Restarting Texas’s Frozen Energy Heartland Will Be a Climate Mess
Like a cold-blooded animal—a lizard or a snake—the petrochemical hub that is the state of Texas went dormant during the deep freeze. Eventually, it’ll wake up again, and when it does the damage will be worse than if it never went to sleep.
Filings submitted in recent days to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or TCEQ, already show significant emissions related to stopping and restarting fossil fuel infrastructure. It’s an indication of what’s to come in a state that’s home to a quarter of U.S. natural gas production as well as half the oil production.
An Exxon Mobil Corp. ethylene plant in Baytown, one of the world’s biggest, reported the release of nearly a ton of the carcinogen benzene and 34 tons of carbon monoxide, which contributes to air pollution. Shutting off Valero Energy Corp.’s Port Arthur Refinery resulted in the release of more than 2 tons of sulfur dioxide, another pollutant. Events at two facilities belonging to Pioneer Natural Resources Co. led to the escape of more than 12 tons of natural gas; methane, main component of natural gas, has many times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
“This is an environmental disaster on top of a public safety and human health disaster,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, an advocacy group.
Refineries must flare off or otherwise release trapped pockets of gas when starting up or shutting down. While weather-based shutdowns are often unavoidable and done in the interest of safety, they can result in emissions that go far above allowable levels. “These events are not exempt from pollution laws,” Metzger said. “It’s likely the events at these facilities could have been avoided.”
Exxon spokesman Todd Spitler emphasized that the shutdowns were due to the freezing weather and curtailment of natural gas supplies. “Any units that remain in operation are dedicated to exporting electricity back into the grid,” he said. Representatives from Valero didn’t respond to a request for comment; a spokesperson for Pioneer declined to comment.
This is the second time in less than six months the Texas oil industry has dealt with mass shutdowns due to extreme weather. The 12 hours after Hurricane Laura hit Port Arthur in August saw the release of more than 2,000 tons of emissions.
“I expect the oil industry is going to have numerous problems restarting, similar to what they encounter after a hurricane, such as damaged cooling towers and other equipment,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates in Houston. “The industry also has to be wary of water freezing and cracking pipes, which could release hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and cause an explosion and fires.”
As of Monday, at least seven Texas refineries were attempting to restart; all of them sustained some weather-related damage, and some still lacked sufficient power to begin the process. More challenges will likely emerge in the coming days, and it may take a few weeks for operations to return to normal.
The heightened risk of explosions are a grim reminder of what followed the onslaught of Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Floods at an Arkema SA chemical plant about 25 miles east of Houston knocked the refrigeration system offline, which imperiled the facility’s store of heat-sensitive organic peroxides. People living within 1.5 miles of the facility evacuated a day before trailers holding the chemicals “spontaneously combusted,” according to a Chemical Safety Board investigation. Arkema did not respond to questions.
The full scope of pollution from restarting petrochemical facilities following the freeze won’t be clear until next month. Companies must file final reports within two weeks, and TCEQ evaluates the disclosures against its rules governing emissions.
TCEQ is responsible for both the state’s air and water, the latter of which is also a concern for leadership. “We’ll examine what worked, what didn’t work so well, and what we can do to make things better next time—or, better yet, prevent it from happening again,” said Toby Baker, the agency’s executive director.
Environmentalists fault the state’s political leadership and oversight agencies with extending the industry too much leeway, potentially endangering people and property as a result. They’re also concerned that this week’s failures won’t be properly investigated to document their causes.
The state regulatory agencies’ approach “means we aren’t going to find out because they’re aren’t going to look,” said Sharon Wilson, Texas organizer for Earthworks, an environmental nonprofit. “We have no reason to believe that they’re going to try to find the pollution fallout from this extreme weather.”
— With assistance by Kevin Crowley
HAMBURG – Nord Stream 2, the almost-finished pipeline running directly from Russia to Germany, is not really about securing cheap natural gas. It is about personal gain and these two countries’ national interest.
The pipeline across the Baltic has pitted the United States and the European Union against Germany, and a swelling chorus of domestic critics against Chancellor Angela Merkel. If it were just a matter of gas molecules, the project might never have seen the light of day. So, why did it?
Go back to 2005, when Gerhard Schröder and Russian President Vladimir Putin sealed the deal just before Schröder stepped down as chancellor. Shortly after handing power over to Merkel, the Russian energy giant Gazprom, essentially a Kremlin affiliate, named Schröder chairman of Nord Stream AG’s shareholders committee. In 2016, Schröder rose to the top of Nord Stream 2, with Gazprom the only shareholder.
Ever since, Schröder has been Putin’s tireless point man. Schöder never tires of repeating that he did it for the good of Germany, because it locked in energy security at decent prices.
In fact, Germany and Western Europe do not need Nord Stream 2. The oil price has more than halved since its 2008 peak. And with ever more new gas fields coming onstream, especially in the Mediterranean, not to mention North America, the price of gas has dropped by almost four-fifths over this period. Nor is the gas glut likely to be temporary, given ever more renewables surging into the market.
There are already 13 pipelines running from Russia to Europe, delivering some 250 billion cubic meters (m3) of gas. Nord Stream 2 will raise dependence on Russia, but much more is at stake, because the pipeline circumvents Ukraine and Poland. For Putin, Ukraine, a former Soviet republic, rightfully belongs to the rodina, the Motherland, and he has already grabbed two pieces: Crimea and the Donbas. Likewise, he believes that Poland, a former satrapy, should be part of Russia’s sphere of influence.
Nord Stream 2 enables Putin to weaken both countries by depriving them of transit fees and breaking Ukraine’s grip on the tap. In 2020, Ukraine earned $3 billion in fees from transporting some 50 billion m3 of gas. Nord Stream 2 could pump about the same amount of gas – a neat coincidence. Schröder’s Gazprom gambit would enable Putin to apply the screws to Ukraine (and Poland), at a time when the government in Kyiv is desperately trying to resist Russian pressure on Ukraine’s already-weak economy.
Schröder was not really thinking of Germany or Europe when he got his friend Putin to top up his modest chancellor’s pension of €93,000 ($113,000) per year. The real puzzle is Merkel. When former US President Donald Trump told her, “You’ve got to stop buying gas from Putin,” she did not budge. An unnamed German official vowed: “We will do anything it takes to complete this pipeline.”
Presumably, energy supplies are not uppermost in Merkel’s mind. This is not about the “low politics” of gas and cash, but the “high politics” of states seeking power and position. Regardless of how often Germans and Russians have been at each other’s throats, the enduring reflex goes back to Bismarck, who famously told the country in the middle: “Never cut the link to St. Petersburg.” In other words, keep the peace with the giant on Germany’s eastern flank.
Though now sheltered by NATO, the Federal Republic has been honoring Bismarck by practicing propitiation, or at least benevolent neutrality. With her fine sense for power, Merkel is not swooning over Russian gas, but sticking to a classic rule of German diplomacy.
Even during the Cold War, West Germany defied three American presidents – Nixon, Carter, and Reagan – by bartering steel pipes for Soviet energy. But what might have made economic sense during the global oil shocks of the 1970s now reflects only Bismarck’s admonition: Don’t rile the Russians.
Today, however, Merkel is acting on a new stage, and not only because of oversupply and dwindling demand as the industrial world shifts to solar, wind, and higher efficiency. Suddenly, Merkel is “home alone.” It is not just the US, Britain, and nervous East Europeans who want to reduce Nord Stream 2 to scrap. Even the French are turning against the deal.
Reliant on nuclear power, France doesn’t need Russian gas. It worries more about Germany’s “special relationship” and Russia’s lengthening shadow over Europe. Just this month, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov threatened to rupture relations with the EU if it imposed new sanctions.
In addition, Merkel faces unprecedented headwinds on her own turf. Even prominent fellow Christian Democrats and the pacifist-minded Greens have turned against Putin. So have parts of the liberal media, which usually zeroes in on imperial America.
Why? Two words: Alexei Navalny. Facing his most dangerous rival yet, Putin has overplayed his hand. The Kremlin’s attempted murder of Navalny, and now the longish prison sentence meted out to him, has rattled Germany’s political class. In democracies, moral revulsion beats Merkel-style realpolitik.
The wheeling and dealing has already begun. Germany is dangling some juicy carrots before Biden, promising to raise subsidies for the construction of German liquefied natural gas terminals that will take in American LNG. Germany also vows to work hard on new rules that would ensure the continued transit of gas through Ukraine. Poland will get funds for LNG terminals. There is talk that Germany would shut off Nord Stream 2 if Russia violated international law and human rights. Please, President Biden, just lift the sanctions.
A deal will be struck. But who will “negotiate” with the energy market? The court of supply and demand may issue this definitive verdict: no need for another pipeline. If so, Nord Stream 2 may just rot away underneath the Baltic – a monument to greed and folly.