|
BLM rule relaxation rejected by federal district court on appeal
Alan Bailey Petroleum News
The federal District Court for the Northern District of California has upheld appeals by environmental organizations against the Bureau of Land Management rule, issued in 2018, rescinding much of the Waste Prevention Rule, issued in 2016 by the Obama administration. The 2016 rule instigated regulations strictly limiting the venting and flaring of methane from oil and gas operations on federal lands. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas.
The 2018 BLM rule came as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back what it characterized as overburdensome regulations that unnecessarily impede industrial activity.
Methane venting and flaring Among other provisions, the 2016 rule prohibited the venting of methane, except under a narrowly specified set of circumstances. Limits also applied to the flaring of methane.
In Alaska the rule applies to oil and gas operations on federal land, particularly in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, where there are active programs of oil exploration and development. However, in Alaska, including on federal land, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Conservation enforce strict rules aimed at preventing the wastage of hydrocarbon resources and the avoidance of air pollution. Those rules include a prohibition of methane flaring or venting, other than in small volumes for specific allowed purposes.
Numerous problems In upholding the appeals against BLM’s 2018 rule, rolling back much of the 2016 rule, the District Court cited numerous problems that, the court said, emanated from BLM’s failure to provide an adequately reasoned explanation for changing a rule that had been issued just two years earlier, and from a failure to comply with obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Instead, in its zeal, BLM simply engineered a process to ensure a preordained conclusion,” the judge wrote in the court order upholding the appeals.
For example, the judge found significant inconsistencies in what BLM considered to be waste from oil and gas operations, with inconsistencies both within the new rule and between the rule and other BLM regulations. The judge also questioned the manner in which BLM had considered the costs of compliance with the regulations, and the agency’s argument that in the 2016 rule it had exceeded its own statutory authority.
“While the executive branch holds the power to issue executive orders, an agency cannot flip-flop regulations on the whims of each new administration,” the judge wrote.
Moreover, unlike the 2016 rule, the new rule does not address the issue of public welfare in relation to the need to curb venting, flaring and leaks resulting from increased oil and gas production, the judge wrote. For various reasons, the development of the new rule failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. And, under the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, BLM should have prepared an environmental impact statement for the rule changes, and not just an environmental assessment, the judge wrote.
Oil and Gas Climate Initiative Meanwhile on July 16 the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, a consortium of oil and gas companies supporting reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions, including several oil majors, announced new targets for reducing the carbon intensity of their operations. Emissions targets take into account methane and carbon dioxide emissions from upstream oil and gas exploration and production activities, including emissions associated with imported electricity and steam.
“Encouraged by the progress we have made towards our target on methane intensity, we have come together to reduce by 2025 the collective average carbon intensity of our aggregated upstream oil and gas emissions,” the consortium said. “Together we are increasing the speed, scale, and impact of our actions to address climate change, as the world aims for net zero emissions as early as possible.”
- ALAN BAILEY
|
