http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nelson-48847–.html

April 11, 2012 9:12 PM

TOM McLAUGHLIN / Daily News

View a slideshow of Nelson’s visit. »
FORT WALTON BEACH – U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson told local leaders Wednesday that he holds a special place in his heart for them for standing with him in 2009 to oppose opening Florida waters to offshore drilling “when forces were aligned and hellbent to start.”

“You understood then something that nobody else on the Gulf Coast understood,” he told a packed house at Staff restaurant. “That for our economic sustainability, our livelihoods, we rely on the Gulf of Mexico. And I wanted to come here before passage of the Restore Act and publicly thank you.”

Two years removed from 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill, most people along the Gulf Coast have concluded that offshore drilling isn’t worth the risk or the impact to local military missions, Nelson said.

And he assured the crowd that recently passed U.S. House legislation to open the Eastern Gulf to oil exploration is “not going to pass the Senate.”

Speaking at the event hosted by the Greater Fort Walton Beach Chamber of Commerce, Nelson detailed recent Senate efforts to secure passage of the Restore Act.

Nelson said he and a bi-partisan coalition of Gulf Coast senators cobbled together legislation attractive enough to pass the Senate by a 76-22 vote.

He called the work to secure the vote “a bright and shining moment of bipartisanship, for a change.”

He urged those in attendance to let House members know how important passage of the act is to Northwest Florida.

The Restore Act would funnel the bulk of BP fine money to Texas, Louisiana Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – the states directly impacted by the oil spill.

Under a state agreement, the great majority of Florida’s share of the funds will come to eight counties, including Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Walton, that suffered economically from the spill.

Nelson said passage of the Senate version of the Restore Act would guarantee Florida’s share of the money would come directly to the counties affected by the spill without being funneled through the state.

It would ensure that funds will be set aside to create a center in each of the five affected states for research on the health of the Gulf.

Nelson was asked after the meeting when he expects the Restore Act to come to a vote in the House.

“Whenever we can convince the House to vote on it,” he answered.

Nelson, a Democrat, seems to have a solid reputation in conservative Northwest Florida.
He was engaged with the region during the oil spill and received thanks from several people Wednesday for his efforts to preserve the fishing heritage in places such as Destin that have relied on the industry for decades.

“I want to thank you on behalf of the city of Destin for your work on the Restore Act,” Destin Mayor Sam Seevers told Nelson. “And also for the work you’re doing for our fisheries.”
Nelson also took time out to pay tribute to Crestview barber Mack Brooks, a recent recipient of the prestigious Florida Folk Heritage Award.

Brooks, who attended Wednesday’s get-together, pointed at Nelson and said, “I gotta tell you, he’s a fine fella.”

Nelson touched on a second topic that enjoys bipartisan support: the protection of missions at Eglin Air Force Base and other military installations in the region.

He said he remains suspicious of Air Force intentions as long as a proposal to headquarter the command of the Eglin’s 46th Test Wing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., lingers.

“They swear up and down on a stack of Bibles the mission isn’t going to change. But I want them to explain it to me,” Nelson said. “They’re going to have to swear to me in blood on a stack of Bibles, and if I’m not satisfied I’m going to my old friend (Defense Secretary) Leon Panetta.”

Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/nelson-48847–.html#ixzz1rtd48IGM
Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/lloyds-london-warns-risks-arctic-oil-drilling?newsfeed=true

Insurance market joins environmentalists in highlighting risks of drilling in fragile region as $100bn investment is predicted

Julia Kollewe and Terry Macalister
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 April 2012

The report, by Chatham House analysts, warns: ‘Other than the direct release of pollutants Š there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed.’ Photograph: Alamy

Lloyd’s of London, the world’s biggest insurance market, has become the first major business organisation to raise its voice about huge potential environmental damage from oil drilling in the Arctic.

The City institution estimates that $100bn (£63bn) of new investment is heading for the far north over the next decade, but believes cleaning up any oil spill in the Arctic, particularly in ice-covered areas, would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk”.

Richard Ward, Lloyd’s chief executive, urged companies not to “rush in [but instead to] step back and think carefully about the consequences of that action” before research was carried out and the right safety measures put in place.

The main concerns, outlined in a report drawn up with the help of the Chatham House thinktank, come as the future of the Arctic is reviewed by a House of Commons select committee and just two years after the devastating BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

The far north has become a centre of commercial attention as global temperatures rise, causing ice to melt in a region that could hold up to a quarter of the world’s remaining hydrocarbon reserves.

Cairn Energy and Shell are among the oil companies that have either started or are planning new wells off the coasts of places such as Greenland and Canada, while Total – currently at the centre of a North Sea gas leak – wants to develop the Shtokman field off Russia.

Shtokman is the largest single potential offshore Arctic project, 350 miles into the Russian-controlled part of the Barents Sea, where investment could reach $50bn.

A BP joint venture is planning to spend up to $10bn on developing onshore oilfields in the Yamal-Nenets autonomous area of Russia, despite its experiences with the Macondo oil spill in the relatively benign waters of the Gulf. A series of onshore mining schemes are also planned, with Lakshmi Mittal, Britain’s richest man, wanting to develop a new opencast mine 300 miles inside the Arctic circle in a bid to extract up to £14bn of iron ore.

But the new report from Lloyd’s, written by Charles Emmerson and Glada Lahn of Chatham House, says it is “highly likely” that future economic activity in the Arctic will further disturb ecosystems already stressed by the consequences of climate change.

“Migration patterns of caribou and whales in offshore areas may be affected. Other than the direct release of pollutants into the Arctic environment, there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed, such as the construction of pipelines and roads, noise pollution from offshore drilling, seismic survey activity or additional maritime traffic as well as through the break-up of sea ice.”

The authors point out that the Arctic is not one but several ecosystems, and is “highly sensitive to damage” that would have a long-term impact. They are calling for “baseline knowledge about the natural environment and consistent environmental monitoring”.

Pollution sources include mines, oil and gas installations, industrial sites and, in the Russian Arctic, nuclear waste from civilian and military installations, and from nuclear weapons testing on Novaya Zemlya. The report singles out a potential oil spill as the “greatest risk in terms of environmental damage, potential cost and insurance” – but says there are significant knowledge gaps in this area.

Rates of natural biodegradation of oil in the Arctic could be expected to be lower than in more temperate environments such as the Gulf of Mexico, although there is currently insufficient understanding of how oil will degrade over the long term in the Arctic. Sea ice could assist in some oil-spill response techniques, such as in-situ burning and chemical dispersant application, but this could lead to air pollution and the release of chemicals into the marine environment without knowing where moving ice will eventually carry them.

Unclear legal boundaries posed by a mosaic of regulations and governments in the Arctic are an additional challenge. The Lloyd’s report notes that there is no international liability and compensation regime for oil spills. An EU proposal under discussion would apply to offshore oil projects in the Arctic territories of Norway and Denmark, and possibly to all EU companies anywhere they operate.

Meanwhile, a taskforce is drawing up recommendations for the intergovernmental Arctic Council on an international instrument on marine oil pollution designed to speed up the process for clean-up and compensation payments, due for release next year. This may include an international liability and compensation instrument. Greenland has argued that “different national systems may lead to ambiguities and unnecessary delays in oil pollution responses and compensation payments” and that any regime must adapt as understanding of the worst-case scenario in the Arctic changes.

The Lloyd’s report says the “inadequacies” of both company and government in the event of a disaster were demonstrated after the Macondo blowout. A smaller company than BP, faced with estimated $40bn clean-up and compensation costs, might have gone bankrupt, leaving the state to foot the bill, it notes.

Lloyd’s says it is essential that there is more investment in science and research to “close knowledge gaps, reduce uncertainties and manage risks”. It calls for sizeable investment in infrastructure and surveillance to enable “safe economic activity” and argues that “full-scale exercises based on worst-case scenarios of environmental disaster should be run by companies”.

The Arctic’s vulnerable environment, unpredictable climate and lack of a precedent on which to base cost assessments have led some environmental NGOs to argue that no compensation would be worth the risk of allowing drilling to take place in pristine offshore areas. Others are campaigning for more stringent regulations and the removal of the liability cap for investors.

See Terry Macalister’s ebook Polar Opposites at www.guardian.co.uk/info/2012/mar/14/arctic-ebook

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/oil-drills-close-on-pristine-reef/story-e6frgczx-1226323323869

ANDREW BURRELL From:
The Australian April 11, 2012 12:00AM

OIL giants Woodside Petroleum and Shell are about to launch a $350 million drilling campaign within 10km of the Rowley Shoals, a premier diving spot off the Kimberley coast that the West Australian government says is “one of the most pristine marine areas in the world”.

The move puts Woodside and Shell on a fresh collision course with environmental groups, which say exploring for oil and gas so close to the coral atolls is fraught with danger because of the risks of an oil spill and the threat posed to marine life during seismic surveys.

Divers and green groups say the Rowley Shoals, 300km off the coast, rival the Great Barrier Reef for their spectacular coral and marine life but few Australians are aware of them because of their remote location.

The offshore drilling campaign comes as the federal government prepares to release another three exploration permits that are even closer to the Rowley Shoals Marine Park.

The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism last year invited the petroleum industry to bid for the new permits in federal waters. It said the Rowley sub-basin, which has waters up to 5000m deep, was “under-explored” and potentially prospective for oil and gas.

Doubts grow over Woodside project

Bids for the three latest exploration blocks close tomorrow.

The rapid increase in exploration activity in the area comes after Shell last year overcame opposition from green groups to start drilling for oil and gas about 50km from the edge of Western Australia’s World Heritage listed Ningaloo Reef.

Woodside is also engaged in a battle with environmentalists who are opposed to its plans to build a $35 billion gas plant at James Price Point on the Kimberley coast.

There is heightened sensitivity about safety in the the oil and gas industry after the disastrous Montara oil spill off Western Australia’s coast in 2009 and BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

WWF’s director in WA, Paul Gamblin, said he was extremely concerned that the Gillard government was releasing acreage in environmentally sensitive areas at an accelerated pace.

“The Rowley Shoals is a very clear example of what should be a no-go area for the oil and gas industry,” Mr Gamblin said.

“Instead of that, we are seeing the government use the acreage release program, which has no public comment opportunity and no environmental assessment, to roll out the opportunity for industry to undertake exploration activity and production. It starts a process that is pretty much unstoppable.”

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke said last night that his department had provided advice to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, “highlighting the matters of national environmental significance that occur within or in the vicinity of the proposed releases”.

“This included identification of key ecological features such as the Rowley Shoals,” Mr Burke said.

“Whilst acreages have been released by DRET, under the EPBC Act any person (or company) proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance must refer their proposal to the department to establish whether further assessment and approval is required before it can proceed.

“All proposals referred to the department are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and are subject to a rigorous and transparent assessment process, including an opportunity for public comment.”

The federal government said last year that Woodside and Shell would spend about $350 million searching for oil and gas in three exploration areas known as W10-3, W10-4 and W10-5. Each permit is about 3590sq km.

The companies are operating in a joint venture, with Woodside holding 55 per cent.
It is understood the Woodside-Shell venture plans to start exploring in the permit areas this month.

A spokeswoman for Woodside declined to comment on whether the company would bid for the three additional blocks being offered near the Rowley Shoals.

But she said Woodside had a long history of successfully conducting offshore drilling in Western Australia. “All our drilling activities are undertaken in accordance with legislative requirements and meet the requirements of good industry practice,” she said. “Each well we drill is subject to rigorous environmental risk assessments and planning to develop an environmental plan which is approved by the regulator before drilling commences.

“A two-barrier standard applies to all Woodside-operated drilling operations, which ensures there are at least two tested barriers in place at any time to prevent reservoir fluids flowing to the external environment.”

Experienced diver and underwater cinematographer Richard Todd said the Rowley Shoals rivalled the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef for the diversity of coral, abundance of fish and water visibility. “It’s a world-class diving destination,” he said.

Mr Todd, who has worked around the world for the past 15 years, said he was opposed to any oil exploration near the shoals. “It’s ludicrous — it’s bordering on insanity, really,” he said.

The Rowley Shoals Marine Park, which encompasses the two southernmost atolls, is managed by the West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. The northernmost Mermaid Reef is administered by the federal government and is part of a marine nature reserve.

None of the drilling will take place in these areas, but will come within about 10km of the 4km exclusion zone surrounding the atolls. The DEC says 233 species of coral and 688 species of fish inhabit the shoals.

“Today the shoals rank among the most remote and pristine marine areas in the world,” the department says on its website.

“Lying on the very edge of Australia’s continental shelf, they are regarded as the most perfect examples of shelf atolls in Australian waters.”

The DEC declined to comment yesterday.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.democrats.com/stand-up-to-big-oil?cid=

I just read and signed the petition: “Stand up to Big Oil.” Please take a moment to read about this important issue, and sign the petition. Please sign here: http://www.democrats.com/stand-up-to-big-oil?source=dquirolo%40gmail.com. DeeVon Quirolo,

Petition

Big oil has picked their candidate-and it’s not Barack Obama.

Why? Because his policies threaten their bottom line.

While the President pursues an all-of-the-above energy strategy and tries to put an end to taxpayer giveaways to oil companies, they’re using their record-breaking profits to attack him with negative ads.

If you want to stop your tax dollars from subsidizing oil companies, stand up and say so. Stand up to Big Oil – add your name to show that you’ve got President Obama’s back.

http://www.thedutchharborfisherman.com/article/1214shell_wins_injunction_greenpeace_looks_at

April 6th 2:56 pm | Jim Paulin

Shell has won an injunction requiring Greenpeace to keep its distance, 1,000 meters from oil rigs and 500 meters from support boats nationwide, and now the Coast Guard is making a more modest proposal for a 25-yard “safety zone” restricting movements around the oil vessels in Dutch Harbor.
A Greenpeace spokesman would not rule anything out.

“Greenpeace does not discuss what we might or might not do in the future. What we can say is that we’ll continue to oppose Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic peacefully and passionately because we believe that this project could spark an Arctic oil rush which will damage both the climate and the pristine environment,” said spokesman James Turner.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason in Anchorage granted Shell’s request for the injunction, drawing praise from the oil company.

“We are pleased the judge recognized the risk posed by Greenpeace’s illegal activities and entered the preliminary injunction. Our goal is to avoid a repeat of the recent illegal boardings that took place in New Zealand and Finland that not only jeopardized the safety of the crews aboard Shell’s Arctic-bound vessels but the protestors as well. While we recognize the rights of opponents to peacefully protest Shell’s Alaska drilling plan, we can’t condone Greenpeace’s illegal and unsafe tactics,” said Shell spokesman Curtis Smith in Anchorage.

Greenpeace official Dan Howells blasted Shell’s legal maneuvering.

“When an oil company with billions of dollars employs an army of lawyers to undermine your right to peaceful protest and free speech, then you know you’re doing something right. Since Greenpeace New Zealand launched this campaign over 300,000 people have written to Shell telling them that Arctic drilling is one of the great mistakes of our age, and the company has resorted to legal bullying because they’re scared of public opinion,” Howells said.

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard has proposed access-limiting safety zones around oil vessels in Dutch Harbor, with a 30-day public comment period ending May 3. “The Coast Guard proposes temporary safety zones in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and adjacent U.S. territorial sea from June 15 through on July 1. The temporary safety zones will encompass the navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of moored or anchored offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of underway offshore exploration or support vessels. The purpose of the safety zones is to protect persons and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the Port of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and the adjacent territorial sea due to additional vessel traffic associated with exploratory drilling operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the summer of 2012,” according to the Federal Register.

Coast Guard spokesman Kip Wadlow in Juneau said the security zones are aimed at keeping local port activities flowing smoothly, in view of potential congestion from the large Shell fleet. The agency is still reviewing options for local housing for the Maritime Safety and Security Team, he said..Another Coast Guard public affairs officer said last month that in anticipation of potential protests, the Coast Guard plans to station about 100 security personnel in Unalaska this summer.

Said Greenpeace’s Turner, ” We have no argument with the Coast Guard, who are simply following orders. Greenpeace has always been an entirely peaceful organization which follows the example of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King and Gandhi. It’s up to others to decide whether a peaceful protest group or an increasingly desperate oil company pose the greater threat to our nation in 2012.”

Shell’s oil rigs in recent years have been highly visible on the Unalaska skyline, whether anchored off Hog Island or in Captains Bay, and another big show is expected in a few months.

Smith said “You will, in some capacity, see all of Shell’s vessels and drilling rigs this summer as they will likely stage and travel through Unalaska to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The arrival date is not set yet but it’s fair to say Shell vessels will make for quite a presence in the region by late June.”

The injunction was filed against Greenpeace USA, a California corporations, and 20 John and Jane Does, by Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. both Delaware corporations.

The injunction bans Greenpeace from blocking, barricading, or trespassing on 19 named vessels, the oil rigs Kulluk and Noble Discoverer, and 17 support boats including the Nanuq, Tor Viking II, Point Oliktok, Lauren Foss, Corbin Foss, Aiviq, Nodica, Fennica, and Z Big 1. The injunction remains in effect in territorial waters extending 12 miles offshore until Oct. 31.

Jim Paulin can be reached at jpaulin@reportalaska.com.

Contact us about this article at editor@thedutchharborfisherman.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter