Shell’s massive plastics plant in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, started operations in late 2022

From LIVING ON EARTH, National Public Radio, Air Date: Week of June 30, 2023

Shell’s massive new ethane cracker plant in western Pennsylvania is sending polluted air and strange smells into the surrounding community. But a $10 million fine pales in comparison to the roughly $100 million a day that the company made in profits in the first quarter of 2023. Reid Frazier of the Allegheny Front discusses with Host Paloma Beltran the concerns of residents and a promised economic boom that hasn’t materialized.

TRANSCRIPT ~ BELTRAN: And I’m Paloma Beltran.

Even before it came online last year, the huge plastics plant Shell built on the banks of the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania had problems with pollution. The plant is an “ethane cracker” that uses fracked gas to produce the common plastic called polyethylene, and it’s violated air quality rules and sent strange smells into the surrounding community. And although it has brought new jobs, a recent report from the nonprofit Ohio River Valley Institute suggests it hasn’t ushered in the economic boom that some anticipated. In May, Pennsylvania’s governor announced that Shell will pay a $10 million fine for its air quality violations. But that fine pales in comparison to the roughly $100 million a day that Shell made in profits in the first quarter of 2023. And the plant received a $1.65 billion tax credit over 25 years, the largest in Pennsylvania history.

BELTRAN: So, this Shell plant has been in the works for a long time. Can you describe it for us? How big is it, and how much plastic does it produce?

FRAZIER: It’s basically like a small city that they built to make plastic, there on the banks of the Ohio. At the top capacity, it will be able to make over three billion pounds of plastic every year. The greenhouse gas emissions from this facility are estimated to be the equivalent of 400 thousand cars on the road. So, it’s a pretty big greenhouse gas emitter, it’ll probably be, you know, one of the top few facilities in the state in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

BELTRAN: Wow. And in May, you reported that Shell agreed to pay a $10 million fine after emissions from the plant violated state air quality rules. What were the violations, and what will the money be used

FRAZIER: Right, so the violations were for exceeding their state permit-allowed air pollution, essentially. They were allowed to pollute about 500 tons a year of volatile organic compounds. They basically exceeded that in September of 2022, when they had a lot of flaring, there were sort of equipment malfunctions, and when those malfunctions take place, they basically flare the gas as a way to get rid of it. And so that the gas doesn’t accumulate and cause an explosion. But when you do that you get rid of a lot of the pollution, but not all of it. So, in one month, they essentially hit their 12-month quota, even before the plant had started. And they’ve exceeded similar limits for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, in subsequent months. And they’ve had other problems with air pollution. There was a release that caused benzene and volatile organic compounds to spike a couple months ago, workers reported headaches and irritation in their eyes, according to the company. There have just been a lot of problems. So, the state rolled all of these violations together into a $10 million fine. About half of the money goes to the state and half goes to the local area municipalities and such presumably to be done in — used in a sort of environmentally friendly or civic-minded way, but we don’t actually know what the money is going to be used for.

BELTRAN: Reid, you’ve been covering this project for a long time, and you’ve spoken to lots of people in Beaver County. How have community members responded to the plant?

FRAZIER: Well, obviously, a lot of people are upset that there is this ongoing pollution problem. I think most people hope that the company will clean its act up. There is a sort of acknowledgement that when you open up a big plant like this, there’s bound to be problems as you start bringing equipment online. That having been said, I think people were surprised by how much pollution has come from this plant. Even people who were big supporters of Shell coming to Beaver County. I talked to Jack Manning, who’s a Beaver County commissioner, so it’s like the local governing board. He actually used to work in the petrochemical industry in Beaver County. He’s basically said he’s still going to be supporting Shell, but they simply have to clean their act up. And these are his words.

MANNING: Well, I’ve also told people, if you cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed, we’re going to have a different conversation. And I can’t, I can’t defend you. And right now, nobody’s crossed that

FRAZIER: Other people are more upset, parents who’ve taken their kids to school on days when there were high benzene levels, and were understandably freaked out by the smell of gasoline in their backyard. That’s what one person told me. Somebody else reported that it smelled like burning plastic. And I think more than anything, ‘Wait, is this how it’s going to be for the rest of my life, if I stay here?’ This is the thought that a lot of people are having. But if you live like five miles away, you probably don’t experience this. And, they’re glad to see that there’s a plant with 600 workers there, and maybe they have friends or relatives who are working there or worked to build it and made a lot of money in construction. During the five or six years when it was under construction, there were something like six-to-eight thousand people working on it. So, it’s a mixed bag. I think the closer you are to the plant, the more you’re, worried about it.

BELTRAN: Of course, I mean, who wants to be smelling chemicals every day in their backyard? Some fossil fuel companies are looking to increase their foothold in the plastics industry as the world moves towards cleaner sources of energy. Is that pivot happening at all in Beaver County, or in Pennsylvania more generally?

FRAZIER: That remains to be seen. I think the Shell plant itself is an example of that pivot that you just described, where oil and gas companies are trying to figure out what they’re going to do in the next few decades, if people largely give up, gas-driven cars and such. And petrochemicals are a growing business still. There were plans for more of these to be built in the greater Ohio Valley region. There was one project that was on the docket in eastern Ohio. To date, it hasn’t been built, it hasn’t been approved. We’ll see if that changes in the next few years. But it’s unclear. Five or six years ago, it was thought that there would be five or six of these plants at some point, and now we’re not sure that’s actually going to happen in this region.

BELTRAN: In some ways, the world seems to be moving away from plastics. U.N. negotiators recently held talks over a potential treaty to address plastic pollution. But this plant is built to produce 3.5 billion pounds of polyethylene per year. What might that mean for pollution in Beaver County and

FRAZIER: We don’t know where this plastic is going to end up. It could end up overseas, actually. It could end up in North America, as plastic bottles or medical equipment or parts that go into vehicles, even electric vehicles. But we don’t know, that kind of information is not something that Shell is required to tell local regulators and local communities. But we do know that it’s likely that this plastic will be sent on railcars around the country. They have a massive rail yard with hopper cars, where they can just dump the nurdles, which are the little plastic beads. That’s the form that they produce. And so it seems pretty certain that there will be some rail activity related to these nurdles, and that they’ll basically go elsewhere.

BELTRAN: And we should mention that this plant is located barely a half hour’s drive from East Palestine, Ohio, where a freight train derailed in February and caused a toxic chemical spill. Has this shaped the way Beaver County residents are thinking about this ethane cracker?

FRAZIER: Definitely. The Shell plant, every few weeks, would flare up, or there would be gases, or they would have an exceedance of their pollution limits. And at the same time, you have this national calamity going on about 15 miles away. And the communities around the plant are also in — downwind of that East Palestine fallout. So, it’s kind of hard to escape, if you’re living there, all of this pollution.

BELTRAN: Do regulators or environmental groups have plans to address the plant’s pollution moving forward?

FRAZIER: I think the state has set up some guideposts for Shell. They have to submit plans for how they’re going to do certain things at the plant to prevent continued releases of these pollutants. But there’s no guarantee that this kind of thing won’t keep happening, and that Shell won’t keep paying fines when it does. You know, there’s a lawsuit that has been launched from environmental groups to kind of get the plant to stop polluting, and we’ll see where that goes. These groups can push on the regulator, and the regulator can push on the company, but it’s really up to the company to perform, get its processes in line with environmental regulations. The best people can do now is hope that that happens.

#######+++++++#######+++++++#######

See Also: Pennsylvania is just the latest sacrifice zone for the plastics industry, Kristina Marusic, Sierra Club, September 15, 2022

Shell ranks in the top 10 among the 90 companies that are responsible for two-thirds of historic greenhouse gas emissions. Its Potter Township (BeaverCounty) cracker plant is expected to emit up to 2.25 million tons of climate-warming gases annually, equivalent to approximately 430,000 extra cars on the road.

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.

Industrial cooperation needed to develop sustainable processes

From an Article by Joseph Chang, ICIS News, May 20, 2021

NEW YORK (ICIS)–Dow is advancing ethane dehydrogenation (EDH) and electric cracking (e-cracking) technologies in a bid to dramatically lower carbon emissions from existing crackers, and to one day build the low-to-zero carbon crackers of the future, executives said.

“If you look at both technologies, you can get 40-50% reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [from each]. Our plan is to… get them to a point where they start supporting our net carbon neutrality goals,” said Manav Lahoti, global sustainability director for hydrocarbons for Dow, in an interview with ICIS.

“We’re trying to move as fast as we can in bringing EDH forward because there’s a high level of interest not only within the company but a need in the marketplace to have [low carbon] technologies that make ethylene economically viable,” he added.

Dow plans to cut net annual carbon emissions by 5m tonnes, or 15% by 2030 versus its 2020 baseline, with carbon neutrality achieved by 2050, including the impact of product benefits.

EDH FOR LOW-CARBON ETHYLENE

Dow is using its proprietary technology to develop EDH but also evaluating several potential technology providers, including EcoCatalytic Technologies.

The basis for Dow’s EDH is its UNIFINITY fluidised catalytic dehydrogenation (FCDh) technology, which it is deploying at its Plaquemine, Louisiana site. It is retrofitting one of its mixed-feed crackers there with FCDh technology to produce 100,000 tonnes/year of on-purpose propylene.

The project is expected to be built in 2021 with start-up slated for 2022. “We will demonstrate the propylene technology next year while we continue working on ethylene. Our long-term plans are to use that platform and apply it to ethane-to-ethylene [via EDH],” said Lahoti.

“It’s not going to happen in the next couple of years – it’s a little further out. It’s part of our multi-generational plan. We’re going to demonstrate EDH in one of our existing crackers and then from there we can talk about building a cracker using EDH from the ground up,” he added.

E-CRACKING PROGRESS

Dow is also working with Shell to develop electric cracking. Since their announcement in June 2020, “significant progress” has been made, with announcements to come in the weeks and months ahead.

In e-cracking, electricity would be used to heat cracker furnaces rather than natural gas. If that electricity comes from renewables such as solar and wind, it would largely decarbonise the process.

“We’re going to look at retrofitting some of the e-cracking technology into our crackers, demonstrating the technology. But at the same time, we are trying to figure out how to develop what we consider a novel solution that allows us to apply e-cracking to building a cracker from the ground up. That’s going to be further out,” said Lahoti.

Any decision to build a new cracker would take carbon emissions into account, and thus use one or more carbon mitigation technologies. “We build these assets for many decades. Any view [looking over] many decades has to have an ability to manage the climate conditions and regulations. I don’t see climate regulations getting easier over time,” said Edward Stones, global business director for energy and climate change.

VALUE-CHAIN DRIVEN

The timing of the use of low carbon cracker technologies will depend not only on technology development, but the value customers will assign to products produced with these technologies.

“Our customers are very interested in low carbon solutions, and frankly the cost of carbon abatement rises as we get closer to net zero, and the value of our products rises. So what we can afford to do in our value chain increases, and the speed can increase as well,” said Stones.

Dow is also developing resiliency on a corporate level, working on many different technologies and methods to reduce carbon emissions, including blue hydrogen, carbon capture and storage (CCS), renewable energy and efficiency projects.

“Those are areas where we can get tangible reductions in emissions with known technologies today that build your credibility and build the customer value chain,” said Stones.

EDH and e-cracking are not one-size-fits-all technologies – they would be part of a site-wide solution, he noted. “When you [look at] game changing technologies, this is where we believe that companies like Dow have a competitive edge because we are used to dealing with the complexities that come with these large, integrated sites,” said Lahoti.

“There’s no single technology that’s going to give us what we need. It’s going to be a combination of things we know today and things we’re working on that will make a significant difference,” he added.

The goal will be to get to world-scale capacities with these new technologies. “That is definitely where we want to take these technologies. We’re not going to stop at just a furnace or two. We want to make sure that it gets to be world-scale at that point in time when it’s ready,” said Lahoti.

HYDROGEN’S ROLE

Dow also sees hydrogen playing a role in decarbonising its crackers, most likely starting with blue hydrogen produced when methane is fed into an autothermal reformer (ATR), which produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen.

The CO2 is captured and stored, and the hydrogen can be sent to the cracker furnace to provide the process heat. Off gas can also be recycled back into the ATR.

“You also can use that hydrogen and CO2 cycle to feed your cogeneration facility, which will be important… in mitigating volatility of renewables [in electric power generation],” said Stones.

“An integrated site in the future would have all of these technologies. What we’re trying to figure out is, what’s the right balance across the sites? And some of that depends on what the value chain allows you to do… Developing those technologies in an integrated way is really how we win,” he added.

###

SHELL flaring ethane gas at Mossmorran, Scotland

From an Article by Angie Brown, BBC Scotland, October 2, 2019

Shell has been forced to burn off “significant” volumes of ethane because it cannot sell it to a firm that has temporarily shut down its plant with flaring issues in Fife.

Residents living near the Mossmorran site thought flaring would be reduced after Exxonmobil closed in August. However, flares have continued to burn because Shell’s only ethane customer is Exxonmobil, which shares the site.

Shell said it was “actively exploring alternative ethane outlets”.

Exxonmobil chose to temporarily close its plant to undertake maintenance on its boilers.

Shell’s Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant separates natural gas liquids into ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline for storage and onward distribution. It sells its ethane to Exxonmobil’s neighbouring Fife Ethylene plant, which turns it into ethylene.

Since the Fife Ethylene Plant was temporarily closed down Shell said it “did not have the storage capacity for the significant quantities of ethane produced from North Sea gas”.

Exxonmobil’s plant at the site will be closed until at least November for work to be carried out to make the plant more “reliable”.

A total of £140m of work will also be spent by Exxonmobil improving the plant. ExxonMobil said it had started recruiting 850 temporary workers to carry out the work over the next 12 months. The operator said the investment was on top of the £20m it spends annually on maintaining its Mossmorran site.

A Shell Fife Natural Gas Liquids spokesman said: “The (ExxonMobil) Fife Ethylene Plant is currently the primary customer for ethane supplied by the Shell Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant, and processes ethane into ethylene.

“Our ground flares are burning excess ethane as the Fife Ethylene plant is currently not available for receiving the ethane to process it into ethylene.

“We have taken measures within the North Sea (SEGAL) supply system to help to manage the situation and are actively exploring alternative ethane outlets during the temporary shutdown.

“However, the volume taken by the Fife Ethylene plant is significant and any solution is likely to be for some volume rather than the full volume of ethane the Fife Natural Gas Liquids plant produces.”

James Glen, chairman of the Mossmorran Action Group, said: “I think it is ironic that Shell is being forced to flare off excess product because of the problems at Exxonmobil.

“Residents had hoped for some respite but they are having to continue to suffer from light and noise impact as a result of Shell’s flaring.”

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

See also: Flaring, or Why So Much Gas Is Going Up in Flames – The Washington Post, Ryan Collins and Rachel Adams-Heard | Bloomberg, September 10, 2019

If you take a drive along the well-worn highways of West Texas, orange flames will punctuate your journey. Those are gas flares, and they’re lighting up the skies above West Texas oilfields like never before as drillers produce crude faster than pipes can be laid to haul the attendant natural gas away. Oil drillers say flaring is the most environmentally friendly way to get rid of excess gas they can’t sell. Environmentalists say that in many cases what flaring is friendly to is oil drillers’ profits. They think regulators in states including Texas and North Dakota should be tougher on a practice that harms air quality and contributes to climate change.

Waste plastics accumulation in Nairobi, Kenya

From an Article by Sandra Laville, The Guardian, March 15, 2019

>>> Commitments agreed at UN conference in Kenya do not go far enough, say green groups.

Environmental groups involved in talks at a United Nations conference in Kenya have accused the US of blocking an ambitious global response to plastic pollution.

Representatives of countries at the UN environment conference in Nairobi this week agreed to significantly reduce single-use plastics over the next decade but the voluntary pledges fell far short of what was required, according to green groups.

Norway, Japan and Sri Lanka had put forward proposals for a legally binding agreement for nations to coordinate action against plastic litter in the oceans and microplastics. India also suggested strong action with a resolution to phase out single-use plastic across the world.

But a coalition of environmental groups at the conference condemned the US for blocking the ambitious attempts to tackle plastic pollution at the source as well as downstream.

An initial ministerial statement at the beginning of the event had proposed a commitment to “phase out single-use plastics … by 2025”, a far stronger promise than the compromise nations reached.

On Friday, a series of non-binding proposals were agreed, including the adoption of an action plan by the International Maritime Organization’s marine environment protection committee to reduce plastic litter from ships, and suggestions for better global management of data on plastic pollution. A final statement said countries would “address the damage to our ecosystems caused by the unsustainable use and disposal of plastic products, including by significantly reducing single-use plastic by 2030”.

In response, environmental groups including Break Free From Plastic, IPEN, Plastic Change, No Waste Louisiana and Coare said the proposals did not go far enough.

“Despite sweeping agreement by the majority of countries that urgent, ambitious and global action is needed to address plastic across its lifecycle, from production to use to disposal, a small minority led by the United States blocked ambitious text and delayed negotiations,” they said in a statement.

Countries most affected by plastic pollution including the Philippines, Malaysia and Senegal were against the resolution being watered down.

Large oil firms in the US are investing billions of dollars in petrochemical production over the next decade, particularly shale gas.

The new facilities, which are being built by ExxonMobile Chemical and Shell Chemical, among others, will help fuel a 40% rise in plastic production in the next decade, according to industry experts.

The world already produces more than 300 million tonnes of plastic a year.

“It’s hard to find one solution for all member states,” Siim Kiisler, the president of the UN environment assembly, told Agence France-Presse before the final decision. “The environment is at a turning point. We don’t need verbose documents, we need concrete commitments.”

When asked whether the US had pushed to have the commitments watered down during the week’s negotiations, Kiisler said: “I will not answer that question.”

David Azoulay, from the Center for International Environmental Law, condemned the weakening of the commitment.

He said: “The vast majority of countries came together to develop a vision for the future of global plastic governance. Seeing the US, guided by the interests of the fracking and petrochemical industry, leading efforts to sabotage that vision is disheartening.”

Exponential growth of plastics worldwide

Huge process tower erected at Shell’s cracker facility

From an Article by Heather Doyle, Petrochemical Update, October 19, 2018

Shell has completed a substantial step in the construction of its Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex, bringing the Northeast chemicals hub dream another step closer to reality.

Shell said on October 10, 2018 it had successfully installed the project’s largest piece of equipment: a 285-foot cooling and condensation tower for gas and other hydrocarbons.

At approximately 2,000 tonnes, the tower spent more than three and a half weeks in transit up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and required one of the world’s largest cranes to lift it into place.

Upon arrival in Pennsylvania, it was unloaded onto a dock and transported down a newly-created road – both specially-designed to handle the large quench tower.

The heavy lift of the quench tower, undertaken October 7, marked an important milestone in the project.

Shell took the final investment decision on the Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex in June 2016. The site preparation program ended in November 2017, with Shell announcing the start of main construction. Commercial production is expected to begin early next decade.

Since the start of main construction in November 2017, Shell has also safely erected two of three reactors associated with the planned polyethylene units and laid around 15 miles of underground pipe for the cooling, firewater and drainage systems.

The project is bringing economic growth and jobs to the region, with some 3,000 workers on site. That number will likely increase to 6,000 by the end of 2019 through its construction phase. Shell expects around 600 onsite jobs when the complex is completed.

The petrochemicals complex will use ethane from shale-gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica basins to produce 1.6 million tonnes of polyethylene per year.

The complex will include four processing units – an ethane cracker and three polyethylene units. Two polyethylene units will manufacture high-density polyethylene (HDPE) grades of pellets and a third unit will produce linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) pellets.

The Shell petrochemical complex in Pennsylvania will be the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast in 20 years, but many say Shell is paving the way for a major Appalachia petrochemical industry.

“There is more than enough ethane in the Northeast region now for another two to three world scale crackers,” U.S. Energy Information Administration Industry Economist Warren Wilczewski said while speaking at Petrochemical Update’s Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction Conference in 2017.

Surging supply of ethane is expected to come from the Marcellus and Utica shales over the next several years. By 2020, a quarter of U.S. ethane will be produced in Appalachia, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Pipelines, infrastructure and storage are still necessary for the northeast petrochemicals hub to become a reality, players caution. According to analysts, a storage solution is a crucial next step in transforming the Appalachian Basin and its natural gas assets into a petrochemical production center.

A proposed multibillion-dollar regional storage complex for natural gas liquids sourced from the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale plays moved one step closer to reality in August when Parsons was named engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) partner for the buildout of the Appalachia Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH).

Parsons will initially focus on the pre-front end engineering design (FEED) including project management and execution planning. Subsequent phases would include constructing the $3.4 billion project and its long-term operation.

http://analysis.petchem-update.com/operations-maintenance/shell-reaches-engineering-milestone-northeast

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

The construction workforce will peak at 6,000. The landscape is rapidly changing.

From an Article by Martina Asbury, Petrochemical Update, December 15, 2017

Construction at Shell’s world scale $6 billion petrochemical complex near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has begun, and as the first major U.S. project of its type to be built outside the Gulf Coast in 20 years, Shell is paving the way for a major Appalachia chemical region, industry analysts told Petrochemical Update.

When built, the facility will include an ethane cracker with an approximate annual average capacity of 3.3 billion pounds of ethylene; three polyethylene (PE) units with a combined annual production capacity of approximately 3.5 billion pounds; and power and steam generation, storage, logistics, cooling water and water treatment, emergency flare, buildings and warehouses.

Commercial production is expected to begin early in the next decade.

In an exclusive interview with Petrochemical Update, Hilary Mercer, VP Shell Pennsylvania Chemicals, shares her personal insights and reflections on her role in building Shell’s new PE business.

From game-changer to crisis manager through a variety of primarily Integrated Gas (LNG) projects and geographies across Shell, Hilary Mercer’s 30-year career trajectory has landed her as the recently named VP, Pennsylvania Chemicals. She joins this adventure from her project leadership role at Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) shipyard in Geoje, South Korea, contributing to readying Prelude, the world’s first floating LNG facility, for it sail away to gas fields off the coast of Western Australia.

First in Appalachia

Mercer radiates excitement and pride as she describes building the legacy she now leads with her General Manager of PE Marketing, the Asset Manager and the Project Director. As the Business Opportunity Manager (BOM) for the new asset, she describes so many “firsts:” Shell as a new entrant to the PE market, having exited it decades ago; the facility, a first of its kind in the Appalachian region.

As BOM, she describes her role as forging alignment between the PE Marketing, the Project Director and Asset Manager and their respective organizations to optimize the long-term life cycle costs of the asset and to ensure that Operations and Maintenance have all the data they require to be agile and innovative in meeting customer needs.

With her background strongly rooted in capital project effectiveness, Mercer is rapidly climbing the learning curve of what it takes to penetrate an existing, growing commodity product market, both domestically and globally.

“For me, this is a once-in-a-career chance to write the script on blank paper for Shell’s imprint on a region and a new business,” Mercer told PCU. “It’s all about the creation: of jobs; of product; of a customer base; of being a welcome neighbor in the community”, says Mercer. “Adaptive leadership is required to meet the business goal of sustainable, quality production.”

Supply chain

After exploring JV options for a product partner, Shell elected to forge its own way, recognizing the logistic advantage of shorter and more dependable PE supply chains, compared to supply from the Gulf Coast.

More than 70% of North American polyethylene customers are within a 700-mile radius of Pittsburgh. According to IHS Markit, the U.S. can satisfy domestic demand with a good margin with export capacity to spare to competitively serve European markets via East Coast ports in proximity of the Appalachian region.

Main Works Construction

Mercer joins the initiative at a crucial junction – the start of Main Works construction for a petrochemical complex that includes processing facilities for 1000 kta of high-density polyethylene and 550 kta of linear low-density polyethylene; as well as infrastructure comprised of a cogeneration unit, water treatment plant, water detention pond, dock, rail, and truck loading. She is witnessing the massive build-up of a construction workforce that will peak at 6,000. “The landscape is rapidly changing,” she remarks.

When asked her first impressions of the project itself, she told PCU she was impressed by the condition of the site, specifically the closure of essentially all underground work. She is also encouraged by the competency and continuity of both Shell and EP contractor leads who followed the project from EP offices to the site. She remarks “this is a first for Shell – 100% of the detail engineering is complete before the first concrete pour.”

Given that Bechtel served not only as the EP contractor for the Utilities and Infrastructure (non-process, or OSBL) portion of the plant, but also as the EP Integrator for the entire facility, and is now the single Construction Manager for the project, she has high expectations of a seamless transfer of data from design to construction.

In most projects, OSBL facilities (steam, power, water, instrument air) that are dependent on final data requirements from processing units, are the last to be designed — and first systems required for start-up. Mercer sees a unique advantage to ready these OSBL systems as required for commissioning.

In support of Anca Rusu, Project Director, she continually reinforces the message that there is no scenario in which Bechtel loses and Shell wins. “A Bechtel success = a Shell success.” As with any uber-project, there are tensions to be navigated as the project undergoes multiple, changing critical paths, many of which are tied to major equipment and/or module delivery dates. In her experience, Mercer says that in the end the critical path is almost always completion of piping.

Workforce

The last perspective she shared with PCU in this interview is the overwhelming support of the community and region as they welcome the influx of economic growth. Shell is building a 50-year asset with 600 permanent jobs.

Academia and industry have partnered across state borders to provide workforce development options. As it should, the region has its eye on a goal larger than a sustainable workforce for Shell. Never has she seen such strong support from external stakeholders.

Petrochemical Update will check in with Hilary Mercer in the coming years as the skyline of Shell site at Monaca, Pennsylvania changes, and as the first railcars and fleet of trucks filled pellets make their way to customers.

Petrochemical Update has a free 33-page whitepaper on the US North East Petrochemical Industry Market Outlook 2018 available for download.

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

Horsehead plant site on Ohio River

Beaver County firms place wager on Shell building petrochemical plant

From an Article by Timothy Puko and David Conti, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,  March 18, 2014

After eight years of up and down business, Ed Vescovi is hoping the best is yet to come for the dormant biodiesel plant he oversees on the banks of the Ohio River in Beaver County. There are plans to revive the site with as many as 85 new workers, including a new river dock and wastewater treatment plant for Marcellus shale gas drillers. The ultimate bet is even bigger, that a multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant Royal Dutch Shell may build just down the road could help turn the largely wooded and hilly site into a booming industrial park.

The chance to get an early position on spin-off business from what would be a largely new industry in Western Pennsylvania was a big motivator for the site’s new owner, Weavertown Transport Leasing Inc. It paid more than $2 million to buy the 125 acres in October.

All around Beaver County leaders are seeing a similar push: Industrial parks are beefing up, engineering companies are moving in, and new offices, hotels and housing are on the way. While many Pittsburgh businesses are still hanging back until Shell decides, it’s clear that some are already moving fast to try and make it big.

Shell leaders have never committed to building during two years of deliberating since they picked Pennsylvania as the potential host. It has an option to buy the Horsehead Holding Corp. zinc smelter site, and, after three extensions, its final deadline to buy is coming next month, County Commissioner Joe Spanik said.

Shell leaders will be updating a working group of local and state officials in Hopewell, Spanik and Commissioner Dennis Nichols said. The parent company has been facing sagging profits and last week its global leaders said they will cut capital spending by a fifth and pull back from some shale development in the United States.

Shell has, however, continued to invest millions into Beaver County. It spent $1.87 million in December to buy the 5.5 acres home of Cubbyhole Self Storage on Frankfort Road to help reroute Route 18 along the Horsehead site. Shell talked to other property owners in the area, the seller said. Shell is also paying for ongoing demolition work to help clear part of the Horsehead site, both companies have said.

At Ambridge Regional Distribution & Manufacturing Center, 11 miles up the Ohio River from the Shell site, they’re planning for a 25 to 30 mile zone for spin-off businesses, said Gene Pash, president of site owner Value Ambridge Properties Inc. Its new plan maps out the addition of as many as six new buildings to provide top-class office and workspace for expanding industry, Pash said.  “We’re moving forward at warp speed,” he said..

The region’s drilling boom has helped give business a foundation to build on. The Weavertown corporation is moving up emergency spill response equipment and some of its stone business into a satellite operation to serve the drillers increasingly working north of Pittsburgh. That type of business is growing enough to justify a somewhat speculative investment, fostering belief that it will turn a profit even if Shell never builds, Weavertown’s CEO Fuchs said.

The company is planning $15 million to $20 million more to develop the whole site, according to county commissioners who helped Weavertown apply for state grants. “With any growth strategy, you have to be in early because then you’ll get short-listed more quickly.” Fuchs said. “We’re opportunistic.”

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

Shell’s newly completed analysis of its second half of 2013 performance in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale gas operation, acquired in 2010 for a reported $4.7 billion, showed that the “vast majority” of its 630 wells are underperforming compared to its peers. In one county, its wells were producing at half the rate of competitors. An independent energy analyst, who estimated that Shell’s wells are likely to be uneconomic even with a recent rise in US gas prices, has meanwhile predicted that the international oil and petrochemicals group will not proceed with its proposed ethane cracker in Pennsylvania, according to www.Plasteurope.com