Senate Hearings On BP Gulf Oil Blowout & Spill

May 11: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) held a hearing to review current issues related to offshore oil and gas development including the Department of the Interior's recent five year planning announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico involving the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon (SR-325) [See WIMS 5/10/10]. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Dr. F.E. Beck - Associate Professor, Texas A&M University; Elmer Danenberger - Former Chief, Offshore Regulatory Program, Minerals Management Service (MMS); Lamar McKay - President and Chairman , BP America, Inc.; Steven Newman - President and Chief Executive Officer, Transocean Limited; and Tim Probert - President, Global Business Lines; Chief Health, Safety and Environmental Officer, Halliburton.

    In his statement, MMS's Danenberger who retired in January indicated that he had closely followed the investigation of the Montara blowout in the Timor Sea northwest of Australia and the ongoing Deepwater Horizon (DWH) blowout in the Macondo field in the Gulf of Mexico. He said he wanted to "express my disappointment in certain media comments directed at my former MMS colleagues. These comments have not only been ill-informed and unsubstantiated, but malicious.  Without hesitation, I can tell you that MMS regulatory personnel - inspectors, engineers, scientists, and others – are 100% committed to their safety and pollution prevention mission.

    He indicated that he had written several papers on blowout occurrence rates and causes. The most recent paper reviews the blowout record during the 15-year period from 1992-2006.  He said, "According to these data, well control performance for deepwater drilling was significantly better than for shallow water operations. There were no fatalities or major spills associated with deepwater drilling blowouts during the 15-year study period."

    He commented on various media reports regarding the lack of an "acoustic switch" backup system [See WIMS 5/3/10] and said "At this time, there is no evidence that such systems would have made a difference in this incident. Attempts to close BOPs [blowout preventers] were reportedly made prior to the DWH evacuation. The BOP should have also been signaled when the rig lost power and when the riser disconnected. It is unlikely that additional signals sent acoustically to the stack would have prevented the blowout."

 

    BP's McKay testified that, "Our subsea efforts to stop the flow of oil and secure the well have involved four concurrent strategies: (1)  Working to activate the blow-out preventer (BOP) on the well using submersible ROVs. This would be the preferred course of action, since it would stop or diminish the flow at the source on the ocean floor. Unfortunately, this effort has so far not proved successful. (2) Work continues on a subsea oil recovery plan using a containment system, placing large enclosures or containment chambers atop the leaks and conducting flow from the ocean floor to a ship at the surface through a pipe. As we anticipated, however, there have been technical challenges. This system has never been used before at 5,000 feet. Engineers are now working to see if these challenges can be overcome. (3) We have begun to drill the first of two relief wells to permanently secure the well. These wells are designed to intercept the original MC252 #1 well. Once this is accomplished, a specialized heavy fluid will be injected into the well bore to stop the flow of oil and allow work to be carried out to permanently cap the existing well. On Sunday, May 2nd, we began drilling the first of these wells. A second drillship will mobilize to the area to begin the second relief well later this week. This relief well operation could take approximately three months. (4) A fourth effort is known as a "top kill." It is a proven industry technique for capping wells and has been used worldwide, but never in 5000 feet of water. It uses a tube to inject a mixture of multi-sized particles directly into the blowout preventer. The attempt to do this could take two or three weeks to accomplish."

 

    In response to questioning from Senator Mary Landrieu (LA), BP's McKay said that BP would pay for all "reasonable" claims and damages. He said reasonable meant legitimate. He also, said this would far exceed the $75 million limit. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) asked if BP objected to raising the liability limit to $10 billion. McKay said he could not comment on that in particular, but that BP would pay all legitimate claims.

 

    Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) mentioned that some had estimated that damages could be as much as $14 billion. She asked BP if they would pay that amount. BP responded they would not comment on specific dollar amounts but that they would pay all legitimate claims. All three companies testified that they were conducting separate investigations of their own and that those investigations would be made available to the public.

 

    On further questioning Senator Cantwell said that the Exxon Valdez claims and payments took 20 years and went to the Supreme Court. She said is that BP means, i.e. fighting it out in court over time. BP's McKay said repeatedly in response to several inquiries by Senator Cantwell that "BP would pay all legitimate claims." Senator Cantwell said that BP was saying it was "stepping up" to its responsibilities and she certainly hoped that was true.

 

    Transocean's Probert testified that, ". . .the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion and its possible causes. What is most unusual about the explosion in this case is that it occurred after the well construction process was essentially finished. Drilling had been completed on April 17, and the well had been sealed with cement (to be reopened by the Operator at a later date if the Operator chose to put the well into production). At this point, drilling mud was no longer being used as a means of reservoir pressure containment; the cement and the casing were the barriers controlling pressure from the reservoir. Indeed, at the time of the explosion, the rig crew, at the direction of the Operator, was in the process of displacing drilling mud and replacing it with sea water.

 

    "For that reason, the one thing we know with certainty is that on the evening of April 20, there was a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both. Therein lies the root cause of this occurrence; without a disastrous failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred. It is also clear that the drill crew had very little (if any) time to react. The explosions were almost instantaneous. . ."

 

    At 2:30 PM, the Senate Environment and Pubic Works (EPW) Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also held a hearing entitled, "Economic and Environmental Impacts of the Recent Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico." Witnesses included the same three company representatives from BP, Transocean and Halliburton. Additional witnesses included representatives from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Governor's Office of Coastal Activities, State of Louisiana; Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association; Department of Natural Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore;  Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University; and United States Air Force (Ret.).

 

    Access the Senate SNR hearing website for links to all testimony and webcast (click here). Access the Senate EPW hearing website for links to all testimony and webcast (click here).

BP Gulf Oil Spill Containment Dome Fails; Alternatives Pursued

May 10: BP provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico. BP indicated in a company release that subsea efforts continue to focus on two fronts: first, reducing the flow of oil spilled by physical containment and second, further work on stopping the flow using a "top kill" option. Also, work on the first relief well, which began on May 2, continues. It is expected to take some three months to complete.

    The containment dome that was deployed last week has been parked away from the spill area on the sea bed. Efforts to place it over the main leak point were suspended at the weekend as a build up of hydrates prevented a successful placement of the dome over the spill area. A second, smaller containment dome is being readied to lower over the main leak point. The small dome will be connected by drill pipe and riser lines to a drill ship on the surface to collect and treat oil. It is designed to mitigate the formation of large hydrate volumes. This operation has never been done before in 5,000 feet of water.

    In addition, BP indicated that "further work on the blow out preventer has positioned us to attempt a 'top kill' option aimed at stopping the flow of oil from the well. This option will be pursued in parallel with the smaller containment dome over the next two weeks." All of the techniques being attempted or evaluated to contain the flow of oil on the seabed involve significant uncertainties because they have not been tested in these conditions before. BP said it "continues to do everything it can, in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts, to find a solution to stem the flow of oil on the seabed."

    Work also continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. More than 275 vessels are being used, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels. The volume of dispersant applied to the spill on the surface amounts to over 315,000 gallons since the spill response began. Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water also continued. Some 90,000 barrels of oily liquid has now been recovered. The total length of deployed boom is now more than 1 million feet as part of the efforts to stop oil reaching the coast. BP said the cost to date of the response amounts to about $350 million, including the cost of spill response, containment, relief well drilling, commitments to the Gulf Coast States, settlements and federal costs.

 

    On May 10, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar announced that Director of the National Park Service Jon Jarvis and Acting Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service Rowan Gould have been dispatched to command centers along the Gulf Coast to help lead efforts to protect coastal communities and natural resources from BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Jarvis, who is stationed in the Mobile, Alabama Incident Command Center, and Gould, who is stationed in the Houma, Louisiana Incident Command Center, are among the more than 380 DOI personnel who have been deployed as part of the oil spill response. Additional DOI personnel already stationed in the region are among the more than 10,000 personnel currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife. Jarvis and Gould will work with federal and state natural resource managers to help protect state and federal natural resources.

 

    DOI said that the Gulf Coast, which is one of the most ecologically complex regions in the country and site of a number of National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks protected by Interior on behalf of the American people. The National Park Service, which manages Gulf Islands National Seashore, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Everglades National Park, Padre Island National Seashore, and other parks along the Gulf Coast, has activated two incident management teams in the Gulf. DOI indicated that the Fish and Wildlife Service manages 24 national wildlife refuges that could potentially be affected by the spill, including Breton National Wildlife Refuge, where oil has been confirmed on the Chandeleur Islands.

 

    U.S. EPA announced that Administrator Lisa Jackson will make another visit to the gulf region May 10-11, to oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health impact of the ongoing BP oil spill. She will be meeting with EPA response managers on the scene and review the Agency's on-going air and water monitoring efforts. She will also meet with scientists from inside and outside the Federal government -- including scientists at local universities and from local organizations -- who have unique knowledge of the environmental challenges facing the gulf coast region and to discuss the potential impact of the use of dispersants on the spill on and below the surface of the water. Jackson will also meet with BP officials, the Coast Guard and other federal agencies to discuss ongoing efforts to mitigate the impact of the spill.   

 

    Greenpeace issued a release indicating that they had found the first traces of oil onshore at Port Eads, the southernmost tip of Louisiana during a visit to the area at the mouth of the Mississippi River May 9, 2010. Dan Howells, Deputy Director of Campaigns at Greenpeace, and conservation specialist Rick Steiner collected samples of the oil on the beach and documented what they saw with photographs. Greenpeace said, "The oil onshore at Port Eads shows that it is reaching the mouth of the Mississippi, putting even more species of Louisiana's coastal habitats at risk—including animal and plant species that thrive only in these wetlands. The oil was found both in globules scattered on the beach and within the wet marshy areas as discoloration and a sheen on the marsh water. Oil had collected on reeds, which prevent erosion of the coastline, highlighting more evidence of this disaster."

 

    Access a release from BP (click here). Access a release from DOI (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a release and link to photos from Greenpeace (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here).

Kerry-Lieberman Minus Graham Roll Out Wednesday May 12

May 7: Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) released a joint statement announcing their plan to roll out comprehensive energy and climate change legislation next Wednesday, May 12, 2010. They indicated that further details of Wednesday's roll out will be available next week.

    On April 26, after months of development and two days before Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were set to reveal their tripartisan American Power Act (K-G-L), Senator Graham abruptly announced that he would be "unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time," [See WIMS 4/2/10]. Graham said he was upset that the Senate and Administration might make immigration reform a priority over energy and climate legislation. 

    In their joint statement, the two Senators said, "We appreciate Senator Graham's [R-SC] statement [see below] of his continued commitment to passing comprehensive energy independence legislation. Over the past several months we have worked with Senator Graham and he has made a significant contribution to construct balanced legislation that will make our country energy independent, create jobs and curb pollution. Senator Graham has been our partner in building a broad-based coalition of support for legislation that can pass the Senate this year.
 
    "Over the last three weeks, we all understand Lindsey has been busy with the immigration issue and we understand his feelings on that issue, but during this period we've continued working, moving forward, and talking in great detail with our Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and with the environmental and business communities. We've continued to work with the Senate leadership and the White House, and we believe we've made new progress on the path to 60 votes.
 
    "We are more encouraged today that we can secure the necessary votes to pass this legislation this year in part because the last weeks have given everyone with a stake in this issue a heightened understanding that as a nation, we can no longer wait to solve this problem which threatens our economy, our security and our environment. Our optimism is bolstered because there is a growing and unprecedented bi-partisan coalition from the business, national security, faith and environmental communities that supports our legislation and is energized to work hard and get it passed. We look forward to rolling-out the legislation next Wednesday and passing the legislation with the support of Senator Graham and other Republicans, Democrats and Independents this year."

    Senator Graham also released a lengthy statement today (May 7) on cap-and-trade, offshore drilling, and future prospects of energy reform legislation. In his statement Senator Graham says the House-passed cap and trade bill is "dead"; that the Gulf oil spill does not improve the chances for passing a climate-energy bill; he's in favor of expanded offshore drilling; and he doesn't believe their are 60 votes to pass a bill. The following is his entire statement:

    On the Death of Cap-and-Trade: "The House-passed cap and trade bill is dead. It has been replaced by a new model that focuses on energy independence, job creation and cleaner air. I appreciate the work of Senators Kerry and Lieberman who have been good allies in trying to move this debate in a new, more productive direction. I am particularly proud of the efforts we have made in creating a renaissance in nuclear power which leads to energy security and fosters job creation. As I have previously indicated, a serious debate on energy legislation is significantly compromised with the cynical politics of comprehensive immigration reform hanging over the Senate. In addition to immigration, we now have to deal with a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico which creates new policy and political challenges not envisioned in our original discussions. In light of this, I believe it would be wise to pause the process and reassess where we stand."
 
    On Offshore Drilling and Gulf Coast Disaster: "Some believe the oil spill has enhanced the chances energy legislation will succeed. I do not share their view. Our original legislation included an expansion of off shore drilling with revenue sharing. It doesn't take long for one to conclude that opposition to expanded offshore drilling with revenue sharing has grown among certain Senate Democrats. Some have even declared energy legislation "dead on arrival" if it contains an expansion of offshore drilling.  I respect their position and I know they are sincere in their beliefs. However, I have come to a different conclusion on the issue and strongly believe that in order to become energy independent we must include these options.
 
    "When it comes to getting 60 votes for legislation that includes additional oil and gas drilling with revenue sharing, the climb has gotten steeper because of the oil spill. I remain committed to safely expanding offshore drilling because I know oil will be part of our nation's energy plan for years to come. Every barrel we can find in the United States is one less we have to import from OPEC. And today, some of the dollars we spend on imported oil find their way into the hands of terrorists who wish to harm our nation. As a Senator from a coastal state, and in light of the historic oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, I think it makes sense to find out what happened, enact safety measures to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future, and then build consensus for the expanded offshore drilling our nation needs." 
 
    Future Prospects for Energy Legislation: "When it comes to our nation's policy on energy independence and pollution control, I don't believe any American finds the status quo acceptable. Many senators from both parties have stated that Congress should set energy and carbon pollution policy, not the EPA. I could not agree more. Therefore, we should move forward in a reasoned, thoughtful manner and in a political climate which gives us the best chance at success. Regrettably, in my view, this has become impossible in the current environment. I believe there could be more than 60 votes for this bipartisan concept in the future. But there are not nearly 60 votes today and I do not see them materializing until we deal with the uncertainty of the immigration debate and the consequences of the oil spill."

 

    Access the joint statement from Senators Kerry, Lieberman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Graham (click here).

EIA Reports Record 7% Decline In U.S. CO2 Emissions In 2009

May 5: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently expanded its reporting of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions starting in the fall of 2009. The Agency has issued an analysis that examines the level and drivers of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2009. EIA indicates that in 2009, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States saw their largest absolute and percentage decline (405 million metric tons or 7.0 percent) since the start of EIA's comprehensive record of annual energy data that begins in 1949, more than 60 years ago. EIA said, "While emissions have declined in three out of the last four years, 2009 was exceptional." 

    EIA said emissions developments in 2009 reflect a combination of factors, including some particular to the economic downturn, other special circumstances during the year, and other factors that may reflect persistent trends in our economy and our energy use. In contrast to the 0.9 percent average annual emissions decline from 2000 to 2009, the prior 1990-to-1999 time period saw U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions grow on average by 1.4 percent per year. Robust GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth (3.3 percent annually) from 1990 to 1999 on average dropped by half (to 1.6 percent) from 2000 to 2009, particularly due to the recent economic downturn. However, even with the reduction in economic growth since 2000, emissions would nonetheless have grown by 0.6 to 0.7 percent annually had the proportional relationship between economic and emissions growth remained the same as during the 1990s.

    EIA indicates that changes in carbon dioxide emissions can be decomposed into changes in four major contributing factors: (1) population, (2) per capita GDP, (3) energy intensity of the economy, and (4) carbon intensity of the energy supply. All of these fell in 2009 except for population. Population grew 0.9 percent. The downturn of the economy caused per capita GDP to fall (3.3 percent) resulting in a total GDP decline of 2.4 percent. Energy intensity and the carbon intensity of the energy supply also both fell more than 2 percent. These three factors (GDP, energy intensity, and carbon intensity) combined in roughly equal proportions to cause emissions to fall by 7.0 percent. 

    EIA also reports that total energy consumption fell across all end-use sectors by 4.8 percent, attributable to a decline in energy intensity of around 2.4 percent, plus a decline in GDP of 2.4 percent. While this drop in energy intensity was large, it is not unprecedented. The average decline in energy intensity from 2000 to 2008 was 2.0 percent. The economic decline did not affect the other sectors as much as the industrial sector, which saw the greatest drop in energy consumption – 9.9 percent. 

    EIA provides much more analysis of each of the contributing factors and summarizes that, "Total emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide fell across all end-use sectors in 2009, with the drop especially pronounced in the industrial sector. As the economy recovers, the structure of that recovery will be important to the future emissions profile of the United States. If energy-intensive industries lead the economic recovery, emissions would increase faster than if service industries or light manufacturing play the leading role. If coal, which was more heavily impacted by the recent economic downturn than other energy sources, rebounds disproportionately, the carbon intensity of the energy supply could rise above the 2009 level. However, longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions."

    Access the complete analysis (click here).

Update On BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill

May 5: BP is currently attempting to conduct a recovery operation using a specially-built "dome" to cap the leak at the sea floor and is also conducting a controlled burn; the area of concern has widened in to include the west coast of Florida and the Keys; and officials are preparing for expanded impacts. Reportedly, BP officials have admitted to Congressional members in a closed door meeting, that as much as 60,000 barrels per day may be leaking from the well -- the last estimate was 5,000 barrels per day [See WIMS 5/3/10].

 

    At the direction of President Obama, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe will travel to the Gulf Coast this week to meet with Federal, state and local officials, as well as local business leaders, as part of their continued oversight of BP's efforts to plug the leak and contain the spill, and their ongoing emphasis on interagency coordination in response to the event.

    On Thursday, Secretary Napolitano, Secretary Locke and Administrator Lubchenco will travel to Biloxi, MS, to inspect response operations, meet with state, local and private sector leaders, and view firsthand staging areas for the deployment of boom to protect vital shoreline from the oil spill. Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Locke will then visit similar operations ongoing in Pensacola, FL. Administrator Lubchenco and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley will then visit Pascagoula, MS, to visit NOAA's seafood inspection lab.

    EPA Deputy Administrator Perciasepe will also travel on Thursday to Louisiana, where he will review EPA's ongoing air and water monitoring activities, meet with local and community leaders, and assess the environmental situation on the ground. On Friday, Lubchenco and Sutley will travel to Venice and St. Bernard Parish, LA, to inspect shoreline cleanup assessment activities and meet with state, local and private sector leaders about the administration's ongoing efforts to mitigate the spill's impact on public health, the environment, and the economy. Today, Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is touring Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, and the areas affected by the BP oil spill to assess the ongoing Federal response efforts.

 

    Today BP responders were preparing to conduct a controlled burn. As part of the coordinated response that combines tactics deployed above water, below water, offshore, and close to coastal areas, controlled burns remove oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife. No populated areas are expected to be affected by the controlled burn operations and there are no anticipated impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles. Responders said a successful controlled burn, lasting 28 minutes on April 28 removed thousands of gallons of oil.

 

    On May 4, the White House indicated that as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico grows and makes it way toward the coast, attention has turned to the question of who will pay for the clean-up and any possible damages to our natural habitats, businesses, and individuals who call this region home. An Administration blog posting indicates, ". . .let's be clear about a few things: BP is responsible for -- and will be held accountable for -- all of the very significant clean-up and containment costs. They will pay for the mess they've made. Beyond clean-up and containment, BP must be held responsible for the damages this spill causes." The Administration indicated that it "strongly supports efforts on Capitol Hill to raise the Oil Pollution Act damages cap significantly above $75 million."

    According to the posting, "Currently, under the Oil Pollution Act, if BP is found to be grossly negligent or to have engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations, then there is no cap under this specific law for damages. Simply put, the $75 million cap on damages under the Oil Pollution Act would not apply under these circumstances. Right now, this crisis is still very much unfolding so it will take time to determine what caused this spill and the extent of the damage that can be claimed under this one law. Changing the Oil Pollution Act so that its cap does not limit our ability to collect damages would increase our chances of collecting adequate compensation. In addition, we are examining what fines or damages BP could be liable for under additional applicable federal and state laws. The bottom line is that the Administration will aggressively pursue compensation from BP for any damages from this spill."

    Today (May 5), in response to the possibility of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill affecting the West Coast of Florida, representatives from BP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) are meeting to plan a multi-agency response. Working together, the agencies have reviewed the area contingency plan and ensured all partners have access to, and are familiar with the plan. In meetings over the last couple days, the Coast Guard and FDEP have spoken with trustees from various national and state wildlife refugee areas, along with every county emergency management office on the West Coast of Florida. The agencies also met with over 30 members of non-governmental environmental organizations including Tampa Bay Watch, Save our Seabirds, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, Sierra Club, etc. The latest predictions from the NOAA, indicate no impact to the western coast of Florida, from Taylor County to Collier County within the next 72 hours.

    On May 4, The United States Coast Guard at Sector Key West, FL, in conjunction with its port partners and key stakeholders, have been actively preparing for possible marine pollution effects from the spill. As part of an ongoing preparation efforts, the Coast Guard hosted a joint meeting on with Federal, state, and local partners to discuss potential impacts and response priorities should the spill affect the waters of the Florida Keys. Agencies met to review highly sensitive areas in the Keys, prepared response strategies, and to share information and discuss pollution mitigation. Capt. Pat DeQuattro, sector commander at Coast Guard Sector Key West said, "Although it is still too soon to predict if or how the Florida Keys may be impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill, we are focused on preparing for whatever those impacts may be."

    Access a release on the Administration officials in the Gulf Coast (click here). Access a NY Times article (click here). Access a release on the controlled burn and link to additional information (click here). Access the blog posting from the White House on BP responsibility (click here). Access a release on the FL West Coast preparation (click here). Access a release on the Keys preparation (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here). Access local media reports from the Alabama Press-Register (click here).

EPA Proposes First-Ever National Coal Ash Disposal Rules

May 4: U.S. EPA announced it is proposing the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. Coal combustion residuals, commonly known as coal ash, are byproducts of the combustion of coal at power plants and are disposed of in liquid form at large surface impoundments and in solid form at landfills. The residuals contain contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which are associated with cancer and various other serious health effects. EPA's risk assessment and damage cases demonstrate that, without proper protections, these contaminants can leach into groundwater and can migrate to drinking water sources, posing significant health public concerns.

    EPA said its action will ensure for the first time that protective controls, such as liners and groundwater monitoring, are in place at new landfills to protect groundwater and human health. Existing surface impoundments will also require liners, with strong incentives to close the impoundments and transition to safer landfills, which store coal ash in dry form. EPA said, "The proposed regulations will ensure stronger oversight of the structural integrity of impoundments in order to prevent accidents like the one at Kingston, Tennessee. Today's action also will promote environmentally safe and desirable forms of recycling coal ash, known as beneficial uses."

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash. We're proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we're also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected." EPA notes that coal combustion residual impoundments can be found in almost all states -- most often on the properties of power plants. There are almost 900 landfills and surface impoundments nationwide. Since the spill at Kingston, EPA has been evaluating hundreds of coal ash impoundments throughout the country to ensure their structural integrity and to require improvements where necessary. The results of the assessments are on EPA's website.

    EPA said the proposal opens a national dialogue by calling for public comment on two approaches for addressing the risks of coal ash management under the nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). One option is drawn from authorities available under Subtitle C, which creates a comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for waste management and disposal. The other option includes remedies under Subtitle D, which gives EPA authority to set performance standards for waste management facilities and would be enforced primarily through citizen suits. A chart comparing and contrasting the two approaches is available on the EPA website.

    Under both approaches EPA proposes to leave in place the "Bevill exemption" for beneficial uses of coal ash in which coal combustion residuals are recycled as components of products instead of placed in impoundments or landfills. Large quantities of coal ash are used today in concrete, cement, wallboard and other contained applications that should not involve any exposure by the public to unsafe contaminants. These uses would not be impacted by the proposal. EPA is seeking public comment on how to frame the continued exemption of beneficial uses from regulation and is focusing in particular on whether that exemption should exclude certain non-contained applications where contaminants in coal ash could pose risks to human health. The public comment period is 90 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register (soon).

 

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access the complete 563-page prepublication copy of the proposed rule (click here). Access more information about the proposed regulation (click here). Access the chart comparing the two approaches described above (click here). Access the results of EPA's impoundment assessments (click here).

"A Massive and Potentially Unprecedented Environmental Disaster"

May 2: President Obama spent Sunday (May 2) touring the Gulf Coast area and getting a first-hand look at the ongoing response from the Federal government to the BP oil spill. After speaking to Admiral Thad Allen, who is serving as National Incident Commander, along with Coast Guard personnel, the President gave an update from Venice, Louisiana.

 

    The President said, "I think the American people are now aware, certainly the folks down in the Gulf are aware, that we're dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster. The oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the environment of our Gulf states and it could extend for a long time. It could jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home. And that's why the federal government has launched and coordinated an all-hands-on-deck, relentless response to this crisis from day one. After the explosion on the drilling rig, it began with an aggressive search-and-rescue effort to evacuate 115 people, including three badly injured. And my thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the 11 workers who have not yet  -- who have not been found. 

 

    "When the drill unit sank on Thursday, we immediately and intensely investigated by remotely operated vehicles the entire 5,000 feet of pipe that's on the floor of the ocean.  In that process, three leaks were identified, the most recent coming just last Wednesday evening.  As Admiral Allen and Secretary Napolitano have made clear, we've made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worse-case scenario.  We immediately set up command center operations here in the Gulf and coordinated with all state and local governments. . . So I want to emphasize, from day one we have prepared and planned for the worst, even as we hoped for the best. . ."

 

    According to some experts, the worst case scenario could be far worse than what has been generally reported. Following initial reports that their were no leaks of oil, estimates by BP and government sources said their may be 1,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from the well. While that seemed like a lot, those estimates were subsequently updated to 5,000 barrels of oil per day. Now there are several reports that 20,000 to 25,000 barrels per day might be a more realistic estimate.

 

    However, Environmental Attorney Stuart Smith of Smith Stag Law Firm, New Orleans, who is representing commercial fisherman and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network relative to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, issued a release on April 30 saying, "I believe there is a strong possibility of a total failure of the BP Deepwater Horizon fluid control system. According to experts in the industry I have spoken to confidentially, the pipes from which the oil is currently leaking act as a choke on the oil flowing from the formation. A catastrophic failure could easily result in the release of 60,000 to 160,000 barrels of oil per day." Smith says, "In a worst case scenario, this amount of oil would constitute one Valdez every two days. At that rate of release, there could easily be a significant threat not only to the environment but to public health for those downwind of the oil slick. Air discharges of components of oil, such as benzene a known human carcinogen, and other volatile organic compounds could be significant. . ."

 

    Also, there have been further reports on the issue raised by Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson in a letter to the President on April 29 [See WMS 4/30/10]. Senator Nelson indicated that the Interior Department (DOI) in 2000 issued an alert calling for "reliable backup systems" in the event of a rig blowout. He said a decision was made in 2003 not to call for the "additional line of defense" and he has requested the DOI Inspector General to investigate the matter. Mike Papantonio, an environmental lawyer, representing Louisiana shrimpers indicated in an interview on the Ed Show that an "acoustic switch" would have prevented the catastrophe -- it's a failsafe that shuts the flow of oil off at the source. He said they cost only about half a million dollars each, and are required in off-shore drilling platforms other countries but not the United States. He said, "This was one of the new deregulations devised by Dick Cheney during his secret meetings with the oil industry at the beginning of Bush's first term."

 

    An April 28 article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) discusses the issue of the acoustic switch. The article indicates that, "the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort." But, it is reported that the major oil-producing countries of Norway and Brazil require them. WSJ reports that the "U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well. . . By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said 'acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly.'"

 

    In his press briefing President Obama emphasized, "Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak; BP will be paying the bill.  But as President of the United States, I'm going to spare no effort to respond to this crisis for as long as it continues.  And we will spare no resource to clean up whatever damage is caused.  And while there will be time to fully investigate what happened on that rig and hold responsible parties accountable, our focus now is on a fully coordinated, relentless response effort to stop the leak and prevent more damage to the Gulf."

 

    A report from the Press-Register (Mobile, AL & surrounding communities) entitled, "Leaked report: Government fears Deepwater Horizon well could become unchecked gusher," indicates that the leak may be on the order of 50,000 barrels a day, or 2.1 million gallons a day. The article quotes Stephen Sears, chairman of the petroleum engineering department at Louisiana State University as saying, "Typically, a very good well in the Gulf can produce 30,000 barrels a day, but that's under control. I have no idea what an uncontrolled release could be."

 

    One of the first economic impacts of the spill is that NOAA has issued a notice that it is restricting fishing for a minimum of ten days in Federal waters most affected by the BP oil spill, largely between Louisiana State waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River to waters off Florida's Pensacola Bay (a map is available). The closure is effective immediately. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, who met with more than 100 fishermen in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish on April 30, said, "NOAA scientists are on the ground in the area of the oil spill taking water and seafood samples in an effort to ensure the safety of the seafood and fishing activities. I heard the concerns of the Plaquemines Parish fishermen as well other fishermen and state fishery managers about potential economic impacts of a closure. Balancing economic and health concerns, this order closes just those areas that are affected by oil. There should be no health risk in seafood currently in the marketplace."

 

    Roy Crabtree, NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Administrator said, "There are finfish, crabs, oysters and shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico near the area of the oil spill. The Gulf is such an important biologic and economic area in terms of seafood production and recreational fishing." According to NOAA, there are 3.2 million recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico region who took 24 million fishing trips in 2008. Commercial fishermen in the Gulf harvested more than 1 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish in 2008.

 

    NOAA has posted information and links on filing damage claims with BP (See link below). Also those who are not satisfied with BP's resolution, there is an additional avenue for assistance available through the Coast Guard once BP has finalized your claim. The NOAA release provides more information about what types of damages are eligible for compensation under the Oil Pollution Act and details.

 

    Access a blog post on the President's update with links to the complete speech and related information (click here). Access the release from attorney Stuart Smith (click here) and further extensive information (click here). Access a link to the Ed Show video interview with attorney Mike Papantonio (click here). Access a lengthy WSJ article on the acoustic switch (click here). Access the Press-Register article (click here). Access a release from NOAA (click here). Access the Department of Interior special Deepwater Horizon website (click here). Access a special EPA website on the BP spill (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here).

BP Gulf Oil Spill May Be Environmental & Economic Disaster

Apr 30: At a press conference on the current economic conditions, President Obama delivered an update on the worsening conditions at what may develop to be the largest U.S oil spill ever [See WIMS 4/26/10]. The Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill, leaking 5,000 barrels of oils per day, is beginning to come ashore in Louisiana and is nearing the coast of Mississippi, Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. Winds blowing from south to north, which are expected to last all weekend, are making the situation worse.

 

    President Obama said, "I have dispatched the Secretaries of Interior and Homeland Security, as well as the Administrator of the EPA, my Assistant for Energy and Climate Change Policy, and the NOAA Administrator to the Gulf Coast to ensure that we continue to do everything necessary to respond to this event. And I expect their reports from the ground today.

    "As I said yesterday, BP is ultimately responsible under the law for paying the costs of response and cleanup operations, but we are fully prepared to meet our responsibilities to any and all affected communities. And that's why we've been working closely with state and local authorities since the day of the explosion. There are now five staging areas to protect sensitive shorelines; approximately 1,900 federal response personnel are in the area; and more than 300 response vessels and aircraft on the scene 24/7. We've also laid approximately 217,000 feet of protective boom, and there are more on the way.

    "I've order Secretary Salazar to conduct a thorough review of this incident and report back to me in 30 days on what, if any, additional precautions and technologies should be required to prevent accidents like this from happening again. And we're going to make sure that any leases going forward have those safeguards. We've also dispatched teams to the Gulf to inspect all deepwater rigs and platforms to address safety concerns.

    "So, let me be clear. I continue to believe that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall strategy for energy security, but I've always said it must be done responsibly, for the safety of our workers and our environment. The local economies and livelihoods of the people of the Gulf Coast as well as the ecology of the region are at stake. And we're going to continue to update the American people on the situation in the Gulf going forward."

    According to an April 30, update from the unified command a comprehensive oil well intervention and spill-response plan continues following the April 22 sinking of the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 130 miles southeast of New Orleans. Nearly 2,000 personnel are involved in the response effort with additional resources being mobilized as needed. The Federal government has been fully engaged in the response since the incident occurred April 20. The Minerals Management Service remains in contact with all oil and gas operators in the sheen area. Currently, no production has been curtailed as a result of the response effort.

 

    Incident Facts include: More than 217,000 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 305,760 feet is available; To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 20,313 barrels (853,146 gallons) of an oil-water mix and are continuing recovery operations; 75 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels; 139,459 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 51,000 gallons are available; Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines -- Biloxi, MS, Pensacola, FL, Venice, LA, Pascagoula, MS, and Theodore, AL; A sixth staging area is being set up in Port Sulphur, LA; Weather conditions for April 30 - Winds from the southeast at 20 knots, 5 - 7 seas with slight chance of Friday afternoon showers; 126 people were on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig when the incident occurred; 11 remain unaccounted for; 17 were injured, 3 of them critically; 1 injured person remains in the hospital.

 

    In further Congressional developments, Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) sent a formal notice to the heads of America's top five oil companies requesting them to appear soon before his Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The exact date and time of the hearing will be announced soon. Representative Markey said, "From the health of our economy to the health of our environment, it's time for the American public to hear from the oil companies. Their opinions and answers on the issues of energy policy are vital given the push in Congress to construct a comprehensive energy independence strategy for our nation."

 

    Markey indicated in a release that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which is now leaking at a rate of 5,000 barrels of oil per day, could by next week exceed the size of the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. This accident follows the release of thousands of miles of coastline by the Obama administration for potential new offshore drilling. Meanwhile, Markey indicated that gas and oil prices have continued to rise, even as American families and businesses are beginning to recover from a recession. The average price of gasoline has now crept towards three dollars, averaging nearly $2.90 per gallon, an increase of about 85 cents compared to this time last year.

 

    Markey said, "Four dollar gasoline helped break our economy's back. And now, just as we are starting a recovery, the price of gas is creeping back towards three dollars, threatening the budgets of families and small businesses across the nation. We need to craft a comprehensive strategy that protects consumers, and our nation's oil companies must join us in that effort."

 

    Markey also indicated that oil profits are also up for the top five oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Chevron. Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit increase of 38 percent, or $6.3 billion. BP, which owns the sunken rig, reported a first quarter net profit of $6.08 billion, an increase of 137 percent. ConocoPhillips reported increased earnings of $2.1 billion for the first quarter. Shell announced profits of $4.8 billion, rising by 60 percent. Chevron will announce its earnings report April 30.

 

    On April 28, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak (D-MI) sent letters to BP America and Transocean Ltd., the two companies involved in the explosion and oil spill. The Committee is investigating the adequacy of the companies' risk management and emergency response plans for accidental oil and gas releases at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and other offshore deep water or ultra-deep water drilling facilities. The Committee has requested that the companies provide a number of documents and plans by May 14, 2010, and to advise the Committee by May 4, as to whether they will comply with the request on a voluntary basis [See WIMS 4/28/10].

 

    In an April 29 letter to President Obama, Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson said, ". . .if the spill continues for a month it may be nearly as large as the Exxon Valdez. If the crude leaking from the well starts washing ashore in the coming days, it may be an environmental and economic disaster that wreaks havoc for commercial fishing and tourism along the Gulf of Mexico coast. . . I'm asking that you also call for an immediate halt to test wells and all other exploratory operations in coastal waters. Such a pause should remain in effect pending the outcome of federal investigations into the cause of this incident and the identification of ways to prevent something similar fro happening again. . ."

 

    Nelson's letter indicates that the Interior Department (DOI) in 2000 issued an alert calling for "reliable backup systems" in the event of a rig blowout. He said a decision was made in 2003 not to call for the "additional line of defense" and he has requested the DOI Inspector General to investigate the matter.

 

    The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), which has jurisdiction over offshore energy development, will hold a hearing May 6 to review current issues related to offshore oil and natural gas development, including the Department of the Interior's recent five-year planning announcements and the accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will testify.

 

    Access the President's statement (click here). Access further updates on a joint companies and government unified command website (click here). Access official updates on Twitter (click here). Access official updates on Facebook (click here). Access a release from Markey (click here). Access links to the letter from Waxman and Stupak (click here). Access the letter from Senator Nelson (click here). Access extensive links to additional information on Senator Nelson actions related to offshore drilling (click here). Access the Presidential press briefing on 4/29 with statements from various agency heads and Q&A (click here).

Cape Wind Project Reaction Demonstrates Wind Energy Dichotomy

Apr 28: Reaction to the Department of Interior Cape Wind project approval in Nantucket Sound [See WIMS 4/28/10] is an indication of the dichotomy of opinion that exists regarding wind energy that has fractured environmental, business and political interest groups. On the one hand, imagine an issue that can garner the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Greenpeace, while at the same time split the opinions Congressional members; and cause a wide ranging coalition of stakeholder groups to say they will immediately file suit opposing the project approval.

 

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA) released a statement saying, "This day was a long time in coming, but I believe the future of wind power in the Massachusetts and the United States will be stronger knowing that the process was exhaustive, and that it was allowed to work and wind its way through the vetting at all levels with public input. I have always advocated wind energy in Massachusetts and I accept and support Secretary Salazar's judgment today that Cape Wind should go forward. This is jobs and clean energy for Massachusetts."

 

     Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) released a statement saying, "I am strongly opposed to the administration's misguided decision to move forward with Cape Wind. While I support the concept of wind power as an alternative source of energy, Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization. With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions we have heard from proponents of the project."

 

    Representative Bill Delahunt (D-MA), representing the Cape Code, Nantucket Sound area, issued a statement saying, "Cape Wind is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the wrong place, in the wrong way, stimulating the wrong economies. Offshore wind energy has great potential, but we have missed an opportunity here to do it right. It is simply bad public policy to give 'no bid' leases to developers and their Wall Street investors for over 24 square miles of public waters and access to hundreds of millions in public subsidies each year. This will be the most expensive and most heavily subsidized offshore wind farm in the country at over $2.5 billion, with power costs to the region that will be at least double. Cape Wind will also be the first industrial scale wind power plant in the middle of an ocean sanctuary, in the middle of a candidate National Marine Sanctuary site, in a site eligible for listing on the National Register, in a Native American 'sacred' site, and in a federally designated critical fisheries habitat. It's the first wind farm in the Atlantic flyway; a major pathway for migratory birds and an important seabird habitat. . . The Interior Department decision will now lead to a new chapter of legal battles and potential setbacks to an important industry that holds great promise for our country."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) hailed the approval and said, "With this historic decision, the answer to America's energy future is blowing in the wind. The same winds that delivered the Mayflower to Massachusetts and created the Perfect Storm will now deliver a clean energy future to Massachusetts and create new jobs. America's energy future can now ride the winds of change out of our dirty energy doldrums. I commend Secretary Salazar's wisdom and his commitment to the environmental review process. On the same day that a massive oil slick is growing in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening the coastline, the Obama administration's Cape Wind decision shows that our country has a choice in how we capture the energy found in our oceans. The Obama administration is moving forward with a comprehensive offshore energy plan that will enable America to finally move beyond oil and look to the winds, the waves, the tides, and the sun to create an American-led clean energy future."

    Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound (APNS) said, "While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures -- this fight is not over. Litigation remains the option of last resort. However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act. We will not stand by and allow our treasured public lands to be marred forever by a corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers." Lawsuits will be filed on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups -- including the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Three Bays Preservation, Animal Welfare Institute, Industrial Wind Action Group, Californians for Renewable Energy, Oceans Public Trust Initiative (a project of the International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Land Institute), Lower Laguna Madre Foundation -- against the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service for violations of the Endangered Species Act.

    Bill Kovacs, senior vice president of Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement commending the Department of Interior on its decision and said, "As America's first offshore wind farm, Cape Wind reflects the true spirit of American enterprise and a significant step forward toward achieving a more secure, diverse, and prosperous energy future. This project will serve as a model of innovation as others look at developing coastal wind resources and other clean energy projects across the country. Cape Wind is perhaps the nation's most infamous example of the horrors of Not in My Backyard (NIMBY). Over the coming decades, the U.S. will need many more similar wind projects. The Chamber looks forward to working with Secretary Salazar in providing the same decisive leadership on other energy initiatives."

 

    Kert Davies, Research Director at Greenpeace issued a statement saying, "Today's announcement that Cape Wind is moving forward is an enormous step forward toward America's clean energy future and the fight to solve global warming.  It is a shot of welcome good news in the face of climate and energy policy confusion in Washington and an oil spill of epic proportions in the Gulf.  Greenpeace has been campaigning to get the Cape Wind project built for nearly a decade, and today's victory is worth celebrating. It long overdue. There could be no clearer direction for America's energy future and global warming leadership. . . Cape Wind is the keystone project that we hope kickstarts America's clean energy future. . . Instead of pursuing expansion of dangerous offshore oil drilling that will do nothing to solve our oil addiction, America should be investing our time and money in renewable energy and global warming solutions.  In fact, Cape Wind will make obsolete an old dirty oil-burning power plant with 420 megawatts of new clean electricity. . ."

 

    Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a statement saying, "Cape Wind represents a significant clean energy first for America. It shows us we can repower our country, we can do it the right way, and we can start today. Renewable energy projects like these not only help fight climate change, they can create jobs and play a central role in our economic recovery. The United States can be a world leader on clean energy, and offshore wind power has enormous potential to help us get there. This is a major victory for America's clean energy future -- and will help ramp up the U.S. offshore wind industry."

 

    Access a statement from Senator Kerry (click here). Access a release from Senator Brown (click here). Access a release from Rep. Delahunt (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from APNS (click here). Access the APNS website for additional information (click here). Access a release from the U.S. Chamber with links to additional information on NIMBY (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace (click here). Access a release from NRDC(click here).

Interior Approves Cape Wind Energy Project In Nantucket Sound

Apr 28: Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the long awaited approval of the Cape Wind renewable energy project on Federal submerged lands in Nantucket Sound. The approval will require Cape Wind Associates, LLC (CWA), the developer of the $1 billion wind farm, to agree to additional binding measures to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the facility. The controversial Cape Wind energy project would be located 4.7 miles offshore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

 

    The project, originally proposed in 2001, would consist of 130, 3.6 megawatt wind turbine generators covering 24 square miles in Federal waters offshore Massachusetts with the capacity to produce a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. The average expected production from the proposed wind farm could provide about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts.

 

    Salazar made the announcement at the State House in Boston and said, "After careful consideration of all the concerns expressed during the lengthy review and consultation process and thorough analyses of the many factors involved, I find that the public benefits weigh in favor of approving the Cape Wind project at the Horseshoe Shoal location. With this decision we are beginning a new direction in our Nation's energy future, ushering in America's first offshore wind energy facility and opening a new chapter in the history of this region." The Cape Wind project would be the first wind farm on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.

 

    A number of similar projects have been proposed for other northeast coastal states, positioning the region to tap 1 million megawatts of offshore Atlantic wind energy potential, which could create thousands of manufacturing, construction and operations jobs and displace older, inefficient fossil-fueled generating plants, helping significantly to combat climate change. Salazar emphasized that the Department had taken extraordinary steps to fully evaluate Cape Wind's potential impacts on traditional cultural resources and historic properties, including government-to-government consultations with the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and that he was "mindful of our unique relationship with the Tribes and carefully considered their views and concerns."

    Because of concerns expressed during the consultations, Interior has required the developer to change the design and configuration of the wind turbine farm to diminish the visual effects of the project and to conduct additional seabed surveys to ensure that any submerged archaeological resources are protected prior to bottom disturbing activities. Under the revisions, the number of turbines has been reduced from 170 to 130, eliminating turbines to reduce the visual impacts from the Kennedy Compound National Historic Landmark; reconfiguring the array to move it farther away from Nantucket Island; and reducing its breadth to mitigate visibility from the Nantucket Historic District.

    Salazar said, "After almost a decade of exhaustive study and analyses, I believe that this undertaking can be developed responsibly and with consideration to the historic and cultural resources in the project area. Impacts to the historic properties can and will be minimized and mitigated and we will ensure that cultural resources will not be harmed or destroyed during the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project."

    He pointed out that Nantucket Sound and its environs are a working landscape with many historical and modern uses and changing technologies. He said a number of tall structures, including broadcast towers, cellular base station towers, local public safety communications towers and towers for industrial and business uses are located around the area. Three submarine transmission cable systems already traverse the seabed to connect mainland energy sources to Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island. Visual and physical impacts associated with Nantucket Sound and its associated shorelines abound; it is not an untouched landscape.

    Salazar disagreed with the Advisory Council's conclusion that visual impacts from the proposed wind farm, which will be situated between and at substantial distance from Cape Cod, Nantucket Island and Martha's Vineyard, provide a rationale for rejecting the siting of the project. The viewshed effects are not direct or destructive to onshore traditional cultural properties. In no case does the turbine array dominate the viewshed. The project site is about 5.2 miles from the mainland shoreline, 13.8 miles from Nantucket Island and 9 miles from Martha's Vineyard.

    The Secretary also disagreed that it is not possible to mitigate the impacts associated with installation of piers for wind turbines in the seabed, noting that piers for bridges, transmission lines and other purposes are routinely built in relatively shallow waters consistent with those found in Horseshoe Shoals. A number of marine archaeological studies have indicated that there is low probability that the project area contains submerged archaeological resources. Most of the area has been extensively reworked and disturbed by marine activities and geological processes. The Advisory Council's regulations provide that the Interior Department must take into account the Council's comments on particular projects. The Department, as the decision-making authority, is required to consider the Council's comments but is not legally bound to follow its recommendations or conclusions.
 
    The Cape Wind Associates, LLC facility would occupy a 25-square-mile section of Nantucket Sound and generate a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts. Horseshoe Shoals lies outside shipping channels, ferry routes and flight paths but is adjacent to power-consuming coastal communities. One-fifth of the offshore wind energy potential of the East Coast is located off the New England coast and Nantucket Sound receives strong, steady Atlantic winds year round. The project includes a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, an electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines connecting to the mainland power grid. 

    Access a release from DOI with links to a Fact Sheet, Project Site Map, the Secretary's Response to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and additional information on the project (click here). Access the MMS website for the project for complete background information and extensive documents (click here).

Groups React To K-G-L Climate-Energy Bill Setback

Apr 27: Following the abrupt announcement by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that he would be "unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time," [See WIMS 4/26/10] a number of groups and organizations have expressed their opinions on the latest developments. After months in the development, Senator Graham made his announcement just two days before Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Graham were scheduled to reveal their tripartisan American Power Act (K-G-L). Graham said he was upset that the Senate and Administration might make immigration reform a priority over energy and climate legislation. 

    On April 26, major environmental organizations including: Alliance for Climate Protection; Blue Green Alliance; Environment America; Environmental Defense Fund; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; and Union of Concerned Scientists issued a brief joint statement. The groups said, "Everyday the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans are demanding the millions of jobs, energy independence, and clean air and water comprehensive legislation can deliver. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The tireless work of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman is proof positive that bipartisan success is well within reach. The House has passed historic legislation; now it is time for the Senate and the White House to stay focused and finish the job. The moment is ours. Now is the time for our leaders to act."

    Subsequently, on April 27 an expanded group of 31 organizations issued a joint letter to the U.S. Senate. The groups included: 1Sky, Alliance for Climate Protection, American Rivers, Blue Green Alliance, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for International Environmental Law, Clean Water Action, Climate Solutions, Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Green For All, Interfaith Power and Light, Izaak Walton League of America, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Native American Rights Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Pew Environment Group, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Sierra Club, The Trust for Public Land, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund.

    In their letter the groups said, "Special interests have fought energy reform for decades. They've kept America dependent on foreign oil and protected corporations that pollute the air our children breathe and the water they drink. It is long past time to end our reliance on old technology and dirty energy sources and put America back in control of its energy future. Every day that goes by without a comprehensive clean energy and climate policy helps our enemies, hurts our economy and puts our security at risk.

    "Without a bipartisan, comprehensive national clean energy and climate policy, America's businesses are hamstrung and cannot make the investments that will create millions of jobs in the new clean energy sector. Without a comprehensive policy, we cannot achieve the reductions in carbon pollution that are necessary to protect the planet. Without a comprehensive policy, we cannot end the practice of exporting $1 billion a day for foreign oil and will remain at the whim of hostile regimes.

    "The United States Senate stands at a moment in history in which decisions made today will have a lasting impact on generations of Americans to come. The Senate faces a choice between leading America forward in a new clean energy economy or holding America back by preserving the failed energy policies of the past. The Senate has a profound responsibility to future generations to enact policies that enhance our economic, environmental and national security. Now is the time to pass a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. It is up to you to ensure that it happens this year."

    The American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE), an organization representing 3,000 businesses that support the passage of clean energy and climate legislation, issued a statement on the delay in the introduction of K-G-L energy legislation and said, "The American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) strongly urge the U.S. Senate to continue its efforts to move forward with a comprehensive climate and energy bill as soon as possible. American businesses, large and small, are urging Congress to act in order to make the United States a world leader in clean energy technology, reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, and create millions of new jobs. Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have been working diligently to craft a bill that will have bipartisan support. This is a critical moment in the legislative debate. Now, is the time for Senate leadership and its members to act."

    Access the joint release from environmental organizations (click here). Access the release-letter from 31 groups (click here). Access a release from ABCE (click here).