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

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

I just wonder how many other bills are languishing in the Senate right now, at a time when people are demanding meaningful action on so many important issues???? This should be passed immediately. It bad enough that deep water drilling will continue to be permitted AT ALL. DV

Published: September 26, 2010
The Coast Guard’s announcement a week ago that BP’s runaway Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico was “effectively dead” brought a collective sigh of relief from the company, the citizens of the Gulf Coast and President Obama – indeed from anyone who for nearly five harrowing months had been transfixed by one of the worst environmental disasters in American history.

Unfortunately, it may also have given the politically paralyzed United States Senate one more excuse not to move forward on a controversial but necessary bill that would build on the lessons of the gulf and make offshore drilling safer in the future.

The House has already passed such a bill. It would be irresponsible of the Senate not to do likewise. The Senate has not distinguished itself on environmental issues over the last two years, failing even to vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation that the House had passed. The least it can do is muster a meaningful response to the spill.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has in hand an honorable bill that is the product of endless hearings by several committees and could be quickly brought to the floor. Like the House bill, it would tighten environmental safeguards and reorganize the agency at the Interior Department that oversees drilling in order to eliminate the conflicts of interest that allowed BP to manipulate the system and short-circuit regulatory reviews.

Like the House bill, it would also require companies to furnish more detailed response plans before receiving permits to drill, and would eliminate the $75 million liability cap for companies responsible for a spill. That cap is moot in BP’s case, since the company has already agreed to pay $20 billion in damage claims. But lifting the cap would provide a powerful incentive to other companies to behave responsibly.

As an added fillip, both bills would provide long-term financing (from oil company fees) for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the government’s main program for acquiring open space.

With so much to like, what’s the holdup? Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, complains that lifting the liability cap would discourage smaller drillers without deep pockets that could be bankrupted by a single accident. Surely this can be resolved with compromise language providing for a sliding scale.

The real reason – no surprise here – is intense opposition from the oil companies and their allies in both parties who claim, without persuasive evidence, that the new rules, fees and penalties would raise costs, inhibit domestic production and increase American dependence on foreign oil. The Senate should ignore these complaints, pass a bill and then move forward to a conference with the House.

If it doesn’t, voters should hold it accountable. Congress cannot undo the effects of the spill. But it can ensure a safer future.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The 130 page report is available at
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/gulf-reconstruction-sep-2010.pdf

The section on ecosystem restoration is found on pp. 26-50.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson did a conference call briefing on the report. Here are the highlights:

· The report recommends Congress dedicate a “significant amount” of the Clean Water Act penalties that will be paid by BP and others to the Gulf region. Normally, these penalties would be paid into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for use in future disasters.

· The report recommends the establishment of a Gulf Coast Recovery Council to administer the restoration funds. The Council would have a federal and state chair and consist of federal, state, tribal, and local representatives. The Council would coordinate its activities with the Natural Resources Damage Trustee Council.

· The report recommends dedicating a portion of the Clean Water Act penalties directly to the states.

· The President is signing an Executive Order establishing a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, chaired by Jackson. The Task Force will have federal agency representatives and a representative from each Gulf Coast state. If Congress establishes a Gulf Coast Recovery Council, the Task Force will be replaced by the Council.

· The focus of Gulf Coast recovery will be on long-term ecosystem restoration, health and human services recovery, economic recovery, and nonprofit sector recovery (because nonprofits have been hard hit by the multiple disasters in the Gulf).

· The report recommends removing the liability cap for offshore oil drilling damages.
· The report calls for the development of a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy by the Task Force within one year.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Finally, we may get to the truth…..THANK YOU PEER! You’re my heroes! DV

September 22, 2010

http://www.adn.com/2010/09/17/1459467/lawsuit-asks-if-science-was-manipulated.html

Renee Schoof / McClatchy Newspapers
Published: September 17th, 2010 02:58 PM
Last Modified: September 22nd, 2010 03:26 PM

WASHINGTON An environmental whistleblower group charges in a lawsuit that the Obama administration is withholding documents that would reveal why it issued an estimate on the gravity of the Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout that later was proved to be far too low.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
http://www.peer.org/ sued Thursday in federal court, claiming that federal officials are withholding hundreds of pages of reports and communications between scientists on the Flow Rate Technical Group, who were tasked with making the estimates, and Marcia McNutt, the head of the U.S. Geological Survey, who chaired the technical group and released a summary of its findings.

The controversy over the oil flow estimates is part of a broader question about whether political appointees at the top of the Obama administration have manipulated and publicized incorrect or incomplete scientific information in an attempt to tamp down anxiety and anger over the world’s worst oil accident.

The failure to assess the damage from BP’s spill also is seen as hampering the government’s continued efforts to clean up the Gulf.

“This lawsuit will produce Exhibit A for the case that science is still being manipulated under the current administration,” Jeff Ruch, the executive director of the environmental organization, said in a statement.

“Our concern is that the administration took, and is still taking, steps to falsely minimize public perception about the extent and severity of the BP spill, a concern that the administration could start to dispel by releasing these documents,” Ruch said.
Ruch said that some of the missing information was thought to show that the USGS knew in May, when it released an estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, that there was a completed estimate that was much higher.

In August, after the well had been capped, the government produced a new estimate as much as five times higher, based on better information from pressure readings and other analysis. It said that the oil flowed at a rate of 62,000 barrels of oil per day at first and later slowed to 53,000 barrels a day, with a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percent. Based on that finding, the official estimate is that 4.1 million barrels of oil poured into the Gulf from April to July.

Questions also have been raised about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s report in August that said that 74 percent of the oil had been captured, dispersed, skimmed or burned, or had evaporated or dissolved. NOAA hasn’t released scientific findings to back up that assessment.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s lawsuit doesn’t target NOAA, however. The nonprofit environmental protection group acts on behalf of concerned government insiders.

The advocacy group sought the documents on estimates of the oil flow under the Freedom of Information Act. The USGS posted some of the requested materials on its website, but the group said in its lawsuit that it had sought hundreds more that the agency didn’t release.

Those include communications between McNutt and her staff and members of the flow-rate technical team, including e-mails and minutes of conferences, and all reports by the team that contain estimates of the maximum oil leak rate.

The technical group was supposed to look at the worst-case scenario, and it isn’t known whether it gave a higher estimate to the government’s oil-spill response center, Ruch said.

USGS spokeswoman Anne-Betty Wade referred questions to the Department of Interior, whose spokeswoman, Kendra Barkoff, said she couldn’t comment on pending litigation.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility claims that McNutt originally didn’t reveal that the May figures were a minimum estimate. The agency updated the news release in June.

Early on, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig in April, officials put the flow at 1,000 barrels a day. They raised that to 5,000 barrels based on overhead visual estimates and stuck to that figure for weeks, even after it became apparent that much of the oil was remaining below the surface and out of sight.

The oil spill data isn’t the only issue that’s worrying the group.

In March 2009, not long after he was sworn in, Obama issued an executive memorandum that said his administration would adopt policies to protect scientific integrity. He directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop those policies by July 9, 2009.

The policies still haven’t been issued.

“We pointed out the reason the Bush administration could manipulate science was because there were no rules against it, and there still aren’t,” Ruch said.

ON THE WEB

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s complaint filed in court
http://bit.ly/cCiA3Q

NOAA oil spill science missions
http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/bpoilspill.html

Special thanks to Richard Charter and PEER for their good work on this issue.