Category Archives: energy policy

energy policy, offshore oil

Huffman, Lowenthal, Capps Lead California Delegation Against New Oil or Gas Leasing Off California Coast

Leave a comment
For Immediate Release
July 24, 2014
Contact: Paul Arden
 
“The known risks of expanding offshore drilling in these areas far outweigh any potential benefits”
WASHINGTON°©-Reps. Jared Huffman (CA-02), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), and Lois Capps (CA-24) led a letter from members of the California Congressional delegation to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, urging her to prohibit any new offshore oil and gas lease sales in the California Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas as her department develops the next schedule of potential offshore oil and gas lease sales.
The letter, sent last night, was signed by 35 members of the California Congressional delegation, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and calls for a continued focus on developing clean, renewable sources of offshore energy rather than expanding oil and gas development.
“Californians have repeatedly spoken out against new offshore drilling,” the Members of Congress wrote. “It is imperative that we promote the use of these clean technologies and protect the integrity of our state’s coastline from new offshore oil and gas development for both current and future Californians. The known risks of expanding offshore drilling in these areas far outweigh any potential benefits.”
The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management updates its Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program every five years. The development of the next five year program, slated for 2017-2022, is underway. The letter was submitted as part of the 45-day comment period, which closes on July 31, 2014.
The text of the letter is below:
Secretary Sally Jewell
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Secretary Jewell,
As Members of the California Congressional delegation, we write to urge the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to exclude any offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Northern California, Central California, and Southern California Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Planning Areas from the Draft Proposed 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
Californians have repeatedly spoken out against new offshore drilling. Since 1969, 24 city and county governments have passed anti-drilling measures and the State has enacted a permanent ban on new offshore leasing in state waters. Serious accidents and environmental damage can and do occur at offshore drilling rigs. These spills and leaks, air and water pollution, and the industrialization of the shoreline threatens public health, impairs marine resources, and wreak havoc on our economy, especially the state’s critically important tourism, fishing and recreation industries, which inject billions of dollars into the California economy every year.
Energy companies are not producing oil and gas on the vast majority of land they already hold in offshore leases. The Department should be pushing to ensure that these companies are diligently developing the land that they already have before offering new federal leases. Furthermore, the amount of oil and gas available from OCS leases currently off limits is small compared to what is already open to drilling and would not significantly impact energy prices. Opening additional offshore areas to drilling will only allow these companies to warehouse more public land and put more of our vibrant coastal tourism economies and fragile shoreline ecosystems at risk.
Rather than expanding oil and gas development, the Department should – with proper consultation and consideration given to all relevant stakeholders – continue its focus on developing clean, renewable sources of offshore energy. It is imperative that we promote the use of these clean technologies and protect the integrity of our state’s coastline from new offshore oil and gas development for both current and future Californians.
                              
The known risks of expanding offshore drilling in these areas far outweigh any potential benefits. We therefore urge you to continue these longstanding protections and not include the waters off California’s coast in the new draft five-year plan. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
energy policy, fracking, sustainable energy

SpectraBusters: We ain’t afraid a no pipeline: Inadequate insurance and safety plus eminent domain and environmental destruction by Sabal Trail –OSFR

Leave a comment

Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson of Our Santa Fe River sent this letter yesterday to the same newspapers Sabal Trail has been in recently. -jsq

Sabal Trail’s spokesperson distributing large quantities of disinformation

“Safety, public input, federal monitoring, jobs, tax revenue, exceed federal safety requirements, reliability, affordable, clean, thorough review, latest proven technologies:” these are all good little meta tags and nice sounding words and phrases used by Andrea Grover, public relations employee for Sabal Trail, in her recent editorial about that company’s proposed natural gas pipeline which was carried by newspapers in the southeastern United States.

But let us point out a few facts that this editorial fails to mention. There were plenty of public input meetings (we attended seven of these, and we read the minutes from others) and the input was overwhelmingly negative. Issues of concern include lack of adequate insurance, poor safety record, forceful takeover of private land, destruction of wildlife and the environment, and danger to springs and rivers. A mere three favorable citizens’ comments were heard.

The product to be transported through the proposed pipeline is the result of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. This extraction technique involves injecting sand and chemicals into underground wells. Three members of Congress, Henry Waxman, Edward Markey, and Diana De Gette contend that millions of gallons water containing hazardous chemicals, 29 of which are known or suspected human carcinogens, were injected into wells from 2005-2009.

These chemicals poison the well water and sloppy extraction techniques may result in the methane leaking from the pipes in the wellbore, which can contaminate the surrounding aquifer. According to recent studies, these leaks increase greenhouse gases (which contributes to global warming) sufficiently to counteract the “clean” qualities of natural gas, thus reducing its desirability over coal as an energy source.

Fracking is now unquestionably tied to earthquakes, as pointed out in recent articles in Science Magazine and the U. S. Geological Survey. From 2000 through 2008 in Oklahoma, there were six earthquakes of magnitude three or higher, but since fracking arrived, there were 850 in just a 15 month period in 2010-2011, and this year, from January to May, the count is 145.

Frequent quakes in Texas, Arkansas, and Ohio, have resulted in the latter two states putting bans on fracking because “They’d rather forego some of the potential economic effects of oil companies in their states to avoid a potential disaster invoking human lives.” (Washington Post article by Dominic Basulto, July 15, 2014)

From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution, causing 278 fatalities and 1059 injuries, with $110,658,083 in property damage. From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 110 serious incidents with gas transmission, resulting in 41 fatalities, 195 injuries, and $448,900,333 in property damage.

A recent Wall Street Journal review (Jan. 20, 2014) found that there were 1,400 pipeline spills and accidents in the U.S. from 2010-2013. According to the review, four in every five pipeline accidents are discovered by local residents, not the companies that own the pipelines.

Even though Grover stresses safety, her company has a safety record that is worse than terrible. At one point it received the largest fine ever for safety violations. A Valdosta State University study found that Sabal Trail/Spectra has experienced There have been at least 128 pipeline accidents nationwide since 2010. Spectra alone has been responsible for $8,000,000 in property damage (according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), that it has been fined $15,000,000 for spills at 89 pipeline sites, and that it was deemed to have a “poor maintenance and monitoring record.”

Grover brags about the virtues of natural gas, pointing out that it produces 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and 30 percent less than fuel oil. She fails to mention that it produces 100 percent more than solar or wind power, and that this is fracked gas, and the havoc it wreaks on our aquifer.

“We do not maintain insurance coverage against all of these risks and losses, and any insurance coverage we might maintain may not fully cover the damages caused by those risks and losses.”
—Spectra Energy 2013 Form 10-K

What else does she fail to mention? Well, that in the scoping meetings it came out that Sabal Trail does not have adequate insurance and will not be responsible for fighting fires, clearing wreckage, hauling bodies to hospitals, etc. when their pipe blows up; instead, the local, under-equipped-for-huge-mega disasters emergency units like we have in Bell and Branford will have to do it.

And that the gas will most likely be exported to foreign countries, even though unwilling landowners will have their land taken away under the guise of eminent domain; that the “open access” pipeline has the blessing (and permits) of federal agencies to sell the gas to other companies for export after it reaches its terminal in south Florida.

Our Santa Fe River, Inc., not for profit 501c3, of which Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson is president, and Jim Tatum Ph.D. is a member, has been opposing the proposed Sabal Trail Transmission gas pipeline from Alabama through Georgia to Florida.

Special thanks to Anita Stewart
energy policy, fossil fuels

Times-Picayune: Should the government open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling? VOTE NOW

Leave a comment
vote now at:
Nola.com

This June 2011 file photo shows a drilling rig known as the Maersk Developer in the Gulf of Mexico about 250 miles off the coast of Louisiana in about 7,000 feet of water. (Photo provided by Exxon Mobil Corp.)
Print
By Jennifer Larino, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM, updated July 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM
More than two-thirds of American voters support increased oil and natural gas drilling offshore, though many think the federal government is not doing enough to encourage activity, according to an American Petroleum Institute poll released Wednesday (July 23).

Do you support increased oil and gas production in federal waters offshore? Take the reader survey below and share your opinion in the comments.

The API poll found 68 percent of registered voters surveyed support offshore drilling. That included about 80 percent of Republican voters, 72 percent of Independent voters and 61 percent of Democrat voters.

About one quarter of respondents said they think the U.S. government does enough to encourage oil and gas development on federal lands and waters.

The telephone poll, conducted by Harris Poll between July 10 and 13, surveyed 1,012 registered voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.  

Should the federal government open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling?

Yes.

No.

I’m not sure. I’ll explain why in the comment section.

Vote
View Results

It comes as the Obama administration drafts its latest five-year plan for selling oil and gas leases offshore. The plan will take effect starting in 2017.

 
Last Friday (July 18) the administration said it would allow the energy industry to search for oil and gas under Atlantic waters using seismic testing, potentially paving the way for drilling in the area.

Environmentalists argue the testing, which uses air guns and noisy sonic blasts, is harmful to marine life.

In a conference call with reporters, Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for API, said the poll results show the government needs to open development in the Atlantic as well as parts of the Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico currently off limits to oil and gas companies.

“Clearly voters do not think energy should be a partisan issue,” Milito said. 
 

What do you think?

 

Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, offshore oil

Huffington Post: New Offshore Oil Plan Could Be ‘Game Over’ for Climate

Leave a comment
Richard Steiner
Professor and conservation biologist (www.oasis-earth.com)
Posted: 07/17/2014 12:14 pm EDT Updated: 07/17/2014 12:59 pm EDT

In a move that could rival the climate impacts of the Alberta tar sands and Keystone XL pipeline, and would release far more atmospheric carbon than that saved by the new EPA power plant and vehicle rules, the Obama administration just initiated its 2017-2022 process to expand oil and gas drilling on the nation’s outer continental shelf (OCS) – including the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. The initial public comment period on the plan closes July 31, 2014.

Despite the fact that many of the 2011 National Oil Spill Commission’s recommendations to improve offshore drilling safety have yet to be implemented, and the certainty of more oil spills, this new leasing program would commit the nation to another 40 years of carbon-intensive energy that world climate cannot afford.

In addition to the proven offshore reserves already in production (currently providing 18% of domestic oil and 5% of domestic gas production), the government estimates that the U.S. OCS contains an additional 90 billion barrels of oil and 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. Industry thinks there is more. History shows that once oil is discovered, it will be produced.


Burning this much oil and gas would release over 60 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – a ‘carbon bomb’ almost as large as the entire Alberta tars sands. Just as with the tar sands (with 168 billion barrels of proven reserves), producing this U.S. offshore oil could be ‘game over’ for efforts to contain climate change. And this offshore carbon would dwarf the one or two billion tons of CO2 saved by the new power plant and vehicle rules by 2030.

Without doubt, the combined carbon from offshore oil (in the U.S. and other nations), and tar sands oil, would be disastrous for climate. But industry sees billions of dollars lying in the seabed, and seems to care little about climate impacts.

If we want to stabilize climate and secure a sustainable future, the carbon now safely buried beneath the seabed, just as in the tar sands, should be left right where it is – buried. In fact, a landmark 2013 study by the Carbon Tracker Initiative in the U.K. concluded that, in order to avoid climate warming exceeding the critical target of 2 degrees Celsius, two-thirds of world’s remaining hydrocarbon reserves must be left in the ground. That study, co-authored with the London School of Economics, warns that in the coming decade, $6 trillion could be wasted in finding and developing ‘unburnable carbon.’

To commit to another four decades of carbon-intensive energy production as envisioned by the new OCS plan – Obama’s “all-of-the-above” (“business-as-usual”) energy policy – would dangerously delay our switch to sustainable, low-carbon energy, and virtually guarantee future climate chaos. Given the scientific consensus for the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, this new OCS plan is irresponsible and reckless. More offshore drilling is not a solution to our energy-climate crisis, but would only deepen and prolong the crisis, likely until it is too late. It is time to say “no” to this self-destructive energy path, and get busy building the future sustainable energy economy.

Some lawmakers are already expressing opposition to the drilling plan. In a July 2, 2014 letter to the President, Senators Bob Menendez, Cory Booker, and Congressman Frank Pallone (Ds-NJ) wrote that they “strongly oppose any efforts to expand offshore oil and gas drilling, particularly any such efforts that would threaten New Jersey’s vibrant coastal communities…We owe it to future generations to ensure that our pristine natural resources are preserved and protected from the polluting fossil fuel industry.” The same is true for all of our nation’s waters.

In the Arctic, large-scale offshore drilling would forever change the seascape and ecosystem. The Arctic Ocean is a spectacular, unique, and fragile marine ecosystem, home to polar bears, walrus, whales, ice-seals, and ancient human cultures. Already suffering extreme effects of climate change, drilling in the Arctic Ocean would make matters worse by adding significant industrial disturbance, including platforms, pipelines, tankers, ports, ship and air traffic, underwater noise, suspended sediment, and of course oil spills with no hope of cleanup. The area’s remoteness, severe weather and icy seas make drilling here a high-risk, unacceptable gamble.

Just ask Shell Oil. In perhaps the most intensely scrutinized offshore drilling project in history, Shell’s calamitous 2012 Arctic drilling effort off Alaska displayed arrogance, incompetence, and a reckless disregard for the risks involved.

One of Shell’s Arctic drilling rigs, the Kulluk, being towed across the stormy Gulf of Alaska in late December (to avoid paying first-of-the-year taxes), broke its tow and grounded off of Kodiak Island. It’s other drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, had to emergency-disconnect from drilling to avoid the approach of a large ice floe, had a stack fire, broke down and had to be towed into port, was detained by the Coast Guard, and was issued several notices of violation and serious deficiencies. Shell’s oil spill containment dome “crushed like a beer can” when it was first tested. Both of Shell’s Arctic drill rigs were seriously damaged, and the company had to cancel its 2013 and 2014 Arctic drilling plans. Industry observers opined that Shell may have “bitten off more than it could chew.”

If we genuinely care about our coastal and marine areas, we should not expose them to the risk of oil drilling. Spills will occur; they can’t be cleaned up; they can cause long-term, even permanent, damage; and restoration is impossible. Where we do produce and transport oil, it must be done with the highest possible safety standards. We need to use oil much more efficiently, and stop wasting it.

But beyond this, the global climate simply cannot afford the carbon that would be produced offshore. Instead, we need to kick our hydrocarbon habit, and get on with the hard work of building a sustainable energy economy.

If President Obama wants to make good on his campaign pledge to ‘slow the rise in the oceans,’ and to ‘heal the planet,’ he needs to abandon this plan for new offshore drilling (at very least, permanently withdraw the Arctic), and begin to phase-out existing offshore oil production. A tall order, perhaps, but essential in order to incentivize the transition to a sustainable energy future. And with such bold U.S. leadership, other nations would be encouraged to follow.

 
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi Arabian oil minister, once said: “The stone age did not end for lack of stones, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” Our ancestors invented a smarter way to live. Now it’s our turn.
Special thanks to Richard Charter
energy policy, offshore oil

E&E: Next Gulf lease sale includes plots along Mexico border

Leave a comment
 
Nathanial Gronewold, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, July 21, 2014

HOUSTON — The federal government has put the oil and gas industry on
notice to prepare for the next round of offshore lease bidding, to
cover waters off the coast of Texas.

And for the first time, the government is accepting bids on leases for
offshore oil and gas prospects along the maritime border with Mexico.

On Friday the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released details
of its planned sale of offshore leases in federal waters. The sale is
for acreages in the western Gulf of Mexico, in the federal government’s
Western Planning Area (WPA) for offshore energy development in the
Gulf.

“The decision to move forward with this lease sale follows extensive
environmental analysis, public input and consideration of the best
scientific information available,” acting Director Walter Cruickshank
said in a release.

Over 20 million acres is up for grabs in sale 238, scheduled to be held
Aug. 20 at the Superdome in New Orleans. The government’s last lease
round for the WPA was in August 2013 and netted the government a little
over $100 million.

What makes this lease different is that it stretches far south to just
north of the U.S.-Mexico maritime border. Activity was forbidden in a
buffer zone created around the international boundary pending the
completion of a treaty between the two nations clarifying how offshore
energy exploration and production would be pursued in the Gulf’s
borderland.

The U.S. and Mexico have since finalized a treaty on Gulf energy
exploration, so BOEM says it’s removing the prior restrictions in
place. The offshore energy treaty with Mexico has now entered into
force as of last Friday.

“As such, whole and partial blocks in the 1.4-nautical mile buffer area
will be offered for lease in WPA Sale 238,” the agency said in its
package of details covering the drilling rights sale.

The WPA is the least developed portion of the Gulf’s offshore drilling
industry, with most activity found off the coast of central and
southeastern Louisiana. Though it is home to substantial numbers of
shallow-water operations, new leasing in this area is focused on
deepwater and ultra-deepwater regions, in formations where companies
have found success.

The length of time that a lease can be held depends on the depth of the
water column it’s lying in. Leases for exploring deepwater prospects
that are more than 5,200 feet deep are good for 10 years. Standard
leases remain valid for five to seven years, but companies can earn
three-year extensions if they spud a well in the acreage they are
holding before that lease expires.

BOEM is almost halfway through its five-year lease sale schedule, which
is ending in 2017. After next month’s round the agency will hold six
more lease sales for Gulf of Mexico acreage: three for the Central
Planning Area, one for the Eastern Planning Area and two more for the
western Gulf off Texas.

Offshore drillers are more active in the Gulf now than they were at the
time of the 2010 Macondo well blowout and oil spill, when a drilling
moratorium was put in place. With new production coming online this
year and next, some analysts are predicting a sharp jump in Gulf oil

output starting in 2015 (EnergyWire, July 14).
Special thanks to Richard Charter