By Virginia Palacios

2011 was the year of Texas’ historic drought, and it was also the year my dad sold all the cattle on our ranch, which had been in our family for four generations. The drought brought to close a chapter in my family’s history, and a change in our long-standing relationship to the land that had given back to us for so long.

I’m not only a ninth generation Texan, but also the ninth generation of my family to be born in the City of Laredo. The community I come from is not wealthy. In fact, it is very poor. Laredo’s poverty rate is at about 30 percent. And it is not only poor but it is also 95 percent Mexican-American. Poverty and racism are factors that make communities vulnerable to all kinds of impacts, and climate change is one of them.

But my family is lucky. Even though our cattle business was impacted by the drought, my father has a career outside of ranching that makes up most of his income. The same is not true for the many people who were impacted by agricultural losses that year, totaling $10 billion statewide. National reports noted that temperature extremes were connected to manmade climate change, which doubled the chance that heat waves would occur.

What happened to the Chicano farmers from Laredo who lost everything and had no other career or local economy to fall back on? And if they had to move because of climate change’s impacts, were they welcome in new places?

Many at the People’s Climate March this weekend will be marching for climate justice – I know I am. Climate justice is about not only ensuring we stop the worst effects of climate change, but also that the most vulnerable among us are able to prosper in its aftermath. To achieve durable, equitable solutions, we have to break down siloes, and we have to think long-term – maybe even nine generations ahead of us.

EDF will be marching at the Austin People’s Climate March.

From the shores of the Puget Sound to the inside of your colon, EDF Health’s You Make Me Sick podcast has been bringing you the latest in environmental health science. In today’s episode, we’re excited to showcase the work of Dr. Ami Zota of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. We […]

By Jonathan Choi

From the shores of the Puget Sound to the inside of your colon, EDF Health’s You Make Me Sick podcast has been bringing you the latest in environmental health science. In today’s episode, we’re excited to showcase the work of Dr. Ami Zota of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health.

We sat down with Dr. Zota to discuss her recent study where she looked at how certain chemicals associated with plastics show up in people’s urine after they eat fast food.

 

Want more? Subscribe to us on iTunes or Google Play, or check out our SoundCloud to listen via desktop!

By Monica Goldberg

A recently-filed bill with the upbeat title “The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” H.R. 2023, would unfortunately do just the opposite.  By gutting one of the most important improvements of modern fisheries law, we believe that this bill would move us backwards to a time of widespread overfishing.

Congress first banned overfishing in 1976, but a provision permitting “optimum” yield above sustainable levels led to widespread declines in fisheries.  Lawmakers eliminated that loophole in 1996 with the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA).[1]

A decade later, the Senate Commerce Committee described the results:

“The SFA attempted to address overfishing by capping fish harvests at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) …. However, recent evaluations of stock status have shown that ten years after enactment of the SFA, overfishing is still occurring in a number of fisheries, even those fisheries under a rebuilding plan established early in the SFA implementation process.

“Establishing a scientifically-based total allowable catch (TAC) for each managed fishery was a unanimous recommendation from all of the Council chairs, a recommendation of the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries Conference II final report, and a recommendation of the U.S. Ocean Commission. Requiring routine adherence to an annual catch limit or TAC is a well-known management approach that has been utilized effectively by several Councils, but failure to adopt this technique more broadly has contributed to continued overfishing.”[2]

Following this advice, the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act established three innovations that greatly strengthened the longstanding ban on overfishing:

1. Putting scientists in the driver’s seat by requiring regulators to respect the overall biological limits established by each regional council’s science and statistical committee;
2. Requiring TACs or quotas, known as annual catch limits (ACLs), on virtually all managed species; and
3. Ensuring catch stays below the ACLs.[3]

The results have been striking. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) most recently reported that 91% of species are fished at sustainable levels.  41 have recovered to a healthy population size after having been driven below the overfished level. Ten years after the 2007 reauthorization, we have achieved significant progress.

Despite the demonstrated value of ACL management, some recreational fishermen have contested its use in their portion of the fishery.  H.R. 2023 would amend the MSA to make clear that:

“Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are fundamentally different activities, therefore requiring management approaches adapted to the characteristics of each sector”[4]

and specify that regulators:

“have the authority to use alternative fishery management measures in a recreational fishery (or the recreational component of a mixed-use fishery) in developing a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations, which may include extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities.”[5]

It is abundantly clear that (1) recreational and commercial fishing are different undertakings and (2) managers can and do use different methods to regulate them.  But under current law those different approaches play out under the auspices of sustainable quotas that form a backstop against overfishing.  H.R. 2023 would remove those safeguards, exempting every fishery which the Secretary determines is not subject to overfishing.[6]  And since ending overfishing has been the goal of fisheries management for the last 40 years, that category includes 286 stocks –the vast majority.

The bill also would exempt stocks where fishing takes place below the target threshold (i.e., overfishing is not occurring) and there has been no peer-reviewed stock assessment and stock survey in the last five years.  This provision appears redundant, but in any event would be nearly as problematic; for example 30 of the 199 high priority stocks tracked by NOAA were last assessed in 2010 or earlier.  While frequent stock assessments and surveys are valuable, lack of them should not waive fundamental safeguards against overfishing.

Similar to previous bills, H.R. 2023 also includes an exception for so-called “ecosystem component” species, a category defined broadly as to include every “non-target, incidentally harvested stock of fish in a fishery.”[7]  This provision would remove protections for key species like sharks that are caught while fishermen target other species.  Nor does the bill clarify whether the exception covers a species like yellowtail flounder that is bycatch for scallopers but targeted by other fishermen.

The bill contains other problematic provisions,[8] but H.R. 2023’s most striking feature is its wholesale rejection of quota management without any indication of what we would use in its place to prevent overfishing.  This approach, which risks a return to considerable overfishing and accompanying harm to fisheries and the Americans who depend on them, is not one we should take in the name of “modernizing” a very functional fishery management law.

Citations:

[1] Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559 (1996).

[2] S. Rep. No. 109-229 at 6 (2006).

[3] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(6) (ACLs may not exceed recommendations of SSCs), 1852(a)(15) (fishery management plans must include ACLS and measures to ensure accountability with them).

[4] Sec. 3(a)

[5] Sec. 102(b)

[6] Sec. 105 (establishing new section 302(m)(2)(D))

[7] Secs. 105 (establishing exception and defining “ecosystem component species”).

[8] Precluding fishery management councils from adopting specific management measures, as section 103 would, runs counter to the regionally-based logic of the MSA as a whole.  And putting up roadblocks in front of exempted fishing permits (section 106) would stymie fishermen-driven innovation.

A recently-filed bill with the upbeat title “The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” H.R. 2023, would unfortunately do just the opposite.  By gutting one of the most important improvements of modern fisheries law, we believe that this bill would move us backwards to a time of widespread overfishing. Congress first banned overfishing in 1976, but […]

A recently-filed bill with the upbeat title “The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” H.R. 2023, would unfortunately do just the opposite.  By gutting one of the most important improvements of modern fisheries law, we believe that this bill would move us backwards to a time of widespread overfishing. Congress first banned overfishing in 1976, but […]

The post There’s nothing modern about overfishing appeared first on EDFish.

By Monica Goldberg

A recently-filed bill with the upbeat title “The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” H.R. 2023, would unfortunately do just the opposite.  By gutting one of the most important improvements of modern fisheries law, we believe that this bill would move us backwards to a time of widespread overfishing.

Congress first banned overfishing in 1976, but a provision permitting “optimum” yield above sustainable levels led to widespread declines in fisheries.  Lawmakers eliminated that loophole in 1996 with the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA).[1]

A decade later, the Senate Commerce Committee described the results:

“The SFA attempted to address overfishing by capping fish harvests at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) …. However, recent evaluations of stock status have shown that ten years after enactment of the SFA, overfishing is still occurring in a number of fisheries, even those fisheries under a rebuilding plan established early in the SFA implementation process.

“Establishing a scientifically-based total allowable catch (TAC) for each managed fishery was a unanimous recommendation from all of the Council chairs, a recommendation of the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries Conference II final report, and a recommendation of the U.S. Ocean Commission. Requiring routine adherence to an annual catch limit or TAC is a well-known management approach that has been utilized effectively by several Councils, but failure to adopt this technique more broadly has contributed to continued overfishing.”[2]

Following this advice, the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act established three innovations that greatly strengthened the longstanding ban on overfishing:

1. Putting scientists in the driver’s seat by requiring regulators to respect the overall biological limits established by each regional council’s science and statistical committee;
2. Requiring TACs or quotas, known as annual catch limits (ACLs), on virtually all managed species; and
3. Ensuring catch stays below the ACLs.[3]

The results have been striking. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) most recently reported that 91% of species are fished at sustainable levels.  41 have recovered to a healthy population size after having been driven below the overfished level. Ten years after the 2007 reauthorization, we have achieved significant progress.

Despite the demonstrated value of ACL management, some recreational fishermen have contested its use in their portion of the fishery.  H.R. 2023 would amend the MSA to make clear that:

“Recreational fishing and commercial fishing are fundamentally different activities, therefore requiring management approaches adapted to the characteristics of each sector”[4]

and specify that regulators:

“have the authority to use alternative fishery management measures in a recreational fishery (or the recreational component of a mixed-use fishery) in developing a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations, which may include extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities.”[5]

It is abundantly clear that (1) recreational and commercial fishing are different undertakings and (2) managers can and do use different methods to regulate them.  But under current law those different approaches play out under the auspices of sustainable quotas that form a backstop against overfishing.  H.R. 2023 would remove those safeguards, exempting every fishery which the Secretary determines is not subject to overfishing.[6]  And since ending overfishing has been the goal of fisheries management for the last 40 years, that category includes 286 stocks –the vast majority.

The bill also would exempt stocks where fishing takes place below the target threshold (i.e., overfishing is not occurring) and there has been no peer-reviewed stock assessment and stock survey in the last five years.  This provision appears redundant, but in any event would be nearly as problematic; for example 30 of the 199 high priority stocks tracked by NOAA were last assessed in 2010 or earlier.  While frequent stock assessments and surveys are valuable, lack of them should not waive fundamental safeguards against overfishing.

Similar to previous bills, H.R. 2023 also includes an exception for so-called “ecosystem component” species, a category defined broadly as to include every “non-target, incidentally harvested stock of fish in a fishery.”[7]  This provision would remove protections for key species like sharks that are caught while fishermen target other species.  Nor does the bill clarify whether the exception covers a species like yellowtail flounder that is bycatch for scallopers but targeted by other fishermen.

The bill contains other problematic provisions,[8] but H.R. 2023’s most striking feature is its wholesale rejection of quota management without any indication of what we would use in its place to prevent overfishing.  This approach, which risks a return to considerable overfishing and accompanying harm to fisheries and the Americans who depend on them, is not one we should take in the name of “modernizing” a very functional fishery management law.

Citations:

[1] Pub. L. No. 104-297, 110 Stat. 3559 (1996).

[2] S. Rep. No. 109-229 at 6 (2006).

[3] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1852(h)(6) (ACLs may not exceed recommendations of SSCs), 1852(a)(15) (fishery management plans must include ACLS and measures to ensure accountability with them).

[4] Sec. 3(a)

[5] Sec. 102(b)

[6] Sec. 105 (establishing new section 302(m)(2)(D))

[7] Secs. 105 (establishing exception and defining “ecosystem component species”).

[8] Precluding fishery management councils from adopting specific management measures, as section 103 would, runs counter to the regionally-based logic of the MSA as a whole.  And putting up roadblocks in front of exempted fishing permits (section 106) would stymie fishermen-driven innovation.

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are […]

The post New studies: Methane emissions from Canadian oil & gas industry are worse than reported appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Drew Nelson

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are leaking far more than the industry reports — and more than it would like us to believe.

The first study, focused on Alberta and released by the Canadian environmental action organization Environmental Defence, concluded that industry is underreporting the amount of equipment located at their facilities, which means they emit more than official emission inventories report. Additionally, the study found that Alberta’s oil and gas facilities average about one large emission source per well.

The second, conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation and focused in British Columbia, measured methane emissions at existing oil and gas facilities and found that emissions are large and widespread. In fact, in just one development area of British Columbia, facilities could leak 111,800 tons of methane each year – the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal or more than two million cars over the next two decades. Further, methane emissions from this area were shown to be at least 2.5 times higher than reported by the B.C. government but may be much higher.

This new research is troubling for several reasons.

First, methane’s not a usual pollutant. Because methane is the primary ingredient of natural gas, every ton of avoided emissions is a ton of natural gas that can be sold. In 2015, more than $320 million USD of methane (95 billion cubic feet) escaped from oil and gas operations in Canada. That amount of wasted fuel was enough to serve all the households in Edmonton and Calgary combined for the entire year.

In addition to being wasteful, these emissions are also exacerbating global warming. Methane is over 80 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the atmosphere.

Finally, the oil and gas industry is the largest source of man-made methane emissions in Canada. If its methane emissions are dangerously under-reported, the country’s other attempts to reduce its climate emissions are severely undercut.

Together, these two studies underscore the importance of Canada’s effort and Alberta’s action to stem methane emissions from its oil and gas industry. They also expose the folly of industry’s seemingly contradictory claims that (1) there’s no problem, and (2) regulations aren’t necessary because they’ll fix the problem voluntarily. But if industry can’t even report accurate emission figures, how are we to believe it will reduce them?

Economic analyses have shown that methane reduction is extremely cost effective and one of the most powerful short-term climate strategies at our disposal. In the last few years, leaders in Canada and Alberta have demonstrated they agree by committing significant reductions of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. For context, a 45% reduction worldwide would have the same 20-year climate impact as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants.

These new studies — and the research that must follow — show that policy makers in Ottawa and Edmonton must reduce these emissions, even in the face of growing pressure from industry to walk back their commitments. Methane emissions are a problem around the world, specifically in the oil and gas industry. These new Canadian studies add to the growing body of research that show the problem is worse than we once thought. Fortunately, there are many simple and affordable solutions available to reduce these emissions and, in turn, cut needless energy waste and climate pollution. The need for strong methane rules in Canada and Alberta has never been clearer, and neither has the opportunity for Canada and Alberta to make their oil and gas industry cleaner, more efficient and more responsible.

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are […]

By Drew Nelson

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are leaking far more than the industry reports — and more than it would like us to believe.

The first study, focused on Alberta and released by the Canadian environmental action organization Environmental Defence, concluded that industry is underreporting the amount of equipment located at their facilities, which means they emit more than official emission inventories report. Additionally, the study found that Alberta’s oil and gas facilities average about one large emission source per well.

The second, conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation and focused in British Columbia, measured methane emissions at existing oil and gas facilities and found that emissions are large and widespread. In fact, in just one development area of British Columbia, facilities could leak 111,800 tons of methane each year – the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal or more than two million cars over the next two decades. Further, methane emissions from this area were shown to be at least 2.5 times higher than reported by the B.C. government but may be much higher.

This new research is troubling for several reasons.

First, methane’s not a usual pollutant. Because methane is the primary ingredient of natural gas, every ton of avoided emissions is a ton of natural gas that can be sold. In 2015, more than $320 million USD of methane (95 billion cubic feet) escaped from oil and gas operations in Canada. That amount of wasted fuel was enough to serve all the households in Edmonton and Calgary combined for the entire year.

In addition to being wasteful, these emissions are also exacerbating global warming. Methane is over 80 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the atmosphere.

Finally, the oil and gas industry is the largest source of man-made methane emissions in Canada. If its methane emissions are dangerously under-reported, the country’s other attempts to reduce its climate emissions are severely undercut.

Together, these two studies underscore the importance of Canada’s effort and Alberta’s action to stem methane emissions from its oil and gas industry. They also expose the folly of industry’s seemingly contradictory claims that (1) there’s no problem, and (2) regulations aren’t necessary because they’ll fix the problem voluntarily. But if industry can’t even report accurate emission figures, how are we to believe it will reduce them?

Economic analyses have shown that methane reduction is extremely cost effective and one of the most powerful short-term climate strategies at our disposal. In the last few years, leaders in Canada and Alberta have demonstrated they agree by committing significant reductions of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. For context, a 45% reduction worldwide would have the same 20-year climate impact as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants.

These new studies — and the research that must follow — show that policy makers in Ottawa and Edmonton must reduce these emissions, even in the face of growing pressure from industry to walk back their commitments. Methane emissions are a problem around the world, specifically in the oil and gas industry. These new Canadian studies add to the growing body of research that show the problem is worse than we once thought. Fortunately, there are many simple and affordable solutions available to reduce these emissions and, in turn, cut needless energy waste and climate pollution. The need for strong methane rules in Canada and Alberta has never been clearer, and neither has the opportunity for Canada and Alberta to make their oil and gas industry cleaner, more efficient and more responsible.

By Drew Nelson

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are leaking far more than the industry reports — and more than it would like us to believe.

The first study, focused on Alberta and released by the Canadian environmental action organization Environmental Defence, concluded that industry is underreporting the amount of equipment located at their facilities, which means they emit more than official emission inventories report. Additionally, the study found that Alberta’s oil and gas facilities average about one large emission source per well.

The second, conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation and focused in British Columbia, measured methane emissions at existing oil and gas facilities and found that emissions are large and widespread. In fact, in just one development area of British Columbia, facilities could leak 111,800 tons of methane each year – the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal or more than two million cars over the next two decades. Further, methane emissions from this area were shown to be at least 2.5 times higher than reported by the B.C. government but may be much higher.

This new research is troubling for several reasons.

First, methane’s not a usual pollutant. Because methane is the primary ingredient of natural gas, every ton of avoided emissions is a ton of natural gas that can be sold. In 2015, more than $320 million USD of methane (95 billion cubic feet) escaped from oil and gas operations in Canada. That amount of wasted fuel was enough to serve all the households in Edmonton and Calgary combined for the entire year.

In addition to being wasteful, these emissions are also exacerbating global warming. Methane is over 80 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the atmosphere.

Finally, the oil and gas industry is the largest source of man-made methane emissions in Canada. If its methane emissions are dangerously under-reported, the country’s other attempts to reduce its climate emissions are severely undercut.

Together, these two studies underscore the importance of Canada’s effort and Alberta’s action to stem methane emissions from its oil and gas industry. They also expose the folly of industry’s seemingly contradictory claims that (1) there’s no problem, and (2) regulations aren’t necessary because they’ll fix the problem voluntarily. But if industry can’t even report accurate emission figures, how are we to believe it will reduce them?

Economic analyses have shown that methane reduction is extremely cost effective and one of the most powerful short-term climate strategies at our disposal. In the last few years, leaders in Canada and Alberta have demonstrated they agree by committing significant reductions of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. For context, a 45% reduction worldwide would have the same 20-year climate impact as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants.

These new studies — and the research that must follow — show that policy makers in Ottawa and Edmonton must reduce these emissions, even in the face of growing pressure from industry to walk back their commitments. Methane emissions are a problem around the world, specifically in the oil and gas industry. These new Canadian studies add to the growing body of research that show the problem is worse than we once thought. Fortunately, there are many simple and affordable solutions available to reduce these emissions and, in turn, cut needless energy waste and climate pollution. The need for strong methane rules in Canada and Alberta has never been clearer, and neither has the opportunity for Canada and Alberta to make their oil and gas industry cleaner, more efficient and more responsible.

By Drew Nelson

Two studies released this week make it clear that Canada’s push toward methane regulations for the oil and gas industry is a smart move. And, while data of Canada’s oil and gas methane problem is still limited, these studies reinforce what research of the U.S. oil and gas industry found: oil and gas facilities are leaking far more than the industry reports — and more than it would like us to believe.

The first study, focused on Alberta and released by the Canadian environmental action organization Environmental Defence, concluded that industry is underreporting the amount of equipment located at their facilities, which means they emit more than official emission inventories report. Additionally, the study found that Alberta’s oil and gas facilities average about one large emission source per well.

The second, conducted by the David Suzuki Foundation and focused in British Columbia, measured methane emissions at existing oil and gas facilities and found that emissions are large and widespread. In fact, in just one development area of British Columbia, facilities could leak 111,800 tons of methane each year – the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tons of coal or more than two million cars over the next two decades. Further, methane emissions from this area were shown to be at least 2.5 times higher than reported by the B.C. government but may be much higher.

This new research is troubling for several reasons.

First, methane’s not a usual pollutant. Because methane is the primary ingredient of natural gas, every ton of avoided emissions is a ton of natural gas that can be sold. In 2015, more than $320 million USD of methane (95 billion cubic feet) escaped from oil and gas operations in Canada. That amount of wasted fuel was enough to serve all the households in Edmonton and Calgary combined for the entire year.

In addition to being wasteful, these emissions are also exacerbating global warming. Methane is over 80 times more potent a heat trapper than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years in the atmosphere.

Finally, the oil and gas industry is the largest source of man-made methane emissions in Canada. If its methane emissions are dangerously under-reported, the country’s other attempts to reduce its climate emissions are severely undercut.

Together, these two studies underscore the importance of Canada’s effort and Alberta’s action to stem methane emissions from its oil and gas industry. They also expose the folly of industry’s seemingly contradictory claims that (1) there’s no problem, and (2) regulations aren’t necessary because they’ll fix the problem voluntarily. But if industry can’t even report accurate emission figures, how are we to believe it will reduce them?

Economic analyses have shown that methane reduction is extremely cost effective and one of the most powerful short-term climate strategies at our disposal. In the last few years, leaders in Canada and Alberta have demonstrated they agree by committing significant reductions of oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. For context, a 45% reduction worldwide would have the same 20-year climate impact as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants.

These new studies — and the research that must follow — show that policy makers in Ottawa and Edmonton must reduce these emissions, even in the face of growing pressure from industry to walk back their commitments. Methane emissions are a problem around the world, specifically in the oil and gas industry. These new Canadian studies add to the growing body of research that show the problem is worse than we once thought. Fortunately, there are many simple and affordable solutions available to reduce these emissions and, in turn, cut needless energy waste and climate pollution. The need for strong methane rules in Canada and Alberta has never been clearer, and neither has the opportunity for Canada and Alberta to make their oil and gas industry cleaner, more efficient and more responsible.

By Holly Pearen

A new report from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s (OWRB) Produced Water Working Group indicates that oil and gas companies looking for ways to dispose of large volumes of wastewater should focus on recycling those liquids within the oil and gas fields, and not – as some suggest – use it for irrigation or other surface applications where human and environmental exposure is a risk.

The Produced Water Working Group, a panel of 17 state experts convened by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in December, 2015, to study various options for wastewater reuse, determined that treating wastewater for use outside of the oil field is not economical, nor are the environmental and health risks well understood.

In fact, the Working Group didn’t evaluate health and environmental risks for any of the 10 alternative uses evaluated. While research into reducing the cost of desalination, by powering treatment facilities with solar or excess lease gas, for example, may be promising, it won’t be sufficient to green light uses that introduce oil and gas wastewater into contact with communities and ecosystems.

To that end, the OWRB recommends that scientific efforts should be devoted to “identifying toxicological risks and protective water quality targets to ensure that the environment and public health are adequately protected under various reuse scenarios.” This is exactly right.

Evaluating the real health and safety impacts of using produced water outside the oilfield will take time and accurate information.

Oklahoma has the time. Governor Fallin wisely convened the Produced Water Working Group to begin identifying and developing potential alternative water sources needed to supply the state with “Water for 2060.” For oil and gas wastewater, it may take a decade to identify and answer the fundamental questions needed to assure the public that new uses don’t cause more problems than they solve.

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board's long-term state-wide energy and water planning gives operators, regulators, researchers and the public enough lead time to meaningfully evaluate wastewater reuse options, and implement policies that protect the public and the environment. The state should take advantage of this lead time to fully address environmental and health risks prior to permitting alternative uses outside the oilfield.

But the report suggests that Oklahomans don’t yet have the necessary data. If the state is serious about considering produced water as a potential new water resource, basic data regarding what is in the water, how much is produced, where it’s produced, and where it goes, should be collected, reported and analyzed. The OWRB report is a good first step. The next step is getting serious about meaningful public health and environmental impacts analysis by collecting basic, readily available, detailed information about this potential resource.

Until then, the Working Group report makes it clear that the most promising near term options for oil and gas wastewater management involve more efficient use of existing infield recycling and disposal techniques.

A new report from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s (OWRB) Produced Water Working Group indicates that oil and gas companies looking for ways to dispose of large volumes of wastewater should focus on recycling those liquids within the oil and gas fields, and not – as some suggest – use it for irrigation or other […]

The post New report offers long-awaited answers about reusing oil and gas industry’s wastewater appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Holly Pearen

A new report from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s (OWRB) Produced Water Working Group indicates that oil and gas companies looking for ways to dispose of large volumes of wastewater should focus on recycling those liquids within the oil and gas fields, and not – as some suggest – use it for irrigation or other surface applications where human and environmental exposure is a risk.

The Produced Water Working Group, a panel of 17 state experts convened by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in December, 2015, to study various options for wastewater reuse, determined that treating wastewater for use outside of the oil field is not economical, nor are the environmental and health risks well understood.

In fact, the Working Group didn’t evaluate health and environmental risks for any of the 10 alternative uses evaluated. While research into reducing the cost of desalination, by powering treatment facilities with solar or excess lease gas, for example, may be promising, it won’t be sufficient to green light uses that introduce oil and gas wastewater into contact with communities and ecosystems.

To that end, the OWRB recommends that scientific efforts should be devoted to “identifying toxicological risks and protective water quality targets to ensure that the environment and public health are adequately protected under various reuse scenarios.” This is exactly right.

Evaluating the real health and safety impacts of using produced water outside the oilfield will take time and accurate information.

Oklahoma has the time. Governor Fallin wisely convened the Produced Water Working Group to begin identifying and developing potential alternative water sources needed to supply the state with “Water for 2060.” For oil and gas wastewater, it may take a decade to identify and answer the fundamental questions needed to assure the public that new uses don’t cause more problems than they solve.

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board's long-term state-wide energy and water planning gives operators, regulators, researchers and the public enough lead time to meaningfully evaluate wastewater reuse options, and implement policies that protect the public and the environment. The state should take advantage of this lead time to fully address environmental and health risks prior to permitting alternative uses outside the oilfield.

But the report suggests that Oklahomans don’t yet have the necessary data. If the state is serious about considering produced water as a potential new water resource, basic data regarding what is in the water, how much is produced, where it’s produced, and where it goes, should be collected, reported and analyzed. The OWRB report is a good first step. The next step is getting serious about meaningful public health and environmental impacts analysis by collecting basic, readily available, detailed information about this potential resource.

Until then, the Working Group report makes it clear that the most promising near term options for oil and gas wastewater management involve more efficient use of existing infield recycling and disposal techniques.

By Holly Pearen

A new report from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board’s (OWRB) Produced Water Working Group indicates that oil and gas companies looking for ways to dispose of large volumes of wastewater should focus on recycling those liquids within the oil and gas fields, and not – as some suggest – use it for irrigation or other surface applications where human and environmental exposure is a risk.

The Produced Water Working Group, a panel of 17 state experts convened by Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin in December, 2015, to study various options for wastewater reuse, determined that treating wastewater for use outside of the oil field is not economical, nor are the environmental and health risks well understood.

In fact, the Working Group didn’t evaluate health and environmental risks for any of the 10 alternative uses evaluated. While research into reducing the cost of desalination, by powering treatment facilities with solar or excess lease gas, for example, may be promising, it won’t be sufficient to green light uses that introduce oil and gas wastewater into contact with communities and ecosystems.

To that end, the OWRB recommends that scientific efforts should be devoted to “identifying toxicological risks and protective water quality targets to ensure that the environment and public health are adequately protected under various reuse scenarios.” This is exactly right.

Evaluating the real health and safety impacts of using produced water outside the oilfield will take time and accurate information.

Oklahoma has the time. Governor Fallin wisely convened the Produced Water Working Group to begin identifying and developing potential alternative water sources needed to supply the state with “Water for 2060.” For oil and gas wastewater, it may take a decade to identify and answer the fundamental questions needed to assure the public that new uses don’t cause more problems than they solve.

The Oklahoma Water Resources Board's long-term state-wide energy and water planning gives operators, regulators, researchers and the public enough lead time to meaningfully evaluate wastewater reuse options, and implement policies that protect the public and the environment. The state should take advantage of this lead time to fully address environmental and health risks prior to permitting alternative uses outside the oilfield.

But the report suggests that Oklahomans don’t yet have the necessary data. If the state is serious about considering produced water as a potential new water resource, basic data regarding what is in the water, how much is produced, where it’s produced, and where it goes, should be collected, reported and analyzed. The OWRB report is a good first step. The next step is getting serious about meaningful public health and environmental impacts analysis by collecting basic, readily available, detailed information about this potential resource.

Until then, the Working Group report makes it clear that the most promising near term options for oil and gas wastewater management involve more efficient use of existing infield recycling and disposal techniques.