{"id":206516,"date":"2017-07-19T04:30:38","date_gmt":"2017-07-19T08:30:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/will-the-gulf-of-mexico-remain-a-dumping-ground-for-offshore-ecowatch\/"},"modified":"2017-07-19T04:30:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T08:30:38","slug":"will-the-gulf-of-mexico-remain-a-dumping-ground-for-offshore-ecowatch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/offshore\/will-the-gulf-of-mexico-remain-a-dumping-ground-for-offshore-ecowatch\/","title":{"rendered":"Will the Gulf of Mexico Remain a Dumping Ground for Offshore &#8230; &#8211; EcoWatch"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    By Mike Ludwig  <\/p>\n<p>    As the Trump    administration moves to gut Obama-era clean water    protections nationwide, an environmental group is warning the    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its draft    pollution discharge permit for offshore    drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico violates clean    water laws because it allows operators to dump fracking chemicals and    large volumes of drilling wastewater directly    into the Gulf.  <\/p>\n<p>    In a recent letter to the agency, the Center    for Biological Diversity told the EPA that the dumping of    drilling wastewaterwhich can contain fracking chemicals,    drilling fluids and pollutants, such as heavy metalsdirectly    into Gulf waters is unacceptable and prohibited under the Clean    Water Act.  <\/p>\n<p>    Under current rules established by the Obama administration,    offshore oil and gas platforms can discharge well-treatment    chemicals and unlimited amounts of \"produced waters\" from    undersea wells directly into the Gulf as long as operators    perform toxicity tests a few times a year and monitor for    \"sheens\" on the water's surface. About 75 billion gallons of    produced water were dumped in the Gulf in 2014 alone, according    to EPA records.  <\/p>\n<p>    Offshore fracking, which typically involves injecting water and    chemicals at high pressure into undersea wells to improve the    flow of oil and gas, has rapidly expanded in the Gulf of Mexico    over the past decade. The latest draft of the pollution    discharge permit, which was largely prepared under the Obama    administration, would require drillers to collect information    on the fracking chemicals they dump overboard. Regulators want    to know what these chemicals are; their catalogue of offshore    fracking chemicals has not been updated since 2001, despite    advancements in technology.<\/p>\n<p>    \"It's absolutely appalling that EPA is letting oil companies    dump fracking wastewater into the Gulf without any idea of the    types of chemicals being discharged, or their effects on sea    turtles, sturgeon or the other marine life that call Gulf    waters home,\" said Kristen Monsell, an attorney for the Center    for Biological Diversity, in an email to Truthout.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Center for Biological Diversity, is also fighting offshore    fracking     off the coast of California, where a federal court on    Friday rejected the Trump administration's effort to dismiss    legal challenges to fracking in the Santa    Barbara Channel. The Center for Biological Diversity, along    with other environmental groups and the state of California, argue in separate    lawsuits that federal regulators did not do enough to study and    mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore fracking before    allowing operators to use the technology in Pacific waters.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Center for Biological Diversity may have trouble convincing    the EPA to change the draft pollution discharge permit for the    Gulf of Mexico without taking the agency to court. Under the    leadership of Scott Pruitt, a    Trump-appointee with close ties to polluting industries, the    EPA is working to gut environmental regulations with the    explicit intent of maximizing fossil fuel production.  <\/p>\n<p>    Republicans Put Clean Water Rule in the    Crosshairs  <\/p>\n<p>    Pruitt is currently working to repeal the Clean Water Rule, an    Obama-era regulation expanding the number of tributaries and    wetlands located upstream from major bodies of water that are    protected by the Clean Water Act. According to the Obama-era    EPA, drinking water for one-third of the country's population    originates from such sources. However, farmers, agribusinesses    and developers fear the rule would expand federal oversight to    small bodies of water and interfere with private property    rights. A federal court has blocked implementation of the rule    until legal questions are resolved.  <\/p>\n<p>    In late June, Pruitt released a proposal for rescinding the    Clean Water Rule, which would leave federal regulators with the    same definition of protected waters that has been in place    since the late 1980s. It's the first step    in a lengthy process that is required by law to include a    scientific review and public input. However, Republicans in    Congress are working to waive these requirements.  <\/p>\n<p>    Last week, the House Appropriations Committee, lead by Idaho    Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, approved an energy and water    appropriations bill containing a rider that would waive the    federal administrative requirements for rescinding the Clean    Water Rule. The bill would also cut funding for energy    efficiency initiatives while investing in nuclear energy and    weapons programs.  <\/p>\n<p>    If passed in its current form, the legislation would allow    Pruitt to rescind the rule without responding to public    comments or justifying the rulemaking with an extensive record    of scientific facts. The legislation could also make it much    more difficult for environmental groups to challenge Pruitt's    legal rationale for rescinding the rule in court.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"The Trump administration's proposal to allow more pollution    into America's drinking water sources is senseless,\" said John    Rumpler, a senior attorney and clean water director at Environment America, in a statement. \"For Congress    to exempt such a move from the law is simply beyond the pale.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Water Pollution and the Gulf of Mexico  <\/p>\n<p>    Under the Clean Water Act, polluters must receive a permit from    the EPA or state regulators before discharging pollutants into    a body of water under federal jurisdiction. If the Clean Water    Rule were to somehow survive the Trump administration, it would    extend these requirements further upstream in many parts of the    country's interior.  <\/p>\n<p>    In the Gulf of Mexico, which hosts the nation's highest    concentration of offshore drilling platforms, one general water    pollution permit is issued every five years or so for the    entire industry. It's a draft of this permit that is currently    under fire from environmentalists because it would allow the    dumping of fracking chemicals and \"produced water\" from oil and    gas wells.  <\/p>\n<p>    Offshore fracking has been used to maximize production in    more than 1,000 Gulf wells. Over the past    eight years, the Obama administration approved hundreds of    frack jobs without taking a close look at the technology's    impacts on the environment, at least until recently. Offshore    fracking is typically much smaller in scale than its    controversial onshore cousin, but recent investigations into the practice    drew public attention to the industry's habit of dumping    billions of gallons of drilling wastewater into the ocean every    year.  <\/p>\n<p>    A review of the draft water pollution permit for oil and gas    operations in the Gulf reveals how difficult it can be to    uphold federal clean water standards in remote areasor in this    case, out on the open sea. Oil and gas operators are allowed to    dump an unlimited amount of wastewater overboard, but certain    conditions must be met in order to keep water quality near    drilling platforms within federal standards.  <\/p>\n<p>    Under the draft permit, offshore drillers would be required to    run toxicity tests of the produced water and other fluids    dumped overboard twice a year. If the fluid fails to pass the    test, it would be considered a permit violation, and operators    must conduct monthly tests until the situation improves.    Operators would also be required to look for \"sheens\" on the    surface of the water and figure out what is causing them.  <\/p>\n<p>    In addition, they would either need to collect information on    any fracking chemicals they dump overboard and share it with    regulators, or participate in an \"industry-wide study\" on    offshore fracking. Regulators would then use this data to    determine whether limits for those chemicals will be needed in    the future.  <\/p>\n<p>    The draft permit tightens several monitoring requirements, but    Monsell says it does not go far enough to protect water    quality. Plus, the monitoring would largely be conducted by the    industry itself, out on the open water.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"The Trump administration can't just let the oil industry    self-regulate, or we're all in huge trouble,\" Monsell said.    \"And the toxicity testing doesn't prevent the chemicals from    being dumped in the first place, and the testing requirement    doesn't even coincide with the dumping of fracking chemicals.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Monsell added that toxicity testing is not required at the    source of the wastewater, but at the edge of a 100-meter    \"mixing zone\" where the discharge mingles with ocean waters    below the platform. This is a major concern because there are    thousands of platforms operating in the Gulf, and the EPA has    \"no clue\" about the cumulative impact of various \"mixing zones\"    because officials have yet to completely study the issue. She    argues that the EPA must seek to understand the impacts of    fracking chemicals and other pollutants before allowing    discharges, not after the fact.  <\/p>\n<p>    Monsell and the Center for Biological Diversity, sent a letter    of concern to the EPA last week as a public comment period on    the draft permit came to a close. A spokesman for the EPA's    regional office in Houston told Truthout in an email that    officials would consider all the comments they have received as    they work to finalize the permit.  <\/p>\n<p>    Reposted with permission from our media associate Truthout.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read the original: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ecowatch.com\/offshore-fracking-waste-2461503088.html\" title=\"Will the Gulf of Mexico Remain a Dumping Ground for Offshore ... - EcoWatch\">Will the Gulf of Mexico Remain a Dumping Ground for Offshore ... - EcoWatch<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> By Mike Ludwig As the Trump administration moves to gut Obama-era clean water protections nationwide, an environmental group is warning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its draft pollution discharge permit for offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico violates clean water laws because it allows operators to dump fracking chemicals and large volumes of drilling wastewater directly into the Gulf. In a recent letter to the agency, the Center for Biological Diversity told the EPA that the dumping of drilling wastewaterwhich can contain fracking chemicals, drilling fluids and pollutants, such as heavy metalsdirectly into Gulf waters is unacceptable and prohibited under the Clean Water Act.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/offshore\/will-the-gulf-of-mexico-remain-a-dumping-ground-for-offshore-ecowatch\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187814],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-206516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-offshore"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206516"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}