Public Citizen: On the Obama-Abe Summit, Regarding TPP

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 24, 2014
9:31 AM

CONTACT: Public Citizen

Lori Wallach
(202) 454-5107 lwallach@citizen.org

WASHINGTON – April 24 – “Ironically, if missing this do-or-die moment for the TPP seals its demise, then what will be characterized as a failure now may in fact save President Obama’s legacy, given that the TPP would cause more American job offshoring, greater income inequality and higher medicine prices.

After years of missed deadlines, unbending opposition by other nations to many U.S. proposals and scores of deadlocked TPP issues, Congress’ refusal to grant President Obama trade authority, growing opposition in many nations, and now Obama and Abe not announcing a breakthrough, TPP should be ready for burial. Instead, like some movie monster that will not die, TPP is being animated by a broad coalition of powerful corporate interests and we are told talks will continue.

Even if the continuing bilateral negotiations resolve U.S.-Japan auto and agricultural trade issues, there are scores of other deep deadlocks in TPP negotiations. This includes deep disputes on medicine patent and government drug reimbursement rate policies that would affect healthcare costs; limits on financial regulation, food safety and Internet freedom; disciplines on state owned enterprises; the expansion of investor protections that subject domestic laws to attack by corporations in foreign tribunals; and environmental and labor standards. As well, 60 U.S. Senators and 230 U.S. Representatives have insisted that TPP include enforceable disciplines on currency manipulation, but other TPP countries oppose this and to date the issue had not been addressed.”
###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumer interests in Congress, the executive branch and the courts.

E&E: NAS oil spill report emboldens drilling foes

Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, April 24, 2014

A new scientific study that concludes the United States lacks the resources and scientific data necessary to adequately respond to an Arctic oil spill is energizing the environmental community’s campaign to ban oil drilling in the ice-laden waters.

The comprehensive National Academy of Sciences report released yesterday found that the federal government needs additional response tools, personnel and infrastructure to address oil spills in America’s Arctic (Greenwire, April 23).

The panel called for expanded, on-the-ground research to improve oil cleanup technologies for use in the Arctic’s extreme weather and environmental conditions.
Researchers also suggested that oil spill responders need “improved port and air access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel.”

However, the study concludes that oil spill response improvements have been set back by a lack of federal funding to address those deficiencies.

Several environmental groups responded to the scientific report by demanding an end to oil development in the American Arctic, at least until the government finds more effective ways to handle oil spills in the frigid North.

Margaret Williams, managing director of Arctic programs for the World Wildlife Fund, said the Obama administration “should not approve further Arctic oil and gas leasing or specific activities unless and until spill prevention and response technologies are proven effective in this harsh environment.”

Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society, said the report “documents the reasons why we cannot clean up — and are unlikely to ever effectively recover — a significant percentage of oil from any major spill into the Arctic Ocean.”

“We need to decide as a country if it makes sense to risk the near-pristine Arctic Ocean environment now that we know there is little that can be done to clean up major oil spills,” Epstein said.

Sierra Club Alaska Program Director Dan Ritzman said the NAS report reinforces the environmental community’s concerns that “we shouldn’t be drilling in the Arctic Ocean.”

But Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution’s Energy Security Initiative, disagreed, arguing that the report is just the most recent evidence that the federal government should fund more Arctic research and resources.

“Certainly we need to spend a lot more on resources, beef up the Coast Guard’s capabilities, make sure that we have onshore supporting infrastructure in place in the event of an accident of any kind,” he said.

“All of that has to be done. But that’s a question of allocation of resources. That’s not saying the Arctic shouldn’t be drilled in.”

“You’ve got companies moving into Greenland,” Ebinger added. “The Arctic is being developed. It’s a question of whether we’re going to adopt so many restrictions that our Arctic either doesn’t get developed or lags behind.”

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) echoed those concerns. “Arctic development will happen whether we are prepared or not — we’ve already seen significant increases in marine traffic and natural resource exploration by domestic and international interests,” he said.

More studies ahead
The report comes more than a year after Royal Dutch Shell PLC tried — but failed — to become the first company in decades to explore for oil in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The company’s 2012 season was marked by equipment problems, unpredictable ice floes and an oil rig grounding.

More recently, Shell’s Arctic drilling efforts have been delayed by a January appeals court decision invalidating the environmental assessment that the Interior Department used to support the federal government’s 2008 lease sale (EnergyWire, April 21).

But once those legal issues are sorted out, oil industry representatives assert, federal regulators should allow Arctic oil exploration to move forward as they improve available oil spill response technologies.

American Petroleum Institute senior policy adviser Richard Ranger said the National Academy study should not be a roadblock to future oil exploration in Alaska’s northern waters.

“Shell demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency that they possess the capability to respond to a foreseeable spill incident at this exploration stage” in the Arctic, Ranger argued.

“If exploration succeeds in identifying resources for development, then there are a lot of tasks ahead before those resources could be brought online,” he noted. “There would be additional studies needed, additional preparedness and project design to go forward into the next phase of project development.”

Energy Wire: Baker Hughes phasing out ‘trade secrets’ in FracFocus disclosure

http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2014/04/24/full

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter msoraghan@eenews.net
Thursday, April 24, 2014

One of the country’s major providers of hydraulic fracturing services plans to begin disclosing all the chemicals it uses in “fracking” fluid, without exceptions for trade secrets.

The policy of Baker Hughes Inc., rolled out quietly on an unheralded page of its website, is a split with competitors, prominent industry trade groups and even some regulators. It tracks with the recommendation of an Obama administration panel looking at FracFocus, the website where most companies report their fracking chemicals.

“Baker Hughes believes it is possible to disclose 100 percent of the chemical ingredients we use in hydraulic fracturing fluids without compromising our formulations,” the company’s website states, deeming the new policy “a balance that increases public trust while encouraging commercial innovation.”

Baker Hughes spokeswoman Melanie Kania confirmed that the website statement indicated a corporate policy that the company is moving away from asserting trade secret claims. The company plans to begin eliminating proprietary exceptions “where accepted by our customers and relevant governmental authorities,” according to the website.

A critic of the current system for disclosure said she was heartened by Baker Hughes’ change in policy. “If they’ve found a way to report with better disclosure, I’m on board,” said Kate Konschnik, policy director of Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law Program. “It’s a step in the right direction.”

But Halliburton Co., a Baker Hughes competitor, along with trade groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), have defended the current level of protection for trade secrets. “A company’s trade secrets can be among its most important assets — the key intellectual property that allows it to keep its market position for its products or services and provide value to its shareholders,” API, ANGA and other industry groups wrote last month in joint comments about a government report about FracFocus.

Trade secret exemptions have emerged as the latest sticking point in the tug of war between environmentalists and drilling companies about disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking. Those chemicals make up only a small fraction of the volume of the fluid that is blasted underground to shatter rock formations and release oil and gas. But with modern “frack jobs” using millions of gallons of water, even small percentages can add up.

After initially resisting public release of ingredient lists, industry has come around to disclosing more and more data (Greenwire, June 21, 2010). In 2011, oil and gas companies coalesced around the FracFocus site. Steve Everley of the industry group Energy in Depth says the debate about trade secrets can overshadow how much information is already being disclosed. “It’s not a question of whether people are or aren’t disclosing. It’s a question of how,” Everley said. “Companies are disclosing a lot more than critics are alleging.”

But industry has held the line on its desire to keep secret some of the ingredients. They say relinquishing that would give away companies’ competitive edge. “Trade secret protection is critical to encourage innovation, the environmental and economic benefits of which are being demonstrated daily in the oil and gas industry,” Halliburton wrote in its comments on the government report. Earlier this month, North Dakota’s chief oil and gas regulator, Lynn Helms, derided proposals to force full disclosure, asserting that companies would curtail the use of newer mixtures rather than give up trade secrets (EnergyWire, April 17).

A ‘systems approach’ to disclosure

The oil and gas companies that operate wells have often cast the service companies, such as Baker Hughes, Halliburton and Schlumberger Ltd., as the impediment to disclosure. Operators have said they don’t usually know what chemicals service companies are using to frack their wells.
A Department of Energy panel reviewing FracFocus for the Obama administration reported earlier this year that at least one chemical ingredient was omitted for 84 percent of the wells listed on FracFocus.

Environmental groups see the secrecy as ripe for abuse, a way to hide the use of potentially dangerous chemicals. In Wyoming, environmental groups have sued the state, claiming trade secret exemptions are granted too freely (EnergyWire, March 13). The DOE panel brushed aside many of industry’s concerns in a report, saying trade secrets can be protected by reporting the raw chemicals separately from the additive products they go into.

The report calls this a “systems approach.” The common analogy for such a systems approach is that Coca-Cola Co. reports its ingredients on every can, but the recipe remains secret. Kania said Baker Hughes’ new initiative is intended to implement such a systems approach.
The DOE panel, officially a task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, said reducing trade secret claims would build public confidence. “The Task Force is challenging FracFocus to operate in a manner that encourages full disclosure with few, if any trade secret exceptions,” the panel’s report stated.

The task force said that in March, “at least one large oil field service supplier” was already using such a systems approach. Based on reviewing FracFocus filings, Konschnik said she believes that to be Schlumberger. A Schlumberger spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.
But Halliburton, in its comments on the panel report, directly rebutted the panel’s assertions on the systems approach. “The method that the Task Force advocates for resolving the trade secret issue — the ‘systems approach’ to disclosure — simply will not protect proprietary information in the way the Draft Report suggests,” Halliburton wrote.
———————————————
Baker Hughes Corporate Policy
http://www.bakerhughes.com/products-and-services/pressure-pumping/hydraulic-fracturing/environmental-solutions-and-chemical-disclosure/disclosure

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Policy
Baker Hughes believes it is possible to disclose 100% of the chemical ingredients we use in hydraulic fracturing fluids without compromising our formulations – a balance that increases public trust while encouraging commercial innovation. Where accepted by our customers and relevant governmental authorities, Baker Hughes is implementing a new format that achieves this goal, providing complete lists of the products and chemical ingredients used.

Fast, accurate and full disclosures supported by a dedicated team
Baker Hughes supports our customers in communicating important information about the chemistry used in our hydraulic fracturing fluids in the most expedient way possible. That is why Baker Hughes endorses FracFocus, the national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry managed by the Groundwater Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and accessible at www.fracfocus.org. FracFocus represents a coordination of efforts with regulators, operators, and other stakeholders to promote responsible hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure, which is more comprehensive and well-site specific than that which could be provided by any individual company.
Our dedicated disclosure team uses systems designed to ensure that this data is accurate and that customers receive it quickly to meet regulatory deadlines. This process gives our customers confidence that Baker Hughes staff is always ready and available to help them through the process and troubleshoot any issues.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Al.com: Gulf Coast fisherman on BP oil spill: ‘The oysters are not recovering’

video at:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/04/gulf_coast_fisherman_on_bp_oil.html

By Casey Toner | ctoner@al.com
on April 23, 2014 at 4:59 PM

The 2010 BP oil spill is still wrecking havoc on some Gulf Coast fisherman, The Huffington Post reports.

Byron Encalade, a fisherman, said his business was at a “100 percent loss,” according to the report.

“Right now we’re solely relying on BP to keep it’s word, something they haven’t been doing,” Encalade said. “The oysters are not recovering.”

BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded on April 20, 2010, causing more than 200 millions of gallons to spill into the Gulf of Mexico.

A BP spokesman refuted Encalade’s statement, saying the oil did not affect oyster populations following the spill, according to the report.

Four years after the Transocean Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, 2010 and killed 11 people as it drilled BP’s Macondo 252 in more than 5,000 of water off the Louisiana coast, there are still questions surrounding its long-term impacts on people, businesses, fish, wildlife and habitats. These pictures from the Associated Press, Press-Register and Mississippi Press staffers and even a couple from the general public represent a timeline of sorts of the days and months from the day the rig exploded through the winter cleanup after the well was officially declared dead on Sept. 19, 2010.

_____________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/20/bp-oil-spill-still-taking-a-toll_n_5182552.html

Huffington Post

Four Years Later, BP Oil Spill Still Taking A Toll On Gulf Fisherman: ‘We Haven’t Started To Recover’
The Huffington Post | by Nick Visser

Posted: 04/20/2014 1:23 pm EDT Updated: 04/21/2014 10:59 am EDT

The BP oil spill, often called the worst man-made environmental disaster of our time, first began four years ago today. On April 20, 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded, causing more than 200 million gallons of oil to spew into the Gulf of Mexico. 11 workers on the rig died, and the resulting cleanup has already cost BP more than $26 billion.

But for many fisherman along the Gulf, despite all the time and money spent to try and heal the region, lasting effects are still taking their toll. The Gulf Coast’s oyster populations, home to about two-thirds of American supply, have been in decline since the spill.

Byron Encalade, a fisherman along the Gulf Coast, joined HuffPost Live’s Josh Zepps to discuss the ongoing impacts of the spill.

“You have to start to recovery, we haven’t started to recover.” he said. “We’re 4 years out now, and we haven’t saw the first sign, and most of the businesses, I know my business is at a 100 percent loss. Right now we’re solely relying on BP to keep it’s word, something they haven’t been doing. The oysters are not recovering.”

However, BP has said oyster populations were not impacted by the spill, providing this comment to HuffPost Live:
“Multiple sources of data indicate that oil and dispersant compounds did not affect oyster populations in 2010 after the spill occured. A Louisiana report from 2010 after the spill states that ‘no direct oiling of sampled reefs was noted during annual sampling of public oyster seed grounds in Louisiana. Field notes from 2010, 2011 and 2012 NRD sampling to not document a single visibly oiled oyster bed.'”

But Encalade said that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Well, I’m going to say this, and God knows that I’m tired of being politically correct: BP’s lying.” he said. “I was out there on that boat … that’s one of the biggest lies ever told.”

Take a look at the oysterman’s story above, and watch the clips below to hear more about the ongoing recovery throughout gulf communities, four years and billions of dollars later.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Al.com: Oil and gas regulators look to industry to police itself, four years after Deepwater Horizon

great slideshow at:
http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2014/04/oil_and_gas_regulators_look_to.html#incart_river_default

Mobile, Alabama

By Michael Finch II | mfinch@al.com
on April 23, 2014 at 6:40 AM, updated April 23, 2014 at 6:49 AM

MOBILE, Alabama — Alabama’s beaches are back in business, finding favor with tourists once again. There is, however, still more work to be done. Stakeholders agree offshore drilling continues to be risky endeavors thousands of miles beneath the Gulf of Mexico.
It took the blowout of the Macondo well, a ruinous gusher that leaked for 87 days, to shed a light on the caustic trade-off for powering cars, televisions and central air conditioners.

Some fear subsea energy exploration, an unforgiving endeavor, still carries on despite a deficit of safety reforms four years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And regulators of the country’s offshore oil and gas industry are looking into an unlikely way to monitor shortcomings on rigs: allow the companies to report incidents themselves.
The “near-miss” reporting system partially administered by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement would have companies voluntarily submit confidential reports that will be aggregated into a snapshot of the industry’s soundness.

Brian Salerno, the agency’s director, said last month that the reporting system “has the potential to help prevent catastrophic incidents that endanger lives and the environment. However the tool is only as good as the information provided.”

The idea mimics a common practice in the aviation industry, allowing a third party, in this case the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, to collect the information. They’re making their pitch to industry this week at meetings in Los Angeles and Houston.
But the well-meaning program is far from what a skeptical public had hoped for.

In the months after Deepwater Horizon, sweeping reform seemed inevitable. The events, which at one point carried so much urgency, have become deflated around action in courtrooms.

When more than 200 million gallons of oil was set free into the Gulf, it exposed more than a few issues. In response, a presidential commission prescribed a number of recommendations to bolster drilling safety.

“If you want to know how far we’ve come since Horizon, use that as your baseline,” said Richard Charter, a senior fellow with the Ocean Foundation. “You look at the check list on the executive summary and not much has changed.”

In deference to the report, the Minerals Management Service was split into two agencies — one for safety and another for development — to eliminate conflicting interests. Today the agencies still confront workforce development challenges, seeking to pull from the same pool of candidates as the moneyed oil industry.

Some of the same technology that failed in 2010, such as the blowout preventer, is still in use today.

“The need to be precautionary is second to none–other than the nuclear industry,” Charter said. “Levels of redundancy have worked in the nuclear industry and in space, but for some reason it has not translated to the oil and gas industry.”

Having been allowed to bid on new leases last month, BP’s operations are crucial to testing the new self-reporting system.

A settlement reached in March with the Environmental Protection Agency requires the British oil giant to take part in the bureau’s “near-miss” program.

The Center for Offshore Safety, an industry-backed organization that was formed after the spill, has led with a similar program of its own.

Charlie Williams, former chief scientist for well engineering at Shell worldwide, runs the outfit based in Houston. They count some of the biggest companies doing business in the Gulf among the members who participate.

“The purpose of all this is all aimed at what can we learn, and determine what some of the best practices are,” Williams said. “The ultimate challenge is having a robust safety culture where everybody is individually responsible.”

They’ve only received the first wave of data in November, he said, and has not been able to use the information yet.

As the country moves toward a so-called “all of the above” energy policy, safety concerns associated with offshore drilling will only persist as the government moves to expand exploration into the Arctic, and possibly the Atlantic coast.

The energy rush has occurred, all while most of the long term effects of the oil spill remain unknown, said Sierra Weaver, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in North Carolina.

“We are extremely concerned about the prospect of drilling off the coast of the Southeast (United States),” Weaver said. “These things tend to be out of sight, out of mind.”

The chances of a government program succeeding, Charter said, depend on motivation.

“The motivation for protecting your corporate image from the visible effects is stronger for airlines than for deepwater drillers,” he said. But when you’re miles out into the Gulf “accidents are generally not visible.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

"Be the change you want to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi