http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-urges-congress-eliminate-oil-company-subsidies/story?id=13462559

House Speaker John Boehner talks exclusively with ABC’s Jonathan Karlin Hamilton, Ohio.ABC News

AUTO START:ON|OFF

By JONATHAN KARL (@jonkarl) and BENFORER
April 26, 2011

President Obama sent a letter toCongressional leaders today, saying he was “heartened” byHouse Speaker John Boehner’s statement that he was willing to considercutting multi-billion dollar subsidies to oil companies, and urginglawmakers to act.

The president said Congress should “take immediate action toeliminate unwarranted tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and usethe dollars to invest in clean energy.”

Boehner had stunned Washington on Monday when he told ABC News thatcutting the subsidies to oil companies is “certainly something weshould be looking at.”

“We are in a time when the federal government’s short onrevenues. We need to control spending, but we need to have revenues toget the government moving,” Boehner said. “They ought to bepaying their fair share.”

Congressional Democrats pounced on the issue today. Sen. ChuckSchumer, D-N.Y., applauded Boehner for “see[ing] the light”on the “insanity of providing subsidies to profit-soaked big oilcompanies.”

The topic dominated the White House press briefing.

“Immediate action means what it says,which is when Congress comes back, let’s take action legislatively toeliminate those subsidies,” White House spokesman Jay Carneysaid. “[It’s] hard to argue that given where the price of oil isnow that there’s a need for subsidies of the oil and gasindustry.”

Carney was referring to a statement earlier this year by former ShellCEO John Hofmeister, in which he said: “In the face of sustainedhigh oil prices, it was not an issue for large companies of needingthe subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing moreoil.”

In all, the tax breaks, many designed to encourage moreexploration, cost taxpayers more than $4billion a year in lost revenue — enough for 1.4 million Americans tobuy a tank full of gas every week for an entireyear.

However, the oil companies do have friends in Congress and thePresident’s letter demanding immediate action hit with a thud. Boehnerand Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the proposal.Boehner’s spokesman said the plan was insufficient because it would”only raise taxes and increase prices at thepump.”

ABC News asked the 10 members of Congress who received the mostcampaign contributions from the oil industry in the last election ifthey’d be willing to cut the tax breaks. Most have yet to respond, andSen. David Vitter, R-La., told ABC News that he’d only be open toeliminating tax breaks if tax rates were also lowered.

“I’m open to ending most tax exemptions, deductions and creditsif we use the resulting revenue to lower all rates, much as thepresident’s deficit commission suggested,” Vitter said in astatement. “Part of the reason for these provisions is that wehave the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which kills Americanjobs.”

House Speaker JohnBoehner Weighs in on Gas Prices Watch Video

Boehner: GasPrices Could Cost Obama Election Watch Video

Barack Obama on Howto Bring Down Gas Prices Watch Video

_________________

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0426/High-gas-prices-and-oily-political-rhetoric-don-t-mix

Christian Science Monitor

Editorial

The Monitor’sView

High gasprices and oily political rhetoric don’t mix

President Obamaand Republicans eye rising gasoline prices and think 2012. Too many oftheir responses aren’t aimed at weaning America offoil.

By the Monitor’s EditorialBoard / April26, 2011

Trying to tank up less often? GOP andDemocratic leaders are doing the opposite – filling up on politicalrhetoric to score points or deflect criticism at a time of risinggasoline prices.

Like a desert-highway mirage, the political back-and-forth couldmislead Americans as to what lies ahead.

Republicans, focused on gains to be made in 2012, see prices in the$4-a-gallon range as a reason to blame President Obama – just asDemocrats blamed President Bush for the record high price at the pumpin 2008, when the national average hit $4.11 in July.

One “mirage” lies in three House billspassed by the Republican-controlled Natural Resources Committee. Thelegislation expands offshore oil drilling. But backers convenientlyoverlook the fact that more offshore drilling wouldn’t change gasprices for at least 10 years, and even then marginally – by perhaps3 cents a gallon, according to studies by the Energy InformationAdministration.

In March, Republicans launched an attack ad against Rep. Nick Rahallover gas prices. The Democrat from West Virginia used to head theNatural Resources Committee, and last year pushed safety andenvironmental improvements for offshore drilling. He opposes theGOP’s three drilling bills.

House Speaker John Boehner says higher gas prices could cost PresidentObama his office, and this is not lost on the president. Mr. Obama’sratings have dropped as gas prices have risen. Seven in 10 Americanssay high gas prices are a financial hardship, according to aWashington Post/ABC News poll this week. Looking toward Obama’s 2012reelection bid, 53 percent of those who feel serious hardship from gasprices say they definitely won’t vote for Obama.

In the president’s weekly radio address on Saturday, he said he hadappointed a task force to root out fraud or manipulation in the oilmarkets. He pushed ending the almost $4 billion in annual tax breaksto the oil and gas industry – a populist idea that Mr. Boehnersuddenly embraced this week. Obama also blasted Republican plans tocut investment in clean energy by 70 percent.

But, sorry America, despite the promises of politicians, neitheroffshore drilling, nor a fraud investigation, nor an end to bigoil’s tax benefits will relieve gasoline prices any time soon, if atall.

Those are insignificant when you look at some of the causes of theprice surge, such as Middle East turmoil and global economic recovery.The Great Recession and slow recovery gave the world a three-yearreprieve from the broad trend that will inevitably sustain higherprices: emerging, gas-guzzling economies such as China and India vyingfor a limited supply of oil.

Neither the president nor Congress have much influence over thesetrends. The best thing to do, then, is for the country’s leaders tochange America’s fuel diet by encouraging less demand for oilthrough conservation and efficiency, and by supporting investment innonoil fuels.

President Obama got at this when he said “there’s no silver bulletthat can bring down gas prices right away.”

The harder truth is that high prices are likely to continue. They willactually help speed the coming and necessary transition from oildependence, because high prices make the status quo souncomfortable.

America’s drivers, especially those on a fixed income,understandably have a hard time with this truth. They want immediaterelief. There is a sure-fire way to get that, though: Drive less, evenbuy a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

Admittedly, that’s not possible for everyone. Yet 6 in 10 Americanssay they are cutting back on driving, according to the WashingtonPost/ABC poll. As a result of the last gas-price surge, Americanstelecommuted more, rode bikes more often, and used more publictransport – often with the assistance of their employers. Fromdriving more slowly to moving closer to work, there are many ways tocut fuel use.

Drivers can take these steps, while higherprices do their work to change the longer-term fuel mix.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Obama_Letter_Oil_Tax_Subsidies

This is really what needs to happen to move our energy policy forward and to help balance the budget. Let’s see how real it gets since so many Congressmen are beholden to Big Oil. One-third of our fuel is used in the wars; end the wars, end the oil subsidies and implement clean alternative energy like solar. DV

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-26/u-s-must-safeguard-environment-in-ocean-drills-activists-urge-court.html

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins and Allen Johnson Jr. – Apr 26, 2011 12:29 PM PT

Environmentalists urged a New Orleans appellate court today to require U.S. offshore-drilling regulators to enforce safeguards for wildlife and water quality that they claim were routinely ignored before last year’s BP Plc (BP/) oil spill.

Lawyers representing the Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network,the Center for Biological Diversity and other activist groups asked the court to force the Interior Department to rescind several deep-water drilling permits regulators approved last April, just before and after the worst offshore oil spill in U.S.history.

The activists complain that the relationship between the oil industry and its regulators has been too cozy, resulting in lax oversight and environmental damage. They claim that five drilling permits were awarded last April without completion of the full environmental-impact assessments required by law.

“What the agency did was rubber-stamp the plans,” Monica Reimer, an attorney for Earthjustice, said during today’s hearing at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. “We believe they need to be reopened, and that those plans must come before the court after the agency has done a complete environmental assessment.”

Seeking Change

The activist groups sued Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar and his agency seeking multiple changes to U.S. drilling regulations following the Deepwater Horizon disaster last April. The rig exploded while drilling a BP well off the Louisiana coast, killing 11 workers. The subsea gusher spewed more than 4.1 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico.

Much of the Gulf’s fisheries were closed, wildlife was injured or killed, and hundreds of miles of shoreline was fouled by the drifting oil.

The environmental groups challenged the agency’s actions directly at the appeals court, which is permitted under U.S. law. Related offshore-drilling policy lawsuits filed by some of the activist groups in lower federal courts were subsequently consolidated into the appellate actions. A three-judge appellate panel heard arguments on the challenges in back-to-back sessions today.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which regulates offshore drilling, awarded one of the five permits the activists have complained about six days after the Deepwater Horizon exploded. The groups say that permit was based on an exploration plan that didn’t take into consideration the possibility of a deep-water spill like the one then spreading across the Gulf.

Agency Decisions

Government lawyers today urged the appeals court not to interfere with agency decisions that regulators made according to rules that were in place at the time the permits were granted. Regulators notified oil companies in November 2010 that the agency would beef up existing environmental-impact assessment requirements “to consider the implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” government lawyer Ignacia Moreno said in a court filing.

“The petitioners’ attempt to have this court rule that the agency should have started that process within days of the Deepwater Horizon initial explosion should be rejected,” Moreno said in the filing.

Environmentalists told the judges the agency’s practice of using of so-called categorical exclusions, which let regulators arbitrarily exempt companies from fulfilling certain permit requirements, violated the law.

Risky Process

“There were all kinds of risks that were not being disclosed to the Department of Interior or by the industry,” Reimer said of the five permits the bureau approved in April 2010, during an interview after the hearing.

“Deep-water drilling is an inherently risky process, and the industry knows it,” she said. “There is major potential for significant environmental impact,” and regulators should be forced to factor that into their permit approval decisions, she said.

The lead cases are Gulf Restoration Network v. Salazar, 10- 60411, and Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 10-60417, both in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans).

To contact the reporters on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston atlaurel@calkins.us.com; Allen Johnson Jr. in New Orleans.

Share http://bloom.bg/dToyUoon Twitter

The URL http://bloom.bg/dToyUohas been shared 16 times.View these Tweets.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

(04/22/2011)

Paul Quinlan, E&E reporter

One word could describe U.S. EPA’s oversight of BP PLC’s decision to
pour 1.84 million gallons of oil-dispersing chemicals into the Gulf of
Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: uncertain.

Responding to growing public unease last year over BP’s strategy of
fighting a massive chemical spill with more chemicals, EPA flexed its
regulatory muscle. The result was not confidence-inspiring: a shoving
match between the world’s largest environmental regulator and one of
the world’s largest oil companies that showed how little the regulators
understood about oil dispersants.

One year later, scientists say little has changed.

Decision making about the use of dispersants to combat the oil pouring
out of the Macondo well 5,000 feet below the Gulf surface were driven
more by politics, circumstances of supply and availability, and
educated guesswork than by informed science, experts say.

Some questions posed during the spill have been answered. For example,
the chemical constituents of the dispersant used has been published by
EPA and shown in rudimentary tests to be no more toxic or less
effective than competing alternatives.

But since the Obama administration has resumed issuing drilling permits
in the Gulf of Mexico, the most important questions remain unanswered:
How much did dispersants — as opposed to simple physics –contribute
to keeping oil underwater and out of Louisiana’s marshes? How effective
was underwater injection of the dispersants onto the wellhead? And what
long-term effects will the lingering chemicals and the dispersed oil
have on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem?

“There are so many data gaps and uncertainties with the use of
dispersants and their effects,” said Carys Mitchelmore, an
environmental chemist and toxicologist at the University of Maryland’s
Center for Environmental Science and co-author of a 2005 National
Research Council report on oil dispersants. “Why hasn’t there been the
funding available to look into some of these things?”

After last year’s spill began, regulators seemed confused. Twenty days
after the rig explosion, on May 10, EPA told BP to monitor and assess
its use of oil dispersants. Ten days later, the agency ordered the oil
giant to switch from Corexit-brand dispersant to one of several others
believed to be “less toxic and more effective.” BP declined and
defended its choice. EPA criticized the company’s response as
“insufficient” and ordered BP to “significantly scale back” dispersant
use. BP did not (Greenwire, June 24).

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson now defends her agency’s call to allow
BP to fight the spill using dispersants. “The chemicals helped break up
the oil,” Jackson told The New York Times in a recent interview.”It
was the right decision to use them.”

If that is the case, then on what basis did EPA decide to order BP to
ramp down dispersant use on May 26, two months before the well was
capped? EPA officials declined to comment. But other experts have
speculated.

“My view is that I think EPA was responding a bit to public concern and
pressure,” said Ron Tjeerdema, an environmental toxicologist and oil
dispersants expert at the University of California, Davis.Tjeerdema
was one of 50 scientists, engineers and spill responders that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assembled during the
spill to decide whether to continue using dispersants. The panel
concluded that dispersant use should continue.

At that point, questions lingered over whether a better alternativet o
Corexit existed. A table listing 19 dispersants alongside crude
measures of the toxicity and effectiveness of each — part of the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule on file at EPA —
indicated that two Corexit formulas, 9500A and 9527A, might be among
the most toxic and least effective formulas in breaking up South
Louisiana crude oil (Greenwire, May 13).

The table became the basis of EPA’s decision, under pressure from
Congress and the public, to order BP to switch to one of the listed
alternatives. Mitchelmore said she later found problems and
inconsistencies in the testing methods that produced the data listed in
the NCP product schedule table’s toxicity and effectiveness ratings.

By then, EPA had already ordered BP to switch to something other than
Corexit. Upon BP’s refusal, EPA launched its own tests to see if a
better alternative existed. The results came back two months later on
Aug. 2, around the time the well was capped. To the agency’s chagrin,
BP was shown to be right. EPA’s tests showed Corexit 9500A was no more
toxic or less effective than any of the competing products, all of
which were stockpiled in vastly smaller and ultimately insufficient
quantities (E&ENews PM, June 30).

From the early days of the spill, BP’s purchase of Corexit represented
a third of the world’s supply. After the spill, in November, the
federal government’s Oil Budget Calculator report said of dispersant
use: “… were it a spill by itself, it would be one of the larger
spills in U.S. waters.”

But the scarcity of Corexit alternatives made the decision about
whether to switch to some other brand “a moot choice,” according to
Tjeerdema.

“The oil industry generally only stockpiles one at a time,” he said.
Tjeerdema recalled chuckling to himself over news reports that BP began
dispersing oil using Corexit 9527, an older formula that dates back to
the 1980s, before switching to 9527A.

“Right away, I understood they were getting rid of their old stockpile
that they hadn’t used for 20 years,” Tjeerdema said.”They’re kind of
efficient in wanting to get the most out of their stockpiled
dispersants.”

Breaking up is hard to do

Dispersants are frequently compared to dish soap — and in fact, share
some of the same ingredients. The chemicals break up oil — which
otherwise tends to cluster and float — into tiny droplets that can
sink and diffuse into the water column, so that bacteria and marine
organisms can more easily consume them.

Given the shortage of equipment available during the Deepwater Horizon
spill to burn, skim or otherwise dispose of the oil at the surface, the
question becomes one of environmental tradeoffs: Should the oil be
sunken with dispersants, at possible risk to deepwater marine
ecosystems, or be allowed to surface on its own and float onto beaches
and into marshes?

Tjeerdema, who served on the NOAA panel that recommended continued
dispersant use for the spill last June, stands by the group’s consensus
that dispersing the oil was “less environmentally harmful” than
allowing crude to migrate into the coastal marshes and wetlands along
the Louisiana coast, which act as nurseries for economically important
fish and shellfish and can be almost impossible to clean.

“If you take dish detergent and squirt it to your aquarium, it will
certainly kill your fish,” Tjeerdema said. “If you can put 2 million
gallons of dispersant into the environment in a way that it will mix
and bind with the oil to reduce overall toxicity, maybe that’s nots uch
a bad thing.”

But the chemicals do not just disappear. In the most comprehensive
study on the fate of oil dispersants used in the Gulf spill, Liz
Kujawinski, an associate scientist of marine chemistry at the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, found that a key ingredient in the
dispersants — dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, or DOSS — remained
trapped in the underwater plume of oil that had spread 180 miles from
the well by September, even as it became almost undetectably dilute.

“There was sort of a public perception that the dispersant was just
going to go away,” Kujawinski said. “We concluded that dilution was
really the primary process.”

But Kujawinski reserves judgment on whether or not dispersing the oil
was a good idea. For one, she says, not enough data exists to show what
effect, if any, dispersants sprayed deep underwater had on breaking up
the oil gushing from the wellhead. She and other researchers note that
simple physics may have done more to keep the oil trapped in underwater
plumes.

Rather than second-guess the response, Kujuawinski says research should
be devoted to answering the most important questions: Did dispersants
play a significant role in breaking up the oil at the wellhead and
should sinking the oil have been the goal at all?

“We need to take a step back and say it’s happened and then say whether
or not it did what it’s supposed to do,” she said, noting that
responders had limited equipment for skimming and burning oil that rose
to the surface.

“The known negative impact of swamping the marsh with oil –that’s a
known problem,” Kujawinski said. “The big question is whether or not
they caused a different problem.”

Answers may not be forthcoming soon. As dolphins and sea turtles
continue to wash up mysteriously on the Gulf Coast, only $40 million of
the $500 million BP has committed to Gulf research has been disbursed
so far because of organizational delays. EPA has proposed additional
research into oil dispersants toxicity and effectiveness in 2012,
although the agency has come on the chopping block and already faces
$1.6 billion in cuts under the budget deal approved last week –likely
the first of many such spending fights.

For now, the puzzle surrounding dispersants remains unsolved, said Lisa
Suatoni, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“In the end, we would hope that the government and BP would have a will
to put together that puzzle, and it’s not all clear from the research
that’s coming out that they do have that will,” she said. “It’s a
little discouraging if the interest in oil spill response research
lasts only as long as the oil spill response.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

So glad to see this finally happening; some things move at a snail’s pace at the federal level. I hope the funds actually improve the Gulf instead of lining the pockets of the well connected. DV

Washington, DC – Under an unprecedented agreement announced today by the Natural Resource Trustees for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Trustees), BP has agreed to provide $1 billion toward early restoration projects in the Gulf of Mexico to address injuries to natural resources caused by the spill. The Trustees involved are: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Department of Justice provided assistance in reaching the agreement.

This early restoration agreement, the largest of its kind ever reached, represents a first step toward fulfilling BP’s obligation to fund the complete restoration of injured public resources,including the loss of use of those resources by the people living,working and visiting the area. The Trustees will use the money to fund projects such as the rebuilding of coastal marshes, replenishment of damaged beaches, conservation of sensitive areas for ocean habitat for injured wildlife, and restoration of barrier islands and wetlands that provide natural protection from storms.

The agreement in no way affects the ultimate liability of BP or any other entity for natural resource damages or other liabilities, but provides an opportunity to help restoration get started sooner. The selection of early restoration projects will follow a public process, and will be overseen by the Trustees.

The full natural resource damage assessment process will continue until the Trustees have determined the full extent of damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At the end of the damage assessment process, the Trustees will take into account any benefits that were realized from these early restoration projects. In addition to funding early restoration projects, BP will continue to fund the damage assessment and, together with the other responsible parties, will ultimately be obligated to compensate the public for the entire injury. BP is providing the early restoration funds voluntarily, and is not required to do so at this stage of the damage assessment process. The agreement will speed needed resources to the Gulf in advance of the completion of the assessment process.

To read the agreement, go to:

“This milestone agreement will allow us to jump-start restorationprojects that will bring Gulf Coast marshes, wetlands, and wildlifehabitat back to health after the damage they suffered as a result ofthe Deepwater Horizon spill,” said Secretary of the Interior KenSalazar. “This agreement accelerates our work on Gulf Coastrestoration and in no way limits the ability of all the NaturalResource Trustees from seeking full damages from those who areresponsible as the NRDA process moves forward.”

“One year after the largest oil spill in our history, we take amajor step forward in the recovery of the Gulf of Mexico, for theenvironment and the people who depend on it for their livelihood andenjoyment. Today’s agreement is a down payment on our promise toprotect and restore the Gulf,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAAadministrator.

“This agreement is a great first step toward restoring ournatural resources destroyed by the BP oil spill,” said LouisianaGovernor Bobby Jindal. “We are eager to continue working withpublic, state and federal co-trustees and BP to quickly convert thisdownpayment into projects to restore our damaged coast and replace ourlost wildlife. We encourage BP to continue to address the damages fromthis spill through early restoration efforts.”

“Alabama’s natural resources are environmentally diverse and aneconomic engine for our state and nation. Ecosystem restoration isvital to the economic vitality of the Alabama Gulf Coast,” saidAlabama Governor Robert Bentley. “Obtaining funding for theserestoration projects is a major step forward in addressing the oilspill’s damage to our precious natural resources. I have the utmostconfidence that the Alabama trustees will consider and identifyprojects and use these funds toward restoring our naturalresources.”

“Since the day of the oil spill, our goals have been to makeMississippi whole and to assure that our coastal areas completelyrecover. Today’s unprecedented agreement is an important firststep but it is only the first step. Mississippi will continue thiswork and will count on our many interested citizens to contributetheir ideas and input as we all work to define the scope of theseearly projects and develop other restoration projects. Our goals havenot changed. We will remain actively engaged in these and otherprojects until the Gulf is restored and our state is made whole,”said Trudy D. Fisher, Mississippi Trustee, Executive Director,Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.

“I’m pleased that after a year of uncertainty and concerns aboutenvironmental damages which occurred as a result of the DeepwaterHorizon explosion, Florida will be able to use this early restorationmoney to initiate greatly needed environmental restoration projects,”said Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary HerschelVinyard. “Because we have worked diligently to assess theenvironmental damage resulting from the spill, we are well positionedto be able to quickly begin performing important restoration projectsand use Florida’s share of the early restoration funds to assist ourcoastal communities with their continued recovery from thespill.”

“While the Texas coast was not as visibly impacted by this spill,our wetlands, bays, beaches and coastal waters were affected, and itmakes sense to invest in places that can help jumpstart and maximizerecovery of the entire Gulf,” said Carter Smith, Texas Parks andWildlife Department executive director. “There will be a publicprocess in Texas and throughout the Gulf to consider and identifyprojects that make the best use of these funds for our coastalhabitats and the fish, wildlife and people who depend uponthem.”

The $1 billion in early restoration projects will be selected andimplemented as follows:

· Each state -Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas – will select andimplement $100 million in projects;

· The FederalResource Trustees, NOAA and DOI, will each select and implement $100million in projects;

· The remaining $300million will be used for projects selected by NOAA and DOI fromproposals submitted by the State Trustees.

All projects must meet the other requirements of the FrameworkAgreement and be approved by the Trustee Council comprised of all thenatural resource trustees.

To read the early restoration agreement, clickhere.

# # #Special thanks to Richard Charter