BP Intercepts Some Flow; Disastrous Gulf Oil Spill Continues

BP Intercepts Some Flow; Disastrous Gulf Oil Spill Continues - May 17: In a release and additional information, BP provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico. BP indicates that subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP), and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. The efforts are being carried out in conjunction with governmental authorities and other industry experts.

    The riser insertion tube tool (RITT) containment system was put into place in the end of the leaking riser on May 16. Operations began during the day to allow oil and gas to flow through the tool up to the drillship Discoverer Enterprise on the surface 5,000 feet above. Produced oil, estimated currently at 1,000 barrels per day, is being stored on the drillship while produced gas is being flared. It is expected that it will take some time to increase the flow through the system and maximize the proportion of oil and gas flowing through the broken riser that will be captured and transported to the drillship. It should be noted that, BP and government agencies are still using the figure of 5,000 barrels per day as the rate of the leak; however, other reputable sources are estimating far more (i.e. between 20,000 to 100,000 barrels per day).

    The RITT is a fabricated from 4-inch diameter pipe, fashioned to allow one end to be inserted into the broken riser pipe that is the source of the main oil flow from the MC252 well, and the other to be connected to a drill pipe and riser from the Discoverer Enterprise. The RITT allows the injection of methanol to mitigate against the formation of gas hydrates. This remains a new technology and both its continued operation and its effectiveness in capturing the oil and gas remains uncertain. Other containment options continue to be progressed.

    BP indicates it also continues to develop options to shut off the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the well's failed BOP. Plans continue to be developed for a so called "top kill" operation where heavy drilling fluids are injected into the well to stem the flow of oil and gas, followed by cement to seal the well. Options have also been developed to potentially combine this with so-called "junk shot", the injection under pressure of a variety of materials into the BOP to seal off upward flow. Plans for deployment of these options are being progressed with the possibility of deployment in the next week or so. Work on the first relief well, which began on May 2, continues. The DDII drilling rig began drilling the second relief well on May 16. Each of these wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the commencement of drilling.

 

    BP reports that surface response work continues to collect and disperse oil that has reached the surface of the sea. Over 650 vessels are involved in the response effort, including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels. Intensive operations to skim oil from the surface of the water have now recovered, in total, some 151,000 barrels (6.3 million gallons) of oily liquid. The total length of boom deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil reaching the coast is now almost 1.7 million feet, including over 400,000 feet of sorbent boom. In total over 19,000 personnel from BP, other companies and government agencies are currently involved in the response to the incident. BP said that so far 15,000 claims have been filed and 2,600 have already been paid. BP has also received almost 60,000 calls into its help lines.

 

    Meanwhile concerns have been raised about reports of a large subsurface mass of oil. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco issued a statement on the ongoing efforts to monitor subsea impacts of the BP Oil Spill and said, "Media reports related to the research work conducted aboard the R/V Pelican included information that was misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate. Yesterday the independent scientists clarified three important points: (1) No definitive conclusions have been reached by this research team about the composition of the undersea layers they discovered. Characterization of these layers will require analysis of samples and calibration of key instruments. The hypothesis that the layers consist of oil remains to be verified.

    "(2) While oxygen levels detected in the layers were somewhat below normal, they are not low enough to be a source of concern at this time. (3) Although their initial interest in searching for subsurface oil was motivated by consideration of subsurface use of dispersants, there is no information to connect use of dispersants to the subsurface layers they discovered. NOAA thanks the Pelican scientists and crew for repurposing their previously scheduled mission to gather information about possible impacts of the BP oil spill. We eagerly await results from their analyses and share with them the goal of disseminating accurate information. 

    "NOAA continues to work closely with EPA and the federal response team to monitor the presence of oil and the use of surface and sub-surface dispersants. As we have emphasized, dispersants are not a silver bullet. They are used to move us towards the lesser of two environmental outcomes. Until the flow of oil is stemmed, we must take every responsible action to reduce the impact of the oil."

    This afternoon (May 17), Janet Napolitano, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rear Admiral Peter Neffenger, Deputy National Incident Commander, U.S. Coast Guard; and Lamar McKay, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc. testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) with Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME). 

    Also today, U.S. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard announced they have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. The agencies said oil spill dispersants are chemicals that attempt to break down the oil into small drops and prevent it from reaching the surface or the U.S. shoreline. The agencies said, "Dispersants are generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil leaking from the source and they biodegrade in a much shorter time span. The use of the dispersant at the source of the leak represents a novel approach to addressing the significant environmental threat posed by the spill. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsea use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface – and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas."

    Access the latest BP update release (click here). Access a fact sheet on the RITT (click here). Access the statement from the NOAA Administrator (click here). Access the Committee on Homeland Security website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access a release from EPA & the Coast Guard with links to additional information (click here). Access the joint command website for continuous updates, briefings, photos and more (click here). Access 40 high resolution Reuters photos that capture the Gulf disaster (click here).

EPA Finalizes "Tailoring Rule" For Major Source GHG Permitting

May 13: The U.S. EPA announced a final rule to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the largest stationary sources, but, they said it would shield "millions of small sources of GHGs from Clean Air Act permitting requirements." The controversial, phased-in, rule, which EPA called a "common-sense approach," will address facilities like power plants and oil refineries that are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gases from stationary sources that threaten American's health and welfare [See WIMS 10/1/09].

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, "After extensive study, debate and hundreds of thousands of public comments, EPA has set common-sense thresholds for greenhouse gases that will spark clean technology innovation and protect small businesses and farms. There is no denying our responsibility to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's long past time we unleashed our American ingenuity and started building the efficient, prosperous clean energy economy of the future." EPA said the phased-in approach will start in January 2011, when Clean Air Act permitting requirements for GHGs will kick in for large facilities that are already obtaining Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants. Those facilities will be required to include GHGs in their permit if they increase these emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (tpy).

    In July 2011, Clean Air Act permitting requirements will expand to cover all new facilities with GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tpy and modifications at existing facilities that would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies to minimize GHG emission increases when facilities are constructed or significantly modified. Under the new emissions thresholds for GHGs that begin in July 2011, EPA estimates approximately 900 additional permitting actions covering new sources and modifications to existing sources would be subject to review each year. In addition, 550 sources will need to obtain operating permits for the first time because of their GHG emissions.

    The final rule addresses a group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). EPA issued a proposed rule in October 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received about 450,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of this final rule. When EPA originally proposed the rule the Administrator announced it would cover large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year. At that time EPA estimated that approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits that include GHG emissions.

    In a fact sheet, EPA explains, "The rule establishes a schedule that will initially focus CAA permitting programs on the largest sources with the most CAA permitting experience. The rule then expands to cover the largest sources of GHG that may not have been previously covered by the CAA for other pollutants. Finally, it describes EPA plans for any additional steps in this process. The CAA permitting program emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, are 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy). While these thresholds are appropriate for criteria pollutants, they are not feasible for GHGs because GHGs are emitted in much higher volumes. Without this tailoring rule, the lower emissions thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs on January 2, 2011. PSD and title V requirements at these thresholds would lead to dramatic increases in the number of required permits -- tens of thousands of PSD permits and millions of title V permits. State, local, and tribal permitting authorities would be overwhelmed and the programs' abilities to manage air quality would be severely impaired."

 

    The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued a statement on the rule saying, "We are extraordinarily concerned about EPA's plans for regulating stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA), as outlined in the 'tailoring rule' released today. By 2016, as many as six million U.S. sources of greenhouse gas emissions could be required to obtain a permit to build or modify facilities. This would include many of America's smallest sources, such as a new 100,000-square-foot hotel, a new restaurant, a major source that wants to add a gas furnace or space heater, a large commercial property with a $5,000 monthly natural gas bill, and nearly every chemical facility in the country. The approach could delay or cancel much-needed business investment, including energy efficiency-related projects that could help reduce the nation's GHG emissions. With EPA's plans for stationary source regulation now clear, we call on Congress to enact legislation to revisit this policy immediately. We look forward to working with lawmakers in this urgent effort. . ."

    The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) Executive Vice President and General Counsel Gregory Scott said. "It's the job of federal agencies like EPA to regulate, not legislate. If EPA wants changes in the Clean Air Act it should propose them to Congress, not unlawfully take on the role of Congress. EPA has adopted a tortured and legally unsupportable interpretation of the plain wording of the Clean Air Act in an effort to escape a regulatory train wreck of its own creation. If EPA is allowed to get away with this, it sets a dangerous precedent for unelected officials in federal agencies to change laws approved by the elected representatives of the American people. EPA created this regulatory mess when it decided, based on a questionable administrative record, to use the Clean Air Act for a purpose the authors of the law never intended -- to regulate greenhouse gases. However, now that EPA has started down this path, it does not have the right to pick and choose between portions of the law that fit its activist agenda and those that do not. Only Congress can rewrite the Clean Air Act."

    The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) issued a release saying, "The rule would raise the threshold for permitting requirements from the statute's threshold of 250 tons to 75,000 tons, in the process exempting thousands of pollution sources that collectively account for millions of tons of greenhouse pollution each year." Kassie Siegel, CBD's Climate Law Institute director said, "The EPA should be moving boldly, quickly, and confidently to implement the Clean Air Act's successful pollution-reduction programs for greenhouse gases.  We're extremely disappointed with the EPA's slow and tentative timeline for addressing the climate crisis. While everyone agrees that greenhouse reductions for the largest polluters must be prioritized, the EPA can and should move far more quickly to reduce pollution from the other very important sources. Rather than rapidly employ the full scope of it authorities under the Clean Air Act to address the climate crisis with the urgency it deserves, with this rule the EPA seems intent on moving as slowly as possible."

    Maggie Fox, President and CEO of The Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) founded in 2006 by Al Gore, said, "Americans can breathe a bit easier in the wake of today's announcement from the EPA on regulating emissions from the largest sources of greenhouse gas pollution causing the climate crisis. This rule is a common-sense and cost-effective approach that will shield small businesses and small sources, and focus on the largest emitters. Coupled with historic national carbon pollution limits for cars, a first-ever mandatory greenhouse gas inventory, and efforts in the Senate to craft comprehensive clean energy and climate policies, America is closer to realizing the promise of a 21st-century clean energy economy."

    Senior Legislative Representative Kyle Ash of Greenpeace USA said, "This final "tailoring" rule is a first step toward reducing the devastating impact of the nation's biggest smokestacks on the planet's climate, oceans, and quality of life. The Clean Air Act has been successfully used to reduce pollution for four decades. Now, three years after the Supreme Court ruled that EPA must come to grips with this problem, we will finally see needed requirements to reduce carbon dioxide pollution  caused by the burning of coal and other fossil fuels at large facilities like power plants and incinerators.

    Access a release from EPA (click here). Access complete details including the 550-page prepublication copy of the final rule, a fact sheet, a timeline and summary of permitting burdens with and without the rule (click here). Access the complete ACC statement (click here). Access the NPRA statement (click here). Access a release and background from CBD (click here). Access the statement from ACP (click here). Access a release from Greenpeace USA (click here).

More Reactions To Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act

May 12: At the roll out of the long-awaited details of their comprehensive energy and climate change legislation -- the 987-page American Power Act -- Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), said the legislation would "create jobs, strengthen America's energy independence, safeguard our national security, and restore our global economic leadership for decades to come." The Senators also said The bill is "supported by a wide and deep coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, political leaders and others." In yesterday's coverage of the roll out WIMS included many statements from a diverse groups of supporters [See WIMS 5/12/10]. The following includes a number of additional statements -- many of which are unsure or not supporting the legislation.

 

    Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) said: "The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates the urgent need to free our nation from its heavy dependence on oil and to create new clean energy industries and technologies. All Americans would benefit from a comprehensive national energy plan that creates millions of clean energy jobs, improves our national security and reduces pollution. . . As I work with Senators Kerry and Lieberman, the relevant committee chairs and the White House to move this process forward, I welcome the ideas of my colleagues to strengthen this proposal. To be successful we will need significant bipartisan cooperation, and I am hopeful Republicans will join us in working to further develop this bill so that it has broad support and can pass this year."

 

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who dropped out of the tripartisan effort with Senators Kerry and Lieberman issued a statement saying, " 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. While I have not seen the changes made by Senators Kerry and Lieberman to the final product, I look forward to reviewing their proposal in regards to offshore drilling, the transportation sector, and other issues. I believe the broad concepts we came up with before are transformational and are the most consumer and business-friendly effort to date in dealing with carbon pollution. Most importantly, they can serve as a framework in allowing America to lead in the creation of alternative energy jobs and significantly reducing our dependency on foreign oil. With these goals in mind, I am interested in carefully reviewing the details of the new proposal."

    There was no immediate reaction from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), persistent critic on the climate change issue and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said: ". . .it's the same old cap-and-trade scheme that the Senate has defeated three times since 2003," Senator Inhofe said. "In fact, it has a strong resemblance to the disastrous Waxman-Markey bill.  Only now, along with paying skyrocketing electricity prices, consumers will pay a gas tax. . . The sooner we reject global warming cap-and-trade legislation, and get to work on an all-of the-above energy policy, the sooner the American public will have access to affordable, abundant, American-made energy."

 

    The Price Carbon Campaign including the Carbon Tax Center, Climate Crisis Coalition,  Citizens Climate Lobby and others which supports the "People's Climate Stewardship Act," i.e. "a "simple" carbon tax. proposed by Dr. James Hansen at the Climate Rally in Washington, DC, on April 25 [See WIMS 4/26/10] said: "The Kerry-Lieberman bill fails the acid test of climate legislation, which is to provide clear signals on emission prices. Investors, entrepreneurs and households all need certainty in future fuel and energy prices, but Kerry-Lieberman hides these crucial price signals behind a curtain of cap-and-trade. . . Instead of making needed investments in renewable energy, utilities will have the much cheaper option of investing in third-world projects aimed at cutting carbon. Most of these offsets do nothing to reduce current emissions, and they allow polluters in the U.S. to keep burning coal and other dirty fuels."

 

    The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) issued a statement saying the proposal reflects months of back-room negotiations between the senators, major polluters, and other Washington insiders. They said, "The climate proposal put forth today by Senators Kerry and Lieberman represents a disaster for our climate and planet. This proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back in any rational effort to address the climate crisis. The senators' proposal would entrench our addiction to fossil fuels by offering incentives for increased oil and gas drilling just days after what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history. . . The senators' weak targets will not reduce carbon pollution to below 350 ppm from its current level of 391 ppm. . ."

 

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) said: "This broad proposal reflects the complex relationship between the U.S. energy system and greenhouse gas emissions which come from every car, home, factory and farm in America. We are reviewing the released text to assess the proposal's possible impact on jobs, energy production, and consumers of oil and natural gas. However, until full legislative language has been thoroughly analyzed, any assessment would be guess work at best. We need reliable data and estimates on how the draft legislation would affect energy production, energy prices, consumers' budgets and the broader economy, in order to judge it on its merits. Moving away from the House Waxman-Markey approach was imperative. . ."

 

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, "The Chamber supports efforts to address energy security and climate change, and believes that any legislation must be comprehensive and bipartisan, and take into account a wide spectrum of issues including American jobs and our economy. . . The Kerry-Lieberman bill is a work in progress. Few in Congress or the business community have had a chance to review the entire bill. Once all the details of the bill are known, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the business community will need sufficient time to analyze the bill to ascertain its effects on the economy, jobs, the environment, and energy markets. As we undertake our own analysis of the legislation, we will work with our diverse membership to assess its impact on the business community. It will be critical to determine how this bill will impact a broad range of industries as well as America's energy security."

 

    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) said it cannot support the APA and said: "The bill will raise the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel without significantly reducing the output of carbon dioxide by the trucking industry, which is a non-discretionary user of diesel fuel. The Senate bill would require refiners to purchase billions of dollars worth of carbon allowances that correspond to the carbon footprint of the fuels they sell.  The refiners will then pass this cost on to consumers in the form of higher fuel prices.  As such, the Senate bill operates as a hidden multi-billion-dollar tax. . ."

 

    The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) said the APA should be rejected and indicated: "The draconian carbon reduction targets and timetables in this bill would trigger destructive change in America's economic climate. This would add billions of dollars in energy costs for American families and businesses, destroy the jobs of millions of American workers, and make our nation more dependent on foreign energy sources. America is a nation, not a planet, so it's a fantasy to pretend that restricting our carbon dioxide emissions will improve the environment if China, India and other large and rapidly industrializing nations don't adopt the same restrictions. Carbon dioxide doesn't stop at national borders. If senators want to increase the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States and postpone the resurgence of the American economy, then they should vote for this bill. . ."

 

    The American Materials Manufacturing Alliance (AMMA), a group of energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries (EITEs) that includes The Aluminum Association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and Portland Cement Association (PCA), issued a statement saying: "We believe that compared with past bills, the legislation released today invests more in U.S. manufacturing competitiveness.  However, in several key areas, more must be done to ensure the global competitiveness of EITEs and the retention of American jobs. . . the funding must be boosted significantly to meet the objective of keeping U.S. manufacturing competitive.  The bill also does not address increased energy costs: cost containment is key to preventing the transfer of U.S. manufacturing production and jobs to more carbon-intensive developing nations, known as 'carbon leakage.' . . Instead of fully pre-empting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act, the bill preempts regulation only under specific sections, and only for 'covered' stationary sources. . .  The bill falls short of the uniformity needed to prevent uncertainty and delay in investments . . ."

 

    The blog, The Wonk Room, has posted an interesting table that compares key elements of Obama's campaign promises from 2007 and 2008, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act as passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 2454), and the elements of the Kerry-Lieberman draft legislation (see link below). Also, the U.S. Climate Action Network (USCAN) has established an APA website that includes the statements of many groups and organizations as well as letters, documents, links, analysis, videos, timelines and more.

 

    Access the statement from Senator Reid (click here). Access the statement from Senator Graham (click here). Access the statement from Senator Inhofe (click here). Access a release from the Price Carbon Campaign with links to other organizations (click here). Access the CBD statement (click here). Access the API statement (click here). Access a posting from the U.S. Chamber (click here). Access the ATA statement (click here). Access the statement from NPRA (click here). Access the statement from AMMA (click here). Access Senator Kerry's American Power Act website for links to complete information on the legislation (click here). Access the Wonk Room post (click here). Access the USCAN APA website (click here).

Kerry & Lieberman Roll Out The American Power Act

May 12: Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released the long-awaited details of their comprehensive energy and climate change legislation which they said would "create jobs, strengthen America's energy independence, safeguard our national security, and restore our global economic leadership for decades to come." [See WIMS 5/7/10]. The previous roll out of the bill, scheduled for April 28, was cancelled when Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), part of tripartisan Senate coalition with Senators Kerry and  Lieberman, announced that he would be "unable to move forward on energy independence legislation at this time." [See WIMS 4/2/10].

 

    Senator Kerry said, "The American Power Act will finally change our nation's energy policy from a national weakness into a national strength. We can finally tell the world that America is ready to take back our role as the world's clean energy leader. This is a bill for energy independence after a devastating oil spill, a bill to hold polluters accountable, a bill for billions of dollars to create the next generation of jobs, and a bill to end America's addiction to foreign oil and protect the air our children breathe and the water they drink. The path to 60 votes in the Senate has been long, but despite Washington conventional wisdom, we are closer than ever to a breakthrough. Two Congresses ago, we had 38 votes for energy and climate legislation. Last Congress we had 54 Senators prepared to vote yes. Now we're asking this Senate to hold a debate and insist on a vote again, with a fundamentally new policy approach that should secure bi-partisan support. This is the time. We have a House bill already passed. We have a never-before-seen coalition from across America, including key stakeholders embracing energy and climate legislation for the first time ever. They aren't giving up, they're doubling down. They understand this isn't a choice, it's a necessity, and we're going to get it done this year."

 

    Senator Lieberman said, "The American Power Act is fundamentally different from previous energy and climate bills -- and not just because it will be the one that actually passes. Our bill will create jobs and transform the American economy; make our country more energy independent, which in turn will strengthen our national security; and improve the quality of the air we breathe. We are proud to have support from a growing and unprecedented coalition of business, national security, faith, and environmental communities, who are energized to work hard to pass this bill this year. America has a lot to gain from getting started now."

 

    Information released by Senators Kerry and Lieberman indicated that the American Power Act will transform our economy, set us on the path toward energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. It will create millions of good jobs that cannot be shipped abroad and it will launch America into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy.

 

    The bills approach sets an "achievable national pollution reduction target and refunds the money raised right back to American consumers and American businesses." The Senators indicated, "This is not a plan that enriches Wall Street speculators. And this is certainly not a plan to grow the government. It is a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence. It is time for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to come together to pass legislation that will create American jobs and achieve energy security, while reducing carbon pollution by 17 percent in 2020 and by over 80 percent in 2050." The Senators said the bill is supported by a wide and deep coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, political leaders and others.

 

    The Senators released supporting statements from: T. Boone Pickens; National Resources Defense Council; Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; PSEG; NRG Energy, Inc.; Solazyme, Inc.; Firelake Capital Management LLC; SynGest Inc.; Republicans for Environmental Protection; A123Systems; Operation Free; Exelon; General Electric; a joint statement from many environmental organizations including Alliance for Climate Protection, Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, ENE (Environment Northeast), Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Fresh Energy, Green For All, League of Conservation Voters, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oxfam America, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, and World Wildlife Fund; Nuclear Energy Institute; The Timberland Company; The Climate Group; Nike; Renewable Energy Markets Association; Entergy Corporation; National Farmers Union; PG&E Corporation; DuPont; Shell Oil; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Duke Energy; and Dow Corning.

 

    The Senators released a number of document including: the full text of the bill; a short summary of the bill.; a section by section summary of the bill; a one page explanation of the bill's support for American manufacturing; a one page explanation of the bill's section on transportation and refined products; a one page explanation of the bill's push to free us from our addiction to foreign oil; a one page explanation of the bill's help for American consumers; a press release announcing the introduction of the bill; and a 9-page listing of brief supporting statements of what people are saying about the bill.

 

    According to summary information, the legislation will create American jobs and achieve energy security, while reducing carbon pollution by 17 percent in 2020 and by over 80 percent in 2050. Our plan is based on five simple principles:

• First: Consumers will come out on top. The American Power Act sends two-thirds of all revenues not dedicated to reducing our nation's deficit back to consumers from day one. The rest is spent ensuring a smooth transition for American businesses and investing in projects and technologies to reduce emissions and advance our energy security. In the later years of the program, every penny not spent to reduce the deficit will go directly back to consumers.
• Second: We need energy made in America. Today we spend almost one billion dollars every day on foreign oil, much of which is sent to regimes that are hostile to our nation and our interests. That is money we should be investing here at home. The American Power Act invests in technology to harness domestic power supplies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
• Third: America needs to regain its competitive edge and lead the global clean energy economy. America enjoys an abundance of home-grown energy sources: coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. Each will play a critical role in our clean energy future. By investing in innovation across all energy sources, we will create millions of jobs rebuilding our energy infrastructure as we reinvigorate our manufacturing base, which will be called upon to produce the clean energy technologies of tomorrow.
• Fourth: We need a new approach to reducing emissions that recognizes the different needs of our different industries. The American Power Act includes separate, targeted mechanisms for the three major emitting sectors: power plants, heavy industry and transportation. Each approach is tailor-made to ensure a smooth transition into our collective clean energy future.
• Fifth: The system must be simple, stable and secure. We only address the largest sources of carbon pollution and we provide predictability to businesses and consumers through a hard price collar and the creation of a single, clear set of rules. Our carbon market structure eliminates the possibility of manipulation, which will mean a secure, well-functioning market system.

    A few highlights included in the bill are: one clear set of rules for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; States will not be permitted to operate cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse gases; a hard price collar which binds carbon prices and creates a predictable system for carbon prices to rise at a fixed rate over inflation; Introductory floor and ceiling prices are set at $12 (increasing at 3 percent over inflation annually) and $25 (increasing at 5 percent over inflation annually), respectively; $7 billion annually to improve our transportation infrastructure and efficiency, including our highways and mass transit systems; new protections for coastal states by allowing them to opt-out of drilling up to 75 miles from their shores; directly impacted states can veto drilling plans if they stand to suffer significant adverse impacts in the event of an accident; States that do pursue drilling will receive 37.5 percent of revenues to help protect their coastlines and coastal ecosystems;

 

    In 2016, energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries receive allowances to offset both their direct and indirect compliance costs; expanding the clean energy manufacturing tax credit by $5 billion; Farmers are exempt from the carbon pollution compliance obligations in the bill; establish a new multi-billion dollar revenue stream for the agricultural sector through a domestic offset program that provides incentives for farmers to reduce emissions on their land; annual incentives of $2 billion per year for researching and developing effective carbon capture and sequestration methods and devices; removing disincentives for natural gas generation at merchant plants; a broad package of financial incentives to increase nuclear power generation including regulatory risk insurance for 12 projects; The bill only requires the largest sources of pollution to comply with reduction targets: those who produce more than 25,000 tons of carbon pollution annually. This means the program only focuses on 7,500 factories and power plants.

 

    Access Senator Kerry's American Power Act website for links to the various documents released (click here).

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).