Wow! This morning, we spent some time watching the House Energy and Technology Committee hearings on the three bills we’ve been squawking about over the past few days. It was both interesting and very disturbing. We learned a lot, some of it clarifying and some of it just plain maddening. As soon as we can, we’ll try and give a full account of the hearings and a better discussion of the questions at stake in the legislation. Needless to say, our concerns have not been alleviated. For now, here’s a quick teaser list of some of what we learned:
- Our original assessment that the legislation is mainly about fracking isn’t exactly correct. As we explained in our follow-up post, it appears to have more to do with “Enhanced Oil Recovery”– which isn’t, however, to remove fracking from the equation entirely.
- The main sponsor of the legislation, Committee Chairman Aric Nesbitt, doesn’t appear to understand the bill very clearly at all. He spent a lot of his time saying things like “what I’m told” and “from what I understand.” Needless to say, that does not provide much comfort.
- Which means that Nesbitt obviously didn’t write the legislation. He’s just doing someone else’s bidding. Whose bidding? We aren’t entirely sure.
- But here’s one possibility: during his testimony, the executive from Core Energy (we didn’t catch his name, but check out what it is they do!) spoke about Act 16 as if he were some kind of expert on it. He seemed to know more about the reason for HB 5254 than anybody else in the room. Yes, that’s right, the one person who has more to gain from this legislation than anybody else on the planet was explaining it to the legislators.
- The MPSC, indifferent to the interests of the citizens it is supposed to protect, is not the least bit bothered by the change proposed in HB 5254. Even worse, the MPSC representative went out of his way to describe the MPSC’s charge in precisely the terms created by Enbridge’s lawyers. So just as we’ve said in the past, Enbridge has successfully re-created the MPSC in its very own image.
- Our own representative, Joseph Graves, did ask a question about landowner rights–but rather half-heartedly, we thought. His colleagues Reps. Marilyn Lane and Collene Lamonte, on the other hand, were tenacious and proved themselves true champions of Michigan citizens. We applaud their efforts.
- Finally, we’ve been a little baffled by the lack of interest in this matter by various environmental groups. The Sierra Club, however, has stepped up and articulated clearly and forcefully their opposition to this legislation.
Much more– including more on why the feeble attempts by those at the hearing attempting to dismiss concerns about HB 5254 were completely unpersuasive– as time allows.
What’s “Enhanced Oil Recovery”?
Click on the link in yesterday’s post. It’s the use of CO2 to extract more oil from existing wells.
pumping CO2 into the ground can be dangerous, which is why the DOE is spending a huge amount of money on studying C sequestration by underground storage of CO2. One of my colleagues at Stanford published a paper last year outlining the potential risk of earthquakes. I’d have to study what they are proposing to do but this is likely a very bad idea. What’s more I wonder whether once they got permission to build a new CO2 pipeline they could then use it for carbon sequestration purposes.
Thanks, Patricia. Would love to see the Stanford paper. Got a link? And also, sequestration is definitely part of the equation. They discussed it today.
It’s important to note that enhanced oil recovery is currently being sold to MI lawmakers as needed in order to fully extract existing wells..This is a good idea in theory, however, there are no protects in place that would prevent oil/gas companies from using this method with new wells. For me, I’m not supportive of this concept because I feel tax breaks and incentives need to go towards renewable resources – that is the direction I want us to head. We need to think long and hard about the overall impacts (including the creation of new pipelines and the loss of private property and rights). Also, I have concerns about long-term impacts from carbon sequestration… If we’re going to explore this idea, we need to do so carefully and under very controlled circumstances. We should not allow open-ended laws to fly through out legislature that have obviously been created by one voice.