Fracking The Amish

Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek". So if you are of the Amish faith you prefer to settle legal disputes within your own community, without litigation. In other words the Amish will not sue, and if you're a natural gas company, that's very good news. Turns out that whole "Amish Mafia" thing might be blown out of proportion.

To say that many natural gas companies are taking advantage of people of the Amish faith would be an understatement. In an article written for the New Republic, Molly Redden shares a story where an Amish couple was paid $10 an acre to have a natural gas company come in and start fracking. The couple was told that that was the best offer the company could make. Turns out neighboring farm were receiving upwards of $1,000 an acre. Rather than take legal action, because by their faith they cannot, the Amish couple admits they made a mistake and have to live with it.

This is just one of many similar instances. Not only did the Amish family lose out on a ton of cash, but they also put their farm, crops, and livestock in danger, and unknowingly jeopardized their livelihood due to the chemicals used in the fracking process. Check out the documentary Gas Land for a good idea of this.

The Amish couple did indeed make a colossal mistake, and should have done some investigating on their own. But they were also intentionally misled and outright lied to by a billion-dollar company that can afford to be honest. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, this is the process of fracturing rock layers using a pressurized chemical mixture to release natural gas, natural gas companies are tapping into natural gas holds that were once unobtainable. This has created a massive boom in the natural gas industry and has taken the natural companies to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, places with large Amish populations .

With the knowledge that the Amish will not sue, this really opens the door for gas companies to do whatever they want without the risk of legal action. The impact of this is enormous. Other than outright lying about land value, let's say a lease ends and the company just keeps on fracking; the Amish can do nothing legally. It is easy to see how this can get really bad and fast.

The Amish do have certain options though. For example, one Amish family that was a victim of an undervalued lease took the gas company to court to simply void the lease. What makes this acceptable for the Amish couple is that there is no money involved - they just want the gas company to leave.

This isn't capitalism; this is wrong. From causing earthquakes to lighting water on fire, fracking has serious health and environmental complications not entirely understood yet. People But if people are willing to take these enormous risks with their land, they should at the very least be paid well for it. Those who constantly step up to defend the actions of oil companies should ask themselves; if gas companies willing to mislead, ripoff, and outright break contracts with the Amish, is there anything these scumbags won't do?

Source: New Republic

Andrew Meggison was born in the state of Maine and educated in Massachusetts. Andrew earned a Bachelor's Degree in Government and International Relations from Clark University and a Master's Degree in Political Science from Northeastern University. Being an Eagle Scout, Andrew has a passion for all things environmental. In his free time Andrew enjoys writing, exploring the great outdoors, a good film, and a creative cocktail. You can follow Andrew on Twitter @AndrewMeggison

The post Fracking The Amish appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/06/13/fracking-the-amish

US Senate passes Farm Bill with more than $800M in mandatory funding for bioenergy programs

The United States Senate passed a five-year farm bill-the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S.954)-containing more than $800 million in mandatory funding for energy programs. The bill also contains funding to grow the renewable chemicals industry.

The Congressional Budget Office CBO estimates that direct spending stemming from the program authorization under the 12 titles in S. 954 would total $955 billion over the 2014-2023 period. That 10-year total reflects the bill's authorization of expiring programs through 2018 and an extension of those authorizations through 2023. The energy title (Title IX) of the bill contains:

• $261 million in mandatory for the Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP), which will provide a streamlined application process for farmers and rural businesses applying for renewable and energy efficient system projects.

• $193 million in mandatory funding for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which provides support for farmers who wish to plant energy crops to produce and use biomass crops for conversion to advanced biofuels or bioenergy. Agricultural producers in BCAP project areas may contract with the Department of Agriculture to receive biomass crop establishment payments up to 50 percent of costs, plus annual payments in amounts determined by the Secretary in subsequent years to help to compensate for lost opportunity costs until crops are established.

  860 growers in 12 states plant 59,000 acres of new energy crops a year with the assistance of Biomass Crop Assistance Program, according to the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO).

• $216 million in mandatory funding for the Biorefinery Assistance Program, which provides loan guarantees for renewable energy projects, expands eligibility to include biobased manufacturing and renewable chemicals.

• $130 million for the Biomass Research and Development Initiative. The bill will reauthorize funding for research on biomass feedstock development for bioenergy and biobased products.

• The bill will reauthorize and modify USDA's BioPreferred Program and the Federal Government Procurement Preference Program. Many of the modifications are adopted from the "Make it Here, Grow it Here" initiative which includes reporting of biobased purchases by the federal agencies, auditing and enforcement of the biobased and education/outreach activities. The program will receive $15 million in mandatory funding.

• Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels. This program provides production payments for advanced bioenergy sources such as methane digesters, advanced biofuels and biopower.

• Community Wood Energy Program. This program provides competitive, cost-share grants for communities to supply public buildings with energy from sustainably-harvested wood from the local area.

The energy title also funds USDA programs that help jumpstart additional biorefinery construction for advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals, dedicated energy crop feedstock development and consumer demand of biobased products-all encouraging further commercialization of the renewable industry.

The House is still working on its version of the Farm Bill (H.R.1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013).

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/farmbill-20130611.htm

BC government won't support Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline as presented over spill response concerns

In its final written submission to the Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel (JRP), the government of British Columbia states that it cannot support the project as presented to the panel primarily because Northern Gateway (NG) has been unable to adequately detail its response to a spill.

The Northern Gateway Pipeline is a proposed 1,170-kilometer (727-mile) twin pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta to Kitimat on the British Columbia coast. Northern Gateway's West line, 36 inches in diameter, would transport an average of 525,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day to Kitimat. The East Line, 20 inches in diameter, will carry 193,000 barrels of condensate per day back to Edmonton. Condensate is used to thin petroleum products for pipeline transport (diluent).

The project before the JRP is not a typical pipeline. For example: the behavior in water of the material to be transported is incompletely understood; the terrain the pipeline wold cross is not only remote, it is in many places extremely difficult to access; the impact of spills into pristine river environments would be profound. In these particular and unique circumstances, NG should not be granted a certificate on the basis of a promise to do more study and planning once the certificate is granted. The standard in this particular case musty be higher. And yet, it is respectfully submitted, for the reasons set out below, NG has not met that standard. "Trust me" is not good enough in this case.

-"Argument of the Government of British Columbia"

The provincial government has established, and maintains, strict conditions in order for British Columbia to consider the construction and operation of heavy-oil pipelines in the province. In the case of Northern Gateway, these would include:

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Northern Gateway, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;

• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for BC's coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines and shipments;

• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines;

• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and

• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy-oil project that reflect the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

British Columbia thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence and submissions made to the panel and asked substantive questions about the project including its route, spill response capacity and financial structure to handle any incidents. Our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings.

Northern Gateway has said that they would provide effective spill response in all cases. However, they have presented little evidence as to how they will respond. For that reason, our government cannot support the issuance of a certificate for the pipeline as it was presented to the Joint Review Panel.

We have carefully considered the evidence that has been presented to the Joint Review Panel. The panel must determine if it is appropriate to grant a certificate for the project as currently proposed on the basis of a promise to do more study and planning after the certificate is granted. Our government does not believe that a certificate should be granted before these important questions are answered.

-BC Environment Minister Terry Lake

In April 2012, the Joint Review Panel released 199 potential conditions that could form part of an authorization for the Northern Gateway Pipeline project if it received federal approval. In preparing the final argument submission, the Province's legal and technical experts analyzed the conditions and determined that they must be strengthened to meet BC's interests and requirements.

The position adopted by BC on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project as currently proposed is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects, the Ministry said. All proposals-such as Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion or the Kitimat Clean project-will be judged on their merits. The Province's five conditions would still apply.

British Columbia will be presenting oral final arguments to the Joint Review Panel when hearings recommence in Terrace on 17 June, based on BC's final written submission.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/bc-20130601.htm

EPA proposes adding renewable diesel and naphtha from landfill biogas and butanol pathways to RFS

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rulemaking for modifications to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) program. The proposal also includes various changes to the E15 misfueling mitigation regulations (E15 MMR), ultra low sulfur diesel survey requirements as well as other technical amendments.

The proposed rules include various changes related to biogas, including changes related to the revised compressed natural gas (CNG)/liquefied natural gas (LNG) pathway and amendments to various associated registration, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions. It also adds new pathways for renewable diesel, renewable naphtha, and renewable electricity (used in electric vehicles) produced from landfill biogas.

EPA is also proposing to allow butanol that meets the 50% GHG emission reduction threshold to qualify as an advanced biofuel. The rulemaking also proposes a clarification regarding the definition of crop residue to include corn kernel fiber and proposes an approach to approving the volume of cellulosic biofuels produced from various cellulosic feedstocks (the issue here being the percentage of cellulose in the feedstocks).

Renewable electricity, renewable diesel and naphtha produced from landfill biogas. In the final RFS2 rule, EPA established biogas as an advanced biofuel type when derived from landfills, sewage waste treatment plants, and manure digesters. EPA also established cellulosic diesel and cellulosic naphtha as eligible cellulosic biofuels; eligible feedstocks for these biofuels included cellulosic components of separated municipal solid waste but did not include biogas from landfills.

EPA is now proposing to include renewable electricity (when used in transportation) produced from landfill biogas feedstock as well as diesel and naphta produced from landfill biogas via the Fischer-Tropsch process as approved advanced and/or biomass-based fuels.

If the Fischer-Tropsch facilities produce at least 20% of their electricity demand at the facility from certain allowed sources, EPA is proposing that the renewable diesel and naphtha produced would further qualify as cellulosic biofuels.

Renewable CNG/LNG produced from biogas from waste treatment plants and waste digesters is still classified as an advanced biofuel. However, renewable CNG/LNG produced from biogas from landfills would qualify as a cellulosic pathway.

Advanced butanol pathway. EPA is proposing a new pathway that allows butanol made from corn starch using a combination of advanced technologies to meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction needed to qualify as an advanced renewable fuel.

This pathway applies to dry mill fermentation facilities that use natural gas and biogas from an on-site thin stillage anaerobic digester for process energy with combined heat and power (CHP) producing excess electricity of at least 40% of the purchased natural gas energy of the facility (the proposed "advanced butanol pathway").

Cellulosic volumes from cellulosic feedstock. For purposes of the RFS program, cellulosic biofuel is defined as "renewable fuel derived from any cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from renewable biomass and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the Administrator, that are at least 60 percent less than the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions."

However, EPA points out, no plant matter can ever consist entirely of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin; even feedstocks such as switchgrass, corn stover, and woody materials contain measurable proportions of other types of organic molecules.

Most "cellulosic" feedstocks contain approximately 80-95% cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin. Corn kernels contain roughly 75% starch and less than 10% fiber (which includes the cellulosic components, as well as other materials), and soybeans are roughly 60% oil and protein and only about 15% fiber.

EPA is proposing allowing 100% of the volume of renewable fuel produced from specific cellulosic feedstock sources-crop residue, switchgrass, miscanthus, other grasses, wood and branches-to generate cellulosic renewable identification numbers (RINs).

EPA cites three justifications for this approach:

1. there can be significant variation in the amount of cellulosic content in any feedstock, which varies within a growing season, across samples, and across sites. Attempting to account for this variability would impose a significant administrative burden on producers and EPA;

2. the amount of the final fuel that is produced from the cellulosic portion of the feedstock is likely to be very high, particularly for fuels produced using a biochemical reaction; and

3. EPA has already made previous determinations in which a single RIN value was assigned to the fuel produced since it came primarily from one source even though it was also produced from incidental amounts of other sources.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) welcomed the opportunity for public comment on the proposed RFS2 amendments and clarifications.

We appreciate EPA moving forward as rapidly as possible with these program amendments. Companies continue to make investments, put steel in the ground, create jobs and develop technologies that reduce dependence on foreign oil and contribute to a cleaner environment. They are preparing to make additional investments with assurance that US policy is committed to energy security and production of biofuels.

Finalization of new pathways will clear the way for companies to bring innovative technologies to the marketplace. Delays can determine whether these companies succeed or fail and whether investors remain confident. We look forward to working with EPA to rapidly finalize these new rules.

-Brent Erickson, executive vice president of BIO's Industrial & Environmental Section,

Resources

• Proposed rule

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/05/rfs2-20130521.htm

Former president of Shell Oil calls for aggressive action on alternative fuels to break oil monopoly on transportation

John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil Company and founder and CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy (CFAE), is joining the Fuel Freedom Foundation (FFF) Advisory Board. Fuel Freedom is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to opening the fuel market to allow alternative fuels such as ethanol, methanol, natural gas and electricity fairly to compete with gasoline at the pump. CFAE's mission is to educate citizens and government officials about pragmatic, non-partisan affordable energy solutions.

"The purpose and the focus [of FFF] is exactly in line with what I promoted as president of Shell and subsequently as the founder of CFAE," Hofmeister said to Green Car Congress. "From [these organizations' standpoints], the reason we have to get away from doing nothing is that the public doesn't fully appreciate or understand the situation it faces with respect to fuels' futures."

We exist to better educate the public, to have the conversations that need to be had with government, corporate executives, NGOs, with all sectors of society, on future alternatives.

We have to look at the fuels marketplace from a short-, a medium-, and a long-term perspective. There will not be enough oil to stay on the path we're on globally over the short- and medium-, let alone the long-term. By the time we meet China's needs, India's needs, the developing world's needs, there just is not enough supply to rely 100% on oil as a transportation fuel. It's not going to happen.

-John Hofmeister

In his 2010 book Why We Hate The Oil Companies, Straight talk from an energy insider, Hofmeister suggested that Americans would be facing the beginning of gasoline lines in the 2016-2020 timeframe.

That onset of what he calls the "beginning of the energy abyss" was predicated on normal economic growth, including China's growth, he noted. Since writing the book, economic growth has been "stunted", and China's growth reduced. That, he suggested, might stretch out the beginning timeframe a little further.

It's inevitable. The industry that produces oil can't produce enough, unless the world doesn't grow. It's possible that we will have such expensive oil that we will stymie growth. How many people will suffer? How many poor will become poorer, while rich become richer because we have failed rational tests of creating alternative competitive fuels? We have a choice to condemn ourselves to an energy abyss in the name of the status quo and lack of enlightened leadership, or we can choose to develop alternatives.

Why aren't we more thoughtful about the future? Why don't we begin the journey towards a range of alternatives that delivers increased national security, increased economic security, and multiple choice for consumers?

I think in this regard, we are missing in the whole construct, a meaningful voice of government as an intermediary and an enabler to a better future when it comes to fuel choice. The US has been crippled for 7 years by high-priced fuel; the government has done nothing to speak of to address the issue.

-John Hofmeister

There are many options theoretically available, Hofmeister said, includingnatural gas for multiple transportation fuel applications: LNG, CNG, GTL synthetics, methanol for personal vehicles, even gasoline from natural gas. The organizations are also pushing electric vehicles as an important options, whether battery-based or hydrogen-fuel-cell based.

Analysis of the viability or attractiveness of the different options should rely on a mix of cost, resource availability, and carbon footprint, he suggested.

We need a competitor for oil. We need to open the market to replacement fuels like methanol, ethanol and natural gas. Competition will drive transportation fuel prices down, structurally and sustainably. These fuels are well within our reach, we can implement them into our existing system without the need to wait twenty years for fleet turnover. Fuel Freedom's approach to opening the fuels market by breaking the oil monopoly is America's next giant leap forward.

-John Hofmeister

In terms of taking steps forward, Hofmeister suggests that "first and foremost" there should be a serious, twin-path discussion on the future of natural gas as an alternative fuel, with specific focus about what works best for trucking and trains, and on what works best for personal vehicles. "Let's see what the market does to grow both, the industrial side and the consumer side. We haven't had that conversation yet."

Further, Hofmeister suggested, that even though EVs are off to a slow start, the US should continue to enable the infrastructure to be built to enable both types of electric vehicles, battery and hydrogen.

I think hydrogen fuel cell capability in the next 20-30 years will be more than people give it credit for. It's not a fix for tomorrow, it's too soon. But with the work going on and cost reductions already accrued in fuel cells and vehicles...I would hate to be taught by Japan and Germany how to do it, how to develop the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. But that's quite possible.

-John Hofmeister

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/04/hofmeister-20130430.htm

California ARB considering regulations for alternative diesel fuels; focus on biodiesel

The staff of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is holding a public meeting on 23 April in Sacramento to discuss regulatory concepts for establishing fuel requirements for alternative diesel fuels (ADF), including biodiesel, renewable diesel and other emerging diesel fuel substitutes.

ARB's goal is to conduct public meetings leading to the development of a regulatory proposal for consideration by the Board this fall. Staff anticipates the regulatory concepts would involve new alternative diesel fuel provisions, as well as amendments to the existing diesel fuel regulation to accommodate the new ADF requirements and to update outdated provisions. This effort is not directed at other existing transportation fuel programs, such as those for compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen,or electricity.

At the April meeting, ARB staff will discuss its biodiesel literature search, completed and on-going emissions research studies, as well as preliminary regulatory concepts for ADFs. ARB staff posted a white paper describing its initial regulatory concepts for an ADF regulation.

With the advent of the federal Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), fuel suppliers will now look to expand their product slates to include more renewable and low carbon replacements for conventional gasoline and diesel. While more innovation may be anticipated in ensuing years of lower carbon and higher renewable fuel standards, there are already notable innovations today. Biodiesel, with its unique chemistry, has the potential to replace conventional petroleum diesel and can be considered an ADF. Likewise, other innovative diesel fuel replacements are entirely hydrocarbon based and may be used as blendstocks to produce commercial CARB petroleum diesel. The latter innovations include renewable diesel, gas to liquid (GTL) diesel and other synthetic diesels.

Some of these diesel fuel substitutes legally exist in commerce today and are controlled through industry consensus standards. Such fuels-related industry consensus standards seek mainly to address both vehicle performance and fuel production quality issues. By contrast, the multimedia impacts from the substitute diesel fuels are generally addressed by state or federal government agencies.

The ARB's current diesel fuel regulations are geared toward providing a pathway for certifying hydrocarbon-based variations on petroleum diesel formulations, but they are ill-suited to providing a market pathway for newer, innovative alternative diesel fuels that are now coming into California in limited quantities. Over the past several years, California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff has endeavored to solicit stakeholder input via meetings and public workshops regarding the need for new regulations to address this gap. Likewise, staff has conducted essential research to understand the air quality impacts of biodiesel and various other diesel fuel substitutes. Much of this information had previously been presented at prior workshops. Based on stakeholder information and conclusions drawn from research, staff has developed regulatory concepts described below for establishing certainty for innovative fuels providers by setting forth a reasonable, multi-option process for getting their fuels approved for sale by ARB.

-"Draft Regulation Concepts"

For purposes of this proposed rulemaking, ARB will consider B5 (5% biodiesel) blends a legal California diesel fuel with no emissions mitigation required. ARB is working with the University of California at Riverside to develop data to determine whether there are significant adverse air-related impacts from the use of B5 blends sufficient to warrant mitigation in the future.

Further, CARB staff suggests that it would be appropriate to allow the use of compliant hydrocarbon-based renewable diesel and synthetic diesels either as neat fuels, or as blendstocks in the production of conventional petroleum CARB diesel fuel. A CARB biodiesel/renewable diesel study showed that renewable and synthetic diesels have comparable or better emission characteristics as compared to conventional petroleum-based CARB diesel.

While over time, ARB staff intends to develop regulations to establish a list of CARB recognized ADFs, biodiesel will be the first fuel to be formally recognized. ARB staff is this proposing a conceptual outline for fuel quality, blending, labeling and record-keeping, as well as enforceability.

Among the changes, staff proposes to amend California code to include the "B20-ready" diesel specifications; to update the diesel certification program (including updated certification engine); and other minor updates and changes. Staff also proposes to amend the certification program to include specific health and toxicity tests that were previously only required when additives were used. Additionally, staff proposes to add a cap limit of 28% by mass, aromatic hydrocarbon content.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/arbadf-20130324.htm

California ARB proposing amendments to Clean Fuels Outlet regulation to ensure adequate hydrogen fueling infrastructure

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) will conduct a public hearing in June to consider adopting amendments to the Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) Regulation with the intention of ensuring an adequate hydrogen refueling infrastructure to support the introduction and growth of hydrogen-fueled vehicles.

In January 2012, the Board adopted the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) regulatory package adopted in January 2012 (earlier post)-a combination of the Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations (for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions) and the technology-forcing Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) that pushes manufacturers to produce ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 through 2025 model years. In addition, the ACC program included amendments to Clean Fuels Outlet (CFO) requirements that will assure that ultra-clean fuels such as hydrogen are available to meet vehicle demands brought on by amendments to the ZEV regulation.

Although the LEV and ZEV regulations were approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on 7 August 2012, and filed with the Secretary of State, ARB did not submit the amended CFO regulation to OAL by the 7 December 2012 statutory deadline.

ARB notes that there are proposals unders consideration in the state legislature that would extend incentive funding programs that could provide for a non-regulatory avenue for alternative fuel stations in general and targeted funding for hydrogen stations specifically. Should the legislation pass, ARB would no longer need this rulemaking amending the CFO regulation as the provisions of the legislation would meet the objective of ensuring adequate hydrogen fueling infrastructure to support the introduction and growth of ZEVs.

The proposed rulemaking, however, is an attempt to preserve a regulatory backstop should the legislation fail to pass. Should the legislation pass, the proposal would be rescinded.

The amendments to the CFO regulation are being proposed to address the gap in hydrogen fueling infrastructure that may occur when government-funded and other hydrogen stations are not adequate to meet fuel demands of growing numbers FCVs that automakers are producing to comply with the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The proposed amendments to CFO would:

• Apply only to ZEVs and ZEV fuels. Staff is proposing to change the types of AFVs subject to the regulation from all AFVs certified as low emission vehicles to only those certified as ZEVs when operating on the designated clean fuel.

• Add a regulatory review for plug-in electric vehicles. Electricity is currently excluded from the definition of a designated clean fuel in the regulation. Staff is proposing to add regulatory language that requires ARB to evaluate the development and usage of workplace and public charging infrastructure, and make recommendations for further actions two years following adoption of the regulation.

• Change the regulated party to be the major producer/importers of gasoline. In 2010, California's 7 major petroleum companies supplied 93% of the gasoline consumed in California, while owning only 13% of the retail gasoline outlets. Changing the regulated party from owner/lessors of retail gasoline outlets to "major refiner/importers of gasoline," evenly applies the requirement to build CFOs among the parties that continue to benefit financially from California's use of gasoline.

• Modify calculations for determining the number of new CFOs and allocating responsibility among the regulated parties. Staff is proposing to modify how the number of required CFOs is calculated to account for the fuel requirements of hydrogen and FCVs. When determining how many CFOs each regulated party is responsible for, the proposed changes include allocating stations among each regulated party based on their share of the gasoline market, rather than the number of gasoline outlets each owns.

• Add a year to both fuel cell vehicle reporting requirements and the compliance timeframe. Staff is proposing to modify the AFV reporting requirements to make auto manufacturers report FCV production plans three model years into the future (the current requirement is two) and provide FCV placement numbers by air basin. This provides regulated parties with an additional year to locate, permit, and build CFOs.

• Add language that would allow the Executive Officer to adjust the required number of new CFOs downward if warranted by more recent vehicle projections. Increasing the time available to locate, permit and build CFOs also provides the opportunity to review auto manufacturer projections submitted the following year. If those projections indicate a decrease in vehicle numbers for a specific compliance year such that fewer CFOs would be required, this proposed amendment allows for making such an adjustment 19 months before stations are required to be operational.

• Add a lower regional activation trigger. Staff is proposing to add a 10,000 vehicle activation trigger that would apply to an air basin before the statewide trigger of 20,000 is reached. The lower trigger complements auto manufacturers' early commercialization plans to market FCVs in regional clusters.

• Streamline the compliance requirements. The proposed amendments include modifying the compliance requirements to be less prescriptive and more like performance standards, giving the regulated party the flexibility to determine how best to meet the minimum requirements. Hydrogen infrastructure can be placed at an existing gasoline station or at a freestanding site.

• Lower the regulation sunset provision. Under the current regulation, the requirement to build CFOs ceases when the total number outlets offering a particular clean fuel equals ten percent of the total number of retail gasoline outlets. Staff is proposing to reduce this provision to five percent based on findings that hydrogen fueling infrastructure can achieve commercial viability at five percent saturation and, therefore, a mandate would no longer be necessary.

The proposal also no longer includes an auto manufacturer penalty for delivering fewer vehicles than projected because it was determined that the circumstances under which it could be proved that an automaker knowingly provided false information would be extremely difficult to substantiate.

Resources

• ARB staff report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/02/cfo-20130219.htm

The Impact Of Fracking On America's Economy... From Space

See that cluster of lights by North Dakota? That's the result of fracking. Six years ago that light cluster did not exist. The reason is over the past years natural gas extraction though the use of fracking has increased exponentially as a result of the push for alternative fuel use and technological achievements.

Fracking is the controversial method of extracting natural gas from shale rock using a chemical and water mixture. Depending on the methods used, some 29% of the gas being extracted can go to waste-or rather, into creating this light show.

That light cluster is fire of natural gas burning as companies work all night to extract resources from the Bakken formation under North Dakota; a place whose citizens now call the "Kuwait on the prairie".

The natural gas rush has been so sudden that North Dakota now has the lowest unemployment rate in the country - more than 41,000 workers got jobs there between 2008 and 2012. Additionally, seven years ago, the U.S. was importing 60% of its oil. Now oil imports are down to 42%. The Bakken fields play a major role in this.

Natural gas is indeed making an impact, be it for better or for worse, and an impact that is now visible from space! The picture was taken by NASA's Earth Observatory, which orbits the planet twice a day some 512 miles up.

Source: news.yahoo.com

Andrew Meggison was born in the state of Maine and educated in Massachusetts. Andrew earned a Bachelor's Degree in Government and International Relations from Clark University and a Master's Degree in Political Science from Northeastern University. Being an Eagle Scout, Andrew has a passion for all things environmental. In his free time Andrew enjoys writing, exploring the great outdoors, a good film, and a creative cocktail. You can follow Andrew on Twitter @AndrewMeggison

The post The Impact Of Fracking On America's Economy... From Space appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/01/25/the-impact-of-fracking-on-americas-economy-

Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy

Yesterday, I found myself clicking around a website that called itself "smarter fuel future". The distortion of facts to fit fictions and lies by omission committed throughout the site would be laughable, if they weren't so readily accepted by some of the mental midgets (mental little people?) that frequent this site's comments section from time to time.

I welcome the wingnut contingent, though. I'd like to say something here about keeping things honest and objective, but the reality is that a pageview's a pageview, right?

Right.

SO, in the interest of calling the anti-ethanol people out on their ridiculous bullshit keeping things honest, let's address some of the nonsense I read on the "smarter fuel" website. People with an IQ below 90, prepare to comment sarcastically without understanding the logic of what you are about to read.

The specific link that came to my attention from an ad on Gas 2 that was emailed to me by a confused reader. It linked to this page that talked about vehicles and small engines, so let's start there.

Please click the link and notice the heading "Decreased Fuel Economy". The "smarter fuel" site reminds us that "smarter" is a relative term almost immediately here, committing 2 logical fallacies at once. The "smarter fuel" website (like most ethanol detractors) points to the 100% correct fact that ethanol contains about 30% less energy by volume than petroleum gasoline. They specifically say "vehicles fueled with ethanol cover fewer miles per gallon than those running on conventional gasoline. The higher the ethanol blend, the lower the fuel economy, meaning consumers must fill up at the pump more frequently." The first fallacy in the "Decreased Fuel Economy" argument is here: the informal fallacy of equivocation, or "the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)." In this case, "fuel economy" and "miles per gallon" can mean many things, since "fuel" is a vague and intentionally misleading term, and "miles per gallon" implies "miles per gallon of gasoline". Think about the statement another way: if you substitute the vague term "fuel" with the specific term "petroleum gasoline", I think (hope) that arguments made against ethanol from a basis of "decreased petroleum gasoline economy" becomes a laughable objection to ethanol. They are literally saying "the higher the ethanol blend, the lower the amount of petroleum gasoline will be used", and there, RIGHT THERE, is their core complaint ... because they are either oil company employees or the idiot pawns of oil company marketers who never took (or, more likely, passed) a formal logic class.

Education FTMFW, amirite?

Beating a dead horse just a bit, I'd like to point out that (even if you accept that whoever wrote it simply too stupid to realize their logic is horribly flawed) this is strictly an appeal to short-sighted convenience, and places "more trips to the pump" ahead of concerns about foreign oil dependence, environmental damage that comes from extracting oil from the ground, the huge amounts of resource-draining government oil subsidies, the wars fought over a finite (non-renewable) energy source, and the numerous health problems associated with burning petroleum fuels. In scientific terms: all this anti-ethanol hysteria is crazy-talk.

Moving on, let's talk about the next heading, "Damage to Vehicles and Performance". The site says "Beyond the damage to your wallet, ethanol can also damage vehicles and affect performance - corroding metals, causing rubber to swell and causing engines to break down more quickly. Some ethanol blends should not be used on certain engines and motors at all. EPA's E15 waiver covers only 2001 and newer motor vehicles." All of that, by the way, is 100% true. Alcohols can dry out the organic rubber o-rings and fuel lines in many automotive fuel systems, causing them to crack, leak, and require replacement. If not enough fuel is getting to your engine because of a fuel leak, your car will stop running and require maintenance. You may need to replace several feet of rubber fuel lines with ethanol-safe line, at a retail cost of about $6/ft. O-rings cost a few cents.

That doesn't sound quite as scary as "break down", does it?

Those of you who are not too young or too senile to have long memories will recall that a lot of this bickering and fear-mongering sounds pretty similar to the hubbub raised in the 70s when the US government banned the use of lead as an octane-boosting fuel additive. The transition away from leaded fuels was fought by the oil companies, who didn't want to have to find new ways to refine fuel for higher octane. Claims were made that vehicles designed to run leaded fuel would experience knock conditions that could damage engines' efficiencies and hurt fuel economy, even leading to break downs.

Sound familiar?

As with ethanol, the claims made against unleaded gas were true. The changeover was long, lasting form 1975-1986, and it was expensive. Automakers had to build engines with tighter tolerances that ran hotter to burn the unleaded fuel, while oil companies had to find newer and cheaper ways to make higher-octane fuels available to the public. Change costs money, and the people who will have to spend that money will fight doing so, tooth and nail, long after reason has failed them.

Why was lead used in the first place? Leaded gasoline was discovered on Dec. 9, 1921, at the General Motors research labs in Dayton Ohio. GM researchers had been testing fuel blends since 1916, trying to stop engine "knock." Knock is caused by early detonation of fuel inside a combustion chamber due to compression, which pushes the engine "backwards" causing a knock-like sound. Knock was a hug problem in early internal combustion engines, and was a problem that was preventing the development of higher efficiency, higher compression engines that could generate more power. GM researchers tried many different additives and found quite a few that worked well. Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from cellulosic materials became Detroit's strong preference. "Of course," Thomas A. Midgley of GM wrote in a memo to his boss, GM research vice president Charles Kettering, "alcohol is the fuel of the future." Oil companies, however, resisted the use of alcohol, and pushed for lead - which was (all together now) cheaper.

That's right, kids. We knew 100 years ago that alcohol was the way forward, but we decided to put all that aside in favor of a substance that was known to be toxic just because it was cheaper.

Thankfully, someone got their head out of their ass long enough to put pen to paper and legislate lead out of our fuels. That move away from lead in gasoline was motivated by public health. It was expensive, to be sure, but it was money well spent. Cases of lead poisoning are way down, and the average lead content in Americans' blood is much lower than it was in the 70s and 80s.

Today, the move away from gasoline is similarly motivated by public health. Carbon emissions cause heart attacks and respiratory problems and kill millions every year. Thousands of soldiers - American and otherwise - die in land wars over oil. Inconceivable fortunes in government spending subsidize oil companies and lobbyists, and pay them to produce twaddle like the "smarter fuel" site, all in an effort to convince the most impressionable among us that their vote should be cast this way or that, so that they can save their fortune just a little while longer. "Don't think too much about the future," they say. "In the future, we'll be dead."

Sorry, oil-advocate douchebags. My kids will be alive in the future. They're pretty cute, so they'll probably breed and then their kids will be alive in the future. I'd like for them to have some clean air to breathe, some water to drink, and maybe some scenery that isn't shimmering purple from oil slicks. As such I would like to ask, sincerely, that all you anti-ethanol hysterics douse yourself in your precious gasoline and die in fires. (this is the part where we all send letters to the men and women in congress who opposed the EPA's move and tell them we hate them)

Sources: Smarter (ha!) Fuel Future, Radford University, and a bunch of others, linked-to in the text.
The post Anti-ethanol Propaganda isn't 100% Wrong, Just 100% Crazy appeared first on Gas 2.

http://gas2.org/2013/01/20/anti-ethanol-propaganda-isnt-100-still-100-