The New York Times Deceptive Editorial on President Trump's Energy Policies

The Obama war on oil & gas was very real…

Obama’s quiet war on oil
The oil and gas industry is in the crosshairs of the administration’s eco-agenda, even if Shell gets its Arctic drilling permit.
By ELANA SCHOR 08/14/2015
[…]
The limits on toxic air emissions from refineries that EPA proposed last year could cost more than $20 billion to implement, according to industry estimates, though the American Petroleum Institute said on Thursday that it hopes to see the final version significantly scaled back. EPA’s projected price tag was much smaller, at $239 million in total costs for the new emissions standards.
The National Association of Manufacturers has offered an even more gargantuan cost estimate for the ozone rule that EPA proposed in November, warning it could wipe out $3.4 trillion in economic output and 2.9 million jobs by 2040. The agency disagrees, saying the costs would amount to no more than $16.6 billion a decade from now, compared with as much as $42.1 billion in benefits such as reductions in deaths and illnesses.
The updated ozone rule “will be based on the law and an exhaustive, open and transparent review of a large body of science, along with advice from an independent panel of leading air quality and health experts,” EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen said Thursday. The rule, required to become final by Oct. 1, would set the standard at between 65 and 70 parts per billion, down from a George W. Bush-era standard of 75 parts per billion.
Allen said the agency’s regulations on methane pollution from oil and gas drilling, set for release before the summer’s end, will make room for both current industry practices and “emerging innovations” and will be aimed at cutting emissions while “oil and gas production and operations continue to grow.”
The political battle is complicated by the fact that the oil and gas rules are moving through EPA and the Interior Department with far less public fanfare than the Obama-touted plan to push down power plant pollution. And the president continues to praise the economic power of the domestic oil and gas boom while risking greens’ ire with moves to open up parts of the nation’s coasts to offshore drilling.
[…]
“Anybody who thought getting rid of coal was going to be the end of concern about climate regulations’ impact on the fossil fuel sector” now sees “that’s a questionable assumption,” said Salo Zelermyer, a top Energy Department official under George W. Bush who now advises industry clients at Bracewell & Giuliani.
In addition to EPA’s methane regulations, which are expected to affect existing emissions sources narrowly if at all, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management is preparing to open a White House budget office review as soon as this month on rules for drillers’ releases of the greenhouse gas on public lands. A separate BLM fracking regulation unveiled in March is stuck in legal limbo thanks to a challenge by two regional oil and gas groups but could go forward next month.
[…]

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/oil-gas-obama-environment-agenda-121347

Murkowski Concludes Obama Aims to Kill Alaska’s Pipeline
By Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media – February 18, 2015
[…]
Murkowski says she’s not normally an alarmist, but she says President Obama’s actions in the Arctic show he’s trying to starve the trans-Alaska Pipeline of new oil.
“I just can’t come to a different conclusion: It looks like the goal is to shut down the pipeline,” she said. “Now, they’re not saying that. But when you’re working against those initiatives that would allow us to fill it up, how can you conclude otherwise?”
And, Murkowski says, if the pipeline is done and dismantled, the effect on the state would be huge.
“Really, the Alaska that we know, I don’t think it exists anymore,” she said. “That’s not a future that I’m prepared for, and I don’t think that’s a future that any of us want.”
Murkowski gave her annual address to the Alaska Legislature as a rallying cry — to the extent that her deliberative personal style allows. She urged Alaska leaders to storm ramparts – politically, anyway. She’s asking them to reach out to their contacts Outside to make Alaska’s case, and to make their views known to the federal government through the public process.
She recited the issues that have inflamed Alaska’s leaders for weeks: Obama’s request for wilderness designation in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a decision to withdraw offshore areas from Arctic leasing, and restrictions in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
Legislators applauded an idea she floated to put part of ANWR under state control, either by buying it, or through a land trade. Congress has been unable to pass a bill to open it to drilling. Murkowski didn’t explain why a land trade or sale would be any more popular, but she vowed to fight at every legislative opportunity.
[…]
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/02/18/murkowski-concludes-obama-aims-to-kill-alaskas-pipeline/

Industry responds to final well control rule
12/15/2016
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) published its final drilling safety rule earlier this year to address a range of systems and equipment related to well control operations. The rule is designed to improve the reliability of offshore equipment and systems and to reduce the potential for another event like the Deepwater Horizon.
However, the new offshore drilling regulations designed to improve the reliability of equipment may bring more downtime, increased costs, and significantly more operator requirements for training and inspections. Industry experts also predict a potential loss of up to 190,000 jobs as a result of decreases in exploration and production.
While the BSEE said it has incorporated more than 176 public comments and suggestions from the proposed rule into the final rule, and the full set of regulations will be phased in over a few years, many industry experts feel it is still too prescriptive and challenging to implement – not to mention too expensive – especially for an industry mired in the worst economic downturn in decades.
Can the industry implement the new rule by the deadline and will the regulations have the desired effect? In reviewing the more than 500 pages of regulations, here are seven key takeaways about the final rule.
[…]
Drilling margins
One of the most contentious points of the final rule establishes mandatory drilling margins to “reduce the likelihood of a major well control event.” The original proposed rule had requirements for the drilling margin that operators must maintain to ensure that the pressure exerted by drilling fluids does not fracture the formation. The rule defined 0.5 pounds per gallon (ppg) as a safe drilling margin between the weight of drilling fluids and the amount of pressure a formation can withstand before fracturing.
However, the API and other industry commenters asserted that this definition was both arbitrary and economically infeasible. They contended that this “one size fits all” approach would lead to operational problems from limiting the selection of drilling fluids or limiting the casing strings or production casing sizes. Some operators were also concerned that the new standard would restrict them from exploring certain reservoirs due to the decreased production from smaller hole sizes.
For the final rule, BSEE kept 0.5 ppg as a default requirement, but allows the use of an alternative if the operator receives approval based on adequate justification and documentation, including supplemental data, submitted with its application for permit to drill.
There is likely to be some potential flexibility here as discussions continue. Further clarification is needed, for example, about the exact process, timeframe, and criteria needed to gain approval of an exception. One operator that was interviewed was unclear about the documentation specifics and the supplemental judgment criteria being used to grant exceptions. In addition, it is possible that the BSEE may exempt or “grandfather in” wells that are in progress or already permitted.
[…]
Estimate of financial impact
BSEE’s regulatory impact analysis predicts that the overall cost of the rule implementation would be $165 million in the first year alone, with $77-$99 million for each of the following nine years. Even in its best estimates, the bureau even admitted that the rule implementation would have a “significant impact on a substantial number of smaller entities.”
The industry as a whole has strongly criticized both the proposed and final rule and BSEE’s cost estimate. Specifically, many industry experts, the API, and some members of Congress criticize it as being overly prescriptive and suggest it could impede rather than enhance safety.
Several operator and industry groups have weighed in and estimate that the final rule could cost a total of $25 billion over 10 years and render development and production of many offshore discoveries uneconomical. It could even potentially end development in the US outer continental shelf (OCS) and the Gulf of Mexico.
Several integrated operators have openly stated that the bureau did not adequately account for the indirect costs associated with the rule, such as job losses resulting from contraction of offshore development.
Some experts predict doom-and-gloom scenarios, including:

Decrease exploration drilling by up to 35-40%
Reduce Gulf of Mexico and OCS production by as much as 35% by the year 2030
Potential reduction in workforce and layoffs of up to 100,000-150,000 jobs by 2030; this may include jobs beyond the energy industry; most notably, 80% of these jobs could be in Louisiana and Texas.

With its focus on blowout prevention equipment, monitoring, maintenance and training, the final drilling rule is certain to have an impact on the offshore oil and gas industry. But at what cost? Are the current industry standards in API 53 sufficient to safeguard against disasters? And what criteria will be used when evaluating requests to use “other” procedures?
[…]

http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-76/issue-12/regulatory-update/industry-responds-to-final-well-control-rule.html
While the final Well Control Rule was not as bad as Obama’s first version, it was totally pointless, increased drilling costs and made no measureable difference in well control.