Should an Oil Executive Be in Charge of Renewable Energy Policy?

     A Permian Basin oil executive, Audrey Robertson, has been confirmed by a Senate panel to lead the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. According to Hart Energy:

“Robertson co-founded Franklin Mountain Energy, a Permian Basin-focused E&P, in 2018 and served as its CFO. Coterra Energy acquired the Permian assets of Franklin and Avant Natural Resources in November 2024 in separate transactions that totaled $3.95 billion.”

     She noted her qualifications in her hearing:

“As an investor and board member, I have dedicated time and resources to numerous next-generation energy technologies, including small-modular nuclear, next-generation geothermal and advanced sodium-ion batteries,” Robertson said. “Advancing technologies like these will be critical to meet our nation’s growing power demands.”

     E&E News, in a February article, notes the function of the DOE’s office she will be heading up:

“The efficiency and renewable energy office at DOE, often referred to by its acronym EERE, covers a broad range of research and development on clean energy systems. EERE houses programs on solar, wind, geothermal, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. It also administers DOE efficiency regulations for home appliances and industrial equipment.”

     Some Biden officials think she will be a good leader, especially in areas like hydrogen, geothermal, and CCS that utilize oil and gas skills. More likely, however, the Trump administration likes a fossil fuel executive in the position as a kind of punishment, not unlike how environmental activists will, if given the chance, punish fossil fuel companies. Others have pointed out potential conflicts of interest.

     Oliver Townsend of Solar Cell USA notes:

“The implications of appointing someone with significant ties to the oil industry extend beyond just EERE; they reflect a broader trend observed during Trump’s administration where individuals with vested interests in traditional energy sectors were placed in charge of environmental agencies. Such appointments often lead to policies favoring fossil fuels over renewables—a troubling pattern noted by environmental advocates who fear a regression in progress made toward sustainable practices.”

     She previously served on the board of Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s former company, Liberty Energy, and so has known and worked with her boss before. It remains to be seen whether Robertson will be a good leader for the office or will be biased in her decisions. 

 

 

References:

 

How an oil exec got picked to lead the DOE renewables office. Brian Dabbs. E&E News by Politico. March 17, 2025. How an oil exec got picked to lead the DOE renewables office - E&E News by POLITICO

Trump’s clean energy chief has strong oil industry connections. Oliver Townsend. Solar Cell USA. March 19, 2025. Trump’s clean energy chief has strong oil industry connections | USA Solar Cell

Senate Panel Approves Energy Exec Audrey Robertson for DOE Post. Audrey Robertson, co-founder of Franklin Mountain Energy, was nominated to head energy efficiency and renewable energy office. Joseph Markman. Hart Energy. July 31. 2025. Senate Panel Approves Energy Exec Audrey Robertson for DOE Post | Hart Energy

 

 

GeologicAI and the AI/Automation Potential for Mineral Exploration, Mapping, and Mining

 

     In recent years, mining giants, including BHP and Rio Tinto, began touting the use of AI in minerals exploration, mapping, and mining. Automation has long been used successfully in mining and continues to improve processes. It began back in the 1900s. More recently, AI has been gaining in exploring for minerals and mapping them in more detail once they have been located.

     BHP, Rio Tinto, and Vale announced a collaborative effort to pursue AI/Machine Learning applications for mineral exploration in early 2024. They have pledged to share knowledge and technological advancements. An article by Forte Precious Metals describes the potential geological benefits of applying machine learning and AI to delineate mineral deposits. These are summarized below:

     As an article by BHP notes, AI can be employed throughout the mining value chain for optimization of many processes. On-site sensors and other monitoring systems collect data that can be analyzed to inform decisions.

“Over the years, AI has helped BHP unlock potential value through innovations such as predictive maintenance, energy optimisation, autonomous vehicle and machinery operation, data-driven decision making and real-time monitoring and reporting. AI is helping keep our workers safe. It is building efficiency in what we do. It is helping to solve operational problems and realise new business opportunities. It is helping increase our speed of resource discovery. It is optimising our ore quality and improving customer management. It is helping reduce our power and water consumption.”

     AI can develop advanced algorithms to identify mineral deposits and optimize processes. AI can incorporate many different kinds of data into composite exploration models. BHP notes that AI, along with human ingenuity, led to new copper deposit discoveries in Australia and the U.S. They also tout advances in the geophysical technique of muon tomography. Muons are a type of cosmic radiation that can be used to scan and map underground formations. In alliance with partner Ivanhoe Electric, they are generating better signals and interpreting tomography data with machine learning algorithms. This is used to search for sulfide deposits of copper, nickel, gold, and silver at depths of over 1.5km.

     AI has found success in the realm of predictive maintenance. Collecting data can enable the prediction of maintenance needs, timing, and assist maintenance planning, reducing downtime and saving money. It can assess equipment health and improve safety. BHP runs predictive analytics models on its material transports and handling systems. They note that AI was key to the mitigation of a vibration problem at a materials handling facility.

     In mining and other fields, AI is used for energy management, which leads to efficiencies that save money, reduce impacts and emissions, and reduce water use. AI can analyze and optimize energy use.

     BHP touts the use of AI in environmental science as acoustic monitoring for endangered species calls, combined with satellite, drone imagery, and object detection.

     Autonomous mining vehicles have proved successful. There is still a need to improve safety in more populated areas. BHP also pioneered autonomous long-haul rail transport from mines.  

“Automation can improve productivity and utilise less energy by implementing streamlined, repetitive actions. These autonomous systems can navigate challenging terrains and perform tasks with precision, reducing the likelihood of human error.”

     According to an article in Engineering & Mining Journal:

“Rio Tinto estimates that, on average, during 2018, each of its autonomous trucks operated 700 hours more than conventional haul trucks would, with 15% lower costs, delivering clear productivity benefits. It noted that these systems also take truck operators out of harm’s way, reducing the risks associated with working around heavy machinery.”

     Rio Tinto has a Mine Automation System (MAS) that acts as a server to coordinate and integrate the large amounts of data. The visual displays available to employees are the result of a 3D visualization tool based on a gaming engine. The MAS also allows them to integrate data from different manufacturers.

“At our bauxite mine in Weipa, special mathematical software helps our port schedulers manage hundreds of ships a year. Using data in these ways helps us minimize downtime, reduce energy use and cut operating costs,” Rio Tinto added. “Every day our automated drills, trucks, shovels, conveyors, trains and ships produce huge amounts of valuable data. By combining this data with clever analytics, AI, ML and automation, we are making our business safer and more productive.”

     A similar central automation system, called The Hive, has been developed by Australian iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group (FMG), strategically integrating AI for efficiency, safety, and sustainability. It remotely manages the supply chain from pit to port, they say. See below:

“AI is becoming increasingly valuable to Fortescue’s operations, unlocking significant time and cost savings,” said the company on its website. “By automating routine tasks and removing manual processes, AI empowers our teams to focus on higher-level problem-solving and decision-making. Tools, such as schedule optimization software, chatbots, and AI-driven product design are examples of how this technology is used to enhance operational efficiency.”

     BHP is building digital twins to identify key performance drivers, risks, and opportunities for optimization. This has resulted in improvements in mine haulage, ore fragmentation, material handling, and in debottlenecking surface operations. Digital twins can provide insight that can optimize material flows in mines and processing plants. Digital twins can be integrated into advanced process controls to tweak real-time data to inform ore blending and setpoint adjustments. Microsoft Azure is one program that can run digital twins. BHP explains another success:

“To increase copper production at Escondida, we use advanced analytics to understand the impacts of different ore characteristics and granulometry on semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) mill performance,” the company explained in an online article. “A digital twin of the Escondida value chain and Gen AI models inform ore blasting and blending strategies, identify mine areas with challenging ore characteristics, and support the implementation of SAG mill model predictive control. By mitigating the impacts of varying mineral characteristics, we have reduced monthly production losses due to granulometry by an average of 70%.”

     BHP recently added Gen AI to a digital twin, which enables non-technical employees to ask questions. This may lead to more insights and the discovery of more performance improvements.

     Engineering & Mining Journal reports that a 2018 collaboration between Freeport McMoran and McKinsey data scientists resulted in vast improvements at the Bagdad mine in Arizona.

“We put in the recommended AI engine and saw 10% improvement in production,” said Cory Stevens, President, Mining Services at Freeport in the McKinsey case study. “And we thought, if we do the implementation at all seven of our sites right, it’s almost like having a brand-new plant without having to go through permitting processes and disturbing a new area. It’s in the billions of dollars that we’re offsetting by going through the transformation.”

     In Western Australia, BHP utilizes eight automated ship loaders at its Port Hedland Export Facility that are operated remotely from Perth. Mine trucks continue to be converted from manual to autonomous. These actions have led to increased productivity and improved safety. They have also implemented AI-integrated wearable health devices to monitor employee health, even a hard hat that can analyze brain waves to predict driver fatigue. They can identify safety issues.

     O&M costs for mining equipment can be high and result in downtime and lost productivity.

“Implementing predictive and prescriptive maintenance approaches using AI and ML algorithms can help miners to take a proactive stance on the maintenance of vehicles and machinery, lowering the cost of materials, parts and labor and reducing the likelihood of equipment failures.”

     The use of digital signals for predictive maintenance is a new way of assessing equipment health. Canadian company Teck chose AspenTech’s MTell for their predictive maintenance program.

“Mtell has a broad set of monitoring technologies, including rules-based and condition-based monitoring, first principles modelling, AI, ML and custom models from data science teams.”

“Teck used signals, like vibration, pressure, flow, temperature and current, to build Mtell agents and identify and monitor real time changes, like differential pressures in bag houses; water flow and temperature in furnace cooling systems; heat exchanger temperature differentials and current for pumps.”

     Teck is partnered with Google Cloud and Pythian. They have had significant success in identifying maintenance issues early, even unexpected ones. The project has resulted in very significant cost savings.

     AI can also be used to design better mines and do it faster. It can also be used to optimize energy use and water use.  

     BHP also compares mining AI to AI in other areas such as healthcare, finance, manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture, noting that it is used universally for predictive maintenance, asset optimization, automation, and optimized extraction processes. Uses are summarized below.

     Deloitte noted in the 2025 edition of their annual Tracking the Trends report:

“When treated as part of a systematic approach to mineral exploration, precompetitive geoscience data on properties and deposits can be leveraged by geologists [alongside AI] to better inform their exploration programs. This, in turn, can generate cost and time savings… It can also speed the identification of potential drill targets and help companies better understand mineralization systems that could lead to subsequent discoveries.”

     AI can help high-grade mineral prospects and find the highest concentrations. Deloitte details some of these capabilities in their Tracking the Trends 2025 report, specifically Trend 4: Enhancing Mineral Exploration with AI: Utilizing Precompetitive Geoscience Data.

     Precompetitive geoscience data can be leveraged for faster and more successful exploration timelines with the help of AI and data analytics. 

     Deloitte notes the collaboration between U.S. Critical Minerals Corp. and U.S.-based VerAI Discoveries.

“VerAI’s methodology combines AI/ML technology with geoscience knowledge to generate an objective, reproducible targeting platform for use in mineral exploration. This utilizes tailor-made datasets for undercover location of economic greenfield and brownfield mineral deposits. VerAI generates high-probability target portfolios that are at drill-ready stage, then collaborates with explorers to develop them. Value id generated through monetizing equity and royalty from successful assets. The company claims its approach can increase the probability of success in discovering economic deposits by two orders of magnitude and reduce targeting costs by more than 90%.”

     Below are Deloitte’s recommendations for optimizing the use of precompetitive geoscience data:

     Deloitte also covers the use of AI in business models, the use of Gen-AI in workforce development, digital twins, smart operations, smart leadership, and smart business modeling.

     S&P Global notes:

“Since OpenAI LLC's release of the GPT-3 large language model, AI has emerged as one of the most exciting and debated topics within the investor community.”

     They also note that there are risks, including “high integration costs, data security concerns, overreliance on empirical and modeled data, and ethical dilemmas.” As shown below, they note that “surged 30% from November 2022 — when OpenAI launched the chatbot app — to November 2023.”

           Automation in mining is long established, but integrating AI with the automation continues to evolve. At Rio Tinto’s Pilbara mine in Western Australia:

“AI has been integrated into mine automation and simulation systems, autonomous trucks, drills, trains, water carts, long-distance heavy-haul trains and a fully automated laboratory. In addition, about 80% of the haul truck fleet at Pilbara operations is now automated, with Rio Tinto operating about 200 trains through its proprietary AutoHaul technology. According to the company, these automation efforts improve efficiency and safer operations by eliminating driver error.”

     S&P Global also notes that AI can be combined with remote sensing data to help detect illegal mining sites. They note that the alliance of tech and mining is showing great results. Examples are numerous.

“US-based mining startup KoBold Metals Co., which recently raised $537 million in funding to develop existing projects into mines — including the Mingomba copper mine in Zambia — through its proprietary TerraShed system and Machine Prospector software. A significant portion of their funding success was attributed to the company's AI-driven approach to exploration.”

“In 2018, before its acquisition by Newmont Mining Corp., Goldcorp Inc. developed an AI model in conjunction with IBM Canada Ltd. to enhance predictability for gold exploration at the Red Lake project in Ontario and accelerate target identification through machine learning and spatial analytics.”

“Fleet Space Technologies Pty Ltd., an Australia-based tech firm, recently partnered with Barrick Gold Corp. to implement AI-driven exploration at its Reko Diq copper mine in Pakistan. Utilizing Fleet Space Technologies's ExoSphere system, copper exploration is enhanced through 3D subsurface maps that help identify features such as groundwater systems and copper ore bodies. The system aims to accelerate exploration at the site while minimizing the environmental impact associated with traditional exploration methods.”

     Regarding the risks of AI, S&P notes:

“Integrating and maintaining AI systems can be costly. Whether these expenses are factored into total minesite costs or development and expansion capital expenditures, mining companies will need to grapple with additional costs for purchasing hardware and software, training the workforce and providing ongoing technical support and maintenance.”

 

Canadian Company GeologicAI is Analyzing Core with AI and Integrating with Other Data

     Canadian company GeologicAI is integrating core analysis, XRF, hyperspectral analyses, and RGB imaging with AI algorithms to speed up standard core logging by 4 times. Turnaround times are typically 24-48 hours. This can accelerate projects and free up geologists to do more data interpretation and less data acquisition.

     This can lead to better mapping of mineral zonation. AAPG Enspired editor Sarah Compton cites quotes from mining executives. The VP of Ventures at BHP, Laural Buckner, pointed out that:

“GeologicAI is addressing one of the mining sector’s most pressing challenges…Their game-changing technology is disrupting traditional time– and cost-intensive workflows with AI-powered analytics and modeling solutions. This technology has the power to reshape how we discover, evaluate, and source ore bodies.”

     The Head of Growth and Ventures at Rio Tinto, Pekka Santasalo, also praised GeologicAI:

“Their high-resolution approach and real-time data capabilities have the potential to transform how we think about project development timelines and risk.”

     BHP and Rio Tinto, along with Blue Earth Capital, are funding GeologicAI, announcing in July $44 million in Series B funding. GeologicAI described their capabilities and what they plan to do with the capital:

“Our solution combines cutting-edge sensors, advanced AI, and deep geoscience expertise to intensively scan drill core onsite, and to analyze, interpret, and visualize this enhanced data in real time. The result? A new standard in high-resolution data and decision-making.”

With this new investment, we will:

·        Expand to more mining jurisdictions across five continents

·        Advance our proprietary AI tools and hardware

·        Deliver even greater value to our strategic customers and partners

     Carmichael Roberts of Breakthrough Energy Ventures noted:

“GeologicAI’s AI-driven process is accelerating the discovery and development of new deposits, strengthening the mineral pipeline that’s essential for electrification.”

 

 

References:

 

AI Comes for Your Core. Sarah Compton. AAPG Enspired. July 29, 2025.

GeologicAI Raises $44M Series B. GeologicalAI. July 17, 2025. GeologicAI Raises $44M Series B      — GeologicAI

Artificial Intelligence is unearthing a smarter future. BHP. August 1, 2024. Artificial Intelligence is unearthing a smarter future

Mining Giants Unite: AI-Powered Revolution in Mineral Exploration: Explore the collaboration of mining behemoths BHP, Rio Tinto, and Vale as they harness AI-powered mineral exploration. Forte Precision Metals. January 30, 2024. AI-Powered Revolution in Mineral Exploration

AI: Bringing Mining Companies Closer to Their Data. Carly Leonida, European Editor. Engineering & Mining Journal. April 2025. AI: Bringing Mining Companies Closer to Their Data - E & MJ

Innovative leadership and AI integration pave the way in the mining and metals sector. Deloitte. January 29, 2025. Innovative leadership and AI integration pave the way in the mining and metals sector | Deloitte Australia

A peek at AI revolution in mining: promise meets peril. Jasper Ivan Madlangbayan Tamara Thorne. S&P Global. February 25, 2025. A peek at AI revolution in mining: promise meets peril | S&P Global

Tracking the Trends 2025. Leading through transformational change in ming and metals. Deloitte. Tracking the trends 2025

 

 

 

 

 

Will Striking Down the ‘Endangerment Finding’ Lead to State Greenhouse Gas Emission Rules?

     I wrote recently about New York State’s Climate Superfund law that fines companies that sell hydrocarbons in the state for their carbon emissions, even retroactively, noting that it was bonkers, unfair, and unconstitutional, and that it will likely not survive legal challenges. Some of those arguing against it noted that it is the EPA, not states, that is tasked with regulating greenhouse gases. However, if the EPA strikes down the ‘endangerment finding’ that is the basis for regulating greenhouse gases, does that give states an opportunity to jump in and make their own regulations? I would hope not, but some do, apparently, think that it is possible, calling it a potential ‘silver lining’ to the striking down of the finding that six greenhouse gases are pollutants that endanger public health and must be mitigated.

     The question then arises: “Is it better for the federal government/EPA to regulate greenhouse gases or the states?” I am thinking that it is better that they are regulated at the federal level, but not over-regulated. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that there are very many companies seeking to emit more greenhouse gases to save money. This is due to many factors, including taking pride in reducing emissions through technology and smart energy management.

     EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to revoke the endangerment finding on July 29.

     Some are saying that it will give states the authority to enact their own regulations:

"If the EPA is saying greenhouse gases aren't supposed to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, then that means they can be regulated under traditional state authority," said Ann Carlson, the director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA, according to The Los Angeles Times. "So this could have a silver lining for California."

     Daniel Gala, in an article for The Cool Down, explains the precedents that inform regulatory authority between the federal government and states:

“Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, where federal law and state law are in direct conflict, federal law prevails. However, in areas where the federal government has remained silent, states typically have broad authority to act.”

“Therefore, if the federal government argues that it is powerless to regulate heat-trapping pollution, it opens the door for states like California to step in.”

     Do we really want different rules for different states? In some ways, we already have them, such as the regional greenhouse gas market initiatives. These tend to be among blue states. State rules that differ too much can affect businesses.

     The EPA likely hopes to use the ending of the endangerment finding to relax regulations on CAFÉ standards for fuel economy, emissions rules for power plants, and to squelch rules on methane emissions from the oil & gas industry, landfills, and other facilities.  

     California has long carved out its own emissions rules as much as possible, sometimes being challenged as too stringent by federal agencies. Do we really want New York and other blue states to be emboldened to put more stringent regulations on greenhouse gases? New York has already expressed a strong desire to be draconian and authoritarian in such regulations, as exemplified by their Climate Change Superfund Law.

     According to the EPA’s announcement:

“The Endangerment Finding is the legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden Administrations to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. Absent this finding, EPA would lack statutory authority under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prescribe standards for greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal, if finalized, is expected to save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

“If finalized, this proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, starting with EPA’s first greenhouse gas set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines—which includes off-cycle credits like the much hated start-stop feature on most new cars.” 

     I do not believe the change will result in anything near that amount of savings due to the fact that many automobile manufacturers, power plant owners, and owners of other facilities that emit greenhouse gases will likely continue with current emission control practices. They know that the current administration won’t be in power forever, and it is likely they will have to return to similar, more stringent rules in the future. It remains to be seen whether, and by how much, businesses will go along with the current administration’s and the GOP’s deregulatory push. They have ongoing investments and programs to reduce emissions that they likely intend to continue. They could also end up being regulated more in states that can use their newly found power to regulate to make regulations even more stringent than at the federal level. In these ways, Zeldin’s goal of rescinding the endangerment finding could backfire for businesses. 

     Another way striking down the finding could backfire has been pointed out by lawyers and trade groups is by increasing regulatory uncertainty and litigation risks for the auto industry, utilities, and manufacturers, as noted in a Reuters article. 

     Companies have existing sunk investments in emissions reduction. Industries have long been complying with the EPA greenhouse gas emissions rules, and many are happy with their decarbonization efforts. While they may like that they will have less stringent rules, they won't like the increase in regulatory uncertainty. Many will continue with their decarbonization efforts, and some will likely scale them back. It has also been pointed out that a resurgence of state lawsuits and regulations to fill the vacancy could really exacerbate regulatory uncertainty. Thus, it is suggested that the endangerment finding protects against state encroachment and a fragmented regulatory system. 

"I think what the administration has missed is that most of industry has already retrofitted for regulations," said Camille Pannu, associate law professor at Columbia University. "Industry did want deregulation, but maybe not through this vehicle."

“One former Trump administration source said during Trump's first term, the EPA had declined to take on the endangerment finding because of strong resistance from industry and the legal risk associated with undermining federal authority on the matter.”

     It could also make it so that cases will be resolved in a fragmented way in different district courts with political differences. One value of federal rules is that they are consistent across the country. 

The next step in the process of revoking the rule involves a public comment period.  

 

    

 

References:

 

Officials poised to fight back as EPA moves to reverse critical regulations: 'This could have a silver lining'. Daniel Gala. The Cool Down. July 30, 2025. Officials poised to fight back as EPA moves to reverse critical regulations: 'This could have a silver lining'

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates: If finalized, this proposal would undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations, save more than $54 billion annually. U.S. EPA. July 29, 2025. EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates | US EPA

US reversal on key climate finding spells uncertainty for business. Valerie Volcovici. Reuters. July 31, 2025. US reversal on key climate finding spells uncertainty for business

 

From Full to Future-Proof: Extending Landfill Life Through Innovation and Transparency. Webinar by EnviroSuite. July 30, 2025. Summary & Review

       This webinar was focused on the APAC region, which includes Australia and New Zealand. The presenters indicated some of the major issues with landfills: odor, local air quality, local water pollution, dust, and greenhouse gas emissions. For all of those concerns, the parameters need to be tracked. Odor control, emissions monitoring, and community engagement are important considerations. They noted that the waste management industry is a combination of private and public entities.

     Capacity constraints of existing and near-full landfills are an ongoing issue. More and better data collection and analysis are leading to improvements. AI is helping. There are new technologies to improve operational efficiency and address environmental concerns. Air quality, dust, odor, mitigation, and power generation data are needed. Monitoring is key to identifying issues. Integrating data with weather parameters is important. Early warning systems are a step above passive monitoring. The industry is trending toward low-cost sensors for data collection. The cost is low enough for continuous monitoring. Operators can then use data analytics such as AI to inform decisions. A denser network of data means better and faster identification of problems such as methane leaks. Lower-cost monitoring devices now allow for a denser data network and better monitoring. Problems are identified faster and better.

    Applying for extensions to existing facilities vs. building a new one is something that comes up often. In general, there is local public opposition to new greenfield sites for landfills. They note that both community expectations and environmental regulations tend to get more stringent over time. (That may be changing in the U.S. as a deregulatory movement has gained ground in the GOP.) As a result, operational constraints become more difficult. Even if it gets approved, it becomes more difficult to operate. Technology really helps with showing data to regulatory authorities and the community. Companies can demonstrate their compliance plans with a good technology portfolio for things like monitoring.

     It is difficult to get new facilities approved so releasing constraints on existing facilities is often pursued. Technology can be used in new facilities and in extending existing ones. Good data is key to showing compliance, which aids transparency. Odors and methane issues can be complex to manage, and it is often difficult to communicate performance and compliance methodologies. An efficient response to compliance is important. A good network of sensors, along with modeling and good management techniques, is key. People do not like the offensive odors of landfills. They can trigger emotions and annoy people. With technology enabling better transparency, the community is much better informed than in the past. Quick communication between the site and the community is important. Some facilities have had more people moving closer to them over time, which can change how the community is affected.

     Overall, this was an informative but quite short webinar. The themes of more data and sensors, denser monitoring networks, more AI integration, better community relations, faster and more effective communication, and reaction were all communicated and addressed.

  

West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McClusky Argues Successfully That New York State’s Climate Change Superfund Act is Bonkers, Unconstitutional, and Unfair

     Law firm Vinson & Elkins reported on New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act in March 2025 and updated it to reflect legal challenges and amendments to the law as shown below.

“On December 26, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act (“CCSA” or the “Act”) into law. The law requires certain fossil fuel producers and refiners with sufficient connections to New York to pay into a state “climate Superfund” an amount commensurate with the entity’s past global greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions over an eighteen-year period. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) will collect $75 billion from these entities over the next 25 years. New York intends to use these funds to pay for climate change-related infrastructure projects and other climate-related expenses. The CCSA is the second of its kind, behind Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, and is just one of many similar bills proposed in other states. Although the CCSA is likely to face legal challenges, and the New York legislature has already proposed amendments to the CCSA, these “climate Superfund” laws may not be going away any time soon.”

Update

“The New York Climate Change Superfund Act (“CCSA”) now faces legal challenges on two separate fronts. On February 6, 2025, twenty-two states and four industry groups sued New York in federal court, and, on February 28, 2025, four other groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute (“API”), filed a similar suit challenging the Act in a different federal court. Both suits seek a declaration that the CCSA is unlawful and an injunction prohibiting New York from enforcing it.”

“The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the statute on several grounds. First, the suits allege that the CCSA violates constitutional principles of cooperative federalism as it seeks to impose liability on out-of-state actors for conduct outside New York. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the CCSA violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The suits further claim that the CCSA’s retroactive liability scheme violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, the states and industry groups argued in their February 6, 2025, complaint that the Act’s retroactive application is “fundamentally unfair.” Other causes of action include allegations that the CCSA violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines, the Commerce Clause by discriminating against economic interests important to other states, and the Fifth Amendment prohibition on unconstitutional takings. These claims mirror those brought by the Chamber and API against Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act, enacted last year.”

“The lawsuits come alongside amendments to the CCSA signed into law by Governor Hochul on February 28, 2025. The amended CCSA imposes liability for emissions from 2000-2024, six years longer than the original period, eliminates the minority interest liability provision we discuss below in its entirety, requires entities to pay their cost recovery demands in full rather than over 25 years, and sets forth a new process by which responsible parties can challenge the cost recovery demand. The amended CCSA also authorizes the NYSDEC to seek information from entities that may be needed to make liability determinations and provides additional time—until June 2027 rather than December 2026—for the NYSDEC to develop implementing regulations.”

     The law is inherently unfair, unfairly retroactive, and likely unconstitutional since it violates the commerce clause and puts state regulation above federal regulation. It is also intensely punitive. It is an attempt to make fossil fuel producers pay that is in line with New York’s Progressive Democratic ideals and goals. As someone who votes Democrat, I am appalled by the law and do not support it at all. It is an example of what is wrong with the Democrat party and why it receives deserved backlash. However, I still believe Democrats are better than Republicans overall, though not at all in this case. I certainly hope and think the legal challenges should succeed in rescinding this law and others like it. There is no good reason to fleece companies from other states for lawfully providing energy in order to pay for overreaching climate goals.

     West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McClusky argued successfully in an op-ed in the New York Post that the law is unfair, unconstitutional, and basically bonkers. First, he points out that West Virginia coal miners mined the coal that made the steel that built many of New York City’s monumental constructions like the Brooklyn Bridge. McClusky argues that it is unfair that the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) gets to decide who to fine and how much. He also rightly argues that the law is authoritarian.

“The DEC doesn’t have to find fault. It doesn’t have to file a lawsuit and convince a judge or jury that a particular energy producer caused specific harm to New York.”

“No, the law declares energy producers to be automatically “responsible” just because politicians say so.”

“That’s not justice, and it’s not the rule of law.”

“That’s authoritarian bureaucrats picking winners and losers.”

“And the losers will be many.”

“The statute requires energy producers to pay $75 billion to the state of New York — money that could be spent on salaries and benefits for workers, or for new infrastructure projects to make everyone’s energy more affordable.”

“That $75 billion loss will cause three things: job loss, higher prices at the pump and higher utility bills — hurting hardworking Americans across the board, New Yorkers included.”

     He points out that the Constitution “prohibits any state from unduly regulating commerce in another state.” That would be the Commerce Clause. He also notes that states cannot devise their own regulatory schemes that would trump the federal government’s rules. The U.S. EPA has already been tasked with regulating greenhouse gas emissions. He calls it an affront to the Constitution. He especially despises the retroactive nature of the law as obnoxious and bold. Likening it to getting a ticket for going 65 in a 55, but when the speed limit was still 65. He, and 21 other attorneys general, three energy trade associations, and one energy company are suing. While I doubt any of those AGs are Democrats, I would ask why Democrats would not join in these suits. It would be an opportunity for Democrats to fight for sanity in government and reject such authoritarian measures arising from their fringes. Unfortunately, it gives more credence to complaints about Democrat elites making authoritarian rules, which is a legitimate concern.

     New York Post’s Jordan McGillis argued in January 2025 that the law was not really like the EPA Superfund Act, but a more arbitrary rule. The Manhattan Institute’s John Ketcham described the planned doling out of money to well-connected unions, disadvantaged communities, and special interest groups as “poorly defined preferentialism.” According to Gillis:

“The new scheme styles itself in the fashion of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 1980 superfund law, but bears little resemblance to that law in reality.”

“The EPA superfund holds polluters liable for the direct environmental damage they have caused by releasing hazardous waste — harms that are specified, local, particular, and attributable.”

“Big oil companies could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars for past fossil fuel pollution.”

“The climate superfund idea simply slaps retroactive fees onto a group of companies that sold products the state no longer views favorably. While in aggregate global fossil fuel use has amplified the greenhouse effect, these companies have emitted just a sliver of the world’s total.”

“The state can’t credibly say Company X’s emissions caused damage Y, which is why it’s not troubling itself with this necessary specificity.’

“The scheme doesn’t even hold the decision-makers from the “covered period” accountable; it is today’s company shareholders who are on the hook.”

     The fees would extend to international companies and national oil companies like Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Lukoil, and Mexico’s Pemex. I doubt those companies would be willing to pay the state of New York. It makes me wonder whether New York’s bungles in creating greenhouse emissions when they didn’t have to would be included. This includes things like burning high-emission fuel oil at power plants instead of local natural gas, buying LNG from around the world, including the Russian Arctic, instead of sourcing it from the vast Marcellus field nearby, and preventing pipelines from being built that would lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to some alternatives.

     New York chose this law ahead of a planned climate adaptation legislation, but hopes to use the funds collected for that purpose

     I believe the law will be struck down in court, and hopefully, such draconian, authoritarian, and unfair proposals will never be heard from again. The Democrats need to become smarter, more pragmatic, and less extreme about climate and environmental concerns, as these are hurting them. No one wants to live in a world where providing affordable and in-demand energy is akin to a crime or subject to massive fines. These kinds of attempts at punishment, not unlike the ridiculous climate lawsuits that keep cropping up, really need to be nipped in the bud. I say, stop the Bullshit!

 

 

    

 

References:

 

Sorry, New York: West Virginia Won’t Clean Up Your Climate Mess. J.D. McClusky. New York Post. July 25, 2025. Sorry, New York: West Virginia won't clean up your mess

NY weighs charging oil firms billions of dollars to fuel new climate change fund. Carl Campanile. New York Post. August 18, 2024. Exclusive | NY weighs charging oil firms billions of dollars to fuel new climate change fund

New York Passes Climate Superfund Legislation. V&E Environmental Update. Published by  Energy Law Report, July 2025. Vinson & Elkins. March 6, 2025. New York Passes Climate Superfund Legislation | Environmental | Insights | Vinson & Elkins LLP

Albany’s new fossil fuels ‘super-fund’ could hit consumers hard. Jordan McGillis. New York Post. January 25, 2025. Albany's new fossil fuels 'super-fund' will hit consumers hard

Sproule-ERCE and Pulsar Helium Exploring Co-Producing Geothermal Energy and Helium in Greenland

      A pre-feasibility study (PFS) has been announced by the energy company Sproul-ERCE and Pulsar Helium for producing both geothermal energy and helium in Greenland. Europe does not have any sources of helium, so this could be the closest to the continent.

Think Geoenergy reported that the "helium concentrations in sampled hot springs [reach] up to 0.8%, and [it] also demonstrates significant geothermal energy prospects with reservoir temperatures estimated between 80°C and 110°C, making cogeneration of power and heat potentially feasible."

     Pulsar Helium was granted a license to produce helium, hydrogen, and other minerals, but hydrocarbons or radioactive minerals were excluded from the license. The project site is within the county of Tunu in East Greenland, near the coastal town of Ittoqqortoormiit. The location is favorable for the efficient transport of helium to Europe. Sproule-ERCE has significant experience doing these kinds of studies for geothermal prospects and expects the pre-feasibility study to be completed this month, in August 2025.

“We are delighted to partner with Sproule-ERCE, whose deep expertise and global track record in geothermal and resource consulting is second to none. The Tunu project is a unique opportunity, combining primary helium and geothermal energy potential in a highly strategic location. This Pre-Feasibility Study could be a crucial step in unlocking additional value for our shareholders and support Europe’s critical raw materials and clean energy ambitions. We look forward to sharing results as the study progresses,” said Thomas Abraham-James, President & CEO of Pulsar.

     Think GeoEnergy reports:

“A 2024 passive seismic survey identified two main low-velocity anomaly zones, indicating fractured reservoirs that could trap helium and provide targets for exploratory drilling, aligning with surface hydrothermal activity and faults linked to gas emissions.”

     The composition of the gas is primarily nitrogen and helium, and is not associated with hydrocarbons, which is unusual among global helium projects. The PFS was announced in June. Some highlights from Pulsar’s press release are shown below.

    

 

 

References:

 

Energy company announces ambitious plan to tap into limitless underground energy source: 'A unique opportunity'. Mandy Carr. The Cool Down. July 29, 2025. Energy company announces ambitious plan to tap into limitless underground energy source: 'A unique opportunity'

Sproule-ERCE to evaluate feasibility of geothermal-helium project in Tunu, Greenland. Think GeoEnergy. Carlo Cariaga. June 25, 2025.  Sproule-ERCE to evaluate feasibility of geothermal-helium project in Tunu, Greenland

Pulsar Helium Engages Sproule-ERCE for Pre-Feasibility Study at the Tunu Helium-Geothermal Project, Greenland. Pulsar Helium. Global News Wire. June 24, 2025. Pulsar Helium Engages Sproule-ERCE for Pre-Feasibility