On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee voted 7-1 to send a bill to the full legislature that would require all oil pipeline companies to have the routes of their pipelines certified by a state panel headed by the governor before starting construction.

LB4, introduced by Schuyler Sen. Chris Langemeier, would adopt the Oil Pipeline Route Certification Act. Under the bill, authority to issue a route certification for a proposed pipeline ultimately would rest with the governor. It would also establish a panel of experts and landowners to advise the governor, and require the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources to receive applications and hold public meetings regarding a proposed pipeline route. Finally, the proposal requires a route certificate to be obtained before eminent domain rights could be exercised by a pipeline carrier.

It is an open legal question whether the passage of such a bill would be legally viable, since the approval of the project is generally viewed as a federal question. Nonetheless, Nebraska lawmakers are set to begin their first round of debate on Nov. 14 at 1:30 p.m. Four amendments have been filed in advance of that debate.

Heineman came out against the pipeline route earlier this year, citing the importance of the Ogallala aquifer to regional residents and the agricultural industry.

On Thursday, the U.S. State Department announced it needed time to further review the route proposed by TransCanada. A final decision is not expected until 2013.

In light of the federal news, Nebraska Sen. Langemeier told Kevin O’Hanlon of the Lincoln Journal Star that he would consider setting the bill aside.

“The bill is out to have a discussion, but at this point, maybe a discussion is not needed in a special session,” he said. “This might be able to be further discussed … in January,” when the legislature returns to regular session.

Ed Brayton contributed to this report.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced that next year it will require oil and gas companies to publicly disclose the release of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas, which can be deadly in high enough concentrations.

The industry has been exempt from divulging the release of H2S to the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for 17 years. The removal of the exemption was first published in the Federal Registry in October and finalized last week. Conservation groups praised the decision.

“[H2S] may leak from drill rigs and refineries, but is often also deliberately burned off, exposing nearby communities to its harmful effects,” the environmental group Earthworks stated in a press release.

Hydrogen sulfide, which occurs naturally in oil and gas drilling, can sicken workers and community members who are exposed to high enough concentrations of the gas.

“Common symptoms of exposure to long-term, low levels of hydrogen sulfide include headache, skin complications, respiratory and mucous membrane irritation, respiratory soft tissue damage and degeneration, confusion, impairment of verbal recall, memory loss, and prolonged reaction time,” Earthworks warns. “Exposure to high concentrations can cause unconsciousness and can be fatal.”

The gas was a hot topic on Colorado’s Western Slope this summer when state regulators were accused of misleading the public concerning the release of H2S at several Noble Energy natural gas wells on the Roan Plateau in 2009.

Regulators for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) were accused of not being totally forthright on the issue of H2S release at Noble wells in 2009 until a whistleblower came forward.

Silt Mesa resident Carl McWilliams was a contractor for Noble when he became sick—an incident that led to a U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fine. Another contractor died of what the coroner determined was a heart attack unrelated to H2S emissions, but McWilliams disputes that conclusion and now says he’s been ostracized by the industry.

The COGCC found that four Noble wells had H2S levels greater than 100 parts per million (PPM) in 2009, and the agency in September posted its findings on the COGCC website (pdf). In a separate fact sheet (pdf), the COGCC states that levels of between 200 and 300 PPM can lead to “marked conjunctivitis and respiratory tract irritation after 1 hour of exposure.” Levels higher than 500 PPM can lead to loss of consciousness and possibly death in 30 minutes to 1 hour.”

“Our initial priority, obviously, was to look at current circumstances and to ensure that there were not significant risks to public health, safety or welfare, and I think we satisfied ourselves that there is not,” COGCC director David Neslin told the Colorado Independent in September.

The EPA is engaged in a rulemaking process on hydraulic fracturing emissions, which has prompted threats of litigation from states such as North Dakota, where a major drilling boom is going on in the Bakken Shale.

Community activists in Colorado and elsewhere in the nation say the EPA must do more to regulate the industry as domestic oil and gas production steadily increases in areas with more dense populations than the Western Slope of Colorado. Groups around Colorado accuse local and state regulators of dropping the ball on issues ranging from air emissions to water quality to setbacks for rigs near homes, businesses and public buildings.

According to an administrative consent agreement filed by the EPA in Kansas City, Kan., an inspection at Sivyer Steel in March 2010 found several violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates the storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. Inspectors cited the company, which produces and finishes steel castings, for operating without proper permits and failures to comply with hazardous waste generator, used oil and universal waste requirements.

As part of the settlement, the company must act within 30 days to demonstrate that its used oil containers and universal waste lamp containers are properly maintain and labeled, and show that all areas of its facility contaminated by leaks of used oil have been cleaned up. Sivyer Steel must also notify the EPA of the existence of any additional area at its facility that may be contaminated by leaked used oil, and take appropriate action to address them.

Last summer the company struck an agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to remove over a four-year period a large pile of used foundry sand at its facility along the Mississippi River. The sand is used in molds to make castings, being contaminated in the process, and was in violation of state regulations that prohibited more than a six-month supply to be stored. In moving the sand to other property, the company also agreed to create a 5-foot buffer of uncontaminated dirt between the sand and groundwater.

Via the The Miami Herald:

“There’s a road in Naples called ‘Oil Well Road.’ So, we already have oil drilling,” he said. “We’ve done it since I think 1943. I think first off people are very shocked that we have it already. They don’t know that. I think we have to be very cautious on any oil drilling, whether it’s already in the state or in our beaches or in the gulf because we aren’t going to ruin our environment.

“With regard to the Everglades, I think we have to be very cautious if there’s going to be any more drilling. It’s my understanding, we haven’t had any problems to date so my goal would be to be very cautious.”

Representatives from the Everglades Foundation have called the minute amount of drilling near the Everglades a “historic anomaly,” and have argued that the hundreds of NRA card-carrying hunters and fishermen who frequent the area would likely be opposed to the practice.

During a recent stint in Sarasota, Bachmann caught flack for remarking that the U.S. needs to be more dependent upon “American resourcefulness … whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region.” Rep. Allen West, R-Fort Lauderdale, called the comment an “incredible faux pas.”

During a visit to Sarasota last weekend, Bachmann caused a stir with her comment that she would support using the Everglades as an energy resource. ”The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness,” she told the Associated Press. “Whether that is in the Everglades … we need to go where the energy is. Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can’t responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn’t do it.”

Yesterday, Tampa Bay’s News 10 published new footage of Bachmann in Miami, in which she elaborated on the comment. “Let’s access this wonderful treasure trove of energy that God has given us in this country,” she said. “Let’s access it responsibly.”

Those who oppose the idea, she says, are likely just “radical environmentalists.” ”The radical environmentalists put up one road block after another to prevent accessing American energy,” she said.

But it isn’t just radical environmentalists who oppose drilling in the Everglades — in fact, many have noted that there isn’t any viable oil in the area to begin with. Even members of Bachmann’s own party, like Rep. Allen West, R-Fort Lauderdale, have reprimanded the Minnesota congresswoman for her comment. Earlier this week, West promised to “straighten her out” for what he called an “incredible faux pas.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., also spoke out against Bachmann’s claims this week, saying: “To go in the middle of the Everglades and to spoil the river of grass just because somebody wants to, that’s not a wise thing to do.”

The State Department is in the process of considering the project, which would carry Canadian tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Environmental groups call the plan unnecessary and a threat to sensitive environments along the pipeline’s proposed route.

The agency is expected to issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the project later this month and then offer a 45 day window for public comment on the matter; this coalition wants that extended to 120 days and also want the agency to hold public hearings.

We are writing to formally request an extension of the proposed comment period on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline project from 45 to 120 days. We also request that the State Department hold a number of hearings during the public comment period. A longer public comment period combined with public hearings is critical to allow the public, including landowners and others along the proposed route of the pipeline to provide meaningful comments.

The Keystone XL pipeline will have significant environmental impacts, and is of great interest to our millions of members and supporters. Many of our organizations have written to you before (see attached letter) regarding our concerns surrounding tar sands and the permitting process for this pipeline, the extent of new information surrounding the project that has arisen since the release of the draft environmental impact statement, and the significantly increased interest in this project and its potential impacts.

You can read the full letter here.

The U.S. State Department has announced the next stages in the process of approving or rejecting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of America.

The next steps are announced for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline that would run through Nebraska. The U.S. State Department expects to release a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement next month and then open for public input…

The public will have 45 days to comment after the Supplemental Draft Statement next month.

The U.S. State Department expects to make a decision on granting a construction permit or not by the end of the year.

Approval is almost certain but environmental groups and many legislators in the states that would be crossed by the pipeline are hoping for stronger regulation to protect the environment and possibly even an alternate route that would avoid particularly sensitive ecosystems.

As far as introducing new legislation, Rubio has been fairly quiet. So far, he has been responsible for one piece of legislation, an amendment to an air traffic control bill that would prevent the expansion of flight itineraries in countries that sponsor terrorism. Since becoming a senator in January, Rubio has voted in opposition of the implementation of health care reform through a number of resolutions and amendments, and has voted for extending provisions of the PATRIOT Act and blocking Transportation Security Administration employees from collective bargaining (of course, the involvement of the Koch brothers in the national fight over collective bargaining is well documented). That’s the extent of his U.S. Senate voting record, but he’s been vocal about his support for other bills, and it’s there that his benefit to Koch Industries comes into focus.

Koch Industries has three major operations in Florida: Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources and Koch Chemical Technology Group. Of those, the paper company Georgia-Pacific has come into the most heated conflict with environmental regulations. Flint Hills is an oil refinery operation that has been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Air Act in the past, though it was also commended by the EPA in 2005 for cutting emissions. Koch Chemical Technology primarily makes pollution control equipment that can be used to ensure compliance with EPA regulations.

Rubio has stated his opposition to cap-and-trade regulations that would reward companies for limiting emissions and tax those that don’t. Cap and trade could have a major impact on the Flint Hills operation in Rubio’s backyard, but it could have even larger repercussions for Koch Industries outfits in other states. Koch Industries has spent hundreds of millions in the past in fines for EPA violations and costs incurred in bringing factories up to emissions standards.

And as a pitched battle continues to heat up in Florida over Georgia-Pacific’s objections to EPA water standards, Rubio has made known his opposition to the same. The sugar conglomerate Flo-Sun, another major backer of Rubio’s campaign, has also had its own battles with the EPA over water pollution standards. Rubio has couched his opposition to regulations in terms of job creation, but opponents have argued that failing to enact environment regulations could ultimately cost jobs for Florida in some of its flagship industries (more on that later).

It’s unclear how Rubio’s constituents feel about his vigorous opposition to EPA regulation, as no polls have been conducted by an independent body to find out. The only poll available is one showing 68 percent of Floridians and climbing oppose EPA water regulations; however, the poll simply asked if Floridians would oppose water quality regulations if they resulted in a $700 increase in the average home water bill. That number was based on industry estimates of industrial wastewater regulation costs that the EPA has disputed.

In November, the Florida Independent obtained an internal email from Phil Coram, a deputy director of water resource management with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Coram stated that industry estimates were overblown because they were based on the wrong assumption that all wastewater sites would have to comply with regulations; that they left out the fact that many companies would have cheaper options than expensive conversions for managing their wastewater; and that “some of their math is wrong.” This is coming from within a state agency that has itself been accused of kowtowing to industry interests.

On Rubio’s own site, he uses a Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services figure stating that the wastewater regulations in question would cost over $1.1 billion annually. Such an annual cost, though a great deal higher than EPA estimates, would result in an annual water bill increase of around $157 if divided evenly among all households in Florida — far lower than $700, but even the lower figure doesn’t account for the fact that industrial facilities use a lot more water than individuals, nor does it account for the vast number of seasonal households in Florida whose owners live elsewhere for large parts of the year. Indeed, the EPA figures reported by the St. Johns Riverkeeper may not be far off: an increase more on the order of $40 to $71 a year for the average taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the Florida Independent today reports that failing to implement wastewater regulations would result in a proliferation of toxic algae that would have devastating effects. The brunt of these effects would be felt by individuals living near waterways and by small businesses in the food, hospitality and tourism industries that stake their livelihoods on the integrity of Florida’s environment.

The poll comes as the Obama administration has overturned a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf and imposed new safety rules on oil companies. The moratorium was put into place in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill.

The poll — conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, National Journal and the Pew Research Center from Oct. 21-24 –finds that 59 percent of likely voters would approve of  ”allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling.” Just 35 percent would disapprove.

In addition, the National Journal says, “Republicans in the registered sample were twice as likely as Democrats to favor expanded drilling, with independents almost exactly in the middle.”

The ad focuses on one of the major themes of the Perriello-Hurt race: energy. Perriello, a freshman representative, has faced criticism in his conservative Virginia district for voting for the House cap-and-trade bill. And Hurt has touted his support of offshore oil drilling. The latest polling shows that Hurt is leading in the race, signaling that Perriello could be voted out of office for supporting  President Obama’s policy agenda. (Perriello also voted for the health care bill). Hurt, in a recent ad, called Perriello a “rubber stamp” for Obama.

The Sierra Club ad says:

Robert Hurt: A favorite of oil billionaires. He’ll keep us dependent on foreign oil and give tax breaks to companies who outsource our jobs. But there’s a better choice. Tom Perriello is leading the charge to bring clean energy jobs to Virginia, supporting solutions like advance battery technology and guaranteeing veterans the jobs they need when they come home. Jobs. Clean energy. Veterans. That’s what Tom Perriello is fighting for.

In the last days of the midterm, Perriello is amping up his campaign appearances. Yesterday he pulled a John Edwards and campaigned for 24 hours straight.