http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1628453/congress-wants-to-know-why-mms.html
Miami Herald   Friday, 05.14.10 
Congress wants to know why MMS aborted tougher drilling rules
BY ERIKA BOLSTAD, LESLEY CLARK AND DAN CHANG
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON – Engineers launched their latest effort to curb the crude oil gushing from a busted underwater well in the Gulf of Mexico Thursday as lawmakers on Capitol Hill wrangled over the liability limits for oil companies and continued to probe the mishaps and regulatory failures that caused the mammoth spill.

The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which regulates oilrigs, came under more scrutiny as congressional investigators scheduled hearings to find out why the federal agency never completed rules that would have required additional controls on blowout preventers – the safety equipment that failed to stop the spill.

Staffers from the House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, who traveled to Louisiana this week to sit in on the U.S. Coast Guard-led inquiry into the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig, said they learned from the testimony of Mike Saucier, an MMS regional supervisor for field operations, that new rules had been proposed.

Saucier said the agency prepared but never completed regulations in 2001, the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency, that would have required secondary control systems for blowout preventers.

“As far as I know, they’re still at headquarters,” Saucier said.

The devices have been at the heart of the inquiry into what caused the explosion that killed 11 and continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The House committee also will be examining the agency’s ties to the oil industry and whether a cozy relationship kept it from enacting tougher regulations. McClatchy reported last week that nearly 100 standards set by the American Petroleum Institute are included in the MMS’ offshore operating regulations.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W Va., asked the MMS on Thursday to provide all documents related to regulations that it proposed but never finalized. He also asked the agency to turn over inspection reports from the oilrig, and a list that details potential noncompliance with MMS regulations.

Meanwhile, efforts on Capitol Hill to raise the liability cap for oil companies from
$75 million to $10 billion ran into a roadblock when Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, objected to the proposal.

Murkowski said she supports lifting the cap, but contended the $10 billion figure would prevent smaller, independent companies from drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., mocked the idea of independent companies as “mom and pop” oil companies and questioned why smaller companies shouldn’t be held responsible in the event of a catastrophe.

“Ten billion dollars is a drop in the bucket,” Menendez said, noting that BP, the owner of the runaway well, posted profits of more than $5 billion for the first quarter of 2010.

Menendez said that he and other lawmakers plan to try to push the bill again.
“We’re going to see who stands with the average citizen, community, fishermen and others and who stands with Big Oil,” he said.

Six West Coast senators and Florida representative also introduced separate bills that together would have the effect of banning offshore drilling permanently.
The legislation by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., would permanently prohibit offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The bill by Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein of California, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington would permanently ban oil and gas drilling off the California, Oregon and Washington coasts.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/7004396.html
Houston Chronicle  By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
May 13, 2010, 9:34PM
WASHINGTON – Senators from California, Oregon and Washington united Thursday behind a plan to ban new offshore drilling along the Pacific Coast in response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Their push, which joins a similar House effort with the backing of 20 Democrats, could gain traction in Congress as public outrage grows about the April 20 explosion on an offshore drilling rig near Louisiana that left 11 workers dead and unleashed an oil spill that threatens the Gulf Coast.

The Pacific Coast senators were unified to “make sure that there will never be offshore oil and gas drilling off the West Coast of our nation,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. “We know this can happen again,” Boxer said, while gesturing to a poster-size photo of boats spraying water on the flame-engulfed Deepwater Horizon rig.

Boxer’s bill would bar the federal government from issuing any leases for exploration, development or production of oil or natural gas in any area off the West Coast.

The measure would apply only to new leases in federal waters. It would not bar oil companies from expanding drilling on current leases and it would not apply to drilling decisions within state waters, which typically extend three miles out from the shore.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., linked the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico to the 1969 blowout of a well near Santa Barbara, which triggered a nationwide backlash against offshore drilling. That was “a seminal moment for us,” Feinstein said. And now, “the BP disaster has shown that . . . there is no guarantee whatsoever that this will not happen again.”

President Barack Obama announced plans in March to expand offshore drilling in new areas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Although he specifically ruled out new federal drilling leases off the Pacific Coast and in some areas near Alaska, nothing in federal law limits exploration in the region.

That’s because Congress allowed a decades-old statutory moratorium on new drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific shores to expire in 2008, amid soaring oil prices. A statutory ban on drilling near the Florida Gulf Coast is set to expire in 2022.

Right now, the only safeguard is Obama’s assurance that new federal drilling will be barred in the Pacific, Boxer said. “There is no permanent protection,” she said.

The West Coast lawmakers – including Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. – said they would try to advance the legislation as part of any energy bill that moves through the Senate. One prime candidate: a climate change and energy measure that was unveiled Wednesday.

But that climate measure would only give states the power to bar drilling 75 miles off their shores – farther than the typical three-mile barrier, but still far less than the unlimited, permanent ban the West Coast senators seek.

Any change to the climate change bill’s offshore drilling proposals threatens to undermine the entire measure, which already faces long odds in the Senate.

Drilling advocates in Congress have warned that any move to shut off offshore production could jeopardize the U.S. economy and heighten the nation’s reliance on foreign sources of oil.

“We do not want to have people have to import more and more foreign oil,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis. “Whether we like it or not, the only real place to find significant additional oil deposits in meaningful quantities is in the outer continental shelf.”
Nationwide, support for offshore drilling still remains strong, despite the Gulf spill. Six in 10 Americans back expanded ocean drilling, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/05/army_corps_speeds_barrier_island_permitting.html?hpid=topnews
Army Corps speeds La. barrier island permitting
By Juliet Eilperin
The massive barrier island restoration envisioned by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Plaquemines Parish President William “Billy” Nungesser took a step closer to reality Thursday, as the Army Corps of Engineers prepared to close a 24-hour comment period during which agencies could voice any objections to the plan.
Late Wednesday, according to Corps spokesman Gene Pawlik, other federal agencies were informed that they have until “sometime this evening” to provide comments on whether Louisiana can dredge sand to construct 86 miles of barrier reef to protect the state’s marshes and coast. “We’re looking for any points of concern an agency might have,” Pawlik said.
Plaquemines Parish came up with the idea of rebuilding the region’s barrier islands two years ago as part of its coastal restoration plan, but the threat of oil leaking off the downed Deepwater Horizon rig has provided new impetus for the project.
“The Corps thinks this is such a great idea they are doing everything they can to try to expedite all permitting,” said P.J. Hahn, the parish’s director of coastal zone management.
Nungesser said he and other local leaders are working with officials from the administration and BP to start dredging as soon as possible, although they do not yet have final approval.
“This has to happen quickly. This oil is now dropping below the surface and coming ashore with no warning,” Nungesser said.
But Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for the National Wildlife Federation, said the idea needs more vetting before going forward, especially given the massive amount of chemical dispersants that response teams have sprayed over the water in an effort to break up the oil slick.
“This is too important a decision to be done in the dark of night,” Symons said. “They need to share with the public what they know about the impacts, and provide an opportunity for a rapid public comment.”
Hahn said the project would not pose any environmental risks because it will “recapture” sand that’s moved offshore “and bring it back. The only thing that’s kept this from moving forward is money.”
By Juliet Eilperin |  May 13, 2010; 5:45 PM ET

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/natural-gas-leaking-gulf-mexico-lowering-volume-escaping/story?id=10619403
Natural Gas Slows Oil Leak in Gulf of Mexico
Satellite Imagery Shows Shrinking Slick, as Gas Slows Flow of Oil

By JEFFREY KOFMAN
May 11, 2010

In the last few days, the spill from the broken well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico has begun to change. Sources tell ABC News the amount of natural gas coming out of the well is increasing, which could mean less oil spewing into the ocean. BP, trying to control the slick, confirmed the report.

When satellite images of the oil slick from May 1 are compared with the slick today, it appears smaller in size. On explanation is that it now appears that the natural gas forcing its way out of the well could be reducing the amount of oil escaping. Instead of floating on the surface, the natural gas escapes into the atmosphere.

BP confirms that it is seeing some changes in the nature of the leak, but because it is not measured, they cannot say precisely what is happening.
“The pressure data we have observed in recent days gives us more confidence in a direct intervention,” BP spokesman Andrew Gowers said today.
1
Gas Leak Could Improve Odds of Clogging Leak
BP was been caught flat-footed wothout a response plan when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig caught fire on April 20, but now the company thinks that the change in the nature of the leak could improve the odds of containing the damage. A plan to fire rubber tires and golf balls into the pipe to clog it now actually has a chance of working.
BP today took ABC News to the mouth of the Mississippi to see Hazmat teams it has mobilized on the outer marshes of the Mississippi Delta, one of three locations where oil has now breached the booms and come ashore.

“It’s ball sand goblets of tarish grease-like material,” said Cory Anderson of the U.S. Environmental Corp.

BP Execs Face Lawmakers

And as the oil began to wash ashore on the Gulf Coast, there were tough questions for BP today on Capitol Hill.

“What I see is a company not prepared to address a worst-case scenario,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), “but a company that is flailing around trying whatever they think of next to try to deal with the worst-case scenario that you all had the ability to do.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.truthout.org/criminal-charges-likely-from-gulf-oil-spill-legal-experts-say59446

Wednesday 12 May 2010
by: Marisa Taylor  |  McClatchy Newspapers

Washington – Federal investigators are likely to file criminal charges against at least one of the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico spill, raising the prospects of significantly higher penalties than a current $75 million cap on civil liability, legal experts say.

The inquiry by the Homeland Security and Interior Departments into how the spill occurred is still in its early stages and authorities have not confirmed whether a criminal investigation has been launched.

But environmental law experts say it’s just a matter of time until the Justice Department steps in – if it hasn’t already – to initiate a criminal inquiry and take punitive action.

“There is no question there’ll be an enforcement action,” said David M. Uhlmann, who headed the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section for seven years during the Clinton and Bush administrations. “And, it’s very likely that there will be at least some criminal charges brought.”

Such a likelihood has broad legal implications for BP and the two other companies involved – not the least of which is the amount of money any responsible party could be required to pay.
The White House is asking Congress to lift the current $75 million cap on liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, but there’s no cap on criminal penalties. In fact, prosecutors in such cases can seek twice the cost of environmental and economic damages resulting from the spill.

While Attorney General Eric Holder has confirmed that Justice Department lawyers are helping the agencies involved in the oil spill inquiry with legal questions, department officials have refused to detail what their role entails.

But Uhlmann and other experts said it’s likely prosecutors are already poring over evidence from the spill because under the Clean Water and Air Acts and other federal laws aimed at protecting migratory birds, an accidental oil spill of this magnitude could at least result in misdemeanor negligence charges.

And under the migratory bird regulations, prosecutors have very broad discretion.

“If it happens, then you can charge it,” said William Carter, a former federal prosecutor of 14 years who headed the environmental crimes section for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office. “There’s no intent required.”

He added that he agreed with Uhlmann, saying, “I would be shocked if there were no criminal charges filed in this case. There are so many things that went wrong out there.”

In testimony on the Hill this week, all three companies involved in the spill – BP, Halliburton, and Transocean – denied culpability for the spill and have instead blamed each other.
BP did not respond to requests for comment.

Halliburton and Transocean declined to answer questions, saying it would be “inappropriate” to comment on any possible litigation or investigations.

“At the moment, Transocean is concentrating its efforts on assisting BP and federal and state agencies on the clean-up effort,” the company said in a statement.

One of the numerous factors in determining whether to file criminal charges is the adequacy of civil damages, which would provide an additional reason for prosecutors to pursue a criminal case in connection with the Gulf spill, experts said.

Prosecutors also look at the history of violations, which could also persuade them to file charges. BP, for example, has already agreed to pay millions in criminal penalties for several major incidents, including for a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery in March 2005.

BP and several of its subsidiaries agreed to pay a total of $373 million in fines for the Texas explosion, leaks of crude oil from pipelines in Alaska, and for fraud for conspiring to corner the market and manipulate the price of propane carried through Texas pipelines.

While the government will probably only bring criminal charges if there is some sort of negligence – “that’s not a very high bar,” Uhlmann said.

In 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the misdemeanor conviction under the Clean Water Act of a supervisor at a rock quarry project that accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline, causing a spill.

For a felony, prosecutors have to demonstrate companies “knowingly” violated the regulations.
Tracy Hester, the director of the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Center at the University of Houston, said prosecutors would be looking for “any possible concealment of the risks, a failure to respond to any known risks, and a failure to report a dangerous situation.”

“Knowing is a slippery term,” Hester said. “But knowing doesn’t necessarily mean that you knew it was a violation of the law. You just have to be aware that what you were doing fell into what is regulated.”

But Oliver Houck, a professor with Tulane University who specializes in environmental law, predicted that prosecutors are not going to want to pursue minor charges for such a catastrophic spill.

Meanwhile, the companies themselves have already started pointing fingers.

In testimony this week, BP pointed to questions about the blowout preventer – and made it clear that Transocean owned it.

Transocean, however, denied the blowout preventer caused the accident and hinted that the cementing and casing did not properly control the pressure.

Halliburton, the cementing sub-contractor, pointed to BP as the well owner.

“This has been a series of ‘Oh my god’ revelations, ‘They did what?” Houck said. “But those revelations are the grits and grease of standard civil claims.”

“To get into criminal land, you would have to prove that they knew that the short cuts they were taking brought a high probability of serious risk,” he said. “I don’t think the government has that yet. That’s what grand juries are for.”

Houck added that some of the strongest environmental criminal cases have come out of civil cases, which means that prosecutors may not determine whether any of the companies have criminal liability for months, if not years.

“The beauty part of civil trials is the competing companies,” he said. “As a prosecutor this is the most delightful scenario: All the defendants proving each others’ guilt.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter