Skip to comments.Texas fights global-warming power grab--Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy
Posted on 08/25/2010 5:05:07 PM PDT by jazusamo
The state's slogan is "Don't mess with Texas." But the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing just that, and at stake is whether the Obama administration can impose its global-warming agenda without a vote of Congress.
President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme.
The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Chairman Bryan W. Shaw saw the tailoring rule for what it really is: a massive power grab and centralization of authority. They are fighting back, writing to the EPA:
"In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency's recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations - regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. ... To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
HANG IN THERE TEXAS
Well said...This is yet another power grab by Lisa Jackson’s Dear Leader.
Either abuse of authority or lack of jurisdiction, take your pick.
If we don't stop this train, we're all gonna get caught up in the wreck.
Good for them! Its time to just say NO!
Not just NO but Hell NO!!!
This is it. This should be our stand.
EPA and Zerocare: just refuse to listen to them.
All of us can en masse refuse to participate.
Some good news for the good guys.
Need to give a tip of the Steetson to Rick and Gregg for introducing nobama to Tony Llama.
Obastard sees laws and the Constitution as something to figure a way around so he can finish his task of destroying the United States.
Libs are afraid to confront Abbott directly because he’s wheelchair-bound and he may still run for higher offices but you know behind closed doors they want to give him the Palin treatment. Go Greg!! Give ‘em hell!
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
|CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES|
“On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Bless her little heart. I think we just told the EPA to go pound sand.
I was just in Houston last week. We were discussing the new regulations regarding NoX emissions. The consensus was grim. When it comes to midstream natural gas production, things are going to get very expensive in order to remain compliant. Some of our stand-by and primary power generation guys pointed out that the portable power generation (used at drill sites and production plants)will no longer be allowed after Jan. 1, 2011. Oh, and offshore business is dead for now.
Hopefully this approach will prove successful and spread to other states!
As far as Texas goes, I’m for Perry all the way and wish him Godspeed in his efforts to thwart these power grabs by these power hungry Socialist Bastards! And stop ‘em in their tracks.
Here’s a big ole Texas HELL YEAH!
WTH is that all about? Are you talking about the gazillions of compressor/generators located at the remote pumping/production sites just about everywhere in the country?
Short story: I get on Google Earth from time to time to just cruise around to see what I can see. Deep in these Piney Woods of East Texas are hundreds of what appeared to be tank storage facilities of some kind; complete with small storage tanks and other equipment. I located one within a few miles of home and went to investigate. First thing I noticed was a huge generator/compressor, not much smaller than and resembling a train engine. VERY quiet BTW. Along with this was what looked like a "Christmas Tree" and about half a dozen storage tanks with a large sign warning of hydrogen sulfide gas. I had seen all I wanted to see. ;^)
Hydrogen Disulfide is deadly, one or two wiffs and its game over
Be still my heart! This makes me so happy. If Texas had mountains I’d move there. I’ve been waiting for a governor who had the guts to refuse to comply. It’s the only way to stop these evil bureaucrat bastards and the runaway regulation train. Here’s hoping other states follow the Texas example.
See tag line video.
In order to be non compliant, the sites must be inspected.
If the federal inspector is jailed for any number of state violations, no inspection can occur and the noncompliance never exists.
Texas has the Davis Mountains, the Hill Country, and the rolling hills of East Texas.
Plus every other thing you could ever want.
Stand firm Texas, send the EPA carpetbaggers packing.
Not only that,
The stars at night, Are big and bright...
The transmission pipeline typically has higher pressure than that of the well so the compressor is used to "force" the gas into the truckline. The tank batteries are there to store the oil and saltwater until a truck can come by and unload it. Most fields don't have pipelines to the individual wells but instead have a central tank battery. There is really nothing to fear around a well unless you are smoking and stick your head inside the tanks to see its contents. That happened around here the other day and they found the two people about two hundred yards away. Also, kids getting electrocuted or mangled from hanging around pump jacks every year. They run on timers.
Thanks for the ping.
I've never had a crush on a government employee before.
I feel young and light and clean and...like singing...
Right on, right on, right on!
I discovered that also after doing some Googling. The good news it that it VERY RARELY occurs in sufficient quantities to be lethal. The same "rotten egg" stuff we made in chemistry class in high school to annoy the teacher. The question I never pursued is what is this stuff doing there. H2S is a by-product of many sour oil and gas wells but I wonder why they capture the stuff instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Outside of the smell, the effects in the quantities involved most likely would be negligible. I have to assume some nanny state regulations.
Apparently there's some confusion here on my part and maybe KT rider's re the hydrogen sulfide gas. H2S(hydrogen sulfide) is a naturally occurring gas; H2S2(hydrogen disulfide) is a stinky inorganic compound that quickly decomposes to H2S and free sulfur I suppose.
In any case, you're submitting these sites all around us may in fact be hydrogen sulfide wells. Could be. I've not looked into it any further to determine that. I just assumed this was being extracted from sour gas/oil.
I decided to do a screen grab from Google Earth of the site I checked out for grins and purposes of discussion:
Thanks for the info.
What county is that and I can tell you whether the gas is sour or not? If they are burning a flare or have a wind sock, it is sour. They will have signs at the gate saying so as well.
Dayum you’re quick! This particular one is located in Tyler County; had no flare or wind sock. I’ve not really researched it but it’s just sortof my impression that most of the wells around here are what would be considered “sour”. The gate of course was open and the only sign of any significance I remember seeing was one identifying the operator(?) - Anadarko. BTW, these generator/compressors are HUGE! A site this small surely wouldn’t need that kind of power so it must be necessary for the pressure required to do whatever it does.
Those are horizontal Austin Chalk wells that are producing from around 13,000’. They make sweet gas (not sour) and quite a bit of oil. The field runs all the way to the dam on Toledo Bend and is called Brookeland.
By the way, something most people don’t know but Anadarko has a 25% working interest in BP’s well.
So, what's with the hydrogen sulfide tanks? And yeah, I'd heard Anadarko was a "partner" in the blown out well. Many others too probably.
An aside; there have been a few oil and gas wells around these parts for decades but just in the last few years these newer sites have sprung up all around us. I gather at the depths you mention the cost to get at it until recently wasn't justified?
Horizontal drilling is what has made those wells profitable. They probably cost on the order of $6,000,000. The laterals go out over a mile from the surface beginning at 13,000'.
The only other partner in the well is Mitsui, a Japanese company with 10%.
Well then, it may be they have placed these warning signs around the tanks to keep folks from messing around with their stuff??? After all, who wants to be responsible for releasing "poisonous" gas, eh?
Thanks for the clinic on the horizontal drilling. Didn't know that.
There is some H2S in that gas but probably not enough to flare it. It is dissolved in the oil and saltwater in those tanks and can become concentrated enough that if you climbed up the ladder and stuck your head in the tank (like many people do just to see some oil), it could kill you deader than a door nail. It happens all of the time, especially to teens and drunkards out looking for something to do. Could you actually smell any of the gas while on the location? If not, then it is probably not a big deal.
Sounds like there are some Darwin Award candidates around. Anywho, near as I could tell these tanks were sealed as the pic, although not the best resolution, indicates. It was a HOT July/August afternoon and we didn’t get out to look around but I opened my window to listen to the compressor/generator unit. Could BARELY hear the thing running and we couldn’t have been more than 10 - 15 feet away from it. Amazing, I says to myself! And no, no noticeable odors of any kind oddly enough — or not.
God bless Texas.
Stated Justice O’Connor for the Court in New York v. United States, 505 US 144 (1992):
“While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. See Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 565 (1911). The Court has been explicit about this distinction. “Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States.” Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall., at 76 (emphasis added)...”
...”In providing for a stronger central government, therefore, the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States. As we have seen, the Court has consistently respected this choice. We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. E. g., FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S., at 762-766; Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S., at 288-289; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall., at 76. The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments’ regulation of interstate commerce.”
In Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997), Judge Scalia for the Court stated:
...”Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court’s first experience with it did not occur until the 1970’s, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA, 530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U. S. 99 (1977).
“Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. 452 U. S. 264 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law. In Hodel we cited the lower court cases in EPA v. Brown, supra, but concluded that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act did not present the problem they raised because it merely made compliance with federal standards a precondition to continued state regulation in an otherwise pre-empted field, Hodel, supra, at 288. In FERC, we construed the most troubling provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, to contain only the ‘command’ that state agencies ‘consider’ federal standards, and again only as a precondition to continued state regulation of an otherwise pre-empted field. 456 U. S., at 764765. We warned that ‘this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations,’ id., at 761762.
“When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise. At issue in New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), were the so-called ‘take title’ provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which required States either to enact legislation providing for the disposal of radioactive waste generated within their borders, or to take title to, and possession of the wasteeffectively requiring the States either to legislate pursuant to Congress’s directions, or to implement an administrative solution. Id., at 175176. We concluded that Congress could constitutionally require the States to do neither. Id., at 176. ‘The Federal Government,’ we held, ‘may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.’ Id., at 188.