Category Archives: offshore oil

climate change, fossil fuels, Gulf restoration, natural resource management, offshore oil

San Francisco Chronicle: AP Analysis: Is this flood board going rogue?

Leave a comment

http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/article/AP-Analysis-Is-this-flood-board-going-rogue-4706285.php

By KEVIN McGILL, Associated Press
Updated 2:05 pm, Sunday, August 4, 2013

NEW ORLEANS (AP) – In a month full of reminders of the perils and costs of offshore drilling – among them one leaky well, one full-scale blowout and spectacular fire and one corporation’s acknowledgment that some evidence pertaining to the 2010 Gulf oil spill was destroyed – July’s biggest splash was made in Civil District Court in New Orleans, where a local flood control authority, some would argue, went rogue.

Foreseeing huge flood-control costs associated with the continued disappearance of Louisiana wetlands, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East’s board of commissioners filed a lawsuit against scores of oil, gas and pipeline companies. It seeks damages and mitigation for damage allegedly done by decades of dredging and canal-cutting.

Gov. Bobby Jindal issued a scathing criticism of the suit, saying the board was effectively trying to usurp state responsibilities and that the suit would provide a “windfall for trial lawyers.”

It’s worth noting that Jindal issued that statement the day after The Associated Press reported that the law firm of his political ally and former executive counsel has received $1.1 million in no-bid state work. That irony aside, Jindal’s statement raised serious issues. They were spelled out at more length in a letter from his coastal protection chief, Garret Graves, to Timothy Doody, president of the SLFPAE, formed amid post-Katrina reforms to oversee three New Orleans area levee districts.

Without denying the role of oil and gas activities in degradation of the coast, Graves said there are others involved as well. He blames, for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ “ongoing, unsustainable river management practices,” and “halfhearted” efforts by BP to continue cleaning lingering oil from the 2010 disaster.

Graves argues that the lawsuit undermines a comprehensive state effort to prevent and mitigate wetlands loss. He argues that state law regulates the local flood control agency’s power to file such a lawsuit and that the governor’s approval was needed before the board reached an agreement with the lawyers filing it.

“Louisiana law and our constitution organize government and place certain responsibilities within accountable entities,” Graves wrote. “However, SLFPAE’s recent decision violates those principles.”

John M. Barry, vice president of the board, responded with a letter praising the work of the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, which is headed by Graves. But he rejected Graves’ arguments.

“We are an independent board, expressly designed to be insulated from political pressure – exactly the kind of pressure now being exerted upon us. Our purpose is protecting people’s lives and property,” Barry wrote. “We are supposed to exercise our judgment in how best to do so. We are a board with expertise in flood protection, not politics. Based on our responsibility, expertise and best judgment, we filed this lawsuit.”

He elaborated in an interview, saying the administration based its statements about legality of the contract on a misreading of law. “Our in-house counsel said we had the authority. Before we approached the litigator, the attorney general’s office said we had the authority,” Barry said.

Gladstone Jones, the litigator hired to prepare and file the lawsuit, anticipated the argument, Barry added. “He satisfied himself that we had the authority before he started putting in any of his enormous effort,” he said.

The contingency lawsuit will cost the board nothing if it loses, Barry said. He also answered critics, including Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, who said the board or the state will have to pay if the board drops the suit.

“If the board is reconstituted by the political process and it voluntarily withdrew the suit, then the attorneys would have to be compensated,” Barry said.

“Will the attorneys get rich if they win? Yes,” Barry added later. But a loss could bankrupt them, he argues. “More importantly, if they win, we should have the money necessary to protect the area from hurricanes.”
___
Kevin McGill is an Associated Press reporter based in New Orleans.
Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, fossil fuels, fracking, national ocean politics, natural resource management, ocean pollution, offshore oil, oil pollution, tar sands

Mint Press News: Revelation: Feds OK’d Offshore Drilling Without Full Environmental Review

Leave a comment

Revelation: Feds OK’d Offshore Drilling Without Full Environmental Review

By Trisha Marczak | July 31, 2013

surfers oil rig
Surfers enjoy the waves near a conventional offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. These rigs could soon be joined by offshore fracking operations. In fact, in California, it turns out they already exist. (Photo/berardo62 via Flickr)

Environmental advocates are crying foul after the discovery that oil companies are using the controversial process known as fracking to extract oil off the coast of California, warning that the West Coast operations could become the norm from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico.

According to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the news organization Truthout, two fracking operations have been ongoing in the Santa Barbara Channel since 2009 without the environmental review normally required under federal regulations.

The same discovery was made by the Environmental Defense Center, which indicated that its research confirmed that Venoco Inc. conducted an offshore fracking operation in 2009. According to the center, no public disclosure was made before the fracking began.

“It’s completely illegal for the agency to approve fracking in the outer continental shelf without conducting a complete environmental impact statement,” Center for Biological Diversity Senior Counsel Kassie Siegel told Truthout.

The offshore fracking operations were approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement as a regular oil drilling operation.

According to documents obtained by Truthout, oil companies Venoco and Dcor LLC modified drilling permits already in place to pave the way for the fracking operations.
An email obtained by Truthout indicates the federal government knew the companies were fracking. In an email sent on behalf of the bureau’s chief of staff, Thomas Lillie, to a fellow employee, he posed the question: “Has there been an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) to assess the environmental consequences of fracking on the OCS? How can we begin to review permit requests without that?”

That’s the question environmental organizations are asking, too.

“Venoco’s fracking operation was allowed under existing authorizations, and no further environmental analysis or public disclosure was made prior to the operation, despite the fact that offshore oil development raises its own host of environmental issues,” the Environmental Defense Center states on its website.

Those environmental issues, including groundwater contamination and propensity for spills, are still being debated as onshore fracking spreads in California and around the nation. There are also issues relating to the wells’ location near seismic faults.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management justified its endorsement of fracking operations using the argument that updated permits were approved after all new threats were assessed. But according to the Center for Biological Diversity, that doesn’t do the trick, either scientifically or technically.

Venoco, however, claims it does. Its website illustrates the company as one “concerned about the environment.”

“We operate in areas with extensive environmental regulations such as in and around the Santa Barbara Channel as well as in prime agricultural areas such as the Sacramento Basin,” the company’s site states.

California landlocked fracking questioned
California sits atop the Monterey shale formation, estimated to hold a potential 15 billion barrels of crude oil, representing the largest reserve in the nation.

In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management lost a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over the issuing of leases to oil companies to drill in the Monterey shale. The Sierra Club successfully argued that leases were improperly given to the oil companies without the proper environmental reviews.

In all, roughly 17,000 acres of land in the Monterey shale formation was leased by the federal government to oil companies.

This is, essentially, the beef environmental organizations have with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

According to a bureau fact sheet obtained by Truthout, the agency has allowed fracking to occur 11 times in the last 25 years. However, a spokesperson for the bureau told Truthout the exact number of fracking operations is not known, as it would require combing through years of files.

The offshore fracking is similar to the process used on land to drum up oil locked in shale – a combination of water, chemicals and silica sand is shot into the earth to break up and extract hidden oil.

In the sea, it’s no different, although the process doesn’t require as much water or silica sand, otherwise known as frac sand. According to Truthout, offshore fracking uses 7 percent of the frac sand and 2 percent of the combined water and chemicals used in onshore fracking wells.

On land and sea
The offshore fracking discovery comes at a time when the safety of onshore fracking is being debated in the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency has yet to release its study on the impact of fracking – recently announcing it would be delayed until 2016.
In the meantime, the effect on groundwater supplies is being monitored by people on both sides of the debate.

A study released by the University of Texas this month indicates water supplies surrounding fracking wells had elevated and toxic levels of arsenic, strontium and selenium, all associated with the fracking process.

The study assessed water samples taken from 100 private wells, 91 of which were within 3 miles of drilling sites.

The University of Texas study echoed one released this year by Duke University that found fracking operations were linked to groundwater contamination.

The study looked at roughly 140 water samples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale formation and discovered methane levels were 23 times more prevalent in homes less than a mile from a fracking well.

The University of Texas study comes after the National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, released a report indicating groundwater supplies near a Pennsylvania fracking site did not show any signs of contamination. However, the report was only preliminary, and the laboratory intends to release its full report in 2014.

“NETL has been conducting a study to monitor for any signs of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracturing operations at a site on the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania,” NETL said in a statement following the preliminary report release. “We are still in the early stages of collecting, analyzing, and validating data from this site. While nothing of concern has been found thus far, the results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims. We expect a final report on the results by the end of the calendar year.”

On top of issues associated with groundwater contamination, fracking has raised questions associated with wastewater disposal and spills.

This month, Exxon Mobil was fined $100,000 for a fracking wastewater spill that contaminated the Susquehanna River in 2010. The EPA discovered water tested near the spill included elevated levels of chlorides, strontium and barium, chemicals also found in the company’s wastewater storage tanks.

Within three months, two major fracking fluid spills occurred at fracking well sites operated by Carrizo Oil and Gas. In May, a fracking well sent 9,000 gallons of fracking fluid onto nearby property in Pennsylvania. In March, a fracking well sent 227,000 gallons of fracking fluid into another Pennsylvania community.

These are the types of incidents environmental advocates are worried about, especially when there’s now a possibility such spills could occur in the ocean. While the offshore fracking process requires less fracking fluid, the possibility for detection and cleanup is in question, particularly when most people aren’t aware that offshore fracking is taking place.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, fossil fuels, gulf of mexico clean-up, Gulf restoration, offshore oil, oil pollution

Huffington Post: Natural Gas Rig Blowout Highlights Dangers Of Drilling In The Gulf

Leave a comment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/natural-gas-rig-blowout_n_3660717.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

I’m concerned about the 27,000 old wells that have not been decommissioned and are prone to leak. They should be removed and the wellheads sealed. DV

Posted: 07/26/2013 4:36 pm EDT

From Mother Nature Network’s Russell McLendon:

Flames erupted from an offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico Tuesday night, torching a natural gas plume that had been leaking since a blowout earlier in the day. All 44 rig workers were evacuated before the fire began, according to the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, but the rig continued spewing gas until Thursday morning, when its scorched frame finally collapsed enough to cut off the leak.

In addition to the cloud of natural gas rising from the rig, the BSEE had observed a light sheen on the water’s surface measuring half a mile by 50 feet. The well’s owner, Walter Oil & Gas, was reportedly making preparations to drill a relief well before the rig “bridged over,” clogging the well with sand and sediment. The Associated Press reported Thursday afternoon that the fire is out, the rig appears stable and no sheen is visible.

Located 55 miles off the Louisiana coast, the well’s unmanned platform wasn’t producing gas when the blowout occurred. The 44 workers were on an adjacent, portable rig that was drilling a “sidetrack well” into the original well bore. It’s unclear what ignited the gas, the BSEE says, and a diagnosis will likely be delayed by response and cleanup efforts.

“BSEE’s efforts today are focused on bringing this loss of well control event to a safe resolution,” says Lars Herbst, BSEE Gulf of Mexico regional director, in a statement issued Tuesday. “Offshore oil and gas operators need to re-affirm their aggressive approach to the safety of well operations in light of this event and other recent well control events.”

The most salient such event in recent memory is the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which killed 11 people and released 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. Officials say there’s little chance this week’s blowout will come anywhere close to matching that level of devastation, but it does cast a new spotlight on a long-running risk looming off the U.S. Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, for example, another inactive gas well ruptured off the Louisiana coast, leaking a small amount of gas and liquid before it was plugged.

The Gulf of Mexico is dotted with nearly 4,000 active oil and gas platforms (pictured above), plus a sprawling array of drilling rigs, supply ships and pipelines. This seafaring infrastructure is key to a bustling energy sector across the Gulf Coast, especially in Louisiana and Texas, but it also poses a grave danger to nearby people and wildlife.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. oil and gas extraction industry had a death rate of 27.1 per 100,000 workers between 2003 and 2010. That’s seven times higher than the 3.8 deaths per 100,000 workers across all U.S. industries. “The 11 lives lost in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion provide a reminder of the hazards involved in offshore drilling,” the CDC report stated.

Beyond the threat from active wells and drilling, the Gulf is also haunted by more than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells, most of which undergo no monitoring for leaks. Some of the region’s oldest wells were abandoned in the 1940s, and many others are only considered “temporarily abandoned,” thus facing less strict sealing requirements.

These wells could be seeping oil, methane or other toxic substances for years, potentially sickening already-threatened wildlife like sea turtles or cetaceans. And as researchers have learned since 2010, large amounts of oil and gas can wreak havoc with microbial life and coral colonies, both of which are key to the Gulf’s food web – including its lucrative seafood industry. Although the Gulf is home to microbes that evolved to feed on natural oil and gas seeps, too much unnatural leaking and spilling can smother them.

“It’s important to keep in mind that if you keep pumping hydrocarbons into the system, you’ll eventually overwhelm it,” University of Georgia marine scientist Samantha Joye told MNN earlier this year, referring to the 2010 spill on its three-year anniversary.

Closer to shore, oil and gas development has already transformed many Gulf Coast wetlands, as manmade canals and other extraction-related projects have disrupted the flow of water and sediments that gradually build coastal bayous. The region has lost about 1,900 square miles of land in the past 80 years, and Louisiana alone is projected to lose another 1,750 square miles by 2060. Not only do these marshes house important wildlife, but they also serve as a protective buffer against hurricanes.

Recognizing this risk, Louisiana officials filed a lawsuit Wednesday against dozens of energy companies, seeking damages for decades of harm to coastal wetlands. Filed coincidentally as a leaking gas rig burned offshore, the suit cites “a mercilessly efficient, continuously expanding system of ecological destruction,” according to the New York Times, and hints at evolving attitudes in a region that has prospered from drilling but also suffered from lost tourism and seafood income after the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“Coastal economies, which depend on healthy oceans, simply cannot afford more offshore drilling disasters,” says Jacqueline Savitz, deputy vice president for the environmental group Oceana, in a statement released Wednesday about the latest gas blowout. “This is yet another reminder that offshore drilling remains dirty and dangerous.”

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated since it was first published on July 24, 2013.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, fossil fuels, national ocean politics, natural resource management, offshore oil

Fuel Fix: Perry to lawmakers: Do more to advance offshore drilling

Leave a comment

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/07/19/perry-to-lawmakers-do-more-to-advance-offshore-drilling/

Posted on July 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm by Jennifer A. Dlouhy

ric petty
Texas Gov. Rick Perry prepares for a presidential debate in October 2011. AP Photo/Scott Eells, Pool)

Congress can do more to advance offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean while boosting the economies of coastal states, eight governors said Friday.

Options rage from giving states a greater share of federal drilling royalties to passing legislation that would force the Interior Department to make more coastal tracts available for oil and gas development, the group of coastal governors said.

The governors, including Texas’ Rick Perry, made their pleas in a letter to their congressional delegations in the nation’s capital.

“During this congress, legislators will consider several matters that directly and indirectly affect the future of offshore energy development,” said the governors, who all represent coastal states. “As our federal representatives, we strongly urge you to act in concert to champion outer continental shelf energy and, by effect, the vitality of our coastal and state economies.”

The group – banded together as the OCS Governors Coalition – offered five recommendations.

At the top of their list: expanding an existing program for sharing offshore drilling revenue with states near the activity.

“Currently, the Atlantic coast states and Alaska are generally not eligible to share in revenues generated by oil, gas and renewable energy development in the outer continental shelf,” the group said. “These states should be treated equitably with all states.”

The governors may be preaching to the choir, since several of the recipients already have sponsored legislation that would open up the revenue-sharing program – which is set to begin for the Gulf Coast in 2017 – to all coastal states.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is set next week to hold a hearing on one of those proposals, a measure by Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mary Landrieu, D-La., that would also move up the timeline for the Gulf revenue sharing program so it starts sooner. Their measure also would do away with a $500 million annual cap on what Gulf states can collect.

Under their bill, every state with ocean views would be able to participate and collect up to 37.5 percent of the royalties from any offshore energy production, whether it comes from oil and gas or wind and solar.

But the proposal is controversial – particular among offshore drilling foes, who believe the lure of revenue could encourage cash-strapped states to support oil and gas development in nearby waters.

In a March letter to Wyden and Murkowski, eight senators insisted they would “vigorously oppose any effort that expands or provides further incentive for offshore oil and gas drilling in areas where drilling is currently prohibited.”

The coastal governors also endorse plans to expand access to new outer continental shelf areas. The Obama administration’s five-year plan for selling offshore oil and gas leases through June 2017 contains a dozen auctions of territory in the Gulf of Mexico and three of tracts near Alaska.

But regulators at the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management opted not to plan an auction of leases near Virginia, where a sale had previously been scheduled (and canceled after the 2010 Gulf spill). Some Alaskan areas and southern California acreage, near existing development, also were left out of the plan.

The coastal governors say the administration should have opened access to new frontiers and should finish its ongoing review of the environmental effects of seismic research along the Atlantic that could help pinpoint possible oil and gas reserves.

OCS governors letter – this is the version sent to Sen. Mary Landrieu (see attached file)
OCS-governors-letter-this-is-the-version-sent-to-Sen-Mary-Landrieu.pdf OCS-governors-letter-this-is-the-version-sent-to-Sen-Mary-Landrieu.pdf
333K View Download

Special thanks to Richard Charter

climate change, national ocean politics, natural resource management, offshore oil

Common Dreams: Center for Biologic Diversity Counter-attack Launched Against Oil Industry Attempt to Halt Bearded Seals’ Protection Global Warming, Oil Development Remain Key Threats to Arctic Seals

Leave a comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2013 5:54 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/07/19-1

CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity
Rebecca Noblin, (907) 274-1110

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – July 19 – The Center for Biological Diversity intervened in a lawsuit today to defend Arctic bearded seals from an attempt by the oil and gas industry to strip their Endangered Species Act protection.

The Alaska Oil and Gas Association and American Petroleum Institute are challenging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2012 decision to list bearded seals as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to the loss of their sea-ice habitat, which is being melted by global warming.

“There’s no scientific dispute that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, and bearded seals are the poster child for the destructive effects of the global warming onslaught,” said Center Alaska director Rebecca Noblin. “This industry attack on bearded seal protections is about profits, not science.”

Bearded seals, distinctive for their comical, mustachioed appearance and elaborate courtship songs, give birth and nurse their pups on pack ice. The rapid loss of pack ice jeopardizes their ability to rear young and is lowering the abundance of important food sources on their shallow foraging grounds off Alaska.

The seals’ winter sea-ice habitat in the Bering and Okhotsk seas off Alaska and Russia is projected to decline by at least 40 percent by 2050, while summer sea ice across the Arctic is projected to largely disappear in the next 20 years. These seals also face threats from proposed offshore oil and gas development off Alaska, where an oil spill in icy waters would be impossible to clean up.

“Bearded seals do have a chance to survive, but only if they have the full protection of the Endangered Species Act — and if we move fast to make major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” said Noblin. “If we don’t aggressively tackle that greenhouse gas pollution, we’re looking at a lonely future on our planet — a future without amazing creatures like these whiskery seals.”

Endangered Species Act listing of bearded seals offers them increased protection against the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change, as well as oil and gas development. Listing of the seals does not affect subsistence harvest of the species by Alaska natives, which is exempted from the law’s prohibitions.

The state of Alaska and the North Slope Borough have also filed challenges to the bearded seal listing rule.

Read more about the Center’s campaign to protect bearded seals.
###
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature – to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.