, for example, developing new technology so that they could begin to break through ice that was melting in the Arctic, that they were raising their oil platforms in anticipation of the fact that there was going to be sea level rise, knowing full well that the activities they were engaged in were going to be causing problems that then they were claiming weren’t even occurring.

CURWOOD: So, let’s say that the plaintiffs win some kind of a case here. What exactly would they win?

CARLSON: Well, they are seeking to have the defendants pay some of the costs of the damages that are already occurring from climate change and that will continue to occur in the future. So, one example is sea level rise. One of the things that’s interesting about the science that we now have on sea level rise is that there is a pretty much linear correlation between increasing emissions and increasing sea level rise, and the defendants in a number of the cases, the plaintiffs have shown, contributed about 17.5 percent of that sea level rise through their emissions over the course of last 50 years. So, under these theories of how nuisance litigation works, a judge could say to the defendants, “You have to pay for 17.5 percent of the damages that cities are experiencing from the sea level rise that occurs around their city streets, that harms their city infrastructure and so forth”.

CURWOOD: Now, I note that the judge on the federal case, William Alsup, called for a five-hour climate science tutorial. Tell me what happened in that session and how unusual a move that was.

CARLSON: Well, Judge Alsup’s move was really unusual but he’s done this in some other cases, not involving climate change but other subjects, where he uses his courtroom as an opportunity to learn about the problem that is involved in the litigation. And so he asked the plaintiffs and the defendants to come in and educate him about a number of important scientific components of climate change. What was really interesting about the hearing is that the defendant oil companies all admitted that humans caused climate change.

CURWOOD: Now, what effect do you think this will have on the on the case, that he did this tutorial?

CARLSON: Well, one thing that’s interesting about the Judge Alsup case, that’s the one in federal court, is that he made a very controversial decision to keep the case in federal court instead of sending it back to state court, and that’s what the defendants wanted. But when he did that, he also made clear that he thinks that the case can probably go forward against the defendants. I think the defendants were trying to argue it should be in federal court, and the federal court should dismiss the case because the federal government’s already regulating climate change emissions under the Clean Air Act and therefore we don’t have a need for this kind of case. Judge Alsup in his ruling saying he was going to keep the case in federal court said, “No I think that this belongs in federal court and I think that’s probably a claim that can go forward,” and then he held this hearing about climate science and another interesting thing that happened is that Chevron put on the scientific case and none of the other defendants said anything in court, and he wants all of them to also acknowledge that they believe that climate change is occurring.

CURWOOD: And in fact isn’t this rather unusual that he is creating a record even before there is official discovery in this trial?

CARLSON: It’s really interesting that he’s holding this hearing. I don’t know that it would be used as evidence once the case gets to trial, but it is a really important record to get the defendants right now saying up front, “We’re not going to argue about whether climate change is occurring. We agree that it’s occurring and we agree that we are that humans are helping to cause it”. Now, we’re going to move on to the next question, which is what is the defendant’s responsibility for the harm, not whether the harm is actually occurring.

CURWOOD: So, professor, I gather that Judge Alsup also asked for information about the experts that the oil companies put forward, in particularly, asked them to reveal their funding sources. Why did he do that and what did it reveal?

CARLSON: Well, I think Judge Alsup was interested in knowing whether the scientists that were testifying in front of him were credible. So, he wanted to know are there any reasons that they might be giving evidence to me that is skewed because, for example, they’re getting money from the oil companies, they’re getting money from the defendants. The result was that he found out that some of those experts had received funding in the past, but all of them were testifying at present in front of him without getting compensation from the oil companies.

CURWOOD: But some had done fairly well by the companies in the past it sounds like.

CARLSON: Yes, some of the witnesses had received funding from the oil companies in the past.

CURWOOD: Now, how is the emerging knowledge that companies including Exxon Mobil knew about human-caused climate change for years, how important is that in terms of moving these cases forward.

CARLSON: I think the evidence that Exxon and the oil industry more generally knew about climate change, changed their business plans as a result and then engaged in a campaign to dissuade the American public that climate change was happening and to try to persuade regulators not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is key to the cases. I think it’s really, really important. There’s no way you can look at some of the internal documents that have already been uncovered from Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute and not think that their behavior was really, really problematic, and I think that’s really going to matter in these cases.

CURWOOD: What do you suppose would have happened if instead of Exxon Mobil back in 1960 something or another had started to take action in favor of dealing with – with human-caused climate change? What kind of shape do you think we’d be in today?

CARLSON: If the oil companies had taken responsibility for the harms their products caused starting 50 years ago, we would see significantly fewer emissions in the atmosphere. I think we’d see a shift in how we use fossil fuels, maybe we’d figure out how to sequester the emissions that come from combusting fossil fuels or see a move toward cleaner fuels. If all that happened we would have far fewer emissions in the atmosphere and really importantly it would be cheaper and easier to get on a trajectory of emissions reductions that is going to be necessary to keep us at safe levels over the course of the next, you know, three to ten decades.

CURWOOD: Ann Carlson is the Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law at UCLA. Ann, thanks so much for taking the time with us today.

CURWOOD: When the suits were filed in 2017 Chevron spokeswoman Melissa Richie told the press: “Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action.”

Related links:
1. – Inside Climate News: “Climate Legal Paradox: Judges Issue Dueling Rulings for Cities Suing Fossil Fuel Companies”

2. – Ann Carlson in San Francisco Chronicle: “Should oil companies pay for climate change? Yes, there is evidence”

3. – Chevron Statement About Climate Change

CONSOL Energy now drilling under Greater Pittsburgh Airport

Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation Renews Support for CSSD in SW PA & WV

Pittsburgh, PA —  4/22/15 (PRNewswire) – The Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), a collaborative of environmental organizations and energy companies that encourages responsible practices in the development of shale gas resources in the Appalachian region, announced today that the Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation renewed its support for the Center with a 2015 grant.

The Foundation first awarded a grant to the Center in December 2013. “The Benedum Foundation’s continued support strengthens our commitment to achieve the highest level of environmental responsibility in shale development in the Appalachian Basin,” said Susan LeGros, President and Executive Director at CSSD. “In particular, this grant will support our outreach to increase community awareness of the benefits of leading performance standards and voluntary certification.”

The Benedum Foundation focuses its investments in West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania.  The foundation encourages projects that cross state lines and supports initiatives that benefit the multi-state economy centered in Pittsburgh.

About The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation
The Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation was established in 1944 by Michael and Sarah Benedum, natives of West Virginia, as a memorial to their only child, Claude Worthington Benedum, who died in 1918 at the age of 20.  The Foundation is a regional foundation focusing primarily on West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania.  For more information on the Foundation, please see:  www.benedum.org.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CSSD Expands Its Wastewater Treatment Standard, Fulfilling Initial Plans

• News Release
• Background

The Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD) has developed 15 initial performance standards for operators that are protective of air quality, water resources and climate. These standards represent consensus on what is achievable and protective of human health and the environment.

As these standards are put into practice, CSSD will learn from these adaptations and is committed to adopting further innovations of value, which will be incorporated into revised standards as appropriate.

The “wastewater treatment standard” has been expanded, as announced by CSSD on February 27, 2015. (Some new standards are in the works as well.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CONSOL Energy now certified with CSSD, joining Chevron and Shell

Pittsburgh, Pa — April 7, 2015 (PRNewswire) — CONSOL Energy Inc. has announced certification of its operational practices by the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD).  The certification, independently validated by Bureau Veritas, confirms CONSOL’s compliance with all 15 CSSD performance standards related to environmental stewardship of air and water.  These performance standards have been designed to exceed the regulatory minimums established by state and federal regulatory bodies.

CONSOL Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Nick DeIuliis commented, “Our core values of safety and environmental compliance are the foundation of our business model and part of our DNA as a company.  We constantly strive to push the envelope in terms of innovation, and to go above and beyond the regulatory baseline that governs our operations.  This CSSD certification is clear recognition of that commitment, and of our commitment to being a good neighbor and true partner in the communities where we live and work.”

The company also released its fourth annual Corporate Responsibility Report, which details execution against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and outlines activities and new initiatives undertaken during the past year toward the company’s comprehensive corporate responsibility goals.

“Our fourth annual report continues to build on goals and objectives aimed at our commitment to responsible business practices across all operational and support functions within the Company.  Our commitment to these concepts is reinforced by the belief that such practices are not only the right thing to do, but that they also provide CONSOL Energy and our customers with competitive advantages in today’s global marketplace,” said Katharine Fredriksen, CONSOL Energy Senior Vice President of Environmental Strategy and Regulatory Affairs.

CONSOL Energy, Shell and Chevron are now certified on the 15 criteria with CSSD.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perspective Commentary – Considering how super fast production from these gas wells drops off, they will have to stay on “the drilling treadmill” as Deborah (Rogers) Lawrence so accurately describes it in several videos. Her comments 3 years ago sound prophetic in this “Drilling for Dollars” video when you consider the recent shale bust:

See this: https://youtu.be/5SzO1UJuduw See also:  www.Marcellus-Shale.us