http://channel6newsonline.com/2011/10/environment-group-says-indonesias-timo-sea-largely-destroyed-due-to-2009-montara-oil-spill/

Big surprise–corexit kills marinelife. When will it be banned everywhere? DV

20 OCTOBER 2011 BY: BNO NEWS

KUPANG, INDONESIA (BNO NEWS) — Recent undersea pictures and video have shown that conditions in Indonesia’s Timor Sea have deteriorated at an alarming rate, largely caused by the 2009 Montara oil spill, the Care West Timor Foundation (YPTB) said.

Most of the damage is believed to have been caused by the chemical Corexit 9500 or dispersant sprayed in the region by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) in its effort to submerge the oil spill to the seabed in the Timor Sea.

YPTB chief Ferdi Tanoni told the Antara news agency that concerning damage is seen in the footage as coral reefs where fish grow have been destroyed. The undersea pictures and videos were made by experts from Australia and the Surabaya Institute of Technology (ITS) earlier this month.

Tanoni said around 64,000 hectares (158,000 acre) of coral reefs in the Sawu Sea had been destroyed by both the oil spill and chemical substances used to submerge the oil. In addition, coastal people in East Nusa Tenggara have reported suffering from ‘strange diseases.’

On August 21, 2009, an oil field off the northern coast of Western Australia and in Indonesia’s Timor Sea experienced a blowout at a wellhead platform, causing a large oil and gas leak which is considered one of Australia’s worst oil disasters. The rig, owned by the Norwegian-Bermudan Seadrill and operated by PTTEP Australasia (PTTEPAA), continued to leak for 74 days until it was capped on November 3, 2009.

According to the Australian Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, the Montara oil spill was leaking as much as 2,000 barrels a day. Reports indicate a total of 40 million liters (over 10.5 million gallons) of crude oil was spilled into Australian waters, which reached Indonesia’s seas through natural currents.

Over 70,000 square kilometers (43,500 square miles) of sea in Indonesia’s East Nusa Tenggara province were eventually polluted. The Australian government later informed that an inquiry revealed that PTTEPAA’s failure to carry out standard operating procedures caused the oil spill.

Tanoni explained that the undersea images are important material for a study on the socio-economic, health and environmental impact of the incident so far. The YPTB chief also emphasized that there was no reason for PTTEPAA, the federal government of Australia and the Northern Australia government to not conduct a thorough, comprehensive, credible and independent scientific study on the impact of the incident on local people.

“We need an appropriate, overall, transparent, credible and independent scientific study financed by PTTEP Australasia and the government of Australia as a form of their responsibility for the incident that has caused the people of West Timor in East Nusa Tenggara fall victim,” Tanoni said as quoted by the media outlet.

According to Tanoni, PTTEPAA previously stated that the oil spills in Timor Sea were small and do not affect the local people environmentally, socially and economically. However, he insisted the damage was evident, calling for a thorough study that would also show the cost of he damage from the spill.

Last September, Indonesian Environment Minister Mohammad Gusti Hatta urged the Government of Australia to sign a compensation payment agreement related to the oil spill, which has already been postponed on two occasions.

Mohammad said Australia had rejected the compensation payment agreement because the figures were too high, while Indonesian officials argued the numbers were based on the direct losses suffered by local fishermen, the general economic losses, as well as the indirect losses from the damage done to coral reefs, mangroves and coastal ecosystems.

PTTEPAA has said it would makeup Indonesia’s losses through its corporate social responsibility (CSR) program and, according to reports, through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Mohammad underlined the big difference between CSR programs and recovering damages, describing PTTEPAA’s proposal as unacceptable.

http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/76764/timor-seabed-destroyed-after-montara-incident-yptb

Thu, October 20 2011 16:45

Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara (ANTARA News) – Conditions of the seabed in the Timor Sea have become concerning following the Montara incident, according to photo and video recordings made by Care West Timor Foundation (YPTB).

The coral reefs where fish grow were destroyed strongly believed to be caused by chemicals Corexit 9500 or dispersant sprayed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to submerge an oil spill to the seabed in the Timor Sea, according to the pictures and videos shown to reporters here on Thursday.

YPTB chief Ferdi Tanoni said the undersea pictures and videos were made by experts from the Surabaya Institute of Technology (ITS) and from Australia on October 10-12, 2011 who are YPTB`s partners.

The destruction occurred because of crude oil spills from an explosion of Montara well in the West Atlas Block in the Timor Sea on August 21, 2009.

“The undersea photographs are material for a study on the socio-economic, health and environmental impact of the incident so far covered by the polluting company PTTEP Australasia,” Tanoni said.

He said there was no more reason for PTTEP Australasia, the federal government of Australia and the Northern Australia government to not conduct a thorough, comprehensive, credible and independent scientific study on the socio-economic, health and environmental impact of the incident on the local people.

“We need an appropriate, overall, transparent, credible and independent scientific study financed by PTTEP Australasia and the government of Australia as a form of their responsibility for the incident that has caused the people of West Timor in East Nusa Tenggara fall victim,” he said.

“Based on the results of the study the cost of the damage and others would then be known,” he said.

He said the demand had been conveyed to the Australian prime minister and PTTEP Australasia in September 2010 with its copy also sent to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

“We demand the study in response to PTTEP Australasia`s statement that the oil spills in Timor Sea is small and does not affect the local people environmentally, socially and economically,” he said.
He said the destruction of 64,000 hectares of coral reefs in Sawu Sea and several other strange diseases now attacking the coastal people in East Nusa Tenggara were believed to be the results of the Montara oil spills and chemical substances used to submerge the oil spills to the seabed.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://rotor.com/Publications/RotorNewssupregsup/tabid/177/newsid1237/74049/mid/1237/Default.aspx

I would be SOOOO happy to see the oil companies pay their fair share by closing tax loopholes! DV

Cuban Drilling Plans & the Repeal of Oil Subsidies
Offshore drilling in Cuban waters, within 70 miles of the Florida Keys-which could begin later this year by Spanish company Repsol-took center stage this week at a U. S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.

Lawmakers grilled key U.S. Coast Guard and other Obama administration officials over their authority and ability to respond to a foreign source oil spill. It was revealed during hearings that, due to the 49-year old embargo against Cuba, the Coast Guard would have to seek approval from the State Department before responding to any oil spill caused by Cuban drilling.

The congressional ‘supercommittee’ tasked with cutting the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, received correspondence this week from 14 Democratic and independent senators calling for the repeal of $21 billion worth of tax breaks for the five biggest oil and gas companies. The lawmakers told the co-chairs of the ‘supercommittee’ that “unlike working families struggling to make ends meet, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have money to burn.” The group says that ending the tax breaks for the big five oil companies would bring in approximately $21 billion over 10 years to the federal government. A similiar letter was sent last week by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the ranking members of all House committees.

The Democrats on the 12 member ‘supercommittee’ generally support the repeal of the oil and gas subsidies, while Republicans strongly oppose the repeal of the tax breaks.

Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 (Archive on Monday, January 01, 0001)
Posted by NStaff Contributed by

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/18/v-fullstory/2460190/us-admits-limits-in-monitoring.html

BY ERIKA BOLSTAD
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON — As exploratory oil drilling is set to begin in December off the coast of Cuba, the U.S. government acknowledged Tuesday that because of chilly diplomatic relations it could have a limited ability to control the response to an oil spill there, let alone one the magnitude of last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. regulators said their main leverage to encourage safe drilling practices in Cuba is with the oil company doing the first round of offshore exploration in the communist country: Spain’s Repsol.

Because of its other extensive U.S. interests, Repsol is likely to exercise caution in a project less than 100 miles from the Florida coastline, said Michael Bromwich, director of the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which is within the Department of the Interior.

Repsol’s wide U.S. interests have likely “played a significant role in why they’ve been as cooperative as they have,” Bromwich told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday morning.

Bromwich also said the company has pledged publicly that it will adhere to U.S. regulations and the highest industry standards while working in Cuban waters. The company has given U.S. regulators permission to inspect the rig it will be using, Bromwich said, although that inspection would have to be done before it enters Cuban waters. The agency, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, already has participated in a mock response drill at Repsol’s facilities in Trinidad.

Regulators have made it clear they expect the company “to adhere to industry and international environmental, health and safety standards and to have adequate prevention, mitigation and remediation systems in place in the event of an incident,” Bromwich said.

But others at the hearing warned that spilled oil knows no political boundaries – or embargoes. And while Congress is most curious about Cuba because of the limited information available about the country’s plans, other Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico neighbors also are exploring for oil near U.S. waters. They include Jamaica, the Bahamas and ongoing operations in Mexico.

“If we just kind of close our eyes to it here, and say, ‘It’s not going to happen here,’ we’re fooling ourselves,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the committee’s top Republican. “If there is a spill, the impact doesn’t necessarily stop at our borders.”

How U.S. companies are allowed to respond to any potential spill in Cuban waters could be vital in protecting Florida and the Bahamas, said Paul Schuler, the president and CEO of Clean Caribbean and Americas, a Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based oil-spill response consortium funded by oil companies. He called for a “loosening up” of the red tape required for U.S.-based companies to have any sort of involvement with Cuba’s communist government.

Schuler’s organization, which responded to the 2010 BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, has been involved in Cuba since 2001, when Repsol and Brazil’s Petrobras were first doing work there.

Clean Caribbean and Americas applied for and received licenses from the Treasury and Commerce departments to travel to and export equipment to Cuba. Company officials also have been to Cuba recently to work with Repsol and Petronas, the state-owned Malaysian oil company also exploring in Cuba, Schuler said.

One of the foremost experts in Cuba’s oil-drilling capabilities, Jorge Pinon, warned the committee that the United States shouldn’t bully Repsol, which is not the only oil company to explore in Cuban waters.

Pinon pointed out that the United States doesn’t have the leverage with state-owned entities like Petronas that it does with publicly traded companies with U.S. interests, such as Repsol.

“Mexico, Cuba and the Bahamas are in the process of implementing the most advanced and up-to-date drilling regulations and standards,” said Pinon, a former Amoco executive and a visiting research fellow with Florida International University’s Latin American and Caribbean Center’s Cuban Research Institute. “But do they have the resources, capabilities, assets, personnel and experience to enforce them? Can these countries’ regulatory agencies appropriately police the operators? These are issues for debate.”

Some Republican lawmakers have complained in the past about Cuba’s ability to drill so close to the U.S. coastline even as a 125-mile buffer zone remains in place in U.S. waters off of most of Florida’s coast. Tuesday, those questions came up again.

“Why not drill there?” asked Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. Bromwich told Corker the agency would be going forward with lease sales in the western Gulf of Mexico in December, and in the central Gulf in May or June.

And lawmakers from both parties remain concerned about Repsol’s involvement in Cuba. In September, 34 lawmakers led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked Repsol in a letter to keep out of Cuban waters, saying the firm’s pending offshore drilling plans would support the Castro regime and “bankroll the apparatus that violently crushes dissent.”

Ros-Lehtinen also has introduced legislation that would deny U.S. visas to non-citizens who’ve worked in Cuba’s oil drilling industry. The bill also would impose sanctions and other penalties on people and entities who invest in the development of Cuba’s petroleum resources.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/havana_fit_over_cuba_oil_drilling_kXtn49UB9SjNODrYo90gDN

Finally, a public announcement of concern by the Obama administration, although I know they have been working behind the scenes for a while on this issue……..DV

By JOSH MARGOLIN
Last Updated: 7:11 AM, October 17, 2011
Posted: 2:25 AM, October 17, 2011

EXCLUSIVE

It’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster — Cuban oil mixing with Florida’s waters.
The Obama administration is frantically gearing up for the start of Cuba’s controversial off-shore oil drilling in December, worried that a spill would create an environmental catastrophe for Florida’s coastline, officials told The Post.

Adding to US concerns over a possible BP-like disaster for Florida is the lack of relations between the federal government and Cuba’s Communist regime — which would make the United States’ ability to prevent or deal with such an accident even more difficult, the officials said.

“People are crazy over this. It’s a very big problem,” said an Obama administration source. “They’re talking about drilling off Cuba, but the way currents flow, the oil would hit Florida.”

Federal and environmental authorities have been huddling behind closed doors for months to come up with a plan for dealing with the start of the drilling — some of which could occur just 50 miles off Florida’s shore.

Cuba is currently awaiting the arrival of its first oil platform from Singapore before starting to drill.

The Spanish company Respol will operate the rig — the first of many — in Cuban waters in the Florida Straits due south of Florida.

Tomorrow, the Obama administration is scheduled to brief Congress on its plan to deal with the tense issue — as memories of the massive BP spill from the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico last year are still looming large in everyone’s minds.

The State Department has taken the lead in assembling the plan — but officials in the departments of Homeland Security and the Interior and the Coast Guard and the EPA have also been wringing their hands over the issue.

The groups’ talks come months after the Obama administration OK’d the resumption of deep-water drilling in parts of the Gulf off the US coast after the Louisiana disaster.

But the United States has never allowed domestic offshore oil rigs in its own waters off Florida’s coastline, in large part because of concerns that an accident or pollution could wreak havoc with the state’s valued tourism industry, including the environmentally sensitive Everglades.

But now Florida will face that very threat, because Cuba’s cash-strapped dictatorship is eager to tap into — and profit from — what could be up to 20 billion barrels of petroleum spread under 43,000 square miles of ocean floor.

“We’re worried, from an environmental standpoint, because Florida’s waters are environmentally sensitive . . . Everyone’s very concerned about the Keys and Everglades,” said Jeff Tittel, a senior official with the Sierra Club.

“For [Cuba], this is a big economic boom. And they don’t get the pollution [threat],” Tittel said.

To deal with a spill that could threaten Florida — and possibly waters as far up the coast as North Carolina — US officials could theoretically let Cuba or its drilling partners tap into a $1 billion fund the United States maintains to deal with such accidents. But hardliners in Congress would be expected to fight against that.

American oil companies actually want to get in on the Cuban drilling themselves, but they need to get the US government’s approval first.

They have argued that they should be allowed to drill off Cuba’s coast because they are best equipped to deal with any potential spills.

But administration officials are stuck politically, because Florida’s influential Cuban-exile community strongly opposes additional economic interaction with Cuba.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Exxon Aims to Bail on Payments for Valdez Damage

-By Kate Sheppard| Thu Oct. 13, 2011 6:34 AM PDT

It’s been more than 22 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped 10 million gallons of crude into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, but you don’t have to look very hard to find lingering impacts from the spill. You can actually still find oil on the shore there, the fisheries are still struggling, and some bird species haven’t recovered. But now Exxon is saying it won’t pay up, despite an agreement to cover those additional cleanup costs.

Five years ago, the US government asked Exxon for money to continue the cleanup effort there. In its latest court filing, Exxon appears to be trying to shirk its obligation to pay for additional damages. In its filing to the US District Court in Alaska on September 30, the company argues that the agreement it reached with the government only covers “restoration” work-not additional “clean-up.”

Before we get furter into the details, a quick recap: In 1991, Exxon struck a deal with the government to pay just $900 million in damages over 10 years for cleanup costs. The deal allowed the government to reopen the case, if it could prove that there were remaining problems that had not been adequately addressed. That “reopener” clause only extended until September 2006. So when that date rolled around and there was still evidence of that habitat and species were directly impacted by the spill, the Department of Justice and the State of Alaska filed a claim asking Exxon for an additional $92 million payment.

Exxon has so far rebuffed their claim. In the company’s latest court filing, it argues that the original agreement “makes clear that the parties limited the Reopener to ‘restoration projects,’ that ‘restoration’ is something separate from and in addition to ‘clean-up.'” The agreement, the company argues, “ended Exxon’s further obligations for ‘clean-up’ once and for all.”

Meanwhile, the US Department of Justice doesn’t seem all that concerned about making Exxon pay up anytime soon. The department’s own filing to the court argues that it’s premature for Exxon to argue about whether or not they have to cover a specific type of restoration project, because scientists are still studying the situation anyway. The filing does note, however, that government officials have found that oil in the Sound has “been degrading at a far slower rate than was anticipated at the time the Parties entered into the Consent Decree and had remained toxic and available to natural resources, such as sea otters and harlequin ducks which use these intertidal habitats.” In other words, there are still problems up there that need to be addressed, and that will cost money.

Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska marine biologist who spent 14 years working in the Prince William Sound, has filed his own brief in the case, hoping to push DOJ to actually make Exxon pay up. But, he says, the agreement was “a sweetheart deal from day one,” setting the price for Exxon relatively low and making it difficult, from the start, for the government to seek additional payment. “It’s absolutely maddening,” Steiner says. “None of the parties, US or Exxon, has the public interest in mind.”

A DOJ spokesman declined to comment because the court case is ongoing. But for Steiner-and probably many others-the Exxon situation raises questions about how serious the DOJ will be when it comes time to make BP pay up for the most recent catastrophic spill.

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones’ Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here. Get Kate Sheppard’s RSS feed.

Special thanks to Richard Charter