Category Archives: Uncategorized

New York Times: Drilling Plans Off Cuba Stir Fears of Impact on Gulf

Desmond Boylan/Reuters
Cuba’s nascent oil industry has pumps near Havana but lacks some of the equipment needed to handle a major deepwater spill.
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: September 29, 2010

HOUSTON – Five months after the BP oil spill, a federal moratorium still prohibits new deepwater drilling in the American waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And under longstanding federal law, drilling is also banned near the coast of Florida.

Yet next year, a Spanish company will begin drilling new wells 50 miles from the Florida Keys – in Cuba’s sovereign waters.

Cuba currently produces little oil. But oil experts say the country might have reserves along its north coast as plentiful as that of the international oil middleweights, Ecuador and Colombia – enough to bolster its faltering economy and cut its dependence on Venezuela for its energy needs.

The advent of drilling in Cuban waters poses risks both to the island nation and the United States.

Ocean scientists warn that a well blowout similar to the BP disaster could send oil spewing onto Cuban beaches and then the Florida Keys in as little as three days. If the oil reached the Gulf Stream, a powerful ocean current that passes through the region, oil could flow up the coast to Miami and beyond.

The nascent oil industry in Cuba is far less prepared to handle a major spill than even the American industry was at the time of the BP spill. Cuba has neither the submarine robots needed to fix deepwater rig equipment nor the platforms available to begin drilling relief wells on short notice.

And marshaling help from American oil companies to fight a Cuban spill would be greatly complicated by the trade embargo on Cuba imposed by the United States government 48 years ago, according to industry officials. Under that embargo, American companies face severe restrictions on the business they can conduct with Cuba.

The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident.

“This isn’t about ideology. It’s about oil spills,” said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. “Political attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf.”

Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials.

Right now, Cuba’s oil industry is served almost exclusively by non-American companies. Repsol, a Spanish oil company, has contracted with an Italian operator to build a rig in China that is scheduled to begin drilling several deepwater test wells next year. Other companies, from Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Brazil, have taken exploration leases.

New Mexico’s governor, Bill Richardson, a Democrat who regularly visits Cuba, said Cuba’s offshore drilling plans are a “potential inroad” for loosening the embargo. During a recent humanitarian trip to Cuba, he said, he bumped into a number of American drilling contractors – “all Republicans who could eventually convince the Congress to make the embargo flexible in this area of oil spills.”

“I think you will see the administration be more forward-moving after the election,” Mr. Richardson said.

Despite several requests in the last week, Cuban officials declined to make anyone available for an interview.

Currently, the United States, Mexico and Cuba are signatories to several international protocols in which they agreed to cooperate to contain any oil spill. In practice, there is little cooperation between Washington and Havana on oil matters, although American officials did hold low-level meetings with Cuban officials after the BP blowout.

“What is needed is for international oil companies in Cuba to have full access to U.S. technology and personnel in order to prevent and/or manage a blowout,” said Jorge Piñón, a former executive of BP and Amoco. Mr. Piñón, who fled Cuba as a child and now briefs American companies on Cuban oil prospects, said the two governments must create a plan for managing a spill.

Several American oil and oil service companies are eager to do business in Cuba, Mr. Piñón said, but they are careful not to identify themselves publicly because they want to “protect their brand image in South Florida,” where Cuban-Americans who support the embargo could boycott their gasoline stations and other products.

There are signs the Obama administration is aware of the safety issues. Shortly after the BP accident, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the agency that regulates the embargo, said it would make licenses available to American service companies to provide oil spill prevention and containment support.

Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman, said licenses would be granted on a “application-by-application basis,” but he would not comment on the criteria.

Mr. Piñón said it appeared that an American company could apply for a license before an emergency but that a license would be issued only after an accident had occurred. “We’re jumping up and down for clarification,” he said.

One group – Clean Caribbean & Americas, a Fort Lauderdale cooperative of several oil companies – has received licenses to send technical advisers, dispersants, containment booms and skimmers to Cuba since 2003. But it can only serve the member companies Repsol and Petrobras, not Cuba’s government.

Economic sanctions on Cuba have been in effect in one form or another since 1960, although the embargo has been loosened to allow the sale of agricultural goods and medicines and travel by Cuban-Americans to the island.

Mr. Hunt of the drillers’ group said that the association had sent a delegation to Cuba in late August and had held talks with government officials and Cupet, the Cuban national oil company.

He said that Cuban officials, including Tomás Benítez Hernández, the vice minister of basic industry, asked him to take a message back to the United States. “Senior officials told us they are going ahead with their deepwater drilling program, that they are utilizing every reliable non-U.S. source that they can for technology and information, but they would prefer to work directly with the United States in matters of safe drilling practices,” Mr. Hunt said.

Mr. Benítez became the acting minister last week when the minister of basic industry, the agency that oversees the oil industry, was fired for reasons still unclear.

Donald Van Nieuwenhuise, director of petroleum geoscience programs at the University of Houston, said that if an accident occurred in Cuban waters, Repsol or other companies could mobilize equipment from the North Sea, Brazil, Japan or China. But “a one-week delay could be disastrous,” he said, and it would be better for Havana, Washington and major oil companies to coordinate in advance.

Opponents of the Cuban regime warn that assisting the Cubans with their oil industry could help prop up Communist rule. Instead of making the drilling safer, some want to stop it altogether.

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, is urging President Obama to recall a diplomatic note to Havana reinforcing a 1977 boundary agreement that gives Cuba jurisdiction up to 45 miles from Florida. “I am sure you agree that we cannot allow Cuba to put at risk Florida’s major business and irreplaceable environment,” he wrote the president shortly after the BP accident.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Environmental Defense Fund: Gulf Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators who support Gulf Restoration Funding

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/29/3065576/c-o-r-r-e-c-t-i-o-n-environmental.html

C O R R E C T I O N — Environmental Defense Fund/
Share

By Environmental Defense Fund

Published: Wednesday, Sep. 29, 2010 – 8:58 am
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — In the news release, Gulf Region Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators Who Support Gulf Restoration Funding, issued 29-Sep-2010 by Environmental Defense Fund over PR Newswire, we are advised by the organization that the poll was conducted between September 7 and September 13, 2010 rather than 2007, as originally issued inadvertently. The complete, corrected release follows:

Gulf Region Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators Who Support Gulf Restoration Funding

Poll is timely day after Mabus report recommends BP fines be dedicated to Gulf restoration fund

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Nearly three out of four voters (72%) in Gulf region states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) say they’d be more likely to vote for federal legislators if they support funding to restore the environmental health of the Gulf, according to a new poll released today. The poll was funded by the Walton Family Foundation on behalf of a coalition of environmental, business, fishing, and anti-poverty groups dedicated to restoring the Gulf Coast.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100202/EDFLOGO)

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100202/EDFLOGO)

The poll is timely because yesterday a working group named by President Obama to create a long-term Gulf recovery plan — headed by Navy Secretary and former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus — recommended that a “significant amount” of the penalties collected from BP for this summer’s oil spill should be dedicated to repairing the region’s ecological, economic, public health and psychological damage. While the U.S. House of Representatives has passed an oil spill response bill that directs funding to Gulf Coast restoration, the Senate, even with the elections fast approaching, has yet to act on oil spill response legislation.

The poll by Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners and GOP polling firm Bellwether Research and Consulting found that — regardless of political affiliation — voters across the Gulf region have a deep commitment to restoration and see it as key to the economic health of the region. In fact, majorities of Independents (67%), Democrats (82%) and Republicans (67%) said they are more likely to support federal legislators who will make new investments in restoration.

“This new polling confirms what common sense already told us. Voters overwhelmingly believe restoring the Gulf environment will also strengthen the region’s economy, and make it more resilient when facing future storms or manmade disasters,” said Scott Burns, director of the Walton Family Foundation’s Environment and Conservation Program. “This is a clear message that restoration in the Gulf region is a high priority.”

Across the Gulf region, more than two out of three voters (68%) recognize that degradation of the Gulf Coast as a result of man-made activities had occurred even before the recent oil spill, and more than three out of four voters (77%) believe it is important for the federal government to take steps to restore the health of the Gulf region, making this a strong voting issue in the upcoming elections.

“This poll shows Gulf Coast senators that restoring the environmental health of the Gulf’s wetlands, marine and coastal areas is both good public policy and good politics,” said Paul Harrison, senior director for the Mississippi River at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Gulf Coast voters recognize that it is critical to their economic future, especially for the region’s huge fishing and tourism industries.”

“The people of the Gulf want and deserve a comprehensive plan that creates new job opportunities as part of environmental restoration,” said Minor Sinclair, Oxfam America’s U.S. Regional Director. “The Federal Government needs to invest in the Gulf, for the good of the people who live there and for the nation as a whole.”

Additional key findings of the survey include:

•More than three out of five voters (62%) in Gulf Coast states say they are less likely to vote for federal legislators who do not support funding Gulf restoration.
•Nearly nine out of 10 poll respondents (87%) across the five Gulf states agree that the environmental health of the Gulf Coast region affects their state’s economy very much or somewhat.
•Nearly eight out of 10 poll respondents (78%) favor creation of a separate fund for the Gulf region and the Mississippi River Delta that includes penalty payments from BP for violating the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act.

The full polling information is available at the Walton Foundation website: http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/gulf-region-poll-results/

The telephone survey of 2,061 voters from all five Gulf region states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) was conducted between September 7 and September 13, 2010. The polling margin of error is +/-2.2%.

About the Walton Family Foundation

The Walton Family Foundation’s environmental giving focuses on achieving lasting conservation in some of the world’s most important ocean and river systems. Desired outcomes are designed to benefit both people and wildlife by aligning economic and conservation interests. Accordingly, the Foundation invests in projects that create new economic incentives for sustainability and biodiversity protection, and in projects utilizing other conservation tools where needed.

The Walton Family Foundation supports projects and organizations that are making a positive difference for individuals, communities and the environment in the areas in which we concentrate our efforts. During 2009, the Foundation invested more than $378 million in charitable initiatives, including those within our core Focus Areas: Systemic K-12 Education Reform; Freshwater and Marine Conservation; Quality of Life Initiatives in our Home Region. For more information, visit www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org.

About the coalition

A coalition of environmental, business, fishing, and anti-poverty groups dedicated to restoring the Gulf Coast has formed to jointly present this poll. The groups include: The Walton Family Foundation; Oxfam; Alabama Coastal Foundation; America’s WETLAND Foundation; Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Environmental Defense Fund; The Fishermen’s Alliance; Florida Wildlife Federation; Franklin County Seafood Dealers Association; Galveston Bay Foundation; Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance; The Gulf Restoration Network; Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Mobile Baykeeper; National Audubon Society; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy; The Ocean Conservancy; Organized Fishermen of Florida; Reef Relief; Save our Gulf; and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

CONTACTS:

Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.572.3331, scrowley@edf.org

David J. Ringer, National Audubon Society, 601.642.7058, dringer@audubon.org

Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, guidrye@nwf.org

Matt Tinning, Ocean Conservancy, 202.286.6498, mtinning@oceanconservancy.org

Daphne Davis Moore, Walton Family Foundation, 479.464.1578, dmoore@wffmail.com

SOURCE Environmental Defense Fund

Interior News: Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Dept. Decision-making

Well, we can always dream…..dv

From: Interior News [mailto:interior_news@ios.doi.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Departmental Decision-Making

Date: September 29, 2010
Contact: Kendra Barkoff (202) 208-6416

Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Departmental Decision-Making

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today issued a Secretarial Order establishing a policy to ensure the integrity of the science and scientific products used in the Department’s decision-making and policy development.

“The American people must have confidence that the Department of the Interior is basing its decisions on the best available science and that the scientific process is free of misconduct or improper influence,” Salazar said. “This policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of all department employees, including career staff and political appointees, in upholding principles of scientific integrity and conduct.”

The new policy, which will be codified in the Departmental Manual to ensure compliance by all employees, clearly affirms that Interior employees, political and career, will never suppress scientific or technological findings or conclusions. Further, it ensures scientists will not be coerced to alter or censure scientific findings, and employees will be protected if they uncover and report scientific misconduct by career or political staff.

The new policy is consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, dated March, 9, 2009, and will conform with the expected 2010 guidance and recommendations of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Department has been working on a policy on scientific integrity for a number of years. The Department put out a draft for public comment in 2010, and many commenters noted that it did not sufficiently address scientific conduct by political appointees or use of scientific information in decision-making. The policy directive issued by Secretary Salazar today clearly applies the same standards of conduct to both political appointees and career appointees and forbids the alteration of scientific findings in policy-making activities.

The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions. It also covers all contractors, cooperators, partners, volunteers, and permitees who assist with scientific activities.

The secretarial order, whose implementation will be overseen by Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, incorporates the following principles:

The Interior Department values science and science plays a vital role in helping us meet the department’s mission. As such, when scientific or technological information is considered in decision making, the information will be as robust, of the highest quality, and the result of rigorous scientific processes as can be achieved within the available decision time-frame.

Interior Bureaus and Offices will document and make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in decision making, except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum.

The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions and positions that are decision making in nature where those decisions rely on scientific information to inform the process, shall be based on the candidate’s knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

Clear and unambiguous codes of conduct for scientific activities and use of science in decision making will establish expectations of employees with regard to scientific integrity. Misconduct will not be tolerated. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated and disciplinary action will be taken as appropriate.

Interior will identify, address, track, and resolve instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised.

Interior will establish procedures and as appropriate, clarify whistleblower protections to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision making or otherwise uses or prepares.

Interior scientists have rights as citizens and responsibilities as government employees. These rights and responsibilities with regard to communication with the public will be clearly delineated.

Interior encourages the enhancement of scientific integrity through engagement with the communities of practice represented by professional societies. Interior scientists, scholars and other professionals are encouraged to engage in scientific, scholarly and other activities with these professional networks. These Interior employees will recuse themselves when appropriate and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Here’s the link to the actual order: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=45590

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Working Waterfront: Canada calls for permanent drilling ban on Georges Bank

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Canada-calls-for-permanent-drilling-ban-on-Georges-Bank/14056/

September 28, 2010 | Incorporating the Inter-Island News

OCTOBER 2010 | ENVIRONMENT, MARINE

by Bob Gustafson
An Atlantic Canada coalition of fishermen, processors, First Nations and environmental organizations is calling for a permanent oil and gas-drilling ban on Georges Bank. And on September 9 the organization, known as NoRig 3, was joined by Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter.

Coalition Chair Denny Morrow, who serves as executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers, said that the push for a permanent ban has been in large part due to “environmental disasters around the world,” citing the blowout in the Timor Sea off the Australian coast, as well as the two incidents in the Gulf of Mexico.

Another major reason for a permanent ban is the fishery itself, according to Morrow.

“It is the only area in the North Atlantic where we’ve had a major recovery of the groundfish stock. It’s rich in biodiversity, it’s very productive in scallops,” he said and added, “Whales are out there, sea birds. It’s just the richest area in the Canadian North Atlantic, and it should be protected.”

Premier Dexter agrees. “We have a resource on the continental shelf, which has provided a livelihood for centuries. We want to make sure that that is adequately protected,” he said.

In announcing that he would seek to extend the current drilling moratorium (due to expire in 2012), he added that he would include a call for an “indefinite” ban within the enabling legislation.

On the issue of jurisdiction Morrow explained, “Offshore decisions in Atlantic Canada are made co-operatively by the federal government and the provincial government. In the case of Georges Bank, Nova Scotia is the province that shares decision-making (and royalties if there are ever any) with the national government. In practice, the provincial government has been given the lead in making decisions about the moratorium on Georges and the Canadian government follows the provincial advice.”

However, Morrow and Dexter both noted that only 20 percent of the Georges Bank fishery is within Canadian jurisdiction, with the remaining 80 percent belonging to the United States.

Dexter added, “One of the things that we’re mindful of is the fact that there is an Offshore Continental Shelf Committee, there are committee hearings taking place in the United States right now and they’re looking at these issues.

By far the vast majority of Georges Bank is actually in American waters. What they will do or might do in the future will have an impact. What we want to do, of course, is to provide some leadership and say ‘This is how we view Georges Bank,’ and see what happens on the U.S. side.”

On the U.S. side, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has in fact called for a permanent Georges Bank drilling ban.

“BP’s oil spill is threatening marine life and marine livelihoods all along the Gulf coast,” Markey said. “And while this spill is unfolding more than 1,000 miles away, scientists are increasingly worried about how this spill may affect bird and sea life from the Bayous all the way up to Boston.”

He added, “That’s why I will be seeking to add provisions to the oil spill legislation that will soon be moving through the House that would keep Georges Bank safe from ever being the site of a future oil spill disaster.

Legislation that I authored to protect Georges Bank has previously passed the House in 2008. The environmental disaster occurring in the Gulf is a stark reminder of why we can never allow Georges Bank to become BP’s Bank. And why we must ensure that it is a home to shellfish, not Shell Oil.”

On the Canadian side Morrow explained that the 3 in NoRigs 3 represents “our third moratorium campaign.”

Noting that coalition members have not always seen eye-to-eye on many issues. Morrow said, “We do have an impressive coalition. We would prefer not to have to assemble our resources every few years to protect such an important fishing area and sensitive ecosystem.”

He concluded, “The recovery of the haddock stock on Georges Bank through joint Canadian/U.S. management of trans-boundary groundfish stocks is a real success story. Both countries should cooperate by implementing a permanent ban on oil and gas development on Georges Bank.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E & E News: CHEMICALS: House Dems want GAO probe of dispersant use

Finally….this is long overdue. DV

09/29/2010

Elana Schor, E&E reporter

Two House Democrats have requested a broad Government Accountability Office investigation of dispersant use during BP PLC’s Gulf of Mexico oil gusher, including the government’s evaluation of the chemical products’ environmental impacts.

Reps. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a Monday letter to GAO outlined eight areas of inquiry for an audit of dispersant use. Their request touched on several controversial facets of the still-unfolding dispersant debate, including the effectiveness of U.S. EPA’s dispersant toxicity tests and the agency’s role in evaluating requests by the Coast Guard-led Gulf incident command for exemptions from a May federal order that sought limits on the use of the chemicals.

“The amount of dispersants used was stunning, and we don’t have a clue as to what the effect will be on the environment,” Miller, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee’s oversight subpanel, said in a statement. “God forbid we ever have another spill like that one, but we need to figure out the effect of massive use of dispersants before that happens.”

Miller and Markey, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subpanel, described the “massive use of dispersants” during the 87-day oil leak as “a massive and unprecedented environmental experiment.” Government and independent scientists alike have warned that the chemicals’ role in expediting the biodegradation of oil, while it prevents crude from reaching sensitive shorelines, can heighten the risk to marine life by leaving droplets of dispersed oil suspended in the water column (Greenwire , July 30).

A May 26 edict issued by EPA and the Coast Guard asked BP to limit its spraying of the Corexit 9500 dispersant on the surface of the Gulf save for “rare cases” when other means of containment proved unworkable. The Coast Guard ultimately gave the oil company frequent exemptions from that order, however, and EPA has indicated that it did not always agree with those decisions. Miller and Markey asked GAO to evaluate the circumstances behind the exemptions.

The duo’s request also touched on an Aug. 4 report released by the White House that set off a political scrum by depicting a large majority of the leaked oil as already dispersed or contained. “How accurate is the statement in the Oil Spill Budget Report that stated that 8 percent of the oil released from the wellhead was chemically dispersed?” they asked.

EPA chief Lisa Jackson this week told members of the presidential commission probing the oil disaster that she was “committed to revisiting” policy that governs the approval of dispersants for use during future spills (Greenwire , Sept. 28).

Click here to read Markey and Miller’s request to GAO.

Special thanks to Richard Charter