[Graeme]

No, you're misconstruing what is stated. The codes (INCLUDING THE BUILDING CODE) are applicable (at least in Wyoming) because you have to comply before you get a permit to drill. That's what we were arguing about in the first place. But it does appear in other place you don't. I'm not doing a survey to find out where they are. That's what Rive's point is. He is just referring to the building code which I have just demonstrated can be a requirement before a permit is issued. I get it alright but you don't.

In any case, this requirement in the US is likely to be small potatoes compared to oil-producer countries mentioned below:

New drive to reduce fossil fuel subsidies

Fossil fuel subsidies cost governments in emerging markets more than $500 billion every year and are a major contributor to climate change, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The biggest subsidies are concentrated in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and parts of Latin America, according to the IEA’s Fossil Fuel Subsidy Database (iea.org/subsidy/index.html).
Moreover energy-exporting countries accounted for three quarters of all consumption subsidies in 2012, according to the IEA and OPEC members account for more than half the world’s subsidies.

Subsidies account for 82 percent of the cost of electricity and fuel in Venezuela, 80 percent in Libya, 79 percent in Saudi Arabia, 74 percent in Iran, and 56 percent in Iraq and Algeria. By contrast, the average rate of subsidy is just 18 percent in India and 3 percent in China.

In cash terms the world’s biggest subsidies are in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia, all of which are major oil producers. Subsidies cost these three countries a combined total of $180 billion per year in 2012.



According to the IEA, phasing out subsidies for oil, gas and electricity and aligning prices with international benchmarks would cut growth in energy demand by 5 percent and carbon dioxide emissions by 2 billion tons a year by 2020 — equivalent to the current combined emissions of Germany, France and the UK.

Raising gasoline, diesel and kerosene tariffs to market levels would save 4.7 million barrels of oil a day by the end of the decade (“World Energy Outlook 2011“).

Cutting subsidies would also dramatically improve government budgets. Of 58 countries which subsidised gasoline, diesel or kerosene in 2010, 46 were running budget deficits, and in 27 cases the deficit amounted to more than 3 percent of GDP, the IMF explained in a staff note highly critical of the burden on taxpayers.

Halving subsidies would have reduced the average deficit from 2.1 percent of GDP to just 0.8 percent (“Petroleum product subsidies: cost, inequitable and rising” Feb 2010).
Subsidies often crowd out spending on infrastructure, development and social welfare. Indonesia spends more on fuel subsidies than on education or health care.



And in the biggest petro-states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya and Algeria there has been virtually no progress toward more sensible energy pricing.

The result is a prodigious waste of energy. The petro-states are among the world’s biggest and fastest-growing oil consumers and some are now having to import natural gas for power generation to meet electricity demand. And the greenhouse emissions are enormous.

It is all ultimately unsustainable. “The state itself is teaching people to waste resources,” complains one Kuwaiti newspaper editor. But subsidy reform is probably impossible without meaningful political and social change.

arabnews

[rockdoc123]

No, you're misconstruing what is stated. The codes (INCLUDING THE BUILDING CODE) are applicable (at least in Wyoming) because you have to comply before you get a permit to drill. That's what we were arguing about in the first place. But it does appear in other place you don't. I'm not doing a survey to find out where they are. That's what Rive's point is. He is just referring to the building code which I have just demonstrated can be a requirement before a permit is issued. I get it alright but you don't.

sorry I am not. It is quite simple. Rive stated that oil rigs could be erected anywhere they wanted to be because they were exempt from the building code. As I have pointed out this is completely untrue because there are other, more stringent regulations that apply to rigs. You do not need to have building codes but the other regulations are far more onerous. This is why the argument is stupid, building codes are not necessary when the activity is neither permanent and is already regulated.

The fact that Wyoming layers other civil codes on top of the normal oil and gas regulations regarding siting of drill rigs and the resultant operations is neither here nor there.....any requirements that show up in such city codes are already covered in typical permits for drilling including noise, impact, environment controls etc.

[ROCKMAN]

Doc - Sorry I'm late to the chat. I agree...so silly and misinformed IMHO. I won't waste space or my time and just refer folks to the Texas and La regulatory web sites where they can spend hours learning about all the regulations regarding drill site activities that greatly exceed anyone's building codes. There are a variety of pertinent issues to debate. This ain't one IMHO.

[Graeme]

Building codes are one way big (and little) oil can avoid local regulations. Tax breaks are another. Regardless of what they avoid, the oil industry is heading toward oblivion. Now I've got your attention.

Opening titles: “Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks,” warns AmericanProgress.org. No surprise: Both industry profits and production fell for Exxon Mobil and other oil giants. Same old boring lobbying pitch as they tell us tax breaks are essential to keep fueling a million automobiles worldwide while, of course, what they are really necessary for is to keep paying steady quarterly dividends to their investors.

Big Oil also argues tax breaks are only $2.4 billion for these “struggling” energy giants that generate about $1 trillion in revenues annually. And yes, that’s far less than America’s school-lunch and food-stamps programs that could easily be eliminated in huge cuts if the GOP recaptures the Senate and passes Paul Ryan’s draconian budget.

And just in case you’re worried things might actually get worse for struggling Big Oil — like rising gasoline prices or falling dividends — Shell just released this announcement in Eco-Business.com: “Oil giant says profits are assured: Investors are being told by Shell, the biggest oil company in the world, that the world will go on burning more and more oil ... despite the threat of climate change.” Yes, blame the insatiable consuming public.

Warning, don’t believe Shell, or any other self-serving Big Oil press release. The industry is in trouble and they’re doing all they can to minimize the global commodities wars the Pentagon predicts coming in 2020, pitting Big Oil against the growing global environmental movement. Why? Scan these 10 reasons Big Oil stocks will crash by 2020.


Yes, the new Risky Business is emerging as target battlefield in the new war between Big Oil’s Decepticon and Optimus Prime, a war to transforms Planet-Earth and stop the “Extinction” of human civilization. You can expect to hear many more counterattacks from folks like Exxon’s Tillerson, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Tom Donohue’s Chamber of Commerce front, GOP and their ultra-conservative think tanks, and the 30 million “Dismissive” climate science deniers in Yale’s “Six Americas” study.

But the warning bells will grow louder and louder against Big Oil as the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson team get aggressive, calculating “just how much economic risk American industries and communities face as a warming atmosphere generates more storms, droughts, floods and extreme heat,” in its coming summer release date in June.

But even more promising in the best tradition of summer blockbusters, this promises to be an exciting, nasty war. Why? The Risky Business team is relying on climate models already developed by thousands of scientists in the UN’s International Panel for Climate Science. the U.S. National Climate Assessment, global reinsurers like Munich Re and many other key resources, and research already used by Pentagon war-planning strategists, all of which climate-science deniers already despise.

[Graeme]

I couldn't resist reposting this story from the front page.

Oil, gas wells often keep operating despite violations

A Dispatch analysis of more than four years of inspection and violation data kept by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources shows that the vast majority of Ohio’s 64,000 oil and gas wells operate without issue.

From 2010 to early May, inspectors cited nearly 3,800 wells — 6 percent of the total in Ohio — for violating state law.

But many of the wells where inspectors found issues are allowed to remain active without ever showing that their violations were resolved. The department does not have the authority to issue fines or penalties; it must refer the worst offenders to county or state prosecutors.

[rockdoc123]

Oil, gas wells often keep operating despite violations

whats not clear from this post is of those 3000 wells how many are actually a potential problem versus how many are simply in violation of regulations? The article points speaks to one of the problems....wells that have been either left suspended or temporarily abandoned versus permanently abandoned. I am not familiar with Ohio regulations but in many places there is a stipulation as to how long wells can be left suspended or temporarily abandoned versus being permanently abandoned. Is there a big difference in the environmental safety of these various status wells? Not really. A well that you think you might want to come back and put on stream still has to have cement plugs....the casing still has to be properly cemented to protect the acquifers and any potential behind casing cross flows and it still needs a wellhead. The difference between that and a permanent abandonment is permanent cement plugs versus drillable or wireline retrievable drill plugs (in a simple fashion Rockman can provide more details if he feels inclined).

So the question becomes is this simply a tempest in a teapot? How many of these non-compliant wells have actually caused environmental problems?

[dinopello]

So the question becomes is this simply a tempest in a teapot? How many of these non-compliant wells have actually caused environmental problems?

Thanks, I'll use that next time I'm pulled over for speeding.

Excuse me, officer. Isn't this simply a tempest in a teapot ? I may be non-compliant with the speed limit regulation but have I actually caused a problem ?

[Graeme]

Court: BP must pay Clean Water Act fines for spill

The owners of the blown-out Macondo well cannot avoid federal fines for the 2010 oil spill by blaming another company's failed equipment, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The oil came from a well owned by BP and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., so they are liable, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. It upheld a 2012 ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much the oil giant owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties.

"We hope the court's decision will be one more step toward reaching a just conclusion for the American people," U.S. Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said in an email.

Transocean Ltd., which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and the blowout preventer, pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor Clean Water Act violation and agreed to pay a $1 billion fine.

Anadarko is reviewing Wednesday's ruling and its options, spokesman John Christiansen said in an email.

Loyola University law professor Blaine LeCesne said he doubts Anadarko will have to pay much, if anything, in Clean Water Act fines because its partnership gave BP complete control over how the well was drilled and run. In 2011, Anadarko agreed to pay BP $4 billion. BP said that payment would be part of its $20 billion fund to compensate people and businesses hurt by the spill.

BP had no comment on Wednesday's ruling - the 5th Circuit's second against the oil giant in less than two weeks. The court ordered BP on May 27 to resume paying claims while it asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review its settlement with some businesses. A 2-1 judgment putting that order into effect was filed May 28.

nbc4i

[Graeme]

Liberals manipulated Green Energy Act rules, lawsuit claims

A U.S. wind power developer that is seeking $653-million in damages under a NAFTA challenge accuses the government of Ontario of manipulating Green Energy Act rules to benefit the interests of Liberal-connected firms, according to court documents obtained by the National Post.

The court filing, recently made public in the case that pits Mesa Power, a Texas-based developer owned by U.S. financier T. Boone Pickens, against the government, alleges Ontario replaced “transparent” criteria for the selection of energy projects with “political favoritism, cronyism and local preference.”

At issue in the NAFTA arbitration are changes made to the Green Energy Act in 2011. They allowed wind developers a brief window in which they could change the location at which their proposed projects would connect to the transmission grid. NextEra, a multinational renewables firm that was represented to the government by lobbyist Bob Lopinksi, a former senior staffer in the office of Dalton McGuinty, changed their connection points and was eventually awarded more than $2-billion worth of power contracts. Mesa Power says in its court filing that the change effectively bumped its projects out of line, costing it sunk costs and lost future profits.

“The rules were changed to suit one applicant to the detriment of another,” the court document claims.

windsorstar

[Graeme]

Arkansas Oil Spill Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil To Proceed

A lawsuit filed by federal and state officials will go forward against ExxonMobil over a crude oil spill that forced the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, a U.S. district judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Attorney Christopher Thyer and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel sued the energy company after an estimated 150,000 gallons of oil spilled from ExxonMobil's Pegasus Pipeline, fouling a cove in Lake Conway and nearby land.

ExxonMobil had asked U.S. District judge Kristine Baker to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that Thyer and McDaniel didn't state a claim or otherwise establish that the company should have to pay fines over the spill.

The joint lawsuit seeks $45,000 per day for violations since the March 29, 2013, spill. The court action also alleges ExxonMobil improperly stored hazardous material collected from the site of the spill.

After the suit was filed, ExxonMobil pledged to cooperate with all agencies investigating the rupture.

On Monday, ExxonMobil spokesman Aaron Stryk said company officials hadn't had time to read the 17-page order and would have no comment.

McDaniel's spokesman, Aaron Sadler, said in an email, "We appreciate the court's attention to this matter. Now that it is resolved, we can proceed toward trial."

huffingtonpost

[Graeme]

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Faces Mounting Pressure to Act on Oil, Gas, Mining Global Transparency

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the powerhouse lobbying group for the oil industry, is pushing hard for actions that are not only explicitly against the interests of investors, but that bolster corrupt regimes in many foreign countries, such as in Nigeria and Angola and Venezuela.

If ever there was a brilliant example of an industry shooting itself in both feet at the same time then this is it. The eventual costs to the oil industry of its folly will be formidable in terms of regulatory compliance expenses, alienation of actual and potential shareholders, and reputational damage.

At issue is one of the few bipartisan agreements to emerge from the U.S. Congress in recent years that called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to introduce rules that mandate all oil, gas and mining companies in the U.S. to disclose the payments they make to foreign authorities in relation to their natural resources contracts.

The SEC set rules in 2012, but the API challenged them in court and a judge asked the SEC to go back to the drawing board and issue new rules by March 2015. This delay may mean that European governments move ahead of the U.S. and set their own rules mandating full disclosure of foreign payments by firms in the extractive industries.

Europeans move ahead of the U.S.

If this is the case -- and the Europeans are well on the way to setting rules that will come into force no later than in 2017 -- then what could have been a single global standard based on U.S. SEC rules may instead become a global system of more complex multiple transparency standards.

huffingtonpost

[Graeme]

Will the climate debate end up being fought in court?

Society generally has a clear idea of what constitutes a crime, and those in positions of power are usually held to very high standards. Politicians charged with making decisions on the needs of society are held accountable for unprofessional behaviour.

New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell, for example, chose to resign in April over a “massive memory fail”, after initially denying he had received an expensive bottle of wine from an Australian Water Holdings executive.

Neglecting to take action can also be considered criminal. In the same way that doctors who fail to diagnose an illness may be charged with malpractice, politicians can face similar charges for failing to adequately do their jobs.

These crimes may seem more clear-cut – but what happens when it comes to accountability for environmental issues, and more specifically, climate change?

Predicting disasters and legal risk

When government action or inaction leads to the direct harm of citizens due to environmental risks and natural hazards, they should be held to account.

This logic saw residents of New Orleans sue the United States government for damages caused by flooding associated with Hurricane Katrina, after a federal judge ruled the US Army Corps of Engineers displayed gross negligence by failing to maintain a shipping channel next to a levee protecting the city.

In another case in 2009, seven scientists and civil servants were convicted of manslaughter after failing to give adequate warning of an impending earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, that killed 309 people.

We are yet to see if and how politicians and scientists will be held accountable for increased greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change. But a recent area of legal development is arising in this area, known as climate legal risk, defined as the risk of liability or adverse legal outcomes arising when the impacts of climate change (such as flooding, bushfire and coastal hazards) affect an organisation’s operations.

“Unacceptable impacts from predicted climate change” has been used to reject planning applications. In 2010 the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rejected a proposal to subdivide a coastal property for development due to predictions that the land would be inundated within a century. The case marked a critical point in planning law and sent an important message to coastal planning decision makers about the increasing relevance of climate-related flooding.

In another case brought to the courtrooms by environmentalist Pete Gray), the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales found that the approved expansion of the Anvil Hill Coal Mine had failed to properly assess the greenhouse gas pollution impacts of the future use of mined coal.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report paints a bleak picture of what will happen if we continue to pump greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. The risks of extreme weather, droughts, floods, cyclones and marine inundations are all significantly increased.

Currently, governments and mainstream politicians that openly dispute human-caused climate change are rare. What is far more prevalent is a lack of meaningful action in government to combat it.

But with the IPCC so clearly stating the need for action, there is now the very real risk that politicians, media outlets and scientists could face legal prosecution for their role in delaying action that could have saved properties, livelihoods and lives.

A broader international criminal framework identifying destruction of ecosystems, including through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, has been developed and termed “ecocide”, though it has yet to be legislated.


We need leadership from industry, to start engaging with the climate debate. And in the run up to the United Nations Climate Summit set for September 2014 in New York and further talks in Paris next year, we need global leaders to step up to help move society to the next phase of climate action.

In the future, it will not have been enough of a defence to say that climate change inaction was a result of lack of evidence. We have the evidence and we know that we should act. If we do nothing now, future generations may take a legal perspective on our actions, or lack of them, bringing to The Hague a retrospective crime against humanity – climate negligence.

businessspectator

[Graeme]

Hurrah! Egypt's Reduction Of Fuel Subsidies First Step To Climate Change Solution

Egypt has announced that it’s reducing the massive subsidies that are given to fossil fuel consumption in that country. The reason given is simply that they cannot afford to do this anymore. But behind that there’s another point to consider: the reduction of such subsidies is the first step towards a reasonable climate change solution.

Here’s the basic news from Egypt:

Egypt’s government has raised the prices of fuel by up to 78 per cent, following up on a promise to cut subsidies that eat up nearly a quarter of the state budget, the official news agency reported.

The price hikes, in effect as of midnight on Friday, follow an increase in electricity prices that were put in effect at the start of July.

Such a change will, of course, be wrenching for the current society is organised on the assumption of extremely low fossil fuel prices.

The fuel price rise was highest for 80 octane gasoline, used mostly by old vehicles that still fill Egyptian streets, with the price jumping 78 per cent to 13 pence per litre. Diesel fuel, used by most of Egypt’s public transport and trucks, increased 64 per cent to 15 pence a litre. The 92 octane increased by 40 per cent to 22 pence a litre.

Translating that currency and unit for you that’s a rise to perhaps 80 cents to $1 per US gallon for the different grades. Given that you know what you pay at the pump in the US, and there’s not all that much tax on US prices, you can see that there’s still a subsidy there, even after these new prices.

forbes

[Graeme]

Federal Government Still Spending Billions To Subsidize Fossil Fuels

Over the past five years, the Obama administration has repeatedly called for cutting fossil fuel subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives. But the amount of money the federal government forfeits through subsidies has increased steadily over that time period, reaching $18.5 billion last year, according to a new report from the environmental group Oil Change International.

That total is up from $12.7 billion in 2009, largely because oil and gas production has increased in the United States. Next year, domestic oil production is expected to reach the highest level since 1972. The Obama administration regularly touts its "all of the above" energy strategy, which includes increased oil and gas production.

The Oil Change report includes a variety of subsidies in its accounting, including tax breaks, incentives for production on federal lands (such as royalty fees that haven't been adjusted in 25 years) and tax deductions for clean-up costs. And if state subsidies for oil, gas and coal production are also included, the total value climbs to $21.6 billion for 2013. Here's how that breaks down:

huffingtonpost

[Graeme]

Richest Countries Spending Billions to Expand Unburnable Carbon Stock

A new report released today by Oil Change International outlines billions of dollars of annual subsidies from the seven richest countries in the world to expand fossil fuel reserves, despite repeated commitments from those same countries to phase them out.

The survey, entitled “Subsidizing Unburnable Carbon: Taxpayer Supprt for Fossil Fuel Exploration in G7 Nations”, finds that the G7 continues to spend at least $8 billion USD annually on ‘national subsidies’ for the expansion of oil, gas, and coal reserves through direct subsidies and an additio nal $10 billion USD or more annually on ‘public financing’ from government banks and institutions for fossil fuels as well.

The report can be found here: http://bit.ly/g7fossilsubsidies

“The richest countries in the world have a responsibility to lead the charge on climate solutions, yet they continue to fund the climate crisis with billions in public money each year. Science is telling us we already have four times more fossil fuels than we can afford to burn, yet these subsidies are using taxpayer dollars to increase our exposure to the climate crisis, “ said Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International.

Among other notable findings, the study shows that the United States government alone provides $5.1 billion in national subsidies to fossil fuel exploration each year. Additionally, the report shows that the United Kingdom has introduced new subsidies incentivising the exploration of fossil fuels in recent years, despite commitments to the contrary.

priceofoil

[Graeme]

Cutting fossil subsidies must to advance renewables: agency

Renewable energy, essential for meeting global CO2 emission targets, needs a stable regulatory framework, a cut in fossil fuel subsidies and more interconnected power grids to develop, a global energy agency said Sunday.

The development of renewable energy will lead to a "new industrial paradigm" for electricity production, as it should expand by 70 percent globally between 2011 and 2030, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

IRENA said cutting, or even cancelling, subsidies to energy produced with fossils would significantly reduce the cost of financing renewable projects.

"Renewable energy investors need stable and predictable policy frameworks, which recognise the system-level benefits renewable energy can bring," IRENA said.

"They need a level playing field, including cutting back on the substantial subsidies currently enjoyed by fossil fuels worldwide," it said.

IRENA also called for a "supportive grid infrastructure," arguing that the industry needs more regional interconnections to "take advantage of synergies between different forms of renewable power."

phys.org

[vox_mundi]

http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-inte ... omi-klein/

In This Changes Everything: Capitalism and the Climate, Klein calls climate change an “existential crisis for the human species.”

Q: Are we screwed?

A: I feel like one of the ways in which we are screwed is that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that we are, and therefore it’s not even worth trying. Yes, if we stay on the road we are on, we are [screwed]. But that doesn’t mean we can’t grab the wheel and swerve.

If we want a 50-50 chance of staying below two degrees [the global temperature rise scientists think will lead to disaster], we have to respect the principle of equity, meaning that the countries that have been emitting longest need to cut our emissions between eight and ten per cent a year, starting now.

... It would require that climate change receive wartime levels of action.

also http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy ... tml#page=1

[dohboi]

Thanks, vox.

"need to cut our emissions between eight and ten per cent a year, starting now.

... It would require that climate change receive wartime levels of action."

This is what I've been trying to convey to people. Most don't want to even think about it.

[americandream]

Thanks, vox.

"need to cut our emissions between eight and ten per cent a year, starting now.

... It would require that climate change receive wartime levels of action."

This is what I've been trying to convey to people. Most don't want to even think about it.

The subjective tendencies such as denial and inaction are objective tendencies of the particular set of social relations, ie, capitalism. Think if it almost as a form of systemic hypnosis and thus the revolutionary nature of the remedy. This is not an easy easy on a planet where most of the population are in this cognitive state.

[timmac]

Thanks, vox.

"need to cut our emissions between eight and ten per cent a year, starting now.

... It would require that climate change receive wartime levels of action."

This is what I've been trying to convey to people. Most don't want to even think about it.

Why should we cut back, no proof this happening, I will continue to drive my motorhome no matter what, weather change is normal, this is just a big lie..