West Virginia’s Orphan Well Problem

Carbon dioxide is by far the largest contributor to climate change, and it comes from recognizable fossil fuel sources such as coal-burning utilities, and automobile tailpipes. Carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, making the climate change it causes not just a current problem, but a future one as well.

But experts say that methane (CH4) is a bigger problem than carbon dioxide (CO2).  While methane dissipates naturally after about 100 years, its pound for pound impact is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide in trapping heat reflected from the Earth’s surface.

Agriculture, including raising of cattle for human consumption and management of animal wastes, is the single largest source of methane. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the second largest source. The U.S. oil and gas industry emits more methane than the total emissions of greenhouse gases from 164 countries combined. These emissions come from leaks in the production and transmission infrastructure, and from leaking unplugged abandoned wells.

Drilling Down on Gas Wells

Oil and gas drilling in West Virginia has been ongoing for 140 years. A huge number of wells were drilled and then abandoned before anyone noticed or cared. While the WV Department of Environmental Protection estimates there are 6,500 orphaned wells in the state, that doesn’t account for the tens of thousands of undocumented wells the West Virginia Geological Survey estimates are scattered throughout our hills and valleys.

Neither orphaned nor abandoned wells produce oil or gas. Abandoned wells still have a solvent owner, while orphaned wells do not, often because the operator has gone out of business. In that case, the responsibility of plugging and remediating these wells falls to the state – and to us as taxpayers.

The Biden Administration’s massive Infrastructure Act provides for funding the orphan well problem. West Virginia will receive $25 million in a first tranche, which should be sufficient to plug 160 of the worst problem wells. We can qualify for more later. All this money is to be used to plug existing orphaned wells, but we are on our own when it comes to preventing future orphans.

Future orphan wells are certain to be created because of the economic structure of the industry. There are 3,163 “producing” wells in West Virginia, those that are producing enough to fund proper upkeep. When those wells near the end of their useful life they are often sold to operators lower on the food chain, who strip the final production capacity from them. There are estimated to be 55,823 “stripper” wells in West Virginia. They produce so little that the operator keeps them alive, sometimes for many years, to avoid clean-up costs.

And the clean-up costs for plugging a well are substantial. The DEP estimates the cost for hiring a contractor to plug a well with concrete to a significant depth is about $125,000. When depleted wells are transferred from the big solvent operators to the marginal ones, the plugging obligation is also transferred. To get a permit to operate a stripper well, the new operator merely needs to obtain a bond worth $5,000. This makes the economic choice starkly in favor of abandoning the well at the end of its life and forfeiting the bond, rather than undertaking the proper plugging.

Why Can’t the Legislature Fix This? 

Bills to adjust the economic incentives for an operator to plug a well have been introduced at the Legislature each of the last six years, but none of them has even made it onto the agenda of the responsible legislative committee.

This year Del. Evan Hansen (Monongalia) and three others have introduced HB 5414, which would condition the issuance of a permit upon the operator either (1) contributing to a plugging escrow fund from out of the cash flow produced by the well, or (2) posting a bond in an amount set by the DEP sufficient to cover the real cost of plugging. Upon its introduction, HB 5414 was assigned to the House Committee on Energy and Manufacturing, where it now sits with no action taken on it.

The Energy and Manufacturing Committee is a powerful House committee chaired by Del. Bill Anderson (Wood). Parkersburg in Wood County is close to the historic center of oil and gas activity in the state. Two other Wood County Delegates sit on the Committee – Bob Fehrenbacher and Scot Heckert.

Instead of putting HB 5414 on the committee’s agenda, Anderson, Fehrenbacher and Heckert have sponsored HB 5076. This bill would exempt operators from the obligation to plug depleted wells “promptly,” as required by law, if they have entered into an agreement with DEP regarding the schedule and details of plugging.  Most importantly, it would eliminate the possibility of lawsuits brought by landowners and other interested persons to enforce the prompt plugging obligation.

And – surprise! – there just happens to be a lawsuit like this pending against Diversified Energy, a large operator of abandoned wells in the state. The lawsuit alleges that Diversified’s business model involves purchasing many low production wells and then delaying its plugging obligation for years to avoid the costs. Whether HB 5076 would end that lawsuit isn’t clear, but it would definitely prevent any future private legal enforcement.

Instead of being stewards of our environment and our groundwater, and protecting the taxpayers of West Virginia, these legislators seem more interested in protecting big gas business. This is a tragedy that, in one form or another, is replayed in this state year after year.

New Energy Jobs Await West Virginia – If We Just Elect the Right Legislators

Anyone who has been to Weirton in the last decade has seen the shuttered steel plant, with its miles of pipelines, squarely in the middle of town. Now there is new life and hope in Weirton thanks to Form Energy’s long-duration battery facility under construction at the steel plant site. Form Energy represents the new energy economy and what is possible for West Virginia.

Form Energy’s batteries harvest and store the electricity created when iron rusts. The long-duration storage batteries can discharge power for about 100 hours, providing needed electric grid stability. The Weirton plant will employ 750 workers in jobs integrated with the energy economy of the future, not in declining fossil fuel industries so typical in West Virginia.

This was a no-brainer for West Virginia, right? Well, no. Politics and downright ignorance conspired to jeopardize the whole deal. The Form Energy story highlights the need for West Virginia voters to elect candidates for office who are sensitive to climate-related issues and who welcome the economic opportunities that are available in the new energy economy.

West Virginia development authorities salivate over practically any potential industrial development. State and local tax credits are liberally used as inducements. The Rockwool plant in Jefferson County is an example. Rockwool’s sweet tax deal breezed through the state’s legislative and regulatory authorities.

Rockwool’s insulation may reduce energy costs, but Rockwool’s operations aren’t a part of the new energy economy. Rockwool uses use natural gas, which isn’t a “clean” fuel no matter what anyone says. Burning natural gas produces 117 pounds of CO₂ per million BTUs (compared with 200 for coal) and is responsible for much of the country’s methane pollution through leaks and accidents.

Yet the Form Energy deal was not as easily accomplished as the one for Rockwool. It required a legislative act to create a supplemental appropriation of $105 million to the state Economic Development Authority. No new taxes were necessary because of available surplus tax revenues from the previous year. Still it was opposed by some legislators.

HB 2882 was introduced in the West Virginia House of Delegates to authorize the supplemental appropriation. This bill passed the House by a vote of 69-25. Del. Bill Ridenour (R-Jefferson) frustrated climate activists and most of his Republican colleagues by voting No.

In the Senate critics questioned the use of taxpayer funds to support a “green energy” company. Sen. Rupie Phillips (R-Logan) called the deal a “pig with lipstick.” He argued that coal severance taxes supported the state’s finances and said, “This is coal money we’re giving to a woke company.” His attitude could be the poster child for self-defeating, extreme ideology.

Some Senators who should know better, such as Patricia Rucker (R-Jefferson), voted No. Other Senators, such as Mike Azinger (R-Wood) and Robert Karnes (R-Upshur), always vote against anything progressive. Nevertheless, HB 2882 passed the Senate 21-13 and was signed by Governor Justice.

In late 2022, Berkshire Hathaway Corporation announced a solar-powered micro-grid facility in Jackson County that will use renewable energy to run an aerospace industry manufacturing plant. This plant will be located in the long-shuttered Ravenswood aluminum plant.

Other manufacturing plants attracted to the site by the clean power available through the micro-grid are expected. A drive past the Berkshire Hathaway Ohio River site, now under construction, reveals a jaw-dropping scope. A similar sense is created by seeing the size of the Black Rock wind power project in Grant and Mineral counties.

Young West Virginians searching for a reason to stay in the state need look no further than career opportunities in the new energy economy. There is a bright future for our state if it embraces clean-energy technologies during the painful winding down of our coal and gas economy. This can only be done if policymakers in the Legislature and the executive branch get on board. It is our job as voters to ensure they do.

What Is Governing, and What Is Not

In late September we were treated to a show by the far-right Chaos Caucus of the Republican Party led by Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. This nearly devolved into an actual government shutdown, causing misery among people who depend on government employment. Columnist David Brooks – himself a conservative Republican — called Gaetz and his group nihilistic performance artists.

What is motivating these disrupters? The charitable explanation is that they sought some policy objective they couldn’t achieve in the normal way, although their objective changed from day to day and was never well explained. The less charitable explanation is that they sought nothing more than camera time. A recent piece in The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Gaetz’s audience and priorities are different than the rank and file Republican, “Gaetz is going for attention, TV interviews, fundraising.”

In early October a subset of disrupters caused the removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy for committing the sin of working with Democrats to pass bi-partisan funding legislation. This is the first time in our history a Speaker has been removed. Perhaps McCarthy deserved it because his word has been like sand between your fingers.  But the whole episode suggests that House Republicans can’t even govern themselves, much less help with governing the nation.

It is remarkable that the Democrats in the House are not the target of the obstructionists. It is their own party. Most Republican House members, including their leaders, didn’t want to shut down the government because they knew there would be a political price to pay and their party would pay it. And most in the House Republican caucus are furious with Gaetz and his disrupters for upending McCarthy.

It seems like any positive legislative proposal these days must endure a gauntlet filled with warlords and highwaymen ready to exact a ransom. We can all agree that obstructionist grandstanding and political extortion is not governing. But what type of governing behavior do we have a right to expect from elected officials of both parties?

The answer is squarely in front of us. This country is supposed to operate on majoritarian principles. The exceptions are the minority protections carved out in the Bill of Rights and the design of the U.S. Senate, which gives tiny states the same representation as enormous ones.

Legislation should move, or not move, based on whether there is a majority of legislators supporting it. The House of Representatives has 435 members, while the Chaos Caucus is only 10 representing a mere 2% of the population. If a legislator isn’t in the majority on an issue, then her task is to persuade others to change their views, not throw a wrench into the works because she can’t get her way.

Political hostage taking and obstructionism is simply not acceptable governing behavior. Temper tantrums should get no respect.

The hostage taking is not limited to the House of Representatives. It is also taking place in the Senate and even in the Jefferson County Commission.  Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville has held up 300 military promotions for weeks because he is trying to force a policy change at the Pentagon. Tuberville, of course, can’t claim to be governing. Nobody thinks his one-man blockade is a great idea and his own party will soon put a stop to it.

The extortionists and performance artists on the national stage have gotten so much attention that now some Jefferson County Commissioners have copied their behavior. Two out of four Commissioners showed up for business at the September 21, 28 and October 5 meetings. The other two – Tricia Jackson and Jennifer Krouse – made themselves absent to deny the Commission a quorum. They claimed this was in protest of an abuse of power by Commission President Stolipher, who failed to put two items on the agenda they wanted. No County business was transacted because Jackson and Krouse didn’t get their way. That was really mature, wasn’t it?

Good governance can’t be defined by referring to a particular policy outcome, say tightened border security or the enactment of an environmental law. Historically, the policy objectives of both the left and the right have been achieved through good governance. That is because good governance is a process, not a particular outcome. It is about respect for institutions. Good governance is building, not destroying. It is about persuasion and coalition building, not extortion.

How to Move a Sofa

I have always admired the modern political philosopher Chris Rock. Late one evening a couple of years ago, I was watching one of his comedy specials and he was talking about how to get things done even when you are at war with your spouse.  Concluding that biting his tongue and cooperating was the way forward, he said “It’s a hell of a lot easier for two people to move a sofa than for one person to do it.”

I laughed at the time, but this comedic riff stuck with me. Eventually I came to realize that this was the simple, clear answer to a political controversy that has consumed us for half a century. That controversy has been about whether we are we all in this together, or whether it is every man for himself.

When we have the luxury to debate this question – before the chips are really down – we are treated to a lot of blather about how this country is all about strong individuals with the constitutional right to do what they please without government intercession. This is the John Wayne myth of American politics. It is the libertarian ideal that gets played out in legislative debates in Charleston and Washington. It is the Fox News playbill.

But all too often we don’t have that luxury. All too often, like at this exact moment in our history, the individual approach to solving problems not only doesn’t work, it is downright dangerous. How do you like the guy who refuses to social distance or to cease business activity, not because he is essential like a hospital nurse, but because he believes the coronavirus is a hoax perpetrated by Democrats to defeat Donald Trump? Or because he believes that government has no right to tell him what he can and can’t do?

Take, for example, Jerry Falwell, Jr., President of Liberty University. On Friday, March 13, as students were preparing to leave for spring break, Falwell Jr. dismissed the virus as “hype” and told students he saw no reason to close campus. The next Monday, he said most classes would go online after all, but students were welcome back on campus. Shortly after that, nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19. Residents of the city of Lynchburg, Virginia, where Liberty is located, were enraged.

This kind of uber-individual thinking and behavior sticks out like a sore thumb in times of crisis. There is no room for it. Those who make law and policy in times of crisis know this. In times of war, we draft the unwilling. In times of pandemic, we enforce quarantines and curfews. But my point is not that top-down edicts solve problems by controlling recalcitrant individuals. It is that problems at all times, large and small, are more effectively solved collectively. In other words, when the planet’s most successful social animal remembers how it got to be so successful.

So when this is all over, we can go back to the usual debate about freedom and individual rights versus collective rights and socialism. We’ll be able to do that, I sincerely hope, because the danger has passed and we can afford to be a bit frivolous. But we will be able to cut through the debate at a moment’s notice by asking ourselves how important our objective really is. Is it moving a sofa or moving a nation? If our objective is hugely important – maybe existential – we know the answer. We have demonstrated time and again that the collective approach is the only way. After all, we are in this together.

Developing Your Fake News Detector

News comes at us every day from every direction, and from every imaginable source, as well as some we may not have imagined. To deal with this, critical thinking on our part is more important than ever.

We hear the term fake news a lot. It means a false story that appears in the media or on the internet that is intended to manipulate political views or behavior.

But legitimate news and commentary can also influence our views or actions, and some of it is intended to do so. Given the amount of information that is shoveled our way, how do we tell if an article or news story is real news or manure?

Academics weighing in on the subject suggest that we should do an extensive Google search of the source, the subject and the author, which is, no doubt, the best way to get an objective and definitive answer.

As a psychologist, I am less concerned with how we get a definitive answer than I am with how we decide to ask the question —  that first whiff that makes us wonder if we’re about to step in a cow pie.

If you don’t have an effective fake news detector, Google can’t help you, because you won’t bother to initiate a search.

Effective fake news detection involves asking yourself pointed questions about everything you hear and read.

Here are some of my favorites:

WHY IS HE TELLING ME THIS?

This first question opens the mental door to critical thinking. In the world of psychotherapy where I work, everything happens for a reason, whether conscious or unconscious. People rarely say things without an agenda. Think about what that agenda might be.

Every form of communication is a transaction.  Ideas are being sold for a profit.  Always ask yourself what is it he is trying to sell me and what does it cost?  Who gains if I believe the story?

IS HE TRYING TO ELICIT EMOTIONS?

If what you hear or read scares you or angers you, remember the more emotion you feel, the less effectively you think.

Purveyors of fake news don’t want you to think.  Some will tell you that you’re really smart to be scared or angry.  This is not neurologically possible, but it is often an effective way to get you to believe that a complex situation is actually simple.

The really dangerous ones will simply toss out false scenarios and let your fear, anger, or prejudice fill in the blanks.

Incitement to emotion is often disguised as an appeal to common sense, implying that you are stupid if you don’t believe.

WHAT EXACTLY IS HE TELLING ME?

Now that you’re thinking rather than being swayed by emotion.  Pay attention to specific content.  Is your source relaying facts or opinions?  Or perhaps opinions disguised as facts.  The devil is always in the details.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

Facts require observable evidence; fake news doesn’t.  The best evidence can be independently verified.  The more sources, the better. The worst evidence demands only that you take someone’s word.

That is why hearsay – an out-of-court statement by someone who is not present to be cross-examined — is not considered evidence in a courtroom.  It is unreliable.

Suppose the question is whether animals have the capacity to reason in some fashion. A statement that is prefaced by “many people think” or “our sources tell us” should raise red flags. We should be more comfortable with a statement that begins “Jane Goodall, who spent a lifetime working with Chimpanzees, says that . . .” We know who Jane Goodall is, or can check up on her if we don’t.

But we should be cautious about the “experts.” Somewhere, there must be an Institute of Good Science, whose members can be hired to testify that sugar is good for you, cigarettes don’t cause cancer or that global warming is a hoax. This just shows that experts have an agenda too. Often it is personal profit.

Beware also of personal attacks masquerading as evidence.  In formal debate an ad hominem argument is tantamount to throwing in the towel.

Many times the evidence offered for fake news is, at the very least, equivocal.  Saying that something is true because it’s in the Constitution or the Bible is not valid evidence without at least citing article, chapter and verse.  Also, bear in mind that the Constitution and the Bible are purposely ambiguous, inviting deeper thought and meditation.  If it were not so, we wouldn’t need theologians and Supreme Court Justices.  Media personalities could make everything clear.

IS IT FEASIBLE?

Conspiracy theories are fun, but if you think carefully, they require hundreds of people to keep a secret.  How many people do you know that are capable of that?

A good example of a conspiracy theory that is totally unfeasible is voter fraud. How much would it cost, and how much infrastructure would be needed to pull off enough voter impersonation to swing an election?  And how could you find all these people willing to commit a felony? What would you have to pay them? And how could the whole process be kept totally secret?  And how would you conceal all the money involved? How would you arrange for all the buses?

DOES IT SOUND TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?

Money for nothing, effortless weight loss, tax cuts that pay for themselves – if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Snake oil is the quintessential example of this kind of fake news.  It is usually sold as a secret cure that real doctors don’t want you to know about.  Another conspiracy that plays on the cherished belief that training and expertise are unnecessary if you have what fake news purveyors pass off as common sense.

SHOULD I BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE?

Real common sense involves critical thinking.  If you have read this far and are asking this question, you are well on your way to developing an effective fake news detector.  May the force be with you.

 

Al Bernstein is a clinical psychologist, author and business consultant living in Portland, Oregon. Read more about his work at albernstein.com.