Care.com: Scary News: Carbon Dioxide Level Highest In 3 Million Years

by Judy Molland
May 14, 2013
6:00 am

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/scary-news-carbon-dioxide-level-highest-in-3-million-years.html#ixzz2TMuH4zg8

It’s official, and it’s scary: on May 9, the daily average concentration of climate-warming carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere passed the milestone level 400 parts per million for the first time in human history.

Hooray for us humanoids. We are destroying our planet even faster than we realized, and we are moving into uncharted territory.

By analyzing fossil air trapped in ancient ice, along with other data, researchers have determined that the last time levels were this high was at least three million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, long before the evolution of modern humans (that happened in East Africa, about 200,000 years ago). At the Pliocene time the Arctic was ice-free, the Sahara was covered in savannah, and the sea level was over 100 feet higher than it is today.

They believe that the Pliocene era conditions will return, with devastating consequences for human life, if emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal, gas and oil are not rapidly cut back.

We Have Failed Miserably On Climate Change

From The Guardian:

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.

Ralph Keeling, who runs another monitoring program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, said a continuing rise could be catastrophic. “It means we are quickly losing the possibility of keeping the climate below what people thought were possibly tolerable thresholds,” he said.

It’s not as if we haven’t been warned. A definitive scientific report in 2011 warned that extreme weather events linked to climate change will continue around the world in coming decades; President Obama spoke at his party’s convention in 2012 about his plan to continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet; the tab for last year’s extreme weather events in the U.S. will rise to well over $100 billion; the ice is melting in the Arctic.

We’ve been hearing these warnings for years, although of course if you live in Kansas or Oklahoma, your lawmakers will be encouraging you to deny the evidence.

But what we do know is that virtually every automobile ride, every plane trip and, in most places, every flip of a light switch adds carbon dioxide to the air, and relatively little money is being spent to find and deploy alternative technologies. And despite all the warnings, global emissions of CO2 continue to soar.

China Now The Largest Emitter Of CO2

According to The New York Times, China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil fuels for far longer, so that means the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the high level.

What do the experts say?

From The Guardian:

“It is symbolic, a point to pause and think about where we have been and where we are going,” said Professor Ralph Keeling, who oversees the measurements on a Hawaian volcano, which were begun by his father in 1958. “It’s like turning 50: it’s a wake up to what has been building up in front of us all along.”

I wonder how long it will take for things to get shockingly bad before they get better.

Need To Fight Big Oil And Big Coal

A Senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe has called climate change a hoax. He isn’t the only one representing the interests of Big Oil. There are many barons of industry, including the Koch brothers, who seem to not care at all about the future of our planet, or of humanity. As long as they can make a profit from fossil fuels, they are happy.

Perhaps our first step should be to work at limiting their power, and getting rid of the politicians who take money from them.

The extreme speed at which CO2 in now rising, perhaps 75 times faster than in pre-industrial times, has never been seen in geological records, and only by striving to reduce global emissions can we avoid the consequences of turning the climate clock back 3 million years.

This is a grim milestone. All our efforts at conservation, recycling, growing sustainable crops, are admirable, but only governments can make the big changes that are necessary to significantly reduce global emissions of CO2.

It’s time for change.

What do you think?

Coral-list: Bruce Carlson: CO2 hits 400ppm

BRUCE CARLSON exallias2@gmail.com via coral.aoml.noaa.gov

May 9 (5 days ago)

to coral-list
Probably everyone (in the U.S.) has heard the news that the Dow Jones average has surpassed 15,000 and everyone is jubilant.

You may have missed another story that appeared at almost the same time. Here is an excerpt of that story from The Economist:

“At NOON on May 4th the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere around the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii hit 400 parts per million (ppm). The average for the day was 399.73 and researchers at the observatory expect this figure, too, to exceed 400 in the next few days. The last time such values prevailed on Earth was in the Pliocene epoch, 4m years ago, when jungles covered northern Canada. There have already been a few readings above 400ppm elsewhere—those taken over the Arctic Ocean in May 2012, for example—but they were exceptional. Mauna Loa is the benchmark for CO2 measurement … because Hawaii is so far from large concentrations of humanity.”

We all know the predictions for climate change and ocean chemistry change as we now head, inevitably it appears, to 450ppm.

_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List@coral.aoml.noaa.gov

http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

E&E: House Dems decry continuing violations in Gulf of Mexico

Laura Petersen, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, May 10, 2013

Oil companies continue to rack up safety violations in the Gulf of Mexico three years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, House Natural Resources Committee Democrats said in a report released today.

Companies with the most “major environmental and safety” violations before the 2010 spill continue to have some of the worst records, the report says.

Ranking member Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urged Congress to toughen monitoring and impose heavier penalties to deter risky practices.

“We need to make sure these companies change their ways and pay a price for their risky practices,” Markey said in a statement.

The report, “Dangerous Drillers: Offshore Safety Lapses Continue Three Years After BP Spill,” is based on Interior Department data comparing accidents, inspections, safety violations and civil penalties before and after the 2010 disaster.

Markey also released letters he sent to BP PLC and U.S. EPA, faulting the oil company for failing to provide information requested by Congress after the 2010 Gulf spill.

Markey advised EPA to not lift BP’s debarment from federal contracts until the company provides the requested information.

“First, BP lied to Congress when I asked for information about the amount of oil being spilled into the Gulf,” Markey wrote. “Now, BP won’t provide me information about why company officials lied. Until it comes clean and cleans up its act, the government should not be in business with BP.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

BLM Postpones Oil & Gas Leases; cites sequester as cause

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 1623
Sacramento, CA 95825
www.ca.blm.gov

May 3, 2013

NOTICE: BLM Postpones Oil and Gas Lease Sales Due to budget constraints resulting from the sequester and an emphasis on the higher priorities for conducting Inspection & Enforcement on existing leases and processing new Applications for Permit to Drill.

The Bureau of Land Management has postponed all oil & gas lease sales for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2013 (September 30, 2013).
For questions regarding the postponement of the lease sales, contact Laurie Moore at the BLM California State Office, (916) 978-
4377.

/S/
James G. Kenna,
State Director

The Lens–Survey: Americans nationwide willing to shell out personally to save our coast

http://thelensnola.org/2013/04/24/survey-americans-nationwide-willing-to-shell-out-personally-to-save-louisianas-coast/

By Bob Marshall, Staff writer April 24, 2013 2:00pm

Question: Would enough American households be willing to make a one-time payment in their tax fillings to raise as much as to $201 billion for Louisiana’s coastal restoration effort?

Answer:
A) Yes
B) No
C) You gotta be kiddin’!

The answer, according to a pair of Mississippi State University researchers who conducted a recent survey, is “A.”

Which will probably leave most coastal area residents thinking “C”.

That’s how one of the researchers reacted.

“I was surprised at the high numbers who said they would help, and then how much they would commit personally, ” said Dan Petrolia, an associate professor of agricultural economics at MSU who conducted the survey with colleague Matt Interis – an attempt to judge the financial commitment Americans would make to Louisiana’s coastal crisis.

“I think this shows there is enough awareness out there by enough people. And that’s very encouraging.” – David Muth

A Louisiana native who was raised in Independence, Petrolia said the idea for the survey came to him after seeing a growing number of “America’s Wetland” bumper stickers. They’re circulated by the America’s Wetland Foundation, the Louisiana civic group whose mission is alerting the nation to the state’s grave coastal emergency.

Does the nation embrace Louisiana as its wetland? “I wanted to find out if Americans really felt that way,” Petrolia said. “It seemed like a pretty straightforward thing to find out.”

One of the best ways to answer the question was to ask how much of their own money Americans would pay to help save the nation’s most productive coastal estuary and the storm buffer for a vital economic and cultural infrastructure.

The MSU researchers asked two different types of questions:
They first asked respondents if they would choose to help pay for the coastal effort, or do nothing.
The second question was multiple choice. Respondents could choose to contribute to two different habitat projects affecting wildlife, fisheries or storm protection. Or they could choose to do nothing.
In each case, those choosing to help did so knowing the decision came with a specified charge in their end-of-year tax filings.

The respondents included 3,400 people spread across every state; only 32 were Louisianans.
The results were good news for the coast:
Forty-three percent of those given the help-or-not question choose to help the state. The median amount they agreed to pay was $1,751.

That would translate to $201 billion, if the 43 percent sample held for the roughly 115 million American households counted in the most recent census.

Sixty percent of those given the multiple-choice question chose to help, with the mean contribution from that group coming to $909, the researchers found. If that result held true for the 115 million American households, it would raise $105 billion for the coastal effort.

The state’s current coastal Master Plan carries a price tag of $50 billion. But the planners reason they could do twice as much with twice the funding.

Petrolia stressed that he was not claiming the survey sample would necessarily hold true for all American households.

But since 93 percent of the respondents had never visited or lived in New Orleans, the level of support should be encouraging to Louisiana, the researcher said.

Garret Graves, head of Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, declined to comment on the survey.

David Muth, state director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Coastal Louisiana Campaign, called the results a welcome surprise.

“I think it’s encouraging that Americans are willing to pay anything, frankly,” Muth said. “That’s because when you attach a dollar value to a question like that it sort of puts the (issue) on a whole new plain. I think this shows there is enough awareness out there by enough people. And that’s very encouraging.”

In other findings from the survey:
* Respondents ranked fisheries production as their first concern followed by storm surge protection and wildlife habitat.
* Respondents who had made lifestyle changes for environmental reasons were more likely to support restoration.
* Those who identified themselves as liberal tended to be more supportive than those who identified themselves as conservative.
* Past or present Louisiana residents tended to be more supportive.
The Northern Gulf Institute and the MSU Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station funded the study.

Help us report this story Report an error
The Lens’ donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.
ABOUT BOB MARSHALL
More from this author
Bob Marshall covers environmental issues for The Lens, with a special focus on coastal restoration and wetlands. While at The Times-Picayune, his work chronicling the people, stories and issues of Louisiana’s wetlands was recognized with two Pulitzer Prizes and other awards. In 2012 Marshall was a member of the inaugural class inducted into the Loyola University School of Communications Den of Distinction. He can be reached at (504) 232-5013.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Lens–LSU study: Damaged minnow shows BP oil seeping into coastal food chain & Huffington Post: Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Say

http://thelensnola.org/2013/04/30/lsu-study-damaged-minnow-population-shows-bp-oil-seeping-into-coastal-food-chain/

The Lens–LSU study: Damaged minnow shows BP oil seeping into coastal food chain
By Bob Marshall, Staff writer April 30, 2013 11:45am

A minnow considered the canary in Louisiana’s coastal ecosystem can’t shake the hydrocarbon cough it picked up when BPs oil started washing ashore three years ago.

Recent studies on new generations of the Gulf killifish, a marsh minnow diagnosed with signs of oil poisoning in 2010, shortly after the Macondo blowout began, confirm that hydrocarbon toxins remain in marsh sediments and continue to cause biological impairments that were precursors for species-wide collapses in Alaska after the Exxon Valdez spill.

The results have no implication for seafood safety because the levels of toxins detected are well below those considered hazardous for seafood consumption, the researchers said.

While the killifish is best known locally as the “cocahoe minnow,” a bait fish favored by anglers, researchers consider it the equivalent of the proverbial canary in a coal mine, a keystone species in the food chain that can give early warnings of problems for the entire system.

Andrew Whitehead, who in 2010 led an LSU team studying adult killifish from heavily oiled areas of Barataria Bay, said at the time, “We were detecting cellular responses to toxins that are predictive of impairment of reproduction and embryo development.”

Now, follow-up lab research on killifish embryo have confirmed those fears.

“They had the same hallmark signature impacts of cardiovascular toxicity as the adults. There was an accumulation of fluid around the heart, depressed heart rates and decreased hatching success.” – Andrew Whitehead
The research team exposed one group of embryo to sediments collected from heavily oiled areas of the bay and another group to sediments from areas that were not impacted.

“We know that early life stages, especially in fish, are very sensitive to the effects of oil, and we know that many animals (in the Gulf ) use these estuaries for the early stages of life and will be exposed to these sediments,” Whitehead said. “So we wanted to bring the research into the lab with a control group to see what the results would be, especially more than a year later.”

The embryos exposed to uncontaminated sediments showed no abnormalities, but those exposed to the oil-impacted sediments displayed many of the same developmental impairments detected in the adult fish during the first project, researchers found.

“They had the same hallmark signature impacts of cardiovascular toxicity as the adults,” Whitehead said. “There was an accumulation of fluid around the heart, depressed heart rates and decreased hatching success.”

The researchers were looking for signs that the embryos were impacted by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), components of oil that are known carcinogens and that can persist for more than 50 years in ecosystems hit by oil spills. As in the first study, the levels recorded in this project were either trace or “undetectable” – the term used when a toxin does not register in water samples but animals exhibit biological responses that are symptomatic of exposure.

The responses shown by killifish embryos to such low levels of PAHs reinforced concern that trouble could be waiting down the line for economically more valuable species.

Whitehead, now at the University of California at Davis, said the concern wasn’t about the toxins accumulating in predators such as speckled trout and redfish that consume killifish, but that long-lasting PAHs could have biological impacts that may show up in future generations of a whole range of creatures that live close to and on the marsh bottom, such as shrimp, crabs and oysters.

“A lot of the (PAHs) have sunk into sediments in the marshes in Barataria Bay and get redistributed into the water column every time it gets windy,” he said. “So all animals that use shallow water in these estuaries will be exposed.”

A cause for hope, he said, is that only a handful of places across the vast Louisiana coast were heavily hit by the oil. That could mean large populations of killifish and other species were unaffected.

“So the hope would be animals that inhabit areas that were not heavily hit will be able to provide unaffected populations that can buffer the harm done in the affected area,” Whitehead said.
“Of course, we don’t know that, and that’s why we need to continue to monitor this.”

Whitehead repeated a concern voiced in 2010 that enough research should be done on the biology of the species being examined rather than just their safety for human consumption.

“As these studies show, you can have levels of these toxins that are no threat to humans, but can cause serious problems for a whole range of animals living in the ecosystem with just a very small level of contamination,” Whitehead said. “I haven’t seen a whole lot of research published on the biology of animals post-spill. That concerns me.”

Help us report this story Report an error
The Lens’ donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.

ABOUT BOB MARSHALL
More from this author
Bob Marshall covers environmental issues for The Lens, with a special focus on coastal restoration and wetlands. While at The Times-Picayune, his work chronicling the people, stories and issues of Louisiana’s wetlands was recognized with two Pulitzer Prizes and other awards. In 2012 Marshall was a member of the inaugural class inducted into the Loyola University School of Communications Den of Distinction. He can be reached at (504) 232-5013.

____________________________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Huffington Post: Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Say
Posted: 04/25/2013 5:02 pm EDT | Updated: 04/25/2013 5:20 pm EDT

From TakePart’s David Kirby:
Three years ago, when BP’s Deepwater Horizon began leaking some 210 million gallons of Louisiana Crude into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government allowed the company to apply chemical “dispersants” to the blossoming oil slick to prevent toxic gunk from reaching the fragile bays, beaches, and mangroves of the coast, where so much marine life originates. But a number of recent studies show that BP and the feds may have made a huge mistake, for which everything from microscopic organisms to bottlenose dolphins are now paying the highest price.

After the spill, BP secured about a third of the world’s supply of dispersants, namely Corexit 9500 and 9527, according to The New York Times. Of the two, 9527 is more toxic. Corexit dispersants emulsify oil into tiny beads, causing them to sink toward the bottom. Wave action and wind turbulence degrade the oil further, and evaporation concentrates the toxins in the oil-Corexit mixture, including dangerous compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), known to cause cancer and developmental disorders.

When BP began spraying the Gulf, critics cried foul. They said Corexit is not only toxic to marine life on its own, but when combined with crude oil, the mixture becomes several times more toxic than oil or dispersant alone.

Not surprisingly, BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley defended use of the dispersant. “The toxicity of Corexit is about the same as dish soap, which is effectively what it is and how it works,” he told stockholders. “In hindsight no one believes that that was the wrong thing and it would have been much worse without the use of it. I do not believe anybody-anybody with almost common sense-would say waves of black oil washing into the marshes and beaches would have been a better thing, under any circumstances.”

BP says that Corexit is harmless to marine life, while the Environmental Protection Agency has waffled, saying both that “long term effects [of dispersants] on aquatic life are unknown” and that data “do not indicate any significant effects on aquatic life. Moreover, decreased size of the oil droplets is a good indication that, so far, the dispersant is effective.”

But many scientists, such as Dr. William Sawyer, a Louisiana toxicologist, argue that Corexit can be deadly to people and sea creatures alike. “Corexit components are also known as deodorized kerosene,” Sawyer said in a written statement for the Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group, a legal consortium representing environmental groups and individuals affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill. “With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals.” When Corexit mixes with and breaks down crude, it makes the oil far more “bioavailable” to plants and animals, critics allege, because it is more easily absorbed in its emulsified state.

Sawyer tested edible fish and shellfish from the Gulf for absorption of petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC), believed to have been facilitated by Corexit. Tissue samples taken prior to the accident had no measurable PHC. But after the oil spill, Sawyer found tissue concentrations up to 10,000 parts per million, or 1 percent of the total. The study, he said, “shows that the absorption [of the oil] was enhanced by the Corexit.”

In April 2012, Louisiana State University’s Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences was finding lesions and grotesque deformities in sea life-including millions of shrimp with no eyes and crabs without eyes or claws-possibly linked to oil and dispersants.

The shocking story was ignored by major U.S. media, but covered in depth by Al Jazeera. BP said such deformities were “common” in aquatic life in the Gulf and caused by bacteria or parasites. But further studies point back to the spill.

A just-released study from the University of South Florida found that underwater plumes of BP oil, dispersed by Corexit, had produced a “massive die-off” of foraminifera, microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Other studies show that, as a result of oil and dispersants, plankton have either been killed or have absorbed PAHs before being consumed by other sea creatures.

Hydrocarbon-laden, mutated seafood is not the only legacy left behind by Corexit, many scientists, physicians, environmentalists, fishermen, and Gulf Coast residents contend. Earlier this week, TakePart wrote about Steve Kolian, a researcher and founder of the nonprofit group EcoRigs, whose volunteer scientists and divers seek to preserve offshore oil and gas platforms after production stops, for use as artificial reefs and for alternative energy production.

EcoRigs divers took water and marine life samples at several locations in the months following the blowout. Now, they and countless other Gulf residents are sick, with symptoms resembling something from a sci-fi horror film, including bleeding from the nose, ears, breasts, and even anus. Others complain of cognitive damage, including what one man calls getting “stuck stupid,” when he temporarily cannot move or speak, but can still hear.

“If we are getting sick, then you know the marine life out in the Gulf is too,” Kolian said. The diver and researcher completed an affidavit on human and marine health used in GAP’s report.

Kolian’s team has done studies of their own to alarming results. “We recently submitted a paper showing levels of hydrocarbons in seafood were up to 3,000 times higher than safety thresholds for human consumption,” he said. “Concentrations in biota [i.e. all marine life] samples were even greater.”

Kolian’s friend and colleague, Scott Porter, described in his affidavit to GAP how Corexit had caused dispersed crude to coat the bottom of the sea in a sickening, deadly film. In July 2011, he and other divers traveled to a part of the Florida Panhandle, known as the Emerald Coast for its pristine seawater, to collect samples for the Surfrider Foundation.

“When we went diving, however, the water had a brownish white haze that resembled what we saw in offshore Louisiana at 30 feet below sea level,” Porter’s affidavit stated. “I have never witnessed anything like that since I began diving in the Emerald Coast 20 years ago. We witnessedŠa reddish brown substance on the seafloor that resembled tar and spanned a much larger area than is typical of natural runoff.”

In areas covered with the substance, “we noticed much less sea life,” Porter continued. “There were hardly any sand dollars or crabs and only some fish, whereas we would normally see an abundance of organisms. It was desolate.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

WWLTV Eyewitness News: Practice of workers covering-up Gulf oil spills widespread, whistleblower says

http://www.wwltv.com/news/eyewitness/davidhammer/Blatant-cover-ups-of-oil-spills-widespread-by-workers-205331441.html

wwltv.com
Posted on April 29, 2013 at 10:34 PM
Updated today at 9:56 AM

David Hammer / Eyewitness News
Email: dhammer@wwltv.com | Twitter: @davidhammerWWL

NEW ORLEANS – It was something of an eye-opener when an oil company pleaded guilty to two environmental crimes in January.

Not because the pollution reported was anything on the scale of the BP spill, but because of the brazen cover-up involved.

The company, Houston-based W&T Offshore, admitted its workers had used coffee filters in October 2009 to clean oil and other minerals out of the water byproduct discharged overboard from their platform in the Ewing Banks 910 lease block, about 65 miles south of Port Fourchon.

They were filtering the oil out of the water samples that were sent into a lab and recorded with the federal government.

Meanwhile, the water they were dumping back into the Gulf on a constant basis stayed contaminated.

W&T also pleaded guilty to spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico in November 2009 and not reporting it to authorities, as required by law. The company agreed to pay $1 million in fines and community service for their crimes.

The case was closed. But that may have been only part of the story. Eyewitness News found the original complaint that alerted the federal authorities, and the allegations in it go beyond what’s contained in W&T’s plea agreement. In fact, according to the man who blew the whistle and others, the problem of cover-ups and out-and-out dumping is widespread and will continue to go essentially unchecked because too few offshore workers are willing to report violations.

“When you’re in the offshore industry if you want to get along, you better go along,” said Randy Comeaux of Lafayette, who was a contract employee assigned to W&T platforms in 2009. “And what happens offshore stays offshore. You break any one of those two rules, in one fashion or another, you will not be working offshore.”

Comeaux says he’s one of the few who doesn’t simply “go along,” and he’s paid the price. He said he’s been fired multiple times for reporting violations and can’t get a job offshore because of it.

That’s why environmentalists and members of Congress say federal whistleblower protections have to be strengthened to protect the people who are trying to protect the public from more pollution.

“Why not just sweep it overboard? Nobody’s ever gonna see it. I mean, most people are never out here,” said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of the Gulf Restoration Network, one of several environmental groups that began flying offshore to monitor rigs and platforms after the 2010 BP spill. “Until the monitoring consortium really started looking, we had no clue how much oil and how many oil slicks we were going to find — how much oil we actually find every month.”

Comeaux said he first learned how to doctor water samples to trick the feds back in 1980. He admitted he filtered some of the samples himself before realizing how his actions were helping to pollute the Gulf of Mexico.

We also tracked down one of the workers Comeaux caught doctoring the water samples on W&T’s Ewing Banks 910 platform – Jason Bourgeois of Centreville, Miss. Bourgeois blamed his supervisors for teaching him the practice and encouraging it over the last nine years. He also said this kind of thing has been going on at W&T platforms for decades – and sometimes, the doctoring is even more blatant than a coffee filter.

“You get about a couple inches in the jug of your overboard water and the rest is basically Kentwood,” Bourgeois said. “You fill the rest of the jug with Kentwood water. Then it’s sent into a laboratory.”

When we asked why someone would use bottled water when they were already filtering the actual water that came out of the production equipment, Bourgeois said it would take hours to filter an entire water sample. He said a W&T foreman once told him that he sent the laboratory a sample that was all Kentwood, and it passed.

Long-standing practice
Bourgeois’ grandfather, M.J. Smith, said his late son, Mike Smith, worked for W&T more than 10 years ago and also doctored processed water samples. Smith said his son, who was Bourgeois’ uncle, would take water from his well during his time off and gather it to use during his next hitch offshore, to create cleaner samples.

W&T said in a statement that the “doctoring of water samples in 2009 is an isolated incident, something the contract workers on EW910 did on their own, violating W&T Offshore procedures and without the knowledge of their supervisors.”
But Bourgeois said he and others at W&T were pressured to clean the samples by their supervisors.

“We knew it wasn’t right,” he said. “But it was the fact of, do it this way or we’ll get somebody else that will.”

Specifically, Bourgeois blames his field foreman, Mike Lofton – who, incidentally, was also Bourgeois’ uncle’s boss at W&T. Lofton was stationed on a W&T headquarters platform about halfway back to shore from the Ewing Banks platform Bourgeois worked on. Bourgeois and Comeaux said Lofton knew about and condoned the water filtering.

Comeaux also said he reported at least three spills to Lofton in 2009 that went unreported to the authorities. Bourgeois said a huge amount of oil – as much as 500 barrels from an overfilled storage tank – shot out a flare boom in one of the incidents, and because of high winds and the grating on the platform decks, most of it ended up in the Gulf.

But W&T says the amount of oil spilled was nothing like what Bourgeois describes. In an email Bourgois sent to Lofton about two months after the spill, he reports that no sheen was visible in the dark right after the incident, which happened at 2 a.m. The email also said no spill was visible four hours later, when the sun came up and the water became visible.

But Bourgeois says he was forced by the company to write that statement to contradict an earlier one he had given.

Lofton declined to respond when we called him at his home in Picayune, Miss., and asked to interview him about the incidents.

But W&T disputes Comeaux and Bourgeois’ portrayal of events and stands by Lofton.
“Mike Lofton is a valued W&T Offshore employee,” W&T said in a statement. “The company acknowledges that Lofton should have reported the spill from the flare boom in November 2009, but W&T Offshore disputes that it was anything as large as Bourgeois claims. And Lofton was never told that there was a sheen visible on the water.”

Other spills alleged
Comeaux wasn’t on Ewing Banks 910 during the November spill. He said he watched from the headquarters platform while Lofton sent workers in helicopters to clean the spill.

Comeaux was present for the two other spills he reported to Lofton – one in March 2009 on W&T’s connected Ship Shoal 300A and Ship Shoal 315 platforms, and one in October 2009 on Ewing Banks 910. Bourgeois saw the October incident and says W&T supervisors pressured the workers to use a screw to plug the high-pressure leak, something Bourgeois says was too dangerous for him to participate in. It also didn’t work, and the platform had to be shut in.

Comeaux said that before they shut down operations, the hole got bigger and oil started spewing into the Gulf. He said he told the lead operator on Ewing Banks 910, David Cahanin, to report an oil spill, but, Comeaux said, Cahanin refused. Cahanin did not respond to our request for comment.

W&T says none of the oil from those two incidents made it into the water and would not have required Lofton or anyone else to report them to the U.S. Coast Guard.

Blowing the whistle
The reason we know about any of these issues is that Comeaux filed a federal lawsuit against W&T on behalf of the United States. The Department of Justice made sure his complaint was filed under seal.

In 2012, the case was unsealed when the Justice Department declined to join Comeaux’s lawsuit. But then the prosecutors turned around and used the information they gathered and convicted W&T of crimes. The Justice Department, through the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, said Comeaux is free to continue to pursue his civil claims.

Comeaux says he lost his job because he exposed the violations, and the federal prosecutors did nothing to protect him.

He also said he deserves a share of the fines against W&T under a provision in federal law, but the Justice Department decided not to use that law to prosecute W&T. Comeaux said it’s a travesty that the U.S. government would leave him vulnerable like that. And others agree.

“They laid him out to dry just like they did me and the other two guys,” said Bourgeois, who says that he, Cahanin and Bryan Barfoot were promised protection by federal investigators if they told the truth, but are no longer working on W&T platforms because, he claims, they cooperated.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., tried to get Congress to update the offshore whistleblower protection law after the 2010 BP oil spill. The bill died in the Senate, and Republicans in the House tried to water down the original bill, Miller said.

“Now why shouldn’t they have the same protection as railroad workers have, as transport workers have, as nuclear workers have, as pipeline workers have?” Miller said in an impassioned speech from the House floor in 2010. “Because they all have a modern whistleblower statute. But those men and women who go out on those rigs today do not have any protection, more less a modern protection.”

And Sarthou said she isn’t surprised the feds didn’t go to bat for Comeaux.

“I don’t think the Justice Department sees itself as in the business of supporting whistleblowers,” she said. “I think they see themselves as in the business of hitting somebody who’s done something wrong but not spending the money to go to trial unless they absolutely have to.”

History of complaints
Comeaux is undoubtedly disgruntled. He writes a blog railing against W&T, oil companies in general and the federal government.

He says companies come up with excuses to fire employees who blow the whistle, usually stating that they don’t work well with their colleagues. And Bourgeois confirms that Comeaux was generally distrusted by his co-workers and perceived as a snitch.

He certainly has a history of filing complaints and may fancy himself as a compliance officer even though he was listed as an instrument and electrical technician. His whistleblowing crusade apparently continued as soon as he returned offshore in 2012 to work on the ATP Titan platform in Mississippi Canyon 941. Just a few months into the job, he reported to the Coast Guard that 1,200 barrels of methanol were “dumped” overboard in December.

He says he couldn’t talk more about the incident at this time, but claims he was immediately fired because he reported it.

His allegations against ATP are not unique. ATP filed for bankruptcy last year, shortly after being charged with federal crimes for using an unauthorized chemical to break down the oil in the water they were dumping overboard from the ATP Innovator, a huge floating platform in Mississippi Canyon 711. According to the federal criminal complaint, the canister of the cleanser was hidden from view and workers called it “soap” and “sheen buster.”

ATP did not respond to our requests for comment.

Righting wrongs
W&T, on the other hand, addressed all of our questions. It says it has taken steps since 2009 to improve their environmental compliance. Even Bourgeois says he saw real improvement in the reporting before he stopped working for W&T last year.

Some of those corrective actions were required as a part of the guilty plea, some were already under way. The company says it now requires its managers to report spills to the Coast Guard if there’s a chance that some spilled into the Gulf, rather than waiting for visual confirmation. It also said it’s been conducting surprise water sampling on its platforms and has found all in compliance except for one, where there had been an upset in the system just before the test.

But, Bourgeois points to photographs he took of a 2011 oil spill on the Ewing Banks 910 platform as evidence that the company hasn’t totally learned its lesson.

That spill was reported to the Coast Guard as a “capful” of oil discharged into the water, which Bourgeois says is ridiculous given the photographs. But the pictures of the oil-soaked equipment don’t necessarily prove that more than a capful of oil made it into the Gulf.

It’s hard to tell how widespread these issues are. Sarthou said that even if it’s just a handful of bad actors doctoring water samples and keeping spills quiet, if they’ve been doing it consistently for 30 years, the volume of pollution could be devastating. She said we can’t rely on the massive Gulf to dilute the effects of the oil if the discharges have been that numerous and constant.

Comeaux agrees. A child of Acadiana who spent his whole life on the water and eating Gulf seafood, he is now afraid to touch it.

Whether he is a malcontent or not and whether he’s justified in seeking whistleblower reward money or not, there is little doubt he is passionate about protecting the Gulf waters.
He begins to cry when describing how pervasive he believes the unreported pollution is.
“This type of activity occurs under the cover of the night through a process of corrupting the morals of the people who work out there,” he said. “It’s not acceptable behavior for our industry. It’s not acceptable behavior for our world.

“Eventually people are gonna suffer from this. You can’t keep polluting something and expect everything to be OK. Sooner or later somebody is gonna get sick from this. Sooner or later somebody’s gonna die from this. Sooner or later, the Gulf is gonna die from this.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter.

CNN: Empty nets in Louisiana three years after the spill By Matt Smith

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/us/gulf-disaster-fishing-industry/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

By Matt Smith, CNN
updated 3:43 PM EDT, Mon April 29, 2013

JOHN NOWAK/CNN
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
April 20 marked three years since the Gulf oil disaster erupted
Since the 2010 spill, Louisiana’s statewide oyster catch has dropped by more than 25%
Other seafood catch numbers have rebounded and studies show the catch is safe
But in certain areas, there’s still a pronounced downturn in blue crab, shrimp, oysters

Yscloskey, Louisiana (CNN) — On his dock along the banks of Bayou Yscloskey, Darren Stander makes the pelicans dance.

More than a dozen of the birds have landed or hopped onto the dock, where Stander takes in crabs and oysters from the fishermen who work the bayou and Lake Borgne at its mouth. The pelicans rock back and forth, beaks rising and falling, as he waves a bait fish over their heads.

At least he’s got some company. There’s not much else going on at his dock these days. There used to be two or three people working with him; now he’s alone. The catch that’s coming in is light, particularly for crabs.

“Guys running five or six hundred traps are coming in with two to three boxes, if that,” said Stander, 26.

Out on the water, the chains clatter along the railing of George Barisich’s boat as he and his deckhand haul dredges full of oysters onto the deck. As they sort them, they’re looking for signs of “spat”: the young oysters that latch onto reefs and grow into marketable shellfish.

There’s the occasional spat here; there are also a few dead oysters, which make a hollow sound when tapped with the blunt end of a hatchet.

About two-thirds of U.S. oysters come from the Gulf Coast, the source of about 40% of America’s seafood catch. But in the three years since the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon blew up and sank about 80 miles south of here, fishermen say many of the oyster reefs are still barren, and some other commercial species are harder to find.

“My fellow fishermen who fish crab and who fish fish, they’re feeling the same thing,” Barisich said. “You get a spike in production every now and then, but overall, it’s off. Everybody’s down. Everywhere there was dispersed oil and heavily oiled, the production is down.”

The April 20, 2010, explosion sent 11 men to a watery grave off Louisiana and uncorked an undersea gusher nearly a mile beneath the surface that took three months to cap.

Most of the estimated 200 million gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf of Mexico is believed to have evaporated or been broken down by hydrocarbon-munching microbes, according to government estimates.

The rest washed ashore across 1,100 miles of coastline, from the Louisiana barrier islands west of the Mississippi River to the white sands of the Florida Panhandle. A still-unknown portion settled on the floor of the Gulf and the inlets along its coast.

Tar balls are still turning up on the beaches, and a 2012 hurricane blew seemingly fresh oil ashore in Louisiana.

Well owner BP, which is responsible for the cleanup, says it’s still monitoring 165 miles of shore. The company points to record tourism revenues across the region and strong post-spill seafood catches as evidence the Gulf is rebounding from the spill.

But in the fishing communities of southeastern Louisiana, people say that greasy tide is still eating away at their livelihoods.

“Things’s changing, and we don’t know what’s happening yet,” said oysterman Byron Encalade.

Life before the spill
Before the spill, Encalade and his neighbors in the overwhelmingly African-American community of Pointe a la Hache — about 25 miles south of Yscloskey — earned their living from the state-managed oyster grounds off the East Bank of the Mississippi.

Back then, a boat could head out at dawn and be back at the docks by noon with dozens of 105-pound sacks of oysters.

Now? “Nothing,” says Encalade, president of the Louisiana Oystermen Association.
Louisiana conservation officials have dumped fresh limestone, ground-up shell and crushed concrete on many of the reefs in a bid to foster new growth.

It takes three to five years for a viable reef to develop, so that means Pointe a la Hache could be looking at 2018 — eight years after the spill — before its lifeblood starts pumping again.

“This economy is totally gone in my community,” said Encalade, 59. “There is no economy. The two construction jobs that are going on — the prison and the school — if it weren’t for those, the grocery store would be closing.”

When the catch comes in, everyone wants you to know that it’s safe to eat. Repeated testing has shown that the traces of hydrocarbons that do come up in the shrimp, crab and oysters are far below safety limits for human consumption.

“The monitoring of the seafood supply has been exemplary,” said Steve Murawski, a fisheries biologist at the University of South Florida. “There’s no incidence of people getting sick and no report of any tainted fish reaching the market.”

While much of the Gulf’s seafood industry has rebounded, the hardest-hit communities like Pointe a la Hache, Yscloskey and the inlets in Barataria Bay, west of the Mississippi, have not recovered.

Scientists are still trying to understand what the oil has done to the marshlands of southeastern Louisiana.

Sure, the catch is safe — but that doesn’t mean much when seafood prices are down and fuel costs are up.

“Since the spill, my shrimp production is off between 40 and 60% for the two years that I did work full time,” said Barisich, who has both a shrimp boat and an oyster boat tied up at Yscloskey. “But my price is off another 50%, and my fuel is high: 60 cents a gallon higher than it’s ever been.”

Figures from Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries tell a similar story.

The statewide oyster catch since 2010 is down 27% from the average haul between 2002 and 2009, according to catch statistics from the agency. In the Pontchartrain Basin, where Encalade and Barisich both work, the post-spill average fell to about a third of the pre-spill catch.

Barisich says oysters are barely worth the effort anymore.
Guys running five or six hundred traps are coming in with two to three boxes, if that.
Darren Stander

“On the state ground — on a perfect weather day, keep that in mind — it’s 20 sacks a day,” he said. “Twenty sacks a day at $30 a sack is $600. $300 worth of fuel. $100 worth of other expenses and I pay the deckhand, I got $150 a day on a perfect day. It don’t pay to go out.”
And no boats going out means no fuel being sold at Frank Campo Jr.’s marina, down the bayou from Barisich’s dock.

“If you don’t burn it, I can’t sell it to you,” Campo says. “They’re not doing very well with the crabs, and there’s not a lot of oyster boats going out.”

Demand for the oysters is off, too.

“You used to never ask the dealer if he wanted oysters,” said Campo, whose grandfather started the marina. “You just showed up with them. Now, he’ll call you and tell you if he needs ‘em.”

‘Like somebody had poured motor oil all over’
Across the Mississippi from Pointe a la Hache, beyond the West Bank levees, lie some of the waterways that saw the heaviest oiling: Barataria Bay and its smaller inlets, Bay Jimmy and Bay Batiste.

Interactive map of Gulf oil disaster

Louisiana State University entomologist Linda Hooper-Bui tracks the numbers of ants, wasps, spiders and other bugs at 40 sites in the surrounding marshes, 18 of which had seen some degree of oiling.

She is part of a small army of researchers who have been trying to figure out what effect the spill will have on the environment of the Gulf Coast. Since 2010, she’s recorded a sharp decline in several species of insects — particularly spiders, ants, wasps and grasshoppers, which sit roughly in the middle of the food web.

They’re top predators among insects but food for birds and fish.

Hooper-Bui said she expected their numbers to bounce back the following year: “Instead, what we saw was worse.”

Tar balls found washed up on Elmer’s Island, Louisiana, in early March.
JOHN NOWAK/CNN

The reason, she suspects, is that the oil that sank into the bottom of the marsh after the spill hasn’t broken down at the same rate as the crude that floated to the surface.
Instead, it’s in the sediments, still giving off fumes that are killing the insects.

Some napthalenes — crude oil components most commonly known for their use in mothballs — appear to have increased since the spill, she said.

“They’re volatile, and they’re toxic,” Hooper-Bui said. “And they’re not just toxic to insects. They’re toxic to fish. They’re toxic to birds. They cause eggshell thinning in birds. We think this is evidence of an emerging problem.”

Hooper-Bui said crickets exposed to the contaminated muck in laboratories die, and when temperatures were increased to those comparable to a summer day, “the crickets die faster.”

By August 2011, the number of grasshoppers had fallen by 70% to 80% in areas that got oiled.

“By 2012, we were unable to find any colonies of ants in the oiled areas,” she said.
Then on August 29, 2012, Hurricane Isaac hit southeastern Louisiana. The slow-moving storm sat over Barataria Bay for more than 60 hours as it crawled onto land.

When Hooper-Bui went back to the marshes after the storm, she had a surprise waiting for her.

“We discovered in Bay Batiste large amounts of what looked like somebody had poured motor oil all over the marsh there,” she said. “About three-quarters of the perimeter of northern Bay Batiste was covered in this oil.”

The chemical fingerprint of the oil matched the oil from the ruptured BP well, Hooper-Bui said. Other scientists confirmed that Isaac kicked up tar balls from the spill as far east as the Alabama-Florida state line, more than 100 miles from where the storm made its initial landfall.

Far from the shoreline, patches of oil fell to the bottom of the Gulf in a mix of sediment, dead plankton and hydrocarbons dubbed “marine snow.” It fouled corals near the wellhead, and it’s still sitting there.

There’s something about this stuff, the carbon in these layers, that’s not degrading.
Samantha Joye, oceanographer

“If you took a picture of a core (sample) that was collected today and took a picture of a core that was taken in September 2010, they look the same,” University of Georgia oceanographer Samantha Joye said.

“What’s really strange to me is, the material is not degrading,” Joye added. “There’s something about this stuff, the carbon in these layers, that’s not degrading.”

Normally, microbes go to work on free-floating hydrocarbons almost immediately, digesting the compounds. The controversial large-scale use of chemical dispersants was supposed to accelerate that process by breaking up the oil into smaller droplets that could be more easily consumed.

But that’s not happening to this layer, Joye said, and the reason is unclear.
“The first thing everyone asks is, ‘Do you think it’s dispersants?’ And I can honestly tell you, we don’t know,” she said.

During the spill, scientists warned that fish eggs and larvae, shrimp, coral and oysters were potentially most at risk from the use of dispersants. The Environmental Protection Agency later reported that testing found the combination of oil and dispersants to be no more toxic than the oil alone.

But that’s no comfort to Encalade, who could watch planes spray dispersant on the slick from the marina where he keeps his two boats.

“We know from history, whenever you put soap in the water around camps and stuff like that, oysters don’t reproduce,” he said. “And we’ve heard BP say over and over again, ‘Oh, it’s like detergent.’ That’s the worst thing in the world you can do to an oyster.”

The impact of these dispersants on marine life is still an open question, and it’s something that’s under review by scientists involved in the Natural Resource Damage Assessment, the federally run, BP-funded effort to figure out what the spill did to the Gulf Coast.
That assessment could take several years.

As scientists sort out the data, the Gulf fishing communities from Louisiana to Florida are still dealing with the impact of the spill. When you look at the entire expanse of the ocean, there isn’t a huge amount of oil, explained Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University.

“You have to look hard to find any oil at all,” he said.

But where the oil has been found, MacDonald said, the damage is “intense and widespread.”

There is some good news: Some studies indicate that commercial fish species in different parts of the Gulf escaped the worst. Recent research at Alabama’s Dauphin Island Sea Lab found that young shrimp and blue crabs off Bayou La Batre, the state’s major seafood port, showed no sign of decline since the spill.

But that’s no consolation for Donny Waters, a Pensacola, Florida, fisherman who has been involved with efforts to rebuild the red snapper populations off the Florida panhandle.
“I’m still catching fish. I’m not saying everything’s dead,” Waters said. “But it’s taking me longer to catch my fish. I’m not seeing the snappers farther around reefs, whether they’re natural or artificial. I’m not seeing the reefs repopulate nearly as fast since the oil spill.”

‘BP has retired me’
Like many in the trade, Encalade and the other guys on his dock in Pointe a la Hache can spin epic tales. But these days, they’re not about the catch. More often, they’re about the red tape and low-ball offers they’ve had to deal with in the compensation process set up after the spill — a process they say is stacked in favor of big operators.

“I got guys been fishing out here all their life. They’ve got trip tickets, more than you can imagine,” Encalade said, referring to the slips that document a boat’s daily catch. “You know what they come back and tell a man his whole life is worth? $40,000.”

The oil, the catch and the money: All converge at the big federal courthouse on Poydras Street in New Orleans, where squadrons of lawyers have massed for what promises to be a protracted brawl to figure out how much BP will end up paying for the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

BP says it has shelled out $32 billion for the disaster, including $14 billion for cleanup. It’s also spent $300 million on everything from testing seafood to its ad campaign that encourages people to come back to the Gulf, and it pledged $500 million for research into the environmental effects of the disaster.

The company has paid to help replace oyster reefs in Mississippi and Louisiana and rebuild sand dunes and sea turtle habitats in Alabama and northwest Florida. In addition to monitoring part of the Gulf coastline, BP spokesman Scott Dean said, the company has planted new grass in the Louisiana marshes, where the losses sped up erosion already blamed for the loss of an area the size of Manhattan every year.

But of about 13,000 holes drilled into the beaches and marshes in search of settled oil, Dean said, only 3% have found enough to require cleanup, he said.

“The vast majority of the work has been done,” Dean said. But when previously undiscovered oil from the Deepwater Horizon blowout does turn up, “We take responsibility for the cleanup,” he said.

Last year, the company agreed to pay $7.8 billion to individuals and businesses who filed economic, property and health claims. But in March, the company asked a judge to halt those payments, arguing that it was facing hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in payouts for “fictitious losses.”

It’s also pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges and fined $4 billion in the deaths of the 11 men killed aboard the rig and been temporarily barred from getting new federal contracts.

Now BP is back in court, battling to avoid a finding of gross negligence that would sock it with penalties up to $4,300 per barrel under the Clean Water Act — another $17 billion-plus by the federal government’s estimate of the spill. BP says that figure is at least 20% too high.

The plaintiffs include the federal government, the states affected by the disaster and people like Encalade and Barisich, who have rejected previous settlement offers from BP.
Freddie Duplessis, whose boat is tied up next to Encalade’s, settled with the company. He said he received about $250,000 from BP after the spill, including money the company paid to hire his boat for the cleanup effort. That’s about what he says he would have made in six months of fishing before the spill, before expenses.

I got guys been fishing out here all their life. You know what they come back and tell a man his whole life is worth? $40,000.
Pointe a la Hache oysterman Byron Encalade

“I’ve been all right. I’ve been paying my bills, but what I’m gonna do now?” asked Duplessis, 54. “You’re still gonna have bills. Everything I’ve got is mine, but I’ve got to maintain it.”

But proving just how much damage can be blamed on the oil spill will be a difficult task in the courtroom. That’s where the Natural Resource Damage Assessment, launched after the disaster and partly paid for by BP, comes in. And right now, the studies that make up that assessment are closely held, ready to be played like a hole card in poker.

“There’s a substantial amount of fisheries work that’s not actually going to see the light of day until after the court case is resolved,” USF’s Murawski said.

The region’s seafood landings largely returned to normal in 2011, after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration closed most of the Gulf to fishing during the blowout, NOAA data show. And BP notes that across the four states that saw the most impact — Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida — shrimp and finfish catches were up in 2012 compared with the average haul between 2007 and 2009.

Blue crab was off about 1%. And while oysters regionwide remained 17% below 2007-09 figures, the company says that the flooding that hit the region in 2011 has been blamed for some of that downturn, again by dumping more fresh water into the coastal estuaries.

But Gulf-wide, shrimp landings in 2011 and 2012 were about 15% below the 2000-09 average, according to figures compiled by Mississippi State University’s Coastal Research and Extension Center.

And in Louisiana, there’s still a pronounced downturn.

State data show that blue crab landings are off an average of 18%, and brown shrimp — the season for which the industry is now gearing up — is down 39% compared with the 2002-09 catch.

In Yscloskey, Barisich said three bayou fishermen took settlements from BP, sold their leases and walked away from the docks. As for him, at 56, he’s trying to adapt.

He’s studying for a license that will allow him to take passengers out on shrimp trawls — a kind of working vacation for tourists with a taste for the job he learned from his father.
“I can’t do what I have for the last two years,” he said.

And in Pointe a la Hache, Encalade got heartbreaking news in early April.

The public reefs in nearby Black Bay, one of the post-spill reconstruction projects, had been closed after spat turned up to protect the larvae. But the spat died, and the reefs were being reopened to allow the few remaining mature oysters to be harvested.

“All the little oysters have died, and the big oysters, you can’t make a dollar with them,” Encalade said. “BP has retired me out of the oyster business.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

DC Bureau: Obama Administration Says No to Full Environmental Study of LNG Exports

http://www.dcbureau.org/201304228396/natural-resources-news-service/obama-administration-says-no-to-full-environmental-study-of-lng-exports.html

By Peter Mantius, on April 22nd, 2013
Natural Resources News Service

The Obama Administration is blocking a comprehensive environmental study on the impact of exporting massive quantities of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, on the grounds that new gas drilling induced by the exports is not “reasonably foreseeable.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy is resisting calls by Dow Chemical and other manufacturers for a more clearly defined and transparent DOE process for determining whether proposed LNG export projects serve the “public interest.”

Both the DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission face mounting pressure to evaluate the economic and environmental consequences of licensing LNG export facilities. Since the agencies licensed an LNG export terminal in Sabine Pass, La., in 2011, 19 other applicants have lined up with licensing requests.

Sensitive to the potentially huge cumulative impact those projects could have on the U.S. economy, the two agencies suspended approvals pending a two-part economic study by the Energy Information Agency and a private contractor, NERA Economic Consulting.

Both analyses are now finished, and Christopher Smith, a deputy assistant secretary of DOE for oil and gas, testified March 19 that LNG export applications would be considered on a “case-by-case basis” in light of their economic conclusions, which have been sharply criticized.

Consideration of the toll LNG exports have on the environment is still up in the air. “I will be unable to comment today on Š the appropriate scope of environmental review,” Smith added.

Independent studies predict that unfettered LNG exports will drive up the domestic price of natural gas, spur a boom in fracking shale formations and cause a major transfer or wealth from consumers and energy-dependent industries to the natural gas industry and its investors.

While NERA, the DOE’s private contractor, has not disputed those points, its December 2012 report asserts that aggressive LNG exporting would be a net positive for the U.S. economy. “Moreover, for every one of the market scenarios examined, net economic benefits increased as the level of LNG exports increased,” NERA wrote in its policy-driving report.

Response to NERA’s conclusions have been broad and intense. Potential LNG exporters applaud it, but many of the 188,000 comments it triggered were negative.

For example, John Detwiler, an engineer from Pittsburgh, wrote that none of NERA’s scenarios “take a realistic view of the swings in gas supply, demand and pricing in the real world.” Detwiler also charged that NERA has a “consistent public record of advocacy against environmental protections and promoting denial of climate change” and that its lead author, W. David Montgomery, has publicly opposed carbon emission controls and DOE investments in green energy.

While NERA concluded that LNG exports would slightly boost gross domestic product, researchers from Purdue University found the exports would slightly depress GDP. But the two conclusions on GDP were not far apart and were not nearly as important, the Purdue team said, as the wealth-shifting and environmental effects of LNG exports.
“Using the natural gas in the U.S. is more advantageous than exports, both economically and environmentally,” the Purdue report concluded.

While the DOE has listed the environment as one factor it may consider when evaluating the “public interest” of a proposed LNG export project, FERC takes the lead in applying the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In February, FERC granted Cheniere Energy authority to build the Creole Trail Pipeline to connect to its already-approved LNG export terminal in Sabine Pass, La.

The Sierra Club is suing to block the project, alleging that FERC’s failure to require a comprehensive environmental impact statement, or EIS, violates the NEPA law. It argues that FERC’s stance that LNG export-induced gas drilling is not “reasonably foreseeable” collapses in the face of detailed models prepared by the Energy Information Agency. The EIA predicts that an average of 63 percent of exported LNG will come from new gas drilling. Deloitte and other private analysts agree that LNG exports and new gas drilling go hand in hand.

The NEPA law requires a formal EIS whenever there is a “substantial question” about a project’s potential to harm the environment. Since export-induced gas drilling is a given and the preferred modern method of drilling – high-volume hydrofracking – has a controversial environmental record, the FERC staff had no authority to waive a formal EIS, the Sierra Club argument goes.

In fact, the environmental advocacy group claims an LNG-export induced fracking boom would be a calamity for the nation’s water and air quality, and it would exacerbate climate change.

Cheniere responded to the Sierra Club legal challenge April 9, writing: FERC “has previously explained that ‘projections of the locations and amount of future (gas drilling) production would be very speculative if attempted on the basis of’ the Creole Trail Expansion Project. Sierra Club’s mere disagreement with the commission does not entitle it to a stay.”

Cheniere is in favored position. It is the only company recently licensed by FERC and the DOE to export LNG to countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the United States (aside from a small facility in Alaska that has been exporting to Japan for decades). Virtually all of the world’s leading LNG importers are non-free trade agreement countries, including Japan, China, India and most of Europe. (Licenses to export to countries with a free trade agreement with the U.S. are routinely granted and are far less valuable.)

Cheniere, which plans to complete export terminal construction at its Sabine Pass facility by early 2017, recently signed a contract to deliver LNG to the United Kingdom.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Fracktracker,org: US Pipelines Incidents Are a Daily Occurrence

Matt Kelso, Fracktracker.org, Apr 15 2013
Recently, there has been a lot of attention focused on the Mayflower, Arkansas pipeline failure that resulted in a massive oil spill, particularly as it comes at a time when discussions of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline project are once again heating up. However, the situation is far from unusual.

In fact, according to data downloaded from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), there were 1,887 incidents in the nation’s gathering and transmission, distribution, and hazardous liquids pipelines between January 1, 2010 and March 29, 2013, or an average of 1.6 incidents per day.

graph
Pipeline incidents from 1/1/2010 through 3/29/2013. Data Source: PHMSA.

Obviously, not all of these failures are on par with the massive spill in Mayflower, and it should be noted that there are a variety of reasons for these lines to fail. Some of these reasons, such as excavation activity in the vicinity of a pipeline, are not necessarily the fault of the pipeline’s operator. The fact that these incidents are commonplace, however, is not one that can be dismissed.

map

Pipeline incidents in the United States from 1/1/2010 through 3/29/2013. Source: PHMSA. Red Triangles represent incidents leading to fatalities, and yellow triangles represent those leading to injuries. To access the active map, legend and other controls, click the map, or here.

It is clear from the map that there a few data entry errors, as a few of the data points draw in locations that aren’t even in the jurisdiction of the United States. However, each entry also contains a city and state that the incident is associated with, and for the most part, the data seem to be fairly reliable.
Source

Forbes.com: Fracking Truck Sets Off Radiation Alarm At Landfill

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/24/fracking-truck-sets-off-radiation-alarm-at-landfill/

Forbes
4/24/2013 @ 2:44PM

Thunder-1-300x168
A gas flare at one of Rice Energy’s Thunder wells in Greene County, PA (Photo: Rice Energy)

A truck carrying drill cuttings from a hydraulic fracturing pad in the Marcellus Shale was rejected by a Pennsylvania landfill Friday after it set off a radiation alarm, according to published reports. The truck was emitting gamma radiation from radium 226 at almost ten times the level permitted at the landfill.

The MAX Environmental Technologies truck was first quarantined at the landfill, which is operated by MAX, and then sent back to the fracking pad-Rice Energy’s Thunder II pad in Greene County-to be redirected to a site that can accept higher levels of radiation.

“It’s low-level radiation, but we don’t want any radiation in South Huntingdon,” Tom Cornell, a township supervisor where the landfill is located, told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Versions of the story also appeared today 0n the Akron Beacon-Journal and Marcellus Drilling News (subscription required), a pro-fracking site for landowners.

The cuttings in the truck were found to emit 96 microrem of radiation, and the landfill is required to reject materials that emit more than 10 microrem. The level is far below the EPA’s standard for air pollution: 10,000 microrem (also known as 10 millirem).

Radium 226 is a naturally occurring radioactive material that forms from the decay of uranium-238. It emits alpha and gamma radiation, and it tends to accumulate in bone if inhaled or ingested, according to EPA:

“Long-term exposure to radium increases the risk of developing several diseases. Inhaled or ingested radium increases the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. These effects usually take years to develop. External exposure to radium’s gamma radiation increases the risk of cancer to varying degrees in all tissues and organs.”
Radium is a well known contaminant in fracking operations, particularly in the Marcellus Shale formation.

“The material in question was radium 226, which is what we expect from shale drill cuttings,” said John Poister, spokesman for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. “Every landfill in the state has radiation monitors, and this showed the system did work.”

MAX has applied for a permit to accept a higher level of radiation at its South Huntington landfill.

Pennsylvania claims to be “the only state that requires through regulation that landfills monitor for radiation levels in the incoming wastes.”
“Should waste trigger a radiation monitor, the landfill must use a conservative and highly protective protocol that DEP developed to determine if the amount and concentration of the radioactive material can be accepted. This protocol ensures that the materials, such as Marcellus Shale drill cuttings and other sources of naturally occurring radiation in the waste stream, do not pose a risk to public health during disposal.”

Radium is also perceived as a threat to water quality. The brine that returns to the surface after hydraulic fracturing has been found to contain up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226 (pdf). The discharge limit in effluent for Radium 226 is 60 pCi/L, and the EPA’s drinking water standard is 5 pCi/L.

In January the Pennsylvania DEP announced it would undertake a year-long peer reviewed study of radiation contamination associated with fracking wells.

“The agency will collect samples of flowback water, rock cuttings, treatment solids and sediments at well pads and wastewater treatment and waste disposal facilities,” according to a DEP news release. “The study will also analyze the radioactivity levels in pipes and well casings, storage tanks, treatment systems and trucks.”

Follow Jeff McMahon on Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter, or email him here.
Special thanks to Richard Charter.

Common Dreams: ‘People’s History’ of Gulf Oil Disaster Reveals Deadly Truth Behind Dispersant Corexit; Sign petition to end use of Corexit

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/04/19-4


I encourage everyone to sign this petition now! Read the full report and sign the petition at: http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit
DeeVon

Published on Friday, April 19, 2013 by Common Dreams

Report released on eve of Deepwater Horizon anniversary tells of BP lies and government collusion in oil ‘clean-up’
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

A dispersant plane passed over an oil skimmer in the Gulf of Mexico ten days after Deepwater Horizon explosion (Patrick Semansky / AP)

Not only is the chemical dispersant that was used to “clean up” the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster of 2010 extremely dangerous, it was knowingly used to make the gushing oil merely “appear invisible” all the while exacerbating levels of toxicity in the Gulf waters, according to a report released Friday, the eve of the third anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, by the Government Accountability Project.

According to the report, Deadly Dispersants in the Gulf: Are Public Health and Environmental Tragedies the New Norm for Oil Spill Cleanups?, Corexit-the dispersant chemical dumped into the Gulf of Mexico by oil giant BP and the U.S. government in the spill’s aftermath-was widely applied “because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared.”

“This report is a people’s history to rebut a false advertising blitz by BP, enabled by government collusion.”
-Tom Devine
Government Accountability Project

As GAP states: “In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished.”

The Corexit/oil combination is highly toxic and will continue to cause “devastating long-term effects on human health and the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem” for a long time into the future, the report warns.

GAP spent 20 months collecting evidence from “over two dozen employee and citizen whistleblowers who experienced the cleanup’s effects firsthand,” and from extensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

“This report is a people’s history to rebut a false advertising blitz by BP, enabled by government collusion,” stated GAP Legal Director Tom Devine, co-author of the report. “Gulf workers and residents who are still suffering deserve justice, and the public deserves the truth.”

“The price for making the spill appear invisible has been deadly,” he said. “It is time to stop covering up the truth about the deadly effects of the chemical cover-up Corexit.”
“Taken together, the documents and the witnesses’ testimony belie repeated corporate and government rhetoric that Corexit is not dangerous. Worse than this, evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself,” the group stated Friday.

The report includes first hand accounts from cleanup workers, divers, local doctors, and residents.

The findings also include “higher than normal frequency of seafood mutations,” and “pockets of ‘dead’ ocean areas where life was previously abundant.”
“Through their testimony and emerging science, the truth about the spill response’s toxic legacy is beginning to surface as the third anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon explosion approaches,” GAP stated.

Below is a small selection of some of the voices included in the report:
As an environmental scientist, I look at the way the government and BP are handling, describing and discussing the spill Š [T]he government did not account for the increased toxicity of the combined oil and Corexit.
- Scott Porter, Diver, Marine Biologist
[W]hen a BP representative came up on the speedboat and asked if we need anything, I again explained my concerns about breathing in the Corexit and asked him for a respirator Š He explained ‘If you wear a respirator, it is bringing attention to yourself because no one else is wearing respirators, and you can get fired for that.’
- Jorey Danos, Cleanup Worker
What brought all of these individuals into the same pool was the fact that their symptoms were almost identical, and were different from anything that I had ever observed in my 40 plus years as a physician Š However, until people are educated about the symptoms associated with exposure to toxic waste from the spill, we cannot assume they will make the connection. I continue to witness this disconnect and these symptoms on a daily basis.
- Dr. Michael Robichaux, Physician
They hired people from all over who didn’t know about the conditions and real safety hazards, but you did what you had to do; you had to take the job and deal with it because you didn’t have money to go home Š There was a safety culture of, ‘hush hush, it didn’t happen.’
- Anonymous Cleanup Worker
EPA and BP knew of the health impacts associated with [Corexit and oil] Š The issue was responding to an oil spill of this magnitude, with unprecedented quantities of Corexit, including novel subsurface application. Gulf coastal communities, and individuals who consume gulf seafood or recreate in the gulf, are the guinea pigs left to deal with the consequences and will be feeling the full effect in years to come.
- Dr. Wilma Subra, Chemist, MacArthur Genius Award Recipient

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Care2.com: 10 Oil Spills in a Single Month That Have Been Covered Up

by Kevin Mathews
April 15, 2013
6:00 am

As politicians take steps to advance the Keystone Pipeline project, oil spills and accidents continue to occur throughout North America. In the past month alone, there have been well over a dozen harmful oil incidents.

While a recent devastating pipeline burst in Arkansas has attracted a moderate amount of attention, most such accidents are swept under the rug. Claims that pipelines are highly safe and rarely malfunction are false, and there is a lack of evidence to prove them. Just because most pipeline incidents receive minimal media attention doesn’t make them any less true.

Here are 10 oil leaks from the past month that have been mostly covered up by the corporate media:

1. For the fourth time in just two years, a leak was found in Canada’s Norman Wells pipeline on March 19. In total, the pipeline has leaked 1 million liters of oil. Although the pipeline has been patched up each time, the fact that it keeps breaking has locals calling the repairs “a quick fix.”

2. Almost 1,000 barrels of crude oil leaked from Shell’s West Columbia pipeline near Houston, Texas. The massive spill was found on March 29, but not before over 50 barrels worth ran into nearby Vince Bayou.

3. A leak in a gas treatment plant’s pipeline in Parachute, Colorado continues to contaminate the local water supply over a month after it was discovered. As a result, harmful toxins have been found in Parachute Creek, which flows directly into the Colorado River. An estimated 30 million people live downstream of the leak and rely on the water supply. State law limits the maximum fine for “environmental mishaps” to just $10,000 total.

4. On March 31, the Lansing Board of Water and Light found that 3,000 gallons of oil leaked into the Grand River. Cleanup of the spill took nearly two weeks.

5. A March 18 pipeline crack leaked 21,000 gallons of fuel into the wetlands of Utah’s Willard Bay State Park. Some of the missing oil is still not accounted for, and the park will remained closed through Memorial Day.

6. A Canadian Pacific Railway train carrying fuel to Chicago derailed, spilling 15,000 gallons of oil in Minnesota on March 27. According to officials, the cold weather made cleanup efforts particularly difficult.

7. Repsol, a Spanish oil company, had its second oil spill in about a year in North Slope, Alaska. Though nearly 7,000 gallons sprayed on to the nearby terrain on April 9, an oil commissioner seemed unimpressed. “It wasn’t a big event. They had a hose rupture. How many times have you watered your garden and had a leak in your hose?”

8. On April 4, an S&S Energy oil and gas well in Damascus, Ohio exploded. A representative for the firefighters who came to put out the blaze said that this type of accident “is not unusual.”

9. A natural gas explosion occurred at a plant in Langston, Oklahoma on April 4. While no one was hurt, the gas line had to entirely burn off before firefighters could put out the resulting inferno.

10. After already demonstrating a spotty safety record, Suncor Energy acknowledged that 225 barrels of oil leaked in Port Moody, British Columbia on April 7, with a small portion of the fuel making its way to the water in the Burrard Inlet. Though Suncor managed to keep the accident a secret for four days, the incident was eventually exposed.

Unfortunately, oil spills are not isolated incidents as the corporations and mainstream media would like you to believe. If these 10 leaks aren’t enough to convince you of the Keystone Pipeline’s potential dangers, just wait until next month.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/10-oil-spills-in-a-single-month-that-have-been-covered-up.html#ixzz2QquSwndy

Sun Sentinel: Companies abandon search for oil in Cuba’s deep waters

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-cuban-oil-drilling-retreat-20130414,0,5594782.story

Threat to Florida’s environment reduced as drillers look elsewhere

By William E. Gibson, Washington Bureau
9:20 p.m. EDT, April 14, 2013
WASHINGTON – After spending nearly $700 million during a decade, energy companies from around the world have all but abandoned their search for oil in deep waters off the north coast of Cuba near Florida, a blow to the Castro regime but a relief to environmentalists worried about a major oil spill.

Decisions by Spain-based Repsol and other companies to drill elsewhere greatly reduce the chances that a giant slick along the Cuban coast would ride ocean currents to South Florida, threatening its beaches, inlets, mangroves, reefs and multibillion-dollar tourism industry.

The Coast Guard remains prepared to contain, skim, burn or disperse a potential slick. And Cuban officials still yearn for a lucrative strike that would prop up its economy. A Russian company, Zarubezhneft, is drilling an exploratory well in shallower waters hugging the Cuban shoreline south of the Bahamas.

But though some oil has been found offshore, exploratory drilling in deep waters near currents that rush toward Florida has failed to reveal big deposits that would be commercially viable to extract, discouraging companies from pouring more money into the search.

“Those companies are saying, ‘We cannot spend any more capital on this high-risk exploration. We’d rather go to Brazil; we’d rather go to Angola; we’d rather go to other places in the world where the technological and geological challenges are less,’” said Jorge Piñon, an oil-industry analyst at the University of Texas who consults with U.S. and Cuban officials as well as energy companies.

“I don’t foresee any time in the future exploration in Cuba’s deep-water north coast. It is, for all practical purposes, over.”

Despite these frustrations, Cuba’s need for oil wealth and energy independence has only intensified.

Venezuela – which holds a presidential election Sunday – may quit sending $3.5 billion worth of oil to Cuba each year under a barter arrangement initiated by the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, an ally of Fidel and Raúl Castro.

Venezuela has been sending oil to Cuba at favorable prices, with part of the cost paid through low-interest loans and the rest offset by services from Cuban doctors, teachers and advisers – a sweet deal for the Castro regime that meets the island’s energy needs and fuels its struggling economy.

But Venezuelan opposition leader Henrique Capriles, a presidential candidate, has told voters that if he is elected “not another drop of oil will go toward financing the government of the Castros.” And even if Capriles loses to acting President Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela may be unable to sustain its generosity.

“How much longer can Venezuela provide billions of dollars in aid and petroleum?” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, who met with energy officials in Havana earlier this month. “They [Cuban officials] know that is staring them in the face.

“They were upfront that they have not been successful to date,” she said. “But they do have other foreign investors – the Russians, the Brazilians, Angola – and they intend to proceed.”

Castor and other Floridians fear the consequences of a potential offshore oil spill, especially if a giant slick gets caught in ocean currents that feed into the powerful Gulf Stream, which could drag it north along the Florida coast and to the Carolinas.

Florida leaders for years have fended off oil drilling within 125 miles of Florida’s Gulf Coast for fear a spill would damage the environment and the state’s $65 billion tourism industry.

Those fears were heightened when the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 spewed 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, ruining that summer’s tourist and fishing season along the Florida Panhandle and polluting coastal waters in ways that are still being measured.

In the aftermath, drilling north of Cuba just 70 miles from Florida set off new alarms and prompted the Coast Guard to devise contingency plans to fend off a potential slick.
The Coast Guard today is breathing a little easier but remains on guard.

“The ocean currents [near the Russian drilling site] are much more favorable in terms of a U.S. landing of a potential oil spill, but clearly there’s still risk,” said Coast Guard Capt. John Slaughter, who oversees oil-spill response plans in South Florida. “Even if the currents don’t bring it here, you still may have strong winds from the east pushing the oil closer to our shores.

“Economically for the state of Florida, if [a spill] were to happen, even if nothing reaches the shore, people are going to get agitated. ‘Should I still come to Florida on vacation if there’s an oil spill in the Florida Straits?’ We would be very aggressive to ensure that nothing happens.”

Repsol, a Spanish company, had been looking for oil off the shores of Cuba for more than a decade, hoping for a big strike that could generate billions of dollars of profit. The company brought a gigantic self-propelled floating rig – the Scarabeo 9 – all the way from Singapore to drill an exploratory well in ultradeep waters of more than 5,000 feet north of Havana in January 2012.

The well produced signs of oil. But by May 2012, the company concluded it wasn’t enough to justify the cost and difficulty of extraction through a complex and porous underwater rock structure. Now Repsol is closing its Cuban offices and moving elsewhere.

“We have taken a decision not to carry out any further exploration in Cuba after the last well we did in 2012,” said Repsol spokesman Kristian Rix. He would not elaborate.

Petronas, a Malaysian company, and PDVSA of Venezuela have dug exploratory wells at other deep-water sites off the Cuban coast during the past year and came to the same conclusion.

The Russian drilling still underway is in shallower waters – about 1,200 feet – along the Cuban coast near Cayo Coco, farther from Florida than the deep-water sites and farther from the Gulf Stream.

“Arguably it’s in a more environmentally sensitive area along the Cuban coastline,” said Daniel Whittle, Cuba program director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “But from the U.S. point of view, it poses less danger.”

Piñon, who estimates that energy companies have spent a total of nearly $700 million during a decade exploring deep-water sites, predicted that other companies with less capital will be discouraged from making further attempts.

“This is a high-risk business. Folks in the street rarely hear about all the dry holes. It’s nothing out of the ordinary,” he said. “Everyone had high expectations because there was supposed to be oil off the north coast of Cuba, and look what happened: nothing.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter.

E&E: Former spill commissioners have ‘major concern’ with Congress’ inaction

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, April 17, 2013

While Congress has taken steps to ensure billions of dollars is spent to restore the Gulf of Mexico, it has failed to implement other key proposals to prevent another offshore spill, according to a new report from the former members of President Obama’s BP PLC oil spill commission.

And while the Obama administration and industry have taken laudable steps to better prevent and respond to oil spills, the Interior Department is implementing reforms more slowly than in the previous year and an industry-run safety institute is still too closely aligned with its main trade group, the report said.

The administration received a grade of B, industry a B- and Congress a D+.

The second annual report card by the seven members of Oil Spill Commission Action, an offshoot of the former commission, offered slightly better marks for the offshore drilling industry, which it credited for largely avoiding major spills in 2012, and Congress for passing the RESTORE Act. The administration’s grade was unchanged, in part because it released only one of three rules — the safety and environmental management rule — it had planned to introduce in 2012.

“Because of actions taken by the administration and by industry, we can say with confidence that offshore drilling is safer than it was three years ago,” said Bob Graham, the former Democratic senator from Florida and co-chairman of the commission. “That doesn’t mean that there will not be another incident; this is a risky business.”

But Graham noted “major concern” that Congress has yet to raise the oil spill liability cap, and the report said lawmakers have “yet to take action to bolster the government’s program for managing offshore activities.”

In contrast, industry has taken significant steps to ensure the Gulf and other waters are equipped with technologies to quickly arrest an out-of-control well, said William Reilly, the commission’s other co- chairman, who was administrator of U.S. EPA under the George H.W. Bush administration.

“Not only is drilling safer, but the ability to respond effectively to spills that do occur has been significantly improved,” he said. “There are now four well capping systems located in the Gulf of Mexico and more than a dozen are positioned around the world. Three years ago there were none. Industry has taken to heart the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.”

But the report does raise concern that the Center for Offshore Safety, which was established to train auditors to inspect companies’ safety systems, is still being run by the American Petroleum Institute. It recommends the center become independent.

As for the administration, the report notes that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement had expected to release a proposed rule to bolster design and operation standards for blowout preventers and another that would address “process safety systems” and lifetime analyses of critical equipment, but that a release date is uncertain.

It recommended the United States adopt a “proactive, risked-based approach” similar to the United Kingdom’s “safety case” and propose regulations strengthening the quality of the National Environmental Policy Act reviews for planning, leasing, exploration and development.

It said the agency should also move forward with Arctic-specific standards to ensure that drilling is conducted safely in frontier regions.

“The risks will only increase as drilling moves into deeper waters with harsher, less familiar conditions,” the report said. “Delays in taking the necessary precautions threaten new disasters, and their occurrence could, in turn, seriously threaten the nation’s energy security.”

The report gave the administration’s approach to drilling in the Arctic a C grade, calling it a “work in progress” but noting troubles last year in exploring the Chukchi Sea.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Greenwire: GREENLAND: New government sets moratorium on offshore drilling permits

http://www.envinews.eu/article/622863/

Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013

The newly elected government in Greenland has halted approval of new offshore oil and gas drilling permits in its Arctic waters.

Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond said that he was reluctant to approve new permits and that existing operations would be subject to more scrutiny moving forward. He also will set up a parliamentary body to examine offshore operations.

Oil companies view Greenland, Russia and Alaska as containing roughly 25 percent of the world’s remaining oil and gas reserves.

But environmentalists continue to voice concerns about drilling in those areas and its effects on climate change and the pristine northern environment.

“Until now, the people of Greenland have been kept in the dark about the enormous risks taken by the politicians and companies in the search for Arctic oil. Now it seems that the new government will start taking these risks seriously. The logical conclusion must be a total ban on offshore oil drilling in Greenland,” said Jon Burgwald, an Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace in Denmark.

(Terry Macalister, London Guardian, March 27). — MM

Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times: OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Tar Sands Disaster By THOMAS HOMER-DIXON

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.htm

Published: March 31, 2013

WATERLOO, Ontario

IF President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all, he’ll do Canada a favor.

Canada’s tar sands formations, landlocked in northern Alberta, are a giant reserve of carbon-saturated energy – a mixture of sand, clay and a viscous low-grade petroleum called bitumen. Pipelines are the best way to get this resource to market, but existing pipelines to the United States are almost full. So tar sands companies, and the Alberta and Canadian governments, are desperately searching for export routes via new pipelines.
Canadians don’t universally support construction of the pipeline. A poll by Nanos Research in February 2012 found that nearly 42 percent of Canadians were opposed.

Many of us, in fact, want to see the tar sands industry wound down and eventually stopped, even though it pumps tens of billions of dollars annually into our economy.
The most obvious reason is that tar sands production is one of the world’s most environmentally damaging activities. It wrecks vast areas of boreal forest through surface mining and subsurface production. It sucks up huge quantities of water from local rivers, turns it into toxic waste and dumps the contaminated water into tailing ponds that now cover nearly 70 square miles.

Also, bitumen is junk energy. A joule, or unit of energy, invested in extracting and processing bitumen returns only four to six joules in the form of crude oil. In contrast, conventional oil production in North America returns about 15 joules. Because almost all of the input energy in tar sands production comes from fossil fuels, the process generates significantly more carbon dioxide than conventional oil production.

There is a less obvious but no less important reason many Canadians want the industry stopped: it is relentlessly twisting our society into something we don’t like. Canada is beginning to exhibit the economic and political characteristics of a petro-state.

Countries with huge reserves of valuable natural resources often suffer from economic imbalances and boom-bust cycles. They also tend to have low-innovation economies, because lucrative resource extraction makes them fat and happy, at least when resource prices are high.

Canada is true to type. When demand for tar sands energy was strong in recent years, investment in Alberta surged. But that demand also lifted the Canadian dollar, which hurt export-oriented manufacturing in Ontario, Canada’s industrial heartland. Then, as the export price of Canadian heavy crude softened in late 2012 and early 2013, the country’s economy stalled.

Canada’s record on technical innovation, except in resource extraction, is notoriously poor. Capital and talent flow to the tar sands, while investments in manufacturing productivity and high technology elsewhere languish.

But more alarming is the way the tar sands industry is undermining Canadian democracy. By suggesting that anyone who questions the industry is unpatriotic, tar sands interest groups have made the industry the third rail of Canadian politics.

The current Conservative government holds a large majority of seats in Parliament but was elected in 2011 with only 40 percent of the vote, because three other parties split the center and left vote. The Conservative base is Alberta, the province from which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and many of his allies hail. As a result, Alberta has extraordinary clout in federal politics, and tar sands influence reaches deep into the federal cabinet.

Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign.

The federal minister of natural resources, Joe Oliver, has attacked “environmental and other radical groups” working to stop tar sands exports. He has focused particular ire on groups getting money from outside Canada, implying that they’re acting as a fifth column for left-wing foreign interests. At a time of widespread federal budget cuts, the Conservatives have given Canada’s tax agency extra resources to audit registered charities. It’s widely assumed that environmental groups opposing the tar sands are a main target.

This coercive climate prevents Canadians from having an open conversation about the tar sands. Instead, our nation behaves like a gambler deep in the hole, repeatedly doubling down on our commitment to the industry.

President Obama rejected the pipeline last year but now must decide whether to approve a new proposal from TransCanada, the pipeline company. Saying no won’t stop tar sands development by itself, because producers are busy looking for other export routes – west across the Rockies to the Pacific Coast, east to Quebec, or south by rail to the United States. Each alternative faces political, technical or economic challenges as opponents fight to make the industry unviable.

Mr. Obama must do what’s best for America. But stopping Keystone XL would be a major step toward stopping large-scale environmental destruction, the distortion of Canada’s economy and the erosion of its democracy.

Thomas Homer-Dixon, who teaches global governance at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, is the author of “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

RIkki Ott, Ultimate Civics: 24 YEARS AFTER THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL, TELL THE EPA TO FINALLY BAN TOXIC DISPERSANTS!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban-toxic-dispersants/

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:31:03 -0400
Subject: Ban Toxic Dispersants Now!

Take one small step today to change oil industry practices

Dear Friends,
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef, spilling millions of gallons of oil and soiling thousands of miles of coast line. The Exxon Valdez oil spill wasn’t just an environmental disaster–it was a democracy crisis. The federal government and the courts failed to hold Exxon accountable for the harms it caused to people and the environment. It was back to business as usual for the oil industry while people bore the full costs of the disaster–a devastated ecosystem, socio-economic hardships, and illnesses.

Twenty-four years later, the federal government’s failure to hold Big Oil accountable to health and environmental laws is wreaking havoc in communities across America. From forced sales or eminent domain takings, to poisoned wells and ground water, to devastating health consequences from BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster and Enbridge’s tar sands spill in Michigan, more and more Americans are finding their rights and powers are failing to protect what they love. More and more people are organizing for change.

Take one small step today to change oil industry practices–and help protect people from toxic chemicals used in oil spill dispersants, drilling fluids in fracking, and diluents for tar sands.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

1. Sign the Petition to Ban Toxic Dispersants
Tell the EPA that it is time to delist all products that are known to cause health problems to human beings.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ban-toxic-dispersants/

2. Create broader awareness

Forward this email and ask friends, colleagues, and family members to sign the petition. Visit https://www.facebook.com/UltimateCivics to keep up-to-date on upcoming events and actions.

3. Follow us on https://www.facebook.com/UltimateCivics
Twitter @Ultimate_Civics to keep up-to-date on our progress and to learn other steps you can take to safe guard human health from these deadly chemicals.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Keysnet.com: ENVIRONMENT: Bahamian government clears way for offshore drilling

http://www.keysnet.com/2013/03/21/485987/bahamian-government-clears-way.html

How short-sighted that the Bahamian Minister of the Environment doesn’t see the clean energy potential of alternatives such as solar power. Instead, he is pursuing fossil fuel development in the pristine waters of the Bahamas that provide fisheries, tourism, and quality of life to all. The Bahamas is home to some of the healthiest corals in the Western Hemisphere. ……DV

By DAVID GOODHUE
dgoodhue@keysreporter.com
Posted – Thursday, March 21, 2013 08:18 PM EDT

The Bahamian government is allowing an oil company to conduct exploratory offshore drilling ahead of a referendum giving its citizens a say in the country’s future energy development.

The drilling would likely begin by early 2014 and be conducted by the Bahamas Petroleum Co. The operation would be near where Russian oil company Zarubezhneft is now drilling in Cuban waters in the Old Bahamas Channel south of the Andros Islands, which is next to Cuba’s exclusive economic zone with the Bahamas.

This would place another drilling operation less than 200 miles from Florida’s coast, which has at least one South Florida official concerned.

U.S. Rep. Joe Garcia, a Democrat whose district runs from Kendall to Key West, said Thursday that he fears what would happen to Florida’s coast in the event of a spill in the Bahamas

“I am very concerned to learn that off shore oil drilling will take place in our front yard and in the middle of the Gulfstream,” he said in a statement e-mailed to The Reporter. “If the Bahamas insist on moving forward with this process, I hope we can share safety standards and best practices that we have learned over the years.”

Kenred Dorsett, the Bahamas’ minister of environment and housing, said the decision to move forward with drilling before the referendum is held makes sense because there is no point in holding the ballot initiative if the Bahamas does not have economically viable offshore oil fields.

“More particularly, we are not going to ask the electorate to vote on whether they want to develop an oil industry if there is no oil to begin with,” Dorsett said in a statement last week. “Thus, we need to find out first, through exploration drilling, whether we do indeed have oil in commercially viable quantities. If we don’t, then obviously it would be completely pointless, and a shameful waste of public funds, to have a referendum on the matter.”

Dorsett said a national oil industry could help the Bahamas stem the rise of its national debt, and said there is growing support among the population to at least find out how much oil there is in Bahamian waters.

“At a time when our national debt burden is becoming increasingly difficult to bear, the Bahamian people are understandably asking whether we should not be focusing more closely on the question of whether oil exists in the Bahamas in commercially viable quantities,” Dorsett said. “If it does, it would likely mean substantially greater revenues for our country. Indeed, the discovery of oil in the Bahamas would almost certainly prove to be economically transformative for our nation for many generations to come.”

He added that Russia looking for oil about 60 miles away “dictates that we hasten our own decision-making process as it pertains to oil exploration and environmental regulation here in the Bahamas.”

BPC executives praised the government’s decision.

The “announcement paves the way for an assessment of the potential of oil resources on the Bahamian side of the border,” Simon Potter, BPC’s chief executive officer, said in a statement.

The BPC is seeking a partner company to help look for the oil.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the Bahamas hold up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil.

Bahamian Prime Minister Perry Christie’s Progressive Liberal Party is facing criticism from political opponents for changing his position on oil drilling. According to the Bahamian newspaper The Tribune, Dorsett just four months ago said no drilling would happen before the referendum, which isn’t expected to be held before 2015.

Dorsett, in his statement last week, promised that the nation’s regulations governing offshore oil exploration would mirror those enforced by countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia and Trinidad and Tobago.

He also recognized that offshore oil operations pose a threat to the multi-island nation’s beaches and marine life — a major draw to the country’s tourism-dependent economy.

The Russian drilling operation in Cuba — and the proposed operation in the Bahamas — is in 1,000 to 2,000 feet and is considered shallow-water drilling. By contrast, the 2010 BP/DeepWater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico happened at more than 5,000 feet below the ocean surface.

A failed deepwater drilling operation in the Florida Straits — about 70 miles from Key West — was even deeper. Several international oil companies, starting in early 2012, leased a Chinese-built, Italian-owned semi-submersible rig to drill the depths between the Keys and Cuba.

The operation worried both U.S. environmentalists and opponents of Cuba’s communist Castro regime. But in the end, none of the companies found enough oil to indicate the area is fertile for future energy exploration.

The Cuban government was hoping for a major find that would turn the nation from being a net-energy importer to an exporter. Cuba relies largely on oil imports from Venezuela.

Politico via Center for Biologic Diversity: Poll: President Obama voters don’t want Keystone

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/obama-keystone-poll-89108.html

Politico, March 20, 2013

By Erika Martinson

Environmentalists armed with new poll numbers have a warning for President Barack Obama: Approving the Keystone XL pipeline would put him at odds with core members of his base.

The poll reveals an electorate deeply split on the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, which is wildly popular among Republicans and almost equally unpopular among Democrats. A small majority of people overall either support the project or don’t know what to think, according to results provided to POLITICO.

But the Center for Biological Diversity, the group that commissioned the poll, says the president should pay attention to what his most fervent supporters are saying. Sixty-eight percent of people who voted for Obama want him to reject the pipeline, the poll found.

Opposition is especially strong among Obama voters age 18 to 29, according to the survey conducted by Public Policy Polling. More than 60 percent think he would be breaking his promises if he OKs the pipeline — and 16 percent would feel betrayed.

Of course, Obama has already won his second term and will most likely never face the electorate again. But he’s also spoken of his desire to keep his base fired up during his second term.

Keystone could put a quick kibosh to that, said Jerry Karnas, the environmental group’s national field director.

“This thing is a potential mass demoralizer for a large amount of Democrats,” Karnas said.

“Keystone is bad news for America, its wildlife and the future health of our climate — and the people who put President Obama in the White House know it,” he added.

Administration officials have repeatedly said they’ll make the pipeline decision based on facts and science. The White House stressed Tuesday that Keystone isn’t even on the president’s desk.

“In line with long-standing precedent, the State Department is conducting the assessment of the project,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said. He added that Obama will pursue his promises to confront climate change at the same time that he supports efforts to increase U.S. energy independence.

Still, the poll’s findings offer a glimpse at some of the political considerations at play as the administration weighs its stance on Keystone, an issue that pits supporters’ promises of jobs and energy independence versus fervent opposition from climate activists.

Some people proffering advice for the president say approving the pipeline would be a smart move to the middle — for instance, a January editorial in the scientific journal Nature said it would “bolster his credibility within industry and among conservatives” as he pursues strong action on climate change.

But Karnas said Obama needs to think longer term.

“His legacy is really hanging in the balance right now,” Karnas said. “He’s looking a lot more like an oil and gas president than he is a solar, wind and innovation guy.”

© 2013 POLITICO LLC.

This article originally appeared here.

Photo © Paul S. Hamilton

NRDC Switchboard: Susan Casey-Lefkowitz’s Blog.. The State Department review shows Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/the_state_department_review_sh.html

by Susan Casey-Lefkowitz

Posted March 11, 2013
|

A deeper dive into the State Department draft environmental review shows that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not needed. The energy security argument for the pipeline, always dubious, has evaporated to the point where even the State Department cannot find a reason to build it. The draft also confirms that the Keystone XL is not an economic recovery plan, since it will create only 35 permanent jobs and 3,900 construction jobs. It won’t help consumers since far from bringing new oil to the US, it is meant to relieve a glut and raise oil prices. Instead the State Department found that the project will benefit oil companies by giving them access to the higher oil prices in overseas markets, making new tar sands projects more worth their while. Yet, it is Americans who carry the risks of tar sands oil spills in our rivers and aquifers and worsening climate change. What the State Department got dead wrong is their mistaken assumption that Keystone XL would not drive tar sands expansion. The review used this assumption to get out of any meaningful consideration of the climate pollution from tar sands expansion, and in this time of worsening climate change that is not acceptable. Rejection of Keystone XL is an easy and necessary choice for America. As European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said, rejection of Keystone XL would send a strong message internationally that the US is serious about fighting climate change.

Let’s take a closer look at the draft environmental review:

Keystone XL’s 35 permanent jobs and 3,900 construction jobs are not an economic recovery plan

The State Department review once again shows how TransCanada, the American Petroleum Institute and other proponents of the pipeline have vastly overstated the number of jobs that will be created by Keystone XL. The State Department, based on TransCanada’s own numbers, shows that at the most 3,900 construction jobs will be created in building the pipeline with only 10% of the total workforce hired locally. Only 35 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. What is more, the State Department ignores the potentially negative impacts of pipeline spills, spills into freshwater supplies or increases in climate and other pollution on employment and the economy. Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed route – approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the states along the Keystone XL corridor. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL spill, or the cumulative impact of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs.

We can do better. As a result of our clean energy industry’s rapid growth and effective state and federal policies, clean energy projects and programs currently in progress are creating thousands of jobs in communities across the country without the risk. And many more shovel ready projects could be brought online if our policymakers are willing to send clear market signals and level the playing field for clean energy options to move forward.

Keystone XL’s path to export means less economic and energy security for the US, not more

The draft environmental review concedes that Keystone XL tar sands is mostly destined for export, confirming what we already know: that this is not a pipeline for US economic or energy security, but a project to spur tar sands expansion, raise oil prices and help the oil industry. The review acknowledges the trend of increasing exports from the Gulf Coast refineries. The State Department found that Gulf Coast refineries now export more than they supply to domestic markets and that the “increased volume of refined products is being exported by refiners as they respond to lower domestic gasoline demand and continued higher demand and prices in overseas markets.” This coincides with earlier documentation of the export goals of the tar sands industry for Keystone XL: that this pipeline is a way for the oil industry to access higher oil prices in overseas markets. And it also coincides with industry commentators, including a recent forecast that unrefined Canadian crudes may be exported from the US Gulf Coast soon.

Why this rush to export tar sands? It is commonly acknowledged by the oil industry and financial analysts that tar sands expansion is currently stalled due to the low prices for this very expensive to extract fuel. Without avenues for overseas export, the tar sands market is primarily the US Midwest and Rockies and Canada where there is currently a glut that has depressed oil prices. The draft environmental review acknowledges the glut and the impact that it has in lowering oil prices. What the oil industry wants is higher oil prices for its expensive to extract tar sands. Hardly a recipe for US economic security.

The draft review misses the mark on how Keystone XL will drive tar sands expansion

Contrary to the draft review findings, evidence shows that the Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the tar sands. Industry analysts have repeatedly pointed this out, with most recently a statement from tar sands pipeline company Enbridge CEO that “if we can’t attract world prices, then we will ultimately curb energy development” in the tar sands. Pipelines to bring tar sands to deepwater ports are stalled. So, the State Department focused on rail as an alternative with a number of erroneous assumptions detailed in this blog by my colleague Anthony Swift. Once you accept that the Keystone XL pipeline will drive tar sands expansion, it means that the environmental and health impacts of that expansion need to be taken into account. This is a critical missing piece in the draft environmental review that the State Department needs to go back and correct.

Tar sands and tar sands pipelines are a threat to environment and health

The draft review takes a look at some of the impacts of tar sands and tar sands pipelines and inexplicably underestimates the very real damage from these impacts every time, while completely ignoring the damage in many situations. Here is a quick run-down:

The State Department acknowledges that the climate impacts of tar sands are higher than conventional oil, but does not take them into account: The draft environmental review acknowledges that tar sands oil has higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil. After reviewing existing literature, the State Department found up to a 19% increase in well to wheels greenhouse gas emissions from the weighted-average mix of tar sands crudes expected to be transported in Keystone XL relative to the reference crudes in the near term. Canadian think tank Pembina Institute estimates tar sands climate pollution even higher with full life cycle tar sands emissions reaching up to 37% higher than a conventional oil baseline. And these estimates do not even tell the whole story as they do not yet take into account emissions from burning the tar sands byproduct of petcoke or the land use change greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands extraction from under Boreal forests and peatlands.
The State Department recognizes the unique risks of tar sands oil spills, but minimizes the impacts on US lands and waters: The draft environmental review does acknowledge the unique risks associated with diluted bitumen tar sands spills – as well as the fact that spill responders have yet to develop methods to address those risks. However, it does not adequately consider the demonstrated higher risk of pipeline failure due to external corrosion in high pressure tar sands pipelines or the safety problems that have plagued TransCanada’s earlier pipelines. Keystone XL would cross more than 1000 water bodies, including 50 perennial rivers or streams, and several aquifers, including the Ogallala. It also comes within a mile of approximately 2500 water wells.
The State Department does not address the concerns of Nebraska landowners. The new, proposed route in Nebraska still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer, Niobrara River, Platte River and over 200 bodies of water in Nebraska as well as countless private family wells without adequate analysis of the kind of damage a tar sands oil spill would have on farms and waters. Nebraskans have let the State Department know their concerns.
The draft review fails to show proper consultation with Tribal Governments. The State Department has repeatedly failed to fulfill its federal trust responsibility for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes on the natural and cultural resource impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The draft review does not adequately consider environmental justice and refinery pollution issues. Low income and minority communities will be disproportionately impacted by Keystone XL and the draft environmental review failed to assess these impacts. The review concludes that tar sands oil will displace oil already being refined and therefore will not have increased pollution impacts in refinery communities. However, tar sands refining in the Gulf is likely to have additional and new impacts especially on public health. The State department has a duty to quantify air pollution from refining and analyze the health impacts on the low-income minority communities that are burdened by this significant health threat. In addition, the draft fails to address the oil spill impacts to low-income minority communities through which the proposed pipeline would run.
The State Department not only ignores the climate impacts of tar sands expansion, but also other environmental and health impacts in Canada. In erroneously concluding that Keystone XL will not have a major contribution to tar sands expansion, the State Department then neglects to consider the harm that tar sands extraction does to local community health and traditional way of life and to land, waters, wildlife and air. The draft review did include a summary of recent study finding toxic PAH loading in regional aquatic ecosystems. But it then failed to mention many other concerns including: the low-flow risks in the Athabasca River to due climate change and increased river water withdrawals for tar sands mines; the long-term toxicity risks from massive mining waste tailing ponds; the inadequate reclamation liability management; the risk that caribou will go extinct in the region as a result of rapid tar sands expansion; the inadequate environmental monitoring system; and the recent weakening in federal environmental laws and the permitting regime for pipelines and tar sands projects.

The draft review underestimates the climate and health impacts of tar sands byproduct petcoke

Another area where the State Department falls seriously short is in its assessment of a byproduct of tar sands refining – petcoke. Although the draft review discussed petcoke and referred to the new reports on petcoke climate pollution by Oil Change International and the Carnegie Endowment, it then neglected to take the additional carbon emissions from burning petcoke into account. The draft review got it wrong on several counts. It assumed that most of the petcoke was being stockpiled and not burnt when recent evidence shows that petcoke stockpiles are going down. The State Department argues that heavy oil refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, and the associated petcoke production, will not rise as a result of Keystone XL. This ignores that fact that massive expansions have already taken place (Total, Motiva) in anticipation of Keystone XL’s arrival. It also overlooks the fact that these refineries are exporting over half of their production and are therefore not constrained by shrinking US demand for petroleum products. Given that these refineries now primarily serve a growing world market, it cannot be ruled out that bringing additional heavy oil supplies to the area may send market signals for future heavy oil capacity expansions. The State Department’s analysis continues to assume that petcoke displaces coal ignoring the fact that the increasing supply of cheap petcoke, which sells for 25% less than coal, is making power generation cheaper and dirtier.

It also neglected to consider the health impacts of petcoke. Just recently, citizens raised concerns about black dust blowing off a mountain of petcoke on the Detroit riverbank near the Marathon tar sands refinery in a graphic illustration of a problem with processing tar sands in the US that went unaddressed by the State Department.

There is still time and opportunity to get it right

The draft environmental review is just a first step in a process of assessing the environmental impacts of Keystone XL and whether the project is in the national interest. We now have a public comment period starting and the Administration will be hearing from a concerned public about this project. With so many errors and omissions, the State Department needs to go back to the drawing board and get this analysis right. The US public deserves an honest assessment of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

You can take action and let President Obama know that this review needs to go back to the drawing board at www.stoptar.org.

And for those who want to take a deeper look themselves, here is where to find some of the information referred to above in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS):

Jobs: Section 4.10 Socioeconomics: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205612.pdf
Petcoke: Section 1.4 Market Analysis: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205654.pdf and Section 4.15 Cumulative Effects Assessment, pages 4.15-94 to 100: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205618.pdf
Export: Market Analysis, pp 1.4 – 1.15: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205654.pdf
Prices: Market Analysis, pp 1.4.7 – 1.4.8 and appendix C: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205654.pdf
Rail: Market Analysis: Increases in Rail Capacity, section 1.4.6.2 http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205654.pdf
Climate: Appendix W: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205563.pdf
Tribal: Tribal Consultation Section 1.6-1 http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205652.pdf and Appendix E Record of Consultation http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205589.pdf
Pipeline safety: Potential Releases section 4.13 http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205621.pdf
Impacts in Canada: 4.15.4.3 Environmental effects of oil sands development in Alberta (SEIS pp. 4.15-111) http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205618.pdf

Credo: 45 days to tell President Obama to reject Keystone XL

http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=13093920&id=56087-2107199-7h0W83x&t=6

Please sign onto these comments. Thx DeeVon

March 15, 2013

This is our last chance to officially weigh in on the State Department’s latest sham review of Keystone XL. We need to go huge in urging President Obama to reject Keystone XL.
Sign the petition ►

Dear Friend,

On Friday, the State Department launched a 45-day official public comment period on the Obama administration’s latest sham review of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The clock is now ticking on what will likely be our last chance to officially weigh in on the “game over for the climate” Obama Tar Sands pipeline, before the president makes his decision later this year.

We need a response that will make clear to the Obama administration that Americans oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. That’s why we’ve set a goal of collecting 200,000 public comments against Keystone XL, the most public comments we’ve ever delivered during a single official comment period on an environmental issue.

Tell President Obama: Reject Keystone XL. Submit your public comment now.

The recently released Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that is the subject of these comments ignored the pipeline’s significant risk for toxic spills, ignored its catastrophic impacts on our climate,1 and ignored the clear consensus among financial analysts and oil executives who agree Keystone XL will make the difference in tar sands development.2

This assessment was simply a vehicle for the White House to see if we would be silent in the face of its misguided and cynical reasoning: that we should let the bankers and the oil companies profit while the planet inevitably burns. That Canadian tar sands are going to get burned anyway, so while the government’s chief climate scientist’s assertion that Keystone XL will spell ‘game over’ for the climate may be true,3 it is is essentially irrelevant.

This is coward’s logic. And we will not be silent in the face of it.

Tell President Obama: Reject Keystone XL. Submit your public comment now.

To be honest, it’s not clear if any amount of pressure through official channels will be enough to get the administration to change course. After yet another fatally flawed review of Keystone XL, and perhaps more shockingly, the revelation last week that the State Department is once again farming out its analysis to oil industry contractors paid by the likes of TransCanada,4 ExxonMobil and Koch Industries5, our faith in the Obama administration to listen to either science or the public is diminishing.

That’s why we have escalated our tactics by launching the Pledge of Resistance to Keystone XL where more than 51,000 people have already committed to engage in civil disobedience if President Obama takes the next step toward approval of Keystone XL.

But we have to do everything in our power to stop this thing. And that means going as big as we can during this official comment period, to convince President Obama to reject Keystone XL; so we do not need to escalate our tactics against it, and so we have a better shot at preserving a livable planet. Please submit a public comment urging President Obama to reject Keystone XL, and ask your friends to do the same:

http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=13093920&id=56087-2107199-7h0W83x&t=6

Thanks for fighting Keystone XL.

Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Sign the petition ►

1. “Another flawed environmental review on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” NRDC, 3/1/13
2. “Keystone Pipeline Decision May Influence Oil-Sands Development,” Bloomberg,3/7/13
3. “Game over for the climate,” James Hansen, New York Times, 5/9/12
4. “‘State Department’ Keystone XL Report Actually Written By TransCanada Contractor ,” Grist, 3/6/13
5. “Critical Part of Keystone Report Done by Firms with Deep Oil Industry Ties,” Inside Climate, 3/6/13

Scientific American: Will Canada’s Proposed Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Muck Up Its Pacific Coast?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gateway-pipeline-poses-unknown-environmental-threat

Large cracks remain in the science assessing Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline Project
By Anne Casselman


WATER WAY: The Northern Gateway pipeline would traverse north-central Albert and British Columbia and cross 996 watercourses, of which 669 are fish-bearing, including the Nechako River pictured here.
Image: Andrew S. Wright/WWF-Canada

As controversy continues around the Keystone XL Pipeline that would snake through the U.S., a similar drama plays out north of the border. Canadian officials are deciding whether to green-light a pipeline that would carry a semiliquid hydrocarbon mix for 1,172 kilometers from Alberta’s tar sands over the Canadian Rockies to the Pacific coast of British Columbia. Near its proposed terminus, the proposal has met with public outcry and fierce opposition from the Coastal First Nations, a coalition of indigenous tribes.

Calgary, Alberta-based energy company Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline would cross over 1,000 fish-bearing streams and bring 255 oil supertankers each year to the coastline, making the issue highly contentious in Canada’s famously outdoor-loving province. Of 1,161 British Columbians to give oral statements as part of the pipeline’s federal review process, only two were in favor of the project.

What’s more, the pipeline would be carrying an oil product that no one knows much about: diluted bitumen, or dilbit. University and government scientists emphasize an urgent need to fill the knowledge gaps surrounding what diluted bitumen is made of, how it reacts in the environment when spilled, and what its long-term biological effects are.

Answers to those questions are prerequisites to assessing the ecological risks posed by the eight such pipeline projects in Canada alone and to planning for an effective spill-response when things go wrong. “I think it’s fair to say, there’s been some purposeful denial that the bitumen is really something different,” says Steve Hamilton, an aquatic ecologist at Michigan State University who worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Enbridge in 2010 to remediate a diluted bitumen spill in Michigan-work that is still ongoing. “The science has not informed this cleanup very well. There’s a pressing need for research.”

Bitumen is a thick hydrocarbon, the “tar” in Alberta’s tar sands, the third largest deposit of hydrocarbons in the world. To flow through a pipeline, the tarlike bitumen is diluted with gas condensates or synthetic oils known as diluents. This mixture of bitumen and diluent is called diluted bitumen, or dilbit for short, but its precise formulation varies widely and is not publicly released.

Finding out what exactly is included under the umbrella term dilbit is an important first step in understanding this unconventional form of oil. “It’s not cast in stone exactly what dilbit is,” says Kenneth Lee, head of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Center for Offshore Oil and Gas Energy Research in Nova Scotia. “The fate and behavior of the product-the character of the product when it’s spilled in the water-will depend on what the final formulation is,” Lee says. Next comes figuring out how dilbit behaves when it is spilled. “We have to understand the physical behavior of the oil before we can design the optimal cleanup technologies,” he adds.

The chronic, long-term effects of bitumen on an ecosystem present a similar blank, although the Michigan spill will provide some information. “In trying to identify research needs, one of the things that’s obvious is the lack of toxicity data,” says Peter Hodson, a fish toxicologist at Queens University in Ontario. “Neither dilbit nor gas condensates have been tested, and so far I’ve not been able to find any literature on the environmental impacts of those two products.”

Spilled dilbit
The past mishap provides some clues about what might happen. On Sunday, July 25, 2010, one of Enbridge’s pipelines in the U.S. sprung a leak near Marshall, Mich. By the time the spill was contained some three days later, some 20,000 barrels of diluted bitumen had leaked from the pipe and entered a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. At the time the river was in a flood stage, which slowed the oil’s transport downstream. Even then the oil contaminated a 65-kilometer-long stretch of river, overtopped several dams and deposited itself onto the vegetation in the flood plain. The contaminated flora had to be stripped away and taken to landfills, after detergents and water sprays wouldn’t budge the stuff. Ditto with surface soils; once spilled, the dilbit became heavier and thicker as the diluting component of the mix evaporated into the air. “When it loses the diluent it turns back to its original tarry nature and it sticks to things. It’s next to impossible to get off,” Michigan State’s Hamilton says.

Then there was the oil that became submerged in river sediments. “One of the big questions when we’re talking about dilbit is, does it float or does it sink?” DFO’s Lee says. “If you talk to Enbridge or some of the people in industry, they say, ‘well, it floats.’ You look at what happened in the Kalamazoo river, and it sank.”

The physical and chemical properties of oil products change as they are exposed to the open environment in a process known as weathering. Typically oils float, Lee says, but evidence from the Kalamazoo spill, and results of early lab tests, suggest that as dilbit interacts with fine particles suspended in the water column, like the sediments found in river water, it sinks. “Dilbit in its initial form for a period of days to weeks is not an unusual product,” says Jeff Green, a consultant to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and technical coordinator for its environmental assessment. “If it does take on heavy sediment loads and weathers, it can sink, and so it can become a nonfloating hydrocarbon.”

Knowing whether dilbit sinks or floats and under what environmental conditions remains a key step to planning an effective spill response. If dilbit sinks, what clean up strategies and technologies exist to recover it from the river bottom or ocean floor? In the Kalamazoo dilbit spill, Enbridge stirred up the river bottom to loosen and recover the oil.

Lee points out that this approach was not effective in conditions colder than 4.4 degrees Celsius, which could pose a problem in colder northern river systems. “In my mind, this is an unproven technique,” Hamilton says. The results of EPA-commissioned experiments testing its effectiveness last summer have yet to come in.

No one knows what fraction of the 3.1 million liters of spilled dilbit in Michigan became what has since been termed “submerged oil,” but it was enough to contaminate hundreds of acres of river sediment. Three years and nearly $800 million dollars of cleanup efforts later, Enbridge and the EPA still have more work to do. As a last resort, they will likely dredge the river bottom and dispose of the contaminated sediment in landfills this summer. “We’ve basically had to destroy the environment to recover the submerged oil,” Hamilton says.

The ecosystem has bounced back quite well, however. Along the river, fish, aquatic insects, birds or mammals appear healthy, Hamilton reports. “You have to remember that $800,000 and thousands of workers stripped every visible patch of oil off the landscape. So if it were in an environment where you couldn’t do that, then it wouldn’t be bouncing back like it is now,” he notes. “I can’t imagine what sort of environment that might be but it could be anywhere along the proposed route of the [Northern Gateway] Pipeline where you’ve got rugged terrain or rivers or steep gradients, or it could be in the port where it goes into deep bays. It would be next to impossible to clean up.”

And, even after this costly lesson, he points out that no one knows what causes the oil to sink, nor does anyone know its ecological cost, toxicity, environmental persistence or whether there are things that can be done to accelerate its biodegradation. “I believe that the world would have been better off if we had done some more focused directed research during the last couple years to ask these questions and get some answers,” Hamilton says.

Gateway to disaster?
In 2011 Canadian oil production reached 2.9 million barrels a day and by 2020 that number is expected to reach 4.2 million. Enbridge’s Northern Gateway alone would transport 525,000 barrels of dilbit daily, in addition to 193,000 barrels of imported condensate that would flow through a second pipe alongside leading back to the tar sands in Alberta.

“If we look at the historical record, it’s clear that Canada has never had a system of pipelines that are leakproof or spill-proof,” says Sean Kheraj, a historian at York University in Toronto. Kheraj points to the telling statistic that in 2010 Alberta’s pipeline network alone spilled 3.4 million liters of liquid hydrocarbon product (which is the fancy name for oil and gas products). “We can anticipate historically that there will likely be spills along any new pipeline network, whether it’s Keystone XL or Northern Gateway.”

In testimony to the Joint Review Panel assessing Northern Gateway back in September 2012 in Edmonton, Enbridge spill expert and economist Jack Ruitenbeek reported that the probability of a tanker, pipeline rupture or terminal spill-of any size, large or small-across the pipeline’s 50-year lifetime was 93 percent. The National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Joint Review Panel that is currently assessing the environmental effects of Northern Gateway will reach their decision on the pipeline by the end of 2013.

But if the proposed pipeline spills in British Columbia, aquatic ecosystems along its path will be most at risk. “Once you get over the [Continental] Divide virtually every stream that would be crossed turns into a salmon-bearing stream. There are no streams that are of trivial significance from an ecosystem context,” says Mark Boyce, a fisheries and wildlife biologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “At the end, at the far reaches of these pipelines are the most pristine marine environments on the planet, and to go mucking that up is just outrageous.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E&E: NOMINATIONS: Climate concerns steer Obama’s choices for EPA, DOE

http://www.eenews.net/gw/2013/03/04

Jason Plautz and Nick Juliano, E&E reporters
Published: Monday, March 4, 2013

Saying that fighting climate change and promoting clean energy will be second-term priorities, President Obama today officially nominated U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy to lead the agency and MIT physicist Ernest Moniz to head the Department of Energy.

“They’re going to be making sure that we’re investing in American energy, that we’re doing everything that we can to combat the threat of climate change, that we’re going to be creating jobs and economic opportunity in the first place,” Obama said at the White House this morning.

McCarthy currently heads EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, where she oversaw some of the agency’s most high-profile regulations during Obama’s first term. McCarthy steps in for Lisa Jackson, who departed the agency last month.

Moniz, who previously served as DOE undersecretary in the Clinton administration, replaces outgoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He has drawn some criticism from green groups for his views on hydraulic fracturing and nuclear power.

Obama also tapped Wal-Mart Foundation President and former OMB Deputy Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell to lead the Office of Management and Budget (see related story).
Environmentalists welcomed the long-expected Energy and EPA picks and Obama’s promise to have them fight the threat of climate change through clean air regulations and clean energy. Announcing the picks today, Obama said the two would build on “the work that we’ve done to control our own energy future, while reducing pollution that contributes to climate change.”

But some Republican senators have expressed concerns over EPA operations and said they will be scrutinizing McCarthy’s record at the agency and her vision for its future. GOP senators also are taking a wait-and-see approach to Moniz as they probe his experience.

Both picks must be confirmed by the Senate, but no hearings have been scheduled.
EPA
Green groups said McCarthy’s nomination signals that the White House will not let up on its regulatory push. In the air office, McCarthy oversaw first-of-their-kind greenhouse gas and toxics rules for power plants, new restrictions on sulfur in gasoline, and tougher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.

McCarthy also has a reputation for working well with the industries she is regulating and for doing the heavy lifting on complicated rules.

She previously served as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, helping lay the groundwork for the multistate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and held several positions as a Massachusetts regulator under then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R).

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke praised McCarthy as a “good listener, a straight shooter and someone who has what it takes to build consensus and find solutions.”

“We can count on her to protect our environment and our health,” Beinecke said in a statement. “And she can count on our support as she works to get the job done on behalf of Americans everywhere.”
EPA has a lengthy list of regulations on deck, including finalizing rules on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants and Tier 3 rules limiting sulfur in gasoline. The agency is also expected to craft new greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants, following through on a long-delayed promise.

“Every American is — or will soon be — breathing cleaner air because of McCarthy,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

“Breathers need McCarthy now more than ever as EPA prepares to tackle critical air quality challenges, including the need for smog-fighting lower-sulfur gasoline, updated national ozone air standards, and greenhouse gas standards for both new and existing power plants,” he added. “Dealing effectively with climate change is the challenge of a lifetime.”

Although there are sure to be questions about her role in overseeing new regulations, McCarthy has won praise from industry and utility officials for her willingness to listen to their concerns and work with them while crafting the rules (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
“Given that the recent rules arising under the Clean Air Act are some of the most expensive in EPA history, McCarthy has significant experience with wide-sweeping stakeholder contact,” said Scott Segal of Bracewell & Giuliani’s Policy Resolution Group.

“What many in industry appreciate about her style is her directness and openness to engagement with the regulated community,” he added. “Almost every large EPA rule has errors — both in policy and methodology. McCarthy listens and allows for the possibility of midcourse corrections.”

But in a statement, Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson called for the Senate to reject McCarthy because of her involvement in regulatory work and several agency “scandals.” Wilson said McCarthy was “unfit to run a Burger King, let alone a Cabinet-level agency that threatens our nation’s economy through its series of strange and bizarre regulatory rulings.”

McCarthy will likely face some uphill battles in being confirmed by the Senate. Environment and Public Works ranking member David Vitter (R-La.) has signaled that he is concerned about EPA’s transparency, citing several recent requests for more information on everything from ozone regulations to agenda publishing that have gone unanswered.

“The EPA is in desperate need of a leader who will stop ignoring congressional information requests, hiding emails and more from the public, and relying on flawed science,” Vitter said in a statement. “McCarthy has been directly involved in much of that, but I hope she can reverse those practices with Lisa Jackson’s departure. I look forward to hearing answers from her on a number of key issues.”

McCarthy’s nomination to the air post in 2009 was held up by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) over broader concerns about the administration’s climate policy. She was confirmed by voice vote after Barrasso lifted his hold.

Sources off the Hill said they would not be surprised to see Vitter or other Republicans on the EPW committee use McCarthy’s hearing to weigh in on upcoming regulations or the administration’s commitment to fight climate change.

Barrasso said in a statement this morning that he had “serious concerns about how the current EPA operates” and that he would “take a very close look at Ms. McCarthy’s experience at the EPA and her vision for the agency.”

Still, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a staunch EPA opponent, had praise for McCarthy, saying in 2009 that she “possesses the knowledge, experience and temperament to oversee a very important office at EPA” (Greenwire, June 2, 2009).
In a statement today, Inhofe said he is looking forward to “sitting down and talking with her to find common ground as I did with Lisa Jackson.”

EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had nothing but praise for McCarthy, saying that Obama “could not have picked a more qualified person to lead EPA at this critical time.”

Boxer promised to move forward with McCarthy’s nomination as soon as possible, although no plans for a hearing have been set.
DOE
Moniz, 69, shares Chu’s scientific background but will come to the job more familiar with Washington than his predecessor. During the Clinton administration, Moniz served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and as an undersecretary at DOE. While at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Moniz acted as an adviser on several Obama administration policies on nuclear waste, shale natural gas, and research and development.

“I think the most important thing he brings to the job by far is that he understands the interplay between science and politics,” said Elgie Holstein, who worked with Moniz in the Clinton administration and now is senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund. “He understands that science in Washington is not a given, and you have to make your case through the political process no matter what the issue is.”

Obama praised Moniz’s familiarity with Washington in announcing the nomination this morning.

“The good news is that Ernie already knows his way around the Department of Energy. … Most importantly, Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy, while still taking care of our air, our water and our climate,” the president said.
Obama called for the Senate to quickly confirm the nomination. Few red flags were immediately apparent, although Republicans on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee said they were taking a wait-and-see approach to Moniz.

“I’m willing to work with both DOE and the EPA to address the shared challenges we face, but it truly must be done in a way that recognizes the benefits of an energy supply that is not only clean, but also abundant, affordable, diverse and secure,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member on energy, said in a statement this morning. “My support will depend on both nominees demonstrating that they can lead DOE and the EPA in a way that restores balance to these objectives.”

Republican senators are glad to see Moniz’s support for natural gas and nuclear but will be pressing for more information on his views toward oil and coal, said a GOP aide who requested anonymity. Moniz’s previous statements in favor of a carbon tax also likely will be a topic of discussion in committee hearings.

Aides to other Republicans on the committee, including Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio), James Risch (Idaho) and Barrasso, said they were still reviewing Moniz’s credentials and withholding judgment until after the confirmation hearings but did not indicate any immediate problems.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, welcomed Moniz’s nomination and said he looks forward to discussing several pressing issues.

“That includes: re-engaging Dr. Moniz over the problems with cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford Site; finding creative ways to promote new technologies and harness the ingenuity of America’s energy innovators; and examining the diverse opportunities to attack climate change and transition to a low-carbon economy,” Wyden said in a statement.

Moniz’s support for natural gas and nuclear energy has raised concerns among some environmental groups (Greenwire, Feb. 22).

Several green groups welcomed his nomination today but made clear they would be looking for additional emphasis on promoting renewable energy over conventional sources.

Environment America Clean Energy Advocate Courtney Abrams said the group was “concerned” about where Moniz would lead DOE given his previous support for shale gas and nuclear power. She said she wants to hear Moniz commit to endorsing Obama’s calls for doubling renewable energy and boosting energy efficiency in the coming decades rather than tout gas and nuclear as tools to address global warming.

“We would like for the administration to move in the direction of solely focusing on renewable energy,” Abrams said in an interview this morning, pointing to DOE work like its Better Buildings and SunShot initiatives as programs that should be emphasized. “Environment America has made very clear our opposition to fracking and to nuclear power, so we would like to not move in that direction, absolutely.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune made a similar observation.

“In his role as Secretary of Energy, we urge Mr. Moniz to prioritize clean, renewable energy as climate solutions over destructive fossil fuels and boondoggles like liquefied natural gas exports,” Brune said in a statement. “We would stress to Mr. Moniz that an ‘all of the above’ energy policy only means ‘more of the same,’ and we urge him to leave dangerous nuclear energy and toxic fracking behind while focusing on safe, clean energy sources like wind and solar.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, which has been more supportive than other environmental groups of deploying natural gas as a bridge fuel, noted Moniz’s efforts to ensure that gas extraction does not harm the environment.

“Dr. Moniz has repeatedly observed that just because the environmental challenges of shale gas are manageable — that does not mean that they are yet managed,” EDF President Fred Krupp said in a statement. “As there is work that remains to be done to ensure the safety of communities living around oil and gas development, and to address the air pollution issues that go beyond the local neighbors, his perspective will be important in the national conversation.”

The industry-backed think tank Institute for Energy Research greeted Moniz’s nomination with a call for DOE to split from its previous practice of backing clean technologies with loan guarantees and other supports.

“Dr. Moniz will inherit an agency with a tarnished record for picking losers and not winners in the energy market,” IER President Thomas Pyle said in a statement. “It is our hope that Dr. Moniz will avoid opportunities to repeat the well-documented mistakes of his predecessor and refuse the temptation to let political pressure trump sound science and economics at the department.”

The Washington-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners predicted Moniz would tread a middle path on questions related to fossil fuel development and exports.

“We interpret the Moniz nomination as another administration acceptance of domestic natural gas (and oil) development,” ClearView said in a note to clients this morning, “but not a wholesale endorsement of expanded production or exports.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Common Dreams: State Dept. Releases Keystone XL Environmental Impact Statement

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/01-7

Published on Friday, March 1, 2013 by Common Dreams


Sierra Club expresses “outrage” over “deeply flawed analysis” that ignores “greatest threat to our children’s future: climate disruption”
- Jon Queally, staff writer

Tens of thousands gathered in Washington, DC on February 17th with one simple call to the Obama Administration: “Move forward on climate, Mr. President, and reject the Keystone XL pipeline.” (Photo: Reuters)

The US State Department on Friday afternoon released a newly updated draft of its Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which, if approved, would dramatically increase the extraction and transfer of Canadian tar sands oil to the Gulf coast.

And as Sierra Club’s Michael Brune said in a late afternoon press call, “”You know the news is bad when it comes out at 4pm on Friday.”

The draft itself can be accessed here.

In response to the SEIS’ release, Brune released the following statement:

“The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department’s deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children’s future: climate disruption.

“We’re mystified as to how the State Department can acknowledge the negative effects of the Earth’s dirtiest oil on our climate, but at the same time claim that the proposed pipeline will ‘not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects.’ Whether this failure was willful or accidental, this report is nothing short of malpractice.

“President Obama said that he’s committed to fighting the climate crisis. If that is true, he should throw the State Department’s report away and reject the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline.”

Jane Kleeb of the group Bold Nebraska joined other environmental leaders in rejecting the report’s conclusion that tar sands development would not be impacted by rejection of the pipeline.

“Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built,” Kleeb said. “The State Department’s assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the–not a–but the lynchpin for the expansion of tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 million barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day. The President has the ability to keep a million barrels of tarsands in the ground a day. With a stroke of a pen he can protect property rights, water and make a dent in climate change.”

“This report is laughable using the wrong assumption and therefore the wrong science,” she said.

350.org co-founder Bill McKibben agreed, saying that “everyone in Canada knows they cannot expand the Alberta tar sands the way they’d like to without the Keystone XL being built.”

McKibben added: “This is not the State Department’s finest hour.”

Acknowledging worries that the SEIS signals that the State Dept. would recommend and that Obama would ultimately approve the project, environmentalists said they would be ramping up their efforts in the coming days, weeks, and months.

“We’re going to help them [reject the pipeline] by mounting as much public protest as we can in the weeks ahead,” said McKibben.

Some quick key takeaways from the “Cumulative Impact” section include:

THREAT TO WATER SOURCES: GROUNDWATER:
Potential impacts due to releases of crude oil. Releases could potentially impact groundwater where the overlying soils are permeable and the depth to groundwater is shallow. Analyses in Section 4.13 suggest that large crude oil releases that do reach groundwater systems (including the Ogallala Aquifer) could result in oil spreading on the water table as far as 1,214 feet, and dissolved components of the oil, such as benzene, could spread as much as an additional 1,050 feet.

JOBS CREATED:
35 to 50 permanent jobs and negligible earnings and other revenues.

POTENTIAL SPILLS:
Spills associated with the proposed Project that enter the environment are expected to be rare and relatively small. Industry standards and practices (including the 57 Project-specific Special Conditions developed by PHMSA) provide a level of protection above that of other pipeline systems in existence. Modeling shows that, exclusive of topography and groundwater flow, large spills (20,000 barrels) could spread up to 1,214 feet on the ground surface or on the water table, and up to 1,050 feet dissolved in groundwater. Spills reaching surface water could be transported greater distances.

Response was swift on twitter:

According to the introductory letter accompanying the draft (emphasis added):

Once the Draft SEIS is noticed in the Federal Register, a 45-day comment period will begin. As part of the Department’s process, members of the public, public agencies, and other interested parties are encouraged to submit comments, questions, and concerns about the project via e-mail to keystonecomments@state.gov, at http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov, or mailed to:

U.S. Department of State
Attn: Genevieve Walker, NEPA Coordinator
2201 C Street NW, Room 2726
Washington, D.C. 20520

After the end of the public comment period, the Department will prepare a Final SEIS.

Ultimately, a determination will be made on whether this project serves the national interest. The national interest determination will involve consideration of many factors, including: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations. As directed by Executive Order 13337, before making such a decision, the Department will also request the views of several agencies and officials, including: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Though the EIS does not necessarily dictate whether or not President Obama will approve the project, its content will be a vital piece of information in signaling the direction the administration is heading. If favorable to the pipeline, fossil fuel industry lobbyists will call mark it as a victory.

But, in anticipation of the release, the environmental group 350.org, which just two weeks ago led tens of thousands of people in a march against the pipeline in Washington, tweeted:

As details of the report’s content become clear, the DeSmogBlog will be liveblogging the release here.

The timing of the draft assessment’s release, however, speaks volumes. As DeSmog’s Kevin Grandia notes:

[Releasing the EIS] late on a Friday – very typical when someone wants to put out bad news. This White House has used the tactic a lot. Another thing to note is that this isn’t just any Friday afternoon, it is also the day final day to reach a sequester deal in Congress. All eyes in the media are focused on that!

Ahead of the release, the Canadian Press, citing a source at 350.org, reported that the EIS “acknowledges that Alberta’s oilsands are carbon-intensive” it also “apparently makes clear that all modes of transportation are risky and the pipeline itself isn’t any more of a threat to the environment.”

If true, such an “analysis would mean that Calgary-based TransCanada has cleared a significant hurdle in its marathon bid to win approval for Keystone XL from the Obama administration.”

Earlier today, Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s climate commissioner made headlines by urging President Obama to take a leadership role in the fight against climate change by rejecting the pipeline project.

“If you had a U.S. administration that would avoid doing something that they could do, with the argument that in the time we are living in and with climate change we are faced with, we should not do everything we can do, then it would be a very, very interesting global signal,” Hedegaard told reporters.

“We can bail out banks, we can bail out member states, but you cannot bail out climate,” she said. “If we just say we must extract all the fossil fuels that we can find in the world, then it’s clear that it will not be possible to stay below the 2 degrees.”

“Nobody is doing enough,” she added. “Europe is not doing enough, the U.S. is not doing enough, China is not doing enough—all of us will have to do more.”

_________________________________________

Common Dreams: 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy

Published on Thursday, February 21, 2013 by Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/21-0

by Brendan Smith

The American labor movement is once again facing a most controversial issue — the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While the KXL debate has largely centered around the environmental risks, from labor’s perspective opening up the Canadian Tar Sands is often seen as an economic, not an environmental, issue. And it’s no wonder: Construction unemployment is double the national average and, from a worker’s perspective, Keystone jobs will be good-paying union jobs in an economy that increasingly offers up only minimum-wage service work.

As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka explained last year, “mass unemployment makes everything harder and feeds fear. . . opponents of the pipeline [need to] recognize that construction jobs are real jobs, good jobs.” KXL advocates have worked hard to capitalize on this fear by arguing that labor must choose between creating jobs and protecting the planet.

While labor leaders weigh the pros and cons of building KXL, they should keep in mind that the pipeline is as much a threat to our economy as it is to our planet. After a year of extreme weather — at an extreme cost to the economy — this age old jobs vs. environment debate is emerging as a false choice. Hurricanes, floods, and droughts are already having a devastating effect on American jobs, and that is nothing compared to what will happen if we throw open the spigot to the tar sands from Canada, considered the dirtiest oil in the world.

Here are 5 reasons why building the Keystone pipeline is bad for the economy — and workers.

1. Building the Keystone pipeline and opening up the Tar Sands will negatively impact national and local economies: Burning the recoverable tar sands oil will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degree Celsius, which NYU Law School’s Environmental Law Center estimates could permanently cut the US GDP by 2.5%. At the same time state and local economies are already buckling under the real-time economic effects of our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In the past two years, the vast majority of U.S. counties – 67 percent – were affected by at least one of the eleven $1 billion dollar extreme weather events. Superstorm Sandy alone caused an estimated $80 billion in damage. The drought that affected 80% of US farmland last summer destroyed a quarter of the US corn crop and did at least $20 billion damage to the economy.

2. The same fossil fuel interests pushing the Keystone pipeline have been cutting, not creating, jobs: Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In 2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by 4,400 employees — the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220 million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid high wages, right? Turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum-wage work at gas stations. Instead of bankrolling an industry that is laying off workers and threatening our economic future, isn’t it time to take the billions in subsidies going to oil companies and invest instead in a sector that both creates jobs and protects the planet?

3. Unemployment will rise: According to Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist of Moody’s Analytics: “Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls.” In the wake of Hurricane Irene, the number of workers filing unemployment claims in Vermont went from 731 before Irene to 1,331 two weeks afterwards. Hurricane Katrina wiped out 129,000 jobs in the New Orleans region — nearly 20 percent. For the U.S. economy as a whole, 2011 cost US taxpayers $52 billion.

4. Poor and working people will be disproportionately affected: KXL and projects like it result in disproportionately negative impact on already struggling working families. According to a recent report by the Center for American Progress called “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans, lower-and middle income households are disproportionately affected by the most expensive extreme weather events. Sixteen states were afflicted by five or more extreme weather events in 2011-12. Households in disaster-declared counties in these states earn $48,137, or seven percent below the U.S. median income.

5. Building the sustainable economy, not the Keystone pipeline, will create far more jobs: Our nation is in desperate need of jobs. Approving the Keystone pipeline locks our nation into a trajectory of guaranteed job loss and threatens the stability of the US economy. Why keep the “job-killing” course, when the alternative-energy path is already out-performing other sectors of the economy. For example, the solar industry continues to be an engine of job growth — creating jobs six times faster than the overall job market. Research by the Solar Foundation shows a 13 percent growth in high-skilled solar jobs spanning installations, sales, marketing, manufacturing and software development — bringing total direct jobs to 119,000 in the sector. And according to the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, investment in a green infrastructure program would create nearly four times as many jobs as an equal investment in oil and gas.

A study by Synapse Energy Economics developed a Transition Scenario for the electric power industry based on reducing energy consumption, phasing out high-emission power plants, and building new, lower-emission energy facilities. The study estimated the number of “job years” — one new worker employed for one year — that would be created by the Transition Scenario over a decade:

444,000 job-years for construction workers, equivalent to 44,400 construction workers working full time for the entire decade.
90,000 job-years for operations and maintenance workers, equivalent to about 9,000 full time workers employed over the decade.
3.1 million indirect jobs for people designing, manufacturing, and delivering materials and jobs in local economies around the country induced by spending by workers hired in the Transition Scenario.

Organized labor is right to demand that public policy pay attention to our desperate need for jobs. But the Keystone XL pipeline will only make our jobs crisis worse by making our climate crisis worse. Plus, there are lots of pipelines that need fixing. Construction workers can be put to work rebuilding our crumbling natural gas transmission pipeline system — this will create good union jobs and cut carbon emissions. And these same workers can rebuild our crumbling water infrastructure. If labor is going to fight for jobs, let’s fight for jobs that build the future we want for ourselves and our children, not ones that will destroy that future.
Brendan Smith

Brendan Smith is an oysterman and green labor activist. He is co-founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability and Global Labor Strategies, and a consulting partner with the Progressive Technology Project. He has worked previously for Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — both as campaign director and staff on the U.S. House Banking Committee — as well as a broad range of trade unions, grassroots groups and progressive politicians. He is a graduate of Cornell law school.

San Francisco Chronicle: Thousands protest Keystone XL pipeline

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Thousands-protest-Keystone-XL-pipeline-4286432.php#ixzz2LkN8g4y3

Stephanie M. Lee
Updated 8:28 am, Monday, February 18, 2013


Representatives from the Center for Biological Diversity join the protest in San Francisco.
Photo: Jessica Olthof, The Chronicle


Protesters rally in Justin Herman Plaza to protest the Keystone pipeline as part of a climate change issue.
Photo: Jessica Olthof, The Chronicle

Thousands of people rallied in downtown San Francisco on Sunday to urge President Obama to reject construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, an action they said would prove he is committed to fighting global warming.

The demonstration across from the Ferry Building was held at the same time as similar events in cities including Chicago, Seattle and Los Angeles. The main event in Washington, D.C., drew tens of thousands of supporters in what was billed as the largest climate change rally in U.S. history.

Organizers of the San Francisco protest estimated that more than 4,000 people gathered to condemn the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, which would run nearly 2,000 miles to connect Canada’s oil sands to refineries around the Gulf of Mexico. Because it would cross an international border, it requires Obama’s approval.

“We’re asking him to reject Keystone XL as one way to move forward on climate change,” said Jess Dervin-Ackerman, a conservation organizer with the San Francisco Bay chapter of the Sierra Club, which planned the event along with 350.org, the Natural Resources Defense Council and several other groups.

Opponents of the pipeline, including Democrats and environmentalists, argue the project could contaminate land and water along its route, particularly in Nebraska, and release high concentrations of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by increasing oil production from tar sands.

But proponents say the company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, has agreed to obey 57 special conditions designed to keep the pipeline secure from leaks. The line would create thousands of jobs and strengthen the country’s energy independence, they contend.

Canada views Keystone as a crucial step in furthering oil production and growing its economy. It would be the longest oil pipeline outside Russia and China, able to transport more than half a million barrels of crude oil daily.
Have Obama’s back

But activists who rallied in San Francisco said Obama would be hypocritical to give Keystone the green light after promising in his inaugural address and State of the Union that he would work to combat climate change.

“I think he has his heart in the right place on climate change, but I think he’s going to have to show tremendous backbone to make any progress on this issue,” said Karen Kramer, 54, a lawyer and an artist in Oakland. “I hope for everyone’s sake he can find the backbone. We’re here to show him we have his back on this.”

Kramer and her mother, Joan Allen, 78, a retired adoption worker in Berkeley, were part of a crowd that marched around One Market Plaza. The block contains an office of the U.S. State Department, which is responsible for permitting infrastructure projects that cross a border.

They chanted and held signs with slogans such as “Stop Tar Sands,” “Tar Sands = Game Over For Us All,” “Stop Keystone XL” and “Climate Action: It’s Our Obligation.”
Preservation fight

They gathered in Justin Herman Plaza to listen to speakers who included San Francisco District 11 Supervisor John Avalos, who touted CleanPowerSF, the city’s proposed clean-energy program, and his call for the city’s retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

The speakers said that battling Keystone, along with pushing to reduce coal burning and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, was critical in preserving the environment for future generations.

That message resonated with Woody Little, 18, a UC Berkeley freshman who held a sign that read “Love Each Other, Love the Earth.” Born one day too late to vote for Obama in the last election, he said he wanted climate change to be one of the president’s achievements.

“It just doesn’t make sense,” he said. “Why would we be accessing this deposit, these tar sands’ dirty oil, when there’s so much out there to be used already?”

Stephanie M. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: slee@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @stephaniemlee

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Thousands-protest-Keystone-XL-pipeline-4286432.php#ixzz2LkMfzUIB

The Santa Rosa Press Democrat: Feds open to expanding oil-drilling protection for North Coast

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130211/ARTICLES/130219934/1350?Title=Feds-open-to-expanding-oil-drilling-protection-for-North-Coast

Rachel and Richard have it right; go all the way to Oregon with the sanctuary boundaries. DV

Santa Rosa, California

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, February 11, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.

Federal officials say they are open to suggestions from the public that more of the North Coast should be protected from offshore oil drilling under a proposed expansion of two marine sanctuaries.

“We want to know the scope of the area we should be looking at,” said Maria Brown, superintendent of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

Brown and other sanctuary officials will attend the second of three public meetings on the sanctuary plan at 6 p.m. Tuesday in Point Arena, followed by the third meeting Wednesday in Gualala.

Officials are interested in the “boundary options” people might propose, as well as any “additional regulations” in the protected areas, Brown said.

Rachel Binah of Little River in Mendocino County, a longtime foe of offshore oil development, said the sanctuaries should extend to the Oregon border or beyond.

“I think the whole West Coast should be protected,” said Binah, who plans to attend both meetings.

Mendocino County Supervisor Dan Gjerde, who plans to attend the Gualala meeting, wants the sanctuaries to cover the entire Mendocino coast, an area he described as “pristine.”

Oil drilling is not “imminent this year” on the North Coast, but experience indicates the “only way to resolve it is to create permanent protection,” he said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced in December plans to more than double the size of the Cordell Bank and Gulf of the Farallones sanctuaries, extending their northern border from Bodega Bay more than 60 miles north to Point Arena in southern Mendocino County.

The expansion, which does not need legislative approval, affords coastal waters permanent protection from energy development, officials say.

The proposal got a warm reception last month at the first public meeting in Bodega Bay.

Officials said the “scientific justification” for the proposed expansion is that it would protect a biologically rich upwelling system that starts at Point Arena and sustains an abundance of fish, birds and mammals along the Sonoma Coast and down to the Farallon Islands outside San Francisco Bay.

Former Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who retired this year, embraced the sanctuary expansion plan backed by the Obama administration, acknowledging she could not get it through the House and Senate.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said Binah, a Democratic National Committee member. But Binah said it was “kind of a slap in the face” that the proposal only goes to Point Arena.

Binah’s opposition to oil drilling dates back to a 1988 public hearing in Fort Bragg where more than 2,000 people protested an Interior Department plan to open 1.1 million acres of the North Coast to oil and natural gas development.

Binah said it became known as “the day California said no” and made the state’s offshore oil fight a national issue.

Four years later, then-Rep. Leon Panetta, R-Carmel Valley, got the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary authorized, covering 276 miles of the coast south of the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary.

“We got nothing,” Binah said.

Gjerde, whose supervisorial district covers the coast from Caspar to Humboldt County, said he was a Fort Bragg High School student in 1988 and covered the anti-oil protest for the school newspaper.

He said he will offer a resolution calling for the entire coast to be included in the sanctuaries at the Mendocino County Board of Supervisor’s Feb. 26 meeting.

Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said his group’s members have expressed no interest in tapping North Coast oil deposits.

“I don’t think there is much oil there,” he said.

But Richard Charter, a veteran oil drilling opponent, said the industry has eyed oil deposits offshore from Bodega Bay, Sea Ranch, Point Arena, Fort Bragg and the Lost Coast in Humboldt County.

Those deposits are in a geologic formation called Monterey shale and would be tapped by the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking, Charter said.

_________________________

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Maritime Executive: Transocean Pleads Guilty to Criminal Conduct Leading to Deepwater Horizon Disaster

February 14, 2013

The world’s largest offshore drilling contractor has been sentenced to pay $400 million in criminal penalities
By MarEx

PHOTO: United States Environmental Services workers prepare oil containment booms for deployment following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent oil spil – April 2010.

Second Corporate Guilty Plea Obtained by Deepwater Horizon Task Force, Second-largest Criminal Clean Water Act Fines and Penalties in U.S. History

Transocean Deepwater Inc. pleaded guilty today to a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for its illegal conduct leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, and was sentenced to pay $400 million in criminal fines and penalties, Attorney General Holder announced today.

In total, the amount of fines and other criminal penalties imposed on Transocean are the second-largest environmental crime recovery in U.S. history – following the historic $4 billion criminal sentence imposed on BP Exploration and Production Inc. in connection with the same disaster.

“Transocean’s guilty plea and sentencing are the latest steps in the department’s ongoing efforts to seek justice on behalf of the victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster,” said Attorney General Holder. “Most of the $400 million criminal recovery – one of the largest for an environmental crime in U.S. history – will go toward protecting, restoring and rebuilding the Gulf Coast region.”

“The Deepwater Horizon explosion was a senseless tragedy that could have been avoided,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Eleven men died, and the Gulf’s waters, shorelines, communities and economies suffered enormous damage. With today’s guilty plea, BP and Transocean have now both been held criminally accountable for their roles in this disaster.”

Transocean’s guilty plea was accepted, and the sentence was imposed, by U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the Eastern District of Louisiana. During the guilty plea and sentencing proceeding, Judge Milazzo found, among other things, that the sentence appropriately reflects Transocean’s role in the offense conduct, and that the criminal payments directed to the National Academy of Sciences and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are appropriately designed to help remedy the harm to the Gulf of Mexico caused by Transocean’s actions. The judge also noted that the fines and five year probationary period provide just punishment and adequate deterrence.

Transocean pleaded guilty to an information, previously filed in federal court in New Orleans, charging the company with violating the CWA. During the guilty plea proceeding today, Transocean admitted that members of its crew onboard the Deepwater Horizon, acting at the direction of BP’s well site leaders, known as “company men,” were negligent in failing to investigate fully clear indications that the Macondo well was not secure and that oil and gas were flowing into the well.

The criminal resolution is structured to directly benefit the Gulf region. Under the order entered by the court pursuant to the plea agreement, $150 million of the $400 million criminal recovery is dedicated to acquiring, restoring, preserving and conserving – in consultation with appropriate state and other resource managers – the marine and coastal environments, ecosystems and bird and wildlife habitat in the Gulf of Mexico and bordering states harmed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This portion of the criminal recovery will also be directed to significant barrier island restoration and/or river diversion off the coast of Louisiana to further benefit and improve coastal wetlands affected by the spill. An additional $150 million will be used to fund improved oil spill prevention and response efforts in the Gulf through research, development, education and training.

Transocean was also sentenced, according to the plea agreement, to five years of probation – the maximum term of probation permitted by law.

A separate proposed civil consent decree, which resolves the United States’ civil CWA penalty claims, imposes a record $1 billion civil Clean Water Act penalty, and requires significant measures to improve performance and prevent recurrence, is pending before U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The charges and allegations pending against individuals in related cases are merely accusations, and those individuals are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The guilty plea and sentencing announced today are part of the ongoing criminal investigation by the Deepwater Horizon Task Force into matters related to the April 2010 Gulf oil spill. The Deepwater Horizon Task Force, based in New Orleans, is supervised by Assistant Attorney General Breuer and led by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John D. Buretta, who serves as the director of the task force. The task force includes prosecutors from the Criminal Division and the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, as well as other U.S. Attorneys’ Offices; and investigating agents from: the FBI; Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigative Division; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General; Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Law Enforcement; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.

This case was prosecuted by Deepwater Horizon Task Force Director John D. Buretta, Deputy Directors Derek A. Cohen and Avi Gesser, and task force prosecutors Richard R. Pickens II, Scott M. Cullen, Colin Black and Rohan Virginkar.

SOURCE: DOJ
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Hilton Head Island Packet: Beaufort mayor: Offshore oil drilling ‘potentially detrimental’ for Lowcountry

http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/02/14/2381228/beaufort-mayor-offshore-oil-drilling.html

By BRIAN HEFFERNAN
bheffernan@islandpacket.com
843-706-8142
Published Thursday, February 14, 2013

Talk of offshore drilling strikes some in the Lowcountry as an unnecessary risk to the environment and tourism industry.

“Why would we risk and threaten the golden egg when there is no seeming emergency and when it has a potentially detrimental environmental impact that would kill that golden egg of tourism?” Beaufort Mayor Billy Keyserling said.

Keyserling said he would rather invest in South Carolina’s wind and mainland natural gas industries than expose the coastline to oil-spill disasters like the Gulf Coast has faced.
“I think it poses an undue threat to the quality of life to the people who live here and the people who visit here and those who want to live here,” he said.

Hilton Head Island Mayor Drew Laughlin said he would need more details about the locations of the drill sites and regulations governing them before making up his mind about the issue.

“Experience shows us that there are risks associated with offshore drilling,” he added. “Just ask the people in the Gulf.”

Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/02/14/2381228/beaufort-mayor-offshore-oil-drilling.html#storylink=cpy

_______________

http://www.wnct.com/story/21217398/3-govs-seek-reconsideration-of-offshore-oil-gas

WNCT

McCrory among 3 govs that want offshore oil drilling

Posted: Feb 15, 2013 8:35 AM PST
Updated: Feb 15, 2013 8:35 AM PST
By WNCT STAFF – email

RALEIGH, N.C. -
Governor Pat McCrory is teaming up with other governors to begin offshore drilling.

And he’s hoping the federal government will join in.

McCrory made that clear in a letter to President Obama’s administration. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley are both on board.

They want the administration to revise its current policy to one committed to taking advantage of our natural resources, as long as we do it safely.

The governor says energy production off our shores would create 140,000 jobs over the next 20 years.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

C&C Reporter: KEYSTONE XL: 43 arrested at White House pipeline protest

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Chanting and wearing protest buttons, 43 activists were arrested today after zip-tying themselves to White House gates to oppose approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The group that gathered in Lafayette Park this morning to press President Obama to reject TransCanada’s permit for the proposed pipeline included leaders of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and 350.org, and well-known activists including NASA scientist James Hansen, Robert Kennedy Jr. and actress Daryl Hannah.

Shortly before noon, they moved to the sidewalk in front of the White House to sit on the pavement or chain themselves to the fence, chanting slogans such as “Barack Obama, yes you can/stop the dirty pipeline plan.”

After three warnings, U.S. Park Police began to make arrests.

The mostly middle-aged protesters and their supporters wore buttons printed with “NO KXL” — the O’s featuring the Obama campaign logo of a rising sun.

The protesters said Obama wanted them there, pushing him to make the “right” decision this year to reject the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline, which they said would make the lofty climate-mitigation goals he expressed during last night’s State of the Union address all but impossible to achieve.

“The president’s just starting his second term,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, which today broke a 120-year tradition of not engaging in illegal protests to take part in the action. “We want to make sure his ambition meets the scale of this challenge.”

Brune said that the president made “a good speech,” but that he needed to take action. “You can’t necessarily solve climate change with a single speech,” he said. “The president has an enormous amount of executive authority that he has not yet utilized.” He urged the president to move quickly on environmentalists’ top two objectives for the second term: an aggressive greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants and rejection of the pipeline permit.

The State Department will make a recommendation on a supplemental environmental impact statement for the pipeline’s new route in the coming months, though Obama will have the final say on whether the project goes forward.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said he was engaging in civil disobedience for the first time.

“I think that with the appointment of Secretary [John] Kerry now at the State Department, things may look good for the cancellation of Keystone XL,” he said. The former senator and ardent climate action proponent took over the top diplomatic post earlier this month. “But having said that, we still have to apply the pressure,” he said. He noted that Canada and the oil industry are both pressing the administration to grant the Keystone permit. The American Petroleum Institute is touting its own research today that it says shows a groundswell of support for the project (see related story).

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, an activist group, said that disobedience is an appropriate tool to use.

“Sometimes it’s important to do civil disobedience because it’s the way we underline the moral certainty of the questions that we face,” he said.

Julian Bond, civil rights leader and chairman emeritus of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he participated in the action on his own behalf. “All these movements tend to learn from each other,” he said. “They borrow from each other, they learn from each other’s tactics.”

He said he was particularly concerned about the effect climate change might have on the health of residents in poor neighborhoods.

Hannah, dressed in a military-style jacket with an anti-Keystone XL patch embroidered on the shoulder, said the pipeline would allow the high-carbon Canadian oil sands development to expand.

“They can’t put it for sale on the global market unless it gets to a coast somewhere,” she said.

Today was the actress’s fifth arrest for civil disobedience. “It gets people to think deeper about these issues, to look deeper, to do their homework,” she said. “It’s the last stand.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times GREEN COLUMN: Deep-Sea Drilling Muddies Political Waters

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/business/energy-environment/07iht-green07.html?src=recg&_r=0

Jin Liangkuai/Xinhua, via Associated Press


A deep-water drilling rig in the South China Sea operated by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or Cnooc.

By KATE GALBRAITH
Published: February 6, 2013

AUSTIN, Tex. – The oceans deep are a repository of many secrets. Shipwrecks have existed undisturbed for centuries, as have corals and fish of almost unimaginable diversity.

Now, increasingly, the secrets of the seabed are being looked at by companies drilling for oil and minerals. International geopolitics and the environment are getting more muddled as a result.

“Deep-sea drilling is expensive and hard, and the technology wasn’t there until very recently,” said Sheila Smith, a senior fellow for Japan studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. Now, major powers are vying for drilling rights in places like the East China Sea, where the tussle is between the two largest energy consumers in Asia: China and Japan. Tensions there flared this week when Japan said China had recently aimed military targeting radar at one of its ships near disputed islands.

The drilling industry continues to move toward deeper waters and new deposits. In the Gulf of Mexico, drilling is now occurring beneath as much as 8,000 to 9,000 feet, or about 2,400 to 2,700 meters, of water, according to Mike Lyons, general counsel of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. The Deepwater Horizon rig, by contrast, was drilling in about 5,000 feet of water in the gulf when it exploded after a blowout nearly three years ago.

Technology has accelerated the move toward deeper waters. “A lot of the drilling now in the Gulf of Mexico is done with drill ships, as opposed to conventional drilling platforms that people have used in the past,” Mr. Lyons said. The ships can inhabit deeper waters and be stabilized over a drill site with the aid of sophisticated computers, he said.

Amy Myers Jaffe, executive director for energy and sustainability at the University of California, Davis, said that the industry’s advances into deeper water had been steady but incremental.

With the increased capability comes increased scrutiny, especially after events like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident and a 2011 oil leak off of Brazil, as well as a natural gas leak last year at a North Sea drilling platform about 150 miles, or 240 kilometers, off Aberdeen, Scotland.

Ms. Jaffe said that drillers had perhaps viewed deep-water operations as too routine. “I think that we were a little blasé about how hard it is to do,” she said. “And maybe the industry is now grappling with the difference between 2 percent tolerance and 0 percent tolerance” for mistakes. Zero percent may be the new model, especially in places that have recently experienced public outcries over spills, including Australia, Brazil and the United States, she said.

Shell’s difficulty in drilling in Arctic waters off Alaska further illustrates the technological challenges of operating in new, often adverse settings.

The industry is eager to “get access to these fragile and complicated areas” like the Arctic, said Frederic Hauge, president of the Bellona Foundation, an environmental group based in Oslo. But the risks are immense, he said, adding that in Norway, he felt that companies lacked adequate emergency response plans for their far-afield rigs.

As technology helps propel the industry further offshore, geopolitical difficulties are intruding. Many countries have overlapping maritime boundaries. Lebanon and Israel have disputed claims in the natural-gas-rich eastern Mediterranean Sea. The United States and Mexico have also had differences over rights in the Gulf of Mexico, though they signed a cooperation agreement a year ago on drilling.

In the East China Sea and the South China Sea, disputes continue as China, with its rising energy appetite, clashes with its neighbors over drilling rights and sovereignty claims.
“If these were uncontested regions, I’m sure people would have gone forward already” with drilling, said Ms. Smith of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Should the drilling industry venture into even deeper waters, additional political complications await. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed by more than 150 countries – though not by the United States – gives the International Seabed Authority, based in Jamaica, oversight of mineral exploration in waters that lie beyond a country’s so-called exclusive economic zone, which typically extends 200 nautical miles, or 370 kilometers, from shore.

Adam Cook, a marine biologist with the seabed agency, said that while the group had agreed to 17 exploration contracts with companies, most of those companies were looking for minerals like manganese nodules, which are rock formations. So far, none are after oil or natural gas, and the consensus is that there is “unlikely to be any drilling for oil and gas beyond national jurisdiction in the near future,” Mr. Cook said in an e-mail.

A version of this article appeared in print on February 7, 2013, in The International Herald Tribune.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Bloomberg News: Fracking Seen by EPA as No. 2 Emitter of Greenhouse Gases

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-05/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-in-u-dot-s-dot-power-plants-on-coal-cuts


Well, another good reason to oppose fracking.
…..DV

By Mark Drajem on February 06, 2013

Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, the government said, emboldening environmentalists who say tighter measures are needed to curb the emissions from hydraulic fracturing.

In its second-annual accounting of emissions that cause global warming from stationary sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time included oil and natural- gas production. Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount.

Gas and oil production “is an area where we have technological answers to our problems,” Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said in an interview. “We know how to fix many of these problems; we just need to make the decision to do it.”

The EPA yesterday released on its website details of emissions from about 8,000 factories, power plants and refineries. Two coal-fired power facilities owned by Atlanta- based Southern Co (SO). topped the list, followed by one owned by Energy Future Holdings Corp (TXU). of Dallas.

In total, power plants emitted 2,221 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2011, down 4.5 percent from 2010, according to the agency. The EPA report showed the benefits of fracking, as it attributed the reduction to cuts in coal use and increased use of gas as fuel by electricity generators. There was also an increased use of power from renewable sources such as solar and wind, the agency said.

Top Emitters
“This report confirms that major carbon reductions from power plants wouldn’t be possible without a reliable and affordable supply of domestically produced natural gas,” Simon Lomax, research director at Energy in Depth, an industry group, said in an e-mail.

The EPA report on oil and gas looked at emissions from basins, or large production areas, not individual wells. Among the top emitters were ConocoPhillips (COP)’ operations in the San Juan basin in New Mexico, and Apache Corp (APA).’s operations in the Permian basin in Texas. Both companies are based in Houston.

“ConocoPhillips continues to seek out ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions,” Daren Beaudo, a spokesman for the company said in an e-mail. The company is working to cut methane venting with gas conservation and waste-heat recovery, he said.
Apache has been growing rapidly in the Permian basin, where it’s now the second-largest producer, Bill Mintz, a spokesman for the company, said in an interview. “We have done some infrastructure projects that improved our emissions performance in 2012.”

Proposed Regulations
The EPA has already proposed regulations to curb emissions from new power plants, setting a standard that would preclude the construction of new coal-fired facilities that don’t capture and sink underground the carbon coming from their smokestacks. Once those rules are finished in the coming weeks, the EPA must move to establish similar rules for existing power plants.

Environmental groups have asked the agency to establish standards to prevent methane leakages from the drilling, fracking and transport of oil and gas. The boom in that production in states such as Pennsylvania and North Dakota means that those rules are necessary, according to environmental groups. Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, but it’s more efficient at trapping radiation, making its short-term impact 20-times greater than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.

“Reducing fugitive methane emissions is a top priority because they are so powerful” a force for global warming, said Mark Brownstein, managing director of the Environmental Defense Fund in New York. “You want to make sure the goose is laying what approximates golden eggs.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Guardian, UK: Fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks are still rising

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/08/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tax-breaks

New OECD data reveals a system of fossil fuel subsidies and taxes that is horribly overcomplicated and illogical

Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 February 2013 07.39 EST

Miners at Hungary’s last remaining deep-cast coal mine at Markushegy, 70 km west of Budapest, January 23, 2013. Photograph: LASZLO BALOGH/REUTERS

Last week the OECD published two new reports which shine a light on our complex and confused relationship with fossil fuels. The first looks at how we subsidise them, the second at how we tax them. The picture they paint can be summed up in two words: tangled mess.

Looking first at subsidies, the principle take-out is that government support for oil, coal and natural gas is still increasing across the developed world, despite promises to turn the situation around. Indeed, after dipping with the wider economy in 2009, the total value of subsidies or tax breaks received by those extracting or burning fossil fuels climbed relatively steeply and by 2011 was approaching the pre-crash peak of more than $80 billion.

Government support for fossil fuels

As the graph shows, coal subsidies are gradually waning, but increases in oil and gas support have more than made up for that.

In some cases, governments directly help the oil, coal and gas sector through policies such as wage subsidies, liability limitation or below-market-rate access to government goods and services. But much of the support included in the OECD’s analysis consists of fossil fuels being sold at a lower tax rate than is charged on other goods. Examples include ‘red diesel’ used in agriculture and VAT discounts for domestic electricity and heating fuel. The graph below shows that these consumer-focused forms of support make up the majority of the total. (The split is more even in countries with big fossil fuel sectors.)

Government support for fossil fuels by type of policy

If heating fuels and home electricity currently receive tax breaks in many countries, the situation is quite different for vehicle fuels. The OECD’s second report – Taxing Energy Use – shows that on average transport accounts for a remarkable 85% of energy-related tax revenue despite making up just 23% of total energy use and 27% of CO2 emissions.

Transport fuels in OECD nations

But these averages conceal a huge disparity in the actual rates applied in different countries. The graph below shows the average tax rate on transport fuels across the 34 OECD nations, expressed as an effective carbon tax – i.e. the tax rate paid by consumers relative to each unit of CO2 that the fuels will release.

Two things jump out here. One is the remarkable difference between those at the top and the bottom of the table. The rate in the UK, for example, is around 15 to 20 times higher than the federal rate applied in North America. The gap would close a bit if American state taxes were included but from a quick glance at the figures, it looks like the difference would still be almost an order of magnitude between the US and UK.

Tax rates for vehicle fuels

The other thing that jumps out from this graph is that many countries are already charging an effective carbon tax of more than ¤200 per tonne on their vehicle fuels. In Britain it’s closer to ¤300 – way more than almost anyone is talking about in terms of climate policy. On one level, that’s a positive story, as it illustrates that when it’s introduced incrementally and combined with energy-efficiency improvements, a very high carbon tax doesn’t have to be scary.

On the other hand, it’s worrying to see that North Americans are used to paying almost no fuel tax. It’s a reminder how crucial it is to start upping carbon taxes now, because there’s such a long way to go and the increase will be much more politically plausible and economically manageable if introduced gradually. (As Nigeria showed at the beginning of last year, big overnight increases in fuel tax can lead to social breakdown and policy U-turns.)

While the difference in fuel tax between nations is striking, also interesting is the gap between specific fuels within nations. Across the OECD, for example the tax per unit of CO2 is a huge 37% lower for diesel than it is for petrol. Yes, diesel engines are more efficient and achieve more miles per unit of carbon emitted, but that’s not a good reason for taxing those emissions any less. (If anything, it’s a reason for taxing them higher, because for each unit of carbon emitted, a diesel car will create more local air pollution and road use.)

But even diesel looks heavily regulated next to aviation fuel, which is exempt for most international travel and subject to a low rate even for domestic flights in most countries. The OECD estimates a typical rate of just ¤23 per tonne of CO2 emissions – approximately a tenth of the figure for petrol. (The rate would be lower still if the global warming impacts of vapour trails and other non-CO2 impacts were factored into the equation.)

Looking at both reports, the picture that emerges is a horribly overcomplicated and illogical system, both within and between nations. Things would be a lot clearer, greener, less distorting and fairer if a single carbon tax was applied across all fuels, sectors and – ultimately – countries. There’s no reason someone on a low income in a rural area making an unavoidable trip by car should pay a higher tax rate than a wealthy person heating a mansion, a banker hopping between meetings in a plane or indeed a farmer growing out-of-season tomatoes in a heated greenhouse.

As James Hansen and others have argued, the simplest and most complete approach to taxing carbon would be for nations to apply a consistent tax at the point where the fuel comes out of the ground or gets imported from overseas. If that happened, it would need to be introduced in parallel with greater efforts to insulate homes and protect vulnerable householders from higher heating bills. But under Hansen’s plan – which involves sharing the revenues of the carbon tax equally between citizens – those who don’t use much fuel would end up better off anyway.

It took 700 pages for the OECD to map out the developed world’s fiscal relationship with fossil fuels. A better system could be expressed in a few sentences.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Guardian UK: Al Gore backs growing fossil fuel divestment campaign

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/08/al-gore-fossil-fuel-divestment

A US campaign to encourage universities and cities to drop their investments in fossil fuel companies is gaining momentum

Carey L. Biron for IPS, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 February 2013 05.19 EST


Al Gore is backing a US campaign of divestment in fossil fuel companies. Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP

A months-old national campaign to convince U.S. colleges, universities and city governments to withdraw investments from the world’s largest oil and gas companies has seen some notable initial successes.

On Tuesday, a city supervisor in San Francisco introduced resolutions calling on the city’s retirement fund to “divest” all money it has in fossil fuel companies and gun manufacturers. That followed a significant recent decision by the city of Seattle’s two-billion-dollar retirement fund to actively shed its stocks in companies that contribute to climate change.

And Wednesday, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, a prominent climate activist and Harvard alum, sided with a strengthening campaign to get that school to back out of its oil and gas investments.

“If I were a student, I would support what you’re doing,” Gore told students, speaking on campus at Harvard. “But if I were a board member I would do what I did when we took up the Apartheid issue. This is an opportunity for learning and the raising of awareness, for the discussion of sustainable capitalism.”

In fact, the divestment movement here in the U.S., which has burgeoned following the November presidential election, took its inspiration from the anti-Apartheid experience.

“During the 1980s, 155 schools came out against the South African Apartheid, and so we’re modelling a lot of what we’re doing now on that,” Jamie Henn, communications director for 350.org, an advocacy group that has spearheaded the divestment push, told IPS.

“So, it made perfect sense for us to start with universities, as these institutions have a special responsibility to make their investments live up to their missions. Many have publicly committed to sustainability and solving the big issues of the day, yet many are still putting tens of millions of dollars into companies that are wreaking havoc on the planet.”

Hampshire College, a small school in Massachusetts, was the first to follow the campaign’s lead; in 1979, it was also the first school in the United States to divest from South African holdings. Two more colleges have now followed suit.

While these are each small and notably progressive schools, Henn reports that student groups have sprung up around the issue on the campuses of at least 230 schools, including at each of the elite Ivy League schools and several large state schools. At least 20 institutions have now started processes to look at divestment options.

“We’ve been blown away by how quickly the campaign has spread – right now it’s the fastest-moving student environmental campaign of the past decade, maybe ever,” Henn says.

“And an increasing number of students are also increasing pressure on politicians to take action. Look at these numbers – Harvard’s endowment is 32 billion dollars. That perks up the ears of a lot of people.”

The Harvard administration was initially cold on the idea of divestment, however, reportedly refusing for months to agree to a meeting between the school president and student representatives on the issue. But following a concerted campaign – and a campus-wide referendum in which nearly three-quarters of students voted in favour of divestment – recent weeks have seen a significant softening of tone.

“Finally, at the end of the semester, the administration felt enough pressure to agree to a meeting with a couple of members of the school’s board, and that took place last Friday,” Alli Welton, a co-coordinator of Divest Harvard, a student group, told IPS.

“In that meeting, the board members said they were very concerned about climate change, but questioned whether divestment would have a significant impact on the issue. However, they also noted that doing so wouldn’t have a large impact on the school’s endowment.”

Indeed, that latter contention is supported by a recent report by Aperio Group, an investment management firm, which found that divesting of climate change-related holdings would bring with it remarkably little risk for university endowments.

Welton notes that negotiations between students and the administration are going to continue (“That’s pretty good after a semester of not talking to us”), with a decision slated for February 15. While she says she’s “very encouraged” by the administration’s new willingness to talk, Welton refers to a far larger impact on the student body.

“I’ve never seen anything like this happen around climate change on campus – it seems like students know a lot more about this issue and are feeling its urgency,” she says. “It really feels as though divestment is a very clear way that we can effect change.”

Critically for such a large issue as climate change – and one on which many activists have repeatedly felt let down by failures at the national and international levels to agree on substantive long-term solutions – Welton notes that organising around investments makes a massive issue feel more immediate.

“These local-level initiatives make climate change more accessible for people, and make it more possible for them to get involved,” she says. “We can see very clearly that we’re part of something gigantic, and that definitely creates identity for a national and even international movement.”

According to 350.org’s Henn, the second phase of the organisation’s divestment strategy will focus on city governments and pension funds. In this, Seattle’s actions have already become a model of sorts.

Led by the city’s mayor, Mike McGinn, in turn responding to exhortations by 350.org, last month Seattle’s retirement and pension funds reported that they had some 17 million dollars invested in oil and gas companies. On Jan. 31, those funds moved to create a mechanism to look into how potential divestments could take place.

“This was a critical first step, as there was no such mechanism even in existence,” Aaron Pickus, a spokesperson for the mayor, told IPS.

While no decision has yet been made on how that money should now be used, Pickus says, “There has been a general request that it not be re-invested in companies that are polluting our climate.”

The public response has been positive, he notes, even while constituents understand that the city is at the beginning of a process that could span the next half-decade.

“There is a rapidly growing sense that something – in fact, many concrete things – need to start happening to change the trend on how we approach climate change,” Pickus says.

“That includes how we invest – not just in pensions but also, more generally, how we’re spending taxpayer money. For instance, are we going to invest in new, wider highways or in green transit options?”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Petroleum News: Questions over Arctic dispersant use

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/575533357.shtml

Environmental consultant questions feasibility of using oil dispersant chemicals in responding to an Arctic offshore oil spill
by Alan Bailey

Lauded by some as a major contributor to the cleanup of spilled oil following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and slammed by others as environmentally dangerous, the use of chemicals to disperse oil slicks has become a controversial topic.

The concept behind dispersant use is simple. The dispersant chemicals, acting a bit like dishwashing liquid, break the oil into tiny particles, greatly increasing the surface area of oil exposed to water and hence greatly accelerating the rate at which oil-consuming microbes devour the oil, causing the oil to disappear.

But do dispersants, demonstrated in laboratory conditions, work in the hurly-burly of a real spill response situation? And, more particularly, would dispersants work, were there to be an oil spill catastrophe in the Arctic offshore?

Skeptical
Jeffrey Short, an environmental consultant working for Oceana, a marine conservation organization, is very skeptical about the potential effectiveness of dispersants in the Arctic. Short, who worked as a research chemist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 31 years and has published more than 60 scientific papers on Arctic pollution, spoke at the Alaska Forum on the Environment on Feb. 4, giving his views regarding the problems associated with dispersant use in the Arctic.

Short, who said he had been involved in the Deepwater Horizon response, working for private entities, said that claims about the effectiveness of dispersants during that response had been overstated, and that there was a lack of evidence for dispersant chemicals having had any impact in boosting the natural biodegradation of oil that had spewed from the out-of-control, seafloor well. For example, no one observed the milky appearance of dispersed oil in the water, he said.

And, although the government-published oil budget calculator for the Deepwater Horizon response indicated that dispersants had been somewhat effective, the technical underpinnings of that conclusion, as expressed in the budget calculator report, appear far short of convincing, he said.

Goldilocks circumstances
The effective use of dispersants requires a “Goldilocks” set of circumstances, in which the wind is strong enough to cause the necessary wave action for mixing oil with dispersant chemicals, but not so strong as to blow away the fine spray of dispersant, normally applied from an aircraft, Short said. And seas that are too rough can cause dispersants to escape into underlying water, rather than mix with an oil slick on the surface, he said.
Also, there is typically a relatively short time window following an oil spill, during which dispersants can be used, as evaporation and emulsification of the oil eventually renders the oil unresponsive to dispersant chemicals.

Given seasonal ice, the frequency of strong winds and the prevalence of sea fog in the Arctic Ocean, the appropriate conditions for the application of dispersants in Arctic seas may only occur for 10 percent of the time, Short said.

Lab tests
Short said that 10 years ago he had conducted some laboratory tests for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council, testing the effect of a commonly used oil dispersant on Alaska North Slope crude oil in sub-Arctic conditions. Those tests demonstrated that the dispersant did not work well in cold water, with dispersant effectiveness dropping with reduced water temperatures and with low water salinity, Short said. These results do not bode well for dispersant effectiveness in the Arctic – in addition to the effect of low water temperatures on dispersant action, melting ice in the Arctic seas tends to create a layer of low salinity water near the sea surface, he said.
Compounding the technical issues relating to the potential effectiveness of dispersants in the Arctic is the sparse transportation architecture for the resupply of dispersant chemicals to field responders, Short said.

Asked about the possibility that low water temperatures would slow oil degradation, thus extending the time window within which dispersants would be effective, Short responded that the weathering of oil is less sensitive to temperature than to wind, of which there is plenty in the Arctic. The rate of incorporation of water into the oil, a phenomenon that takes place quite quickly, depends on the composition of the oil, he said.

Continuing debate
Short’s comments come amid a continuing debate over the realistic feasibility of conducting an offshore oil spill response in the Arctic. And a report, issued in November by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after overviewing the considerable body of research already done into oil spill response in the Arctic offshore made a number of recommendations for further research, including a recommendation that people evaluate the effectiveness of dispersants in Arctic conditions.

A joint industry program, known as SINTEF and based in Norway, conducted a series of large-scale field experiments in the mid-2000s, testing the use of various response techniques, including dispersants, using oil deliberately spilled in the sea under carefully controlled conditions at an Arctic location. SINTEF reported that it had found rates of oil weathering in broken ice conditions to be considerably lower than rates observed for the same oil in open water. The final report for the program also said that researchers had experienced success in dispersing oil in water around ice floes, by applying the dispersants from spray arms deployed from vessels and using the prop wash or jet motors of response boats to mix the dispersant with the oil.

Oil budget
A read of the technical documentation for the Deepwater Horizon oil budget calculator makes it clear that there was a wide range of expert opinion and no general agreement on the effectiveness of dispersants in the response to that disaster. A December 2012 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science presents an overview of the scientific findings from Deepwater Horizon. Written by senior officials from several federal agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the paper says that monitoring of oil in the water through a variety of techniques had provided oil particle size data consistent with expectations from chemical oil dispersion. The oil budget calculator subsequently concluded that chemical dispersion accounted for about 16 percent of the oil that had escaped from the well, the paper says.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Environment News Service: Dutch Court Finds Shell Liable for Nigeria Oil Damages

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/01/30/dutch-court-finds-shell-liable-for-nigeria-oil-damages/

Posted by News Editor in Energy, Latest News, RSS on January 30, 2013 8:27 am / no comments

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, January 30, 2013 – A Dutch court ruled today that Shell is responsible for not preventing the pollution of farmlands at Ikot Ada Udo in Nigeria’s Akwa Ibom State and ordered the company to pay compensation for the damage.

The case was brought by Friends of the Earth Netherlands and four Nigerian farmers in 2008 against the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. and its parent company Royal Dutch Shell.

This is the first time that Shell has been ordered by a court to pay compensation for damage caused by its operations. The Nigerian justice system has never produced such a ruling.


Women at a leaking oil wellhead near the community of Ikot Ada Udo in the Niger Delta, (Photo by Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR courtesy FOE Netherlands)

The case is unique because it is the first time that a Dutch multinational corporation has been brought before the court in its home country for environmental damage caused abroad.

The case focused on just three of the thousands of oil leaks in Nigeria. The plaintiffs demanded that Shell clean up the oil pollution in the villages, compensate the farmers for the damages suffered and maintain the oil pipelines better in the future.

“This win for the farmers of Ikot Ada Udo has set a precedent as it will be an important step that multinationals can more easily be made answerable for the damage they do in developing countries. We anticipate other communities will now demand that Shell pay for the assault on their environment,” said Friends of the Earth Nigeria’s Executive Director Nnimmo Bassey, who played a pivotal role in bringing to light the havoc wreaked by Shell in the Niger Delta.

The ruling is a victory for Nigerian people and the environment, said Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Netherlands, or Milieudefensie in Dutch. “This verdict is great news for the people in Ikot Ada Udo who started this case together with Milieudefensie. But the verdict also offers hope to other victims of environmental pollution caused by multinationals,” he said.

“At the same time, the verdict is a bitter disappointment for the people in the villages of Oruma and Goi – where the court did not rule to hold Shell liable for the damage,” said Ritsema. “Fortunately, this can still change in an appeal.”

Friends of the Earth Netherlands and the Nigerian farmers will appeal the decision in the Goi and Oruma cases.

The plaintiffs will also appeal the principle point of the liability of the Royal Dutch Shell parent company.

The reason that the court did not decide to hold the parent company liable for damage done in Nigeria was that Friends of the Earth Netherlands was denied access to evidence proving that Royal Dutch Shell, based in the Netherlands, determines the daily affairs of its Nigerian subsidiary, Royal Dutch Shell owns 100 percent of Shell Nigeria shares, while Shell Nigeria profits estimated at 1.8 billion euros annually, are deposited in the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, under existing laws, Royal Dutch Shell cannot be held liable for the damage done on the basis of these facts alone. The plaintiffs must prove that governance actually comes from the corporate headquarters in the Netherlands.

Because Shell has not been ordered by the court to allow access to internal company documents which would expose this governance, it has been very difficult to prove this.

Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe, said, “Many European companies are involved in similar situations to that of Shell and are causing environmental damage outside Europe. We see a clear gap in European legislation. It allows European parent companies such as Royal Dutch Shell to pocket the profits from a foreign subsidiary, but these parents cannot be held liable for the damage they cause while making those profits.”

Friends of the Earth Europe is urging the European Commission to ensure that parent companies are automatically held liable for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries.

Next week, on February 6, the European Commission will discuss with stakeholders steps it can take to limit the adverse human rights and environmental impacts of business.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands finds it “incomprehensible” that the court ruled that Shell proved sabotage was involved in two of the three villages. The court has allowed itself be convinced by a number of blurry Shell photos and poor quality video images.

The environmental group remains convinced that poor maintenance is the cause of the spills. But even in oil spills where sabotage is involved, the group believes that Shell bears responsibility and is liable for the damage.

“An oil giant cannot leave 7,000 kilometres of pipeline and hundreds of installations unprotected and unguarded in a politically unstable and economically underdeveloped region,” said Ritsema.

Plaintiff Chief Eric Dooh lost his farm and fish ponds due to an oil spill from a Shell Nigeria pipeline.


Shell oil spill into Chief Eric Dooh’s creek caught fire. (Photo courtesy FOE Netherlands)

“In September 2004, a leak occurred along the Trans-Niger pipeline, which is owned by Shell,” says Chief Dooh. “The spilled oil streamed from the leak into the creeks. A large fire quickly developed. It spread out over the oil slick in rapid tempo, and the whole creek was ablaze.”

“We gathered together a group of people as quickly as possible to take up contact with Shell,” recounts Chief Dooh. “Shell came here the following day with firemen, police officers and soldiers. For three days they tried to put out the fire, but when they were unable to do so, they simply let the fire burn itself out and all the mangrove trees were burned.”

“Because of the spill, I’ve lost everything,” he says. “The embankments around my fish ponds were destroyed by the fire, so oil streamed into my ponds and killed all my fish. The five canoes I owned burned, my cassava farm burned down and the trees I had planted have gone up in smoke. I have nothing left. All the money I saved, all my hard work, it was all for nothing.”
An oil disaster has been ongoing in Nigeria for decades. Tens of millions of barrels of oil have been spilled there since the 1950s.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands says that Nigeria’s oil spill disaster does not receive the attention it deserves, in contrast to other oil disasters such as the Exxon Valdez tanker in Prince William Sound Alaska or the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, where there was massive public outrage that resulted in an emergency plan. The group said today, “The Nigerian disaster is a silent one, which has disastrous consequences for people, wildlife, nature and the environment, but little is being done about it.”

The Niger is the third-largest river in Africa and the oil-rich Niger Delta region, with its mangrove forests, is one of the world’s largest wetland areas. But now a black layer of oil covers many of the Niger Delta’s creeks, ponds, mangroves and rivers. Many of the region’s animals are threatened, including chimpanzees, leopards and elephants.

Niger Delta residents experience the burdens of oil extraction, but reap no benefits. Most are dependent on agriculture, fishing and fish farming and gathering snails and other products from the forests. For them, oil pollution means a lack of drinking water, inedible fish, agricultural fields that must lie fallow for years and crops that never grow.

In August 2011, the UN Environment Programme issued the results of its 14-month investigation covering more than 200 locations, 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, more than 5,000 medical records and talks with 23,000 people at local community meetings.

UNEP found that control and maintenance of oilfield infrastructure “has been and remains inadequate. The Shell Petroleum Development Company’s own procedures have not been applied, creating public health and safety issues.”

UNEP concluded that environmental restoration of the section of the Niger Delta known as Ogoniland “could prove to be the world’s most wide-ranging and long term oil clean-up exercise ever undertaken if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and important ecosystems such as mangroves are to be brought back to full, productive health.”


A Niger Delta resident shows a Shell Nigeria worker a pool of spilled oil. (Photo courtesy FOE Netherlands)

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2013. All rights reserved.

Environment News Service (http://s.tt/1z9qT)

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Oil and Gas Journal: Senate Democrats oppose Atlantic offshore seismic tests

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/01/senate-democrats-oppose-atlantic-offshore-seismic-tests.html?cmpid=EnlDailyJanuary312013

Oil and Gas Journal: Senate Democrats oppose Atlantic offshore seismic tests
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 31
01/31/2013
By Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

Seven other US Senate Democrats joined Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ) in expressing concern over Atlantic offshore seismic tests planned as part of the Obama administration’s 2012-17 Outer Continental Shelf management program.

“While we support your administration’s decision not to allow lease sales for offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, the proposed seismic testing poses a serious threat to our coastal economy, environment, and marine life,” they said in a Jan. 30 letter to US President Barack Obama.

Seismic testing off the US Atlantic coast from Delaware to the middle of Florida “could injure or kill thousands of marine mammals and fish, including endangered speciesŠin addition to moving the region closer to risky offshore oil drilling,” the letter noted.

In addition to Lautenberg, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), Robert Menendez (NJ), Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), and Maria E. Cantwell (Wash.) signed the letter.

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Common Dreams: David vs. Goliath: Keystone XL Multinational Bullies Pipeline Protestors into Settlement

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/29-1

I can’t believe the court sided with Transcanada. Sad comment on our civil liberties. dv

Published on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 by
Tar sands activists vow to keep fighting despite repressive tactics
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Transcanada, the multinational giant behind the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, has followed a new corporate strategy by filing crushing lawsuits against individual activists and financially vulnerable organizations that have tried to halt to the construction of the controversial project.

(Photo: Tar Sands Blockade) Despite the repressive tactics designed to censor opposition and intimidate others from joining such activities, those targeted vow to continue the fight to protect “their homes and futures from toxic tar sands.”

The suit’s defendants, which included several environmental groups including anti-pipeline coalition Tar Sands Blockade and 19 individual protesters, “were threatened with losing their homes and life’s savings if the lawsuit went forward,” Tar Sands Blockade said a press statement.

Kevin Gosztola of FireDogLake explains:

The suit brought was what is known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Such lawsuits enable fascism by providing a mechanism for a corporation to go after individuals or groups engaged in protest or freedom of speech. They are often used against people who lack resources or cannot afford to pay the legal expenses necessary to stand up to a corporation in court.

Despite the legal setback, members of Tar Sands Blockade vowed to keep fighting.

“TransCanada is dead wrong if they think a civil lawsuit against a handful of Texans is going to stop a grassroots civil disobedience movement,” said spokesperson and defendant Ramsey Sprague. “This is nothing more than another example of TransCanada repressing dissent and bullying Texans who are defending their homes and futures from toxic tar sands.”

Tammie Carson, another target of the lawsuit and grandmother from Arlington, TX, said she took the action to protect her grandkids’ future. “I couldn’t sit idly by and watch as a multinational corporate bully abused eminent domain to build a dirty and dangerous tar sands pipeline right through Texans’ backyards,” she said. “I had no choice but to settle or lose my home and everything I’ve worked for my entire life.”

Citing one court’s opinion of the SLAPP lawsuit, the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC) writes, “Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.”

In reaction to the settlement, Lauren Regan, veteran attorney with CLDC who helped coordinate legal representation for the activists, said:

This is a David versus Goliath situation, where an unethical, transnational corporation is using its weight to crush First Amendment rights of people speaking out and resisting the irreparable destruction that will result from construction of this highly controversial XL Pipeline…But the resistance to the pipeline is growing, not shrinking; it’s coming from everywhere. This is a national and global issue that will effect us all.

Lawyers from the CLDC represented the Tar Sands Blockade, Rising Tide North America and Rising Tide North Texas as well as the other targeted individuals. As part of the settlement, the activists agreed to no longer trespass or cause damage to Keystone XL property throughout the pipeline’s entire southern leg, including any demonstrations “aimed at interfering with pipeline construction,” the Toronto Star reports.

However, as Gosztola adds, “what it does not do is stop individuals unknown to TransCanada and groups other than Tar Sands Blockade or Rising Tide chapters from engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience or disruptive activity.”

Common Dreams: You Ain’t Gonna Frack Near Maggie’s Farm: Action Blockades Shell Site

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/28-4

Published on Monday, January 28, 2013

In fight against fracking, activists say: ‘Our voices and our numbers are growing’
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Anti-fracking activists in Bessemer, Penn. on Sunday. A flare from Shell’s drilling is visible in the background. (Photo: Shadbush Collective)

We need farms, not fracking.

This was the message from a group of concerned activists on Sunday afternoon as they blocked a Shell fracking site in Pennsylvania in part of the wave of rising actions against fossil fuels.

Wearing signs reading “Fracking Threatens Food” and “Protect Farms for Our Future,” members of the Shadbush Environmental Justice Collective rallied behind the passionate Maggie Henry, whose organic pork and poultry farm is less than 4,000 feet from Shell’s drilling site.


“People buy my food because they know that it is literally the purest that you can get. My animals run around out on ground, in pasture. They’re not cooped up in cages,” said Henry, who’s been farming for 35 years. “Agriculture, not fracking, is the number one industry in Pennsylvania. This threatens my air, my water, my farm, my livelihood.”

She’s put her blood and sweat into her “beyond organic” farm, she said. “Every single penny we’ve earned we’ve invested into this farm.”

With her farm, water and environment potentially ruined from Shell’s fracking, Henry asked, “How is this different from Shell sticking their hand in my pocket and stealing from me?”

Devon Cohen, one of the protesters involved in the day’s action, added, “Why are we willing to risk so much at the hands of multinational corporations like Shell who have shown their hand in the past as human rights abusers and irresponsible parties of environmental destruction?”Photo: Shadbush Collective

Hundreds of abandoned oil wells make the site a particularly risky place to frack, the group says. Hydro-geologist Daniel Fisher, who has studied the area, warned, “Each of these abandoned wells is a potentially direct pathway or conduit to the surface should any gas or fluids migrate upward from the wells during or after fracking.”

Four of the protesters locked themselves to a large papier-mâché pig named Henrietta, which blocked traffic to the site for three hours. Henrietta was made to symbolize the farm as well as “the gas industry [which] is piggish about the carbon-based fuel in the ground and are taking it at our expense,” Henry said.

When the protesters locked in the “pig” agreed to disperse and avoid arrest after several hours, Shell took it. In Henry’s words, “They stole Henrietta.”

Nick Lubecki, one of the protesters who was locked to Henrietta, started his own farm this year in Pittsburgh and said, “It is extremely disturbing as a young farmer to have to worry about the safety of the water supply and a chaotically changing climate while these out of state drillers have the red carpet rolled out for them. In a few years the drillers will all be gone when this boom turns to bust like these things always do. I don’t want to be stuck with their mess to clean up.”

The group stated, “Henrietta’s fate is in Shell’s hands, but we’re free to fight another day, our voices and our numbers are growing, and we won’t stop until we win.”

Maggie Henry is not about to stop fighting, either. “We’re not giving up until they give up,” she said.

Farmer Maggie Henry and activists locked to Henrietta. (Photo: Shadbush Collective)

Common Dreams: More Threats From Fracking: Radioactive Waste

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/25-6

Published on Friday, January 25, 2013 by Common Dreams

Pennsylvania’s DEP begins study on radioactivity from oil, gas development; follows other studies showing high levels of radium, boron
by- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

The controversial drilling practice known as fracking is under renewed scrutiny, this time for producing radioactive waste.

A resident holds up contaminated water from her well, located near a fracking site. (Photo: Public Herald)

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection announced Thursday it was embarking on a year-long study of radioactivity in by-products from oil and natural gas development.

But findings and any action from the study may come too late for people like Portage, Pennsylvania resident Randy Moyer, who is suffering from a flurry of health problems he believes are the result of radiation exposure from his work transporting fracking wastefluids. Pennsylvania’s Beaver County Times reports:

Moyer said he began transporting brine, the wastewater from gas wells that have been hydraulically fractured, for a small hauling company in August 2011. He trucked brine from wells to treatment plants and back to wells, and sometimes cleaned out the storage tanks used to hold wastewater on drilling sites. By November 2011, the 49-year-old trucker was too ill to work. He suffered from dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, difficulty breathing, swollen lips and appendages, and a fiery red rash that covered about 50 percent of his body.

“They called it a rash,” he said of the doctors who treated him during his 11 trips to the emergency room. “A rash doesn’t set you on fire.”

Moyer spent most of last year in his Portage apartment, lying on the floor by the open screen door because his skin burned so badly, while doctors scrambled to reach a diagnosis.

Rather than putting the brakes on fracking, the DEP study appears to cement the industry’s foothold. John Hurdle writes in the New York Times’ Green blog:

Kevin Sunday, a spokesman for the department, said the new study, which covers both conventional oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing, was not a response to any evidence of excessive radiation levels at drilling sites. Rather, he said, it is a “forward-looking” exercise that anticipates the long-term expansion of the industry.

“We recognize that the industry is here to stay, and we want the public to be protected,” Mr. Sunday said.

A recent study out of Penn State looking at wastewater, also called flowback, from fracking in the Marcellus shale found high levels of radioactive radium and barium.

“Improper disposal of the flowback can lead to unsafe levels of these and other constituents in water, biota and sediment from wells and streams,” the researchers said.

A 2011 study from the U.S. Geological Survey also found that fracking wastewater can be highly radioactive.

Despite numerous studies on fracking’s dangers, the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), in a release on its May 2012 report that looked at how Pennsylvania gas companies dealt with the waste from fracking, stated:

All currently available options for dealing with contaminated wastewater from fracking inadequate to protect human health and the environment.

Santa Rosa Press Democrat: Marine sanctuary expansion praised at hearing

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130124/ARTICLES/130129719/1350?Title=Marine-sanctuary-expansion-praised-at-hearing

Santa Rosa, California

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 8:36 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 8:36 p.m.

BODEGA BAY – No contrary words were heard at a public meeting that filled Bodega Bay’s Grange Hall with about 70 citizens, federal officials and fishing industry representatives on Thursday night concerning a plan to protect an additional 2,770 square miles of the ocean off the rugged North Coast.

“There’s celebration in the air,” said Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, who attended the first of three hearings on the proposed expansion of two national marine sanctuaries that have been in place since the 1980s.

“It was great,” said Norma Jellison of Bodega Bay, who sat at one of five tables where residents gave feedback to sanctuary officials.

Jellison said she’d like to see sanctuary officials establish an office in Sonoma County, possibly at the Bodega Marine Lab. “The sanctuary office in San Francisco is kind of far away.”

All the comments at her table were supportive of the proposed expansion, which will move the sanctuaries’ northern border from Bodega Bay more than 60 miles north to Alder Creek, near Point Arena in southern Mendocino County.

Oil, gas and mineral development are prohibited within the sanctuaries, which are managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The expansion plan, announced last month, brings to an apparent end the four-decade battle to preserve the Sonoma Coast from offshore oil drilling.

Sanctuary officials said they expect to complete the approval process by July 2014.
Former Rep. Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, who retired this month after 20 years in Congress, got hearty applause and credit for establishing the coastal protection she had sought since 2004.

“We want to protect our fishing industry and we want to protect our environment. That’s it in a nutshell,” Woolsey said.

Two more public hearings on the sanctuary expansion plan are scheduled, at Point Arena on Feb. 12 and Gualala on Feb. 13, and written comments will be accepted through March

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Santa Rosa Press Democrat: First hearing Thursday on plans to expand ocean sanctuaries

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130122/ARTICLES/130129868/1350?p=1&tc=pg

Santa Rosa, California

By BRETT WILKISON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 4:01 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 4:01 p.m.

Plans to expand two ocean sanctuaries and put all of Sonoma County’s coast and a third of Mendocino’s off limits to oil drilling are set to get their first public airing Thursday in Bodega Bay.

Federal officials are scheduled to hold a 6 p.m. hearing at the town’s Grange Hall to discuss the proposed expansion of the protected ocean areas, announced by the Obama administration and congressional representatives last month.

Under the proposal, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries would take in an additional 2,770 square miles, including more than 60 miles of coast from Bodega Bay to Point Arena, in southern Mendocino County.

The two protected areas currently span about 1,800 square miles, stretching more than 50 miles off the coast in some spots from San Francisco Bay to Bodega Bay. The sanctuaries allow fishing but restrict other activities, including energy development, seafloor disturbance and discharges by ocean liners.

Thursday’s hearing, the first of three planned on the North Coast, will unveil the proposal and allow public comment on the expansion. The other two meetings are planned next month for Mendocino County, in Point Arena Feb. 12 and in Gualala Feb. 13. Written comments will be accepted through March 1.

“Our main goal is to get everyone sitting down at the table and make sure we’re hearing what their concerns are and what their suggestions are,” said Mary Jane Schramm, spokeswoman for the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

At least one additional round of public comment is envisioned once the federal government completes its draft environmental study. The new borders could be finalized in 18 to 24 months, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees marine sanctuaries.

The action by the Obama administration would put an apparent end to the four-decade battle to prevent oil drilling off the Sonoma coast.

Previous efforts to achieve a permanent ban and expand the sanctuaries through congressional action have come up short. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the now-retired Petaluma Democrat, saw her sanctuary bill die in the Senate in 2008 before being thwarted recently by oil-friendly House Republicans.

Environmentalists, commercial fishing representatives and others have hailed the new plans, saying they protect an important resource, and not just for wildlife.

“Sanctuaries are known allies to the economic interests that depend on a clean coast,” said Richard Charter, a veteran anti-drilling lobbyist and Jenner area resident who serves as senior fellow of the Ocean Foundation.

Given the large North Coast crowds that have turned out in the past to oppose drilling proposals, Thursday’s hearing on enhanced protection for the coast could mark a historic turning point, Charter said.

“People have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time,” he said. “It’s finally something we can avidly support.”

You can reach Staff Writer Brett Wilkison at 521-5295 or Brett.wilkison@pressdemocrat.com.

____________

Facts
Hearings on marine sanctuary expansion
Thursday, 6 p.m., Grange Hall, Bodega Bay
Feb. 12, 6 p.m., Point Arena High School, Point Arena
Feb. 13, 6 p.m., Gualala Community Center, Gualala
Public comment will be accepted through March 1. For more information, visit http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/northern_area.html

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Common Dreams: Sanders Welcomes Obama Statement on Global Warming

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2013
4:46 PM

CONTACT: Senator Bernie Sanders

Michael Briggs (202) 228-6492

WASHINGTON – January 22 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement welcoming President Barack Obama’s support for action to combat climate change:

“The president is right to make action on global warming a central goal of his administration. The overwhelming scientific consensus is clear. Unless we take bold action soon the temperature of our planet could rise by up to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. That would be catastrophic. The Senate is about to vote on more than $50 billion in aid to help recover from Hurricane Sandy and insurers tell us that is only a fraction of the price we will continue to pay for extreme natural disasters made worse by our warming planet.

“While the president can, and must, move aggressively to use executive powers to reduce pollution and reject harmful projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, he also must help lead an effort to pass strong legislation that moves our nation away from polluting fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

“Next month, I will introduce comprehensive legislation that will charge the fossil fuel corporations a fee for their carbon pollution. My legislation will end fossil fuel subsidies, and as the president called for, make historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. This bill will also ensure that all Americans receive a rebate to offset any efforts by the fossil fuel companies to jack up their prices.

“The president and Congress have made some good progress in his first term, including significant investments in clean energy and strong new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. To put meaning into the words he eloquently expressed in his Inaugural Address, and to protect our planet for our children and grandchildren, we must do much, much more. We must do nothing less than transform our energy system away from fossil fuels into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. When we do that we will not only lead the world in a new direction but create millions of jobs in the United States.”
###

United States Senator for Vermont

Common Dreams: Outrage as “Public” Locked Out of “Public Hearings” on Tar Sands Pipeline

Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Environmentalist and indigenous groups rally against Northern Gateway and unfair proceedings in British Columbia
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Protesters braved a rare, wet snow as they demonstrated against the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in Vancouver on Monday Jan. 14. (Photo:Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)Thousands of activists marched on downtown Vancouver Monday to protest the nature of public hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, claiming that “the public” opponents of the pipeline are being locked out while industry backers are given special access.

Buoyed by the recent vigor of the Idle No More campaign, environmental activists, indigenous groups and other opponents of the proposed tar sands pipeline condemned the public portion of the National Energy Board (NEB) panel hearings on the basis that they limit public comment.

“They’re constraining the dialogue,” said protest organizer Suresh Fernando, explaining that the presenters are being restrained in what they can say. For example, they “can’t make reference …to the oilsands and the bigger picture.”

Despite being heralded as “public”, the hearings are restricted to presenters, members of the NEB panel, industry backers including Enbridge representatives; members of the community are secluded to a seperate venue where they watch the proceedings via live stream.

According to a blog post on the Pipe Up Against Enbridge site, “the process set up to review the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and tankers project, is keeping the public out of the public process.”

They continue:

Anyone who wishes to witness the proceedings can only do so at a separate hotel, three kilometres away, via a video feed.

This separation of public from public process is happening only for the community hearings in Victoria and Vancouver. These hearings are the only substantive opportunity for concerned citizens to share their concerns with the panel. They should also be the opportunity for us to witness our friends, neighbours, and community members, to watch and listen to the diversity of voices, the diversity of reasons for opposing tankers and pipelines.

Because it is through bearing witness, through listening to each other, that we build community and can work together to take whatever steps are needed to protect our coast.

But we are being denied witness.

In an address to the crowd outside, Eddie Gardner of the Stó:lo Nation blasted Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, and other conservatives for recent changes made to environental laws declaring, “the Harper government has one of the most aggressive, high-carbon strategies in the world.”

He continued:

[Harper] implemented that legislation, it has become law, and he did it with crass and ruthless disregard for the environment.

Stephen Harper is hell bent to expand the tar sands.

Canada is coming alive to Harper’s real agenda… He is one of the biggest enemies of the environment.

The Canadian Press reports that the protests were “bolstered” by the “nationwide Idle No More campaign, which brought First Nations from as far as the Haisla Nation on the North Coast, near the would-be tanker port of Kitimat, B.C.”

The joint review panel is canvassing communities throughout B.C. and Alberta for comment on the proposed pipeline and has scheduled eight days of community hearings in Vancouver in the coming weeks. According to NEB spokeswoman Kristen Higgins, “(Whatever) information is on the public record is the information the panel can use to write their reports and make their recommendations.”

_____________________

Those who did make it in to the hearings did so with great effort. According to Pipe Up Against Enbridge, presenters had to register 18 months ago and schedule a presentation six months ago, “all without knowing when or where you would be speaking.” Reporting on some of the pipeline opponents testimonies, they wrote:

Dr. Gerald Graham, trained in marine response by the Canadian Coast Guard, said “the consequences of a major spill could be catastrophic and irreversible.” Reverend Ken Gray, an Anglican priest, reminded us to not treat others—including First Nations and all of creation—as we do not wish to be treated. This project, he said, “will injure us all and provide a shameful heritage for generations to come.”

A tar sands worker, Lliam Hildebrand, said that he would rather be using his trade to work in renewable energy. He shared with the panel a survey he conducted with his coworkers, “the hands and feet of our energy future.” A strong majority of these workers support a moratorium on raw oil exports and the transition of oil and gas subsidies to the renewable energy sector. “Workers in the oil sands understand that this project doesn’t make sense to Canada.”

_____________________

Outside of the hotel where the panel is taking place, a group of local multi-media artists erected a 25-foot-long installation called Hope the Whale. Twitter posts (#hopethewhale), videos and photos are projected onto the white whale’s skin, “to symbolize the expansive and growing community of people with a vision of an oil-free coast in BC,” wrote the group Pipe Up Against Enbridge.

Common Dreams: Climate Scientists to Obama: Heed the Planet’s Warnings, Reject the Tar Sands Pipeline

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/15-5

Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Letter issued Tuesday from 18 leading scientists urges Obama to show “climate convictions”
- Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Some of the nation’s leading climate scientists on Tuesday are urging President Obama to show his “climate convictions” and reject the tar sands-carrying Keystone XL pipeline.

(Photo: Emma Cassidy / Tar Sands Action) In an open letter, the 18 scientists, including noted climate scientist James Hansen, Ralph Keeling of Scripps CO2 Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography and James Box of the Byrd Polar Research Center, write that rejecting the pipeline would be a “relatively easy” step to take to address the planet’s rising temperature.

The letter reads, in part:

“As you may know, the U.S. has just recorded the hottest year in its history, beating the old mark by a full degree; the same year that saw the deep Midwest drought, and the fury of Hurricane Sandy, also witnessed the rapid and unprecedented melt of the Arctic ice pack. ” [...]

“Eighteen months ago some of us wrote you about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, explaining why in our opinion its construction ran counter to both national and planetary interests. Nothing that has happened since has changed that evaluation; indeed, the year of review that you asked for on the project made it clear exactly how pressing the climate issue really is.”

The Keystone XL, which would carry tar sands crude out of Alberta into the US, has met fierce resistance by climate activists and members of communities in the pipeline’s path.

In a call for civil disobedience at the White House in Aug. of 2011, Hansen, author Naomi Klein and 350.org’s Bill McKibben were among those who called the Keystone XL “a fifteen hundred mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet, the one place to which we are all indigenous. ”

To make sure “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb” is put out, climate activists are mobilizing for another mass action in DC on the February 17. Organizers write:

Just over a year ago, 15,000 people surrounded the White House — and President Obama listened, delaying the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. This is our best chance to show the President how strong this movement has become since then — sign up today.

The application for the pipeline by its company, TransCanada, is under review from the State Department with a decision likely by the end of the first quarter of 2013.

Skytruth: Shell’s grounded rig

http://blog.skytruth.org/2013/01/shells-grounded-drill-rig-seen-from.html


Lots of folks lately, us included, have chronicled Shell’s confidence-shaking series of missteps, bad decisions and outright failures associated with their years-long, multi-billion-dollar campaign (technical and political) to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska. Shell has decided to downplay their latest mishap — losing control of their multimillion dollar drill rig, the Kulluk, while it was being towed to Seattle from the drilling site in the Chukchi Sea — as no big deal since the rig wasn’t actually drilling at the time.

Uhhh…so we’re supposed to feel better? Because they can’t get the simple stuff right? Understand that nothing is “simple” in these often wild waters, but in the scheme of things, if you can’t even move your equipment around without mishap, then how can you be trusted with the relatively complex and challenging processes of drilling and completing offshore oil wells in these waters? Or mounting a swift and effective oil spill response in ice-choked seas?
High-resolution satellite image showing the drill rig Kulluk aground off the coast of Alaska on January 4, 2013. Image courtesy DigitalGlobe. Subscribe to their WorldView report to see more great images.
It’s not just technology failures that lead to major disasters. Bad / risky decisionmaking plays a major part too. This November 9 news report said the Kulluk had been scheduled to spend the winter downtime in Dutch Harbor. So why was it being moved? Ostensibly for maintenance work that couldn’t be done in Dutch, but Shell admitted they were towing the Kulluk into the teeth of a major winter storm system in part to avoid paying taxes to the sate of Alaska. Shell said the storm was unexpected. This analysis of the forecasts for the area by meteorologist Cliff Mass suggests otherwise, raising the possibility that Shell risked personnel and very pricey hardware to dodge a $6 million tax bill; about 1/10th of 1 percent of the total project investment. And guess who came to the rescue of the crew and the stranded Kulluk? The US Coast Guard, courtesy of US taxpayers. What a deal.

Shell was allowed to start shallow “tophole” work on two of their planned wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas last summer, but they still need to secure Federal approval to continue drilling these wells to their full target depths. This disturbing pattern of technical and decisionmaking failures suggests the kind of corporate culture that investigators have implicated as the underlying cause of the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf in 2010.

That approval needs to be withheld until investigators, regulators and the public have enough information to confidently make the correct decision. There’s no rush. The oil ain’t going anywhere. And after all, down here in the Lower 48, Shell is producing so much oil they want permission to export it to Canada.

Let’s slow down and make sure we get this right.


Posted By John Amos to SkyTruth at 1/11/2013 12:27:00 PM

John Amos – President, SkyTruth
John@skytruth.org
P.O. Box 3283
Shepherdstown, WV 25443-3283
(o) 304.885.4581 (m) 304.260.8886
skype: skytruth.amos
******************************************************************
Satellite images and digital mapping for environmental protection,
education and advocacy – a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
Visit us on the Web at http://www.skytruth.org
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and Blogger
******************************************************************

Special thanks to Richard Charter

SarasotaPatch: Mote Study: BP Oil Spill Cleaning Chemical Kills Coral

http://sarasota.patch.com/articles/mote-study-bp-oil-spill-cleaning-chemical-kills-coral?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

Dr. Ritchie is right on target with this analysis. Dispersants and especially Corexit should be banned in fragile coral reef ecosystems. DV

SarasotaPatch
Sarasota, Florida

A Mote Marine Laboratory study of the cleaning agent Corexit 9500 showed that the cleaning agent in BP oil spill disaster also caused great harm to coral.

By Charles Schelle
January 9, 2013

A new report from Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota released Wednesday reports that cleanup efforts from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster could be causing a real threat to fragile coral reefs.

The study focused on studying coral larvae and seeing how a dispersant that is used to cling to oil slicks and diffuse it from reaching shores could actually be just as toxic. The findings are published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE.

The 2010 BP disaster spilled more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and responders used these dispersants, one called Corexit 9500, to prevent the oil from reaching beaches.

“Overall, these findings indicate that exposure of coral larvae to the dispersant Corexit 9500 is toxic and will result in loss of coral recruitment,” the study states.
It turns out that the dispersant is just as harmful to certain marine life as the oil itself.

“Dispersant, and the mixture of oil and dispersant, may be highly toxic to coral larvae and prevent them from building new parts of the reef,” said Dr. Kim Ritchie, principal investigator on the emergency Protect Our Reefs grant supporting this study and manager of the Marine Microbiology Program at Mote. “In addition, our results support the growing knowledge that certain coral species may fare worse than others during oil spills.”

Mote scientists looked to study the effects of two Florida Keys coral species-mustard hill coral and mountainous star coral-and placing larvae of these corals in different sets of solutions.

The test solutions include saltwater plus Dissolved Deepwater Horizon oil from the rig, weathered oil, Corexit 9500 and a final one with the oil and the Corexit 9500. The coral larvae was placed in various concentrations of solutions for 72 hours while the mountainous star coral larvae was tested in slowly diluted solutions during a 96-hour period, according to Mote.

As expected, the larvae exposed to oil died sooner than ones only in seawater, and the mountainous star coral had a lower chance of surviving in the lowest oil concentration tested of .49 parts per million diluted over that 96-hour window, according to the study.
Even worse was the Corexit 9500-the very chemical that many hoped would clean up the oil and save marine life.

No mountainous star coral larvae settled or survived at the medium and high concentrations of 50 and 100 parts per million and no mustard hill coral larvae settled or survived at 100 parts per million.

The study says that most of the mountainous star coral didn’t even survive the lowest concentration test of .86 parts per million.

What do these scientific measurements mean to the naked eye?

“Depending on the concentration, the higher the concentration of oil and dispersant, the more opaque it becomes. With the dispersant only (Corexit 9500), there was little cloudiness and with the water soluble oil mixture (WAF) it was perfectly clear,” said Dr. Dana Wetzel, manager of Mote’s Environmental Laboratory for Forensics. So it’s not exactly water that humans would be fond of interacting with either.

The water soluble oil mixture is the chemicals from the oil that are able to dissolve in water; oil has many different chemical components, Wetzel continued to explained.
Fresh oil from Deepwater Horizon also started killing the larvae within the first 24 hours, according to the study.

Ritchie led the investigation along with Wetzel, Dr. Gretchen Goodbody-Gringley, former Mote postdoctoral researcher who is now an instructor at Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, and were conducted both in Sarasota and at the Mote Tropical Research Laboratory on Summerland Key.

“The decision to use dispersant chemicals poses trade-offs for oil spill responders. While a dispersed surface oil slick is rendered less likely to reach the shore, treatment of major oil spills with dispersant chemicals has been shown to result in significant environmental degradation as a result of increased hydrocarbon dissolution and surfactant toxicity,” the team wrote in their study.

Wetzel said what this study does is provide information on how oil and dispersants effect coral larvae because that wasn’t available before. Scientists have known how fish and shellfish were damaged though.

The Florida Keys coral were not directly affected by Deepwater Horizon, according to the study, but these types of coral are also found in the Northwestern Gulf closer to the oil rig, but those coral were not directly affected either, according to the study.

Scientists believe, however, that oil exploration near Cuba could pose further harm.

“To understand how oil and dispersant could affect wild corals, more research is needed on their complex natural life cycles,” Ritchie said. “Coral larvae seem to settle with help from landing pads called ‘biofilms’ that are formed by microbes like marine bacteria. This delicate natural process might be interrupted by dispersant and its mixture with oil, so it’s important to know how it works in detail.”

BP settled in November with the federal government in for $4.5 billion for its role in the spill. Sarasota County hopes it can claim $5.25 million from the case.

The owner of the rig itself, Transocean Ltd., was due in New Orleans federal court Wednesday to pay a $400 million settlement with the Justice Department for violating the Clean Water Act, the Associated Press reported.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Nola.com: Federal appeals court in New Orleans hands rare win to environmental group in BP oil spill case

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2013/01/federal_appeals_court_in_new_o.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Times-Picayune

Fireboats try to extinguish the blaze on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig south of Venice after an explosion on Wednesday, April 21, 2010. The explosion killed 11 workers on the rig. (Photo by Michael DeMocker, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune)
By Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on January 09, 2013 at 8:01 PM, updated January 10, 2013 at 7:31 AM

BP and its partners in the Macondo well that released an estimated 4.9 million gallons of oil over three months beginning in April 2010 should be required to inform state officials — and the public — of the toxic materials included in the spill, and the potential health effects of those materials, a three-judge appellate panel ruled in New Orleans on Wednesday. In winning the unanimous decision, the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group scored a rare partial victory before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in its attempts to pry more compliance with federal environmental laws out of BP in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The federal appeals court agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier that most of the center’s efforts to require BP to pay additional fines or otherwise be penalized for violations of the Clean Water Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act; and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) under provisions of those laws allowing individuals to enforce them became moot when federal officials declared BP’s Macondo well to be capped on July 15, 2010, and effectively “killed” on Sept. 19, 2010, by cementing its wellhole after being intercepted by a relief well.

“It’s a very important victory that BP could be finally forced to publicly disclose all the toxic components it spilled into the waters, but we’re disappointed by the dismissal of our Clean Water Act claims,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director for the center.
“Throughout it all, we’ve insisted that those responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters in America’s history should be held fully accountable for the profound damage they caused. The Gulf needs to be fully restored, both for the sake of its wildlife and for the people who depend on it for survival. We’re certainly not there yet.”

BP and other companies responsible for the spill still face a civil court proceeding over environmental fines and other actions required under the federal environmental laws, as part of the complex combination of lawsuits that have the federal government and attorneys representing private plaintiffs opposing them in court on Feb. 25.

But the court also ruled that Barbier incorrectly found to be moot a provision of the Right-to-Know Act that required BP to report what hazardous substances were released during the spill to state and local government authorities, including local emergency planning committees, with the information then made available to the public.

In opposing the appeal, BP attorneys argued that such information was being made available in the aftermath of the spill at various government web sites, but the three-judge panel was not persuaded by that argument.

“Our review of those web sites reveals a voluminous amount of information about the spill and the government’s response, but the specific information required by EPCRA is not immediately apparent.”

The ruling could require BP to reveal the hazardous materials involved in the spill and their health effects, and make the information public.

They found that the Right-to-Know Act specifically required the company to include “the name and estimated quantity of any substance involved in the release, the medium or media into which the release occurred, any known or anticipated acute or chronic health risks associated with the release, and the precautions to take as a result of the release.”

Those notices are required to be maintained by the state’s emergency response commission and must be made available to the public, they said.

In its suit, the center provided affidavits from members saying they’d been exposed to substances from the disaster, either through direct physical contact in the Gulf of Mexico or onshore, or through contact with fish and other wildlife.

“Those members averred that they were concerned about breathing air or ingesting water exposed to the substances and wanted to know what types of substances were involved in the Deepwater Horizon release so that they could assess the possible health effects of exposure,” said the ruling.

“Here, however, BP has never claimed that it has at any time complied with EPCRA’s reporting requirements for a written notice,” the ruling said, and the company’s failure to do so was a continuing violation of the law.

“An order from the district court that the defendants comply with EPCRA’s reporting requirement for that release could therefore redress the center’s claimed informational injury.”

The ruling, written by Judge Carolyn Dineen King of Houston, Texas, and agreed to by Chief Judge Carl Stewart of Shreveport and Priscilla Owen of Austin, Texas, sends the case back to Barbier for further action. King was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Stewart by President Bill Clinton, and Owen by President George W. Bush.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Richard Charter: Sanctuary Expansion: Permanent Protection for Our Sonoma and Mendocino Coastlines is Within Reach

http://SanctuaryExpansion.org

Check out this link; it explains how the expansion of our National Marine Sanctuaries will grant permanent protection from offshore drilling to one of California’s most iconic stretches of coastline, the dates and locations of the fast-approaching public hearings, and contains links for submitting written comments by the March 1, 2013 deadline.

Thanks very much.

Nola.com: Oiled pelican photo in “HOLD BP ACCOUNTABLE” ad greets Justice employees at Washington Metro station

http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/01/oiled_pelican_photo_in_hold_bp.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Times-Picayune
By Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on January 07, 2013 at 11:40 AM, updated January 07, 2013 at 1:42 PM

A photo of a struggling pelican coated with oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico now greets workers arriving at the Navy Archives Metro station, close to the Department of Justice’s Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters building. The photo is part of a National Wildlife Federation advertising placard demanding “HOLD BP ACCOUNTABLE.”

They’ve been placed at the station just weeks before the Feb. 25 beginning of the first phase of a federal trial that will determine the size of fines BP will face for violating the federal Clean Water Act. But they’re also aimed at urging Justice officials not to reduce the amount BP should be fined, if a settlement is reached before trail.

“Americans from all walks of life reeled in horror as BP’s negligence sent more than 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico,” said Aileo Weinmann, associate communications director for the National Wildlife Federation, in a news release announcing the new ad campaign. “We’re sending a signal to staff at the Department of Justice to hold BP fully accountable for up to $50 billion in civil fines and penalties.

“These Metro ads are a cost-effective way to press Department of Justice staff about the proper size of any BP settlement,” Weinmann said. “We used the famous AP/Charlie Riedel photo of an oiled pelican because it is such a distressing image that we knew it would be hard to ignore.”

Most estimates of BP fines focus on the company’s violation of the Clean Water Act, which would fall within $5 billion to $21 billion, based on how much the company would pay per gallon under the Clean Water Act, based on the release of 4.1 million barrels of oil during the spill, with the higher amount being paid if the company was found to be grossly negligent in its actions concerning the spill.

However, BP also faces significant liability under the Oil Pollution Act’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment provisions, which requires it to pay for any projects aimed at restoring natural resources and compensating the public for the loss of those resources during and after the spill. The federation estimates BP’s liability under the act to be at least $31 billion, based on the costs of natural resource damage restoration following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989.

And the company may also face additional fines for violation of other federal laws governing damage to natural resources, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The ad also includes a link to a page on the federation’s web site that allows people to send their own written message to Attorney Gen. Eric Holder requesting BP be held fully accountable.

View full size
This National Wildlife Federation advertising placard is in a Washington Metro stop used by Justice Department employees.
National Wildlife Federation

BPplackardWWFsm.jpg BPplackardWWFsm.jpg
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Common Dreams: Tar Sands Blockaders Take Over TransCanada Offices in Texas, Elsewhere

Published on Monday, January 7, 2013 by Common Dreams

Actions in Texas, Massachusetts and Maine target pipeline company and its financial backers
- Jon Queally, staff writer

Update (3:15 PM):

Members and supporters of the group Tar Sands Blockade staged public actions in Texas, Massachusetts, Maine and elsewhere on Monday in a series of independent protests at offices of the Transcanada Corporation—which is building the Keystone XL pipeline—and financial institutions supportive of tar sands infrastructure projects, such as TD Bank.

The largest action took place in Houston, Texas (see below), but others sprang up as the day progressed.

Campaigners in Westborough, Massachusetts—reportedly students—occupied the inside the entryway at the company’s offices and refused to leave.

The group explained their motivations in a prepared statement, which read in part:

“Our actions today aim to raise awareness and build momentum to halt the destruction that fossil fuel corporations knowingly cause. Science, and economics and logic provide an obvious imperative for action. However, even overwhelming factual evidence has not compelled our political leaders to stand up to these corporations. Our elected representatives have not yet found the courage to draw a clear line in the sand and prevent the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Meanwhile, citing the financial institution’s investment in the the Keystone XL pipeline project, several activists in Portland, Maine, blocked the entrance to a local branch of TD Bank and sent out this image:

A gathering was also reported in Detroit, Michigan.

Earlier:

Members of the Tar Sands Blockade have staged a mass action in the Houston offices of the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada.


Tar Sands Blockaders take over TransCanada offices in Houston. (Photo: via Twitpic)

According to Tar Sands Blockade—a group of environmentalists and landowners working to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline—more than one hundred protesters gathered to confront the Canadian-based pipeline company at its US headquarters in downtown Houston.

Citing land rights abuses, toxic legacy and climate change connected to TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, some of the protesters staged a die-in in the lobby and are refusing to leave.

“This action kicks off a new phase of the Tar Sands Blockade targeting the corporate and financial infrastructure behind the Keystone XL pipeline,” the group said in a statement. “TransCanada’s pipeline uses seized land to transport toxic tar sands oil through Texas and Oklahoma communities, in order to export it from Houston ports. These dangerous business practices and the backlash from communities across the country make this pipeline a toxic investment for our state and TransCanada’s corporate lenders.”

Several arrests were reported.

The group also posted a request for supporters of their action in Houston to call TranCanada’s office and voice support for those currently in the lobby.

“You can help shut down work in TransCanada’s offices by flooding the phone lines all today to tell them we don’t want their dirty pipeline in anyone’s backyard,” the message said.

“Can you call TransCanada’s Keystone XL headquarters now to tell them you stand with your fellow Blockaders inside and outside their office today?” the group asked. The group also provided suggested names and numbers to call.

The group has been staging ongoing actions in Texas against the pipeline since last year, including an eighty-five day blockade in Winnsboro, Texas which saw a series of actions and numerous arrests surrounding a centralized encampent that resulted in a re-routing of the pipeline’s route. A more a recent tree-sit protest last week that ended in the arrest of several activists in Diboll, Texas.

Special thanks to Common Ground.

Grist: Surprise: Shell’s rig ran aground in Alaska because the company was trying to avoid taxes

http://grist.org/news/surprise-shells-rig-ran-aground-in-alaska-because-the-company-was-trying-to-avoid-taxes/


Why am I not surprised????? Drilling in the Artic should be banned given the oil & gas industry’s inability to deal responsibly with their operations.
DV

By Philip Bump

On New Year’s Eve, in the middle of a storm, Shell was trying to tow its Kulluk drilling rig from Alaska to Seattle. Why then? Why risk the bad weather, which, as it turned out, caused the rig to break free from its tugboats and run aground on Kodiak Island?

To avoid paying state taxes, of course. From Alaska Dispatch:
A Shell spokesman last week confirmed an Unalaska elected official’s claim that the Dec. 21
departure of the Kulluk from Unalaska/Dutch Harbor involved taxation.

City councilor David Gregory said Shell would pay between $6 million and $7 million in state
taxes if the Kulluk was still in Alaska on Jan. 1.

Ah, but the weather had other plans, sorry to say. Shell will end up having to pay that money after all, and then some.

Gregory said the departure of the Kulluk took money away from local small businesses servicing the rig. He predicted the maritime mishap will prove very costly to the oil company.

“It will cost them more than that $6 million in taxes. Maybe they should have just stayed here,” Gregory said.

The Kulluk grounding is costing taxpayers too. The 630 people working on the unified relief effort include employees of the state of Alaska and the U.S. Coast Guard. Twenty-one vessels are on the scene or nearby, and that doesn’t include aircraft.

Last night, the unified command held a press conference to update reporters on the status of the recovery. In short: Not much has changed. The Kulluk remains where it ran aground. Efforts to determine damage are still incomplete. The tens of thousands of gallons of fuel onboard don’t appear to be leaking.

One reporter asked a pointed question about how forthcoming Shell will be in sharing its assessment of the accident. You can guess the response.

Margie Bauman [reporter from Fishermans News Seattle]: [G]iven the seriousness of this
incident, why would Shell’s own investigation of this not be made public along with the Coast
Guard investigation? Thank you.

Sean Churchfield [Incident Commander and the Operations Manager for Shell Alaska]: OK. So
I think the main point I’d like to make on the investigation is Shell will collaborate, completely
cooperate-collaborate-collaborate completely with the Coast Guard and other investigations that are required.

Margie Bauman: Yes. But I’d like to know (cross talking)Š
Captain Paul Mehler [Coast Guard Federal On Scene Coordinator]: (Inaudible). But the Coast
Guard investigation, as I say, we’re bringing up investigators from the Center of Excellence, and we have our investigators working that. And of course the results of those findings will be made public.

Margie Bauman: And would that include Shell’s Š
Amy Midget [unified command representative]: And we will have those said (ph) remarks posted online for anybody who-on the phone system who is not able to hear them.
In other words, don’t hold your breath for Shell to be forthcoming.

There is some good news in all of this, for Shell anyway: The U.S. government shows no indication that it will reconsider the company’s permit to drill in the Arctic.

“The administration understands that the Arctic environment presents unique challenges and
that’s why the [interior] secretary has repeatedly made clear that any approved drilling activities will be held to the highest safety and environmental standards,” Salazar spokesman Blake Androff said Thursday. “The department will continue to carefully review permits for any activity and all proposals must meet our rigorous standards.”

Salazar has not given Shell permission to drill deep enough to actually hit oil. The company
hopes to get that approval this summer.

Shell didn’t get that permission last year because it was unable to demonstrate to the government that its spill-containment system would work, even after repeated testing.
All this mess so Shell could avoid $6 million in state taxes – an amount equal to 0.1 percent of its profits in the third quarter of 2012. Good to know that Shell puts money over safety. Bodes well.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Greenwire: An E&E Publishing Service, ARCTIC: Enviros call for moratorium on drilling, citing Shell’s season of mishaps

www.eenews.net/5023F022.jpg

(Thursday, January 3, 2013) Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Three days after a Royal Dutch Shell PLC drillship grounded onto an Alaskan island, environmentalists today called on the Obama administration to place a moratorium on all Arctic drilling, arguing that the company’s season of mishaps and regulatory problems could spell disaster.

While the Coast Guard, state and industry officials continue to monitor Shell’s Kulluk drillship — which continues to rock gently on a beach south of Kodiak, carrying more than 150,000 gallons of fuel — environmentalists said the administration should put the kibosh on the company’s 2013 exploration plans.

“Shell is not Arctic-ready,” said Chuck Clusen, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s national parks and Alaska projects, in a teleconference with reporters. “We have lost all faith in Shell.”

In the coming days, environmental groups plan to reach out to administration officials to urge that Shell and federal partners “stand down” on Arctic exploration activities, Clusen said.

They did not say how long such a moratorium should be in place but argued that more research must be put into Arctic ecosystems, that better regulatory and legislative protections must be in place and that adequate cleanup methods must be available before new drilling is authorized.

Their call comes days after the Kulluk was sent adrift by hurricane-like winds and four-story waves as it was being towed south to Seattle for repairs (Greenwire, Jan. 2).
It was the latest, and potentially most significant, mishap during Shell’s 2012 drilling season, which resulted in two exploration wells being spud in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas by the drillships Kulluk and Noble Discoverer, respectively — the first in roughly 20 years.

The mishaps include the near-grounding in July of the Noble Discoverer, which stopped about 100 yards short of the Dutch Harbor shore (Greenwire, July 16, 2012). Drilling activities were also slowed significantly by lingering sea ice; delays in the Coast Guard’s certification of Shell’s Arctic Challenger oil spill response vessel; the company’s failed test of its oil spill containment dome; and Shell’s inability to meet initial air pollution standards.

It is unclear what kind of damage the Kulluk sustained and how much time and money will be spent to fix it before drilling is set to resume in midsummer. It is unlikely Shell could drill any wells in the Arctic without the Kulluk, which federal officials have required to be available to drill a relief well in the case of a blowout in the Chukchi.

“It may be the federal government doesn’t have much discretion in the matter,” said Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society, who cited the darkness, ice, freezing temperatures and this past week’s cyclone in the Gulf of Alaska as examples of the risks Shell and others will face.

“There’s no credible evidence that Shell can operate safely and without incident,” Epstein said.

A spokesman for the Interior Department today said that if drilling does occur this summer, the agency will continue to have inspectors on board each drill rig around the clock.

“The administration understands that the Arctic environment presents unique challenges, and that’s why the secretary has repeatedly made clear that any approved drilling activities will be held to the highest safety and environmental standards,” Blake Androff said. “The department will continue to carefully review permits for any activity and all proposals must meet our rigorous standards.”

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement has yet to issue drilling permits for Shell for the 2013 season.

BSEE yesterday said the Coast Guard is in charge of the design, construction, manning and navigation of the Kulluk when it is in transit and will continue to certify compliance of all mobile offshore drilling units sailing within the United States. The Coast Guard said it would make its investigation of the grounding available to the public.

In addition to drilling permits, Shell must also obtain new air permits for its summer drilling, and its oil spill response plan is still the subject of a federal lawsuit, Clusen said.
Shell has not said what impact the grounding of the Kulluk will have on its drilling plans this summer.

After an exhaustive review, the Obama administration last summer permitted the company to drill “top-holes” that stop short of oil-bearing reservoirs, as Shell struggled to certify its main oil spill response vessel, the Arctic Challenger.

President Obama is seen as favorable to Arctic drilling, and a moratorium there would open him up to fresh attacks from oil backers in Congress who say he has stifled oil and gas production from federal lands and waters.

But a moratorium would find support among many Democrats, including Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. He sent letters today to the Coast Guard and Shell requesting information on how the company plans to respond to incidents such as this week’s grounding and how it will safely drill in the Arctic.

“This is just the most recent incident in Shell’s attempt to drill offshore in the Arctic and it raises serious questions about the company’s ability to conduct these operations safely and in a way that protects the environment,” Markey said in the letters.

But proponents of Arctic drilling were quick to point out that Monday’s grounding was a transportation accident far from Shell’s drilling sites and that it did not involve any crude oil.

Shell has taken unprecedented steps to ensure that a blowout does not occur off the North Slope, pledging to allow 24-hour monitoring by federal inspectors; to use double shear rams on its blowout preventers; and to have a fleet of oil spill response vessels on guard nearby, proponents said.
Latest on the Kulluk
Recovery personnel continue to monitor the Kulluk, which is on a sand and gravel beach off southeast Sitkalidak Island, an uninhabited island separated by a narrow strait from Kodiak Island.

The grounding took place Monday night about 40 miles southwest of Kodiak City after towboats lost power and disconnected from the Kulluk amid hurricane-like winds.

After being thwarted by inclement whether Tuesday, a team of five salvage experts yesterday was able to board the drillship for the first time to conduct a three-hour structural evaluation and begin finalizing salvage plans.

A Coast Guard MH-60 Jayhawk helicopter also delivered an emergency towing system to the Kulluk deck to assist in towing the 30-year-old vessel, which has no propulsion, to a place of refuge.

Coast Guard Capt. Paul Mehler, the federal on-scene coordinator, said yesterday that no divers were deployed to inspect the ship. There are still no signs of oil sheen or environmental impact.

The vessel’s three fuel tanks are clustered together near the center of the drillship and are protected by a double hull and space around the tanks.

“It’s a little premature for us to speculate on different ideas” about the salvage plans, Mehler said, according to a Twitter post from the Unified Command, which includes the Coast Guard, Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation, Shell and Noble Corp., whose personnel were manning the Kulluk.

The weather as of 6:30 Alaska Standard Time last night was slightly calmer, with winds at about 35 mph and seas at about 12 feet with occasional wave heights of 18 feet. Today’s weather is expected to be calmer still, with southeast winds of about 15 mph, gusting to 25 mph, and seas up to 9 feet.

Alaska DEC said two locations have been identified where steps could be taken to protect known salmon streams in the immediate area.

Threatened or endangered species potentially in the vicinity of the accident include Steller’s eiders, Southwest sea otters and Steller sea lions.

The Kulluk assessment team has spotted sea lions in the water near the ship, and goats were spotted on the adjacent uplands.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

San Francisco Chronicle: Calif. ocean sanctuaries to be doubled

slideshow online at:

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Calif-ocean-sanctuaries-to-be-doubled-4133535.php

Peter Fimrite
Updated 11:00 pm, Wednesday, December 19, 2012

President Obama is poised to protect 2,093 square nautical miles of ocean habitat off the coast of Sonoma and Mendocino counties, a move that would more than double the area covered by two national sanctuaries off the West Coast and permanently ban offshore oil drilling there.

The decision, expected Thursday, would create an enormous preserve stretching some 50 miles along the California coast and extending some 30 miles out to sea. It would also fulfill the long-held dream of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who has tried repeatedly since 2004 to pass legislation protecting the coastal ecosystem.

Woolsey announced that she will be joined by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and a host of other dignitaries Thursday “to announce developments regarding the expansion of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries.”

End-around by Obama
The proposed expansion from Bodega Bay north to Point Arena in Mendocino County has been blocked repeatedly by congressional Republicans. The only foolproof way to accomplish it now in the face of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives is for President Obama to proclaim it a protected area by executive order, experts say.

“We’ve been leaning on the door to get this coast protected for a very long time, and I think the door is about to open,” said Richard Charter, a senior fellow at the Ocean Foundation who has been working for 35 years trying to create the sanctuary. “This is a historic and globally significant piece of protection. It would be the best possible Christmas present I could imagine, but not just for me. This would protect our coastal economy and our coastal ecosystem for future generations and be a legacy not only for Congresswoman Woolsey, but for President Obama.”

The expanded sanctuaries would cover a total of 3,458 square nautical miles – an area about the size of Delaware – and would create a continuous zone of protected ocean from southern Mendocino County all the way to Monterey Bay, which falls within a separate sanctuary. The ban on drilling, oil exploration and other industrial uses within the existing sanctuaries would be expanded, but fishing would be allowed.
Green energy, like wind or wave farms, would not necessarily be banned, but the sanctuary designation would offer an extra level of protection from potential environmental damage.

‘Yosemites of the sea’
The proposal would protect what marine biologists say is one of the most abundant ecological regions in the world, “Yosemites of the sea,” say environmentalists – all within view of some of California’s most picturesque and historic communities, including Jenner, Sea Ranch and Fort Ross.

The nutrient-rich waters from deep ocean upwellings in the Cordell and Farallones regions support about 20 percent of the world’s fish, including salmon. Birds and marine mammals, including sea lions, orcas and gray, blue and humpback whales, also thrive in the area.

It is important, Woolsey and others argue, because oil companies have had their eyes on the region for decades. Oil rigs were proposed in the 1970s, provoking widespread opposition. James Watt, interior secretary under President Ronald Reagan, diligently pursued oil exploration there in the 1980s.

After four years of trying, Woolsey finally managed to get a bill through Congress in 2008, but companion legislation introduced by Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., stalled in the Senate. Woolsey’s latest effort, HR192, has been blocked by House Republican leaders, primarily because it might limit future oil and gas production.

Network of preserves
The expected ruling would come a day after the California Fish and Game Commission finalized a network of undersea state reserves, called Marine Protected Areas, extending from Mexico to Oregon. The interconnected series of protected marine environments, most of which do not allow fishing, go 3 miles out from shore. The proposed national sanctuaries would extend 10 times farther out to sea.

Woolsey, who is retiring from Congress on Jan. 3, said the sanctuary designation is supported by environmentalists, fishing interests, state and local governments, university scientists and business leaders.

“The only meaningful opposition comes from national oil interests and their allies in Congress, outsiders who want to drill at any cost,” she wrote in support of her bill. “This is more than just a matter of environmental urgency; thousands of jobs hang in the balance too. The local fishermen support my sanctuary bill because their livelihoods depend on a rich harvest that’s only possible in a thriving marine ecosystem.”

Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: pfimrite@sfchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Calif-ocean-sanctuaries-to-be-doubled-4133535.php#ixzz2FZuRNcJK

Special thanks to Richard Charter

InsideBay Area: Obama to expand national marine sanctuaries, permanently ban oil drilling, up Sonoma and Mendocino coasts

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_22231457/obama-expand-national-marine-sanctuaries-permanently-ban-oil

By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Posted: 12/20/2012 08:38:27 AM PST
Updated: 12/20/2012 09:34:51 AM PST

In a move that would permanently ban oil drilling along more than 50 miles of Northern California coast, the Obama administration is scheduled this morning to announce plans to expand two northern California marine sanctuaries, extending them up the rugged Sonoma and Mendocino Coast.

The announcement, scheduled at an 11:15 am PST news conference in Washington D.C., with members of the Bay Area congressional delegation and officials from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will mark the largest expansion of national marine sanctuaries in California in 20 years — since President George. H.W. Bush established the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 1992.

The new protected area will enlarge of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries by 2,771 square miles, more than doubling their size, and will extend from Bodega Bay near the Marin County-Sonoma County border north to Point Arena in Mendocino County.

The area is one of the West’s most scenic coastal landscapes, famous for its steep cliffs, rugged wind-swept bluffs and long sandy beaches. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, oil companies showed interest in sinking new rigs off the area, which includes the communities of Jenner, Sea Ranch and Gualala, along with Fort Ross, a former Russian fur-trading outpost dating back to 1812.
“The waters off the northern California coast are incredibly nutrient-rich and drive the entire natural
system and, for almost a decade, local communities have been petitioning their elected officials to expand sanctuary protection to these areas,” said Daniel J. Basta, director of the NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

In recent months, retiring Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-San Rafael, led efforts to urge Obama to create a new national monument along the scenic Sonoma coast using his executive authority. Obama declined to create a monument and instead used the NOAA administrative process, which requires public hearings and environmental studies and is expected to take months, if not a year, to finalize.

The reason: President George W. Bush used executive authority to create a marine monument in the remote Northern Hawaiian islands during his presidency, upsetting some Gulf of Mexico senators who were concerned the authority might one day be used by presidents to ban oil drilling there, an administration source said Thursday. As a result, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco said during her confirmation hearings several years ago that the Obama administration would not create national monuments in the oceans, but instead use existing NOAA rules.

NOAA has the authority, without a vote of Congress, to enlarge sanctuary boundaries. Efforts are already under way by NOAA, for example, to expand the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to include a small section of water in front of the Golden Gate Bridge that was left out of the original Monterey sanctuary designation in 1992.

Although technically, the Obama administration could change its mind after the public hearings, that is highly unlikely. The expanded boundaries are supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and a large number of the state’s congressional representatives. And NOAA has never reversed course after starting a sanctuary expansion and decided not to proceed.
National marine sanctuaries ban oil drilling and other extractive activities. They do not ban fishing or boating, however.

At a White House Christmas party earlier this month, Woolsey discussed expanding sanctuary protections up the Sonoma and Mendocino coasts with Vice President Joe Biden and briefly with the president as he was posing for photos with members of Congress.

Last month, she talked with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar about the issue when he visited Marin County.

Meanwhile, 12 California House members sent Obama a letter in recent weeks seeking the new preserve. The signatories included Northern California Democrats Jackie Speier, Zoe Lofgren, George Miller, Barbara Lee, John Garamendi, Mike Thompson, Anna Eshoo and Sam Farr.

“Unfortunately, the hazards faced by our coast area are real and imminent,” the letter said.
Woolsey has tried to pass bills in Congress since 2004 with the same goal. But her most recent effort, HR192, has been blocked by House Republican leaders who oppose new limits on oil and gas production. And Woolsey is retiring from Congress when the current session ends Jan. 3.

Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: California Fracking Rules Slammed By Environmentalists As Shale Oil Boom Threatens To Remake State

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/california-fracking_n_2327165.html?utm_hp_ref=san-francisco

Posted: 12/19/2012 5:48 pm EST | Updated: 12/19/2012 8:00 pm EST

SAN FRANCISCO — Just below California’s surface lies enough shale oil to fundamentally transform the state’s entire economy.

And for the first time in the state’s history, California regulators have seriously started to grapple with how the state deals with the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in order to retrieve that oil.

Industry representatives insist the practice — which involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into an oil or natural gas well to stimulate production — is safe, and note that it has been employed in some California wells for decades. But environmentalists worry that fracking could soon become ubiquitous, doing untold damage to the state’s environment in the process.

“These are the first steps in a larger discussion about fracking we’re going to have,” explained Jason Marshall of the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources during a conference call Tuesday announcing a new set of rules governing fracking in the state.

California has previously lacked a specific set of guidelines for how to deal with fracking, which has sparked oil and natural gas bonanzas in places Pennsylvania, North Dakota and northeastern Texas. Due to a loophole inserted into the Bush Administration’s 2005 energy bill, a large portion of what happens with fracking — particularly natural gas drilling — is exempted from federal oversight, so the practice is entirely left up to the individual states.

California’s proposed regulations include requirements that all wells using hydraulic fracturing take safety measures to prevent seepage and test machinery regularly. They specify how wastewater is to be stored and discarded and mandate energy companies to regularly monitor old wells after active drilling has ceased.

The rules also require energy companies to publicly release a whole host of information about each well they frack — from the exact location to the makeup of the fluid being injected.

“If these requirements keep someone out of the fracking market because they can’t afford it,” Marshall said, “we’re fine with that.”

Some environmental activists, such as the Center For Biological Diversity’s Kassie Siegel, are less than impressed with the new rules.

Siegel, whose organization is suing both the state of California and the federal government for not doing enough to regulate fracking on public lands leased in an increasingly controversial set of mineral rights auctions, charged that the latest measures don’t ensure environmental safety. “These draft regulations would keep California’s fracking shrouded in secrecy and do little to contain the many threats posed by fracking,” Siegel said in a statement. “[They] are going to have to be completely rewritten if the goal is to provide real protection for our air, water, and communities.”

Siegel argues that the regulations fail to address air pollution and don’t require drilling operations to capture the methane released in the process.

She said that a quarter of all the chemicals used in fracking are known carcinogens, and some people living near fracked wells have reported health ailments like vomiting, nausea and seizures. “We should have baseline testing of air and water quality around fracked wells, but we don’t,” Siegel said.

Conversely, industry backers have pointed to a year-long study conducted in Southern California’s Ingleside Oil Field that found no negative health, air quality or seismic effects from the fracking occurring there. The study, sponsored by an oil company as part of a lawsuit, has been criticized by environmentalists for not looking at the long-term heath effects of fracking and failing to disclose that one of its peer reviewers had close ties to the energy industry.

California has been a major oil producer for over a century and is one of the top five oil-producing states in the nation. But a report issued last year by the U.S. Energy Information Administration released information that could easily kick state production into overdrive.

The research found that the Monterey Shale, a rock formation running underneath much of Central California, contains 15 billion barrels of oil, or some 64 percent of all the recoverable shale oil in the United States. “This shale alone could provide for our domestic oil needs for 50 years,” said Dave Quast of the industry-backed research and public outreach group Energy In Depth.

Despite the area’s enormous oil reserves, the formation’s unique geology has impeded previous efforts to drill. The conditions underground vary widely from one location to another, making it difficult to predict the productivity of any given well based on its neighbors. One well could yield a torrent of oil while the one next door could turn up dry.

As a result, it’s a lot riskier, therefore significantly more expensive, to tap directly into the Monterey Shale than continue to rely on the traditional plays that have long been the backbone of the state’s oil production.

No one yet has been able to find the key to unlocking vast oil wealth hidden inside the Monterey Shale. When they do, however, not only will those techniques likely involve fracking, but the economic and environmental implications have the potential to be enormous.

Environmentalists predict that much drilling would be devastating. “The 15 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale are a carbon bomb,” Siegel said. “If we dig this up and burn it, we’re going to counteract all of California’s pollution reduction efforts.”

On the other hand, California has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, something that boosters of increased oil production argue could be largely remedied through more drilling. “North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and that’s largely due to oil and gas development,” said Quast, of Energy In Depth.
Californians themselves are relatively split on fracking, with a recent Public Policy Institute poll showing a roughly even number of Golden State residents falling on either side of the issue.

The poll found opposition to fracking falling along the expected partisan lines, with liberals and urban dwellers in regions like Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area less like to support the practice. However, some residents in California’s rural, agricultural centers — areas like Kern County, where the majority of the state’s oil production takes place — have also voiced concerns.

“We work with a lot of agricultural groups and small farmers, most of whom are shocked to discover that fracking is happening near them,” said Kristen Lynch of Food & Water Watch, a national organization that opposes fracking. A recent report by the Oakland-based group noted that 10 chemicals commonly used in fracking are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, and some farmers are concerned about these chemicals contaminating the groundwater and affecting their crops.

State regulators said they have yet to see any instances of significant contamination coming from a fracked well.

Some California municipalities, such as Culver City and Los Angeles, have taken steps toward banning the practice entirely.

California State Assemblyman Bob Wiecowski’s (D-Fremont), who reintroduced a bill earlier this month that seeks to clarify the state’s rules on fracking, shrugs off an outright ban as both premature and extreme. “We’re Californians and we like to hate oil companies. There are always going to be people who are looking to shoot Goliath in the eyeball,” he said. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a moratorium before all the information about fracking has been disclosed. You don’t want to be in the dark when you make your decisions, and we’re all in the dark right now.”

Wiecowski emphasized that establishing a clear set of rules and regulations should be the state’s first priority. “It’s important to get all of this squared away now, before companies really figure how to tap into all of the oil in the shale,” he said. “Then we can all fight about Monterey.”

Fracking Photos

1 of 17

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Mother Jones: Ouch! Sharp Lessons From Deepwater Horizon -By Julia Whitty

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/deepwater-horizon-lessons

Fri Dec. 14, 2012 3:18 AM PST

The science journal PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) has published a Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Special Feature taking a look back 20 months after the explosion that killed eleven people and upended countless lives along the Gulf Coast. Specifically at what happened, what we learned, and what could be done better the next time around. The introduction is authored by Jane Lubchenco, administrator of NOAA, and Marcia McNutt, director of the USGS, among others. They write about the unprecedented scientific and engineering challenges suddenly thrown down in an arena of chaos:*

[S]topping the flow of oil, estimating the amount of oil, capturing and recovering the oil, tracking and forecasting surface oil, protecting coastal and oceanic wildlife and habitat, managing fisheries, and protecting the safety of seafood. Disciplines involved included atmospheric, oceanographic, biogeochemical, ecological, health, biological, and chemical sciences, physics, geology, and mechanical and chemical engineering. Platforms ranged from satellites and planes to ships, buoys, gliders, and remotely operated vehicles to laboratories and computer simulations… Many valuable lessons were learned that should be applied to future events.

High on their wish list:

-The importance of preparedness. The consequences of lack of investment in recent decades in scientific understanding and technological development were brutally obvious during BP’s mess.

-Preparedness means a better basic understanding of the places likely to be affected by a spill at the scale of ‘large marine ecosystems’ such as the the Gulf of Mexico.

-We need to mobilize funding for research fast during a spill, especially early on.

-We need a better way for government to talk to the broadly-dispersed scientific community during a spill.

-We need a new way for scientists to maintain intellectual property of their data so that it will still be considered publishable by journals later on, even as it’s released so the media and public can know what’s going on in as it happens.

Here’s a quick look at the findings of a few of the other papers in the special feature.

Photo: Howard Jelks via Wikimedia Commons. Mashup: Julia Whitty.
This paper begins by noting that the biological consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are unknown especially for plants and animals that live year-round in areas that were oiled. The authors studied killifish-small dwellers of the coastal marshes of the Gulf coast-during the first four months of the spill. They found that fish living in oiled areas showed significant biological changes including genetic changes. The embryos and larval forms of killifish exposed to contaminated waters showed genetic changes of the type that lead to developmental abnormalities, decreased hatching success, and decreased survival. Overall the levels of biological and genetic changes in Gulf killifish in oiled waters were similar to what was seen in fish, sea otters, and harlequin ducks who initially survived the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska but who afterwards suffered population declines.
-Andrew Whitehead, et al. Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes. PNAS 2012. doi:10.1073/pnas.1109545108

Photo: pennstatelive via Flickr. Mashup: Julia Whitty.
This paper assessed the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on deep-water coral communities of the Gulf of Mexico. The authors examined 11 sites three to four months after the well was capped. They found healthy coral communities at all sites (map here) more than 12 miles / 20 kilometers from the Macondo well. But one site less than 7 miles / 11 kilometers away got walloped. The coral colonies there showed widespread signs of stress including: varying degrees of tissue loss; enlargement of sclerites (small bonelike supports); excess mucous production (think: snot); brittle stars (like the one wrapped around the coral sea fan in the photo above) that were bleached (think: stressed and unhealthy); and corals smothered with brown fluffy material called floc. Forty-three corals colonies were photographed at the contaminated site. About half of those colonies showed signs of stress in more than half the colony. A quarter of those colonies showed signs of stress in >90 percent of the colony. The brittle stars living commensally with the deep-water corals were hard hit too, with 53 percent displaying abnormal colors and/or attachment to the corals. Petroleum biomarkers in the floc bore the signature of oil from Deepwater Horizon. The authors write:
The presence of recently damaged and deceased corals beneath the path of a previously documented plume emanating from the Macondo well provides compelling evidence that the oil impacted deep-water ecosystems. Our findings underscore the unprecedented nature of the spill in terms of its magnitude, release at depth, and impact to deep-water ecosystems.
-Helen K. White, et al. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf of Mexico. PNAS 2012. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118029109

Photo: SkyTruth via Flickr. Mashup: Julia Whitty.
This paper reports on a wide range of gases and aerosols measured from aircraft around, downwind, and away from the Deepwater Horizon site, plus hydrocarbon measurements made from ships in the area. As you might guess air quality issues were different for workers at the site than for people living along the Gulf coast. Four sources of primary air pollutants attributable to the oil spill were detected including: hydrocarbons evaporating from the oil; smoke from deliberate burning of the oil slick; combustion products from the flaring of recovered natural gas; and ship emissions from the recovery and cleanup operations. Secondary organic aerosols that formed over the oil spill were dispersed in a wide plume which continued to increase in mass downwind, likely increasing aerosol particles in coastal communities. Hydrocarbons and ozone were also found downwind of the spill site though confined to narrower plumes.
-Ann M. Middlebrook, et al. Air quality implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PNAS 2012. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110052108

Photo and mashup: Julia Whitty
Other papers in the special issue deal with estimating the flow rate of the well after blowout, plus the decision to cap the well, federal seafood safety response, and a lot more. All the Deepwater Horizon papers in this PNAS issue are open access so you can read without a subscription.
This paper and this one looked at the effects of the microbial communities in reponse to the sudden eruption of oil and gas into the surface and deep waters of the Gulf. The blowout fed a deep sea bacterial bloom that ate hydrocarbons, formed a localized low-oxygen (hypoxic) zone, and altered the microbiology of the region. Blooms of microbes arose in the plumes of oiled and gassed water, plumes which then sometimes cycled on currents back to the spill site now ready populated with microbes ready to eat more erupting oil and gas. This made for an efficient natural compost system. Since crude oil is composed of thousands of different hydrocarbon compounds that biodegrade at different rates in different depths and water temperatures, the erupted plumes were colonized by different species of microbes at different stages, depths, and ages. (Thanks microbes!)
-David L. Valentine, et al. Dynamic autoinoculation and the microbial ecology of a deep water hydrocarbon irruption. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 109 (50) 20286-20291 doi:10.1073/pnas.1108820109
-Molly C. Redmond and David L. Valentine. Natural gas and temperature structured a microbial community response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. PNAS 201. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108756108

* Jane Lubchenco, et al. Science in support of the Deepwater Horizon response. PNAS 2012. doi:10.1073/pnas.1204729109

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E&E: Wyden to push energy bills, not carbon tax, to address warming

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Energy policies and not carbon prices will drive the U.S. response to climate change for the foreseeable future, the incoming Senate leader on energy issues said yesterday.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who is expected to claim the gavel of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next month, said in a brief interview that although certain lawmakers support a carbon tax, such a policy has little prospect of becoming law in the near future.

“I think this is a very significant lift right now politically,” Wyden said.

Wyden took part in bipartisan efforts earlier this fall aimed at avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect Jan. 1 if the White House and Congress do not act. Legislation addressing the crisis was once viewed as a possible opening for a carbon tax.

But while he took a dim view yesterday of chances for a carbon tax, Wyden said the same objective of reducing emissions could be achieved if the next Congress enacts policies that promote low-carbon energy.

“What I’m going to try to do in every practical way I can is to promote bipartisan approaches that advance a low-carbon economy,” he said.

Wyden’s comments echoed those made by Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) at a forum late last month (Greenwire, Nov. 28).
Wyden said some renewables, like biomass and hydropower, had been overlooked by policymakers despite having the potential to generate cleaner power in diverse regions of the country.

“What I’m going to try to do is be very results-oriented,” he said. He added that he was already talking to colleagues about ways to promote low-carbon energy.

While Wyden is expected to chair the energy panel, the death yesterday of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) opened the possibility that he could head the Intelligence Committee in the new Congress instead. But Wyden waved away questions about that possibility yesterday.

“I’m going to let Sen. [Harry] Reid make any announcements with respect to committees,” he said, referring to the Senate majority leader. But he added that he was continuing to lay the groundwork for his chairmanship of the energy panel.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E&E: OFFSHORE DRILLING: Green group sues to block Interior’s 5-year leasing plan

Yes we can! DV

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, December 17, 2012

An environmental group today filed a lawsuit challenging the Interior Department’s five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan, arguing the agency has failed to accurately analyze the costs and benefits of the plan.

The Center for Sustainable Economy, in a filing to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and Administrative Procedure Act last summer when it finalized a plan to allow a dozen new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and up to three off the shores of Alaska.

The plan threatens catastrophic spills that could harm Gulf coastlines while failing to maximize revenue from lease sales, said the Santa Fe, N.M.-based group, which is represented in the case by Steven Sugarman and Michael Livermore of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

“Key factors were ignored by BOEM including the massive uncertainty associated with the potential for deepwater drilling disasters, the current glut in gas production, record U.S. fuel exports and the fact that millions of acres of existing leases are idle,” Sugarman said in a statement. “These omissions from BOEM’s economic analysis create an extreme and illegal bias in favor of new leasing.”

Recent lease sales have included 35 tracts in waters deeper than the BP PLC oil spill in April 2010, the group said.

An Interior spokesman today said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The agency in late June finalized a leasing plan that includes targeted new development off the North Slope of Alaska but forgoes sales in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. Interior officials called it a “cautious but forward-looking” solution (E&ENews PM, June 28).

It was followed by the release of the final version of a rule designed to prevent a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 men and spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The agency’s drilling safety rule set in stone interim steps companies have largely followed since the Macondo well blowout to enhance well integrity, well control systems and blowout preventers
(Greenwire, Aug. 16).

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Cuba Uses New Rig to Continue Offshore Oil Exploration

http://english.cri.cn/6826/2012/12/16/2361s738687.htm

2012-12-16 04:21:08 Xinhua Web Editor: Wang Wei

A new platform will be used to further explore the waters to the north of Cuba’s central region for oil, state oil company Cubapetroleo (CUPET) said Saturday.

The Norwegian oil rig, Songa Mercur, will start to drill the well L-01X in the next few days under a contract signed with Russian company Zarubezhneft, according to a release from the company published in the official Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma.

“As usual, this platform received inspections by CUPET experts and Cuban regulatory authorities to ensure that the operations are conducted with maximum safety and without damage to the environment,” it said.

The new rig replaces the oil platform Scarabeo 9, which left for North Africa on Nov. 14. The operation is scheduled to last approximately six months.

The well, with a depth of 6,500 meters, will be the deepest so far drilled in Cuba.

The oil rig was under inspection to verify that less than 10 percent of its components are manufactured in the United States, a restriction imposed by the U.S. as part of its economic sanctions against the island.

Cuba estimates about 20 billion barrels of oil reserves in its exclusive economic zone at the Gulf of Mexico, but the U.S Geologic Service considers a more modest figure of about 5 billion to 9 billion barrels.

The platform Songa Mercur is owned by the Norwegian company Songa Offshore and has all the necessary means to ensure the work to be done efficiently and safely, the release said.

Scarabeo 9, the previous oil rig, was also inspected by US experts in waters of Trinidad and Tobago, with the permit of the Spanish company Repsol, which had hired the platform.
Russian sources said that the first result of the operation will be announced in May 2013. Zarubezhneft, president of the directing board, Nikolai Brunich, traveled to Cuba in November as part of a high level delegation, which visited the Songa Mercur after its arrival in the island.

This will be the fourth exploratory trial, after the failure of the Scarabeo 9, which operated in three different blocks hired in consecutive occasions by the Spanish company Repsol, the Malaysian PC Gulf, the Russian group Gazprom Neft, and the Venezuelan state- owned PDVSA.

Since 2003, Cuba produces annually 21 million oil barrels and 1. 1 million cubic meters of natural gas, but this figure covers only half of its domestic power needs.

To compensate the other 50 percent, the island receives 10,000 oil barrels daily from Venezuela, its main political and economic ally, and the strongest oil power in the region. However, that supply has raised concerns after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had to go through a complicated fourth anticancer surgery in Havana, the capital of Cuba, including the removal of two vertebras of his backbone, and his previous announced warning on the possibility that he could not continue in office.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

UPI: BP asked to be open about gulf accident

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/12/14/BP-asked-to-be-open-about-gulf-accident/UPI-11721355482965/

Published: Dec. 14, 2012 at 6:02 AM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 (UPI) — British energy company BP is suspected of withholding evidence about a new oil sheen in the Gulf of Mexico, Democratic lawmakers said.

The U.S. Coast Guard, BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have worked to assess sheen observed in the Gulf of Mexico this fall. The Coast Guard confirmed that sheen was from the well that failed in 2010 and backed plans for a subsea survey.

U.S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., members of House energy committees, called on BP, the Coast Guard and other concerned parties to disclose what they’ve learned about the latest incidents.

“There is no statute of limitations or protections for a crime against the environment, and BP should immediately hand over any and all information related to this new chapter in their oil spill disaster,” Markey said in a statement.

BP had put a 750-pound cap over an opening in the so-called cofferdam, which was a failed attempt to seal the leak that resulted from an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in 2010.

Duke Walker, federal on-scene coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon response, was quoted by New Orleans broadcaster WWL-TV as saying the “only” place oil could be was in the containment dome.

“During all three of our previous missions, we found no indications on any of the three well head sites, particularly the primary, that there was anything to be concerned about, and there was no sign of leaking oil,” he said. “Out of an abundance of caution, every time we’re down there, we’ll look again to verify that that’s the still case.”

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/12/10/BP-in-hot-seat-for-Gulf-of-Mexico-sheen/UPI-51801355142586/#ixzz2F8ALJCZv

UPI: BP in hot seat for Gulf of Mexico sheen

Published: Dec. 10, 2012 at 7:29 AM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 (UPI) — U.S. lawmakers said they were turning to the U.S. Coast Guard to get information about sheen from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig accident.

The Coast Guard, BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have worked to assess sheen observed in the Gulf of Mexico in late September. The Coast Guard confirmed the sheen was from the well that failed in 2010 and backed plans for a subsea survey.

U.S. Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif., members of House energy committees, issued a letter to the Coast Guard requesting more information about sheen observed in the area of the Deepwater Horizon wreck.

Markey and Waxman said they were concerned about lingering environmental effects from the 2010 spill.

“It is imperative that BP take all available actions to mitigate further environmental damage from its oil spill,” the letter read.

A review of peer-reviewed research on the spill by the U.S. Geological Survey said “for the most part” oil spilled during the incident was consumed by bacteria.

BP had put a 750-pound cap over an opening in the so-called cofferdam, which was a failed attempt to seal the leak that resulted from an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in 2010.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

CBS Evening News: Oil may be seeping from Deepwater Horizon site

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57558916/oil-may-be-seeping-from-deepwater-horizon-site/

Not again. This is so unbelieveable. It never ends! DV

December 13, 2012 7:42 AM

By
Sharyl Attkisson

PLAY CBS NEWS VIDEO

CBS News has learned that BP is set to embark Thursday on the fifth day of a little-known subsea mission under Coast Guard supervision to look for any new oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The BP oil rig exploded in 2010, killing 11 workers and sending a total estimated 206 million gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for three months before it was capped.
In September, a new oil sheen was spotted about 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. Tests confirmed the oil came from the infamous Macondo well underneath the Deepwater Horizon. BP’s underwater vehicle observed oil seeping from the well’s containment dome and, after a remote operation, declared the leaks plugged on October 23. The company and the Coast Guard said it wasn’t feasible to clean up the slick, and that it didn’t pose a risk to the shoreline.

But more oil continues to surface. Slicks and sheens of varying sizes and shapes have been documented by satellite photos, as well as aerial video recorded by the non-profit environmental group “On Wings of Care.” It’s suspected that an unknown amount of oil trapped in the containment dome, and in the wreckage and equipment from 2010, could be seeping out.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., helped lead the original investigation of BP after the Deepwater Horizon exploded, and says it’s deja vu: BP is not turning over videos and information requested by Congress.

“My concern is that substantial amounts of oil could still be leaking from the wreckage,” Markey told CBS News.

Last month, BP pleaded guilty to more than a dozen felonies from the 2010 disaster, including lying to Congress about how much oil was really pouring into the water.

Markey says BP is now repeating its stonewalling behavior of two years ago. For more than two months, Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., have been asking BP for underwater video and information such as the size of the slicks and how much oil could be trapped, but BP has said it will not provide the information due to pending investigations and litigation.

“Back in 2010, I said BP was either lying or incompetent. Well, it turns out they were both,” says Markey. “This is the same crime scene, and the American public today is entitled to the same information that BP was lying about in 2010 so that we can understand the full dimension of the additional environmental damage.”

BP spent a fortune after the 2010 disaster — on ads to improve its image. It also spent $18 billion on cleanup and victims, and $4.5 billion more to settle criminal charges.
The Coast Guard canceled an interview with CBS News at the last minute on Wednesday. BP also declined to be interviewed but told us in a statement, “The Macondo well and its associated relief wells are secure.” BP also says it will work with the Coast Guard “on any further steps, as needed, to address the results” of this week’s survey of the wells and wreckage where oil from 2010 could still be trapped.

_________________

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Ocean Foundation: Arctic Shipping is a Disaster Waiting to Happen by Richard Steiner

http://www.oceanfdn.org/blog/?p=1303

Posted on December 8, 2012

By Richard Steiner

When the Malaysian freighter Selendang Ayu grounded in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands eight years ago this week, it was a tragic reminder of the growing risks of northern shipping. While in-route from Seattle to China, in a fierce Bering Sea winter storm with 70-knot winds and 25-foot seas, the ship’s engine failed. As it drifted toward shore, there were no adequate ocean tugs available to take it in-tow, and it grounded off Unalaska Island on December 8, 2004. Six crewmen were lost, the vessel broke in half, and its entire cargo and over 335,000 gallons of heavy fuel spilled oil into waters of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge). Like other large marine spills, this spill was not contained, and it killed thousands of seabirds and other marine wildlife, closed fisheries, and contaminated many miles of shoreline.

Like most industrial disasters, the Selendang Ayu tragedy was caused by a dangerous combination of human error, financial pressures, mechanical failure, lax and government oversight, ([PDF]Grounding of Malaysian-flag Bulk Carrier M/V Selendang Ayu on). For a time, the disaster focused attention the risk of northern shipping. But while some risk factors were addressed, complacency quickly returned. Today, the Selendang tragedy is all but forgotten, and with increasing ship traffic, the risk now is greater than ever.

Every day, some 10-20 large merchant ships – container ships, bulk carriers, car carriers, and tankers – travel the “great circle route” between Asia and North America along the 1,200-mile Aleutian chain. As trade rebounds from the recession, shipping along this route is steadily increasing. And as global warming continues to melt summer sea ice, ship traffic is also rapidly increasing across the Arctic Ocean. This past summer, a record 46 merchant ships transited the Northern Sea Route between Europe and Asia across the Russian arctic (Barents Observer), a ten-fold increase from just two years ago. Over 1 million tons of cargo was hauled on the route in both directions this summer (a 50% increase over 2011), and most of this was hazardous petroleum product such as diesel fuel, jet fuel, and gas condensate. And the first Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tanker in history traveled the route this year, carrying LNG from Norway to Japan in half the time it would have taken to travel the normal Suez route. The volume of oil and gas shipped on the Northern Sea Route is projected to reach 40 million tons annually by 2020. There is also increasing traffic of cruise ships (particularly around Greenland), fishing vessels, and ships servicing arctic oil and gas facilities and mines.

This is risky business. These are large vessels, carrying hazardous fuel and cargo, sailing treacherous seas along ecologically sensitive shorelines, operated by companies whose commercial imperatives often subvert safety, and with virtually no prevention or emergency response infrastructure along the way. Much of this traffic is foreign flagged and on “innocent passage,” under a Flag-of-Convenience

(What are Flags of Convenience?), with a Crew-of-Convenience, and with lower safety standards. And it all happens virtually out-of-sight, out-of-mind of the public and government regulators. Each of these ship transits puts at risk human life, economy, and environment, and the risk is growing every year. Shipping brings with it invasive species introductions, underwater noise, ship-strikes on marine mammals, and stack emissions. But as some of these vessels carry millions of gallons of heavy fuel, and tankers carry tens of millions of gallons of petroleum or chemicals, clearly the greatest fear is a catastrophic spill.

In response to the Selendang disaster, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, Alaska Natives, and commercial fishermen joined together in the Shipping Safety Partnership to advocate comprehensive safety improvements along the Aleutian and Arctic shipping routes (Alaska Oil Spill Motivates New Shipping Safety Coalition). In 2005, the Partnership called for real-time tracking of all ships, ocean rescue tugs, emergency tow packages, routing agreements, areas-to-be-avoided, increased financial liability, better aids-to-navigation, enhanced pilotage, mandatory communication protocols, better spill response equipment, increased cargo fees, and vessel traffic risk assessments. A few of these (the “low-hanging fruit”) have been implemented: additional tracking stations have been built, portable tow packages are pre-staged in Dutch Harbor, there is more funding and spill response equipment, an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment was conducted (PUBLICATIONS > Related > AMSA – U.S. Arctic Research …), and an Aleutian shipping risk assessment is underway (Aleutian Islands Risk Assessment Project Home Page).

But in reducing the overall risk of Arctic and Aleutian shipping, the glass is still perhaps one-quarter full, three-quarters empty. The system is far from secure. For instance, ship-tracking remains inadequate, and still there are no powerful ocean rescue tugs stationed along the routes. By comparison, after Exxon Valdez, Prince William Sound now has eleven escort & response tugs on standby for its tankers (Alyeska Pipeline – TAPS – SERVS). In the Aleutians, a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report concluded: “None of the existing measures are adequate for responding to large vessels under severe weather conditions.”

Two areas of greatest concern, through which most of these ships travel, are Unimak Pass (between the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea in the eastern Aleutians), and Bering Strait (between the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean). As these areas support more marine mammals, seabirds, fish, crab, and overall productivity than virtually any other ocean ecosystem in the world, the risk is clear. One wrong turn or loss of power of a loaded tanker or freighter in these passes could easily lead to a major spill disaster. Accordingly, both Unimak Pass and Bering Strait were recommended in 2009 for international designation as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, and Marine National Monuments or Sanctuaries, but the U.S. government has yet to act on this recommendation (Don’t Expect New Marine Sanctuaries Under … – Common Dreams).

Clearly, we need to get a handle on this now, before the next disaster. All of the Shipping Safety Partnership’s recommendations from 2005 (above) should immediately be implemented across the Aleutian and Arctic shipping routes, particularly continuous ship tracking and rescue tugs. Industry should pay for it all via cargo fees. And, governments should make mandatory the International Maritime Organization’s Guidelines for Ships Operating in Arctic ice-covered Waters (IMO | Polar Shipping Safety), enhance search and rescue capacity, and establish Regional Citizens’ Advisory Councils (Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council) to oversee all offshore commercial activities.

Arctic shipping is a disaster waiting to happen. It’s not if, but when and where the next disaster will occur. It could be tonight or years from now; it could be in Unimak Pass, Bering Strait, Novaya Zemlya, Baffin Island, or Greenland. But it will happen. Arctic governments and the shipping industry need to get serious about reducing this risk as much as possible, and soon.

Richard Steiner conducts the Oasis Earth project – a global consultancy working with NGOs, governments, industry, and civil society to speed the transition to an environmentally sustainable society. Oasis Earth conducts Rapid Assessments for NGOs in developing nations on critical conservation challenges, reviews environmental assessments, and conducts fully developed studies.

Special thanks to Mark Spalding and The Ocean Foundation.

Truthout.org: BP to Shareholders: We’re Already Working With EPA to Lift Federal Contract Ban

http://truth-out.org/

Thursday, 29 November 2012 10:28 By Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report

Despite a long history of “egregious violations,” the behemoth oil company’s temporary suspension from obtaining lucrative government contracts may turn out to be much shorter than expected.

“BP is a serious serial corporate environmental criminal and a corporate serial killer…. [The company] always settles its cases with the government and promises to change its culture, but it continues to do the same thing over and over again.”
– Jeanne Pascal, former EPA debarment counsel
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a surprise announcement stating that, effective immediately, the oil behemoth and more than a dozen of its subsidiary companies will be “ineligible” to “receive any federal contract or approved subcontract” as a result of BP’s agreement to plead guilty two weeks ago to a wide range of crimes directly related to the deadly April 2010 disaster in the Gulf.

“EPA is taking this action due to BP’s lack of business integrity as demonstrated by the company’s conduct with regard to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill and response as reflected by the filing [by the Justice Department] of a criminal information,” the EPA said in its statement.

The notice of suspension, sent to BP PLC chief executive Robert Dudley, states that on November 23 the EPA’s suspension and debarment division recommended that BP immediately be suspended from government contract work. The notice of suspension typically is preceded by a complaint document that lays out all of the reasons suspension and debarment is sought. The EPA did not provide Truthout with a copy of the complaint.

In a news release BP issued after it settled criminal charges related to the Gulf disaster, BP said the company “has not been advised of the intention of any federal agency to suspend or debar the company in connection with this plea agreement.”

The EPA’s announcement, which does not apply to BP’s existing federal contracts, was made the same day the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management opened up for sale to oil companies more than 20 million acres in the Western Gulf of Mexico for oil and natural gas exploration and development. Also, on Wednesday, two BP supervisors who were aboard the Deepwater Horizon when it exploded were arraigned on manslaughter charges, and a former BP vice president was arraigned on false statements and obstruction of Congress. All three pleaded not guilty.

A BP spokeswoman said the company already had decided before the decision by the EPA to sit out Wednesday’s lease sale. But the EPA’s suspension would also have covered new drilling leases and so the timing of the agency’s announcement does not appear to be coincidental. BP was the high bidder in June for 43 leases to drill in the Central Gulf of Mexico, not far from the site of where the Macondo well ruptured and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the waters. BP is the largest deepwater leaseholder in the Gulf.

But after the EPA announced BP’s suspension, BP quickly issued a statement, downplaying the EPA’s action and attempting to reassure its shareholders, saying that the corporation “has been in regular dialogue with the EPA” and is already negotiating with federal regulators to lift the ban.

“The EPA has informed BP that it is preparing a proposed administrative agreement that, if agreed upon, would effectively resolve and lift this temporary suspension,” BP’s statement says. “The EPA notified BP that such a draft agreement would be available soon.”

BP noted that it has already provided “both a present responsibility statement of more than 100 pages and supplemental answers to the EPA’s questions based on that submission.”

“Moreover, in support of BP’s efforts to establish present responsibility, the US Department of Justice agreed, in the plea agreement, that it will advise any appropriate suspension or debarment authority that in the Department’s view, BP has accepted criminal responsibility for its conduct relating to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill and response,” BP’s statement said.

However, in a statement issued to Truthout, the EPA said that while the agency cannot specifically comment on BP’s claims about negotiations to lift the contracting ban, the plea agreement the company entered into “includes a remedial order that, if accepted by the court at sentencing, will specifically provide for BP to submit to the government a plan for addressing the conditions which gave rise to the statutory violations within 60 days.

“This plan must be approved by the government, at which time it becomes a condition of BP’s criminal probation,” the EPA statement said. “In addition, there are pending civil proceedings. The suspension could therefore continue until those proceedings are completed.”

Those civil proceedings could continue for at least another year.

Still, Scott Amey, general counsel with the watchdog organization Project on Government Oversight (POGO), which applauded the temporary suspension, said he is not surprised that “BP is doing its due diligence to convince the government that is a responsible company.

“However, the EPA should be watchful of promises, especially this late in the game,” Amey added. “A company’s culture can’t change overnight or over the course of a few days.”

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer cited the company’s corporate culture, in which it puts profits ahead of the safety and integrity of its operations, during a news conference in New Orleans two weeks ago, where the Justice Department announced that it had reached a settlement with BP over crimes related to the Gulf disaster.

“The explosion of the [Deepwater Horizon] was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence,” Breuer said.

BP’s corporate culture has resulted in more than $10 billion in civil and criminal penalties against the oil giant over the past 17 years, evidenced most significantly by more than 700 infractions and/or violations identified by federal regulators in 2010 at its refineries, and alleged neglect at its other drilling rig in the Gulf called Atlantis.

It was BP’s negligence at the company’s Texas City refinery and its pipelines in Alaska, along with its manipulation of the Midwest propane market, to cite just a few examples, that originally led former EPA debarment counsel Jeanne Pascal to recommend in 2010 that the company be stripped of receiving additional federal contracts.

Pascal made that recommendation just a couple of months before the Gulf disaster and her retirement from the agency. She said she had prepared a “suspension and debarment complaint” against BP, “with about 60 exhibits, but “the debarment action went nowhere, not even after the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Pascal told Truthout the EPA should not be engaging in any settlement discussions with BP over their federal contracts. She said BP’s statement tells her that the EPA gave the company a “heads-up” about the suspension.

“BP is a serious serial corporate environmental criminal and a corporate serial killer,” Pascal said. “They killed eleven people in the Gulf and fifteen people in Texas City – 26 people in the span of five years. BP always settles its cases with the government and promises to change its culture but it continues to do the same thing over and over again. They need to be held to the same standard that other [suspension and debarment] respondents are held to.”

A passionate environmentalist, Pascal said she believes there are certain companies whose “egregious violations” don’t warrant settlement, and BP is one of them.
“BP has killed millions of fish and marine mammals; they have ruined the fisheries in the Gulf as well as the tourist industry. The paltry $4 billion settlement [BP entered into with the government earlier this month] is not nearly enough to rectify the damage BP has done to the Gulf and its people. It’s not in the public interest to settle with BP at this time,” she said. “The government should insist on a period of years in which BP proves its corrupt corporate culture has changed, and that is has stopped putting profit over American lives and the safety of the environment.”

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) agreed that BP’s conduct warranted suspension.
“After pleading guilty to such reckless behavior that killed men and constituted a crime against the environment, suspending BP’s access to contracts with our government is the right thing to do,” said Markey, the ranking member o f the Natural Resources Committee. “When someone recklessly crashes a car, their license and keys are taken away. The wreckage of BP’s recklessness is still sitting at the bottom of the ocean and this kind of time out is an appropriate element of the suite of criminal, civil and economic punishments that BP should pay for their disaster.”

Rena Steinzor, the president of the Center for Progressive Reform and a professor a the University of Maryland School of Law, made the case for permanently debarring BP from receiving federal contracts because of its poor safety record.

But Amey, the POGO attorney, said, “suspension of large contractors doesn’t last that long. In past cases, it has lasted mere days.”

Pascal said suspension and debarment is an action taken “because of an immediate need for the government to protect itself.”

“I can guarantee you the EPA coordinated this action with the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense,” Pascal said. “EPA normally suspends or debars a company guilty of environmental crimes in the wake of a criminal action because conduct rising to criminal conduct is not presently responsible. This suspension is clearly designed to prevent BP from bidding on leases. That was, in part, the immediate need that needed action.”

BP’s contracting work has been a financial boon for the corporation.

In September, while BP was engaged in settlement discussions with the government over its role in the Gulf disaster, the company was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in new Pentagon fuel contracts.

BP PLC is one of the Pentagon’s main fuel suppliers and one of the government’s top 100 contractors, with $1.47 billion worth in Fiscal Year 2011, which represents 179 government contracts, according to the web site USASpending.gov. This year alone, BP has won $1.1 billion in federal contracts. In just two years, BP has earned from the government more than half the money it is obligated to pay in fines related to the Gulf disaster.

At the same time, according to POGO, BP has racked up more instances of misconduct – 61 since 1995 -than any of the other top 100 corporations that receive government contracts and has paid $10 billion in civil and criminal penalties.
In an interview in 2010, Pascal said she had to proceed with caution when she considered debarring the oil company from receiving government contracts because of its relationship with the Pentagon.

“If I had debarred BP while they were supplying 80 percent of the fuel to US forces it would have been almost certain that the Defense Department would have been forced to get an exception,” Pascal said.

She noted at the time that the 80 percent figure was provided by her “contact,” an attorney, who works at the Defense Energy Support Center, part of the Defense Logistics Agency, which is responsible for purchasing all of the fuel for the military.
A Defense Logistics Agency spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.
Because the Pentagon is so heavily reliant on BP for fuel, top Pentagon officials can still seek to lift the ban for BP if they write a justification letter to Congress requesting permission to use the suspended contractor.

Pascal pointed to an executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1986 authorizing the federal government to use suspended, debarred or excluded contractors, in certain circumstances:
An agency may grant an exception permitting a debarred, suspended, or excluded party to participate in a particular transaction upon a written determination by the agency head or authorized designee stating the reason(s) for deviating from this Presidential policy. However, I intend that exceptions to this policy should be granted only infrequently.

BP has to convince the federal government that it’s now a responsible corporation in order to win back the government’s business. But Pascal rattled off a list of major violations dating back to 1999 that she said proves BP’s “promises and assurances” should not be “trusted as truth.”

“BP needs to prove they have changed,” she said. “The Deepwater Horizon disaster was too extensive to trust BP…. Promises from this company should be disregarded.”
Copyright, Truthout.

Jason Leopold
Jason Leopold is lead investigative reporter of Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit jasonleopold.com for a preview. His most recent investigative report, “From Hopeful Immigrant to FBI Informant: The Inside Story of the Other Abu Zubaidah,” is now available as an ebook. Follow Jason on Twitter: @JasonLeopold.
Related Stories
BP Faces Fines of Up to $10 Billion, Plus Jail Time for Guilty Officials
By Alexander Cockburn, Truthout | Op-Ed
BP Is Messing With the Wrong Woman
By David Swanson, War is a Crime | Report
BP Blamed for Ongoing Health Problems
By Dahr Jamail, Al Jazeera English | Report and Video
BP Covered Up Blow-out Two Years Prior to Deadly Deepwater Horizon Spill
By Greg Palast, EcoWatch | News Analysis (Video)
BP Amnesia: Life and Death After the Spill
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis

Special thanks to Richard Charter

KUOW: Sea Trial Leaves Shell’s Arctic Oil-Spill Gear “Crushed Like A Beer Can”

http://www.kuow.org/post/sea-trial-leaves-shells-arctic-oil-spill-gear-crushed-beer-can

By JOHN RYAN

Credit BSEE
The Arctic Challenger’s containment dome, crumpled after a field test in Puget Sound

Shell Oil has been building and testing equipment designed for the Arctic Ocean here in Puget Sound. In September, a key test of underwater oil-spill equipment was a spectacular failure.

It forced the energy giant to postpone drilling into oil-bearing rocks beneath the Arctic Ocean until next summer. Shell and its federal regulators have been tight-lipped about the failed test.

But a freedom-of-information request reveals what happened beneath the surface of Puget Sound.

The final obstacle to Arctic drilling
Before Shell can drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, it needs to prove to federal officials that it can clean up a massive oil spill there. That proof hinges on a barge being built in Bellingham called the Arctic Challenger.

The barge is only one component of Shell’s plans for handling oil spills off the remote north coast of Alaska. But the Obama Administration won’t let oil drilling get under way until the 36-year-old barge and its brand new oil-spill equipment are in place.

On board the Arctic Challenger is a massive steel “containment dome.” It’s a sort of giant underwater vacuum cleaner. If efforts to cap a blown-out well don’t work, the dome can capture spewing oil and funnel it to a tanker on the surface.

The Arctic Challenger passed several US Coast Guard tests for seaworthiness in September. But it was a different story when its oil-spill containment system was put to the test in 150-foot-deep water near Anacortes, Washington.

The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement required the test of the oil-spill system.

“Breached like a whale”
According to BSEE internal emails obtained by KUOW, the containment dome test was supposed to take about a day. That estimate proved to be wildly optimistic.

Day 1: The Arctic Challenger’s massive steel dome comes unhooked from some of the winches used to maneuver it underwater. The crew has to recover it and repair it.
Day 2: A remote-controlled submarine gets tangled in some anchor lines. It takes divers about 24 hours to rescue the submarine.

Day 5: The test has its worst accident. On that dead-calm Friday night, Mark Fesmire, the head of BSEE’s Alaska office, is on board the Challenger. He’s watching the underwater video feed from the remote-control submarine when, a little after midnight, the video screen suddenly fills with bubbles. The 20-foot-tall containment dome then shoots to the surface. The massive white dome “breached like a whale,” Fesmire e-mails a colleague at BSEE headquarters.

Then the dome sinks more than 120 feet. A safety buoy, basically a giant balloon, catches it before it hits bottom. About 12 hours later, the crew of the Challenger manages to get the dome back to the surface. “As bad as I thought,” Fesmire writes his BSEE colleague. “Basically the top half is crushed like a beer can.”

Representatives of Shell Oil and for BSEE declined to answer questions or allow interviews about the mishaps. In an email, Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh writes:
Our internal investigation determined the Arctic Challenger’s dome was damaged when it descended too quickly due to a faulty electrical connection, which improperly opened a valve. While safety systems ensured it did not hit the bottom, buoyancy chambers were damaged from the sudden pressure change.

Environmental groups say the Arctic Challenger’s multiple problems show that Shell isn’t prepared for an Arctic oil spill.

Environmentalist Todd Guiton lives on Sehome Hill in Bellingham. His condo overlooks the Bellingham Shipping Terminal, where the Arctic Challenger has been under construction for a year now.

“Just look out our window, and there it is,” Guiton says.

He says the steel dome came back from its sea trial with its top half crumpled like a piece of paper. In the two months since, Guiton says, he’s been watching Shell contractors rebuild the dome and reinforce it with more steel.
“This has to be a very beefy operation to do what they claim it’ll do,” Guiton says.

It failed under very calm, tranquil conditions in the best time of year up here in the Pacific Northwest. If it can’t handle the best we have here, I really have my doubts it can handle even a little adversity in the Arctic.

Spokeswoman op de Weegh wouldn’t say what Shell is doing to fix the dome or when it would be ready for testing again.

Earlier in November, the Obama administration called for more research into handling oil spills in the far North.

The Arctic Research Commission said oil-spill experiments and tests need to be done in the Arctic Ocean and that federal regulators need more staff or more time to properly vet proposals for offshore drilling at the top of the world.

Emails obtained by KUOW between Mark Fesmire, the head of BSEE’s Alaska office, and his colleague at BSEE.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Cuba Standard: Russian oil company to invest $126m in offshore exploration

http://www.cubastandard.com/2012/11/17/russian-oil-company-to-invest-126m-in-offshore-exploration/

November 17, 2012

Russian state oil company Zarubezhneft will spend close to $126 million on near-shore exploration off north-central Cuba that will begin in December, a Russian official said during a visit to the island.

The Songa Mercur, a Soviet-built and Norwegian-owned semi-submersible, arrived Nov. 15 in Cuban waters, Russian Comptroller Sergei Stepashin confirmed. According to Russian news service rt.com, a delegation of Russian and Cuban officials visited the platform Thursday, after it arrived in Cuban waters from Trinidad & Tobago. The group included Stepashin, Zarubezhneft CEO Nikolay Brunich, and Russia’s ambassador to Havana, Mikhail Kamyshin.

Zarubezhneft chartered the semi-submersible for 325 days to drill in Block L, the easternmost of four blocks the company leased in 2009. Block L is located off the keys of Villa Clara province, near Cayo Santa María, a new beach tourism destination Cuba has been developing over the past 10 years.

The first exploration results, according to Stepashin, will be announced in May.

“It’s an important investment, but it’s an investment in the future,” Stepashin said, according to RIA Novosti, before meeting with Raúl Castro. Both expressed confidence, according to the Russian news service.

“We hope that in a fourth intent, following three failed ones, we will see ‘big oil’,” the Russian official said, referring to exploratory drilling this year by the Scarabeo 9 platform. “This would be of enormous help to the Cuban economy and a step ahead in our relations, as well as a response to the defenders of the [U.S. embargo].”

Zarubezhneft’s confidence is based on prospecting done by the Soviet predecessor company, he said.

The Songa Mercur is owned by Oslo-based Songa Offshore AS. The shallow-water rig, built in in a Soviet shipyard 1989 and updated in Galveston, Texas, in 2007, can drill in depths of up to 1,200 feet. In contrast, the Scarabeo 9 platform, used by Repsol, Petronas and PdVSA in Cuba, can drill in depths up to 12,000 feet; the Scarabeo was custom-built in China and Singapore with minimal U.S. content, to comply with U.S. sanctions.

Zarubezhneft subsidiary JSC RMNTK Nefteotdacha has also begun onshore prospecting in the Boca de Jaruco area near Havana and expects to begin drilling in March or April. Last year, the Russian oil company signed an agreement with CubaPetróleo about the use of experimental technology to maximize production in the mature oil field. If the technology is successful, Zarubezhneft and CubaPetróleo will expand their cooperation.

Before the visit to the oil rig, Stepashin and Cuban officials signed anti-corruption agreements in Havana that include training and professional enhancement courses for Cuban auditors.

Zarubezhneft is drilling in Block L, the easternmost of four blocks contracted in 2009

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: U.S. Poised To Become World’s Top Oil Producer; May Soon Overtake Saudi Arabia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/us-worlds-top-oil-producer_n_2006640.html?ir=Green

By JONATHAN FAHEY 10/23/12 04:10 PM ET EDT

NEW YORK – U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer.

Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951.

The boom has surprised even the experts.

“Five years ago, if I or anyone had predicted today’s production growth, people would have thought we were crazy,” says Jim Burkhard, head of oil markets research at IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm.

The Energy Department forecasts that U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, which includes biofuels, will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year. That would be a record for the U.S. and just below Saudi Arabia’s output of 11.6 million barrels. Citibank forecasts U.S. production could reach 13 million to 15 million barrels per day by 2020, helping to make North America “the new Middle East.”

The last year the U.S. was the world’s largest producer was 2002, after the Saudis drastically cut production because of low oil prices in the aftermath of 9/11. Since then, the Saudis and the Russians have been the world leaders.

The United States will still need to import lots of oil in the years ahead. Americans use 18.7 million barrels per day. But thanks to the growth in domestic production and the improving fuel efficiency of the nation’s cars and trucks, imports could fall by half by the end of the decade.

The increase in production hasn’t translated to cheaper gasoline at the pump, and prices are expected to stay relatively high for the next few years because of growing demand for oil in developing nations and political instability in the Middle East and North Africa.

Still, producing more oil domestically, and importing less, gives the economy a significant boost.

The companies profiting range from independent drillers to large international oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, which increasingly see the U.S. as one of the most promising places to drill. ExxonMobil agreed last month to spend $1.6 billion to increase its U.S. oil holdings.

Increased drilling is driving economic growth in states such as North Dakota, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana and Texas, all of which have unemployment rates far below the national average of 7.8 percent. North Dakota is at 3 percent; Oklahoma, 5.2.

Businesses that serve the oil industry, such as steel companies that supply drilling pipe and railroads that transport oil, aren’t the only ones benefiting. Homebuilders, auto dealers and retailers in energy-producing states are also getting a lift.

IHS says the oil and gas drilling boom, which already supports 1.7 million jobs, will lead to the creation of 1.3 million jobs across the U.S. economy by the end of the decade.

“It’s the most important change to the economy since the advent of personal computers pushed up productivity in the 1990s,” says economist Philip Verleger, a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics.

The major factor driving domestic production higher is a newfound ability to squeeze oil out of rock once thought too difficult and expensive to tap. Drillers have learned to drill horizontally into long, thin seams of shale and other rock that holds oil, instead of searching for rare underground pools of hydrocarbons that have accumulated over millions of years.

To free the oil and gas from the rock, drillers crack it open by pumping water, sand and chemicals into the ground at high pressure, a process is known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”

While expanded use of the method has unlocked enormous reserves of oil and gas, it has also raised concerns that contaminated water produced in the process could leak into drinking water.

The surge in oil production has other roots, as well:
_ A long period of high oil prices has given drillers the cash and the motivation to spend the large sums required to develop new techniques and search new places for oil. Over the past decade, oil has averaged $69 a barrel. During the previous decade, it averaged $21.

_ Production in the Gulf of Mexico, which slowed after BP’s 2010 well disaster and oil spill, has begun to climb again. Huge recent finds there are expected to help growth continue.

_ A natural gas glut forced drillers to dramatically slow natural gas exploration beginning about a year ago. Drillers suddenly had plenty of equipment and workers to shift to oil.

The most prolific of the new shale formations are in North Dakota and Texas. Activity is also rising in Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio and other states.

Production from shale formations is expected to grow from 1.6 million barrels per day this year to 4.2 million barrels per day by 2020, according to Wood Mackenzie, an energy consulting firm. That means these new formations will yield more oil by 2020 than major oil suppliers such as Iran and Canada produce today.

U.S. oil and liquids production reached a peak of 11.2 million barrels per day in 1985, when Alaskan fields were producing enormous amounts of crude, then began a long decline. From 1986 through 2008, crude production fell every year but one, dropping by 44 percent over that period. The United States imported nearly 60 percent of the oil it burned in 2006.

By the end of this year, U.S. crude output will be at its highest level since 1998 and oil imports will be lower than at any time since 1992, at 41 percent of consumption.
“It’s a stunning turnaround,” Burkhard says.

Whether the U.S. supplants Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest producer will depend on the price of oil and Saudi production in the years ahead. Saudi Arabia sits on the world’s largest reserves of oil, and it raises and lowers production to try to keep oil prices steady.

Saudi output is expected to remain about flat between now and 2017, according to the International Energy Agency.

But Saudi oil is cheap to tap, while the methods needed to tap U.S. oil are very expensive. If the price of oil falls below $75 per barrel, drillers in the U.S. will almost certainly begin to cut back.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that global oil prices, which have averaged $107 per barrel this year, will slip to an average of $89 over the next five years – not a big enough drop to lead companies to cut back on exploration deeply.

Nor are they expected to fall enough to bring back the days of cheap gasoline. Still, more of the money that Americans spend at filling stations will flow to domestic drillers, which are then more likely to buy equipment here and hire more U.S. workers.

“Drivers will have to pay high prices, sure, but at least they’ll have a job,” Verleger says.
___
Follow Jonathan Fahey on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JonathanFahey

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Canada Politics: ‘Defend our coast’ protesters to stage mass rally at B.C. legislature over Northern Gateway pipeline

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/defend-coast-protesters-stage-mass-rally-b-c-152951842.html

By Andy Radia
Politics Reporter

By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 14 hours ago

Anti-oil pipeline activists have planned two events: one rally starting on Monday morning on the grounds of the Š

It’s going to be a protest-mania this week in British Columbia.

Anti-oil pipeline activists have planned two events: one rally starting on Monday morning on the grounds of the legislature and a series of rallies on Wednesday at MLA offices throughout the province.

Some are dubbing Monday’s sit-in the “largest act of peaceful civil disobedience on the climate issue that Canada has ever seen.” Organizers are expecting upwards of 3,500 protesters and a series of high profile guest speakers including Green Party leader Elizabeth May and B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix.

Zoe Blunt from the Forest Action Network says while she expects the event to be peaceful, they want to send a message to Prime Minister Harper and B.C. premier Christy Clark that Canadians don’t want tar sands pipelines and tankers on the west coast.

“We’re sending a signal to the government about exactly how strongly people feel about stopping tankers and pipelines and how far they’re willing to go to make sure that happens,” she told Yahoo! Canada News.

“People are willing to commit civil disobedience and they’re willing to risk arrest and risk their freedom to show the government that this is not acceptable. People will not accept this.”
The demonstrators will essentially be protesting in front of an empty building, given that the governing Liberals have cancelled the Fall sitting of the legislature.
The cancellation was one of the reasons organizers added the second day of protest, at the constituency offices of 55 MLAs.

George Hoberg, a UBC professor who is organizing the demonstration in premier Clark’s riding, says he’s expecting about 250 people at his event.

“We’re expecting [Clark] to be there, because if she’s not at the legislature she should really be in her constituency office, right?” he told Yahoo!.

The so-called ‘Defend our coast’ protests are endorsed by the likes of David Suzuki, Stephen Lewis, Daryl Hannah, Michael Moore, Ellen Page and Pamela Anderson.
In a recent interview with Vancouver Co-op Radio, reprinted at Rabble.ca, Suzuki talked about the need for civil disobedience in the battle against pipelines.

“I think we should be ready to put our bodies on the line if it’s imperative to really make a demonstration about how urgently we feel about this,” he said.

“We’ve got to be ready to put our bodies on the line.”

The protests get under way at 11am pacific standard time.

B.C. legislature jammed with pipeline protesters
: Thousands of opponents of the Northern Gateway pipeline packed the lawn at the B.C. legislature in Victoria.

[ Related: Jim Prentice predicts legal confrontation with First Nations over oil sands pipeline ]

Special thanks to Richard Charter

SustainableBusiness.com News: Amazon Farmers Seize Chevron Assets

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24191


This is the BEST news I have heard in ages. The last sentence is the zinger!!!!
DV

10/17/2012 02:17 PM

In a huge success for Amazon farmers that have been suing Chevron for 18 years, an Ecuadorian court ruled they can seize $200 million in assets from the oil company.

That includes $96.3 million the Ecuador government owes Chevron, money held in Ecuadorean bank accounts by Chevron, and licensing fees generated by the use of the company’s trademarks in the country, reports Reuters.

Chevron has been struggling to get out of paying $19 billion in damages to Ecuadorean villagers for polluting rivers with 16 billion gallons of oil sludge from 1964-1990.

This is a critically important case – the first time an indigenous community has prevailed against a multinational corporation. Oil companies are, of course, keeping close watch on this case as it provides an important precedent for communities to fight their pollution. Shell has a similar case against it in Nigeria.

The company even took it to the US Supreme court, which last week rejected Chevron’s attempt to overturn the $19 billion judgment against it.

The suit was originally brought against Texaco (bought by Chevron in 2001). In February 2011, an Ecuadorean judge imposed damages for $8.6 billion – the fine has more than doubled since then because Chevron has not made the public apology the court required.
Instead, the company filed an appeal in New York to block the judgment, saying it was illegal and unenforceable under the state’s law – and a federal judge took its side in March 2011.

But earlier this year, an appeals court overturned that decision, noting US courts can’t interfere with courts from other countries. So Chevron appealed again – this time to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of that appeal opened the door for this week’s ruling, issued in the Amazon town of Lago Agrio.

“This is a huge first step for the rainforest villagers on the road to collecting the entire $19 billion judgment,” Pablo Fajardo, the lead lawyer for the communities, told Reuters.
Chevron is fighting back again, charging racketeering against New York attorney Steven Donziger, a group of Ecuadoreans and the environmental groups that helped win the original judgment against it.

It is also bringing the matter to an international trade arbitration panel which is scheduled to begin hearings on the dispute in November, reports Reuters.

After the original judgment, Ecuador and the United Nations Development Program signed a historic deal to leave an estimated 846 million barrels of crude oil untapped beneath Yasuní National Park, a World Biosphere Reserve since 1989.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Examiner: Macondo not dead, BP hiding crude oil source

http://www.examiner.com/article/macondo-not-dead-bp-hiding-crude-oil-source

TOP NATIONAL NEWS OCTOBER 15, 2012BY: DEBORAH DUPRE

Government scientists definitively linked a new Gulf of Mexico oil slick, that has moved to some 90 miles from the sinkhole, to BP’s 2010 oil catastrophe, saying it is probably from a BP Deepwater Horizon rig pipe, but one expert is not buying it and people are demanding evidence about the source of the crude oil, both in the gulf and the sinkhole.

Catastrophic Gulf Operation continues

“People are demanding evidence of where the fresh crude is coming from, because the storyline that BP is floating out there now – that a small amount of leftover oil is now being released from a bent riser at the rig that exploded in 2010 – simply is not holding water,” environmental attorney Stuart Smith stated Monday in his blog post.

According to a senior government scientist, the most likely source of the new oil in the Gulf is the mile-long length of pipe from the Deepwater Horizon rig, now in a “crumpled loop on the ocean floor” near the Macondo well, the Guardian reported Friday.

“At worst, he said, the pipe was thought to contain some 1,800 barrels of oil – a minuscule amount compared with the 4.9m barrels that gushed into the ocean from BP’s well during the 2010 oil disaster.”

“When you look at all those pieces of information and put them together, there is a high degree of confidence that the oil we are seeing and the sheening on the surface is coming from the riser, and that this is residual oil,” said Frank Csulak, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) scientific co-ordinator for the Deepwater Horizon disaster site.

BP says its tests confirmed the oil was from the riser, and samples contained compounds found in drilling mud.

“The size of the sheen, its persistent point of origin and other factors indicate the most likely source is the bent riser pipe that once connected the rig to the well head, where a mix of oil, drilling mud and sea water were trapped after the top kill operation,” BP spokesman Brett Clanton said.

“It’s very reasonable and logical to conclude that maybe a little crack formed in one of the creases, in one of the bends, and that is where the oil is leaking out of.”

Last week, the sheen, only microns thick, extended three miles, from near the BP-wrecked Macondo well about 50 miles offshore of Louisiana and about 90 miles from the giant sinkhole that emerged in Bayou Corne. New evidence has shown that BP possibly cracked the ocean floor

The United States Coast Guard said in a statement Wednesday night that lab tests, performed at a government facility in Connecticut, matched the slick oil to the Deepwater Horizon.

The size and persistence of the new sheen near BP’s disaster site at Macondo well, first detected by satellite images on 9 September, prompted further investigation.

“The exact source of the oil is unclear at this time but [it] could be residual oil associated with the wreckage or debris left on the seabed from the Deepwater Horizon incident,” the Coast Guard said in a statement.

The Washington Post said other government officials said it is unlikely that oil could be leaking again from the original Macondo well head. Engineers poured thick plugs of cement into both ends of the well to finally cap it last July 2010, and officials said a new breach was very unlikely. “With what we did to it it’s pretty hard to imagine,” Marcia McNutt, who heads the US Geological Survey, told the Post.

A more detailed chemical analysis also ruled out a natural seep from the well reservoir. Csulak said researchers discovered the presence of drilling mud, which had been in the riser.

She appeared to “downplay concerns about more oil entering the Gulf.”
“We don’t feel that is causing an environmental impact. It’s not going to reach the shore-line.” McNutt said

Macondo not dead

Americans along the Gulf Coast still want answers about both the 2010 BP-wrecked Macondo Well and now, its possible relationship to south Louisiana’s monster sinkhole, both seeping crude oil and methane. Predictions had been made in 2010 that methane from the Macondo Well could cause a sinkhole problem.

Today, as one citizen reporter reports dissatisfaction seeing a large order of generators in a Panama City, Florida Home Depot heading to New Orleans, 70 miles from the disastrous crude-inundated sinkhole in Bayou Corne, environmental attorney Stuart Smith says he is not satisfied with answers provided by the government and BP.

(Watch “Alert! Imminent Disaster About to Happen in New Orleans” video on this page.)
Responding to what the Washington Post called “persistent rumors and allegations on blogs that Macondo is not truly dead, and that it is continuing to spew oil into the gulf,” Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, spoke to the Post.

McNutt said rough calculations show the riser, if full of oil, could hold around 1,000 barrels of oil and because it’s open on two ends, it’s unlikely to have that much oil.

“McNutt said it’s unlikely that oil came from the deep reservoir” of Macondo well.
“The well was plugged from both the top and the bottom, and has a mile of cement crammed into it.

“With what we did to it, it’s pretty hard to imagine, ” added McNutt.

Matt Simmons had claimed that what they did do was a sham, that the well-capping shown on TV was a performance, a “dog and pony show.” After the untimely death of Simmons, a surveyor, using government data, proved Simmons correct.

Now, according to Smith on Monday, BP and the government are still trying to hide the real cause of the sheen and people want the truth.

“BP wants us to believe that this new sheen is coming from residual oil from the Deepwater Horizon rig and the equipment that was used to cap it after the April 2010 explosion that killed 11 people and spewed an unbelievable 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico,” Smith states.

“But most experts fear that the more likely source is a more troubling scenario, which is that the efforts to cap the massive leak two years ago led to cracks in the sea floor that are releasing fresh oil that cannot easily be stopped.

Smith points to “a good independent analysis of the situation” as follows:
But there is not that much oil in the riser. As the Washington Post reported Wednesday:
Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said a rough calculation showed that the riser, if full of oil, could hold about 1,000 barrels of oil. Because it’s open on two ends it is unlikely to have that much oil, she said.

Indeed, Dr. Ian MacDonald – an expert in deep-ocean extreme communities including natural hydrocarbon seeps, gas hydrates, and mud volcano systems, a former long-time NOAA scientist, and a professor of Biological Oceanography at Florida State University-

told us today:
The key statement in the BP discussion was the fact that oil recovered on the ocean surface was not biodegraded. This is not consistent with a pool of oil supposedly trapped in the wreckage of the riser, which would have been exposed to ambient bacterial activity for over two years.

This piece also responds to the question, “So where is the oil coming from?”

We’re not sure yet. But top oil spill experts – such as UC Berkeley professor and government consultant Robert Bea and LSU professor Ed Overton – have told us that oil blowouts such as the one in the Gulf can create new pathways to the seafloor and enlarge natural oil seeps Š so that leaks can continue for years.

“Exactly,” says Smith. “But BP and the feds have plenty of good reason not to let people know if this is what’s indeed happening under the Gulf.

“That’s because that would mean that the Deepwater Horizon spill is still an ongoing event – one with no immediate end in sight – which would thwart the oil giant’s efforts to put the disaster behind them.”

Smith continues, “In particular, it would really mess up BP’s efforts to settle its ongoing legal woes from the 2010 explosion. I’ve told you a lot recently about problems with BP’s proposed $8.7 billion settlement about claims by Gulf residents and small businesses.”

“These things are not happening in a vacuum. They’re all connected,” Smith says, asserting what other independent scientists have said relating to the Louisiana sinkhole that is regurgitating and spreading crude from an unknown source throughout swamplands north of Macondo well.

“BP wants to sweep what’s going on at the Macondo field under the rug because it wants to settle its outstanding claims as quickly and with as little damage as possible. We can’t allow this to happen,” Smith asserts.

“There needs instead to be a thorough – and independent – investigation of where this new oil is really coming from.”

Citizens also want an independent investigation including one that answers how far far inland that crude can travel into south Louisiana, comprised mainly of water, and whether it is linked to or even triggered the giant sinkhole if BP cracked the ocean floor.

Smith explained on Oct. 4 that since BP wrecked the underwater Macondo well with its catastrophic deep sea drilling, blocked crude continues seeking a path to the surface, and that could create fissures or cracks in the sea floor for the hydrocarbons to escape.
According to Gary Hecox, Geologist with Shaw Environmental contracted by the Department of Natural Resources, 54,600 gallons of crude oil has been collected at the Bayou Corne sinkhole site near a collapsed storage cavern.

“Now we’ve got 1,300 barrels in a… tank,” Hecox said at a sinkhole Resident Meeting last Tuesday, after the sinkhole with an insatiable appetite for Cajun swampland grew to 4.2 acres. “If the source is coming in from crude, that resolves that discrepancy, but there is crude oil coming into the cavern.”

Deborah Dupré is author of the book, Vampire of Macondo, out soon.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Washington Post: Oil in new Gulf slick matches that of 2010 spill

By Steven Mufson and Joel Achenbach, Published: October 10

The oil in a slick detected in the Gulf of Mexico last month matched oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill two years ago, the Coast Guard said Wednesday night, ending one mystery and creating another. “The exact source of the oil is unclear at this time but could be residual oil associated with the wreckage or debris left on the seabed from the Deepwater Horizon incident,” the Coast Guard said.

The Coast Guard added that “the sheen is not feasible to recover and does not pose a risk to the shoreline.” One government expert said the thin sheen, just microns thick, was 3 miles by 300 yards on Wednesday.
Some oil drilling experts said it was unlikely that BP’s Macondo well, which suffered a blowout on April 20, 2010, was leaking again given the extra precautions taken when it was finally sealed after spilling nearly 5 million barrels of crude into the gulf.

BP declined to comment. But a BP internal slide presentation said the new oil sheen probably came from the riser, a long piece of pipe that had connected the drilling rig to the well a mile below the sea surface.

The presentation said that “the size and persistence of this slick, the persistent location of the oil slick origin point, the chemistry of the samples taken from the slick … suggest that the likely source of the slick is a leak of Macondo … oil mixed with drilling mud that had been trapped in the riser of the Deepwater Horizon rig.”

But Ian MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University and a spill expert, cautioned said that the origin of the new oil remains uncertain. “The jury is out here,” he said, adding that it was too early “to rule out that this is oil freshly released from the reservoir.”

The sheen, located about 50 miles off Louisiana’s shore in the Mississippi Canyon block 252 where the Macondo well was drilled, was detected in satellite images taken on Sept. 9 and Sept. 14. The Coast Guard said the size of the sheen has varied with weather conditions.

Samples of the crude were collected and sent to a Coast Guard laboratory in New London, Conn. On Tuesday, the Coast Guard told BP and Transocean, owner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that caught fire and sank, that the oil from the sheen and spill matched. In a meeting Wednesday, the Coast Guard told the companies to come up with a plan of action for determining the source. “No one’s 100 percent as to where it’s coming from,” said Frank Csulak, scientific support coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Since the disaster in 2010, which killed 11 workers, the wreckage of the massive rig, the crumpled riser and some hardware used in the attempt to kill the well have remained on the gulf floor. An August 2011 investigation, which came after oil blobs were observed on the surface and which included a visit to the wellhead by a remotely operated vehicle, turned up no sign that the well was leaking. That inspection was conducted by BP with federal government officials observing the process.

Nonetheless, there have been persistent rumors and allegations on blogs that Macondo is not truly dead, and that it is continuing to spew oil into the gulf. Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey, said a rough calculation showed that the riser, if full of oil, could hold about 1,000 barrels of oil. Because it’s open on two ends it is unlikely to have that much oil, she said.

McNutt said it’s unlikely that oil came from the deep reservoir. The well was plugged from both the top and the bottom, and has a mile of cement crammed into it. “With what we did to it, it’s pretty hard to imagine, ” McNutt said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NASDAQ: Officials Issue Notice To BP, Transocean Over Deepwater Horizon Oil Sheen

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/officials-issue-notice-to-bp-transocean-over-deepwater-horizon-oil-sheen-20121010-01271

Oct 10, 2012

The Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill issued a Notice of Federal Interest to BP PLC (BP) and Transocean Ltd. (RIG) this week due to an oil sheen in the spill area, a U.S. government statement said late Wednesday.

Coast Guard Capt. Duke Walker issued the notice Tuesday following sample results from an oil sheen near the area where the Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded and sank more than two years ago, the statement from the government website restorethegulf.gov said.
It said the sheen, spotted on satellite images last month and reported by BP, doesn’t pose a risk to the shoreline.

The notice “effectively informs BP and Transocean that the Coast Guard matched the sheen samples to the Deepwater Horizon spill or sunken drilling debris and that either party or both may be held accountable for any cost associated with further assessments or operations related to this sheen,” the statement said.

Government statement:
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2012/10/10/fosc-issues-notice-federal-interest-bp-and-transocean
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Media Matters: CNN’s Erin Burnett Gets It Wrong On Drilling And Gas Prices

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/10/cnns-erin-burnett-gets-it-wrong-on-drilling-and/190518

JILL FITZSIMMONS

CNN’s Erin Burnett claimed yesterday that drilling in the Arctic would lower U.S. gasoline prices, echoing a conservative narrative that has been debunked by energy experts across the ideological spectrum who say that expanding U.S. production will not affect the world oil market.

During a segment on Shell’s drilling expedition in the Arctic, Burnett suggested that “more drilling” in the U.S. is a solution to high gas prices in California and across the nation, saying: “One way to bring down costs, of course, would be more drilling and that is a highly political topic.”

Meanwhile, Piers Morgan has repeatedly suggested that President Obama’s energy policy is to blame for high gas prices.

But as their colleagues at CNN have explained, U.S. policies have little impact on the global price of oil. In April, CNN business correspondent Christine Romans said: “Republicans want to drill, drill, drill, drill, but just that won’t solve the problem … The only way to pay less for gas is to use less gas.”

Indeed, a recent analysis by the Associated Press found “[n]o statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.” Drilling in the Arctic won’t lower gas prices – it requires high prices. What NPR described as “Shell’s multibillion dollar gamble to make drilling in the Arctic profitable and environmentally safe” only makes economic sense if oil prices remain high.

Experts say that the long-term solution to U.S. vulnerability to high gas prices is not increasing oil production, but reducing our consumption by investing in fuel efficiency, public transit and alternative vehicles.

But drilling in the Arctic will only perpetuate our reliance on oil, and as Burnett went on to report, it could pose major environmental risks. Reports indicate that Shell may be unprepared to contain an oil spill in remote Arctic waters, which could be catastrophic for the fragile Arctic ecosystem. Even the CEO of Total, a French oil company, warned that the risk of an oil spill in the Arctic is too high to justify drilling there. And Arctic drilling will also release large amounts of methane and black carbon — greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Meanwhile, Alaskan natives have expressed concerns that industrial development in the region could threaten local wildlife and their way of life.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

USGS: Corals Damaged in the Deep Gulf of Mexico by Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2012/10/research3.html

Well, yeah, duh. This was the big risk all along, wasn’t it? The loss of biologically rich and diverse habitats? Hate to say I said so…….. DV

By Rachel Pawlitz
Sept. / Oct. 2012

Nearly 2 years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the meticulous, long-term efforts of scientists finally yielded the official results: the brown, wilted, dying corals found at Mississippi Canyon lease block 294 were indeed damaged by a plume of oil from the spill. For many, it seemed a foregone conclusion. What else could brown gunk (flocculent matter, if you’re a scientist) covering damaged corals 7 miles from the Deepwater Horizon drill site be, if not oil from the spill? Yet, to this team of scientists, it was worth taking a close look at the evidence with two-dimensional gas chromatography, sediment cores, coral samples, and mosaic imagery. Why? Because so much was at stake.

To understand the damage in the deep, the scientists had to start by understanding what was down there before the spill. To support that mission, enter U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research benthic ecologist Amanda Demopoulos (http://profile.usgs.gov/ademopoulos), who studies life on the seafloor to describe what types of organisms typically live together in deep-sea communities. Her work involves digging sediment cores from the ocean bottom and sorting through the many tiny life forms found there. (For example, see “Scientists Cruise Deep Into Coral Ecosystems,” Sound Waves, December 2009.)

In addition to deep-sea coral ecosystems, Demopoulos studies communities in parts of the Gulf where oil naturally seeps up from the seafloor and is in fact a wellspring of life, not a source of damage. Chemosynthetic ecosystems-the ones where food webs are based on chemicals rather than sunlight-tend to host different life forms, such as tubeworms.

Demopoulos was on the November 2010 research expedition that first discovered the damaged corals. Led by biology professor Charles Fisher of the Pennsylvania State University (http://bio.psu.edu/directory/crf2) and funded by the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the expedition’s goal was to build a scientific understanding of the various undersea ecosystems. It was part of a decades-long collaborative effort among federal and university scientists to explore deep-sea ecosystems in order to provide sound baseline information for management decisions about how to best balance natural-resource use with protection. Demopoulos recalled watching the first images from the damaged site come in from a remotely operated vehicle (ROV).

“When we were watching the ROV video in the lab, I looked up at the video screen, and it looked starkly different from anything we’d ever seen before,” Demopoulos said. “The corals were all dark grey and lumped over, and it was clear these animals were not healthy. We’d seen dead coral, but this was so different, we immediately knew it was worth investigating further. When we got closer, there didn’t seem to be any secondary colonization, as we’d seen in the past on dead coral.”

The fact that no new animals, such as barnacles or hydroids, had begun to attach and grow on the dead corals suggested that the coral deaths had been recent, noted Demopoulos. This process, known as secondary colonization, is commonly observed on dead corals but takes time to occur.

In December 2010, barely a month after the discovery of the damaged coral, Fisher led a followup expedition to further examine the damaged corals, supported by a special National Science Foundation RAPID grant. Fisher, along with assistant professor of chemistry Helen White of Haverford College (http://www.haverford.edu/faculty/hwhite), directed the coral-damage assessment in collaboration with scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Temple University, the USGS, and the BOEM. On the basis of her expertise with sediment samples, Demopoulos worked with White and Fisher to design the best approach for assessing the corals at the Mississippi Canyon lease block 294 for the presence of oil and the extent of damage.

“The challenge we faced in this study was piecing together what happened from multiple lines of evidence, because no one was sitting on the seafloor when the plume went by. The corals were the only witness,” said Demopoulos. “We had to consider the proximity to the Deepwater Horizon site and the fact that a deep-water plume had recently passed over the site, then closely examine the corals for tissue damage and signs of stress, such as the presence of mucus, and of course, the chemical signature of the oil. It was truly an interdisciplinary effort.”

Demopoulos pointed out that the cumulative knowledge about deep-sea communities from previous expeditions provided the baseline for scientifically assessing what they saw at the site. “This is but one site in the Gulf of Mexico,” she said, “but it has shown how important it was for us to have a frame of reference as to what a healthy deep-sea coral ecosystem looks like. We are still trying to understand the extent to which this is occurring elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.”

The results of the scientists’ efforts were published online in March 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118029109. Additional information about the study is posted at http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2012-news/Fisher3-2012.

Above: Normal coral with some dead skeletal material covered by typical secondary colonization (right), in comparison with wilting, dying coral covered with oil-plume debris (left). Also affected were brittlestars, seen climbing in the healthy coral. Image courtesy of Lophelia II 2010 expedition, NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) and BOEM. [larger version]

Above: Amanda Demopoulos sorts and identifies animals in a sieved sample. Image courtesy of Lophelia II 2009: Deepwater Coral Expedition: Reefs, Rigs and Wrecks. [larger version]

Above: Damaged coral with brittlestar climbing through it. Image courtesy of Lophelia II 2010 expedition, NOAA OER and BOEM. [larger version]

[Modified from USGS Science Pick at http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_science_pick/corals-damaged-by-deepwater-horizon/.]

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Oil and Gas Journal: Independent reviews suggested as way to keep offshore safety current

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2012/10/independent-reviews-suggested-as-way-to-keep-offshore-safety-current.html?cmpid=EnlDailyOctober32012

I think it’s revealing that even the oil rep suggests sharing updated technologies for containment with current industry groups, suggesting that improved technology and practices may not be integrated into current production at present even as deeper drilling expands dramatically. DV

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct. 2
10/02/2012
By Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor

Regularly scheduled reviews of offshore oil and gas safety and environmental standards and practices could help assure that the complacency prevalent before the 2010 Macondo deepwater well blowout and subsequent oil spill doesn’t resurface, an environmental organization official suggested.

Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the National Academies of Science or some other independent group with the necessary expertise and stature possibly could conduct such reviews as each federal 5-year US Outer Continental Shelf program was being developed.

“It may take outside bodies-both regulators and independent scientists-to identify areas which need to be addressed as the industry moves into more challenging regions and depths,” Holstein said during an Oct. 2 discussion of offshore oil and gas safety at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Director James A. Watson, who also participated, said Holstein’s idea intrigued him. “In an industry that’s constantly moving forward, I think you need another mechanism,” he said. “It’s constantly pressing technology and management systems into higher-risk areas. I think there’s a role for someone to point out that this is happening, and that a time-out might be necessary.”

Troublesome trend

The discussion’s moderator, Michael R. Bromwich, a consultant and nonresident CSIS advisor, oversaw the 2010-11 restructuring of federal offshore oil and gas regulatory enforcement following the Macondo incident and spill. He warned that the strong offshore oil and gas safety emphasis that followed Macondo is being replaced by a focus on speed in approving drilling and other permits. Ways to break down barriers to improvement need to be found and instituted instead, he said.

“The key point is sustained learning, along with generated information,” observed Charlie Williams, executive director of the Center for Offshore Safety, which the US oil and gas industry established after Macondo. “There’s a lot of research in disparate places, but we need to assure there aren’t gaps in safety technology.”

Major oil companies operating in the Gulf created the Marine Well Containment Co. in 2010 when it became obvious offshore spill control and containment technology had not kept pace as exploration and production moved into deeper water, Williams continued. MWCC might be one place to start sharing information, he said.

Norway’s approach

Svein Erik Eide, vice-president of drilling and well technology at Statoil ASA, said Norway uses a collaboration of producers, regulators, and labor unions to handle offshore safety and environment issues.

“There’s a human factor behind all accidents,” Eide said, adding, “We can address it by sharing information and analyzing data at all times.”

When the Norwegians evaluated their own system after Macondo, they found rig workers were well trained as petroleum engineers but didn’t understand planning and execution of essential tasks, Eide said. “Half of our production comes from deep water in the North Sea. Not having capping and containment systems was a real surprise in 2010.”

Eide said nine companies stepped forward and helped develop offshore spill control and containment systems for the four regions of the world in which Statoil operates.

Holstein said the essential question was whether the oil and gas industry and its regulators can maintain rigorous safety and environmental standards amid budget cuts and political pressures. “Indeed, in the presidential race, there’s much discussion of whether we’re moving fast enough [to develop domestic oil and gas resources], and I expect it to be part of tomorrow night’s debate,” he said.

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Lumina News: Romney, big oil targets of anti-offshore drilling flotilla

http://www.luminanews.com/article.asp?aid=10910&iid=344&sud=30


by Cole Dittmer
Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Staff photo by Allison Potter
Penny, left, and Mark Hooper of Hooper Family Seafood and Jenny Marienau of 350 Action Fund were among the speakers at a press conference opposing drilling off North Carolina’s coast on Friday, Sept. 28 at Wrightsville’s south end.

Held on the shores of Banks Channel at the south end of Wrightsville Beach, the -
350.org Action Fund organized a flotilla press conference on Friday, Sept. 28, to protest offshore drilling along the North Carolina Coast. Joining Jenny Marienau, the N.C. field organizer for 350.org, was Wrightsville Beach Mayor David Cignotti, Mark and Penny Hooper of Hooper Family Seafood, and Zac Singleton of the Sierra Club. While the event was taking place on the beach, two boats in the background displayed banners that read, “Gov. Romney: North Carolina’s Coast is Not Open For Drilling.”

Romney has endorsed an increase in offshore drilling in the United States in an effort to make the country energy independent by 2020 but Marienau and 350.org hope to inform Romney of the harmful environmental effects drilling for oil off the North Carolina coast could have.

“Drilling is now restricted here through 2017 and we intend to keep it that way,” Marienau said. “Opening our coasts to drilling would put our businesses, which depend on tourism, at risk if we experience an oil spill like the Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster, which has devastated businesses up and down the Gulf Coast.”

The 350.org Action Fund is an international grassroots organization that seeks to solve the climate crisis through promoting a greater public awareness about the issue. The number in the organization’s name refers to the level of parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. Currently carbon dioxide makes up 394 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere. It should be less than 350 ppm to maintain the necessary temperature to avoid any further melting of the polar ice caps, states 350.org. On its website, 350.org claims that until humans began using fossil fuels, there was only 275 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the level is now rising at an accelerated rate of 2 ppm every year.

Attached to the letter Marienau will send to Romney is a list of 23 businesses from Wrightsville Beach and Wilmington that support the anti-offshore drilling initiative.
Alluding to a press conference about the benefits of offshore wind energy in N.C. that was held earlier in the month of September, Mayor Cignotti reiterated his support for clean energy.

“Drilling is not the best option for coastal North Carolina because it is too much of a threat to our coastal communities,” Cignotti said. “Let’s not be a fossil fuel follower.”

Mark and Penny Hooper also expressed their concerns about drilling off the North Carolina coast as longtime operators of a commercial seafood company in Smyrna, N.C. “I feel a moral outrage about what we are doing to this planet with little or no consideration for our grandchildren’s future,” Penny Hooper said. “We must move to alternative fuels like wind and solar and leave the carbon in the ground.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Hill: Obama drilling chief: ‘Time-out’ might be needed as industry takes on more risk

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/259759-obama-drilling-chief-timeout-may-be-needed-as-industry-pushes-into-tougher-climates

Finally…..some sense of real concern for the environmental impacts of drilling out of the new oil management team at the Interior Dept. DV

By Ben Geman – 10/02/12 02:51 PM ET

The Interior Department’s offshore drilling safety chief said more review is needed to gauge whether industry technology is keeping pace as companies push into increasingly risky climates, suggesting a “time-out” could be needed in the future.

James Watson’s comments arrive as oil companies are drilling in ever-deeper waters and more remote regions, including the Arctic, in search of new finds. Watson noted that existing technology and management systems are continually being used in “higher and higher risk areas.”

“So I think there is a role for someone outside of the business to actually be able to say ‘time-out,’ we are now stretched about as far as we might want to be stretched with the technology that has been in place for 10, 20 years or whatever,” said Watson, head of Interior’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

“I think that at some point there is an important role that the government needs to play in saying well, wait a minute, let’s just see where we are, and before we stretch that technology another step, is there some work that needs to be done in the applied research area to create a better system of something that is designed specifically for the conditions that we now operate in,” he said at a drilling event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Watson, whom The Hill profiled here, said he is “intrigued” by an environmentalist’s suggestion at the same event for a periodic outside review of the industry’s technological and management capacity.

Elgie Holstein of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggested a “periodic technology and managerial review” of the industry carried out by an outside organization such as the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Public Administration.

He suggested such reviews could be conducted when the Interior Department is crafting its five-year offshore leasing plans. The current plan runs from 2012-2017 and includes, in the later years, lease sales for Arctic waters off Alaska’s coast.

“It is a concept that goes hand in hand with the recognition that offshore oil drilling over time is going to become nothing but more complex, the environments will become more challenging, the equipment will be more complex to operate, the managerial challenges of coordinating everybody on the rig and off the rig will become that much greater,” Holstein, EDF’s senior director of strategic planning, told reporters after the event.

Discussion of broad, future reviews of the industry’s technology come as companies are already drilling in deep, high-pressure waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and beginning the early stages of Arctic exploration.

Watson’s agency recently gave Royal Dutch Shell permission to conduct preliminary drilling off Alaska’s northern coast, but the company did not win approval to drill into oil-bearing subsea zones and has abandoned that effort for this year.

Interior has beefed up drilling and rig safety regulations and overhauled oversight in the wake of the 2010 BP oil spill.

At Tuesday’s event, Watson and industry officials – including Charlie Williams, who leads the industry’s Center for Offshore Safety – discussed their ongoing work to boost safety practices.

But with companies pushing into more and more extreme and remote environments and higher pressures, Watson said an additional way to see if technology is keeping pace might be needed. “In an industry that is constantly exploring and pressing its technology forward, I think you also need another mechanism, and I don’t know what it is. I don’t think we have got it quite yet,” he said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E&E: ‘Big Oil’ huddles with Obama’s ‘first friend,’ and refining rules stall

Jeremy P. Jacobs and Mike Soraghan, E&E reporters
Published: Tuesday, October 2, 2012

At 9:30 a.m. on a warm day in March, eight men and two women stepped off Pennsylvania Avenue and into the northwest gate of the White House.

They were top-level refining executives from the world’s largest oil companies, Chevron Corp., Marathon Oil Corp. and BP PLC, escorted by Jack Gerard, the brash president of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobby.

Ushered into the West Wing, they met Valerie Jarrett, a longtime confidante of President Obama and White House power player whose second-floor office was once occupied by George W. Bush consigliere Karl Rove.

In the weeks before the meeting, EPA was advancing toward the White House new restrictions on the amount of sulfur in gasoline. Oil refiners wanted the rules stopped, and they had an argument that could scare any president facing re-election — the rules would increase gasoline prices.

Prices at the pump were rising toward $4 a gallon, a level that had inspired a Republican rebellion in Congress that threatened Obama’s election in the summer of 2008.

Since that meeting with Jarrett, best known as Obama’s “first friend,” the sulfur rules have stalled in bureaucratic limbo while environmentalists have stewed.

The White House declined to comment or provide information on the specifics discussed at the meeting. Neither would API, but officials there confirmed that delaying development of the rules was a top priority.

The timing is suspicious to those who have spent years fighting to lower the sulfur content of the nearly 370 million gallons of gasoline burned every day.

“It is appalling to think that the president’s chief confidante may have sacrificed public health in order to appease Big Oil,” said Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “This meeting could also explain why EPA was never permitted to move forward on these very critical standards. They may have been killed behind closed White House doors.”

EPA would say only that it is still developing the Tier 3 standards. The oil company executives who attended did not return messages.

The meetings also offer clues about the careful détente that has emerged between the White House and the oil industry on select issues like Tier 3 and hydraulic fracturing.

“A meeting at that level is a great coup for an industry, though maybe not surprising for an industry as powerful as the oil industry,” said Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics. “This is the sort of meeting where what is said can go directly to the president.”

EPA had been widely expected to propose lowering the sulfur standard from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm, bringing the United States in line with many European countries, Japan and even California, which has already made the shift to tighter limits. The regulations have been a top priority for environmental groups, as lower sulfur leads to significantly less harmful air emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide in tailpipe exhaust.

The oil industry has staunchly opposed the proposal, arguing that the standards would translate into higher gas prices at the pump and could even force some refineries to close.

Momentum builds, along with push-back

In the weeks before the March 7 meeting, momentum was building behind the Tier 3 standards.

Near the end of January, EPA indicated in its regulatory agenda that it would issue the proposal by March with hopes of finishing it in October. Shortly after that, though, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a congressional committee that the target date for finalizing the rules could have slipped by four months or more.

Within the following month, The New York Times editorialized in favor of moving forward and EPA air chief Gina McCarthy fired back at industry with a letter to congressional Republicans rebutting warnings about price increases.

Who was at the meeting?
On the morning of March 7, 10 representatives of the world’s largest oil companies met with Valerie Jarrett, a top White House aide and close confidante of President Obama. According to records released by the White House, the following people were in attendance:

* Robert Genovese, vice president for U.S. regulatory affairs, BP PLC.

* Dale Walsh, president, Chevron Products-Americas.

* Garry Peiffer, executive vice president of corporate planning and investor and government relations, Marathon Oil Corp.

* Jack Gerard, president and CEO, American Petroleum Institute.

* Charles Drevna, president, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

* Mike Brien, general manager of federal and international affairs, BP.

* David Sander, manager, federal government relations, Chevron.

* Patricia Richards, vice president, federal government affairs, Marathon.

* Khary Cauthen, federal relations, API.

* Misty McGowen, federal relations, API.

– Mike Soraghan

The new sulfur limits, McCarthy said, would add a penny a gallon to prices, not the 6 to 9 cents per gallon industry studies estimated. Several refineries, McCarthy wrote, were already reducing sulfur content in their fuel.

“As many as 17 refineries are already able to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standards we are considering, and some are currently producing and exporting to European countries gasoline that meets this standard,” McCarthy wrote (E&ENews PM, Feb. 28).

On top of that, automakers also threw their support behind the proposal, creating an unprecedented level of agreement on an auto air rule at such an early stage, said Paul Billings of the American Lung Association.

“I can’t recall any of the previous light-duty rules for tailpipes,” Billings said, “where we’ve had this kind of buy-in up front.”

On the other side of the issue, the oil industry was becoming increasingly vocal about its opposition to the measure. API issued multiple studies on the potential cost impact of the new sulfur standard and warned, in conference calls with reporters, that it would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, Feb. 10).

Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, one of those who met with Jarrett on March 7, told E&ETV’s OnPoint in an interview aired several days before the meeting that Tier 3 could shut down refineries.

“Most refiners are going to have to do significant upgrades for those hydrotreaters to take out that last little bit of sulfur. So, in essence, you may have some refineries not be able to do it. You may have some refineries that will shut down” (OnPoint, March 1).

Republicans on Capitol Hill have repeatedly sought to delay the Tier 3 rules, passing multiple pieces of legislation in the House that target the regulations. But none of those bills has moved in the Senate.

Asked about Gerard’s meeting with Jarrett, API spokesman Reid Porter wouldn’t provide details but forwarded a transcript of a Feb. 10 media briefing featuring Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs. Feldman laid out his organization’s top concerns with the Obama administration’s plans, including greenhouse gas rules for refineries, air standards for industrial boilers and new emissions standards for refineries. But Feldman started and ended with the industry’s objection to the Tier 3 sulfur rules.

“We would again call on EPA to not issue a Tier 3 vehicle emission proposal before there is a full airing of the impacts, costs and benefits of further reductions of sulfur and vapor pressure in gasoline,” Feldman said.

In response to questions, EPA issued a statement saying it is still developing the sulfur rules.

“The agency continues to engage a diverse group of stakeholders as it develops the proposal and assesses further cost-effective reductions of harmful tailpipe emissions,” the statement said.

Obama’s link to the world

It’s difficult to clearly define Jarrett’s role within Obama’s inner circle.

Like the previous occupant of her office, Rove, Jarrett is known as a savvy operative whose title, “senior adviser and assistant to the president for intergovernmental relations and public liaison,” significantly understates her influence.

Obama met her on his way up in Chicago politics, and her role has been described as the president’s link to the world outside the White House bubble.

In early September, The New York Times quoted a former senior White House official who called her “the single most influential person in the Obama White House.”

Around the time of her meeting with API and the supermajors, lobbyists for industry and environmental groups were both filling up the appointment calendars of administration officials.

Public health advocates met with Heather Zichal, Obama’s top assistant for climate and energy issues, in early March, before the industry meeting with Jarrett, according to a participant in the meeting.

Green groups also had frequent calls with EPA from mid-February into early March. One participant, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said EPA assured them that the proposal was finished by the end of last year, and the agency’s top political appointees were comfortable with the package.

But rising gas prices were also entering the presidential race around this time. On Feb. 5, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then still a contender for the Republican nomination, said the policy would raise gas prices by a quarter per gallon, citing a flawed API study. API later revised its projections, lowering its estimate to a 6- to 9-cent-per-gallon increase (E&ENews PM, March 22). The nonpartisan Politifact.com said Gingrich’s claim was “false.”

“I think that sort of charge, bogus as it was, really intimidated the White House,” said O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch. “And it led to the slowdown.”

Ahead of the health advocates’ early March meeting, Gerard and six top executives from API had met with Zichal, who’d been a top aide to former Obama energy and environmental adviser Carol Browner before Browner departed the White House.

A little more than a month later, on April 13, Gerard would meet with Zichal again, this time joined by American Chemistry Council Vice President Michael Walls and Regina Hopper, president of America’s Natural Gas Alliance.

On the same day, Obama issued an executive order creating a new “interagency working group” to promote the safe development of shale gas and coordinate policy on drilling, a move that API had requested. He tapped Zichal to chair the group.

In May, Zichal started talking publicly about the Obama administration’s new and improved relationship with the oil and gas industry.

Invited to speak before reporters at an API luncheon, Zichal touted the administration’s support for increased domestic production, challenging the Republican charge that the boom in drilling came despite administration policies to thwart it.

She borrowed some of the language of the oil and gas lobby, stressing the importance of oil and gas for job creation and energy security. And she joined the industry in its position that state oil and gas officials, rather than federal agencies such as EPA, should serve as the “lead regulators” of drilling.

“It’s been incredibly helpful, to have their information to inform our thinking,” she said.

Since then, the administration has also agreed to an industry request to slow progress on a proposal to require public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands. It extended a deadline for drillers to comply with new air rules, which a spokesman cited from the press room lectern as an example of cooperation with industry.

The administration put together a task force set up to resolve drillers’ concerns about a multiyear study of hydraulic fracturing by the United States and assembled a working group including EPA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to resolve the gas industry’s complaints about EPA figures on the amount of gas that drillers vent into the atmosphere.

After her May speech, Zichal sought to tamp down the idea that the administration had gotten too close with “Big Oil.”

“It’s probably safe to say the notion that we rolled out the welcome mat or had this hunky-dory relationship where we’re all holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not exactly where we’re at today.” she said. “It’s been very good, but it’s not terribly smooth sailing, either.”

But Gerard didn’t hesitate to brag that his industry had brought the administration to heel.

“The administration’s views are clearly moving,” Gerard told reporters. “There has been a recognition that some of the proposals they have made need to be pushed back and need to be modified because many of them were counterproductive to energy production and job creation in the country.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Business Insider: Oil Companies Bribing Gulf States to Ignore Spill?

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-companies-bribing-gulf-states-to-ignore-spill-2012-10

Arguably funds are already going to the coastal states affected by oil drilling via the fines; giving the states control on the purse strings of federal leasing income as well opens up a whole can of worms about what the money would be spent for. I’d rather the feds disbursed the funds; we all suffer when fossil fuel extraction is allowed due to the environmental pollution and impact on global climate change. DV

WhoWhatWhy | Oct. 1, 2012, 8:00 AM | 110 |
*

Recently, Gulf area legislators have been pushing to get their states a larger share of government income from offshore drilling. We’re told that they need the extra revenue to improve flood protection. But more is afoot here, and it deserves scrutiny.

First, here’s the background, from the Los Angeles Times:
Severe flooding from Hurricane Isaac has prompted a new effort by Gulf Coast lawmakers to secure a larger share of federal offshore drilling revenue to fund projects such as flood protection.

But the idea faces opposition from lawmakers who say it would siphon away money needed to pay Uncle Sam’s bills.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) stoked the debate this week by appealing to President Obama during his visit to the storm-battered area to support letting states share 37.5% of federal revenue from energy production off their coastsŠ..

Fair enough. But there’s a missing piece of this, about who benefits most. And it’s not the public.

Flood control work generates a ton of local income. It creates jobs. Channeling a larger share of the federal share of drilling income into the local area, you give residents a reason not to oppose continued drilling. Of course, these are the same people whose environment has been so badly harmed, perhaps permanently, by the risky practices of offshore production.

In other words, the very same people facing massive economic dislocation, the devastation of their ecosystem, and related chronic illness are being given a reason to put up with even more potential problems in the future.

Why shouldn’t the money from drilling go directly to the public to alleviate the harm done to it-and to develop alternative energy sources to reduce our dependency on the dangers increasingly associated with extraction of fossil fuels?

Actually, the region already gets plenty for harm remediation related to the BP spill.
One possible source of new money: the fines of as much as $21 billion that BP is expected to pay for the 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill. Congress recently voted to steer 80% of the penalties to Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to help restore coastal ecosystems and rebuild regional economies.

But Landrieu is seeking additional money from offshore drilling, noting that inland states such as Colorado and Wyoming receive about half the revenue from drilling on federal land. “Coastal states should receive a similar allotment so they can engage these funds in flood protection,” she said in a letter to Obama.

She is among a bipartisan group of lawmakers sponsoring legislation that would let states receive 37.5% of all federal offshore drilling revenue. The idea has gained the backing of pro-production lawmakers who see it as a way to build public support for expanded offshore energy exploration that would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
There it is-in paragraph NINE. Should be in the first paragraph, and should be in the headline. Instead, it is buried under the bland headline

CONGRESSIONAL FORECAST: FIGHT OVER COASTAL FLOOD PROTECTION FUNDS

Šwhich resulted in almost no one paying any attention to this story, dated September 6-and to what is really going on.

Of course, contrary to what the Los Angeles Times asserts, the real reason the lawmakers support the move is NOT their concern to reduce dependence on foreign oil. It is to increase our tolerance for risky domestic drilling.

If you doubt there’s more to it, consider who feathers Sen. Mary Landrieu’s nest. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the vast majority of her campaign contributions from 2007-2012 ($2.5 million) came from law firms, lobbyists, and the oil & gas industry. Guess who is one of the biggest clients of law firms and lobbyists? The oil & gas industry. It’s a safe bet that without doing that industry’s bidding, Mary Landrieu is toast. So she has to promote measures like this that do harm to the public interest and produce more profits for the dominant industry in her area.

It’s not that Mary Landrieu is a good or a bad person, any more than any of her Gulf Coast colleagues, of both parties, who also support this move. It’s that the system is so dirty. And that the public doesn’t have a media that can afford to just tell it to us straight-in such a way as to make us care, and make us want to actually do something about it.

Bet that, without public understanding of what is at stake, the very people who have a reason to fight against more offshore drilling in the gulf will be out there arguing for it.

Special thanks to Richard Charter
# #

Texassharon.com: 3-4 mg Texas Frackquake

http://www.texassharon.com/2012/09/29/3-4-mg-earthquak-in-irving-area-of-barnett-shale/

by TXSHARON on SEPTEMBER 29, 2012
in EARTHQUAKES
According to the preliminary report, the quake area is marked with a gray circle on the map below.

Event Page
Industry will say fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes but that’s bull. See the FAQ section for more information on drilling induced earthquakes and note the Schlumberger study: Seismicity in the Oil Field.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: Unexploded Ordinance In Gulf Pose Risk To Offshore Drilling, Experts Warn

Sep 28, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/unexploded-ordinance-gulf-of-mexico_n_1923540.html

Reuters | Posted: 09/28/2012 1:35 pm EDT

* Research needed to locate, assess bomb risk

* Gulf of Mexico permit activity up after deadly Macondo blowout

By Eileen O’Grady

HOUSTON, Sept 28 (Reuters) – Millions of pounds of unexploded bombs dumped in the Gulf of Mexico by the U.S. government after World War Two pose a significant risk to offshore drilling, according to Texas oceanographers.

It is no secret that the United States, along with other governments, dumped munitions and chemical weapons in oceans from 1946 until the practice was banned in the 1970s by U.S. law and international treaty, said William Bryant, a Texas A&M University professor of oceanography.

As technological advances allow oil companies to push deeper into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, these forgotten hazards pose a threat as the industry picks up the pace of drilling after BP Plc’s deadly Macondo well blowout in 2010 that lead to the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Unexploded ordnance has been found in the offshore zone known as Mississippi Canyon where the Macondo well was drilled.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will auction 38 million acres of oil and gas leases in the central gulf in March.

The U.S. government designated disposal areas for unexploded ordnance, known as UXO, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as well as in the Gulf of Mexico. But nearly 70 years after the areas were created, no one knows exactly how much was dumped, or where the weapons are, or whether they present a danger to humans or marine life.

“These bombs are a threat today and no one knows how to deal with the situation,” said Bryant. “If chemical agents are leaking from some of them, that’s a real problem. If many of them are still capable of exploding, that’s another big problem.”

Disposal zones were designated from Florida to Texas, said Bryant, who will discuss his research findings at the International Dialogue on Underwater Munitions conference that begins Monday in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

While the practice of dumping bombs and chemical weapons, including mustard and nerve gas, in the ocean ended 40 years ago some effects are just beginning to be seen, said Terrance Long, founder of the underwater munitions conference.

“You can find munitions in basically every ocean around the world, every major sea, lake and river,” Long said. “They are a threat to human health and the environment.”

The oil industry is no stranger to leftovers from the World War Two.

Last year, BP shut its key Forties crude pipeline in the North Sea for five days while it removed a 13-foot (4-metre) un exploded German mine found resting cozily next to the pipeline that transports up to 40 percent of the UK’s oil production.

BP discovered the mine during a routine pipeline inspection, then spent several months devising a plan to lift the bomb and move it far enough from the pipeline to safely detonate it.

In the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for 23 percent of U.S. oil production and 7 percent of domestic natural gas output, the hazards are known, but generally ignored.

In 2001, BP and Shell found the wreckage of the U-166, a German World War II submarine, 45 miles (72 kms) from the mouth of the Mississippi River during an underwater survey for a pipeline needed to transport natural gas to shore.

Bryant said he and colleague Neil Slowey have documented discarded bombs and leaking barrels over the past 20 years while conducting research for energy companies in the Gulf of Mexico.

Records of where these munitions were dumped are incomplete and experts believe many dangerous cargoes were “short-dumped,” or discarded outside designated zones.

Bryant said he has come across 500-pound (227-kgs) bombs about 60 miles off the Texas coast and other ordnance 100 miles offshore, outside designated zones. A t least one Gulf pipeline was laid across a chemical weapon dump site south of the mouth of the Mississippi River, he said.

While the risk of an underwater bomb exploding may be small, environmental damage from chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, is worrisome and needs to be researched, Bryant said.

“We would like to do a survey to be able to say if (this material) is harmful or not,” he said. “The condition of these barrels is deteriorating, so does it affect anything or not? We ought to know.”

Calls and emails to various companies with wells or pipelines in the gulf seeking comment were not returned. Neither the U.S. Army, nor the BOEM would comment as well.

Sonar data from a routine seabed survey performed by C&C Technologies identified munitions in about 3,000 feet of water near a proposed project, according to a paper presented at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference.

After determining the bombs presented a low-to-moderate risk, the project continued as planned.

The oil and gas industry needs to do more address the problem, Long said. “It makes more sense to start dealing with the munitions from a risk-mitigation standpoint to be able to conduct operations in those areas rather than trying to avoid that they are there,” Long said.

The BOEM, which regulates offshore drilling in federal waters, warns companies seeking leases to drill or add pipelines about the existence of unexploded ordnance and requires underwater surveys to assess and manage the numerous natural and manmade hazards.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Financial Times: Brazil forces Transocean to halt drilling & FOx Business: Brazil Court Serves Transocean with Injunction to Halt Operations

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62432742-08f0-11e2-b37e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz27izXSakk

Financial Times

September 28, 2012 12:13 am
Brazil forces Transocean to halt drilling

By Samantha Pearson in São Paulo
Transocean, the world’s largest offshore oil driller, has been served with a preliminary injunction in Brazil, forcing the company to stop operations in the country within 30 days over an oil spill last year.

A federal court in Rio de Janeiro served the company with the ban on Thursday, which Transocean said it is “vigorously” trying to overturn.

Last November, about 3,700 barrels of oil flooded into the Atlantic Ocean off Rio de Janeiro from an offshore oilfield operated by US oil company Chevron and which Transocean had been contracted to drill.

The spill, which occurred when workers encountered unexpected pressure when digging a well, was followed by another small leak in March that is still being investigated.

Although November’s oil spill was relatively small – less than 0.1 per cent of the size of BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster – it has sparked a huge backlash as Brazil’s authorities jostle for power over vast, new-found oil reserves.

Last month, federal prosecutors warned they would suspend the operations of Chevron and Transocean, which has 10 rigs contracted for work in Brazil and derives about 11 per cent of its consolidated operating revenues from the country.

Although Transocean has appealed against the decision, a Brazilian court denied its request this month. Transocean has vowed to continue to appeal, adding that there has been no evidence of damage to marine life or human health as a result of November’s spill. Chevron is also appealing.

They also face criminal and civil lawsuits in relation to the spill totalling R$40bn ($19.7bn). Meanwhile, ANP, Brazil’s oil and gas regulator, has taken a much more moderate approach, fining Chevron only R$35.1m, which it has paid.

“The oil spill has had a huge repercussion nationally, perhaps because [the authorities] want to make an example of them to stop other foreign companies doing the same thing,” Lucas Dantas Evaristo de Souza, an environmental lawyer at Buzaglo Dantas Advogados, said.

Transocean said Thursday: “The company is vigorously pursuing the overturn or suspension of the preliminary injunction, including through an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.”

__________________________________

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/09/27/brazil-court-serves-transocean-with-injunction-to-halt-operations/

Fox Business

Brazil Court Serves Transocean with Injunction to Halt Operations

Published September 27, 2012
Dow Jones Newswires

A Brazilian federal court served drilling company Transocean Ltd. (RIG) with an injunction Thursday that will force the company to halt operations in the South American country within 30 days.

Transocean said that it was “vigorously pursuing the overturn or suspension of the preliminary injunction, including through an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.” Should Transocean fail to get the injunction overturned or suspended, it will be forced to comply with the order, the company said.

The injunction was handed down in late July, when a court ordered Transocean and U.S. oil major Chevron Corp. (CVX) to stop operating in Brazil because of the two companies roles in an offshore oil spill last November. Both companies deny any wrongdoing. Chevron and Transocean both face civil and criminal lawsuits related to the spill, which caused an estimated 3,700 barrels of crude oil to seep from cracks in the seabed after a drilling accident.

While Chevron was sanctioned by Brazilian oil regulators, Transocean was cleared by the country’s National Petroleum Agency, or ANP.

The ANP has also appealed the case, citing the economic impact the suspension would have on oil companies operating in Brazil as well as its role as the industry’s lead regulator. Transocean said that it has 10 rigs under contract for Brazil, with nine currently in the country.

Chevron halted operations at the Frade offshore field that was the site of the spill in March. Chevron did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Write to Jeff Fick at jeff.fick@dowjones.com

Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Energy & Environment: Senate Dems urge Interior to forego oil and gas leasing

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter
Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Six Senate Democrats today urged the Obama administration to forgo oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Ocean until more is understood about its impacts on the environment, the economy and Native Alaskans.

Led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), the lawmakers said it was “perplexing” that the Interior Department had decided to include up to three sales off the Alaska coast in its new five-year plan given the lack of infrastructure and the challenges of cleaning up a spill.

“The Arctic Ocean is characterized by hurricane-force storms, 20-foot swells, sea ice up to 25 feet thick, sub-zero temperatures and months- long darkness,” said the letter last week signed by Merkley; Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.); and Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). “Moreover, the Arctic has extremely limited infrastructure (there are no roads or deep water ports and only a handful of small airports) and the nearest Coast Guard station is 1,000 miles away.”

The agency this summer finalized a leasing plan that would allow targeted sales in the Chukchi Sea in 2016 and in the Beaufort Sea in 2017.

But in contrast to Gulf of Mexico sales that include all of the federal planning areas, the size and location of the Arctic sales will be determined by factors including resource potential, subsistence use and environmental conditions, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Moreover, Salazar last November told a House committee he won’t hesitate to yank the leases if new infrastructure and scientific insight are not developed in time for their sale (Greenwire, Nov. 16, 2011).

That’s the course Senate Democrats called for in their letter, which cites a recent report from the members of President Obama’s oil spill commission that found additional infrastructure and Arctic research is needed to safely develop oil.

The senators said Interior should make future Arctic leases contingent on scientific research and monitoring, demonstration of effective spill response, and continued protection of sensitive areas including Hanna Shoal and Barrow Canyon.

But Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a backer of Arctic drilling, said the Obama administration has exercised an “abundance of caution” in allowing Arctic development.

“We support the Obama administration on this one,” he said, adding that Murkowski believes there should be annual lease sales in the region.

Arctic leasing has spawned controversy since the George W. Bush administration sold billions of dollars in federal blocks during its second term. Environmentalists oppose Arctic drilling, warning weather conditions there would make oil spill response nearly impossible.

And for the first time, an oil giant today publicly opposed drilling in the Arctic. Christophe de Margerie, the CEO of Total SA, said energy companies should not drill in the Arctic because the costs are simply too high (Greenwire, Sept. 26).

Royal Dutch Shell PLC this summer began drilling the first well in Arctic waters in more than two decades, though it was forced to postpone drilling into oil-bearing rocks until next summer.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: TransCanada Turns Sadistic in Texas: Keystone XL Protestors Tased and Pepper Sprayed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckibben/transcanada-turns-sadisti_b_1917264.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

Posted: 09/26/2012 4:53 pm

This is awful.
DV

Watching from a distance is hard. I’m on the move setting up our big roadshow assault on the fossil fuel industry, but the real action is in Texas, where a growing number of blockaders are trying to shut down work on the southern section of the Keystone Pipeline — and where TransCanada, according to the people at the Tar Sands Blockade, is turning more than a little sadistic.

Here’s the story from this morning, as it’s been emerging from a flurry of emails and tweets. (No video — police aren’t letting journalists or observers near the site). There are eight — no, now nine — people in makeshift tree houses in a grove of forest that TransCanada needs to obliterate to push their pipeline through. It’s on private land that was taken with threat of eminent domain, a tactic that the company has used repeatedly to bully landowners from Nebraska to Texas, but despite the protests of everyone from Sierra Clubbers to Tea Partiers, TransCanada is going ahead full bore with construction.

Until this morning when, in an effort to protect those tree-sitters, two other protesters locked themselves (one arm each) to the logging equipment. This slowed operations and it angered the police.

Here’s how organizers of the protest described what happened next:
A plain-clothes police officer was among the aggressive officers to implement torture tactics. He put [Benjamin] Franklin in a chokehold cutting off his breathing, and bent him over backwards in an attempt to make him pass out. Franklin reports difficulty swallowing because of bruises sustained to his esophagus.

The most physically aggressive was the ranking officer, a Lieutenant with the Wood County Sheriff Department under the observation of TransCanada employees. He twisted and contorted the tube that [Shannon] Bebe and Franklin had locked their arms into, cutting off circulation to their hands and cutting abrasions into their hands and forearms.

Franklin and Bebe then describe pepper spray as the most painful part of their ordeal. Police sprayed into their lockdown tube, and the chemicals burned their already-open wounds.

Fortunately they were able to make it through their mutual torture by intimating personal reassurances to each other. Franklin and Bebe say they were able to endure the pain knowing that they were in it together. Despite the immense pain our brave blockaders remained locked to the machinery for several hours – determined to stop this toxic tar sands pipeline.

After the pepper spray didn’t work the police again conferred with TransCanada employees before sending someone back to the police car to bring a taser. Franklin and Bebe were each tased for one second. Then Franklin was tased for 5 entire seconds. He described the pain as immense and almost physically unbearable.

Afterwards, John, the senior TransCanada supervisor openly congratulated the aggressive Sheriffs Department Lieutenant on a “job well done.” To which the Lieutenant replied: “if this happens again we’ll just skip to using pepper spray and tasing in the first 10 minutes.”

This is obviously a lot harder than what any of us underwent in the civil disobedience outside the White House last fall that delayed the northern section of the pipeline a year. In fact, it’s hard to imagine — handcuffing someone and then tasering them? (And on a day when the University of California was forced to pay $1 million to the peaceful protesters they pepper-sprayed at UC Davis last year).

But given all the ways that Transcanada has bent the facts and warped our political system in their pursuit of tarsands profit, it maybe stands to reason they’re willing to twist arms too.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Star: China closing in on huge oilpatch purchase

http://www.thestar.com:80/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1261677–china-closing-in-on-huge-oilpatch-purchase

Published on Monday September 24, 2012


TODD KOROL/REUTERS Nexen president Kevin Reinhart votes during the special shareholders meeting that approved CNOOC’s offer to buy the Canadian oil and gas producer. (Sept. 20, 2012)

By Gillian Steward, Columnist

CALGARY-Will one of the tallest buildings in Calgary soon be emblazoned with the initials of a Chinese state-owned oil company?

That’s just one of the many questions that hangs over the proposed takeover of Nexen, a major oilsands player, by the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC).

In July CNOOC offered Nexen shareholders a 61-per-cent premium on the share price and last week those shareholders decided it was a deal that they simply couldn’t refuse. It was an important step toward completion of the $15-billion deal, China’s largest overseas acquisition to date.

After the shareholder vote, Nexen’s interim president, Kevin Reinhart, assured the media that CNOOC would be keeping all of Nexen’s 3,000 employees. It has also promised to make Calgary headquarters for all its operations in the Western Hemisphere.

But there are no guarantees that CNOOC will not move in its own executives and staff. It might even want to bring in Chinese workers for its oilsands project in northern Alberta.
This is a really big deal in more ways than one. And it is making a lot of people here uneasy, mainly because there are so many unanswered questions. Just last week, Alberta MP Ted Menzies said he is hearing lots of questions and complaints about the deal from constituents.

The Harper government has yet to approve the deal and so far the prime minister hasn’t said much about it publicly. But as the NDP has pointed out, we still don’t know how the government defines a net benefit to Canada in cases like this.

The energy sector is used to multi-million-dollar takeovers. And it is certainly accustomed to foreign ownership. U.S companies have maintained a strong hand in Alberta’s resource development ever since oil was first discovered here just over 100 years ago.

At one time or another Gulf, Texaco, Chevron and Mobil have all had imposing office towers in the heart of Calgary’s downtown core. BP and Shell have been active in the oilpatch for decades. More recently investors from India to Norway have bought into oilsands development in a big way.

According to a report prepared by Forest Ethics Advocacy , a B.C.-based conservation group, two-thirds of oilsands production in Canada is owned by foreign companies, an analysis based on shareholder information from more than a dozen companies involved in oilsands development.

Many in the Canadian business sector argue that money is money, that Canada needs foreign investment because we don’t have enough homegrown wealth to develop our resources without it, and as long as foreign investors play by our rules there won’t be a problem. Many oil companies are openly courting Chinese investors.

But the CNOOC takeover is in a different category than most foreign takeovers. China is not a democratic state and its marketplace is not the kind of free market we are used to.
CNOOC is owned and controlled by the Chinese government a.k.a. the Chinese Communist party. There is no distinction between the party and the state in China. There is no distinction between the party and the marketplace. The CPC rules, and can be ruthless when it comes to getting what it wants.

So what are we really getting when CNOOC buys up a major Canadian player in the energy sector? Since presumably it will always have the financial backing of the Chinese government, its activities won’t be curbed by the need to make a profit, as is the case with other players in the marketplace. It will have more than enough resources to tilt the playing field in its favour.

And while Nexen, or whatever CNOOC’s Canadian operation will eventually be called, might still be headquartered here, we all know where its marching orders will come from. How accessible will those party bosses be to government, business and media watchdogs in this country?

It is our oil after all; and our land, water and air that will be used to bring it to market.
Alberta Premier Alison Redford has already made it clear that she welcomes investment from China. And it’s hard to believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t salivating at thought of all that Chinese money pouring into the oilsands.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of unanswered questions. And there’s a big black SUV with a CNOOC1 license plate driving around Calgary. I saw it at the airport a few weeks ago.
Looks like CNOOC plans on being here for quite a while.

Gillian Steward is a Calgary journalist and former managing editor of the Calgary Herald. Her column appears every other week. gsteward@telus.net

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Associated Press: Virtually all Alabama tar balls from BP oil spill, new study shows

http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/09/virtually_all_alabama_tar_ball.html

Published: Thursday, September 20, 2012, 9:55 PM

In this Sept. 5, 2012 aerial photo, a combination of alluvial clay and tar mats are seen on the shore of Elmer’s Island in the aftermath of Hurricane Isaac, in Jefferson Parish, La. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

AUBURN, Ala. (AP) — A new chemical analysis shows that virtually all the tar balls washing onto the Alabama coast are directly linked to the BP oil spill more than two years ago.

The report released Thursday by Auburn University says that tar balls caused by the spill are hundreds to thousands of times more common than another type of asphalt-like tar deposit that’s been in the Gulf for years.

Researchers tested tar found after Hurricane Isaac last month. They found the material is from the BP well, and that certain chemicals in the tar have barely broken down since June 2010.

The work was funded by the city of Orange Beach, the National Science Foundation and others.

BP says it hasn’t seen the study. Spokesman Ray Melick says the tar balls are scattered and that BP is working to remove them.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Dept of the Interior: Obama Administration Announces 38 Million-Acre Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the Central Gulf of Mexico

Department of the Interior
September 24, 2012

Date: September 24, 2012
Contact: Blake Androff (DOI) 202-208-6416
John Filostrat (BOEM) 504-731-7815

March Sale Part of Administration’s Plan Making Areas Containing 75% of Recoverable Offshore Oil, Gas Available for Exploration and Development

WASHINGTON – As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Director Tommy P. Beaudreau today announced that BOEM will offer 38 million acres in the Central Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration and development. This sale will build on two major Gulf of Mexico lease sales in the last year – a 21 million acre sale held last December and a 39 million acre sale held in June – and supports the Administration’s goal of continuing to increase domestic oil and gas production which has grown each year the President has been in office, with domestic oil production in 2011 higher than any time in eight years.

Proposed Lease Sale 227, scheduled to take place in New Orleans on March 20, 2013, will offer all unleased areas in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area, offshore Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and could lead to the production of up to nearly a billion barrels of oil and nearly 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This will be the second sale under the Administration’s new Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 and the first of five annual Central Gulf lease sales. Announced in June, the Five Year Program makes offshore areas with more than 75% of the technically recoverable oil and gas resources available for exploration and development, consistent with President Obama’s commitment to continue to expand domestic energy production and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

“The Obama Administration is fully committed to developing our domestic energy resources to create jobs, foster economic opportunities, and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil,” Secretary Salazar said. “We are moving full speed ahead on the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy because the exploration and development of the Gulf of Mexico’s vital energy resources will continue to help power our nation and drive our economy.”

Since President Obama took office, domestic oil and gas production has increased each year, with domestic oil production at an eight-year high, natural gas production at an all-time high, and foreign oil imports now accounting for less than 50 percent of the oil consumed in America – the lowest level since 1995.

Lease Sale 227 encompasses about 7,250 unleased blocks covering approximately 38 million acres. The blocks are located from three to about 230 miles offshore, in water depths ranging from nine to more than 11,115 feet (three to 3,400 meters). BOEM estimates the proposed lease sale could result in the production of 0.46 billion to 0.89 billion barrels of oil and 1.9 trillion cubic feet to 3.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

“This proposed sale is another important step to promote responsible domestic energy production through the safe, environmentally sound exploration and development of the Nation’s offshore energy resources,” said BOEM Director Tommy P. Beaudreau.

This sale will build on successful lease sales that BOEM has held within the past year. Western Gulf Lease Sale 218, held in December 2011, made 21 million acres available, and received high bids on tracts covering about one million acres, netting nearly $325 million. Central Gulf Lease Sale 216/222, held in June 2012, covered nearly 39 million acres, and attracted more than $1.7 billion in high bids for more than 2.4 million acres. The next sale, Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 229, announced earlier this year, will take place in New Orleans on Nov. 28, 2012.

BOEM conducted an extensive environmental review and published a Final Environmental Impact Statement with analysis to support decision-making for proposed Lease Sale 227 and other Western and Central Gulf of Mexico lease sales scheduled under the new Five Year Program. The terms of this sale include conditions to ensure both orderly resource development and protection of the human, marine and coastal environments. These include stipulations to protect biologically sensitive resources, mitigate potential adverse effects on protected species, and avoid potential conflicts associated with oil and gas development in the region.

The proposed terms also continue to include a range of incentives to encourage diligent development and ensure a fair return to taxpayers. In addition, BOEM has implemented a new, streamlined format for sale notices, beginning with this sale, making the document more user-friendly and accessible to the public.

Proposed terms and conditions for the sale are available at: http://www.boem.gov/sale-227. The Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale can be viewed today in the Federal Register at: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection. Copies can also be requested from the Gulf of Mexico Region’s Public Information Office at 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70123, or at 800-200-GULF (4853). All terms and conditions for Lease Sale 227 will be finalized when the Final Notice of Sale is published at least 30 days prior to the Sale.

- BOEM -

About the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manages the exploration and development of the nation’s offshore energy resources. The bureau seeks to balance economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection through responsible management of offshore conventional and renewable energy development based on the best available science. The bureau is within the Department of the Interior.

For More Information on Press Releases and Notes to Stakeholders:
Blossom Robinson
BOEM Office of Public Affairs (202) 208-6474
Please visit us at www.BOEM.gov

Special thanks to Richard Charter

SFGate.com: Chevron Bosses Investigated For Criminally Covering Up Toxic Releases-Ca Osha and Commission On Health And Safety And Workers Compensation MIA

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Criminal-investigation-at-Chevron-refinery-3886927.php#ixzz27JORnKeO
Criminal investigation at Richmond Chevron refinery

Jaxon Van Derbeken
Updated 11:29 p.m., Saturday, September 22, 2012

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Criminal-investigation-at-Chevron-refinery-3886927.php

628×471 3.jpg 2

Jack Broadbent, executive director of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, says Chevron was “routing gas through that pipe to the flare that they were not monitoring.” Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle / SF

Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation of Chevron after discovering that the company detoured pollutants around monitoring equipment at its Richmond refinery for four years and burned them off into the atmosphere, in possible violation of a federal court order, The Chroniclehas learned.

Air quality officials say Chevron fashioned a pipe inside its refinery that routed hydrocarbon gases around monitoring equipment and allowed them to be burned off without officials knowing about it. Some of the gases escaped into the air, but because the company didn’t record them, investigators have no way of being certain of the level of pollution exposure to thousands of people who live downwind from the plant.

“They were routing gas through that pipe to the flare that they were not monitoring,” said Jack Broadbent, executive director of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, whose inspectors uncovered what Chevron was doing and ordered the bypass pipe removed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s criminal enforcement unit opened an investigation in early 2012, more than two years after the local inspectors made their discovery, according to air-quality officials and others familiar with the probe. The investigation is still open, and Chevron employees have been interviewed.
Who knew what
Federal criminal investigators are trying to determine who at Chevron was aware of the bypass pipe and whether the company used it intentionally to deceive air-pollution regulators. Chevron says its use was inadvertent and that it estimates that the amount of released sulfur dioxide – one of the major components of flaring gas pollution – was minimal.

In a statement, Chevron said it was informed in March of a federal investigation “that appears to be related to flaring at the Richmond refinery.” It said it was cooperating with the probe.
The chairman of the Bay Area air-quality district’s board, Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, said that if Chevron intended to deceive regulators, its actions raised “extremely serious” questions about the company’s credibility.

“That’s a criminal act, intentionally bypassing the monitoring,” Gioia said. “The rule is designed to reduce flaring, and refineries are supposed have a responsibility to abide by it.”

The criminal probe came to light after The Chronicle obtained citation data from the air-quality district under a state Public Records Act request, following the Aug. 6 fire that destroyed part of the Richmond refinery. The probe is unrelated to that blaze.
Health risks
The federal investigation centers on Chevron’s burning, or flaring, of gases created during the superheating needed to generate fuels from crude oil. Although flaring burns most gases, environmental groups have long maintained that residual gases blowing away from the refinery pose a risk of cancer and respiratory ailments.

Under a 2005 settlement of a lawsuit filed against it by the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that Chevron violated federal environmental rules, the company agreed to limit flaring at Richmond and its other refineries and account for each flaring event.

The Bay Area air-quality district, which enforces federal air standards, ordered Chevron to install monitors at the Richmond refinery to measure pollutants in the gases burned off during flaring, and to report all instances of flaring.

Spotted by inspectors
Wayne Kino, an enforcement manager for the air-quality district, said two inspectors with the agency became suspicious Aug. 17, 2009, when they saw steam from a flare coming from a high-pressure, high-temperature hydrocracking complex in Richmond called the Isomax unit, where 62,000 barrels of oil a day are converted into gasoline and jet fuel.

The inspectors asked to see Chevron’s pollution-monitoring equipment, and discovered “it wasn’t recording anything,” Kino said.

Chevron had installed more than 100 feet of 3-inch pipe, linking the vessel where oil is processed to the flare tower, and bypassing two sets of monitoring equipment, Kino said. When an operator activated the bypass pipe, the gases were sent up the flare stack without being recorded.

Chevron said the pipe was designed to balance pressure in the refining process, but investigators could find no legitimate use for it, Kino said.
Bypassed 27 times
During a two-year investigation that involved examination of refinery surveillance tapes, Kino said, the air-quality district determined that Chevron used the pipe bypass 27 times from April 2005 to August 2009. He called the violations “very serious.”

In August 2011, Chevron agreed to a settlement with the agency in which it paid a $170,000 fine for two violations. That same month, the air-quality agency renewed Chevron’s permit for operating the Richmond refinery for five years.

In September 2010 – a year into the agency’s investigation – Environmental Protection Agency officials expressed concerns that Chevron was flaring at the Richmond refinery as a matter of routine. The air-quality district, however, dismissed the suggestion.

“There is no evidence that the flares at the Chevron refinery are being used as control devices,” the district said. It cited “flaring reports from this refinery covering the period from 2004 to the present show no instances of ‘routine’ flaring.”

Kino said the agency official who wrote the response hadn’t known about the investigation. He said the federal agency was ultimately notified of the violations in May 2011.

The environmental agency issued a statement saying it “does not comment on ongoing investigations.”
Workers interviewed
Officials of the union that represents workers at the refinery said Chevron employees had been questioned by the environmental agency investigators.

“The union is aware that there is an ongoing investigation,” said Jeff Clark, a field representative with the United Steelworkers Local 5. “Our members have been interviewed as part of it, and we cannot comment further at this time.”

The investigators have also questioned air-quality agency officials about what they knew about the bypass system. Kino said his inspectors have cooperated with the criminal probe.

Gioia, the air-quality board chairman, said he was upset that the agency’s staff didn’t tell him and other district directors about the $170,000 fine before it was issued. The fine was the most Chevron has paid in the past decade for air-quality violations at the Richmond refinery.

“It’s serious under any circumstances for a refinery to bypass the collection monitors,” Gioia said. “It’s a pretty large fine, and that means it’s a large incident.”

He added, “We have gone around as a district declaring that the flare-monitoring rule has been a success and has reduced emissions. But if we are not capturing all the emissions, it’s hard to judge how effective it has been.”

Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Nola.com: Hurricane Isaac showed that BP oil-spill woes remain

http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/09/hurricane_isaac_showed_that_bp.html

Times-Picayune

Published: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 7:53 PM Updated: Sunday, September 23, 2012, 8:56 PM

By Bob Marshall, The Times-Picayune

It’s been three weeks since Hurricane Isaac punched up the region, but a 12-mile section of our coast from Caminada Pass to Pass Fourchon remains closed to fishing — and any other activities.

That’s because clean-up crews are still trying to collect massive mats of weathered oil from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill the storm unearthed near the shore.

That news reminded me of a story back in May 2010, just weeks into the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The first patches of sticky oil had begun to reach the coast, and the world’s media was flashing pictures of men in hazmat suits scooping the toxic black goo or collecting dead fish and oiled pelicans.

The first paragraph read: “For those saddened by the scenes of thick oil washing into Louisiana’s coastal wetlands a month after the BP oil disaster, experts on oil spills and the coastal ecosystem have some advice: Get used to it.”

One of those experts was Robert Barham, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, a man who has proven not to play politics with the truth when it comes to protecting our natural resources. So while BP was leading a chorus from the oil industry that “we’ll make it right”, Barham gave this blunt assessment:

“I think we’re looking at many months of intense activity, but then years of follow-up work. I’ve been told by the ocean experts this stuff could hang out there on the bottom of the Gulf for more than 100 years. And as long as it’s out there, it can come ashore.

“We might not see big black waves, but we may be seeing a smaller, but serious problem, for years and years to come.”

There was a lot of pushback on those statements from the oil industry and its supporters, many of whom are in state government. Most people remember the odd spectacle of our politicians demanding the coast be repaired at the same time they were throwing President Obama under the bus for his temporary drilling moratorium. They made that timeout for safety sound like a bigger disaster than the spill. You probably remember the claims: economic ruin for the state, a wholesale exodus of drilling rigs from the Gulf.

Well, here we are two years later, and the oil industry now has more rigs drilling in the Gulf than it did before Deepwater Horizon. And oil industry profits continue to be world-wide leaders, high enough that the sector could afford to spend $71.2 million lobbying congress so far this year, adding to the $1.2 billion it has spent since 1998. And its view of Obama’s effort to prevent another disaster can be reflected in its contributions during the presidential campaign: Mitt Romney has received $4.5 million, Obama $1.5 million. (All those figures are from OpenSecrets.org)

But while the oil industry has recovered quickly and quite nicely from the disaster it caused, our coastal wetlands — the ecosystem that makes living here not just enjoyable but possible — still suffers from that assault, as Hurricane Isaac made quite clear.

Barham said the clean-up crews told him the job of collecting this latest wave of BP’s oil would take about a month. Even then, the long stretch of coast valuable to the fishing industry would still not be reopened. It must first pass federal muster.

“The protocol we’ve agreed to with the Food and Drug Administration is that when oil resurfaces in an area, we keep it closed until there are no visible signs of oil left Ñ however long that takes,” Barham said. “During that time, we’re collecting samples of seafood and having (analysis done) on tissue to check for any contamination.

“There’s never been any sign of (contamination causing) human health issues, and we don’t expect any.”

Of course, Barham knows better than most that this isn’t the last time he’ll be explaining the protocol.

The lesson of this episode: If the local fishing industry — including commercial seafood dealers having trouble getting America to accept the safety of their products — are shocked at the site of more oil from that one spill still popping up, causing closures and generating negative headlines around the nation, experts on oil spills and the coastal ecosystem have some advice: Get used to it.

Oil spills may result in only temporary disruption to the company and industries that cause them, but they are permanent injuries for the rest of us.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The BP Oil Spill & Why We Need for a Good Samaritan Science Law by Wendy Williams

Date: September 7, 2012 11:23:44 AM EDT

By Wendy Williams

As the fall begins, BP’s unconscionable Deep Water oil spill is making news again. The federal government is moving its case forward by claiming the British oil giant is guilty of negligence and perhaps even willful misconduct.

These are strong words.

But perhaps even more important to those of us who care about healthy oceans is the fact that the wind and waves from the recent Gulf hurricane Isaac have churned up shorelines and uncovered BP oil that’s laid buried for many months.

This newly uncovered oil may be every bit as toxic as when it was first released in 2010. Normally, energy from the sun and other sources helps to break the bonds in the oil and decrease toxicity. But if the oil has been encased in layers of mud and detritus, it may be as fresh as when it was first released.

Until scientists study this oil, no one will know for sure how dangerous it is.

I started following the story of toxicity and oil degradation in 2002, when I wrote about a dynamic young marine chemist, Chris Reddy of Woods Hole Oceanographic, who had found still-highly-toxic oil buried in a once-productive salt marsh on Cape Cod.

The oil had come from a barge that more than 30 years earlier leaked about 600 metric tons of oil into Cape Cod’s Buzzards Bay. High winds and waves washed the oil into the salt marsh, where it was eventually covered over with protective layers of marsh mud and debris. Because the sun was not hitting the oil, there was no energy to break up the bonds that held the various compounds in the oil together.

So when Chris found the oil 30 years later, he also found that the substances had not degraded. Toxicity levels remained high.

Chris’s research made worldwide headlines. Chris’s study had widespread legal implications because lawyers for Exxon were claiming that the oil spilled from the 1989 Valdez in Alaska would degrade over time. Chris’s findings contradicted the lawyers’ claims and had implications that could have affected the final dollars amounts the oil company had to pay in compensation.

Chris and I stay in touch from time to time, and so I knew that in 2010, when the BP disaster occurred, Chris was one of many talented, committed and dynamic scientists who headed to the Gulf as quickly as possible.

He hoped to capture some of the exuded oil as close to its source as possible, in order to ascertain its “signature” – its profile of chemical compounds – as thoroughly as possible before the process of degradation began.

By doing this, Chris and others would be able to track the movements of this particular batch of oil and to differentiate this oil from other oil that may already have been present in the ocean or along the shorelines.

Ultimately, the scientists produced a report that estimated the amount of oil that had been spilled. Their third-party estimates turned out to be much higher than the estimates supplied by BP scientists.

That figure has important legal implications.

This past summer, BP subpoenaed roughly 3,000 private emails of Reddy and his research partner Richard Camilli, also of WHOI.

BP lawyers may try to use the information in these emails, which discuss various aspects of their research, to discredit their findings and thus reduce the amount of money the corporation may ultimately have to pay out.

Here’s the rub: These scientists are not part of any legal suit. Financially, they have no dog in this fight. They are neutral parties who are doing what scientists are supposed to do – supply data.

Nevertheless, they are now required to have their own attorneys to deal with BP’s demands (the company originally asked for many, many more of the scientists’ emails) and they are required to cover their own expenses involved with complying with demands from BP attorneys.

Here’s what they wrote in a recent column: “We are accused of no crimes, nor are we party to the lawsuit. We are two scientists at an academic research institution who responded to requests for help from BP and government officials at a time of crisis.”

We need a Good Samaritan Scientist law. Scientists who pitch in to help out – without compensation from the various parties — need to be protected from subsequent harassment.

I’m certainly not the first to suggest this. Many federal officials have talked about the need to protect scientists.

But Washington doesn’t seem to be able to move forward on this legislation.

I’m left to wonder: Is this because the scientists don’t have the kind of money necessary to hire the kind of lobbyists hired by the oil companies?

But I know one thing for sure: This kind of persistent harassment from oil corporations will make future scientists think twice about pitching in and helping out the next time an oil disaster occurs.

Creating this kind of psychological deterrent may not necessarily be BP’s intention – but it could certainly be the ultimate outcome.

Special thanks to Mark J. Spalding, The Ocean Foundation

Anchorage Daily News: Greenpeace activists retreat after occupying Russian oil rig

http://www.adn.com/2012/08/24/2598667/greenpeace-activists-storm-offshore.html

By NATALIYA VASILYEVA
Associated Press
Published: August 24th, 2012 08:32 AM
Last Modified: August 24th, 2012 08:32 AM

MOSCOW – Greenpeace activists were first offered hot soup, then showered with blasts of cold water and pieces of metal after they stormed a floating Russia oil platform and erected climbing tents on the side of the rig Friday to protest drilling in the Arctic.

The six activists, who include Greenpeace executive director Kumi Naidoo, spent several hours hanging off the side of the Prirazlomnaya platform in the Pechora Sea attached to the rig’s mooring lines. They prepared for a long occupation by bringing up supplies, including the tents, but planned to evacuate after rig workers threw pieces of metal at them.

“Not just hosed water, but now metal being thrown by Gazprom crew at our activists,” he said in a tweet, referring to the workers of a subsidiary of Russian energy company Gazprom that owns and operates the rig. “We’re coming down.”

Gazprom officials were not immediately available for comment. Initially, two helicopters arrived at the platform, but left without disturbing the protesters. The activists managed to put a banner on the rig saying “Don’t kill the Arctic.”

“We’re here peacefully and we will continue to draw the attention of Russian people and people around the world to what’s happening there,” Naidoo told The Associated Press by telephone from the platform before planning to evacuate. “It’s bad for Russia, it’s bad for the planet.”

Gazprom is pioneering Russia’s oil drilling in the Arctic. The state-owned company installed the platform there last year and is preparing to drill the first well.

At first, crew members were friendly and offered them soup, said Naidoo, who was also able to tweet while still suspended from the rig. “Gazprom crew told to make life difficult; regular blasts of icy water,” one tweet said. An accompanying photo showed a stream of water hitting two of the activists. Another tweet said he didn’t expect police or coast guard units until Saturday.

Naidoo said the air temperature was 48, while the water was 46. Gazprom told the AP in an emailed statement that the activists “have been invited to scale up to the platform for a constructive dialogue,” but said that they refused. The company said that “all work on the platform proceeds as normal.”

Naidoo, a South African, said the five activists with him include two from Germany, and one each from the United States, Canada and Finland. The platform is about 620 miles from the nearest port, Murmansk, a city on the extreme northwestern edge of the Russian mainland.

Greenpeace said that its activists have supplies to last “for an extended stay.” Russian and international environmentalists have warned that drilling in the Russian Arctic could have disastrous consequences because of a lack of technology and infrastructure to deal with a possible spill in a remote region known for huge icebergs and severe storms.

An AP investigation last year found that at least 1 percent of Russia’s annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Reuters: In Romney plan, oil drilling unfettered by politics

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/energy-us-romney-idUSL2E8JO2H220120824

Oh pleez…..this is so obviously designed by Big Oil. DV

Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:24pm EDT

By Joshua Schneyer and Timothy Gardner

Aug 24 (Reuters) – In unveiling his energy policy on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped
into the oil industry’s giddy optimism about shale drilling to paint a rosy picture of U.S. economic renaissance fueled by
hydrocarbons.

A 21-page energy policy white paper distributed by the Romney campaign is also notable for what it doesn’t address: The
document contains no mention of climate change, few proposals to curb U.S. fossil fuel demand, and sparse paragraphs on the
merits of renewable energy.

The promise of a drilling frenzy takes center stage. After decades of failed plans to wean the world’s top economy off
foreign oil, huge new domestic oil and gas resources can now be easily tapped by high-tech drilling, the plan says.

By opening more territory for drilling and expediting permits, private companies will be enabled to bring an oil and
gas bonanza to market at record pace, the plan says. One key to the plan is handing states the power to permit for drilling on
acreage owned by the Federal government, which controls nearly 30 percent of U.S. lands.

That move could expedite permits since several states — including North Dakota, Ohio and Colorado — have shown they are
many times faster to issue drilling permits than the Federal government, Romney’s plan says.

Such a major regulatory overhaul would require legislative approval, however, and could face resistance in a divided
Congress. Meanwhile, the prolific drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, faces staunch resistance in
some quarters, over fears it could contaminate water supplies. New York State has maintained a fracking moratorium since 2008.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, in a statement, called Romney’s plan an “oil-above-all” policy, contrasting it to the
Obama administration’s stated “all-of-the-above” policy that promotes a broad mix of renewable energy sources and less hydrocarbons usage, in addition to more oil and gas drilling.

“The Romney plan takes us in the wrong direction by increasing our dependence on oil, ignoring the reality of
climate change, and attacking commonsense environmental protections and successful clean energy programs,” Waxman said
in a statement.

But Romney’s plan is sure to appeal to many voters wary of U.S. dependence on foreign oil and gasoline prices near an
all-time high this year. Increasing drilling could turn the United States into an energy super power by 2020, creating 3
million jobs and adding $500 billion to U.S. gross domestic product, while slashing reliance on “unstable” foreign
oil-producing nations, the plan says.

The plan promises to open territory from Alaska to the Virginia coastline up for more drilling.

“It’s clever because it’s an effort to catch the shale drilling wave, and embrace the excitement and optimism sweeping
through the U.S. oil industry,” said Sarah Emerson of energy consultancy ESAI. “It’s not a ‘we’ll try anything’ approach. It says ‘we’ve got this new resource, let’s develop it and it will have a huge impact on GDP and jobs.”

In betting heavily on a fossil-fueled U.S. energy future, the plan also carries economic and environmental risks. “There is now really a path toward U.S. energy independence and it’s welcome that politicians are thinking about this,” said
Ed Morse, head of commodity research at Citi in New York, whose recent research on the potential of U.S. shale drilling is cited
in Romney’s plan. “This is enviable for a country that has been the world’s only super power and could sustain its power through a (shale-fuelled) reindustrialization.”

The plan is still vulnerable to global energy prices, Morse said. Expanding U.S. oil development hinges on relatively high
global oil prices, and if OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia or Iraq were to boost oil production and cause prices to fall to
$70 a barrel — around 27 percent below current rates — many North American projects could lose their economic appeal.

The United States would also have to nearly double its oil production to becoming a net exporter, raising the risk of new
accidents following the 4.9 million barrel Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010.

“There’s some good stuff in this plan,” said Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “But
it’s a plan for oil production, not a comprehensive energy strategy.”

NOD TO INDUSTRY

Romney, whose chief energy advisor is Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm, the CEO of shale driller Continental
Resources, borrows heavily in his white paper from research notes by oil and gas industry experts.

He slams the Obama administration for allegedly dragging its feet on new drilling. Permitting has languished – allegedly
by 37 percent – a key pipeline hasn’t been approved, and rich offshore prospects remain off limits to drillers, the plan says.

In many ways, however, a proliferation of new drilling — mostly for fracking projects — has already transformed the U.S.
energy industry, putting domestic natural gas output on track for a second annual record, and helping to lift U.S. oil
production to a nine-year high in 2011 from shale-rich states like North Dakota and Texas.

The United States remains the top net oil importer, although U.S. reliance on foreign fuel has waned after gasoline demand
fell by more than 6 percent since peaking in 2007, in part due to more renewable fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards.

According to Romney’s plan, oil companies currently wait an average 307 days for drilling permits from the Federal
government. In North Dakota, permits to drill on state-owned lands take just 10 days. “The economic consequences of not getting permits for years is brutal,” said Mark Mills, an energy expert and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who authored a paper cited in the Romney plan. “The limitation to drilling is access to land, and that can be solved with the stroke of a pen.”

Romney also pledged to forge a U.S. energy alliance with neighboring oil exporting nations Canada and Mexico, and to
approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project to carry Canadian oil sands crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast that has drawn concern
from environmentalists.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E&E: Groups sue EPA in bid to prompt rulemaking on oil dispersants

Paul Quinlan, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Environmental, public health and fishing groups in Alaska and the Gulf
Coast filed a lawsuit against U.S. EPA yesterday to prod the agency to
write new rules governing the use of oil-dispersing chemicals.

Citing accelerating oil and gas drilling activity in their regions,
the groups want EPA to perform more robust tests on the toxicity and
effectiveness of dispersants in specific water bodies.

EPA publishes a national contingency plan for oil spills that lists
dispersants that are either authorized or eligible to be pre-
authorized for use. The lawsuit accuses the agency of an “ongoing
failure” to include details in the plan about the water bodies or
quantities in which the chemicals can be safely deployed, as required
under the Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
calls for the court to vacate dispersant listings of the last six
years and order EPA to publish a product schedule that includes all
the required information. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of
the Louisiana Shrimp Association, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the
Gulf Restoration Network, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network,
Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the
Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club.

“We’re disappointed that the agency doesn’t seem to understand the
widespread public urgency to initiate this rulemaking process,” said
Jill Mastrototaro, director of the Sierra Club’s Gulf Coast Protection
Campaign. “If a spill or blowout happened tomorrow in the Gulf of
Mexico, or any U.S. water for that matter, any dispersant that is used
would not necessarily be safe for the waters, ecosystems, response
workers or nearby communities.”

The groups first notified EPA of their intent to sue in October 2010
(E&ENews PM, Oct. 13, 2010), not long after the Deepwater Horizon
exploded, setting off an 87-day spill. They fear a repeat of what
happened then: 1.8 million gallons of oil dispersants used in the Gulf
of Mexico, even as scientists raised sharp questions about the
strategy.

Dispersants break up oil into tiny droplets that sink below the ocean
surface, effectively keeping it out of sensitive coastal marshes and
enabling it to be consumed by bacteria and other marine organisms.
Many experts fear what effect the accumulation of the oil and
chemicals in the underwater ecosystem might have on the food chain and
whether the overall approach does more harm than good.

Forced to rely on its own incomplete data during the spill, EPA
waffled over whether to allow the dispersant use to continue and
engaged in what amounted to a shoving match with oil giant BP PLC
(Greenwire, April 22, 2011). EPA did not respond to a request for
comment in time for publication.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said the agency needs to learn more
about the use and long-term impacts of dispersants, telling the
presidential commission that investigated the spill that she was
“committed to revisiting” the dispersant listing process Greenwire,
Sept. 28, 2010).

Current federal requirements allow dispersant manufacturers to submit
toxicity data in advance of their chemical’s listing on the national
contingency plan product schedule. That is a prerequisite to pre-
authorization of their use in fighting spills. Without a pre-
authorization plan in place, the on-scene coordinator may authorize a
dispersant’s use, provided it is listed.

In those scenarios, the groups argue that failure to include more
detail on the product schedule leads to uninformed and potentially
dangerous decisionmaking.

“EPA’s failure to obtain, and in turn include on the NCP Product
Schedule, this statutorily-mandated information has seriously hobbled
emergency response to oil spills, most recently in the Deepwater
Horizon oil disaster,” the lawsuit said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sierra Club Florida News: Conservation, Wildlife, and Health Groups Seek Dispersant Rulemaking

by Jill Mastotaro, Sierra Club Gulf Coast Director, on 8/6/12

Clean Water Act suit filed against lagging EPA

August 6, 2012

Washington, D.C. — A coalition of conservation, wildlife and public health groups in the Gulf region and in Alaska filed a citizen suit under the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act today to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a rule on chemical oil dispersants. EPA’s current rules –which during the 2010 Gulf oil disaster failed to ensure that dispersants would be used safely –do not fulfill the requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act.

“We’re disappointed that the agency doesn’t seem to understand the widespread public urgency to initiate this rulemaking process,” said Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club Gulf Coast Protection Campaign Director. “If a spill or blowout happened tomorrow in the Gulf of Mexico, or any U.S. water for that matter, any dispersant that is used would not necessarily be safe for the waters, ecosystems, response workers, or nearby communities.”

During the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, nearly 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants were dumped into Gulf waters with little knowledge or research into the chemicals’ toxic impacts. Currently, regulations dictating dispersants eligible for use in oil spills require minimal toxicity testing and no threshold for safety.

Over 5,000 petitions have been sent by residents across the Gulf Coast region urging EPA to use its authority to initiate comprehensive testing of oil dispersants and to create regulations that include safety criteria and identify acceptable waters and quantities for use. But EPA still has not created a new rule that will ensure that dispersants will be used safely in the next disaster.

“We sent EPA a notice of intent to sue in October 2010 following the debacle of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the unprecedented use of dispersants during that response,” said Earthjustice attorney Hannah Chang, who is representing the groups in court. “Our filing today will push EPA to take further action to follow through on its promise to get a much-needed rule in place.”

“The Clean Water Act requirements have been in place for decades, but administration after administration has failed to comply with the law,” said Cyn Sarthou, Executive Director of Gulf Restoration Network. “Consequently there was little data available to EPA officials when they were confronted with the devastating BP oil disaster.”

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to identify the waters in which dispersants and other spill mitigating devices and substances may be used, and what quantities can be used safely in the identified waters, as part of EPA’sresponsibilities for preparing and publishing the National Contingency Plan. The Plan governs responses to discharges of oil and hazardous substances. But the use of toxic dispersants in response to the Gulf oil disaster was implemented without prior understanding of the effect on the Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health. Groups in oil producing regions, represented by Earthjustice, claim that EPA’s current rules do not follow Clean Water Act guidelines, and as a result they are taking action to force EPA to carry out its legal responsibility.

EPA’s failure to have sufficient dispersant rules in place was one of the many causes of the confusion, concern, and uncertainty surrounding the response to the 2010 well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.Approximately 1.84 million gallons of dispersants were applied in the Gulf despite widespread recognition that little was known about the health and environmental effects of applying such massive quantities of dispersants, and applying them beneath the ocean’s surface.

As the federal government and BP waffled on dispersant use in the middle of the crisis, it became apparent how little testing and study had been done beforehand.Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson readily acknowledged the agency’s lack of knowledge about the dispersants that were being applied. The result was a poorly planned, haphazard response, the effects of which will be felt for years to come. Just this week, a peer-reviewed study found that the use of dispersants may have wreaked significant and ongoing damage on the Gulf of Mexico food chain [link http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2012/07/bp_oil_spill_dispersants_may_h.html].

“The oil industry learned from the Exxon Valdez that ‘out of sight, out of mind’ is its preferred spill response strategy, so the first tool out of the box these days is dispersants,” said Bob Shavelson with Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper. “But dispersants add toxic insult to injury for Alaskan fisheries and Alaskans have a right to know about toxic pollution around our coastal communities.”
“The damage in the Gulf has already been done. Nearly two million gallons of dispersants with essentially unknown environmental effects were released into the waters,” said Marc Yaggi, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance.“We need more effective and responsible EPA dispersant rules so that we are never caught unprepared and uninformed in a crisis situation again.”

Public interest environmental law firm Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, Florida Wildlife Federation, Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, WaterkeeperAlliance, and Sierra Club.

CONTACTS:
Hannah Chang, Earthjustice, 212-791-1881 x 8233
Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club, 504-861-4835
Pamela Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, 907-242-9991
Marylee Orr, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, 225-928-1315
Cyn Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, 504-525-1528
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inletkeeper, 907-299-3277
Marc Yaggi, Waterkeeper Alliance, 212-747-0622 x14

ABC News: 2nd Cuban Offshore Oil Well Also a Bust

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/2nd-cuban-offshore-oil-bust-16938659#.UCA2ud2yWJo

Thank you. DV

By PETER ORSI Associated Press
HAVANA August 6, 2012 (AP)
A second deep-water exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico has proved a bust, Cuba’s state oil company announced Monday, dealing another blow to the island’s dreams of petroleum riches.

The drilling operation carried out by PC Gulf, a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Petronas, and Gazpromneft of Russia, concluded July 31 off the western province of Pinar del Rio, Cuban state oil company Cubapetroleo said in a statement.

Analysis of the findings revealed an “active petroleum system that could extend to other parts of the four blocs contracted by PC Gulf and Gazpromneft, and even beyond their limits,” read the statement, which was published by Communist Party newspaper Granma.

“Nevertheless, at that point the rocks are very compact and do not have the capacity to deliver significant quantities of petroleum and gas,” it continued, “so it cannot be qualified as a commercial discovery.”

Exploratory wells commonly turn out to be dry or not viable, and experts say production was always at least three to five years out from any confirmed strike.

Still, it was disappointing news for a cash-strapped country hoping for an economic lifeline, after another well sunk by Spanish company Repsol came up dry in May.
“A lot of people have been very naive in thinking that an oil-rich Cuba was going to materialize overnight, and that is not the case,” said Jorge Pinon, former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and now an energy expert at the University of Texas. “You don’t just turn the faucet on overnight.”

An estimated 5 billion to 9 billion barrels of crude may be buried off Cuba deep below the Gulf of Mexico, according to geologic surveys, and authorities are hoping the reserves could be even bigger.

Cubapetroleo said PC Gulf and Gazpromneft will study the geologic information gained from drilling the 15,300-foot (4,666-meter) well to evaluate the potential of other parts of the four blocs they have contracted.

Ultradeep-water drilling is technologically challenging and extremely costly, with the platform that drilled out the two wells this year being leased out at $500,000 a day. In Cuba’s case, just finding a suitable rig was a huge obstacle.

To comply with the 50-year-old U.S. embargo, Repsol and Petronas had to turn to the Scarabeo-9, a one-of-a-kind vessel built with less than 10 percent U.S.-made parts to avoid triggering sanctions.

After Repsol opted out of a contract to sink a second well and Monday’s announcement of Petronas’ failed try, the massive semisubmersible now passes to Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA for an attempt near the island’s western tip.

Sonangol of Angola has an option to drill next, but after that the Scarabeo-9 is under contract to drill off Brazil with no word on when it might again be available to return to Cuban waters.

“The difficult part is that they’re going to lose what I call ‘the shovel.’ Once the Scarabeo-9 finishes, that’s it,” Pinon said. “It’s going to take a long time again for … anybody else to drill additional exploratory wells.”

In June, Russian company Zarubezhneft signed an $88 million, 325-day contract with Songa Offshore SE of Cyprus to rent out the Songa Mercur drilling rig for exploration off Cayo Coco, one of Cuba’s leading tourist resort areas, beginning in late November.

But that bloc in the Bahamas Channel is relatively shallow, and Pinon said the Songa Mercur is not capable of the kind of ultradeep drilling required in the Gulf of Mexico, where nearly all Cuba’s offshore exploration zones lie.


Follow Peter Orsi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Peter-Orsi

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NBC News: Former ‘Exxon Valdez’ to be beached, broken up in India

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13071218-former-exxon-valdez-to-be-beached-broken-up-in-india

Living with the legacy of Exxon Valdez
More than two decades after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, residents offer their advice to the Gulf Coast: Be prepared for a long, rough ride. NBC’s George Lewis reports.

By Miguel Llanos, NBC News
India’s Supreme Court this week delivered a ruling that could drastically change the way international ships are dismantled, but in the process cleared the way for the destruction of the ship formerly known as the Exxon Valdez.

The symbol of America’s worst oil tanker spill, the vessel is now the Oriental Nicety after a series of ownership changes since the 1989 disaster.

It’s been anchored off India since May, when the court blocked it from being beached at the infamous Alang shipbreaking yard. Activists had sued, arguing that importing such ships for dismantling violated the U.N. Basel Convention, an international treaty on hazardous waste transport.

In its ruling Monday, the court acknowledged that violation, drawing praise from activists who want ships recycled using tougher health and environmental standards.
“Hopefully this ruling will be the beginning of the end of the dark ages of ship recycling,”

Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network (BAN), said in a statement. “Hundreds of poor and desperate laborers have been killed or exposed to hazardous chemicals as a result of the disastrous shipbreaking practices on Indian beaches.”

But activists were perplexed when the court exempted the Oriental Nicety.

“Oddly enough, the court acknowledged in its ruling that there may be toxic material in the Exxon Valdez that has not yet been discovered,” Colby Self, director of BAN’s Green Ship Recycling Campaign, told NBC News.

The court concluded any dangerous material would be “exposed only at the time of actual dismantling of the ship.”

“It is made clear that if any toxic wastes embedded in the ship structure are discovered during its dismantling, the concerned authorities shall take immediate steps for their disposal at the cost of the owner,” India’s top judges wrote in their order, which was reported by The Hindu newspaper and other Indian news media.

Longer term, the question will be whether the broader ruling is enforced.
Self voiced optimism but acknowledged that “political pressure is extremely high given the immediate economic impacts of this measure.”

“The upcoming challenge is seeing that officials follow the court order,” he said. One scenario, he noted, is that the local pollution control board might just issue a directive “to outwit the court’s ruling.”

AP
The former Exxon Valdez is anchored some six miles off the coast of the Alang shipbreaking yard in India on June 30.

Special thanks to Richard Charter