Updated by Staff

A DISASTER’S IRONY: GULF SPILL HURTING RENEWABLE ENERGY

The BP Deep Water Horizon spill reaches even further than the thousands of miles coastlines, oceans, wildlife and residents in the Gulf.

A bill in the U.S. Congress to expand alternative energy in the biggest oil-consuming nation was set aside by legislators until they can review offshore-drilling safety. Investors in turn sold wind and solar stocks as support waned for the bill and as Europe considered cuts to clean-energy subsidies, said John Hardy, an analyst at Gleacher & Co. in Greenwich, Connecticut.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric out there on the possibility that the spill could help renewable energy,” Hardy said in an interview. “I see it delaying clean-energy legislation until the Senate’s ready to deal with offshore drilling.”

To win Republican votes needed to pass a law that caps greenhouse gases, the legislation’s authors included an expansion to offshore oil exploration. Such limits would have helped shares of emissions-free wind and solar energy compete with generators that burn coal and natural gas.

The compromise, underpinned by increased offshore drilling, collapsed after the spill. Democrats who wanted emissions legislation have since threatened to pull their support if the bill continued to call for more oil drilling.

“It’s ironic that this disaster is jeopardizing energy legislation when it’s clear that we need it more than ever,” said Kevin Landis, who manages $260 million at Firsthand Funds including SunPower and competitor Suntech Power Holdings Co. “It’s definitely a drag on the renewable sector.”

OVERHAUL OF URANIUM MINING REGS CLOSER TO BECOMING LAW

A sometimes controversial and exhausting regulatory process may soon be coming to an end in Colorado. This past week saw the State Division of Mining, Reclamation and Safety conduct a three-day hearing on the draft changes to the much anticipated overall of the uranium mining regulations.

It follows two months of public comment sessions conducted across the state  for the new uranium rules.

The more stringent regulations proposed on in-situ uranium mining are largely in response to a Canadian company’s proposed mine in northern Weld County. In-situ is an increasingly popular technology whereby water is injected underground to blast out uranium from other heavy metals and pump the yellow cake back to the surface. The state and opponents of the mine are worried this could pollute groundwater.

Among other requirements, the new rules would force companies to conduct more stringent baseline tests before in-situ mining is approved, and submit detailed reclamation plans to the state. The changes stem from a pair of bills passed by lawmakers in 2008. The lengthy time period to produce the regulatory overhaul was caused in large part because of drawn out and separate rewrite of oil and gas regulations.

BATTLEMENT MESA RESIDENTS COMPLAIN ABOUT FUMES

BATTLEMENT MESA — Residents of this unincorporated subdivision in western Garfield County are complaining about noxious fumes and odors from a nearby gas-well drilling pad operated by Antero Resources. And some have expressed the concern that these complaints are only a foreshadowing of more to come.

The county’s gas and oil liaison officer, Judy Jordan, confirmed on Thursday, “I have gotten a number of complaints over the past few days” from Battlement Mesa residents, pointing to a well pad known as the Watson Ranch facility.

Officials said that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Jordan’s office all are working on the issue, as are officials from Antero Resources, the company in charge of operations at the Watson Ranch pad.

Dave Neslin, executive director of the COGCC staff, confirmed on Thursday that inspectors from the agency had been out to tour the site “at least twice” this week. Margaret Ash, manager of the COGCC’s field inspections department, said that preliminary findings indicated that the odors and fumes are “probably coming from the water” that is used and stored as part of the hydraulic fracturing process.

She said the cause may be some kind of bacterial contamination of the water on site, although the investigation is continuing.

She added, “We don’t think it’s a hydrocarbon problem, per se,” a reference to the oil, gas and other potentially toxic substances that come to the surface as a result of drilling and production activities.

more on the story …

FRAC’ING  ISSUE MAKES NEWS LOCALLY AND IN WASHINGTON

Amid movement in Washington DC on the legislation front, the EPA held a public hearing in Denver on hydraulic fracturing earlier this week in which both the Wyoming and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commissions requested that states retain regulatory authority over the process. The event was part of groundwork being conducted by the EPA as part of its comprehensive two-year study on the frac’ing issue. COGCC Director Dave Neslin made the point that there have been hundreds of groundwater complaints in Colorado, but no cases of contamination.  Neslin also highlighted the state rules and how protective they are. 

Meanwhile, sportsmen and environmental groups in Colorado cheered the passage of a bill requiring oil and gas companies to disclose chemicals used in frac’ing fluids. Short for hydraulic fracturing, the drilling method has been used for years by the industry but has come under closer  scrutiny by some democrats in Congress concerned it may be causing water contamination.

Passed by the House Natural Resources Committee, the “CLEAR Act” removes exemptions that allow some operators to skip what they see as over burdensome environmental reviews. The big point of contention in the proposed legislation will no doubt be the provision requiring companies to report to federal regulators the proprietary chemicals used in the frac’ing fluids. “If you have nothing to hide, why not release the information?” says Steve Torbit, regional director of the National Wildlife Federation in Boulder.

“It’s a fairly simple concept, if you’re not hiding something, you’ve got nothing to lose by disclosing the chemicals you’re using in this process,” he says.

Oil and gas companies see the provision as adding another layer of costly, bureaucratic regulations when they’re already required to disclose this information to state regulators.

Whether the bill eventually becomes law is still an open question, as Republicans attempt to tack on amendments to remove the frac-ing provision. Capitol watchers say the CLEAR Act is expected to be lumped in with a broader bill provides toughter oil and gas regs in the wake of the disaster in the gulf.