Speaker 1: Hey, remember our last episode when we said Joe Mansion
Speaker 1: just sank the president's hopes of getting a climate bill done. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I forget about all that. Today we're doing it about
Speaker 1: face and talking about the climate bill that Mansion now
Speaker 1: supports and what he got in exchange for that support. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome back once again to Parts per Billion, the
Speaker 1: environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host, David Schultz.
Speaker 1: So it's pretty rare, maybe even unheard of, for us
Speaker 1: to talk about the same topic in two consecutive episodes.
Speaker 1: But after last week's podcast on the death of the
Speaker 1: Democratic climate agenda, we couldn't just leave you hanging give
Speaker 1: him what went down after that. As you probably heard
Speaker 1: by now, Democratic leaders have come to an agreement with
Speaker 1: Senator Joe Mansion of West Virginia, the most conservative member
Speaker 1: of their caucus and a crucial vote to pass well
Speaker 1: pretty much anything in barring an unexpected but entirely possible snaffoo,
Speaker 1: it looks like Congress is poisons and a big environmental
Speaker 1: package to the President's desk. So today we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about how this happened, and more importantly, what's actually in
Speaker 1: that package. With Boomberg Law reporter Bobby McGill. Bobby's also
Speaker 1: going to talk about a big investigative story he did
Speaker 1: recently about orphan oil and gas wells that are oozing
Speaker 1: out toxic substances in many backyards across the country. First, though,
Speaker 1: I had to ask him about the Democratic Deal and
Speaker 1: specifically about why Senator Mansion decided to do a one eighty.
Speaker 1: I think what happened was, you know, Mansion got some
Speaker 1: some of what he wanted in terms of fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: and there was this side deal that Um he struck
Speaker 1: with Schumer Um to permit the six point six billion
Speaker 1: dollar Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is a gas pipeline that
Speaker 1: goes across West Virginia. And so he's getting some things
Speaker 1: that he's long champions and are going to benefit his state. So,
Speaker 1: you know, last week when we were on the podcast,
Speaker 1: we talked about what his true intentions were. He said
Speaker 1: that he wasn't supporting this because of inflation concerns. But
Speaker 1: you know, we also know that Senator Mansion has very
Speaker 1: close ties to the fossil fuel industry. I'm gonna ask
Speaker 1: that question again, what was this? You know, did he
Speaker 1: change his mind because he had his inflation fears allayed
Speaker 1: by economists and other people. Or is this really just
Speaker 1: horse trading? You know, he just said, I just want more.
Speaker 1: I can get more, and I'm going to support this
Speaker 1: bill if I get more. I don't really, I don't
Speaker 1: really know. Um, and I think that you know, you
Speaker 1: kind of have to look at what he's getting out
Speaker 1: of this, and um, you know, this isn't necessarily subsidies
Speaker 1: for the coal industry necessarily, So it's it's it's other things.
Speaker 1: I think it might be the you know, he's he's long, um,
Speaker 1: you know, championed continued reliance on fossil fuels and and
Speaker 1: he's getting that. Okay, so we're gonna get into that
Speaker 1: in a little bit, but let's start off with, uh,
Speaker 1: the climate measures that are in this new package that
Speaker 1: Mansion and Senate Democrats in the White House agreed to.
Speaker 1: What exactly UH is in this? Um? You know, if
Speaker 1: this does end up becoming law, what what what climate
Speaker 1: measures will be being there? Well, it's kind of a
Speaker 1: big deal. Um. You know. It includes dollars in oil
Speaker 1: industry taxes, including increased taxes on oil imports and um
Speaker 1: an oil refining tax to ensure you know, that hazardous
Speaker 1: waste is cleaned up. UM. It includes um in uh
Speaker 1: tax credits for electric vehicles, and it scraps uh kind
Speaker 1: of an odd exclusion for high selling electric vehicles. That's
Speaker 1: that's right, and I think, uh, that's really important. As
Speaker 1: we discussed on our sister podcast, Talking Tax, Tesla and
Speaker 1: other automakers had reached the cap they sold too many
Speaker 1: electric vehicles to be eligible for for these tax credits.
Speaker 1: Now that cap has gone, so now you can once again,
Speaker 1: if you buy a Tesla, you can get a tax
Speaker 1: credit from the federal government as a result of this.
Speaker 1: And that's not all it does. I mean beyond electric
Speaker 1: vehicles it um you know, there's their rebates available to
Speaker 1: install heat pumps in your house to to make your homes,
Speaker 1: your your house more energy efficient. Revives solar tax credit
Speaker 1: for rooftop solar. It's you know, it goes a long
Speaker 1: way to making houses much more efficient, which was a
Speaker 1: you know, inefficient homes or a huge source of greenhouts
Speaker 1: gas emissions. So I get this sense. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of what some I consider smaller things in this UM.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not small to the people who benefit
Speaker 1: from them or to the industries that they affect. But
Speaker 1: you know, this started off much much much bigger than
Speaker 1: than it was before. Um, you know it's what I'm
Speaker 1: not hearing our emissions caps, you know on on really
Speaker 1: big polluting industries. Well not only you're not hearing that,
Speaker 1: you're you're you know, seeing some potential expansion of you know,
Speaker 1: polluting industries, including the oily mainly the oil gas industry.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's it's a mixed bag, to be sure.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm glad you brought that up because let's
Speaker 1: get into that now, which is, uh, as we mentioned,
Speaker 1: what did Mansion, Senator Mansion get as a result of
Speaker 1: supporting this this package. So in addition to the climate measures,
Speaker 1: there are also a lot of pro fossil fuel provisions
Speaker 1: in this package. Let's get into that. Well. I think
Speaker 1: ultimately what this is going to do is sort of, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, force the market to determine the future of
Speaker 1: fossil fuels. And the way this works is that it's
Speaker 1: tying uh future renewables development on federal land and waters,
Speaker 1: so offshore wind for example, to um fossil fuels leasing
Speaker 1: specifically oil and gas leasing and so you know the
Speaker 1: Tacco messages, the the Interior Department can't permit wind and
Speaker 1: solar projects without first holding oil and gas lease sales,
Speaker 1: and so this is tied um renewables to fossil fuels
Speaker 1: for the very first time. And it's the thing that
Speaker 1: it's the reason that you see in a lot of
Speaker 1: environmental groups calling this the poison pill. Well, so I
Speaker 1: want to get into that because you and I have
Speaker 1: talked before on this podcast about federal leasing up for
Speaker 1: oil and gas and how the Trump administration really wanted
Speaker 1: to get more and more lands out there that at
Speaker 1: least the Biden administration wanted to. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: probably exaggeration, but at least no lands for oil and
Speaker 1: gas leasing. Um, it's not an exaggeration. Okay, So how
Speaker 1: much interest is there because you know, oil prices are
Speaker 1: high right now, but they could be coming back down
Speaker 1: if there's a recession. Is there enough interest that there
Speaker 1: are people want to bid on these lands and want
Speaker 1: to bid on federal oil and gas trailing. Well, it's
Speaker 1: complicated because you know the thing about so the administration,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration has been forced to hold forced by
Speaker 1: a court to hold at least one series of oil
Speaker 1: and gas lease sales. There was definitely interest there, but
Speaker 1: it was like it was pretty middling. But part of
Speaker 1: that was that the industry knows that, you know, the
Speaker 1: future of leasing on federal lands is uncertain, and that's
Speaker 1: one of the things that this bill does. It it's
Speaker 1: sort of you know, gives them a little bit more certainty. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, prior to the Biden administration, what you
Speaker 1: were seeing was a lot of interest in leasing, and
Speaker 1: a lot of it was speculation. U in places like Nevada,
Speaker 1: where there's not a lot of oil and gas to
Speaker 1: be produced, there's a tiny bit but um, but you
Speaker 1: still had a lot of interest in places like Wyoming
Speaker 1: and North Dakota, and especially southeast New Mexico and Southeast
Speaker 1: New Mexico is really I mean, that's part of the
Speaker 1: Permian Basin. That's kind of kind of where it's at
Speaker 1: right now with with oil and gas production. So, but
Speaker 1: could we see a situation where, you know, because oil
Speaker 1: and gas leasing is now tied to renewable leasing, so
Speaker 1: every time the Interior Department wants to lease some land
Speaker 1: for renewable energy, they also have to you know, lease
Speaker 1: some land for fossil fuels. Could we see this situation
Speaker 1: where supply and demand gets way out of whack and
Speaker 1: the supply is like way outstrips demand, and you see
Speaker 1: these oil and gas leases go for like pennies on
Speaker 1: the dollar. Well, you're already seeing oil and gas leases
Speaker 1: go for pennies on the dollar. Um. You know, the
Speaker 1: most recent oil and gastly sale, there were a bunch
Speaker 1: that were that sold for the minimum bid, which was
Speaker 1: two dollars an acre. So um. But you know, you're
Speaker 1: you're seeing a lot of interest in areas that have
Speaker 1: that have proven um oil and gas deposits. So again,
Speaker 1: like the Permanent Basin or the Baking shale up in
Speaker 1: North Dakota. So let's get back to this bill. Uh,
Speaker 1: it hasn't passed. Its chances are pretty good now that
Speaker 1: Center Mansion has signed on. But anything could happen, of course,
Speaker 1: and one of those things is that environmentalists could choose
Speaker 1: to oppose this bill. I mean, one of the folks
Speaker 1: that we quoted in our story called this a climate
Speaker 1: suicide pact because of all of the fossil fuel provisions here.
Speaker 1: Do you think that if environmentalists come out hard against this,
Speaker 1: that they could stop it from from passing. Well, there's
Speaker 1: no evidence that environmentalists are actually going to do that because, UM,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just judging by the press releases I've
Speaker 1: seen in my my email inbox, there's a number of
Speaker 1: groups that are that are calling for uh, you know,
Speaker 1: support for this bill, and there are others like the
Speaker 1: Center for Biological Diversity calling these you know, oil and
Speaker 1: gas provisions a poison pill in this bill. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there's some truth to that because if you paid
Speaker 1: attention to UM climate science, you know that we've got
Speaker 1: to reduce screenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible. UM.
Speaker 1: The question is like how much if you're tying wind
Speaker 1: development to UM fossil fuels development on federal lands, you know,
Speaker 1: how much is that going to make a difference? Like
Speaker 1: most most oil and gas production in the US comes
Speaker 1: from private lands. So UM, it's unclear. So it seems
Speaker 1: like the uh, you know, a united environmentalist movement against
Speaker 1: this bill might kill it. But the environ anialist movements,
Speaker 1: based on what you just said, is definitely not united
Speaker 1: against this move bill. It's not united, um, and uh
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be fascinating to watch. Finally, I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk about another story that you just wrote,
Speaker 1: which I thought was really fantastic. Orphan oil and gas wells.
Speaker 1: And these are oil and gas wells that at one
Speaker 1: point produced but are not anymore, but have not really
Speaker 1: been sealed up and are still you know, have harmful
Speaker 1: chemicals trickling out of them. Tell me first off, tell
Speaker 1: me a little bit about what's going on there and
Speaker 1: are is there going to be more money to help
Speaker 1: seal up these wells? Yeah? So, UM there's uh four
Speaker 1: point seven billion dollars in the Infrastructure Law to UM
Speaker 1: that was passed last year to help to clean up
Speaker 1: these wells. There are millions of these wells nationwide, and
Speaker 1: the issue with these wells is that they are a
Speaker 1: huge source of methane emissions that contribute to climate change.
Speaker 1: A lot of these are unplugged UM and there are
Speaker 1: also a source of water pollution UM and you know,
Speaker 1: they could potentially explode your house if you have one. UM.
Speaker 1: Most of these are in Appalachia. Were mostly though not
Speaker 1: completely talking about older wells that have been around for
Speaker 1: a hundred years. There's plenty of newer ones to UM,
Speaker 1: especially in the West, but you know, The focus of
Speaker 1: this is is in you know, places like Pennsylvania where
Speaker 1: the oil and gas industry was born in the US
Speaker 1: back in the late eighteen fifties. UM, and uh like
Speaker 1: places like New York and Kentucky and West Virginia and Ohio. UM.
Speaker 1: But you also have a lot of these abandoned wells
Speaker 1: in in Texas and New Mexico and Oklahoma in those places. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And you went to McKean County, Pennsylvania and spoke with
Speaker 1: cheryld Thomas, who hasn't abandoned oil well on her property
Speaker 1: and let's hear from her now, ums, forty yards right there,
Speaker 1: not even forty yards and this is going into the
Speaker 1: water table somehow, coming up out of the ground and
Speaker 1: hitting a crick. This is a direct tributary to Allegheny River.
Speaker 1: So that was Cheryl Thomas in McKean County, Pennsylvania. Is
Speaker 1: there gonna be enough money to uh to to fix this? Uh?
Speaker 1: You just mentioned there's a lot of money in the
Speaker 1: infrastructure bill last year. Is that enough? The answer is no,
Speaker 1: And there probably won't be enough ever to uh to
Speaker 1: locate all of these wells because a lot of them
Speaker 1: people don't know where they are. UM. They know where
Speaker 1: maybe twenty seven thousand or so are and say Pennsylvania. Um.
Speaker 1: But um, this money just scratches the surface. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe Cheryl Thomas will have her well finally plugged. She
Speaker 1: said she had sixty of them on her property. Um,
Speaker 1: most of those have already been plugged, but that one
Speaker 1: just hadn't because it was going to be so expensive,
Speaker 1: you know, possibly more than a million dollars to plug that.
Speaker 1: In other similar wells, they're really hard to get to. UM.
Speaker 1: But you know, there are just so many that you know,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration or in Congress can can throw billions
Speaker 1: of dollars at this problem, and it's it's gonna there's
Speaker 1: just there's just too many to plug. If the federal
Speaker 1: government can't afford to fix this, and I mean to
Speaker 1: say nothing of the states, um, and the private sector
Speaker 1: can't fix this because the companies that dug these wells
Speaker 1: are long gone. Who's left? I mean you know what well?
Speaker 1: I mean this is this is the trade off. You
Speaker 1: you know, the oil and gas industry has been operating
Speaker 1: for well over a century, and you know there are
Speaker 1: long term consequences of of that kind of development. And
Speaker 1: one of those consequences is the possibility that companies are
Speaker 1: not going to um, you know, take care of their
Speaker 1: abandoned the wells that they that they're essentially leaving behind.
Speaker 1: Many of them will just walk away. And you know,
Speaker 1: before there were regulations, that's what a lot of them did. UM.
Speaker 1: And there aren't a lot of records about who those
Speaker 1: companies were and where these wells are. UM. So it's
Speaker 1: an it's an ongoing project. The money represents progress, right,
Speaker 1: some of them are going to get and perhaps thousands
Speaker 1: of them are going to get plugged, but um, many many,
Speaker 1: many others are not. All right. That was Bobby McGill
Speaker 1: speaking with us about the Climate Bill in Congress and
Speaker 1: abandoned oil wells. Thanks Bobby, Thank you. And that's it
Speaker 1: for today's Parts per Billion. If you want more environmental news,
Speaker 1: check us out on Twitter. We use a pretty easy
Speaker 1: to remember handle. It's at Environment. Just that at Environment.
Speaker 1: Today's episode of Parts for Billion was produced by myself,
Speaker 1: David Schultz. Parts for Billion was created by Jessica Coombs
Speaker 1: and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zach Sherwood and
Speaker 1: Chuck McCutcheon. Our executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening everyone. Have you ever thought to yourself, how is
Speaker 1: that legal? Why is that legal? Have you ever seen
Speaker 1: a big trial in the news and wondered what's really
Speaker 1: happening there? Have you ever pondered the question why are
Speaker 1: lawyers the way that they are? And how much money
Speaker 1: do they really make? Anyway, these are the things we
Speaker 1: live and breathe over it. On the Merits, Bloomberg Law's
Speaker 1: weekly legal news podcast. On the Merits looks into the
Speaker 1: biggest stories playing out in the legal industry right now,
Speaker 1: and we feature the finest journalists covering the biggest legal
Speaker 1: stories from across the Bloomberglaw newsroom. You can hear it
Speaker 1: wherever fine podcasts are found. Thanks for listening.