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

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

Threat to Florida’s environment reduced as drillers look elsewhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

http://www.envinews.eu/article/622863/
Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

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

Published: March 31, 2013

WATERLOO, Ontario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

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

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

Take one small step today to change oil industry practices

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

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

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

TAKE ACTION NOW!

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

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

2. Create broader awareness

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

"Be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi