http://www.boemre.gov/ooc/press/2010/press1007.htm

October 07, 2010

I would love to see a categorical exclusion for any new or expanded offshore oil drilling. Think of it; if the same investment was put into renewable energy, the long term sustainability would far outweigh the short term gain of more rigs. DeeVon

WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) today announced that it is initiating the public comment stage of its review of its use of categorical exclusions (CEs) for decisions regarding energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Consistent with recommendations provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), BOEMRE announced on August 16, 2010, that it would undertake a review of its use of categorical exclusions to ensure that its policies are in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During the period in which BOEMRE is conducting its review, Director Michael R. Bromwich has directed the agency to restrict its use of categorical exclusions for offshore oil and gas development to activities involving limited environmental risk. More information can be found at:

http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Categorical-Exclusions-for-Gulf-Offshore-Activity-to-be-Limited-While-Interior-Reviews-NEPA-Process-and-Develops-Revised-Policy.cfm.

“BOEMRE is committed to strengthening our oversight responsibilities and making decisions that fully consider the potential environmental impacts,” Director Bromwich said. “We will ensure compliance with NEPA as we re-examine the types of environmental reviews required for offshore operations.”

CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1508.4) define “categorical exclusion” as a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementation of these regulations; and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

BOEMRE is inviting the public as well as federal, state and local government agencies, and other interested parties to comment on the appropriate use of and suggest revisions to existing BOEMRE CEs, and to highlight issues that BOEMRE should address during the review. The notice is available in the Federal Register’s “Reading Room” at: http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx. It will be published on the Federal Register tomorrow.

The public is invited to submit comments no later than November 8, 2010, (30 days after publication) in one of the following ways:

1. For written comments, please label your submission “Comments on the Review of Categorical Exclusions for Outer Continental Shelf Decisions” and mail (or hand carry) to James F. Bennett, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch, Environmental Division (MS 4042), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Headquarters, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170.

2. To submit electronic comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter docket ID BOEMRE- 2010-0036, then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related materials available for this collection.
The full CEQ review of BOEMRE (then-MMS) NEPA procedures can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/mms-review
.
Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/08/08greenwire-obama-admin-says-new-offshore-safety-rules-may-19250.html

Greenwire

By KATIE HOWELL of Greenwire
Published: October 8, 2010

The Obama administration is acknowledging that its new offshore drilling safety regulations will raise costs for the oil and gas industry — and may also delay some offshore development, slightly increase gas prices and kill some jobs.

The new rules unveiled last week would increase operating costs by an estimated $1.42 million for each new deepwater well drilled with a floating rig, $170,000 for each new deepwater well drilled with a platform rig and $90,000 for each new shallow-water well, according to an Interior Department notice released yesterday.

Interior says the cost of compliance with the new rules is “not an insignificant amount” but would add on less than 2 percent of the cost of drilling a well in deep water and 1 percent for shallow-water wells. Typical deepwater wells drilled with floating platforms usually cost about $90 million to $100 million, Interior says in the notice to be published next week in the Federal Register.

“The rule does have an effect on energy supply, distribution, or use because its provisions may delay development of some OCS oil and gas resources,” the notice says. “The recurring costs imposed on new drilling by this rule are very small (2 percent) relative to the cost of drilling a well in deepwater. In view of the high risk-reward associated with deepwater exploration in general, we do not expect this small regulatory surcharge from this rule to result in meaningful reduction in discoveries.”

But the cost of compliance could cause a slight increase in oil and gas prices and could drive up U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the notice says, although not enough to affect world markets. It could also lead to job losses at the more than 130 companies that own active leases in federal waters and more than a dozen drilling contractors and their suppliers.

“A meaningful increase in costs as a result of more stringent regulations and increased drilling costs may result in a reduction in the pace of deepwater drilling activity on marginal offshore fields, and reduce investment in our domestic energy resources from what it otherwise would be, thereby reducing employment in [outer continental shelf] and related support industries,” Interior’s notice says.

But those negative risks are worth it, Interior says, and environmentalists agree. “The measures codified in this rule will reduce the likelihood of such an event in the future, at a cost that is not prohibitive, and therefore this rulemaking is justified,” the rule says.

But industry says the increased cost of compliance could be tough for smaller operators to bear.
“When you look at this issue of increased compliance cost, increased regulation coupled with discussions of unlimited liability … all make, certainly, some amount of uncertainty for our producers, if not flat-out stop them. They’ll have to take a very serious look at whether to continue operating in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Dan Naatz, vice president of federal resources at the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “Will it stop activity in the Gulf? I’m not saying that, but it certainly will make us take a serious look.”

Interior, too, says smaller producers could be negatively affected by the increased compliance costs, but that the brunt of the increased costs will be borne by larger companies.

“The overwhelming share of the cost imposed by these regulations will fall on companies drilling deepwater wells, which are predominantly the larger companies,” the notice says. “In fact, 90 percent of the total costs will be imposed on deepwater lessees and operators where small business only hold 12 percent of the leases.”

Interior says the economic effect on small businesses will be analyzed more thoroughly in a separate analysis.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main trade group, is still reviewing the details of the new rules but warned against implementing new regulations that could stifle the domestic oil and gas industry.

“There has to be a clear, practical and certain process for project review that will protect the environment,” API’s upstream director Erik Milito said in an e-mailed statement. “We cannot have an approval process that creates unpredictable delays that could place at risk the flow of domestic energy in our country.”

Interior is imposing the new rules in the wake of this summer’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The drilling safety rule will take effect immediately once it is published in the Federal Register on Thursday.

It details the cementing, casing and drilling fluid procedures that drillers should use in order to maintain wellbore integrity while drilling. It also strengthens oversight of equipment, like blowout preventers, used to shut off the flow of oil and gas.

Interior is also imposing a rule on workplace safety that will take effect next Friday.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Dr. Goodbody-Gringley points out baby Montastraea

http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/2010/10/scientist-finds-deadly-effects-of-dispersant-used-in-gulf-oil-disaster/

from Wildlife Promise
10/8/2010 // Bob Serata //

In the cramped lab at Mote Marine Laboratory’s Tropical Research Lab on Summerland Key in the Florida Keys, Dr. Gretchen Goodbody-Gringley and her team saw firsthand the effects of Corexit 9500 chemical dispersant on the settlement and survival of coral larvae. It wasn’t pretty.

Two corals were selected for the experiments: mustard hill coral (Porites asteroides), and mountainous star coral (Montastraea faveola).

Montastraea is of particular interest because it is one of the corals that populates the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) located in the northwestern Gulf, an area close to the BP oil spill. But both corals can be found throughout the Florida Keys NMS which was spared a direct hit and is the subject of much “what if” research.

“We chose the mustard hill because it is a brooder,” said Goodbody-Gringley. “It goes through internal fertilization and releases mature larvae into the water so the larvae are presumably able to settle and start forming into adult colonies immediately after release.”

“Star coral is a broadcaster. It releases sperm and eggs into the water column which then fertilize and the larvae develop in the water. Broadcasters are generally thought to be more fragile than the brooders because larvae have to develop in the water, so they’re exposed to the elements,” she said.

The team used concentrations of Corexit set by an independent panel of scientists who work with the EPA to determine ecologically relevant concentrations of the chemical — the concentration in sea water as days and months pass.

One experiment measured the settlement (larvae settling on a substrate to start growing) and survival (still living in the water column) of coral larvae after exposure to oil, oil-plus-dispersant and dispersant-alone.

“In both the oil-plus-dispersant and the dispersant-alone samples survival and settlement were extremely low,” said Goodbody-Gringley. “In fact, in the high concentrations that we used [to mimic the early days of an oil spill] we had 100% mortality,” she added.

A separate experiment was designed to mimic the effects of an oil spill and response with dispersant on coral larvae in the water column. A time frame of five days was used to represent the normal longevity of coral larvae in the water column. Water was added to the initial concentration each day to correspond to the continued dilution of the chemical. Measurements were then taken at the end of the five day period.

“These results actually mirrored the settlement results,” said Goodbody-Gringley. “We found lower survival in the presence of oil and much lower survival in the presence of dispersant.”

Pressed for exact percentages of mortality, Dr. Goodbody-Gringley would only say “extremely high.” About survival rates she said, “extremely low.”

The experiments are still proceeding through analyses in preparation for submission to peer review, which is why Dr. Goodbody-Gringley hesitates to quote actual numbers. The paper is expected to be submitted within a month or two, though (if accepted) might be published sometime in 2011.

“The survival of larvae is particularly important because this is the one time in the coral’s life when a new coral will be formed,” she said. “Without this critical stage a reef can’t maintain itself. Eventually the reef would die if there is no reproduction happening.”

Special thanks to Erika Biddle.

10/06/2010

Katie Howell, E&E reporter
A new staff report from the president’s commission investigating the Gulf of Mexico spill blasts the Obama administration for low flow-rate estimates and for assertions that much of the oil was “gone” after the leaking well was capped.

The draft staff working paper from the presidential commission says the Obama administration’s underestimation of how much oil was spilling into the Gulf of Mexico this summer and later remained there undermined public confidence in the government’s ability to handle the disaster.

The paper, one of four released today, details the government’s progress in shaping the flow-rate estimate throughout the summer. Government estimates initially pegged 1,000 barrels a day as the most accurate estimate for the leaking BP PLC well, but that number was quickly revised upward to 5,000 barrels a day, a figure that remained the go-to estimate for a month despite challenges from independent scientists. An interagency team of federal scientists later revised the number several times upward, finally settling on a peak flow rate of 62,200 barrels a day in early August.

“Federal government responders may be correct in stating that low flow-rate estimates did not negatively affect their operations. Even if responders are correct, however, loss of the public’s trust during a disaster is not an incidental public relations problem,” the report says.

“The absence of trust fuels public fears, and those fears in turn can cause major harm, whether because the public loses confidence in the federal government’s assurances that beaches or seafood are safe, or because the government’s lack of credibility makes it harder to build relationships with state and local officials, as well as community leaders, that are necessary for effective response actions,” it says.

Government officials, including senior White House aides and Cabinet officials, have acknowledged that the initial estimates were gross miscalculations and relied primarily on data from BP PLC. But the officials said their response efforts were always based on worst-case estimates, like the figure of 162,000 barrels a day that BP used in its drilling permit application.

While the commission’s staff is still evaluating those assertions, the report suggests the government should have disclosed those worst-case figures.

“Because the worst-case figures that emerged within days of the spill, although imprecise, ended up being roughly equivalent to the actual flow rate, we cannot at this point conclude that inaccurate official estimates adversely impacted the response and clean-up operations,” the report says. “It may, however, have been better practice for the government to disclose the estimates that drove the Unified Command operational plan — that is, the operational worst-case discharge figures.”

But federal officials say they were up front with the public about what the worst-case flow rate could be. In early May, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the worst-case scenario could be more than 100,000 barrels a day, Office of Management and Budget acting Director Jeffrey Zients and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Director Jane Lubchenco said today. They also defended the response effort.

“The federal government response was full force and immediate, and the response focused on state and local plans and evolved when needed,” Zients and Lubchenco said in a statement. “As directed by the President, the response was based on science, even when that pitted us against BP or state and local officials, and the response pushed BP every step of the way.”

Marcia McNutt, director of the U.S. Geological Survey and leader of the team that calculated the government estimates of the flow rate throughout the summer, told a joint hearing by the Interior and Energy departments last month that the government would be able to calculate an accurate flow rate within hours in the event of a future spill.

“We were going blind on how to calculate the flow rate for a mile-deep well,” McNutt said. In a future spill, “we know exactly what we would do, what technique to use and under what circumstances. We would have the right technology in the field within hours to days.”

Environmentalists are already using the report’s findings to blast the administration on its spill response and drilling regulation.

“How can we trust the government to expand drilling when they were trying to hide the problem in the first place? When our government aligns itself with the interests of oil corporations at the expense of the truth, the people and the environment lose,” Greenpeace USA Director Phil Radford said in a statement.

“This underscores the need for independent research that is not tainted by corporate dollars,” he added. “The impacts of this will be with us all for decades, and it is clearer than ever that it is going to take time — and a lot of work — to fully understand the true impacts of this disaster.”

Oil budget
The report also blasts comments made by White House climate adviser Carol Browner and NOAA’s Jane Lubchenco about a government paper released in August that described the fate of the oil in the Gulf.

That oil budget report estimated the fate of the oil and detailed how much had been burned and skimmed. It was meant to aid responders as an operational tool, but some government officials, including Browner and Lubchenco, hailed its findings immediately after its release. Browner and Lubchenco said on separate occasions that the report showed a significant quantity of the oil was “gone.”

“These references … likely contributed to public perception of the budget’s findings as more exact and complete than the budget, as an operational tool, was designed to be,” the report says. “The oil budget was never meant to be a precise tool, and its rollout as a scientific report obscured some important shortcomings.”

The oil budget and the federal government’s presentation of it have been widely criticized by lawmakers and outside scientists, primarily because it does not include any data used to calculate the findings.

The presidential commission’s report suggests that “government scientific study groups disclose more of their underlying methodologies, assumptions and data, allowing for greater review and input from the rest of the scientific community.”

Arctic drilling
The commission staff today also released three other reports. One questions the adequacy of Shell Oil Co.’s spill-response plan for its Arctic drilling proposal.

Shell is pushing to drill exploratory wells in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, but plans have been put on hold as the federal government reviews offshore drilling safety in the wake of this summer’s spill.

“Shell’s exploratory drilling [contingency plan] is currently the only formal industry proposal for contingency planning and oil spill response in the Arctic. While Shell’s plan acknowledges many of the challenges of spill response in the Arctic, questions remain as to whether its solutions to those challenges are realistic,” the report says.

The report also says the presidential commission should examine regulatory standards that govern Arctic drilling and whether they need to be amended and should consider calling for increased Coast Guard capacity to respond to a potential Arctic spill.

Other reports from the commission staff detail government decisionmaking and use of dispersants (see related story).

The reports were written by staff members of the bipartisan commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of the entire panel.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

This is hilarious–ya gotta read it! DV
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/02/1854198/tony-tells-raul-how-to-cope-with.html#storylink=fbuser