http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/12/15-7

Published on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 by Foreign Policy in Focus
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Among the batch of classified diplomatic cables recently released by the controversial whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, several have highlighted the vast extent of the financial infrastructure of Islamist terrorism sponsored by key U.S. allies in the ongoing “War on Terror.”

One cable by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in December 2009 notes that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Despite this, “Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT [Lashkar e-Tayyiba] groups that are also aligned with al-Qaeda.”

Clinton raises similar concerns about other states in the Gulf and Central Asia. Kuwait remains reluctant “to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait.” The United Arab Emirates is “vulnerable to abuse by terrorist financiers and facilitation networks” due to lack of regulatory oversight. Qatar’s cooperation with U.S. counter-terrorism is the “worst in the region,” and authorities are “hesitant to act against known terrorists.” Pakistani military intelligence officials “continue to maintain ties with a wide array of extremist organizations, in particular the Taliban [and the] LeT.”
Despite such extensive knowledge of these terrorism financing activities, successive U.S. administrations have not only failed to exert military or economic pressure on these countries, but in fact have actively protected them, funnelling billions of dollars of military and economic assistance. The reason is oil.

It’s the Hydrocarbons, Stupid
Oil has always been an overwhelming Western interest in the region, beginning with Britain’s discovery of it in Persia in 1908. Britain controlled most Middle East oil until the end of World War II, after which the United States secured its sphere of influence in Saudi Arabia. After some pushback, Britain eventually accepted the United States as the lead player in the region. “US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilisation of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance”, reads a 1945 memo from the chief of the State Department’s Petroleum Division.

Anglo-U.S. geo-strategy exerted this control through alliances with the region’s most authoritarian regimes to ensure a cheap and stable supply of petroleum to Western markets. Recently declassified secret British Foreign Office files from the 1940s and 1950s confirm that the Gulf sheikhdoms were largely created to retain British influence in the Middle East. Britain pledged to protect them from external attack and to “counter hostile influence and propaganda within the countries themselves.” Police and military training would help in “maintaining internal security.” Similarly, in 1958 a U.S. State Department official noted that the Gulf sheikhdoms should be modernized without undermining “the fundamental authority of the ruling groups.”

The protection of some of the world’s most virulent authoritarian regimes thus became integral to maintaining Anglo-U.S. geopolitical control of the world’s strategic hydrocarbon energy reserves. Our governments have willingly paid a high price for this access – the price of national security.

Still Funding Radicalism
One of al-Qaeda’s chief grievances against the West is what Osama bin Laden dubs the “Crusader-Jewish” presence in the lands of Islam, including support for repressive Arab regimes. Under U.S. direction and sponsorship, many of these allies played a central role in financing and supporting bin Laden’s mujahideen networks in Afghanistan to counter Soviet influence. It is perhaps less well understood that elements of the same regimes continued to support bin Laden’s networks long after the Cold War – and that they have frequently done so in collusion with U.S. intelligence services for short-sighted geopolitical interests.

In fact, Afghanistan provides a rather revealing example. From 1994 to 2001, assisted by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the Clinton and Bush II administrations covertly sponsored, flirted and negotiated with the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, former White House Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia about the “covert policy that has empowered the Taliban,” in the hopes of bringing sufficient stability to “permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan.”

The Great Game is still in full swing. “Since the U.S.-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong U.S. support” reported the Associated Press in 2005. “The pipeline would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes. The project’s main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank” – in which the United States is the largest shareholder alongside Japan. It so happens that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still under de facto Taliban control, where NATO war efforts are focused.

Other evidence demonstrates that control of the world’s strategic energy reserves has always been a key factor in the direction of the “War on Terror”. For instance, the April 2001 study commissioned by then-Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed official fears of an impending global oil supply crunch, energy shortages, and “the need for military intervention” in the Middle East to maintain stability.

Energy and Iran
Other diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show clearly that oil now remains central to U.S. policy toward Iran, depicting an administration desperate to “wean the world” off Iran’s oil supply, according to the London Telegraph. With world conventional oil production most likely having peaked around 2006, Iran is one of few major suppliers that can potentially boost oil output by another 3 million barrels, and natural gas output by even more. The nuclear question is not the real issue, but provides ample pretext for isolating Iran.

But the U.S. anti-Iran stance has been highly counterproductive. In a series of dispatches for the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh cited U.S. government and intelligence officials confirming that the CIA and the Pentagon have funnelled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremist groups across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy – officially confirmed by a U.S. Presidential Finding in early 2008 – began in 2003 and has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict.

Not only did no Democratic members of the House ever contest the policy but President Obama reappointed the architect of the policy – Robert Gates – as his defence secretary. As former National Security Council staffers Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett observe, Obama’s decision earlier this year to step up covert military operations in North Africa and the Middle East marked an “intensification of America’s covert war against Iran.”

This anti-Iran directive, which extends covert U.S. support for anti-Shi’ite Islamist militant networks linked to al-Qaeda, hardly fits neatly into the stated objectives of the “War on Terror.” Unless we recognize that controlling access to energy, not fighting terror, is the primary motive.

Beyond Dependency
While classified covert operations continue to bolster terrorist activity, the Obama administration struggles vainly to deal with the geopolitical fall-out. Getting out of this impasse requires, first, recognition of our over-dependence on hydrocarbon energy sources to the detriment of real national security. Beholden to the industry lobbyists and the geopolitical dominance that control of oil provides, Western governments have supported dictatorial regimes that fuel widespread resentment in the Muslim world. Worse, the West has tolerated and until recently colluded in the sponsorship of al-Qaeda terrorist activity by these regimes precisely to maintain the existing global energy system.

Given the convergence of peak oil and climate change, it is imperative to transition to a new, renewable energy system. Such a transition will mitigate the impact of hydrocarbon energy depletion, help prevent the worst effects of anthropogenic global warming, and contribute to economic stability through infrastructure development and job creation.

By weaning us off our reliance on dubious foreign regimes, a shift to renewables and away from supporting oil dictatorships will also make us safer.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. His latest book is A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It (2010). He blogs at The Cutting Edge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121400545.html

The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 14, 2010; 5:29 PM

NEW ORLEANS — A baby sea turtle escaped from the jaws of a shark, only to get stuck in oil spilled from BP’s well in the Gulf of Mexico. A young dolphin apparently was attacked by his mother, then swam into oil.

The animals are among thousands rescued since more than 200 million gallons of oil began gushing from the Macondo well about 50 miles southeast of the Mississippi River Delta, and among dozens still at Gulf Coast rescue centers five months after the well was capped.

Since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, rescue officials say 2,079 birds, 456 sea turtles, some terrapins and two dolphins have been plucked from the oil.

Another 2,263 birds, 18 turtles and four dolphins were found dead with oil on them. All are being dissected to tell whether it was the crude from the BP well that killed them.

Caring for the animals can be time-consuming and costly, an ongoing legacy of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and identifying whether BP is at fault is a complex matter for those working at the centers.

Oil spills can have devastating effects on wildlife. About 20,000 penguins were rescued and washed after the tanker MV Treasure sank in 2000 off the coast of South Africa. In 1989, more than 1,600 birds were rescued after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, according to the International Bird Rescue Research Center.

At the Audubon Aquatics Center in New Orleans, staff are rehabilitating a young dolphin that had oil all over his head and body when he was stranded Sept. 2 at Fourchon Beach on the Louisiana coast southwest of the city. But the dolphin apparently had not swallowed or breathed in any oil, said Audubon Nature Institute spokeswoman Meghan Calhoun.

Beneath the oil, tooth scratches covered his body. Another dolphin – likely his mother – had attacked him, Calhoun said. He was about 2 years old, the age at which dolphin pups leave their mothers, she wrote in an e-mail.

“His debilitation appears to have been caused by his mother, possibly being a little forceful in convincing him he needed to move on,” Calhoun said.

The dolphins’ muscles seized up in pain, so tightly that he couldn’t swim. He needed both physical therapy and muscle therapy, she said.

“We had to show him how to move his tail in an up-and-down fashion instead of side to side” (like a shark), she said.

Both the adolescent dolphin and an adult male dolphin, which was stranded June 19 at Rutherford Beach, had to be held up in the water 24 hours a day until they could swim on their own – and then, for a while, while they rested or slept.

The adult dolphin didn’t have a drop of oil on him, but was ill and parasite-ridden, Calhoun said. Since he was rescued during the spill, he had to be considered as a possible victim.

About 50 sea turtles are still in captivity. Most had some sort of medical problems beyond those caused by the oil, Calhoun said. The Aquatics Center has 30 of them, including 16 green, 11 Kemp’s ridley, one hawksbill and one loggerhead.

Some came in wounded, while others had broken bones, Calhoun said. Only one, a Kemp’s ridley turtle, had wounds that clearly showed how it had been hurt – in this case, shark bites, she said.

Oiled turtles are scrubbed clean with dish soap and other cleaners, tested for health problems and fed at centers.

With winter approaching, none of the animals will be released until the weather warms up.

Michele Kelley, director of the Louisiana Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Program, which works with Audubon, said the cost of rehabbing turtles and dolphins at the Aquatics Center so far has reached about $500,000. BP has said it will cover the entire cost but so far has reimbursed only about $100,000, Calhoun said.

BP spokeswoman Hejdi Feick said the company has spent a total of about $35.5 million so far on rescue and rehab of wildlife since the spill began.

About 16 sea turtles are at the Institute of Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport, Miss., and four are at facilities in Panama City and Orlando, Fla., said Michael Ziccardi, a veterinarian and oiled wildlife expert at the University of California-Davis, and head of the BP spill’s sea turtle and marine mammal response.

About five birds are still in rehab: two brown pelicans, a reddish egret, and the laughing gull and tern.

The pelicans, sent to a Florida rehabilitation center in large flight cages, are well enough to be released, according to Rhonda Murgatroyd, hired by BP PLC to supervise all animal rescues. She said a reddish egret is being cared for at the Louisiana Purchase Zoo in Monroe and the two young birds are at Wings of Hope in Livingston.

________________________________________

SLIDESHOW–click on link above to see

In this Dec. 13, 2010 picture, Meghan Calhoun with the Audubon Nature Institute displays shark bite marks, seen at center in black, on a Kemp’s Ridley turtle that was also impacted by the BP PLC oil spill in New Orleans. Of the thousands of animals rescued since oil began gushing from the Macondo well, dozens are still being cared for at centers along the Gulf Coast five months after the well was capped. (AP Photo/Pat Semansky)

Special thanks to Richard Charter

RIN1010-AD68_ InfoCollect100-0185Defenders_SELC[1]

These comments were submitted by Defenders and the Southern Environmental Law Center on the “interim safety rule” promulgated by BOEMRE, whose comment period deadline at http://www.regulations.gov expires at 11:59 ET today, Monday, December 13.

“We can no longer accept the view that the appropriate response to a rapidly evolving, developing and changing industry, which employs increasingly sophisticated technologies, is for the regulatory framework and the applicable rules to remain frozen. Over time, the regulatory framework and the specific requirements must keep pace. We will continue to analyze information that becomes available, including the findings and recommendations of the ongoing investigations into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon spill- and we will implement reforms necessary to make offshore oil and gas production safer, smarter and with stronger protections for workers and the environment. In developing these reforms, we will balance the need for regulatory certainty against the need to act on new insights and adapt to changing technology. And importantly, the processing of drilling permit applications and proposed drilling plans will not be delayed while these additional reforms are developed.

You know as well as I do that we can always do better — and that we must always remain open to improvements in our regulations to develop the necessary culture of safety. In the past, industry has in many instances reflexively opposed new regulations. That is no more responsible than the mindless multiplication of new requirements for their own sake. We must strike a new balance that fully involves industry in the regulatory process but that recognizes the need for us to exercise independent judgment.”

http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1208.htm

December 08, 2010

New Orleans, La. -Today, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Director Michael R. Bromwich delivered the keynote address at the First International Offshore Oil & Gas Law Conference in New Orleans, La.

Director Bromwich discussed lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon blowout and spill, ongoing regulatory reform efforts, and the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service.

Director Bromwich’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below:
Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak at this inaugural International Offshore Oil & Gas Law Conference. It is a pleasure to be here with you to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern relating to offshore drilling.

It was less than six months ago that I became the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement with a mandate, from the President and the Secretary of the Interior, to reform the government’s regulation of offshore energy development and the agency responsible for it. Since that time, we have been working diligently to make the changes necessary to restore public confidence in the safety and environmental soundness of oil and gas drilling and production on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

My remarks today will address the future of offshore regulation of oil and gas operations in U.S. waters. But to understand what the future holds, we need to have a clear-eyed view of the recent past and the lessons that we can properly draw from the events we have collectively experienced. So before I turn to where we are headed, I want to take a few moments to reflect on where we have been, and discuss the many reforms and changes we have implemented over the past several months.

The explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig took the lives of 11 workers, injured many others, and caused millions of barrels of oil to spill uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico for close to three months. In some ways, it seems like that horrible accident took place a very long time ago; but in other ways the shockwaves from that seminal event continue as though it happened yesterday. It has become the most investigated and reviewed environmental incident of our time.

Deepwater Horizon – the explosions, the sinking, the endless, sickening flow of oil – cast the most profound doubt on the assumptions that up to that point had been shared by government, the industry, and the American people about the risks posed by offshore drilling. Deepwater Horizon has been a call to action for all of us. The truth – acknowledged by some in the industry but denied by others – is that we had become complacent over time. One of the consequences of that complacency was that our safety regulations and technology failed to keep pace with the industry’s expansion to open new frontiers, including deepwater, to oil and gas exploration and development.

Even before the many investigations began, the need for change was immediately apparent. It became abundantly clear that there were significant shortcomings in drilling safety practices and equipment and that industry and the government collectively lacked the ability to quickly gain control over a wild well in deepwater. Once oil started flowing into the Gulf, spill response capabilities were taxed to the limit.
In response to the spill, the Administration launched the largest oil spill response in our nation’s history. And since that event, we at BOEMRE have undertaken the most aggressive and comprehensive reform of offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history. This includes the comprehensive reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service, as well as the implementation of improved standards for drilling practices, safety equipment, and environmental safeguards.

I. The Moratorium on Offshore Drilling
The progress we have made in the areas of drilling safety, subsea containment, and spill response were central to Secretary Salazar’s decision to lift the moratorium on deepwater drilling on October 12, nearly two months ahead of its original schedule. As you know, the Secretary first directed BOEMRE to suspend certain deepwater drilling activities on May 28. This was a necessary step to give the government and industry time to evaluate the potential causes of the blowout and spill, address the ongoing crisis, and begin to put in place additional safeguards that would reduce the risks of similar spills in the future.
Last July, the Secretary asked me to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the status of drilling and workplace safety, subsea containment capability, and the availability and effectiveness of spill response resources. The Secretary specifically held out the possibility that, depending on my findings with respect to these three critical areas, the deepwater drilling moratorium imposed on July 12 could be narrowed in scope or duration.

In carrying out this assignment, I led a series of public forums in eight cities across the country – six of them in the Gulf of Mexico. During these forums, a total of 61 experts from the academic community, the oil and gas industries, conservation and environmental groups, and local businesses provided thoughtful and valuable comments about drilling and workplace safety, well containment, and oil spill response, as well as other issues related to offshore drilling. I also heard from 37 elected officials regarding these issues, including the significant economic effects that the oil spill and the deepwater drilling suspension were having on their constituents.

In addition to hearing from the forum panelists, we received hundreds of written comments from the public. In addition to the activities associated with the public forums, I also held dozens of individual meetings with industry representatives, environmental groups and other stakeholders. At the same time, we also compiled and reviewed a number of relevant reports and other documents that became available including the results of BP’s own internal investigation.

On October 1, after completing this intensive fact-gathering process, I submitted a report to the Secretary that described the progress that had been made and outlined recommendations on moving forward. The Report concluded that sufficient progress had been made on the constellation of issues that originally supported the moratorium to justify lifting it almost two months ahead of the November 30 expiration date.

What had changed that allowed us to feel comfortable with that decision? First, containment capabilities had improved – industry had developed a number of containment mechanisms intended specifically for use in deepwater. Going forward, we expect further improvements in this area. As you know, industry has committed to develop a permanent inventory and widely available set of containment resources that will be available in the event of future deepwater blowouts. The first initiative in this area was the Marine Well Containment Corporation launched by the four majors in July, and subsequently joined by BP. The second and more recent initiative has been formed by approximately two dozen independent and smaller operators
centered on Helix and its vessels.

A second important development was that the attempts to permanently plug the Macondo well had finally succeeded, and oil was no longer flowing into the Gulf. This meant that a significantly greater number of spill response resources had become available in the event another spill took place.

Finally, we had implemented a number of new rules and regulations, which became effective immediately and significantly raised the bar for drilling safety.

On the basis of this information, the Secretary lifted the moratorium on October 12, 2010. Since that time, BOEMRE has been working diligently to review applications for permits to drill in deepwater and ensure that they comply with the new regulations. We are still facing a severe shortage of resources but have temporarily re-assigned personnel from other regions and reallocated within the Gulf of Mexico region to assist in the review of permits in the Gulf of Mexico. My staff is working hard to process permit applications. We are not slow-walking them in any way or for any reason. Despite frequent claims, comments and slogans to the contrary by industry representatives and their allies, there is no de facto moratorium. Our progress in processing permits has been slower than industry would like, but we have been doing the best that we can with the resources we have. Comments that suggest anything else are neither factually accurate nor helpful in any way. In fact, they are an insult to the hardworking men and women in our agency. I want to be clear: we will not cut corners in the permit review process and permits will be approved only when we are satisfied that all applicable regulatory requirements are met. Our priority remains, as it must, to ensure that oil and gas drilling is done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

That said, we have heard a number of questions about our new regulations, the Notices To Lessees (NTL), and how we will apply National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements going forward with respect to deepwater drilling operations. As many of you may know, we are preparing a guidance document, which we intend to be a comprehensive description of the “way forward” for permitting in deepwater. We have discussed the contents of the guidance with a number of companies and have received input on the guidance from them and from American Petroleum Institute (API). While it probably is not realistic that this guidance will resolve every question that an operator may have about the deepwater permitting process, we intend for the guidance to address the significant questions that we have heard and to present a clear path to move forward the resumption of work in deepwater.

The issues that will be addressed in the deepwater permit guidance document include:
* Safety Interim Final Rule: Including clarification of issues regarding the incorporation of RP 65 standards related to casing and cementing.
* NTL-10 Compliance: Including clarification of (1) who constitutes an “authorized official” for purposes of the corporate compliance statement, and (2) and the categories of drilling operations for which subsea containment information is required. In particular, we will clarify that drilling operations that were allowed under the moratorium will not require additional subsea containment information at this time.
* Inspections: A description of BOEMRE’s approach to the witnesses of BOP testing, including stump and on bottom tests.
* NTL-06 and Worst Case Discharge calculations: Clarification of the applicability of NTL-06 to certain operations, including sidetracks, depending on whether WCD information for a particular reservoir already has been submitted.
* Oil Spill Response Plans (OSRP): While we are not requiring the submission of revised OSRPs at this time, we will provide guidance regarding additional information that operators should submit regarding spill response and surface containment in light of worst case discharge calculations.
* Revisions to Exploration Plans/Development Operations Cooridnation Documents (DOCD) and Environmental Assessments: This is an area in which there has been a number of questions, particularly with respect to how we will be addressing previously approved plans. The guidance we will be issuing will explain how we will implement the policy I announced in August that BOEMRE no longer will routinely use categorical exclusions to approve deepwater drilling plans. In short, we will be asking operators to submit a modest amount of information about proposed operations under previously approved plans – information that we believe should be readily available – and we will conduct an environmental assessment that builds on our previous NEPA work for the plan and takes into account new information available since the Deepwater Horizon spill. We are already working on these environmental assessments and intend to complete them as expeditiously as possible – in a matter of weeks, not months.

We hope and trust that this guidance will substantially clarify some of the difficult and complex issues that have arisen in recent months. We are committed to working with industry to provide additional guidance on these and other issues.

I. Overview of New Environmental and Safety Regulations
I’ll turn now to a discussion of some of the new rules and regulations we have put in place.
We have raised the bar for equipment, safety, and environmental safeguards in the drilling and production stages – and we will continue to respond responsibly in the coming months as additional information about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon blowout becomes available.

First, as you know, we have implemented two new rules that raise standards for the oil and gas industry’s operations on the OCS. One of these rules strengthens requirements for safety equipment and drilling procedures; the other improves workplace safety by addressing the performance of personnel and systems on drilling rigs and production platforms.

The first rule, the Drilling Safety Rule, is an emergency rulemaking that puts in place tough new standards for well design, casing and cementing and well control equipment, such as blowout preventers. Operators are now required to obtain independent third-party inspection and certification of each stage of the proposed drilling process. An engineer must also certify that blowout preventers meet new standards for testing and maintenance and are capable of severing the drill pipe under anticipated well pressures.
The second rule we implemented is the Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) Rule, which aims to reduce the human and organizational errors that lie at the heart of many accidents and oil spills. The rule, sometimes referred to as the Workplace Safety Rule, covers all offshore oil and gas operations in Federal waters and makes mandatory the currently voluntary practices in the API Recommended Practice 75 (RP 75).

Operators now are required to develop a comprehensive safety and environmental management program that identifies the potential hazards and risk-reduction strategies for all phases of activity, from well design and construction, to operation and maintenance, and finally to the decommissioning of platforms. Although many companies had developed such SEMS systems on a voluntary basis in the past, many had not. And our reviews had demonstrated that the percentage of offshore operators that had adopted such programs voluntarily was declining.

In addition to the new rules, we have issued a number of Notices to Lessees that provide additional guidance to operators on complying with existing regulations.

For example, NTL-06 (the Environmental NTL) requires that all oil spill response plans include a well-specific blowout and worst-case discharge scenario and that operators also provide the assumptions and calculations behind these scenarios. My staff and I are working closely with operators to provide guidance on what information is required to comply with these new requirements.

Last month, we issued NTL-10 that requires each operator seeking to drill in deepwater provide a corporate statement that it will conduct the applied-for drilling operation in compliance with all BOEMRE regulations, including the new Drilling Safety Rule. The NTL also confirms that BOEMRE will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information to demonstrate that it has access to, and can deploy, subsea containment resources that would be sufficient to promptly respond to a deepwater blowout or other loss of well control. This information will help us evaluate operators’ compliance with current spill response regulations.

II. Reorganization
In addition to these new requirements for operators, we are looking inward and improving our own policies and programs.

We are continuing to move forward with the reorganization of the former Minerals Management Service. In its place, we are creating three strong, independent entities to carry out the missions of promoting energy development, regulating offshore drilling, and collecting revenues. In the past, these three conflicting functions resided within the same bureau, creating the potential for internal conflict and an increased risk of a pro-development bias. This will no longer be the case.

The revenue collection arm of the former MMS has already become the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. In the next year, the offshore resource management and enforcement programs will also become separate, independent organizations.

We have been busy interviewing dozens of Bureau employees in all of our regional offices; collecting and analyzing data relating to the Bureau’s processes, systems and regulatory metrics; and developing various models and options for restructuring and reforming the Bureau.

This work has been painstaking and time consuming, but it is critical to informed decision-making regarding the transformation of the Bureau.

During hearings last week, staff from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill presented various recommendations regarding regulatory oversight of offshore operations. Many of these recommendations are consistent with the reform agenda we are actively pursuing. For example, the Commission staff recommended that:

“[The] regulatory regime should evolve from one of basic prescriptive regulations to a system of augmented baseline regulations supplemented with a proactive risk based performance approach specific to individual facilities, operations and environments.” As a general proposition, I agree with this recommendation, and it is consistent with the Drilling Safety Rule and the SEMS Rule that we promulgated earlier this year.
The staff also offered proposed recommendations regarding the new structure of the nation’s offshore energy regulators. Again, the staff’s recommendations appear to be very much in line with the structure that we have been developing for the separation of leasing and environmental review functions from safety and environmental enforcement functions.

III. Implementation Teams and Other Reforms of BOEMRE Policies
As part of our reform effort, we have created 11 Implementation Teams that are responsible for analyzing various aspects of BOEMRE’s regulatory structure and helping to implement the reform agenda that I have for BOEMRE. These teams are integral to our reorganization effort and are considering the various recommendations for improvement that we have received from, for example, the Safety Oversight Board commissioned by Secretary Salazar. These teams are already hard at work analyzing various aspects of our organization and laying the foundations for lasting change to the way BOEMRE does business.
In addition to the work of the implementation teams, we are moving forward with a number of other internal reforms. We are undertaking a review of categorical exclusions to ensure that our policies are in full compliance with NEPA. The public comment period closed on November 8, and we are in the process of reviewing and analyzing the comments we received. While our review is ongoing, I have directed BOEMRE to restrict the use of categorical exclusions for offshore oil and gas development to activities involving limited environmental risk.

Finally, to address conflicts of interest, we have issued a tough new recusal policy that will reduce the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest. Employees in our district offices must notify their supervisor about any potential conflict of interest and request to be recused from performing any official duty in which such a conflict exists. Thus, our inspectors will be required to recuse themselves from performing inspections of the facilities of former employers. Also, our inspectors must report any attempt by industry or by other BOEMRE personnel to inappropriately influence, pressure or interfere with his or her official duties. Soon we will be issuing a broader version of the policy that applies these ethical standards across the agency.

All of these measures will help us ensure the rigorous, unbiased oversight of offshore drilling.
IV. Future Reforms
While we have already put in place significant pieces of our comprehensive reform agenda, our work is far from complete. In the near future, BOEMRE will proceed through the standard notice and comment rulemaking process to implement further safety measures, including establishing additional requirements for blowout preventers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).

The Bureau will also consider additional workplace safety reforms through the rulemaking process, including requirements for independent third-party verification of operators’ SEMS programs.

Over the past two months, especially since our new rules were announced at the end of September, we have heard from countless companies, trade associations, and Members of Congress of the significant anxiety that currently exists in the industry that we will soon change the rules of the permitting process significantly, thereby creating further uncertainty about what is required to conduct business on the OCS. This is not the case. Barring significant, unanticipated revelations from the ongoing investigations into the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon incident, I do not anticipate further emergency rulemakings.
But at the same time, we can no longer accept the view that the appropriate response to a rapidly evolving, developing and changing industry, which employs increasingly sophisticated technologies, is for the regulatory framework and the applicable rules to remain frozen. Over time, the regulatory framework and the specific requirements must keep pace. We will continue to analyze information that becomes available, including the findings and recommendations of the ongoing investigations into the causes of the Deepwater Horizon spill- and we will implement reforms necessary to make offshore oil and gas production safer, smarter and with stronger protections for workers and the environment. In developing these reforms, we will balance the need for regulatory certainty against the need to act on new insights and adapt to changing technology. And importantly, the processing of drilling permit applications and proposed drilling plans will not be delayed while these additional reforms are developed.

You know as well as I do that we can always do better — and that we must always remain open to improvements in our regulations to develop the necessary culture of safety. In the past, industry has in many instances reflexively opposed new regulations. That is no more responsible than the mindless multiplication of new requirements for their own sake. We must strike a new balance that fully involves industry in the regulatory process but that recognizes the need for us to exercise independent judgment.
Our challenge in the months and years ahead is to ensure that the we do not once again become complacent, but rather that we continue to make progress in developing state-of-the-art safety, containment, and response capabilities. Government, industry, and the best minds in our universities must collaborate on ongoing research and development to create cutting-edge technologies in areas such as well condition sensor capabilities and remote BOP activation, among others. Government and industry must also work together to establish the necessary procedures and structures to address containment in the case of a blowout. It is critical to ensure that, in the event of a blowout, containment resources are immediately available, regardless of the owner or operator involved. These are goals that we must pursue aggressively.

As an important step in this effort, Secretary Salazar has proposed establishing an “Ocean Energy Safety Institute” designed to facilitate research and development, training and implementation in the areas of offshore drilling safety, blowout containment and spill response. If established, this Institute would be a collaborative initiative involving government, industry, academia and scientific experts. Among the Institute’s objectives would be:
· Advancing safe and environmentally responsible offshore drilling through collaborative research and development in the areas of drilling safety, containment and spill response;
· Developing advanced drilling technology testing and implementation protocols;
· Understanding full-system risk and reliability for the offshore environment;
· Developing an enduring research and development capability and an expertise base useful both for preventing and responding to accidents;
· Developing training and emergency response exercises;
· Increasing opportunities for communication and coordination among industry, government, academia and the scientific community; and
· Developing a larger cadre of technical experts who can oversee or otherwise participate in deepwater drilling-related activities.

Most importantly, this Institute is an important component of a long-term strategy to address on an ongoing basis the technological needs and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling, and deepwater drilling in particular.

Going forward, it is my hope that industry and government will continue to cooperate as we move ahead toward safer, more environmentally responsible drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
Thank you for your time and attention.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/12/14-16

I include this in the offshore oil blog because the contradiction between polar bear protection and drilling for oil in Alaska is obvious….DV

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2010
3:59 PM
CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity
Kassie Siegel, (760) 366-2232 x 302 or ksiegel@biologicaldiversity.org

WASHINGTON – December 14 – More than 150 biologists and climate scientists today called on the Obama administration to follow the best available science in deciding the level of protection polar bears will get under the Endangered Species Act. The letters were submitted to the Department of the Interior as the agency faces a court-imposed deadline next week on whether polar bears, which are acutely imperiled by global warming, should continue to be classified merely as “threatened” or given maximum protection as “endangered.” At the same time, more than 140 public-interest groups representing millions of Americans also sent a letter to Interior today urging that polar bears be protected as an endangered species.

“There’s broad consensus that rapid climate change in the Arctic is hurting polar bears right now and the U.S. government needs to take aggressive action to pull this majestic species back from the brink of extinction,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute and author of the petition that led to Endangered Species Act listing for the bear in 2008. “It doesn’t do polar bears, or any of the rest of us, any good to treat climate change as a problem to be solved by future generations – not when the devastating effects are already being felt right now.”

Many polar bear populations are already declining. The bears’ less-protective “threatened” designation allowed the Bush administration to exempt the primary threat facing the bear, namely greenhouse gas pollution, from important regulatory programs under the Act. The Center and other groups have argued in federal court that the bears need the most protection possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The letter from climate scientists discusses the rapid and accelerating melting of Arctic sea ice and urges Interior to “acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change poses not just a distant, future threat to Arctic sea ice, but a current threat to this important habitat of the polar bear and other ice-dependent species.”

“Many climate scientists, like myself, study climate change by poring over large data sets and running climate model simulations. Global warming can at times seem very distant, almost an abstract concept,” said Dr. Michael E. Mann, professor of meteorology at Penn State University. “When I ventured up to Hudson Bay in mid-November and saw the undernourished polar bears with their cubs, sitting around at the shore of the Hudson Bay, waiting for the then month-overdue sea ice to arrive so they could begin hunting for food, it suddenly came home for me. For the first time in my life, I actually saw climate change unfolding before my eyes. It was a sobering moment, and one I’ll never forget.”

In a second letter, more than 140 biologists urge the Obama government to reverse an argument it has advanced in the litigation – that extinction must be “imminent” before a species may be listed as endangered. The biologists’ letter states that “we believe it is wrong to argue that a species may never be listed as ‘endangered,’ absent a showing that extinction is imminent,” and that the narrow definition advanced by Interior in the litigation “is contrary to language of the Endangered Species Act, inconsistent with the current list of threatened and endangered species, and will limit protections for species known to be at risk of extinction.”

In a third letter, a broad alliance of more than 140 faith, human-rights, social justice and environmental groups called on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today to “fully acknowledge the reality and science of climate change in the Arctic, and grant polar bears full protection as an ‘endangered’ species.” An additional letter, sent from the heads of the nation’s largest environmental groups, was sent to Salazar last week.

Interior has until Dec. 23 to respond to a November court ruling by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan that ordered the Department of the Interior to reexamine its 2008 decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” rather than “endangered.” Secretary Salazar has so far defended the Bush-era “threatened” designation, claiming that threats to the species are only of concern in the future – notwithstanding the fact that polar bears are already drowning and starving as a result of sea-ice loss, with many populations declining. Scientists predict that if greenhouse gas trends continue, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including all the bears in Alaska, will probably be gone in 40 years and possibly well before then.

“Global warming is not just a future threat for the polar bear or for the rest of us. It’s here now,” said Siegel. “The Obama government needs to acknowledge the reality that global warming has arrived and grant the polar bear the ‘endangered’ status it desperately needs.”

.###
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature – to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.

——————————————————————————–