Category Archives: energy policy

The New York Times OpEd: The Deepwater Horizon Threat By S. ELIZABETH BIRNBAUM and JACQUELINE SAVITZ

NYTimes Op-Ed 4.17.14
APRIL 16, 2014
image002 5529.jpg 2
Credit Doug Chayka

FOUR years ago this Sunday, BP’s Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out, destroying the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, killing 11 workers and setting off an uncontrolled oil gusher lasting 87 days. By the time the flow was stopped, an estimated 200 million gallons of oil had entered the ocean.

The harm to gulf wildlife has been long-lasting if not fully understood. One recent study found that dolphins in the gulf region were suffering from problems consistent with exposure to oil: lung damage and low levels of adrenal hormones, which are important for responding to stress. Another study found that bluefin and yellowfin tuna sustained heart damage, which suggests likely harm to other fish as well. Another legacy has been the oiling of marshes along the coast, which has exacerbated coastline erosion by killing grasses that help keep the shoreline intact.

One of us, Liz Birnbaum, had for nine months been head of the government agency that regulated the offshore drilling industry when the spill began. We were both horrified to discover that the best efforts of industry and government engineers could not stop the spill for months.

We would never have imagined so little action would be taken to prevent something like this from happening again. But, four years later, the Obama administration still has not taken key steps recommended by its experts and experts it commissioned to increase drilling safety. As a result, we are on a course to repeat our mistakes. Making matters worse, the administration proposes to expand offshore drilling in the Atlantic and allow seismic activities harmful to ocean life in the search for new oil reserves.

Following the spill, the administration promised that it would do what was necessary to make drilling as safe as possible. A presidential commission recommended numerous measures to increase drilling safety. The Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior and the National Academy of Engineering subsequently identified more problems that contributed to the spill. Though some recommendations have been acted upon, including restructuring the regulatory agency that oversees drilling and increasing training and certification for government drilling rig inspectors, threats remain.

One huge concern centers on the blowout preventers, which seal wells in blowouts and are the last line of defense for events like the one at Deepwater Horizon. It’s unfathomable that the administration has failed to act on the findings of the December 2011 report of the National Academy of Engineering, which gave us some very bad news about Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer.

Its massive cutting blades were supposed to slice through the drill pipe to stop the flow of gushing oil. But it turned out that these huge pieces of equipment were not adequately engineered to stop emergency blowouts in deep water.

The academy’s report was detailed and damning. Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer “was neither designed nor tested for the dynamic conditions that most likely existed at the time that attempts were made to recapture well control,” the report said. More troubling, the shortcomings of Deepwater’s equipment “may be present” at other deepwater drilling operations, the report said.

Administration officials promised an immediate response to the N.A.E. report, including regulations to set new standards for blowout preventers by the end of 2012. Today, 16 months after that deadline and four years after the blowout, we still have not seen even proposed rules. Deepwater drilling continues in the gulf. New leases are being offered by the government and sold to energy companies each year. Yet the N.A.E. report warned that a blowout in deep water may not be controllable with current technology.

The risk of another blowout is real. Offshore wells have lost control several times in the past year. In July the Timbalier 220 well spewed natural gas for two days in the gulf, setting a drilling rig on fire, before it could be stopped. Its operators were fortunate that the blowout took place in just 154 feet of water, where the pressure is lower and underwater access is easier, and that the spill was mostly natural gas. But the same lack of control could easily lead to another oil blowout in deep water.

This continuing threat to the oceans is compounded by the administration’s recent proposal to allow the use of seismic air guns to search for oil along the Atlantic coast. Scientists use these blasts to map the subsurface of the seafloor. But they harm a wide range of species, and the Interior Department’s own analysis indicates that they may kill large numbers of dolphins and whales. Rather than waiting for pending scientific guidelines that would determine whether this acoustic testing could be done safely, the administration has rushed to allow the oil industry to move forward.

We have seen this pattern before. The expansion of drilling into deeper water and farther from shore was not coupled with advances in spill prevention and response. The same is true as we push into new territory in the Atlantic. As we commemorate one of the worst environmental disasters in United States history, we hope our leaders can rethink the expansion of offshore drilling, put real safety measures in place in the gulf and chart a course for safer and cleaner solutions to end the need for this risky business in the first place.

_____________

S. Elizabeth Birnbaum is a consultant at SEB Strategies, and was director of the Minerals Management Service at the time of the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Jacqueline Savitz is vice president for U.S. Oceans at Oceana, an international conservation group.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 17, 2014, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: The Deepwater Horizon Threat.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Global Dashboard: Climate Change Is Not a Debate: It Is a Struggle That Pits Survivors Against Fossil Fuel Profiteers

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/10-2crop_climate
Published on Thursday, April 10, 2014

by Ben Phillips

(Credit: Oxfam / cc / Flickr)Climate change is not a debate. The scientists couldn’t be clearer about how real and how harmful it is. But governments are still not basing their commitments on what is needed, and fossil fuel companies remain confidently fossilised in their economic outlook and plan.

So why haven’t the facts haven’t driven the policy? In part, it’s the collective action problem. But let’s not be naive: there are billionaires getting richer and richer from fossil fuels. For them, the collective failure to responsibly manage fossil fuel reserves isn’t a failure at all, it’s a hugely profitable success.

Climate change is impossible to make sense of as a debate, precisely because it is not a debate. It’s a struggle.

As has been said of “failed states”, you can only understand them if you understand who is doing well out of the so-called failure. The same is true of “failed global politics”: The broken-down Warsaw talks sponsored by the coal industry were a huge success for the sponsors. Don’t assume that politicians who second-guess scientists are being stupid – look at their donors, and you’ll find many of them are being very clever. Likewise the “sceptical” think tankers paid for from oil tankers. In successfully ensuring a recurring “not yet” to any decent plan to tackle climate change, the fossil fuel lobby make the tobacco industry look like amateurs. As Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman puts it, “fossil fuel money is drowning democracy”.

The fossil fuel lobby is determined to hold out. But they are beatable. We’ve seen them make one tactical retreat already. Those who didn’t want climate change to get in the way of their irresponsibility used to say that climate was a myth; now they are starting to say it’s inevitable. It’s a shameless pivot from denialism to fatalism, of course, a clever move that will buy the fossil fuel lobby more time. (And time is money.) But that they have been forced to pivot is an indication of weakness, a chink in the armour.

The fossil fuel lobby is weakened too by the growing movement pushing for other parts of business to separate themselves from, and start to take on, the fossil fuel lobby: we’ve seen the wiser parts of the finance industry start to connect the sustainability of their investments with the sustainability of the climate, and to recognise the risks inherent in betting on unlimited carbon use; and we’ve seen the wiser parts of the food industry – an industry which both contributes to and suffers from climate change – start to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint and protect the agricultural and water resources on which they depend. As they start to shift, the fossil fuel lobby will become ever more isolated.

But what most threatens the fossil fuel lobby is the power of survivors as campaigners. Of course, this is not the first time that affected people have spoken out about climate change, but one of the consequences of climate change is that the numbers of the affected grows ever larger. The raw, brutal, damage to people wrought by climate change has been a spur for re-energised powerful grassroots activism, driven by experience, by groups ranging from Nicaraguan coffee growers to Manilla slum dwellers. Communities hit by extreme weather in countries like the UK and US are getting more organised too. And increasingly the governments of the poorest countries are speaking on behalf of their people. Diplomats have stopped being diplomatic. The ecological has become personal.

This movement of the affected is still inchoate, but it is the most important force for action on climate change. Just as people affected by HIV took on the pharmaceutical industry (and, ultimately, and with great sacrifice, won), so too the people most affected by climate are taking on the power of the fossil fuel lobby. They are making it clear that this is a struggle between interests. And they are calling upon others to choose a side.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Ben Phillips

Ben Phillips is Campaigns and Policy Director of Oxfam. He has lived and worked in four continents and 10 cities including New Delhi and Washington DC, as well as with children in poverty in East London.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

OilPrice.com: U.S. Could Allow Atlantic Offshore Surveying This Year

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/U.S.-Could-Allow-Atlantic-Offshore-Surveying-This-Year.html

By James Burgess | Mon, 07 April 2014 21:19 | 0

A top Department of Interior official said that the Obama administration may allow oil and gas companies to begin seismic testing in the Atlantic Ocean later this year in what would be a first step towards offshore oil exploration. Tommy Beaudreau, the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) told a House Appropriations subcommittee that the Department has received several applications to conduct seismic testing. “It’s possible, depending on what the contractor wants to do, that the first survey could be as early as later this year,” he said.

The Atlantic Ocean has been off limits to drilling since the early 1980s, but the Obama administration has taken steps to open up the area for exploration. There is an estimated 3.3 billion barrels of oil under the Atlantic seabed. Environmental groups have opposed seismic testing due to the damaging effects on marine life. Moreover, by blocking seismic testing, they hope to prevent drilling before it starts. At the hearing, Rep. James Moran (D-VA) expressed concern about the potential impacts of an oil spill on Virginia’s economy, and pressed Beaudreau on ensuring that Interior has sufficient oversight to guard against such an event.

Interior published an environmental impact statement in February that outlined safeguards to protect marine life, but also provided a framework for companies to move forward with seismic testing. It didn’t approve seismic testing outright, but that appears to be the direction the agency is heading. And Beaudreau’s comments last week suggest that Interior is moving towards approving seismic testing in late 2014.

Seismic testing would merely be the first step. Drilling could not occur before 2017 – the Department of Interior operates under five-year plans, and should it decide to open up the Atlantic for drilling, that would likely come as part of the 2017-2022 plan.

By James Burgess of Oilprice.com

Daily Mail, UK: Poor management led to Shell grounding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2596487/Poor-management-led-Shell-grounding.html

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 20:13 EST, 3 April 2014 | UPDATED: 20:13 EST, 3 April 2014
*
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – Poor risk assessment and management were among factors that led to the grounding of a Shell oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Alaska in 2012, the Coast Guard said in a report released Thursday.

The report also says Alaska’s tax laws influenced the decision to tow the Kulluk to Seattle for maintenance. Royal Dutch Shell PLC believed the drill vessel would have qualified as taxable property on Jan. 1, 2013, if it was still in Alaska waters.

The Kulluk broke away from its tow vessel in late December 2012 after it ran into a vicious storm – a fairly routine winter event for Alaska waters. Multiple attempts to maintain tow lines failed, and the vessel ran aground that New Year’s Eve off tiny Sitkalidak Island, just off Kodiak Island. Several days before the tow initially broke, the master of the tow vessel, Aiviq, sent an email to the Kulluk’s tow master, expressing concerns about the towing conditions, according to the report.

“To be blunt I believe that this length of tow, at this time of year, in this location, with our current routing guarantees an ass kicking,” says the email quoted in the report. “In my opinion we should get to the other side just as soon as possible. It (sic) the event that our weather resources can route us “around” an area that will jeopardize any personnel or equipment on either the Kulluk or the Aiviq we should strongly consider the recommendation and deal with any logistical issues as they develop.”

The Aiviq’s master and tow master shared their concerns about the weather forecast with Shell’s marine manager, and they requested to change course to minimize the impact, according to the report. The request was “not formally granted,” even though Shell’s tow plan gave those Aiviq officials the discretion to change course under certain considerations, the report said.

Damage to the Kulluk played a role in Shell’s decision to forego Arctic offshore drilling in 2013. Shell doesn’t plan to drill in the Arctic this year.

Before the grounding in 2012, Shell had also experienced problems in the challenging Arctic conditions to the north where it was conducting pre-production drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.

In the Kulluk grounding, the Coast Guard report says sufficient evidence exists for other authorities to consider penalties.

Lisa Novak, a civilian spokeswoman for the Coast Guard, said the final report stems from the Coast Guard’s formal marine casualty investigation. She said it is a fact-finding report, with no direct penalties issued.

The report also includes recommendations. Among them, the Coast Guard Commandant should partner with the Towing Safety Advisory Council to establish a group to address issues raised by the grounding. The report also recommends that the state of Alaska develop minimal criteria for ocean towing in the Coast Guard’s area of responsibility. It also says Shell and other corporations intending to work in Arctic waters should develop and maintain policies addressing all aspects of such operations in areas with histories of heavy weather.

Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh said the company is reviewing the Coast Guard report. Shell already has implemented lessons learned and will measure them against the findings of the report, she said.

“We appreciate the US Coast Guard’s thorough investigation into the Kulluk towing incident and will take the findings seriously,” she wrote in an email.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has been vocal about his concerns over the grounding, issued a statement Thursday, saying Shell should be held accountable for its “reckless behavior” pertaining to its tax-avoidance motivations.

“This report shows that Shell ran through every single safety and common-sense red light in moving this rig because of financial considerations,” Markey said.” This kind of behavior should raise major red flags for any future Arctic drilling plans.”

Environmental groups said the report emphasizes deficiencies that make the oil industry and government ill-prepared to deal with oil development in the Arctic Ocean.

“Today’s report again shows that Shell did not appreciate or plan for the risks of operating in Alaskan waters, prioritized financial considerations ahead of safety and precaution, and simply disregarded important legal protections,” Mike LeVine, a staff attorney for the conservation group Oceana, said in an email. “The report again confirms what common sense dictates: companies and government agencies are not ready for the Arctic Ocean.”

___
Associated Press writer Donna Blankinship in Seattle contributed to this rep

Politico’s Morning Energy: COAST GUARD IDENTIFIES SHELL’S MISSTEPS THAT LED TO KULLUK ACCIDENT

Shell was not prepared for the challenges of towing large vessels in the Arctic, the Coast Guard says in a report detailing the Dec. 31, 2012, incident in which the drilling rig Kulluk to run aground while being towed out of Alaska, in part to avoid millions of dollars in state taxes. The report is the latest in a string of bad news for Shell, which said earlier this year it won’t be restarting Arctic drilling activities this year. The 152-page report, which includes a detailed account of the days-long incident, concludes that Shell’s towing plans “were not adequate for the winter towing operation crossing the Gulf of Alaska.”

– There were a number of other contributing factors, according to the report, including using just one towing vessel in bad weather, taking a route too close to the coast, a lack of formalized risk assessment, the premature evacuation of the Kulluk, and using response vessels with inadequate abilities (though it praises their crews). The report includes a litany of safety recommendations, including identifying minimal requirements for towing in the ‘unique Arctic environment.’

Weather blame: The report notes that extreme weather made towing the Kulluk extremely difficult. “The weather in this case had a constant negative impact during the course of this casualty. No less than four significant low pressure systems created hazardous sea and wind conditions, particularly during the response efforts. The storms encountered were extreme, and the frequency added to the complications as there was inadequate time between storms to move the Kulluk to a safe harbor.”

Recommended penalties: The report also says there is sufficient evidence to level penalties against Edison Chouest Offshore, the builder of the towing vessel Aiviq, and several crew members. It recommends turning those matters over to the proper authorities. “I am most troubled by the significant number and nature of the potential violations of law and regulations,” writes Rear Admiral Joseph A. Servido, the assistant commandant for prevention policy, in his response. He adds that “if the potential violations of law and regulations noted in the report actually occurred, far greater levels of oversight will be required.”

The report: http://bit.ly/1fDRcbJ

SHELL RESPONSE: “We appreciate the US Coast Guard’s thorough investigation into the Kulluk towing incident and will take the findings seriously,” Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh said. “Already, we have implemented lessons learned from our internal review of our 2012 operations. Those improvements will be measured against the findings in the USCG report as well as recommendations from the US Department of Interior.”

REACTIONS
Sen. Lisa Murkowski: “The service has made a number of good recommendations to improve the safety of maritime activities as exploration of the Arctic moves forward. I believe that we can safely develop our energy resources in the Arctic, but it requires that we adhere to world-class safety standards.”

Sen. Mark Begich: “I remain a strong supporter of responsible development of the Arctic’s resources. … The Coast Guard’s investigation and recommendations here will help guide that development and gives me greater confidence about the role the Arctic will play in Alaska’s future.”

Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan: “The report continues to demonstrate that no oil company is ready to drill in the Arctic. Shell Oil was forced to abandon its plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean in 2013 due to its own lack of preparedness and technical failures, together with Alaska’s harsh and unpredictable conditions.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter