×
The government shutdown is hitting airports — but not ICE

The government shutdown is hitting airports — but not ICE

Chaos reigned at airports across the country last weekend, with thousands of travelers reportedly waiting in hours-long security lines thanks to staffing shortages. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard workers have turned to food banks for assistance after weeks without pay. But amid a partial government shutdown aimed at curtailing the Department of Homeland Security’s mass arrests and deportations, federal agents have continued their anti-immigrant crackdown unabated — and for now, there’s not much anyone can do.

DHS has gone without funding for four weeks in a standoff over immigration enforcement. Congressional Democrats say the lapse will continue until the White House agrees to a number of changes at ICE and CBP. But while major parts of DHS are affected, ICE and CBP still have plenty of money at their disposal. Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which passed by the narrowest of margins last fall despite universal Democratic opposition, gave the agencies a combined $170 billion to put towards immigration enforcement through 2029. Much of this money went to ICE, which received $45 billion toward the construction of new detention centers and $30 billion to hire and train personnel. The appropriations currently under debate would give ICE additional funding on top of this $75 billion. This kind of multi-year funding is unusual, and it’s insulated the agencies from political pressure.

Relying on the OBBBA’s funds, ICE has continued arresting immigrants — including a Nashville-based journalist who frequently reports on the agency, who has a pending asylum claim — and detaining them in substandard facilities. Despite the shutdown, Customs and Border Protection has continued scouting additional locations for its “smart wall” along the US-Mexico border, and briefly considered building a barrier through Big Bend National Park in Texas. (The agency has since dropped the plan, likely due to local pushback.) Most DHS employees, including TSA officers and CBP agents, are currently going without pay, though they will receive backpay when funding resumes.

Democrats are demanding a series of compromises to re-fund DHS for this fiscal year. They have called for “targeted enforcement” rather than roving patrols, an end to racial profiling, a “reasonable use of force policy,” and expanded training for officers. Democratic lawmakers, who have compared ICE and CBP’s plainclothes officers to a “paramilitary police,” want DHS to prohibit masks and standardize uniforms for agents in the field. They’ve also requested that officers wear body cameras, as well as IDs displaying their agency, last name, and unique officer number.

“These are common-sense reforms, ones that Americans know and expect from law enforcement,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at a January press conference. So far, these requests have gone nowhere.

ICE deported an estimated 56,000 people during the 43-day funding lapse last fall and held approximately 65,000 people in detention during the same timeframe.

Democrats have notched one high-profile victory in the fight: Trump fired DHS secretary Kristi Noem last Thursday ahead of a House vote to fund DHS. But most Democrats aren’t content with Noem’s ouster. “The problems at this agency transcend any one person,” Schumer said at a press conference after last Thursday’s vote. “The rot is deep. The president has to end the violence and rein in ICE.” The House passed the appropriations bill after her firing, but Senate Democrats didn’t budge.

“It’s not like Kristi Noem was involved in negotiating anything,” added House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). It has long been understood that Trump adviser Stephen Miller runs the show at DHS regardless of who the secretary is. “We were dealing with the White House before, and we’re going to continue to deal with the White House at this point,” Jeffries said.

There’s little reason for the administration to give in to Democrats’ demands. The White House and congressional Republicans have blamed the shutdown on “Radical Left Democrats,” claiming their refusal to fund DHS is putting Americans at risk. Though essential federal employees continue to work through the shutdown — in some cases without pay — Republicans have warned that the funding lapse may prevent DHS from responding to “threats against our homeland” in light of the Trump administration’s recent invasion of Iran. Even if individual officers have to go without pay, the unprecedented funding ICE and CBP received from the OBBBA mean the agencies’ operations can continue.

Last year’s government shutdown provides insight into ICE and CBP’s operations. ICE deported an estimated 56,000 people during the 43-day funding lapse last fall and held approximately 65,000 people in detention during the same timeframe. But because its operations were funded from OBBBA appropriations, ICE claimed in court filings, the agency didn’t have to grant entry to Democratic lawmakers who sought to monitor conditions in federal detention centers as part of their oversight duties.

The effects of the shutdown aren’t equally distributed among DHS’s various component agencies. Ironically, given that Congress created DHS in response to the September 11th airplane attacks, the agency that has experienced the most disruptions so far is the TSA. Agents received roughly 30 percent of their pay last week but will not be paid again until DHS is funded, according to the Times. Ports of entry, including airports, are still mostly operational. Though DHS initially claimed TSA Precheck would be suspended amid the shutdown, the program is currently running at most airports. Global Entry, which is handled by CBP, is largely suspended.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that handles naturalizations, green cards, and other benefit applications, remains operational. Unlike other DHS agencies, USCIS is almost entirely fee-funded, meaning it is largely unaffected by the federal funding debate. Immigration courts also remain open, since the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the federal agency that oversees the immigration court system, is under the purview of the Department of Justice.

Some DHS employees, however, are out of work amid the shutdown. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said on Sunday that Democrats want to fund most DHS component agencies — including the TSA, Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — separately.

Roughly 15 percent of FEMA workers are currently furloughed, while the remaining 85 percent are expected to work without pay. The New York Times reports that FEMA’s disaster relief fund is equipped to handle “current and anticipated” emergency response activities. Its response to a major disaster, however, “would be seriously strained,” Gregg Phillips, the associate administrator for the agency’s Office of Response and Recovery, said in federal testimony last week.

Nearly two-thirds of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency employees are furloughed. Many of the 888 employees the agency has deemed “essential to protecting life and property” have had to work without pay.

“Let’s just pass those funding bills,” Kaine said. Let’s confine the ICE and CBP reform discussion just to those two agencies and fund the others. Thus far, Republicans have blocked those efforts.”

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.


Source link
#government #shutdown #hitting #airports #ICE


In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”

I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?

Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.

In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.

To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.

The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he ⁠could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”

Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”

So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.

On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:

 

“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.

He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.

For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”

Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).

#Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX">Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
                In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.

 In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.

 The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he ⁠could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”

 So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:  Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026    “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.

 For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).      #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX

In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”

I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?

Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.

In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.

To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.

The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he ⁠could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”

Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”

So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.

On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:

 

“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.

He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.

For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”

Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).

#Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX">Elon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire HimElon Musk Explains Why the SpaceX Board Must Be Powerless to Fire Him
                In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.” I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you? Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.

 In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company. [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFvOPpBVff0[/embed] To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.

 The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he ⁠could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.” Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”

 So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride. On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:  Yes, I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars, not pandering to someone’s bullshit quarterly earnings bonus! Obviously, IF SpaceX succeeds in this absurdly difficult goal, it will be worth many orders of… — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026    “I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote. He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.

 For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).      #Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX

In an X post on Friday, Elon Musk warned future shareholders that while returns could be massive eventually, those who invest in SpaceX should not “expect entirely smooth sailing along the way,” and that he must be allowed to focus on his mission of making human life “multiplanetary.”

I’m thinking you should heed is warning. After all, if you’re considering buying SpaceX stock, what do you think will happen at SpaceX after the expected IPO next month? You can’t be picturing SpaceX becoming some boring pillar of economic stability like AT&T, can you?

Speaking to his employees in February, Musk described his dream for the future of SpaceX as one full of space catapults, a Dyson sphere around the sun, and AI that feeds on secret knowledge previously known only to long-dead aliens.

In other words, if you’re imagining good old fashioned American capitalist enterprise with healthy profits, dividends, and market-friendly competition, like something from a 1940s propaganda film, you’re investing in the wrong company.

To wit: SpaceX’s corporate governance regime will be set up in such a way that the CEO and chairman cannot be fired, according to a report last month from Reuters. SpaceX will have different classes of stock with different power levels. Class A for pension funds and Robinhood users—plebs, in other words—and Class B for people who matter. Class B stock will carry ten times the voting power of Class A stock, and Musk will control the Class B stock.

The IPO filing, part of which is excerpted in the Reuters article, spells this out. Musk “can only be removed from our board or these positions by the vote of Class B holders.” If Musk “retains a significant portion of his holdings of Class B common stock for an extended period of time, he ⁠could continue to control the election and removal of a majority of our board.”

Basically, Musk stays in both positions as long as he wants, and can easily veto any effort to fire him. Common shares without voting power aren’t rare these days, but a powerless board is. As a Harvard corporate governance expert named Lucian Bebchuk explained to Reuters, “Usually removal of the CEO is a decision left to the board, and controllers rely on their power to replace the board.”

So if you own stock in SpaceX, you’re just along for the ride.

On Friday, in response to a Financial Times article about SpaceX’s draconian governance scheme, Musk explained himself. Sort of:

 

“I need to make sure SpaceX stays focused on making life multiplanetary and extending consciousness to the stars,” he wrote.

He often does this. In response to criticism—or just as often in response to fans shielding him from criticism—he would say some variation on if people are mean to me, humanity will never be multiplanetary.

For instance, when CleanTechnica leapt to his defense after Bernie Sanders criticized him over income inequality in 2021, he replied, “I am accumulating resources to help make life multiplanetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” That same year, in response to handwringing from European finance ministers about his potential monopoly over satellite launches, he posted, “SpaceX is developing rockets needed to make life multiplanetary — full & rapid reusability at large scale.” Also in 2021, when the FAA expressed concern that SpaceX had overstepped his clearance from the federal government, he wrote about how much he hated the FAA’s space division, saying, “Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities. Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”

Some are predicting shortly after the IPO, the accompanying increase in SpaceX’s valuation will cause Musk’s net worth to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. This isn’t a trivial side effect. Elon Musk is more or less signaling that he is the protagonist of humanity’s future, and everyone else is an NPC. Do you believe that? Then by all means buy the stock (This is not financial advice).

#Elon #Musk #Explains #SpaceX #Board #Powerless #FireElon Musk,ipo,SPACEX

As states seek out much-needed supplies of clean, reliable energy, some are looking to an unconventional source: abandoned oil and gas wells harnessed for geothermal heat.

Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.

Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.

The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.

In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.

The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.

The Oklahoma bill ​“recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. ​“And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”

In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.

These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.

Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated

Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.

Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.

#Oil #Gas #Wells #Find #Life #Producing #Clean #Energyenvironment,energy,climate change,climate desk,policy">Old Oil and Gas Wells Could Find Second Life Producing Clean EnergyAs states seek out much-needed supplies of clean, reliable energy, some are looking to an unconventional source: abandoned oil and gas wells harnessed for geothermal heat.Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from ,000 to 0,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.The Oklahoma bill ​“recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. ​“And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.Converting Wells Is Enticing but ComplicatedGeothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.#Oil #Gas #Wells #Find #Life #Producing #Clean #Energyenvironment,energy,climate change,climate desk,policy

littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.

Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.

The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.

In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.

The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.

The Oklahoma bill ​“recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. ​“And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”

In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.

These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.

Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated

Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.

Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.

#Oil #Gas #Wells #Find #Life #Producing #Clean #Energyenvironment,energy,climate change,climate desk,policy">Old Oil and Gas Wells Could Find Second Life Producing Clean Energy

As states seek out much-needed supplies of clean, reliable energy, some are looking to an unconventional source: abandoned oil and gas wells harnessed for geothermal heat.

Millions of inactive wells are littered across the United States, the relics of earlier eras of fossil fuel production. A large number of the sites have no official owner, and many are still polluting groundwater and leaking heat-trapping methane. The country has barely scratched the surface in dealing with this problem.

Policymakers in both Republican- and Democratic-led states are exploring whether these sites could instead be converted into new wells for producing geothermal energy. The holes are already drilled in the ground, after all. And regions with widespread oil and gas development have rich subsurface data that geothermal firms need in order to determine where and how to build their carbon-free systems.

The concept is relatively new and largely untested, though scientists and startups are working to change that. States are also laying the groundwork for action by lifting regulatory hurdles and launching in-depth studies.

In Oklahoma, the state Senate is considering a bill that would create a process for companies to buy abandoned oil and gas wells and repurpose them for geothermal energy or underground energy storage. Oklahoma has identified over 20,000 such wells, and state regulators estimate that it would take 235 years and hundreds of millions of dollars to plug all of them. Fixing a single old well can cost anywhere from $75,000 to $150,000 or more, by some calculations, depending on where it’s located and how complicated it is to clean up.

The Well Repurposing Act, which passed Oklahoma’s House in March, is modeled after a similar law that New Mexico adopted last year to address its 2,000-plus orphan wells.

The Oklahoma bill ​“recognizes that these wells are a liability, and that there may be a way to turn them into some sort of revenue generation and give them value,” said Dave Tragethon, communications director for the nonprofit Well Done Foundation, which works to find and cap abandoned oil and gas wells nationwide. ​“And if there’s value, that means there’s more of a willingness to address them and more of an opportunity to raise funding.”

In Alabama, legislators passed a law last month that allows the state to approve and regulate the conversion of oil and gas wells to tap alternative energy resources like geothermal. North Dakota adopted a bill last year requiring a legislative council to study the feasibility of using nonproductive wells to generate geothermal power. And in Colorado, state agencies just launched a technical study to evaluate the potential of repurposing old wells for geothermal development and carbon capture and sequestration.

These efforts reflect the growing bipartisan support for geothermal energy, which has largely remained unscathed by the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects. The energy resource has the potential to help meet the nation’s soaring energy demand while also slashing planet-warming emissions from electricity and heating.

Converting Wells Is Enticing but Complicated

Geothermal systems work by circulating fluids underground to capture naturally occurring heat, which can then be used to drive turbines for generating electricity or to directly warm the air and water in buildings. The industry is gaining momentum thanks to recent advances in drilling methods and technologies that are making it technically possible or financially viable to access geothermal energy in more places.

Many of those breakthroughs have come from the oil and gas industry, whose skilled workforce of drilling engineers and geoscientists, and deep corporate pockets, have helped launch startups and deploy cutting-edge systems. However, most of that expertise and funding is being poured into building new projects—not figuring out how to retool leaky wells left behind by earlier generations.

#Oil #Gas #Wells #Find #Life #Producing #Clean #Energyenvironment,energy,climate change,climate desk,policy

Post Comment