SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: coug who wrote (80427)5/25/2010 12:42:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Screw the Environment

counterpunch.org

BP and the Audacity of Greed
By DAVE LINDORFF
May 24, 2010

Even as BP’s blown well a mile beneath the surface in the Gulf of Mexico continues to gush forth an estimated 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the sea, and the fragile wetlands along the Gulf begin to get coated with crude, which is also headed into the Gulf Stream for a trip past the Everglades and on up the East Coast, the company is demanding that Canada lift its tight rules for drilling in the icy Beaufort Sea portion of the Arctic Ocean.

In an incredible display of corporate arrogance, BP is claiming that a current safety requirement that undersea wells drilled during the newly ice-free summer must also include a side relief well, so as to have a preventive measure in place that could shut down a blown well, is “too expensive” and should be eliminated.

Yet clearly, if the US had had such a provision in place, the Deepwater Horizon blowout could have been shut down right almost immediately after it blew out, just by turning of a valve or two, and then sealing off the blown wellhead.

A relief well is ”too expensive”?

The current Gulf blowout has already cost BP over half a billion dollars, according to the company’s own information. That doesn’t count the cost of mobilizing the Coast Guard, the Navy, and untold state and county resources, and it sure doesn’t count the cost of the damage to the Gulf Coast economy, or the cost of restoration of damaged wetlands. We’re talking at least $10s of billions, and maybe eventually $100s of billions. Weigh that against the cost of drilling a relief well, which BP claims will run about $100 million. The cost of such a well in the Arctic, where the sea is much shallower, would likely be a good deal less.

Such is the calculus of corruption. BP has paid $1.8 billion for drilling rights in Canada’s sector of the Beaufort Sea, about 150 miles north of the Northwest Territories coastline, an area which global warming has freed of ice in summer months. and it wants to drill there as cheaply as possible. The problem is that a blowout like the one that struck the Deepwater Horizon, if it occurred near the middle or end of summer, would mean it would be impossible for the oil company to drill a relief well until the following summer, because the return of ice floes would make drilling impossible all winter. That would mean an undersea wild well would be left to spew its contents out under the ice for perhaps eight or nine months, where its ecological havoc would be incalculable.

BP and other oil companies like Exxon/Mobil and Shell, which also have leases in Arctic Waters off Canada and the US, are actually trying to claim that the environmental risks of a spill in Arctic waters are less than in places like the Gulf of Mexico or the Eastern Seaboard, because the ice would “contain” any leaking oil, allowing it to be cleared away. The argument is laughable. This is not like pouring a can of 10W-40 oil into an ice-fishing hole on a solidly frozen pond, where you could scoop it out again without its going anywhere. Unlike the surface of a frozen pond, Arctic sea ice is in constant motion, cracking and drifting in response to winds, tides and currents. Moreover, the blowout in the Gulf has taught us that much of the oil leaked into the sea doesn’t even rise to the surface at all. It is cracked and emulsified by contact with the cold waters and stays submerged in the lower currents, wreaking its damage far from wellhead and recovery efforts. Finally, as difficult a time as BP has had rounding up the necessary containment equipment and personnel in the current blowout 50 miles from the oil industry mecca of Texas and Louisiana, the same task would be far harder to accomplish in the remote reaches of the Beaufort, far above the Arctic Circle, where there aren’t any roads, much less rail lines or airports.

In fact, it was the remoteness of the Arctic staging area, and the lack of infrastructure, that has been the oil industry’s main argument against a mandatory simultaneous relief well drilling requirement for offshore Arctic drilling. The industry claims it would be “too difficult” to drill two wells simultaneously, as this would require bringing in and supplying double the personnel, and two separate drilling rigs.

In a hearing in Canada’s Parliament last week, Ann Drinkwater, president of BP Canada, told stunned and incredulous members of Parliament that she had never compared US and Canadian drilling regulations. In fact, whether by design or appalling ignorance, she had precious little in the way of information to offer them about anything to do with drilling rules, effects of spills, or containment strategems. All she wanted was relief from “expensive” regulation, so BP could go about its business of putting yet another region of the earth and its seas at risk in the pursuit of profits.

Asked if BP knew how it would clean up oil spilling out under the winter ice in a blowout, Drinkwater told the parliamentary hearing, “I'm not an expert in oil-spill techniques in an Arctic environment, so I would have to defer to other experts on that."

"You'd think coming to a hearing like this that British Petroleum would have as many answers as possible to assure the Canadian public. We got nothing today from them," groused Nathan Cullen of the left-leaning New Democrats, after hearing from the ironically named Drinkwater.

The fundamental problem in the US is that politicians purchased by campaign contributions are unwilling to look at the real risks of offshore drilling, whether on the two coasts or up in the Arctic region. With luck, maybe at least the Canadian government will conclude that such drilling in their northern seas makes no economic or environmental sense. In both countries, the amount of oil provided from offshore drilling would, over the next decade, be less than could be saved by simply making automobile mileage standards stricter.

All this is even more true when the drilling in question is in the fragile ecological environs of the Arctic Ocean.

*DAVE LINDORFF is the founder of the new collectively run online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening.net, which also features journalists John Grant, Linn Washington and Charles Young. This and Lindorff’s other work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net



To: coug who wrote (80427)5/25/2010 1:51:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Following BP’s Lead
_______________________________________________________________

By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
May 24, 2010

Old Shell Beach, La. -- I asked the sheriff of St. Bernard Parish, Jack Stephens, if he was at all optimistic about BP stopping the gusher of oil that is fouling the Gulf of Mexico in time to prevent a long-term environmental catastrophe in the southern Louisiana wetlands.

The sun was high in the sky, and the day was hot. The sheriff was in a small boat, patrolling the waterways that wend their way through the delicate marshes. He thought for a long moment. Oil was already seeping into the marshes, getting into the soil and plant life and coating some of the wildlife.

“I’ll tell you the truth,” said Mr. Stephens. “It may already be too late.”

Traveling along the Gulf Coast, past idled boats with names like Big Shrimp and Blessed Assurance, past dead trees and hurricane fortifications and other signs of the area’s perpetual vulnerability, you can’t help but wonder how a company like BP, with its awful record of incompetence and irresponsibility, was ever allowed to drill for oil a mile deep in the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s not as if we didn’t know that BP was a menace. On March 23, 2005, a series of explosions and fires at the BP Texas City refinery killed 15 people and injured 180 others in what was described by investigators as “one of the worst industrial disasters in recent U.S. history.” John Bresland, the chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, reminded us in March, on the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, that an intensive investigation by the board had “found organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation.”

The Texas City conflagration was just part of BP’s execrable pattern. On Oct. 25, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the following announcement:

“British Petroleum and several of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay approximately $373 million in fines and restitution for environmental violations stemming from a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery in March 2005, leaks of crude oil from pipelines in Alaska, and fraud for conspiring to corner the market and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines.”

Nice outfit, this BP. Anyone who thought this London-based wrecking crew gave a rat’s whisker about harming the Gulf of Mexico or threatening the environment of the Louisiana wetlands — or the livelihoods of families living here — has been inhaling way too much of BP’s toxic fumes.

Yet there was our government not only giving BP’s reprobates the go-ahead to drill for oil a mile deep in the gulf but also handing them a waiver, allowing them to avoid a detailed analysis of the effect of their operations on the surrounding environment. Giving an environmental waiver to a company as contemptuous of the environment as BP shows just whose side the government is on in the face-off between predatory giant corporations and the interests of ordinary American citizens.

BP got off much too easy with the fines it agreed to in 2007. And for some odd reason, it’s being treated much too deferentially now. This crisis has gone on for more than a month, and neither BP nor the Obama administration seems to know what to do.

No one has a handle on how much oil is gushing out of control into the gulf. No one understands the environmental impact of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical dispersants that BP is injecting into the gulf. No one has any idea how far this awful stain on the environment will spread.

President Obama should have taken charge of the response to the oil spill — which he called a “potentially unprecedented” environmental calamity — from jump street. He should have called in the very best minds and operatives from the corporate and scientific worlds and imposed an emergency plan of action — to be carried out by BP and all others who might be required. Instead, after all this time, after more than a month of BP’s demonstrated incompetence, the administration continues to dither.

Incredibly, until The Times blew the whistle in an article on Monday, environmental waivers were still being offered for oil drilling in the gulf. What will it take for sanity to prevail? How many people have to die or face ruin, and how much of nature has to be despoiled before we rein in the cowboys of these runaway corporations?

Steadily increasing numbers of anxiety-ridden coastal residents are watching not just their livelihoods but an entire way of life slip away. Even as BP’s lawyers are consumed with the task of limiting the company’s liability, the administration continues to insist it has little choice but to follow the company’s lead in fighting the spill. That is dangerous nonsense.

President Obama has an obligation to make it unmistakably clear that BP’s interests are not the same as America’s interests. He needs to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who are taking the brunt of this latest corporate outrage. The oil has now stained nearly 70 miles of the Louisiana Coast. No one can say what terrible toll the gusher is taking in the depths of the gulf. And spreading right along with the oil is a pervasive and dismaying sense of helplessness from our leaders in Washington.



To: coug who wrote (80427)5/25/2010 8:45:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Coast Guard should not get too cozy with BP

nola.com



To: coug who wrote (80427)5/25/2010 9:10:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
White House takes heat over spill response

dyn.politico.com

By: Glenn Thrush and Carol E. Lee

May 24, 2010 08:33 PM EDT

Billy Nungesser, the president of Plaquemines Parish on the Louisiana Gulf Coast, has a blunt message for Barack Obama: Cut out the middleman, Mr. President.

“There’s been a failure of leadership on all levels. Who in the hell is in charge?” said Nungesser, who is prodding the administration to back a controversial plan to build sand barriers to block the oil.

“I’m a big Republican, but the president spent two hours with me and really impressed me. ... He really seems to care, but I don’t think he’s getting good advice,” he told POLITICO. “I don’t think they’re telling him the truth about what’s going on around here. He needs to get more personally involved.”

Until this week, the Obama administration had largely managed to deflect responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon disaster onto others — vowing to keep a “boot on the throat” of BP, while slamming lax oversight on the part of federal regulators during the Bush administration.

But now, with crude lapping into the bayou, even Obama’s defenders have turned critical. A White House that prides itself on operational competence and message discipline has been frustrated by an environmental catastrophe it can’t predict, can’t control and can’t out-message — and the strain is showing.

A majority of Americans, by 51 percent to 46 percent, now disapprove of Obama’s handling of the crisis, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. An Associated Press-GfK survey taken less than two weeks ago showed that only one-third of those polled gave Obama low marks for his response.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs surprised reporters at the daily briefing Monday by announcing the president would answer questions about the spill in person Thursday — the first presidential news conference Obama has given in months.

Earlier, Louisiana officials, as they watch helplessly while oil fouls fragile marshland, destroying plants and killing birds and fish, also stepped up their calls on the Obama administration to push aside BP and take charge of the cleanup.

“We have been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late to stop the oil from hitting our coast,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said during a Monday news conference at Port Fourchon with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

“BP is the responsible party, but we need the federal government to make sure they are held accountable and that they are indeed responsible. Our way of life depends on it,” Jindal said.

Gen. Russel L. Honore, who helped oversee the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, didn’t criticize the administration’s actions — but suggested the federal government could assert more control by declaring a national disaster in the Gulf.

“My assessment is, at this point this is a national disaster,” Honore said. “This could be a generational impact on the Gulf.”

But back at the White House, Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen, the man in charge of the U.S. response, shot down the idea of a federal takeover of the crisis — walking back Salazar’s threat over the weekend to “push out” BP if it doesn’t cap the well quickly.

“To push BP out of the way, it would raise the question, to replace them with what?” Allen asked. “They’re exhausting every technical means possible to deal with that leak. ... I am satisfied with the coordination that’s going on. ... There’s no reason to make a change.”

Even though Obama has criticized the government’s relationship with BP as too “cozy” over the years, Allen refused to blast embattled BP CEO Tony Hayward. “I judge personally my communications with anybody, including Tony Hayward, and I would characterize when I tell him something, he says he understands it; he follows up,” he said.

The real problem, Allen said, is that only big oil companies — and not the federal government — have the capacity to fight a broken pipe a mile under water.

Allen’s appearance came as the administration moved to counter negative perceptions of its response, even as BP’s effort to cap the gushing mile-deep pipe foundered and the company tangled with the Environmental Protection Agency over the use of chemical dispersants to break up the spill.

Obama held a briefing call Monday morning with the four Gulf Coast governors to offer a status update and underscore his personal commitment to the issue.

“I think what the president wanted to indicate today was that he is on it, which is reassuring, but we all need to stay on it, and I think that’s very important,” said Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who is running for Senate this fall as an independent. “I think that part of being on the call was, in some sense, a response to what was happening in Louisiana.”

Gibbs told reporters there are currently no plans for Obama to return to the Gulf Coast — but his itinerary could quickly change later this week, after the president flies to California in support of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer on Tuesday, another White House official later said.

During the president’s visit three weeks ago, Nungesser huddled with Obama and eventually sold the president on a plan to position boats to monitor the first shore wave of crude from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Since then, Nungesser said that when he’s proposed other fixes, he’s been shunted to a procession of unresponsive bureaucrats.

Jindal on Monday also criticized the administration for not quickly supplying local responders with all the materials they need to erect booms around endangered wetlands — and is pushing the Army Corps of Engineers to support the plan to position berms, made of backfilled sand, in the path of the oil.

The Corps is currently considering the scheme, but administration officials dismiss the notion that it’s a quick fix, estimating the berms could take between six and nine months to build.

Honore also said there is more that can be done. He urged the administration to start collecting money from BP immediately, set up a streamlined system for individuals filing claims and explore the possibility of assessing daily fines against BP for each day the well isn’t capped.

“That money can go into a trust fund, and we draw from that until we fix this problem,” he said. “Now I think we need to have them start paying upfront for the potential loss. And we need to start drawing that money down now and don’t wait for BP to decide when they’re going to start paying.”

Gibbs said BP is already paying for the cleanup, though he said he didn’t know how much. As for Honore’s idea about declaring a national emergency, Gibbs said none of the states adjacent to the spill have requested designation as disaster areas, adding, “There are different tools for different types of events, and [the Stafford Act governing disaster declarations] isn’t the right tool here.”

Elgie Holstein, an oil-spill expert with the Environmental Defense Fund who served as an adviser to Obama during the 2008 campaign, suggested that Obama add one more element to his response plan: a pledge to create a government-run fleet capable of dealing with the next blown well.

“We as a country have not put in place a system for regulating or responding to complex and costly frontier drilling,” Holstein said. “The Obama administration simply does not have at its disposal the kind of expertise and equipment” to cap the well.

“The frontline of response lies with oil company field generals and not the administration — and that puts the president at a disadvantage,” he added.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC