Visualizing Vulnerability

Denton is working on an interactive map of its gas wells. This would be good for so many reasons, including helping us to prioritize our monitoring efforts. Here is a map a friend made for me that is rough but indicates drug free zones (schools and parks, mostly) with red buffers 1,000 feet around them and gas wells (the little circle icons with six short lines around them, look like little bugs).

Dryden Wins!

This decision just came out: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/Dryden-Decision.pdf

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2013/fracking-ban-stands-in-new-york-town-victory-for-local-communities

The New York Town of Dryden has their ban on fracking upheld by a state appeals court.

Anti-fracking, but Pro-development? On The Limits of Idealism

How should we think about – and what should we vote on – the proposed city-owned gas utility? Here is the language on the ballot:

“Shall the City of Denton be allowed to own, acquire, construct, maintain, and operate a gas utility in order to provide gas utility services to non-residential customers in that area of the City near the Airport Industrial Park.”

Essentially, voters have a chance to approve that the city run a combined heat and power plant (CHP) and related commercial natural gas infrastructure (including a pipeline) to foster industrial development near the airport. It seems like nearly everyone in-the-know is in favor of this one – from Richard Hayes to Kevin Roden. There’s a lot to like about it for people placed along a wide swath of the political spectrum – jobs, diversified tax base, and state-of-the-art technology that is relatively efficient and thus more environmentally friendly compared to traditional alternatives.

But this project is bound to stick in the craw of those who fall on the extremes of the political spectrum. Those on the far right might decry government meddling where the free market knows best. But I want to focus on the far, call it green, left: Why are we committing to fossil-fuel-based development given how toxic the extractive practices are and given the closing window on our chances to avert climate disaster?

Those who have been seeking stricter drilling and fracking regulations may be able to consistently support this CHP project, because their position is not necessarily an anti-fossil fuel one. But those who have called for a ban on fracking seem committed to opposing this project as well. After all, if natural gas is the problem, this proposal will sink us deeper into the problem.

So here is my question: Where are the voices in opposition to this CHP plant? Why were they so loud about fracking but silent on this?

I know plenty of folks who opposed the way City Council initially went about the project (by-passing the Charter and all). But who opposes not just the method but the goal, not just the means but the end?

This is a sticky one, because we do so utterly depend on fossil fuels to keep the economy humming along. And we depend on the economy for jobs and we depend on jobs for bread and butter. Thus, the question about the proper scope of idealism - in this case, opposition to fossil fuels. Yes, I want us to kick the fossil fuel habit...but a project like this seems so irrefutably practical and beneficial. But how can one stick to ideals if all along the way exceptions are made for practicality's sake?

It reminds me of Robert Kaplan's new piece in the Atlantic on Henry Kissinger. He defends great leaders as those who know when to violate ideals - even basic Judeo-Christian morality - when the times demand it. Indeed, he speaks of the MORALITY of this leadership...someone has got to save civilization (in Kissinger's case) or in this case, someone has got to make sure Denton provides jobs and a sustainable tax base.

Kaplan slings an arrow intended to wound us 'intellectuals':
"The rare individuals who have recognized the necessity of violating such morality, acted accordingly, and taken responsibility for their actions are among the most necessary leaders for their countries, even as they have caused great unease among generations of well-meaning intellectuals who, free of the burden of real-world bureaucratic responsibility, make choices in the abstract and treat morality as an inflexible absolute."

Josh Fox's Tech-fix Fixation

Josh Fox has recently been making splashes as his new film Gasland Part II gets set to hit HBO this summer. One placed he showed up was on the Daily Dish, where he answers a question about whether fracking and natural gas are lesser evils compared with coal.

It's about a five-minute video and worth a look. I think he gives a very thoughtful answer about coal and natural gas as pretty comparable in terms of negative impacts. I also agree that we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Yes, they are 'toxic fuels.' 

I have a hard time, though, swallowing his technological optimism. Coal vs. Gas is a false dilemma, he says, because we have Wind! So what do we need to do about the quiet crisis we face? We DON'T need to change our ways. Consume less. Reinvent local economies. Redesign cities. Reduce our needs. No, we just need to switch to renewables!

My first reaction was: I don't buy it. Wind and solar simply cannot provide the baseload for electricity generation that we 'need' (if we go along with him and hold our needs unimpeachable). And that says nothing about the transportation sector....solar and wind cars, airplanes?! Not even on the horizon.

To me, this is the folly of the tech-fix fixation of many mainstream greens.

BUT...maybe I am wrong. In researching this post, I discovered lots about the 'baseload fallacy'. There are some intriguing sites out there making the case that renewables could supply our electricity needs on a large scale if we just made some adjustments to the grid. Interestingly, Texas stands out as an example of this, as it can accomodate 24% of its load (at times) with wind power.

So...am I too quick to write off the technological solutionism here?

Sowing the Seeds of Disaster

There are still unanswered questions about the recent fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas that killed 15 people and injured over 200. From what we do know, it seems that three key ingredients contributed to the tragedy.

First, lax regulation and oversight: the plant had not been inspected by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration since 1985 and had operated for two years without necessary air permits. Second, the inherent risks of a dangerous industrial process: there were 270 tons of potentially explosive ammonium nitrate on site. Third, the close proximity of people: schools, homes, and an apartment complex were just blocks away from the plant.

The scary thing for Denton is that all of these ingredients are falling into place when it comes to natural gas drilling and fracking. We need to take steps now to prevent a similar disaster here.

First, consider the ingredients. Lax regulation and oversight? Check. Oil and gas well inspections by the Texas Railroad Commission have actually been decreasing even as the number of producing wells has skyrocketed in recent years.

Inherent risks? Check. Just last week, EagleRidge lost control of a well off of Jim Christal Road not far from Denton Presbyterian Hospital. An incident report estimates the event released 59 lbs. of carcinogenic benzene into the air, but a home video suggests that figure is a gross underestimation. This is being called a ‘leak’ but it looks much more like a blow-out. Accidents will happen, either as a result of operator negligence or as a ‘normal’ feature of complex technological systems.

Proximity of people? Check. There are wells in town (like the one near Bonnie Brae and Panhandle) that are very close to homes and parks. City Council voted in January to increase the setback distance between wells and protected uses to 1,200 feet. But, due to vested rights, this new ordinance will not have much of an impact. Indeed, days after the EagleRidge ‘leak,’ Denton’s Planning & Zoning Commission approved a development plan off of Teasley Lane that will put homes just 100 feet from two gas wells.

And this is not an isolated incident. Most future drilling activity in Denton will occur under old rules with minimal protection standards for neighboring homes. On top of this, when homes are built around pre-existing wells, Denton’s ordinance allows a variance to be granted that can reduce the setback distance to 250 feet. The rationale for this is ‘buyers beware’ – prospective homebuyers are able to make an informed choice, because the well is already there. But of course, conditions are not ripe for a truly informed decision here. Realtors are often not knowledgeable on the subject. And developers barely disclose information about the risks posed by gas wells. Why would they, when it can mean millions in lost revenue?

The fertilizer plant in West was built in 1962 when it was surrounded by open farmland. But a boom of development brought homes and schools nearby. The same is going to happen in Denton as wells are developed in master planned communities such as Robson Ranch and homes come in later. There are stories from West of a creeping complacency about the fertilizer plant: it’s been here for so long, it’s not risky. A former City Council member admitted development decisions in West were pretty much on auto-pilot, saying of the potential threat posed by the plant “There was never any thought about it. Maybe that was wrong.”

We need to be vigilant and avoid this kind of thoughtlessness. Denton is currently revising its comprehensive plan, which opens a forum for thinking about this issue. Here, then, is a question we should think long and hard about: Do we want to live in a city that puts people close to hazardous industrial sites prone to leaks, spills, and explosions? When an accident happens in the future, do we want to shrug our shoulders and say “they knew the risks when they moved there”? Is that the appropriate response to those families suffering in West?

I don’t think it is, because I believe cities have an obligation to avoid zoning homes and schools next to dangerous industrial facilities. This is an essential way that local governments fulfill their basic function of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. It’s part of what binds as together and makes us a community rather than a collection of consumers-of-residences. For those of us crafting the comprehensive plan, we need to overcome the shackles of vested rights and the myopia of free market development. We owe it to our future citizens to do everything we can to prevent a catastrophe in Denton.

Lies about the EagleRidge "Emissions Event"

It is hard to argue with video evidence. Turns out that well was spouting gas and fluids high into the air for hours prior to the time TCEQ said the event started...and the crew was just watching it happen for hours prior to homes being evacuated. That estimate of 59 pounds of benzene is, as a result, almost certainly much lower than the actual emissions.

*Let me be clear about what the lie is here: The TCEQ report estimated benzene emissions for a time period of 7 hours and 39 minutes. That is the amount of time from 8 a.m. to 3:39 p.m. (when the problem was resolved). But the event was clearly happening prior to 8 a.m. and so the duration of emissions was longer. Indeed, according to the eye-witness, it was around 5 hours longer, which would put the estimated emissons at closer to 100 pounds of benzene.

Thanks to Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe for investigating this.

Are any authorities looking more deeply into this? Who is going to hold EagleRidge accountable?

And this is all happening just as P&Z approves a residential site with homes 100 feet away from wells....cute.

Ordinance: More Teeth, Nothing to Bite.

Update: I wrote a couple of days ago that Planning and Zoning was about to break the law. I thought this was an issue of Homes à Wells, which would require at least a 250 foot setback…but the plat only shows 100 feet.

Well, it turns out that this might actually be an issue of vested rights. This plat has a permit going back to 2006, which vests it under the drilling and production ordinance in effect at that time (passed in 2004). That ordinance had no setback requirement, which means wells can be 100 feet away from protected uses (this is the minimum setback per fire code).

Here is what this means: We can put as many teeth into municipal ordinances as we want. But they can only bite ‘new’ projects. Around Denton, most of the future oil and gas development is going to occur on sites that have old permits that vest them under old rules. I think this explains why the industry did not put up more of a fight over the ordinance. They know that for the most part it won’t apply.

'Vested rights' means we will be haunted by outdated laws and practices for years to come. We are now seeing the fruit of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 245: Read it and weep.