http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/florida-democrats-divided-obama-drilling-plan-0
Sunshine State News
Florida Democrats Divided on Obama Drilling Plan
BY: KEVIN DERBY | POSTED: APRIL 13, 2010 12:15 AM
It’s rare to see a former Florida Democratic Party chairman taking President Barack Obama to task — but that’s exactly what Scott Maddox is doing on the issue of offshore oil drilling.
With Obama having come out for expanded offshore energy exploration, including up to 125 miles off the shore of the Sunshine State, Florida Democrats are somewhat divided in their backing of the president. While some leading Democrats, including state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, are backing the president, Maddox and Democrats in the U.S. House continue to fight the proposal.

Maddox, now the frontrunner in a crowded Democratic primary for commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, had made opposition to offshore drilling one of the centerpieces of his campaign, even answering calls to “drill, baby, drill” with “no, baby, no.”

Maddox sent a letter to the White House on Monday, pleading with the president to pull the plug on any plans for drilling off the coast of Florida.

“When it comes to offshore oil drilling however, on behalf of the millions of Floridians who depend on clean beaches, clean water and a struggling tourism economy; please, not in our backyard,” wrote Maddox.

He played up the financial threat that offshore drilling could represent to Florida tourism.
“These beaches are not just environmental treasures; they are one of the most important drivers of our economy as well,” wrote Maddox. “In fact, we depend on their environmental vitality to ensure our financial security.”

Maddox is not alone among Florida’s Democrats in pushing back against the president’s call for expanded drilling. U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings and U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent a letter to the president on March 31, blasting his proposal for offshore drilling 125 miles from Florida’s shores.

Like Maddox, the representatives focused on the environmental impact as well as the potential damage offshore drilling could have on tourism.

“In an already depressed economy, and with unemployment in the state of Florida nearing 13 percent, the last thing we need to do is endanger nearly one million jobs and the $65 billion tourism industry in our state,” said Brown. “Indeed, drilling for oil anywhere near Florida’s coasts, even if the drilling takes place more than 125 miles offshore, could prove devastating to Florida’s tourist industry.”

U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor sent a letter to the president April 5 in which she expressed her concerns with drilling off Florida’s shores.

“There are some places in our country that are too special to drill,” said Castor. “Florida’s coastline certainly fits that description.”

Still, the president’s plan has backers among Florida Democrats.

State CFO Alex Sink, the likely Democratic gubernatorial nominee, endorsed the president’s plan March 31.

“I support additional offshore exploration 125 miles from Florida’s coasts,” Sink said, though she added that she opposed drilling closer to the shore.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson offered conditional support for the president’s plans, but he is waiting to meet with officials from the defense department before fully endorsing them. Nelson is attempting to schedule meeting with Pentagon brass to see if drilling would get in the way of military operations off Florida’s coast.

The primary field for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated reflected the divisions among Florida Democrats.

U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, the frontrunner in the Democratic primary, had some concerns about the president’s proposal and said that the issue needed to be looked at in depth.

“Today’s announcement on energy security and independence requires serious consideration and study as questions remain unanswered, but caution must trump expediency,” Meek said after the president released his plan.

Former North Miami Mayor Kevin Burns, one of Meek’s opponents in the Democratic primary, blasted Obama’s plans.

“From day one of my campaign I have said, ‘Not one mile, not five miles, not 50 miles, not 100 miles off our shores’,” said Burns. “Our economy, our way of life and our children’s future are too important to play political games with – we need real solutions for energy independence, not more short term profiteering for the richest corporations.”

 Contact Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com, or at (904) 521-3722.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290333
Louisiana oil spill highlights need to protect Gulf from drilling
After being noticed early on Tuesday morning, the US Coast Guard, State of Louisiana and the Cypress Pipeline Company have been working for days to contain a pipeline leak that has seen 18,000 gallons of oil released.

 Stephanie Dearing

New Orleans, LA – Cypress Pipeline shut down the section of pipe, preventing even more oil from being pumped into the sensitive coastal area of Louisiana, home to the Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Wednesday saw over 16 vessels deployed to the scene, with up to 50 people working to set up a boom to contain the spill. It is estimated the spill covers 160 square miles.

The released oil came from a Chevron operation, although Cypress owns the pipe. Officials are downplaying the potential impact, saying the effects of the leak appears to be minimal. The cause of the leak is not known, and an investigation is ongoing.

The wildlife refuge is situated at the mouth of the Mississippi, and is home to migratory water fowl. There are 455 oil and gas wells in the refuge, all there with permission of the government. The refuge is also habitat for several endangered species, including the American Alligator and the Arctic Peregrine Falcon.

According to researchers, “The Mississippi Delta encompasses the largest area of coastal wetlands in the United States and supports one of the most extensive developments of petroleum extraction of any coastal area in the world. This area has experienced ecological impacts from energy development related human activities since the early 1900s.”

40% of America’s refining capacity is situated in the coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico, wrote Ko and Day in their study, with Louisiana America’s number two source of crude oil source.

The incident has sparked a renewal of calls against further oil drilling in the Gulf, with environmental groups saying there is not enough oversight. Activists point to previous spills in the Gulf of Mexico; such as the January incident that saw over 450,000 gallons of oil released into the Gulf after an oil-laden ship collided with a tug boat. Last summer, an underwater pipeline leak saw over 58,000 gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf.

There are thousands of miles of pipeline in the United States that carry oil and natural gas. Pipelines are the number one mode for transporting oil in the United States.

There are a number of international interests drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. China has been trying to get a toehold on accessing some of the riches hidden under the Gulf of Mexico waters, reportedly negotiating to take over oil leases from a Norwegian company.

Chevron is attempting to access oil reserves deep under the Gulf of Mexico, and the operation is not cheap. The company is currently spending $1 million per day to try to access the oil — which might not even exist. Companies are willing to spend extravagant sums of money in a bid to tap into the oil thought to be hidden beneath the Gulf.

Current extraction sees about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. Tapping into new reserves could push that up to 1.88 million barrels a day.

Environmentalists are concerned with the quality of the water in the ocean, as well as protecting vulnerable plant and animal species. Organizations representing businesses found around the Gulf of Mexico are concerned that the push to drill for oil deep in the Gulf will negatively affect tourism.

There are thousands of oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, although not all are in operation.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290352

Digital Journal

La. resident fears dangers from gas exploration, drilling Special

Carol Forsloff
Trucks move down a side street in Saline, Louisiana with others as part of a parade in small town America.

Dolores Blalock has 50 acres of land in Sabine, Louisiana, estimated worth a lot of money for oil and natural gas, but Blalock is standing up and saying no to pollution of family land, a remarkable stance for anyone who could perhaps make millions.
As the oil spill from pipeline leakage enters the Gulf, the conversations about hydraulic fracturing and natural gas exploration have revved up around Natchitoches Parish. Most people say they favor it as they also advocate exploring offshore sites. But some don’t, like Blalock; and they are rare.

The oil and gas men have been surrounding Natchitoches Parish and the areas of North and Central Louisiana, with their big promises of big money.

Some of the humble folk have marched into banks flush with cash in bulging pockets. These are the new rich. So what’s the issue? Why wouldn’t someone like Blalock succumb?

The issue is hydraulic fracturing and worries about pollution that already plague Louisiana, especially when many believe the southern part of the State sold out to oil and gas interests long ago. The process of hydraulic fracturing is different than the oil drilling that goes on in coastal areas, but the concerns about the environment are still strong, among the few few protest locally. The issue is water pollution and potentially cancer-causing contaminants.

But Blalock won’t and says this, “This is my parents’ land. It has belonged to my family and is pristine. I intend to keep it. I don’t care if other people sell out. Until I know the drilling is really safe, I am not going to budge. I see other people offered money, but I’m not sure I want to go in that direction.”

Blalock has lived in Louisiana off and on for about two years since the death of her mother who left her a house and 50 acres of land. It is property that her parents purchased many years ago, and other family members own tracts of land nearby. But she has spent many years in California as well, returning to Louisiana where she spent her childhood and young adulthood to take care of family business and perhaps to permanently settle. She has the environmental concerns she brings from the Western states and looks at the issues in Louisiana with different eyes than people around the area.

“I worry about the long-term effects of this business,” Blalock declares, “And I don’t want to be one of those people who helps cause the problems for the state, even though I know other people just look at the money thing. I have to live with myself, frankly; and I just can’t see doing something that would put people at risk. If they show me real evidence, and I find it myself too, then maybe I will be interested in their money. But not until, and maybe never.”

In some parts of the country there have already been lawsuits on the practice of oil and gas drilling. This is in addition to objections made by environmentalists about drilling along the Gulf Coast.

Scott Lumry, a Natchitoches resident, says about Natchitoches that in spite of the economic downturn the area will likely survive. He says, “People around here are getting money from oil and gas and more is coming in all the time. I see folks are likely going to make it in spite of University cutbacks, because this new business is getting people excited.”

Exciting some, but worrying others, the oil and gas business of drilling, and the concerns about pollution continue, even as the oil spill reported today by Stephanie Dearing continues to enter the Gulf.

But central and northern residents, for the most part, remain interested in money to be made from natural gas, as evidenced by the talk in the town, what Lumry has said and bank tellers at the local Bank of Montgomery who notice more folks coming in with money. Few are like Blalock and ask the hard questions.

New York is now the epicenter of protest against hydraulic fracturing even as North and Central Louisiana continue to give thumbs up to the process, so the economy can proceed to go forward without interruption.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Louisiana_Oil_Spill_Highlights_Continued_Safety_Concerns_7999.html
Beyond Chron, San Francisco
(photos of spill online)
from Environment America

Louisiana Oil Spill Highlights Continued Safety Concerns
by Ryan Scholl, Environment America’ Apr. 09’ 2010
 
Early Tuesday morning, 18000 gallons of oil spilled from a Chevron-operated pipeline into a sensitive wildlife refuge on the coast of Louisiana. The oil has so far spread to an area of about 160 square miles, covering wetlands of the Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gulf of Mexico. The refuge is the wintering home to hundreds of thousands of migratory birds as well as many other critters, including already threatened species such as the America alligator and the brown pelican.

The area of the spill is so remote that cleanup crews were not immediately able to get to it. Currently, local and state officials and crews from the oil company are on the scene driving the cleanup efforts. Updates on wildlife harmed by the oil are not yet in. Given the size and location of the spill, injured wildlife may not have been found or reported yet.

This spill is just one of many in recent memory. In January, an oil tanker headed for an Exxon Mobil refinery in Beaumont, TX spilled 462,000 gallons into the Gulf of Mexico after it collided with a tugboat. Last year off the Australian coast, millions of gallons gushed out of a deep water drilling rig after an explosion in an underwater pipe. That rig was state of the art, just two years old. The oil, which continued leaking for weeks, was said to have spread across more than 9000 square miles. And there are hundreds of other examples of recent spills.

Comparatively, this week’s spill off the Louisiana coast seems almost small. But with all that’s at stake, even a little bit of oil can do tremendous harm. That’s one reason why Environment America opposes President Obama’s recent announcement of plans to expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Southeastern Atlantic, and in Northern Alaska. Despite claims by drilling supporters about the safety of modern drilling equipment and oil transportation techniques, there are no perfectly safe methods. Spills will continue to happen as long as we drill for oil.

And spills, of course, will continue to have disastrous impacts on wildlife, the tourism industry and our beaches. Though it’s difficult to estimate the true cost of an oil spill, a 2009 report by Environment America showed the economic value of sustainable ocean activities nationwide to be about $197 billion, compared to $164 billion for the value of nonrenewable oil and gas extraction. Even if your primary concern is the bottom line, the financial benefits alone of a clean offshore environment are worth supporting over the expansion of drilling.

We also oppose new drilling off our coasts because we just don’t need to do it. At best, new offshore drilling would meet only a tiny fraction of our current oil usage. In addition and more importantly, we have real options to reduce our dependence significantly, through using cleaner cars and increasing funding for public transportation. Recently announced increases in the national fuel economy standards will reduce gasoline consumption by as much as 11.6 billion gallons per year in 2016.

With irrefutable evidence of the dangers of oil drilling on the environment, plus the impact these threats have on coastal communities and the abundance and accessibility of cleaner and safer alternatives, it’s clear we should be moving away from using more oil and toward a cleaner, safer and more efficient future. Spills like the one this week in the Louisiana wildlife refuge are just the most recent reminder that we must do more to save our shores.

Special thanks to  Richard Charter

http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010/04/09/opinion/sentinel_editorial/free/id_397024.txt
The Sentinel   SENTINEL EDITORIAL:
Obama’s reversal on offshore drilling

Published: Friday, April 09, 2010
When he was a candidate for president, Barack Obama firmly opposed offshore oil drilling, especially in Florida. “When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts,” he said during a 2008 campaign stop in Jacksonville.

By way of contrast, Republican John McCain backed President George W. Bush’s effort to end the moratorium that Obama mentioned – a congressional ban on offshore drilling, except in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, that had been in effect since 1982. Energy experts contended that benefits from expanded drilling would be long in coming, threaten the environment and provide at best a few years’ petroleum supply at great cost.

Obama said he wanted instead to develop alternative fuels, invest in clean energy options and encourage fuel-efficient vehicles – to ease and extend the transition to the day when either ruinous expenses or environmental hazards turn off the oil spigot.

As president, Obama has taken some steps in that direction, including a just-released plan to dramatically increase automobile mileage standards. But his administration has now announced a plan to allow oil and gas drilling along the Atlantic coastline from Delaware to mid-Florida, and to extend exploration to parts of the Florida Gulf Coast and to the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska.

This about-face on drilling mirrors the president’s recent change of position on nuclear power. During the presidential campaign, he said he was not opposed to expanding nuclear energy, but he said he would first see to it that safety concerns were addressed. In an interview at The Sentinel in late 2007, he said: “Given the importance of reducing carbon emissions, nuclear should be in the mix – if we can make it safe, we know how to store (the nuclear waste and) we can make sure that it’s not vulnerable to terrorist attack.” For emphasis, he added that the safety issues plaguing nuclear energy “may not be solvable. And if they are not solvable, then I don’t want to invest in it.”

Now, in another 2010 initiative, he has proposed making available $50 billion in federal loan guarantees for private industry to build new nuclear power plants. And with nary a word about waste storage or terrorist attacks.

These policy reversals seem to be part of an Obama effort to attract Republican advocates of oil drilling and nuclear power to his climate-change and energy-efficiency legislation. “The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” he said in a recent interview, “and so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.”

But should that “something” include activities he and his supporters once deemed both reckless and insufficient? If oil drilling off the American coastline was a bad idea two years ago, has anything changed in the interim? If nuclear waste disposal and the potential for terrorist attacks on storage facilities were impediments to the expansion of nuclear power two years ago, has anything happened since then to make those risks acceptable?

During the summer of 2008, Obama charged that McCain’s advocacy of offshore drilling was no more than an empty political maneuver, “a strategy designed to get politicians through an election.” Now, as president, Obama is promoting policies on oil drilling and nuclear power designed to get other legislation through Congress. Given the stakes involved, is that strategy any more responsible?

http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/8832121184/articles/offshore/company-news/us-gulf-of-mexico-2/2010/04/mms-requests_comment.html
I strongly enourage anyone concerned about offshore oil to submit comments to the Minerals Management Service.  This is the only opportunity this year to state your position on the revised 2007–2012 plan for offshore oil and gas development along the US coast.   DeeVon

Offshore Magazine
MMS requests comment on revised OCS leasing program

Published: Apr 7, 2010
Offshore staff

WASHINGTON, DC — The MMS requests comment on the Preliminary Revised 2007-2012 Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The comment period is open through May 3, 2010.

The preliminary revised program was required by order from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Center for Biological Diversity v. US Department of Interior, DC.

Per the court’s direction, the MMS re-analyzed all 26 OCS planning areas to better determine the relative environmental sensitivity of offshore oil and gas development. The expanded environmental sensitivity analysis is divided into three components of the marine environment that may be affected by oil and gas activities: marine habitats, marine productivity, and marine fauna (i.e., birds, fish, and sea turtles).

The expanded analysis considers the relative sensitivity of the marine environment of all 26 planning areas to oil spills and other potential factors, such as sound, physical disturbance, climate change, and ocean acidification. The analysis relied upon approximately 50 reports and studies, including many that were not considered when the original 2007-2012 program was prepared.

The court directed the Secretary to reconsider the leasing schedule, using the new sensitivity analysis in rebalancing the potential risks to the environment and coastal zone with the potential for discovery of oil and gas. The Preliminary Revised Program reaffirms the role of the Gulf of Mexico as the primary producing region, retaining the eight sales that have already occurred there and the four remaining on the schedule.

Mid-Atlantic Sale 220 offshore Virginia and the two special interest sales in the Cook Inlet offshore Alaska are also included. However, for lack of industry interest, Sale 211 in the Cook Inlet, scheduled for 2009, was cancelled. The Secretary also decided that Chukchi Sea Sale 193 held in 2008 is appropriate as part of this Preliminary Revised Program.

The remanded program schedules no sales in the North Aleutian basin and Beaufort Sea, Alaska; nor additional sales in the Chukchi Sea other than Sale 193.

The Secretary’s preliminary decision is to remove five sales from the schedule, sales 209 and 217 in the Beaufort Sea, 212 and 221 in the Chukchi Sea, and 214 in the North Aleutian basin, including Bristol Bay. The Secretary determined that the potential risks from a Bristol Bay sale, particularly to the commercial fishing industry, outweighed the potential for discovery of oil and gas. Results from exploration on existing leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, ongoing research on oil spill clean-up in icy waters, and more awareness of the effects of climate change will provide valuable information for making future decisions on offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic.

On April 17, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded DOI’s OCS 2007-2012 leasing program. The Court found that DOI’s determination of when and where to offer areas for leasing of oil and gas resources was based on a flawed analysis that failed to assess fully the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the OCS because it looked only at the effects of spills on the shoreline. The Court specified that on remand, the Secretary must first conduct a more complete comparative analysis of the environmental sensitivity of entire areas of the OCS and attempt to identify those areas most and least sensitive to OCS activity.

The MMS will accept comments in one of three formats:

* Online through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter docket ID MMS-2009-OMM-0016

* Via email: PRPcomments@mms.gov

* Or written comments may be hand-carried or mailed to the Department of the Interior; Attention:

Leasing Division (LD); 381 Elden Street, MS-4010; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817.

Special thanks to Richard Charter