Saturday, December 28, 2019

Evangelicals Faustian Bargain with Trump




“We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.” - Thurgood Marshall


As someone who once considered himself a born again Christian and studied the Bible from cover to cover, I am both saddened and yet not surprised that fundamentalist evangelical Christians continue to support the presidency of Donald J. Trump, even as they acknowledge his past and current despicable behavior.

The politicizing of religious faith has always been a condition for human suffering.  Above all of their commands to make love and tolerance their primary motivation, these virtues will always be undermined by those elements within the faith that limit love and tolerance to an exclusive and rigid set of guidelines.  Anyone who does not comfortably sit within those narrow parameters is ostracized and branded as a social pariah.

It was this conflicting set of values that ultimately led to my severing with the institution of Christianity.  I was once told by a member of my Methodist congregation that I could not call myself a Democrat AND a Christian, because many Democrats supported abortion. 

I was reprimanded by my Bible study leader at one time, telling me that they would not tolerate any position that questioned the Gospels claim to Jesus’ divinity.  And when I challenged the pastor’s authority to prevent a new member’s child from going on a church ski trip because she had been associated with others who smoked pot, one of whom was the pastor’s own daughter, I was charged with allowing Satan to influence my motivations.

It didn’t matter that I had led a bible study group for those incarcerated in our local jail or that I worked several months a year for five years chairing and actively engaging community resources for a Christmas Toy Store our church had organized years ago to bring a little joy into the lives of children in low income families.

The only thing that seems to matter for many orthodox Christians today, as opposed to their earlier views, is that their political leaders do all they can to stop the abortions of unwanted pregnancies, even in cases of rape and incest.  They are engaging in a Faustian bargain to forego their higher moral code for Trump’s willingness to appoint pro-life judges as they dismiss his violation to his oath of office and his never ending unsavory character.

Though some Christians have bravely spoken out in favor of Trump’s removal from office, even believing as many Republicans claim that “Democrats have had it out for him from day one”, they none the less see his actions regarding the Ukrainian quid pro quo as a threat to our Constitution that asserts no one is above the law.

Pro-life advocate Paul D. Miller who called for Trump’s conviction and removal stated that if the GOP-controlled Senate acquits Trump, which will likely happen, it “would mean that, over time, a future president can abuse his power, obstruct justice, commit perjury, profit from office, defy Congress, ignore subpoenas, ...  and disregard truth with impunity, firm in the knowledge that he faces no accountability, no check, no balance, no consequence, and no higher law.”

In his farewell op-ed as Christianity Today’s outgoing  editor in chief, Mark Galli implored evangelicals to, “Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior.”

Their failure to do so will not only further erode Christianity’s moral foundation but will have the propensity to cancel out what many of them voted for Trump in the first place - their belief that he would “make  America great again”.

Thursday, December 26, 2019

The Late Great American Republic




“The reason many are not shocked about [Trump’s abuse of power] is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration.” - Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today

Abraham Lincoln, the first President of the newly-formed Republican Party, once opined that “If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat and reassert, that two and two do not make four, I know nothing in the power of argument that can stop him.”

Through out the House Impeachment hearings - and I’m sure the same will be echoed in the Senate trial - Republicans have claimed that Democrats have always wanted to impeach Donald Trump because they don’t like him or his policies.  It’s a thinly supported narrative they keep repeating about a dissenting minority not unlike a similar number within their own ranks who sought to impeach Obama shortly after he was inaugurated.

A serious look however at events gives strong credence to another claim - that impeachment for the president was inevitable once the GOP failed to muster the backbone to prevent the nomination going to a charlatan like Trump who appealed to there baser instincts rather than there better angels.

 Republicans are now officially the character-doesn’t-count party, the personal-responsibility-just-proves-you-have-failed-to-blame-the-other-guy party, the deficit-doesn’t-matter party, the Russia-is-our-ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. Yes, it’s President Trump’s party now, but it stands only for what he has just tweeted.   - Stuart Stevens, GOP political consultant

Republican leaders knew full well that the TV reality star had a past filled with unethical and failed business practices as well as his shameless personal behavior, yet failed to shine a spotlight on what a recent Christianity Today Op-ed piece called his “grossly immoral character”.

Trump’s history of corrupt behavior during his days as a brash, young Manhattan real estate magnate had flagged him as a potential person of interests subject to investigations into wrong doing.  This history followed him into his presidential campaign as he became linked with a Russian effort to influence the 2016 elections.

The social media echo chambers that beget most political opinions in this country glided over the debased character of a man who would use his “brand” to rob hopeful people of a higher education through his Trump University scam and use donated funds to Trump’s charity “to advance the interests of the Trump campaign.”  

Through out most of Trump’s adult life he has religiously followed the advice of his now deceased mentor Roy Cohn, a man considered as “pure evil” by some contemporaries.  Cohn’s modus operandi, as has become Trump’s, is to deny everything and “to scare potential adversaries with hollow threats and spurious lawsuits.”

The degree by which these tactics became fantastically absurd and humanely demeaning was only limited by how willing others were to propagate them.  This limitation was overcome with great success by the media attention he got, who it seemed couldn’t get enough of Trump’s theatrics, and by the enabling crowds at his numerous rallies who cheered and applauded his comments that leaped beyond the ethical lines of decency.  The prevailing attitude that evolved was that “we don’t care what he does or says, just as long as he accomplishes what we feel will make America great again”.

It’s a lowering of the bar that disregards the future implications for our way of life and our republican form of government.  It is naive to believe that you can elect the class clown who bullies everyone then pretend he has left all off that behind.

The once great Party of Lincoln has completely lost its soul and can never again point a credible finger at any wrong doing of their political rivals.  There no longer exists a viable two-party system.  A avoid has been created for thoughtful conservatives of the Eisenhower and John McCain mold that will likely remain in the foreseeable future.

And through all of this, Russia and China sit back and watch with the hope that their dreams of a weakened America will soon put them in the driver’s seat that controls world events.

Monday, December 16, 2019

A Double Standard for Sheriff Murphree?






“The most violent element in society is ignorance”  -  Emma Goldman



I find it incomprehensible why Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphree would pursue
 “crafting a resolution that would declare Denton County a ‘Second Amendment sanctuary” in a state that already allows “any person, no matter what age, [to] possess a firearm as long as they are not a felon”.  With some of the least restrictive laws of all the states, it’s not clear how such an action serves the public interest to protect those who could be targeted under a red flag law.

Texas is a pro-NRA state with a governor and state legislature that leans heavily toward  legislation which ensures that gun industry’s sales do not diminish, even with purchasers who demonstrate a propensity to harm people.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first signed into law in 1994,  “provided federal funds for services offered to survivors of domestic and sexual violence [that] enhanced the training of law enforcement officers in the area of sexual and domestic violence, and strengthened penalties for certain sexual crimes ...”   This law has been reauthorized several times since 1994, often with adjustments or modifications.  The latest amendment being offered is what has the NRA apoplectic.

In April 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced legislation to reauthorize the act with modifications that, among other things, lowered the criminal threshold for barring the purchase of firearms by closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and restricting the sale of guns to individuals convicted of stalking.  This lower threshold would seek to prevent “someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking charges [where] current law applies [only] to felony convictions.” 

Current statistics show that 72% of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner with 94% of the victims of these murder suicides are female. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. 

For Sheriff Murphree to go out of his way to safeguard the 2nd amendment rights of those who’ve demonstrated the potential to inflict serious harm and death on their intimate partner is at odds with candidate Murphree back in 2016  who once said “that he’d beat the hell out of a transgender person who tried to piss in a bathroom where Murphree’s daughter was peeing.”

It was an over-zealous reaction to what was then being discussed about allowing transgender people to use the public bathroom that they identify with.  At the time, Murphree stated that “I identify as an overprotective father that loves his kids and would do anything to protect them” 

Despite this violent posturing posed by a member of law enforcement, one can share the emotion as a parent towards someone they feel might conceivably harm their child.  Why then this willingness to protect children but not adult female victims?  Would Murphree not feel similar rage if, in the future, his adult daughter became a victim of gun violence from a jealous boyfriend?

The threat of gun violence has set the U.S. apart from every other industrialized nation making it one of the most dangerous places in the world to live and raise a family. Adding any more protections for gun owners is overkill.  

Murphree needs to broaden his concern for innocent victims to include all daughters, wives and mothers.  That doesn’t happen when you empower unstable individuals under the guise of the 2nd amendment.

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Burgess Needs to put Constitution & constituents before Trump

Trump and his Republicans toadies 
with Burgess just to his right


"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley


So the plan for Michael Burgess and his Republican cohorts in the House and Senate is to attack the impeachment process while ignoring the substance of it.  No one from either Party ever relishes the extreme measures that impeachment calls for.  But to denigrate it’s Constitutional authority as “a sham” is a desperate measure by the GOP that may well relegate them to a level of infamy that mires them for generations.

How did the testimonies of eleven credible State Dept. and NSC officials, under oath, not convince Burgess that president Trump had abused the power of that office?

FACT: Trump has refused Judiciary Chairman Nadler’s invitation for the president or his attorneys to address this tribunal and forbidden pertinent White House staff to respond to House subpoenas who could conceivably speak to his defense.  What innocent person would not take advantage of these opportunities?

FACT: Trump’s own hand-picked ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, testified under oath that there was a quid prop quo, asking Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a favor that entailed a trip to the White House and funds for military arms in exchange for a bogus corruption investigation on Joe Biden, a contrived conspiracy charge originating in right-wing media sources that investigative reporter Jane Mayer laid out in her Oct. 14th New Yorker piece.

I also find it difficult to believe that Burgess’ reservations are based upon anything his Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee said or did.  Between ranking member David Nunes and congressional pit bull Jim Jordan, there was little to nothing they did or said outside of impugning the witnesses credibility and planting seeds for another right-wing conspiracy.  FACT: A conspiracy originating from Russian Security Services about Ukraine interfering with our 2016 elections rather than the Kremlin, as attested to by every U.S. intelligence agency.

Perhaps Burgess takes Trump’s word at face value when he repeats the dubious claim that he told Sondland that he “wanted nothing.  I want no quid pro quo.”

FACT: The veracity of this comment is marginalized by the reality that he did so only after a whistle blower exposed this abuse of power and “according to an administration official”, no record on White House switchboard logs exists that shows such a conversation between Trump and Sondland occurred.

The possibility that this was a fabrication of Trump’s doing is not unlikely at all, based on his on-record, prolific lies over the years.  Most recently his denial that he ever sent Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to press the Ukraine government into opening an investigation into the Bidens.

FACT: This whopper was conveyed in a Bill O’Reilly podcast where O’Reilly point blank asked Trump, “You didn’t direct [Rudy Giuliani] to go to Ukraine on your behalf”? and the president emphatically said “NO”. 

But the READ THE TRANSCRIPT crowd knows Trump’s July 26th phone call to President Zelenskyy has him telling the Ukrainian president that he will have Giuliani call him.  “I will ask him to call you,” the president says,  “along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy.

It’s dishonest and disingenuous for Burgess and members of his Party to suggest that this impeachment hearing is illegitimate.  Would his perception be fundamentally different if similar testimonies were aimed at President Obama or even a President Biden,  Warren or Sanders?

Burgess owes his constituents an honest, objective assessment of the facts in this impeachment process, not some baseless, emotional sentiment that diminishes his own credibility and smears the democratic principles he’s sworn to uphold. 

Monday, November 25, 2019

One of Many False Narratives




For anyone whose paid close attention to the public testimonies of State Department and National Security Intelligence representatives during the U.S. House’s Impeachment inquiry hearings, it becomes confidently clear how the president’s action beginning in early 2019 were aimed almost solely to bribe Ukrainian officials to find dirt on Joe Biden.  Through the use of back channel proxies headed by Rudy Giuliani and a couple of lickspittle thugs, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman efforts were made to create a false narrative that not only benefitted Trump’s 2020 election prospects but threw our democracy under the bus.

There are so many details to consume and process in this American tragedy that it would overwhelm and discourage the average lay person to draw rationale conclusions, something that is part and parcel to Trump and GOP efforts in the hopes that his crimes will disappear from the American consciousness.

So let’s discuss one aspect to what’s being said in Trump’s campaign to mislead the American public.  Back on November 21st the president called the FOX talk show FOX and Friends and made the following statements:

“A lot of it had to do, they say, with Ukraine,” Trump said. “They have the server, right? From the DNC ... they gave the server to CrowdStrike — or whatever it’s called — which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian, and I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?”   

When F&F host Steve Doocy pushed the president by asking him “Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?” the president responded with “Well, that’s what the word is,” employing the use of hearsay - the very thing GOP critics claimed about the testimonies of Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and current U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor.

So what was Trump distorting here?  Well, below is a transcript of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes  who spelled it out on his televised town hall last week:

Crowdstrike is NOT a Ukrainian company.  It’s an American company co-founded by a guy born in Russia who became an American citizen.  It is a publicly listed cyber-security company based in Silicon Valley in good ole Sunnyvale California.

They currently have a contract with the Republican Party.  They do digital security services for Fortune 500 companies all over the country and they happen to have had a client back in 2016, the Democratic National Committee who got hacked, in 2016.  And the DNC hired Crowdstrike to do the analysis of what happened, who and how they got hacked. 

Crowdstrike was the first people to say “we looked at it, analyzed, found the culprit, saying Russia hacked the DNC.  In effect, they were the ones who blew the whistle on Russia

Contrary to US Intelligence and special prosecutor Mueller, Russia didn’t actually hack the DNC.  Instead the DNC hacked its own server, leaked their own emails which got their head of the DNC fired.  And then in partnership with Crowdstrike they created a story framing the Russians for the hack they did of themselves.  And then they refused to let anyone investigate it and so they shipped the physical server with the evidence over to Ukraine.  With this ludicrous conspiracy theory, Trump and his sycophants in Congress are in effect saying that America attacked itself to disrupt the 2016 vote.

After hearing this I wanted to laugh while equally feeling compelled to shout in rage.  The entire notion of Ukraine attempting to disrupt and subvert our elections is, as Leona Hill stated in her testimony on 11/21, “a fictional narrative that’s been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Security Services themselves”.  To hear the President of the U.S. repeat this fictional narrative and his utter failure to safeguard our elections against future hacking is alarming to say the least and borders on treason, in my opinion.

It is inherent that each and everyone of us stay up on the facts and challenge the false narratives this corrupt administration is disseminating.  This commentary is part of that attempt and over the next week or so I will be laying out with other facts vs. fiction commentaries as it relates to the apparent state of mind of those who put themselves above the Constitution


Related Articles

Politifact on Trump’s Fox and Friends falsehoods

Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump

Charges of Ukrainian Meddling? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

The New Norm?






“And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
― William Shakespeare, Richard III


As the likelihood of impeachment draws closer, one has to wonder what was Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and others thinking about in their attempt to undermine the candidacy of a political opponent in the 2020 Presidential election? Did they actually believe that a single allegation of corruption would bring down the Biden candidacy and no one would see the incongruity of this notion to Trump's own history of corruptible behavior?

If ever there were a model for the pot calling the kettle black it is Donald J. Trump trying to paint someone as unworthy to vote for. From the early 1970's to the present he has epitomized an unsavory and illicit persona, and it's all a matter of record. From 1973 when the Department of Justice sued Trump and his father for housing discrimination at 39 sites around New York, to the 2005 Access Hollywood tapes and the Trump University scam that robbed students of millions of dollars. 

And now he’s embroiled in what’s becoming more and more apparent in a cover up for his part in a deal to withhold military weapons to Ukraine to find unfounded corruption evidence on Joe Biden

Trump has avoided jail time for his past miscreant acts, as many wealthy people are able to do, with a source of wealth that allows him to settle out of court or intimidate plaintiffs with bogus counter-suits. Much of what he's been able to avoid in legal fights results from his tutoring by the infamous attorney Roy Cohn, who had worked for Joe McCarthy and who taught Trump the art of denial, blame shifting and inflating your own importance.

So I am confused why Trump and his coterie would think voters would find that any allegation of corruption as a cause not to vote for someone after many of them did that very thing back in 2016.

As perhaps the most corrupt administration in the last 100 years, Trump’s actions have set a new low for what passes as electability. He has demeaned the press, offended our allies while aligning with autocrats and uses his office for personal gain. Our prestige around the world will take years to recover, especially after he abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria who fought and died to take out the ISIS terror threat there and giving Russia a foothold in Mideast territory they have heretofore never had.  Has the U.S. under Trump gone down the path of other rogue states.

It's inconceivable that voters can be mislead once again after seeing the real Trump these last four years, whose hypocrisy and hyperbole have become legendary outside his staged performance as a reality TV character.  But I could be wrong. There is still that disturbing element in his rallies that cheers on the man who once said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?”

Can enough voters be fooled twice and allow a double standard to prevail when selecting someone to fill the highest office in the land? The bar has been set low. Our democracy, I fear, is at risk of being lost to those who feel they only have to answer to themselves.

Monday, October 7, 2019

Changing Denton’s Gas and Oil well ordinances






In our attempt to reach out to the City of Denton to express our concerns about the current state of our oil and gas well ordinances, the City Manager expressed concerns to Denton’s Drilling Awareness Group (DAG) Board Chairman Ed Soph that in making any necessary changes by the City would produce “substantial financial and legal risks” if we attempted to establish 1000 ft. setbacks. Added to this was the belief that any efforts to performing our “own study that might surpass a 600’  setback that Fort Worth adopted and whether that study would be recognized, which is critical to its long term success and the City’s legal exposure, would likely be rejected by the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission based on their methodology for studies to determine safe setbacks distances.”

This is the legal quagmire we face and yet one has to ask our elected officials if they are willing to fight for their citizens over state agencies that are clearly under the thumb of the very people they are supposed to regulate.  To paraphrase an old quote, “Better to have fought and lost than not to have fought at all”.  The fact that rules and laws have been written that tie our hands doesn’t mean they arose in the best interests of the public.

With oil and gas industry interests controlling the TCEQ, The Railroad Commission and many of our state legislators and Senators, the common working class citizen whose health and safety are threatened by drilling cannot fund and sustain a battle with these giants.  They are often characterized as anti-drilling naysayers by the likes of Steve Everley, who works in Washington, D.C., for Energy in Depth, a research, education and public-relations arm of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

Now there are those of you who may feel it is an unfair assessment to depict the state regulators for the oil and gas industry as puppets for a source of revenue that has a long tradition of influencing legislation that favors them over every day people.  So let me offer you a sample of the information that may change your mind

An eight-month study by the Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News and The Weather Channel using records obtained from Texas regulatory agencies revealed a system that does more to protect the industry than the public.   Though this study was focused on conditions in and around the Eagle Ford Shale, it none the less reflects similarities in other shale deposits in the state, including the Barnett Shale that we sit atop of.  Some of the findings are as follows

  • Texas' air monitoring system is so flawed that the state knows almost nothing about the extent of the pollution in the Eagle Ford. There were only five permanent air monitors installed in the 20,000-square-mile region, and all are at the fringes of the shale play, far from the heavy drilling areas where emissions are highest.
  • Thousands of oil and gas facilities are allowed to self-audit their emissions without reporting them to the state. The TCEQ, which regulates most air emissions, doesn't even know some of these facilities exist. An internal agency document acknowledges that the rule allowing this practice "[c]annot be proven to be protective."
  • Companies that break the law are rarely fined. Of the 284 oil and gas industry-related complaints filed with the TCEQ by Eagle Ford residents in a 3-year period, only two resulted in fines despite 164 documented violations. The largest was just $14,250. 
  • The Texas legislature has cut the TCEQ's budget by a third since the Eagle Ford boom began, from $555 million in 2008 to $372 million in 2014. At the same time, the amount allocated for air monitoring equipment dropped from $1.2 million to $579,000.
  • There’s been a 100 percent statewide increase in unplanned, toxic air releases associated with oil and gas production since 2009. Known as emission events, these releases are usually caused by human error or faulty equipment.

Who are the people in those state agencies that essentially determine life and death issues for our citizens?

The TCEQ is led by three commissioners appointed by former Gov. Rick Perry and our current governor, Greg Abbot.  Both have voiced deep skepticism about climate change and whether humans are responsible. They insist that even if the science were true, Texas can do nothing meaningful to reverse climate change without hurting its economy. All current appointees have been drawn mostly from within the ranks of state government, including their own staff members, rather than someone willing to hold corporate polluters accountable, like former Commissioner Larry Soward whose term recently expired.

The TCEQ is unique among state environmental agencies. It is the only one whose mandate to protect public health and natural resources is qualified by a requirement that its actions be “consistent with sustainable economic development.”

“Sustainable economic development” in this context actually means “the private interests of oil and gas companies.” It’s no secret that the TCEQ operates in service of industry, especially the petrochemical companies. How else can we explain the fact that the commission penalizes companies for only 3% of self-reported violations of clean air laws?

Meanwhile, a recent Indiana University study found that unauthorized releases of air pollution in Texas account for more than $150 million in health costs annually.

As for the Texas Railroad Commission, they too represent more the industry of gas and oil well producers over the health and safety of Texas citizens.  As flaring gas at well
sites now exceeds more than residential gas demand for the whole of Texas. the TRRC has never turned down a request to burn excess gas.  Flaring is not only wasteful but contributes to the carbon-dioxide emissions in our atmosphere that are raising global temperatures faster than natural events.

  

According to David Prindle, a professor of political science at UT-Austin and author of  Petroleum, Politics and the Texas Railroad Commission, “the homegrown producers finance Railroad Commission elections through campaign contributions, [making them] essentially … the constituency of commissioners,” he says.

In fact, most people who serve on or run for the commission are pretty up-front about their view that the oil and gas business is not just an industry to be regulated, but a constituency to be served.  

A Center for Public Integrity analysis of personal financial disclosure forms showed that State legislators who enact the laws that regulate the industry are often tied to it. Nearly one in four state legislators, or his or her spouse, has a financial interest in at least one energy company active in the Eagle Ford,

Despite an interoffice memorandum obtained through the Texas Public Information Act that indicated the TCEQ knows its statewide air monitoring system is flawed, the agency told the authors of this study that air pollutants in the Eagle Ford Shale area “have not been a concern either from a long-term or short-term perspective.  Therefore, we would not expect adverse health effects, adverse vegetative effects, or nuisance odors in this area."

"The executive director has extensive records of underestimated or previously undetected emissions from oil and gas sites”, according to Richard A. Hyde, then deputy director of the TCEQ's Office of Permitting and Registration, who wrote in the Jan. 7, 2011, memo.

The health issues faced by people who live in drilling areas simply don't carry enough weight to counterbalance the financial benefits derived from oil and gas development, says Robert Forbis Jr., an assistant professor of political science at Texas Tech University who has studied this issue.

In the summer of 2013 the TCEQ used infrared cameras during two flyovers to capture hundreds of images of the Eagle Ford. A contractor then surveyed over 16,000 oil and gas storage tanks and found 800 with leaks.  When asked how the agency dealt with the polluters, TCEQ spokesman Terry Clawson did not respond.

Scientists say that while these spot checks are important, they are no substitute for strategically placed, stationary monitors that continuously measure how air quality changes over time.
Even the EPA doesn't know much about methane emissions or the other pollutants from oil and gas production.  A 2013 EPA Inspector general’s report concluded that the agency's air emissions database is incomplete and "likely underestimates" those emissions. The lack of reliable data, the report said, "hampers EPA's ability to accurately assess risks and air quality impacts from oil and gas production activities."

The Railroad Commission's enforcement record, like the TCEQ's, has come under criticism. In fiscal year 2012, it referred for enforcement action only 2 percent of the 55,000 violations its field staff found statewide, according to the state Sunset Advisory Commission, whose mission is to eliminate "waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies." Of the 217 fines levied, the average was less than $9,000.

What’s truly sad here for the Eagle Ford residents is that many of the conditions allowed by our gas and oil regulators were conditions noted earlier in the Barnett shale

A 2012 agency memo shows the TCEQ was fully aware that drilling companies needed more oversight. Titled "Findings and Lessons Learned from Barnett Shale Oil and Gas Activities," it said "nearly all of the issues documented [in the Barnett] arose from human or mechanical failure that were quickly remedied and could have been avoided through increased diligence on the part of the operator.

Proving a causal relationship between the emissions from natural gas facilities,  and negative health effects is a challenge. But one solution is simply to provide the means to establish emission level data that detects the thousands of small leaks dispersed over several thousand square miles.  Sadly this is not the case in the Barnett or other shale plays in Texas where some of the facilities — called “super-emitters” — are erratic.

“If one well was a super-emitter the day we measured them, it could change the next day,” said Daniel Zavala-Araiza, lead researcher of a 2015 Environmental Defense Fund study of methane emissions in the Barnett Shale. “It’s not just about finding a handful of sites. You need to be looking continuously to keep finding the ones that are malfunctioning.”

The study found that about 2 percent of the oil and gas equipment there is responsible for half of the total methane emissions at any given time.

Malfunctions are one of the major causes of high methane emissions, Zavala-Araiza said. A valve that is periodically supposed to open and vent gas might get stuck and continuously emit methane. Such events are unpredictable.

“If you don’t have frequent monitoring, there’s no way you’re going to know when one of these super-emitters begins spewing,” said Zavala-Araiza.


OTHER SOURCES

California Capped a Massive Methane Leak, but Another is Brewing — Right Here in Texas 


Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions