DECOM WORLD: Deepwater decommissioning up to four times more costly, study finds

http://social.decomworld.com/structures-and-maintenance/deepwater-decommissioning-four-times-more-costly-study-finds#sthash.fijblcu8.dpuf

By Rod Sweet on Apr 30, 2014

A new report on the Gulf of Mexico decommissioning market finds that costs rise sharply in water depths greater than 200ft (61m).

Structure decommissioning ranges from $3-5 million in water depths less than 200ft, to $15-20 million in water depths greater than 200ft, according to DecomWorld’s latest Gulf of Mexico Offshore Decommissioning Report 2014.

In conventional decommissioning, dry tree shallow water plugging and abandonment operations typically cost between $300,000-$500,000 per wellbore, finds the report author, Mark J. Kaiser, research and development director at Louisiana State University’s Center for Energy Studies.

But he warns that estimating true decommissioning costs depends on many site-specific factors.

Meanwhile, the cost of decommissioning storm-destroyed structures often ranges between three to five times the cost of conventional operations, but may be greater by a factor of ten or more in extreme cases, the study found.

In the immediate aftermath of a storm, the resources necessary to initiate inspections, conduct repairs, and procure material and equipment are usually stretched thin.

The report concluded that small companies tend to be cost-minimizers in decommissioning while large companies focus on risk management, with specialized teams and business units dedicated to the task, potentially pushing costs higher.

Produced for DecomWorld the report estimates the GOM decommissioning market to be worth $26bn in and around January 2014.

In its fifth edition, the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Decommissioning Report contains detailed market analyses and forecasts for both shallow and deep water, plus updates on transactions and regulatory developments. Click here for more information.

AP: New $3.7B gas line proposed for Ala., Ga., Fla.

ATLANTA (AP) — A proposal to build a $3.7 billion pipeline system carrying natural gas into Florida is raising complaints from Georgia residents — including media mogul Ted Turner — who say they’d face environmental costs while others get the benefits.

Spectra Energy Partners and NextEra Energy are seeking federal permission to build the Sabal Trail and the Florida Southeast Connection, about 600 miles of pipeline bringing natural gas from a hub in Alabama, across southwest Georgia and to power plants in Florida. If approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the system would start operating in mid-2017.

The project is an economic and political balancing act. The United States has benefited from its expanding supply of natural gas, which has pushed fuel prices to historic lows and made it possible for utility companies to close coal plants for cleaner, gas-burning power plants. The growing reliance on gas also means customers need a steady supply of the fuel. Developers say the two existing pipes serving peninsular Florida are running at nearly full capacity.

“What people certainly worry about is when I wake up in the morning and I hit the switch on the wall are the lights going to come on?” said David Shammo, Spectra Energy’s vice president of business development in the southeast. “It’s really about reliability of service.”

Project opponents say the pipeline will decrease property values, cause pollution and put their communities at risk of accidents while the big benefits go to the Florida market.

“We’re just the pass-through,” said Gloria Gaines, who faults developers for proposing a compressor station in her predominantly black community south of Albany. “When you look at it at the micro level, there is no value.”

If federal regulators approve, developers would have the right to force landowners to let the gas pipeline pass under their property. While landowners would be paid, they couldn’t build anything on top of the pipe.

Energy firms say the project is necessary to meet Florida’s appetite for gas. Florida Power & Light Co., a subsidiary of NextEra, wants additional gas supplies to serve its fleet of gas-fired plants. Meanwhile, Duke Energy has plans to build a new combined-cycle gas plant in Florida’s Citrus County.

A new pipeline would make Florida less dependent on gas from the Gulf of Mexico region, allowing it to draw more heavily from production basins in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and markets in the Northeast, developers say. That means Florida would be less likely to run short of gas if a hurricane damaged Gulf production facilities.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended FERC ask for more proof to verify the existing pipelines were at their limits, according to case filings. The EPA also questioned whether Florida already had access to diverse sources of natural gas and noted electricity sales had been dropping since 2007.

NextEra, Spectra or their related political committees have donated several thousand dollars to politicians, including Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal.

The plan faces some corporate opposition. A compressor station forcing gas through the pipe near Albany would sit about a quarter mile from Ted Turner’s Nonami Plantation, where he’s hunted quail for decades. Turner’s company has asked that Georgia authorities withhold a necessary permit because the facility would emit air pollutants and disturb people and wildlife. As an alternative, it asked that the station use a cleaner, quieter electric compressor powered by solar energy.

“It is our hope that Sabal Trail Transmission will take the community’s concerns seriously and consider alternative routes that are far safer and more direct, and possibly avoid the state entirely,” Turner Enterprises spokesman Phillip Evans said.

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham told federal regulators in a September letter that his family’s Angus beef farm in Georgia “in no way” supports the proposed route across its 8,000-acre property outside Albany.

“Their routing comes through our farm up there and we’d rather it would go elsewhere,” said Stuart Wyllie, CEO of Graham Cos. in an interview. “This is land that while we don’t have immediate development plans, we may want to develop it in the future.”

Follow Ray Henry on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rhenryAP

Special thanks to Anita Stewart.

Gulf Seafood Institute: Gulf Restoration Plan Announced by NOAA

by / Newsroom Ink October 9, 2014

Coast

A Gulf restoration plan has been announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustees. Photo: NOAA

by Ed Lallo/Gulf Seafood News Editor

Map

Phase III Early Restoration Project Locations Map: NOAA

A formal Record of Decision to implement a Gulf restoration plan has been announced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustees in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which occurred off the shores of Louisiana in 2010.

The goal of the 44 projects, totaling an estimated $627 million, is to restore barrier islands, shorelines, dunes, underwater grasses and oyster beds along the Florida to Louisiana coastline. The announcement marks the largest number of Gulf restoration projects slated since the spill with the aim to address a range of injuries to natural resources and the loss of recreational use.

“Preserving, protecting, and restoring natural resources is an integral part of our efforts to foster resilience in communities nationwide, including those affected by the Deep Water Horizon oil spill,” said Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator. “These projects reflect an earnest commitment to the Gulf and will enhance the region’s economic, social, and ecological resilience in the future.”

Habitat the Key

Corky5l

According to Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) Mississippi board member Corky Perret, “Habitat is the key, it’s first what you do to an animal’s habitat then what you do to the animals.” Photo: Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink

According to Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) Mississippi board member Corky Perret, “Habitat is the key, it’s first what you do to an animal’s habitat then what you do to the animals. These restoration projects should create and/or restore habitat vital to our fish and wildlife resources. The Mississippi project is desperately needed, as are any projects stabilizing the barrier islands.”

NOAA, which is directly involved in the implementation of only four of the proposed projects, is supporting an overall Early Restoration plan that includes both ecological and human use projects as outlined in the Final Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Early Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.

“Early restoration provides an opportunity to implement restoration projects agreed upon by the trustees and BP prior to the completion of the full natural resource damage assessment and restoration plan,” said Bob Gill, a GSI board member from Florida. “The government has found BP, and other responsible parties, obligated to compensate the public for the full scope of the natural resource injury and lost use caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the cost of assessing such injury and planning for restoration.”

Twilley

“The investments to rehabilitate the critical coastal habitats of Louisiana begins the long road to a more sustainable delta,” said Louisiana Sea Grant director Robert Twilley (left) touring the Louisiana marshes. Photo: Sea Grant

According to the agency, its largest project will be in Louisiana to fund and execute restoration of beach, dune, and back-barrier marsh habitat on Chenier Ronquille, a barrier island off the state’s coast. The project is one of four barrier islands projects proposed for restoration as part of a $318 million Louisiana Outer Coast Restoration Project to be implemented by NOAA, the U.S. Department of Interior and Louisiana.

“The investments to rehabilitate the critical coastal habitats of Louisiana begins the long road to a more sustainable delta,” said Louisiana Sea Grant director Robert Twilley.

Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and NOAA will also partner to undertake three “living shorelines” projects. These projects involve a blend of restoration technologies used to stabilize shorelines and restore fish and wildlife habitat. The three projects are:

  • Alabama: The $5 million Swift Tract Living Shoreline Project to construct approximately 1.6 miles of breakwaters covered with oyster shell to reduce shoreline erosion, protect salt marsh habitat, and restore ecosystem diversity and productivity in Mobile Bay.
  • Florida: NOAA will partner with the State of Florida on the $11 million Florida Pensacola Bay Living Shoreline Project to restore shoreline at two sites along the Pensacola waterfront. Both proposed sites feature breakwaters that will provide four acres of reef habitat and protect the 18.8 acres of salt marsh habitat.
  • Mississippi: NOAA will partner with the State of Mississippi to improve nearly six miles of shoreline as part of the proposed Hancock County Marsh Living Shoreline Project. The goal of this $50 million project is to reduce shoreline erosion by dampening wave energy and encouraging reestablishment of habitat in the region.

Focus on Wave Attenuation

“I am a little disappointed the NOAA projects focus primarily on wave attenuation,” said Alabama GSI board member Chris Nelson. “Gulf seafood production and processing industries have suffered, and continue to suffer, grievous injury due to the lack of seafood for harvest and distribution to our domestic market.”

Chris Nelson, vice president of  Bon Secour Fisheries who represents Alabama on the board, tries to work a problem to the smallest denominator.   Photo:  Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink

“I am a little disappointed the NOAA projects focus primarily on wave attenuation,” said Alabama GSI board member Chris Nelson. Photo: Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink

Nelson believes the living shorelines are indirect improvements to seafood production capacity through a largely theoretical enhancement to habitat. “What is unknown is what extent the habitat created through living shorelines is in any way comparable to more natural applications like cultch material on bottom for the purpose of growing oysters,” he said.

GSI understands the need for funding the current projects, however the organization feels future funding needs to address such projects as offshore restoration and the creation of fisheries habitat desperately needed by both recreational and commercial fishermen.

The new projects are to be funded through the $1 billion provided to the trustees by BP, as part of the 2011 Framework Agreement on early restoration. Ten early restoration projects already are in various stages of implementation as part of the first two phases of early restoration.

“It’s exciting to see such a comprehensive Gulf coast restoration plan funded with this amount of money move forward,” said GSI Texas board member Jim Gossen. “Let’s hope our decision makers, scientists and brightest minds have carefully studied the situation, and do what’s best to assure these precious resources are around for future generations. This may be our only chance to fix the mistakes of the past.”

 

Special thanks to Gulf Seafood Institute

E&E: $627M in Restoration Projects Receive Final Approval & Al.com: Oil spill recovery projects: Lots of ideas, but all will not get funded

E&E
 
$627M in restoration projects receive final approval
Annie Snider, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, October 3, 2014

Hundreds of millions of dollars will soon be flowing to the Gulf
Coast after the largest tranche of restoration projects related to
the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill today received its final go-ahead.

Federal and state officials charged with studying the effects of the
spill and developing plans for recovery projects today issued their
record of decision for 44 projects totaling $627 million.

The projects are spread across the Gulf of Mexico and range from
creating barrier islands off the Louisiana coast to building a
causeway and beachfront promenade in Mississippi. They are part of
the unprecedented agreement with BP PLC under which the company
provided a $1 billion down payment on what it will owe through the
Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process for destruction to
natural resources and lost human access to beaches and fisheries.

“The Trustees have done a comprehensive job of identifying projects
to help the Gulf Coast recover from the devastating Deepwater Horizon
spill and have given careful consideration to the many insightful
public comments received through the process,” Interior Secretary
Sally Jewell said in a statement.

Her department will see some of the money for work on two national
seashore projects and a barrier island.

Environmental groups have largely been pleased to have new
restoration projects moving forward after having seen only a handful
of projects approved in the first two phases of awards. Groups have
raised concerns, though, that the projects have been too focused on
compensating for lost human use rather than environmental
restoration.

Much of that criticism for the latest batch has been directed at an
$85.5 million effort to build an Alabama hotel and convention center
and related enhancements to a state park.

“The proposed Alabama Lodge and Conference Center, a private endeavor
exhausting public funds, is a serious misuse of restoration dollars
that could provide much needed resources to our damaged ecosystem,”
the environmental group Gulf Restoration Network said in a statement
in June. “Our coastal communities depend on a clean and healthy Gulf,
and these precious restoration dollars cannot be spent on short-
sighted projects that will not revitalize our Coast.”

The trustees responded directly to groups’ criticisms of the project
in their decision today, arguing that all concerns over it have long
since been resolved.

Of the money approved for projects today, roughly 63 percent — $397
million — is for ecological projects and $230 million goes to
recreational use projects.

________
Al.com

Oil spill recovery projects: Lots of ideas, but all will not get funded
An aerial photo taken Monday April 16, 2012 shows the coast of Pensacola Beach, Fla., during a media helicopter flight organized by the BP Gulf Coast Restoration Organization. One project currently being proposed by the organization’s Florida Trustees involves dune restoration along Pensacola Beach. The plan calls for about 394,000 native plants to be planted along a 4.2 mile stretch of beach dunes at a cost of about $586,000. (AP Photo/Northwest Florida Daily News, Devon Ravine)
Print
By Michael Finch II | mfinch@al.com
 
on October 03, 2014 at 2:23 PM, updated October 03, 2014 at 2:35 PM
 

MOBILE, Alabama — The line for oil spill money grows longer. Projects submitted by local governments, environmental groups and those with an inclination to pursue a restoration cause now totals 58 — up from 47 about one month ago.  

They range from a hundred thousand dollar study of beach nourishment on Dauphin Island to a multimillion dollar road project that would allow freshwater and saltwater to intermingle freely in Mobile Bay.

The combined cost of all the submitted projects — now about $430 million — underscores a more important fact: Not all will receive funding. And there’s still more submissions to come.
 
Still administrators of the RESTORE Act, legislation passed to siphon Clean Water fines back to Gulf Coast states, are urging more people to detail their ideas in an online portal where the list is slowly mounting.
 
The numerous efforts to repair damage done by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico can be hard to track, involving a myriad number of federal and state agencies. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is at the helm of all the state’s recovery efforts.

At a meeting this week, Patti Powell, the department’s state lands director, said the worst thing would be if there weren’t enough ideas, noting that the onus will be on the agency to guide any project that’s selected.  

“Our department is going to be responsible, no matter who the sub grant may go to, we’re going to be responsible for ensuring compliance with all the federal grant laws and state laws. This is one reason why we call it a suggestion,” Powell said.

“Somebody may have a great idea, but we may not have confidence that that entity can track and hold and handle the federal funds in compliance. That’s why we don’t say on the front end ‘you enter it you get it.’ “

Who decides?
Until two months ago, states were waiting for the federal government to release the rules to that will govern how the money can be spent.

The decision-making process has not been created yet, but it will be a shifty challenge for the Alabama Gulf Coast Recovery Council, as money flows in incrementally to the state.
 
As of June 2014, there was a total $220 million set aside for the states to control; Alabama received an equal $44 million share of that.

It is solely up to the council of local and state leaders, mayors from Bayou La Batre, Gulf Shores, Orange Beach, Dauphin Island, Mobile and Fairhope; one county commissioner from Mobile and Baldwin counties each; the director of the Alabama State Port Authority and the governor to decide how to spend this money.

“When more money comes it may be a totally different process, because you’re not dealing with that much money in this first round they may decide not to spend any of it,” said Eliska Morgan, executive director for the Alabama council.

“We don’t know what we we’re going to get in the end, so why should we spend any of this money? They have to make that decision. It’s a possibility; there are lots of possibilities.”

Awaiting fines
There’s still more money to come. Last month, Halliburton agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement for its involvement in the oil spill.

A federal judge in New Orleans recently ruled that BP should be held grossly negligent in its operation of the rig that exploded, pushing maximum penalties up to $18 billion. The British oil giant recently appealed the decision.   

Anadarko Petroleum may be on the hook as well. The Texas-based firm has been fighting in court to avoid paying fines, claiming it only held a stake in the Macondo well, not the rig, 
according to news reports.

The next phase of the trial that will determine how much in penalties both companies must pay is scheduled to start in January 2015.   

What to do first?
The unsettled nature of future payments also gives way to the question of what should they give money to first? Should they ration it out toward several small projects like the $250,000 study in Dauphin Island; or should it be doled out on a mega-plan with a broader reach like the $42 million bridge-raising project on the Mobile causeway put forth by the Mobile Baykeeper?

The answer is just a guess for now. Morgan said the council will meet again before the year ends — by then their intentions may be clearer.    

The public will be encouraged to send comments to the council, expressing their opinions for-and-against any submitted projects, and about the rules used to select them. But there will not be a formal public meeting.  
 

Morgan said “once their evaluation process is determined — after public comment — then the (council) will really start to review projects.

Truthout: Better Oversight and Less Drilling Needed to Protect the Gulf (video)

 

TRANSCRIPT:

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

Who can forget the images of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in 2010? The event killed 11 workers and resulted in millions of barrels of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, becoming the biggest offshore environmental disaster in U.S. history. On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that BP was grossly negligent, and the company could be liable for up to $18 billion in additional fines. BP says they will be appealing the ruling, and they issued this statement on their website:

“BP believes that the finding that it was grossly negligent with respect to the accident and that its activities at the Macondo well amounted to willful misconduct is not supported by the evidence at trial.”

And they also said:

“BP will seek to show that its conduct merits a penalty that is less than the applicable maximum after application of the statutory factors.”

With us to help us understand what this ruling all means and what it really means for the communities most directly affected by the oil spill disaster down there in the Gulf is our guest, Steve Murchie. Steve joins us from New Orleans, where he is the campaign director for the Gulf Restoration Network, a nonprofit organization that they say empowers people to protect and restore the natural resources and communities of the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks for joining us, Steve.

STEVE MURCHIE, CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, GULF RESTORATION NETWORK: Thanks for having me.

DESVARIEUX: So, Steve, what’s your reaction to the verdict? And what has the Gulf, the community there down in the Gulf–are they seeing this really as a victory?

MURCHIE: Judge Barbier’s ruling that BP was grossly negligent and behaved recklessly is vindication for all the people who’ve been living through the consequences of the disaster last four and a half years.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. But this ruling has been to sort of four years in the making, Steve. And kind of give us a sense of a condensed version of what’s been going on concerning BP and their level of accountability to the people down there in the Gulf? Haven’t they already paid out something like $42 billion?

MURCHIE: BP has paid a substantial amount of money already and is lined up to pay substantially more. You know, we have to recognize that this is the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history and that BP is primarily responsible. So they’ve already pleaded guilty to criminal conduct. They paid $4 billion in fines for that. There’s a process underway through the Oil Pollution Act for them to pay additional compensation to people and the public who have been damaged by their actions. That’s everything from a bed-and-breakfast or a hotel that lost tourists, to companies that weren’t able to go out and catch fish, to state and local governments who lost tax revenue because they had to close their beaches and their fisheries. And so all of those entities, all of those people deserve to be compensated because of BP’s actions.

What Judge Barbier ruled on yesterday was the civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. And this is above and beyond compensation for the damage. It’s above and beyond criminal penalties. These are the civil penalties that for a corporation are really where the accountability comes in the American justice system. And so Judge Barbier, after sifting through the facts very carefully, came forth with a 153 page decision that proved that, to his satisfaction–and that’s the opinion that counts–that BP was grossly negligent, which allows for the largest possible fine under the Clean Water Act.

DESVARIEUX: Well, let’s go back. Why do you think this disaster was even able to happen? What role do regulations play in all this? Do you feel like there was enough of that to begin with?

MURCHIE: I think a lot of people would like to think of BP as some rogue oil company that was out of control. And that appears to be the case, according to the judge. But we have to remember that the regulators responsible for oversight of the offshore activities and the oil and gas industry in general in the Gulf were very lax, terrible practices happening with the federal agencies being way too cozy with the industry. And for observers like Gulf restoration network, we felt like the BP disaster was likely to happen at one point or another, and we and many other people had been pushing for reforms of the industry. And, unfortunately, it took a disaster to even get a bipartisan commission to come together to come up with recommendations. And while BP is being held accountable for their actions, many of the recommendations of that commission have yet to be implemented.

DESVARIEUX: So we’re talking essentially, just so I’m understand you correctly, Steve, is that there hasn’t been really any significant change in legislation to protect communities and the environment after such a disaster happened?

MURCHIE: There have been some reforms. The Obama administration made some changes to the federal agency that has provided some greater scrutiny, and that’s been helpful. I think the main thing that Congress has actually done, which is potentially going to have great benefit to the Gulf, is passing the Restore Act. And what that does is it dedicates those civil penalties under the Clean Water Act to come back to the Gulf states to be used for restoration. And that process is underway right now, to make sure that those billions of dollars that BP is going to pay will be put to use to bring back the Gulf.

DESVARIEUX: What other regulations would you like to see being implemented?

MURCHIE: That’s a very broad question. You know, there was a bipartisan commission that included people from the industry [Steve later sent us a note to say that “there were not any oil industry representatives directly on the commission, though they were part of the process for the commission’s findings”], senior government officials, a lot of other people, a lot of other stakeholders, to really sift through what the case was, and came up with a whole host of things. One of the things is to have a citizens advisory board that would provide more direct oversight of the industry and transparency in what their activities are. But there are a number of other recommendations.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. So, Steve, I was asking you this off-camera, because the Gulf is sort of the heart of the South, some could argue. And typically there is a close attachment with it being more of a conservative part of the country, and that goes with being a supporter of the energy industry, like companies like BP, Exxon, things of that nature. So since this disaster, have you seen a shift at all in people’s attitudes towards these big industry oil companies? And is there a shift to maybe even consider more green economy down there in the Gulf?

MURCHIE: Well, I think before the energy industry, as in most parts of the country, people made their living off of the natural resources, off the lands. We still have very healthy fisheries in some parts of the Gulf. And that and the natural resources that lead to a pretty vigorous tourism industry are really major underpinnings of the economy down here. And so, investing in restoring the Gulf is a much more sustainable form of economic development than the extractive industries like the oil and gas industry. However, they’re not going away anytime soon. A big portion of the global petrochemical industry is here in Texas, in Louisiana, and there are a lot of resources that can be extracted with much less environmental impact than what we’re currently seeing.

DESVARIEUX: And can you just speak to some specifics? What would you recommend?

MURCHIE: Well, for one thing, coast of Louisiana before the BP disaster was in serious trouble. The Mississippi River Delta ecologically is really important to the health of the entire Gulf of Mexico. It’s an extremely reproductive, extremely productive system. Lots and lots of marine life spend huge parts of their life cycle in the Mississippi River Delta. And it had been seriously degraded through oil and gas activities, as well as channelization of the Gulf of Mexico, channelization of the Mississippi River, and subsidence, as well as sea-level rise from climate change. And so, restoring the Mississippi River Delta is pretty central to restoring the whole health of Gulf. Oil and gas broadly, not just BP, has a huge amount of responsibility for that. It’s estimated that conservatively they’re responsible for about 400 square miles of coastal land loss here in Louisiana. And the state regulators (’cause this is mostly in state waters on state lands) are not adequately enforcing the law to get these companies to fill their canals back in, close down the wells when they’re no longer producing, and clean up those sites.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. Steve. Lastly, what would you say to people who might say that we need oil and gas to run our economy and for jobs, and spills and disasters are going to be inevitable and sort of a necessary evil? What would you say to that?

MURCHIE: I think most people who look at our energy systems don’t think we’re going to be getting entirely away from fossil fuels any time soon. Clearly we needed to accelerate that. The consequences of climate change are too significant, especially for coastal communities, and especially here in Louisiana. We need to deal with that and deal with it faster than we currently are. But the energy sector, conventional fossil fuel production is going to be a part of the economy going forward. But it’s not really a trade-off of one versus the other. We have to figure out a way we can do both of those things sustainably.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. Steve Murchie, joining us from the Big Easy.

Thank you so much for being with us.

MURCHIE: Thank you.

DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

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