http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/energy-us-romney-idUSL2E8JO2H220120824

Oh pleez…..this is so obviously designed by Big Oil. DV

Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:24pm EDT

By Joshua Schneyer and Timothy Gardner

Aug 24 (Reuters) – In unveiling his energy policy on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped
into the oil industry’s giddy optimism about shale drilling to paint a rosy picture of U.S. economic renaissance fueled by
hydrocarbons.

A 21-page energy policy white paper distributed by the Romney campaign is also notable for what it doesn’t address: The
document contains no mention of climate change, few proposals to curb U.S. fossil fuel demand, and sparse paragraphs on the
merits of renewable energy.

The promise of a drilling frenzy takes center stage. After decades of failed plans to wean the world’s top economy off
foreign oil, huge new domestic oil and gas resources can now be easily tapped by high-tech drilling, the plan says.

By opening more territory for drilling and expediting permits, private companies will be enabled to bring an oil and
gas bonanza to market at record pace, the plan says. One key to the plan is handing states the power to permit for drilling on
acreage owned by the Federal government, which controls nearly 30 percent of U.S. lands.

That move could expedite permits since several states — including North Dakota, Ohio and Colorado — have shown they are
many times faster to issue drilling permits than the Federal government, Romney’s plan says.

Such a major regulatory overhaul would require legislative approval, however, and could face resistance in a divided
Congress. Meanwhile, the prolific drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, faces staunch resistance in
some quarters, over fears it could contaminate water supplies. New York State has maintained a fracking moratorium since 2008.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, in a statement, called Romney’s plan an “oil-above-all” policy, contrasting it to the
Obama administration’s stated “all-of-the-above” policy that promotes a broad mix of renewable energy sources and less hydrocarbons usage, in addition to more oil and gas drilling.

“The Romney plan takes us in the wrong direction by increasing our dependence on oil, ignoring the reality of
climate change, and attacking commonsense environmental protections and successful clean energy programs,” Waxman said
in a statement.

But Romney’s plan is sure to appeal to many voters wary of U.S. dependence on foreign oil and gasoline prices near an
all-time high this year. Increasing drilling could turn the United States into an energy super power by 2020, creating 3
million jobs and adding $500 billion to U.S. gross domestic product, while slashing reliance on “unstable” foreign
oil-producing nations, the plan says.

The plan promises to open territory from Alaska to the Virginia coastline up for more drilling.

“It’s clever because it’s an effort to catch the shale drilling wave, and embrace the excitement and optimism sweeping
through the U.S. oil industry,” said Sarah Emerson of energy consultancy ESAI. “It’s not a ‘we’ll try anything’ approach. It says ‘we’ve got this new resource, let’s develop it and it will have a huge impact on GDP and jobs.”

In betting heavily on a fossil-fueled U.S. energy future, the plan also carries economic and environmental risks. “There is now really a path toward U.S. energy independence and it’s welcome that politicians are thinking about this,” said
Ed Morse, head of commodity research at Citi in New York, whose recent research on the potential of U.S. shale drilling is cited
in Romney’s plan. “This is enviable for a country that has been the world’s only super power and could sustain its power through a (shale-fuelled) reindustrialization.”

The plan is still vulnerable to global energy prices, Morse said. Expanding U.S. oil development hinges on relatively high
global oil prices, and if OPEC producers like Saudi Arabia or Iraq were to boost oil production and cause prices to fall to
$70 a barrel — around 27 percent below current rates — many North American projects could lose their economic appeal.

The United States would also have to nearly double its oil production to becoming a net exporter, raising the risk of new
accidents following the 4.9 million barrel Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010.

“There’s some good stuff in this plan,” said Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “But
it’s a plan for oil production, not a comprehensive energy strategy.”

NOD TO INDUSTRY

Romney, whose chief energy advisor is Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm, the CEO of shale driller Continental
Resources, borrows heavily in his white paper from research notes by oil and gas industry experts.

He slams the Obama administration for allegedly dragging its feet on new drilling. Permitting has languished – allegedly
by 37 percent – a key pipeline hasn’t been approved, and rich offshore prospects remain off limits to drillers, the plan says.

In many ways, however, a proliferation of new drilling — mostly for fracking projects — has already transformed the U.S.
energy industry, putting domestic natural gas output on track for a second annual record, and helping to lift U.S. oil
production to a nine-year high in 2011 from shale-rich states like North Dakota and Texas.

The United States remains the top net oil importer, although U.S. reliance on foreign fuel has waned after gasoline demand
fell by more than 6 percent since peaking in 2007, in part due to more renewable fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards.

According to Romney’s plan, oil companies currently wait an average 307 days for drilling permits from the Federal
government. In North Dakota, permits to drill on state-owned lands take just 10 days. “The economic consequences of not getting permits for years is brutal,” said Mark Mills, an energy expert and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who authored a paper cited in the Romney plan. “The limitation to drilling is access to land, and that can be solved with the stroke of a pen.”

Romney also pledged to forge a U.S. energy alliance with neighboring oil exporting nations Canada and Mexico, and to
approve the Keystone XL pipeline, a project to carry Canadian oil sands crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast that has drawn concern
from environmentalists.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Paul Quinlan, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Environmental, public health and fishing groups in Alaska and the Gulf
Coast filed a lawsuit against U.S. EPA yesterday to prod the agency to
write new rules governing the use of oil-dispersing chemicals.

Citing accelerating oil and gas drilling activity in their regions,
the groups want EPA to perform more robust tests on the toxicity and
effectiveness of dispersants in specific water bodies.

EPA publishes a national contingency plan for oil spills that lists
dispersants that are either authorized or eligible to be pre-
authorized for use. The lawsuit accuses the agency of an “ongoing
failure” to include details in the plan about the water bodies or
quantities in which the chemicals can be safely deployed, as required
under the Clean Water Act.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
calls for the court to vacate dispersant listings of the last six
years and order EPA to publish a product schedule that includes all
the required information. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of
the Louisiana Shrimp Association, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the
Gulf Restoration Network, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network,
Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the
Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club.

“We’re disappointed that the agency doesn’t seem to understand the
widespread public urgency to initiate this rulemaking process,” said
Jill Mastrototaro, director of the Sierra Club’s Gulf Coast Protection
Campaign. “If a spill or blowout happened tomorrow in the Gulf of
Mexico, or any U.S. water for that matter, any dispersant that is used
would not necessarily be safe for the waters, ecosystems, response
workers or nearby communities.”

The groups first notified EPA of their intent to sue in October 2010
(E&ENews PM, Oct. 13, 2010), not long after the Deepwater Horizon
exploded, setting off an 87-day spill. They fear a repeat of what
happened then: 1.8 million gallons of oil dispersants used in the Gulf
of Mexico, even as scientists raised sharp questions about the
strategy.

Dispersants break up oil into tiny droplets that sink below the ocean
surface, effectively keeping it out of sensitive coastal marshes and
enabling it to be consumed by bacteria and other marine organisms.
Many experts fear what effect the accumulation of the oil and
chemicals in the underwater ecosystem might have on the food chain and
whether the overall approach does more harm than good.

Forced to rely on its own incomplete data during the spill, EPA
waffled over whether to allow the dispersant use to continue and
engaged in what amounted to a shoving match with oil giant BP PLC
(Greenwire, April 22, 2011). EPA did not respond to a request for
comment in time for publication.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said the agency needs to learn more
about the use and long-term impacts of dispersants, telling the
presidential commission that investigated the spill that she was
“committed to revisiting” the dispersant listing process Greenwire,
Sept. 28, 2010).

Current federal requirements allow dispersant manufacturers to submit
toxicity data in advance of their chemical’s listing on the national
contingency plan product schedule. That is a prerequisite to pre-
authorization of their use in fighting spills. Without a pre-
authorization plan in place, the on-scene coordinator may authorize a
dispersant’s use, provided it is listed.

In those scenarios, the groups argue that failure to include more
detail on the product schedule leads to uninformed and potentially
dangerous decisionmaking.

“EPA’s failure to obtain, and in turn include on the NCP Product
Schedule, this statutorily-mandated information has seriously hobbled
emergency response to oil spills, most recently in the Deepwater
Horizon oil disaster,” the lawsuit said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

by Jill Mastotaro, Sierra Club Gulf Coast Director, on 8/6/12

Clean Water Act suit filed against lagging EPA

August 6, 2012

Washington, D.C. — A coalition of conservation, wildlife and public health groups in the Gulf region and in Alaska filed a citizen suit under the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act today to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a rule on chemical oil dispersants. EPA’s current rules –which during the 2010 Gulf oil disaster failed to ensure that dispersants would be used safely –do not fulfill the requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act.

“We’re disappointed that the agency doesn’t seem to understand the widespread public urgency to initiate this rulemaking process,” said Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club Gulf Coast Protection Campaign Director. “If a spill or blowout happened tomorrow in the Gulf of Mexico, or any U.S. water for that matter, any dispersant that is used would not necessarily be safe for the waters, ecosystems, response workers, or nearby communities.”

During the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, nearly 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants were dumped into Gulf waters with little knowledge or research into the chemicals’ toxic impacts. Currently, regulations dictating dispersants eligible for use in oil spills require minimal toxicity testing and no threshold for safety.

Over 5,000 petitions have been sent by residents across the Gulf Coast region urging EPA to use its authority to initiate comprehensive testing of oil dispersants and to create regulations that include safety criteria and identify acceptable waters and quantities for use. But EPA still has not created a new rule that will ensure that dispersants will be used safely in the next disaster.

“We sent EPA a notice of intent to sue in October 2010 following the debacle of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the unprecedented use of dispersants during that response,” said Earthjustice attorney Hannah Chang, who is representing the groups in court. “Our filing today will push EPA to take further action to follow through on its promise to get a much-needed rule in place.”

“The Clean Water Act requirements have been in place for decades, but administration after administration has failed to comply with the law,” said Cyn Sarthou, Executive Director of Gulf Restoration Network. “Consequently there was little data available to EPA officials when they were confronted with the devastating BP oil disaster.”

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to identify the waters in which dispersants and other spill mitigating devices and substances may be used, and what quantities can be used safely in the identified waters, as part of EPA’sresponsibilities for preparing and publishing the National Contingency Plan. The Plan governs responses to discharges of oil and hazardous substances. But the use of toxic dispersants in response to the Gulf oil disaster was implemented without prior understanding of the effect on the Gulf of Mexico marine ecosystems and human health. Groups in oil producing regions, represented by Earthjustice, claim that EPA’s current rules do not follow Clean Water Act guidelines, and as a result they are taking action to force EPA to carry out its legal responsibility.

EPA’s failure to have sufficient dispersant rules in place was one of the many causes of the confusion, concern, and uncertainty surrounding the response to the 2010 well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.Approximately 1.84 million gallons of dispersants were applied in the Gulf despite widespread recognition that little was known about the health and environmental effects of applying such massive quantities of dispersants, and applying them beneath the ocean’s surface.

As the federal government and BP waffled on dispersant use in the middle of the crisis, it became apparent how little testing and study had been done beforehand.Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson readily acknowledged the agency’s lack of knowledge about the dispersants that were being applied. The result was a poorly planned, haphazard response, the effects of which will be felt for years to come. Just this week, a peer-reviewed study found that the use of dispersants may have wreaked significant and ongoing damage on the Gulf of Mexico food chain [link http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2012/07/bp_oil_spill_dispersants_may_h.html].

“The oil industry learned from the Exxon Valdez that ‘out of sight, out of mind’ is its preferred spill response strategy, so the first tool out of the box these days is dispersants,” said Bob Shavelson with Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper. “But dispersants add toxic insult to injury for Alaskan fisheries and Alaskans have a right to know about toxic pollution around our coastal communities.”
“The damage in the Gulf has already been done. Nearly two million gallons of dispersants with essentially unknown environmental effects were released into the waters,” said Marc Yaggi, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance.“We need more effective and responsible EPA dispersant rules so that we are never caught unprepared and uninformed in a crisis situation again.”

Public interest environmental law firm Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, Florida Wildlife Federation, Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Alaska-based Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, WaterkeeperAlliance, and Sierra Club.

CONTACTS:
Hannah Chang, Earthjustice, 212-791-1881 x 8233
Jill Mastrototaro, Sierra Club, 504-861-4835
Pamela Miller, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, 907-242-9991
Marylee Orr, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, 225-928-1315
Cyn Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, 504-525-1528
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inletkeeper, 907-299-3277
Marc Yaggi, Waterkeeper Alliance, 212-747-0622 x14

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/2nd-cuban-offshore-oil-bust-16938659#.UCA2ud2yWJo

Thank you. DV

By PETER ORSI Associated Press
HAVANA August 6, 2012 (AP)
A second deep-water exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico has proved a bust, Cuba’s state oil company announced Monday, dealing another blow to the island’s dreams of petroleum riches.

The drilling operation carried out by PC Gulf, a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Petronas, and Gazpromneft of Russia, concluded July 31 off the western province of Pinar del Rio, Cuban state oil company Cubapetroleo said in a statement.

Analysis of the findings revealed an “active petroleum system that could extend to other parts of the four blocs contracted by PC Gulf and Gazpromneft, and even beyond their limits,” read the statement, which was published by Communist Party newspaper Granma.

“Nevertheless, at that point the rocks are very compact and do not have the capacity to deliver significant quantities of petroleum and gas,” it continued, “so it cannot be qualified as a commercial discovery.”

Exploratory wells commonly turn out to be dry or not viable, and experts say production was always at least three to five years out from any confirmed strike.

Still, it was disappointing news for a cash-strapped country hoping for an economic lifeline, after another well sunk by Spanish company Repsol came up dry in May.
“A lot of people have been very naive in thinking that an oil-rich Cuba was going to materialize overnight, and that is not the case,” said Jorge Pinon, former president of Amoco Oil Latin America and now an energy expert at the University of Texas. “You don’t just turn the faucet on overnight.”

An estimated 5 billion to 9 billion barrels of crude may be buried off Cuba deep below the Gulf of Mexico, according to geologic surveys, and authorities are hoping the reserves could be even bigger.

Cubapetroleo said PC Gulf and Gazpromneft will study the geologic information gained from drilling the 15,300-foot (4,666-meter) well to evaluate the potential of other parts of the four blocs they have contracted.

Ultradeep-water drilling is technologically challenging and extremely costly, with the platform that drilled out the two wells this year being leased out at $500,000 a day. In Cuba’s case, just finding a suitable rig was a huge obstacle.

To comply with the 50-year-old U.S. embargo, Repsol and Petronas had to turn to the Scarabeo-9, a one-of-a-kind vessel built with less than 10 percent U.S.-made parts to avoid triggering sanctions.

After Repsol opted out of a contract to sink a second well and Monday’s announcement of Petronas’ failed try, the massive semisubmersible now passes to Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA for an attempt near the island’s western tip.

Sonangol of Angola has an option to drill next, but after that the Scarabeo-9 is under contract to drill off Brazil with no word on when it might again be available to return to Cuban waters.

“The difficult part is that they’re going to lose what I call ‘the shovel.’ Once the Scarabeo-9 finishes, that’s it,” Pinon said. “It’s going to take a long time again for … anybody else to drill additional exploratory wells.”

In June, Russian company Zarubezhneft signed an $88 million, 325-day contract with Songa Offshore SE of Cyprus to rent out the Songa Mercur drilling rig for exploration off Cayo Coco, one of Cuba’s leading tourist resort areas, beginning in late November.

But that bloc in the Bahamas Channel is relatively shallow, and Pinon said the Songa Mercur is not capable of the kind of ultradeep drilling required in the Gulf of Mexico, where nearly all Cuba’s offshore exploration zones lie.

—
Follow Peter Orsi on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Peter-Orsi

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13071218-former-exxon-valdez-to-be-beached-broken-up-in-india

Living with the legacy of Exxon Valdez
More than two decades after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, residents offer their advice to the Gulf Coast: Be prepared for a long, rough ride. NBC’s George Lewis reports.

By Miguel Llanos, NBC News
India’s Supreme Court this week delivered a ruling that could drastically change the way international ships are dismantled, but in the process cleared the way for the destruction of the ship formerly known as the Exxon Valdez.

The symbol of America’s worst oil tanker spill, the vessel is now the Oriental Nicety after a series of ownership changes since the 1989 disaster.

It’s been anchored off India since May, when the court blocked it from being beached at the infamous Alang shipbreaking yard. Activists had sued, arguing that importing such ships for dismantling violated the U.N. Basel Convention, an international treaty on hazardous waste transport.

In its ruling Monday, the court acknowledged that violation, drawing praise from activists who want ships recycled using tougher health and environmental standards.
“Hopefully this ruling will be the beginning of the end of the dark ages of ship recycling,”

Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network (BAN), said in a statement. “Hundreds of poor and desperate laborers have been killed or exposed to hazardous chemicals as a result of the disastrous shipbreaking practices on Indian beaches.”

But activists were perplexed when the court exempted the Oriental Nicety.

“Oddly enough, the court acknowledged in its ruling that there may be toxic material in the Exxon Valdez that has not yet been discovered,” Colby Self, director of BAN’s Green Ship Recycling Campaign, told NBC News.

The court concluded any dangerous material would be “exposed only at the time of actual dismantling of the ship.”

“It is made clear that if any toxic wastes embedded in the ship structure are discovered during its dismantling, the concerned authorities shall take immediate steps for their disposal at the cost of the owner,” India’s top judges wrote in their order, which was reported by The Hindu newspaper and other Indian news media.

Longer term, the question will be whether the broader ruling is enforced.
Self voiced optimism but acknowledged that “political pressure is extremely high given the immediate economic impacts of this measure.”

“The upcoming challenge is seeing that officials follow the court order,” he said. One scenario, he noted, is that the local pollution control board might just issue a directive “to outwit the court’s ruling.”

AP
The former Exxon Valdez is anchored some six miles off the coast of the Alang shipbreaking yard in India on June 30.

Special thanks to Richard Charter