Will Trump's Offshore Drilling Plan Defeat Him in 2020

Trump's dangerous offshore drilling policies could bring a major oil spill to a coast near you.

To date the Trump/Pence regime has shown time and time again that it puts the financial interest of big business groups be they coal, oil or pharmaceuticals, ahead of the interests and health of average American voters.  To try to save the moribund coal industry, Trump has been rolling back clean air and clean water regulations with no concern about the health care nightmares increased air and water pollution will American citizens.  All that matters is further lining the pockets of big business.  Now, Trump is pushing for offshore drilling from Florida northward along the Atlantic coast, including Virginia (which along with Maryland will be harmed by Trump's efforts to eliminate funding for the cleaning up of the Chesapeake Bay) despite the strong opposition from residents of the states that would be severely harmed by a major oil spill in their offshore waters.   A piece in Politico looks at how this highly unpopular plan could see Trump lose his 2020 re-election effort with particular emphasis on Florida.  Here are article highlights:

The Trump administration is considering auctioning off Florida’s coastal waters for oil and gas drilling — and Republicans are warning it could cost the president dearly in Florida in the 2020 election.

An industry lobbying offensive has put it on the cusp of achieving its holy grail: access to the resource-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico. The idea is so politically toxic in Florida that past presidents haven't even entertained it. But behind the scenes, oil and gas interests are appealing to Trump's desire to turbo-charge U.S. energy production, including his past openness to drilling off the Florida coast.

But giving it the green light would be tantamount to a declaration of war on his second home state, given the uniform opposition from Florida Republicans, including prominent allies like Sen. Rick Scott, Gov. Ron DeSantis and others.  “He would have a price to pay for that,” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump supporter, told POLITICO.

Multiple oil and gas industry sources told POLITICO that the eastern Gulf, along with the Atlantic coast, are included in the administration’s current five-year off-shore drilling proposal, which hasn’t yet been released.

The administration's position was muddied when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke held an elaborately staged Jan. 2018 meeting with Scott, then Florida's governor, to declare the state wouldn’t be on the drilling map. The announcement was seen as a favor to boost Scott’s electoral fortunes in his ultimately successful challenge against Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson, who tried to use environmental issues to separate himself from the Republican challenger.

Trump was upset by the announcement. People familiar with his reaction said Zinke’s statement came without White House approval and contradicted the administration’s “energy dominance” message.

Both parties in Florida oppose offshore drilling. Memories of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which sent tarballs ashore in Florida, bring fears of a future spill damaging the state’s fisheries and tourism. Many in the state also say drilling would conflict with military exercises in the area.

Offshore drilling is broadly unpopular in Florida. A Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters released March 13 showed 64 percent oppose the practice. Republicans, though, supported it by a 54-38 percent margin. A ballot measure banning oil and gas development in state waters passed overwhelmingly in November.

“I’m going to do everything I can to make sure Florida remains off the table,” Scott told POLITICO in an interview earlier this month. “I’ve been very clear to let the White House know where I stand. This is very important to me.“

The current plan includes a “buffer” to keep rigs at least 100 miles from Florida’s shoreline, according to industry representatives. They said they plan to present Trump with several options for each of the major regions to be covered under the plan, including the mid-Atlantic and Pacific.

Florida lawmakers from both parties have signed numerous letters rejecting offshore drilling, no matter how far from the state’s shoreline. Many also have pushed back on what’s known as seismic testing, a precursor to drilling that involves blasting sonar from boats toward the seafloor to search for buried oil and gas deposits. Both chambers of the state legislature are moving resolutions rejecting offshore drilling in the Gulf.

“We don’t want to see any of it in the Gulf, I don’t want to see any of it on the Atlantic side, which is where I represent,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) told POLITICO. “We’re not looking for Deepwater Horizons off of Jensen Beach, Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale Beach, Fort Pierce Beach, and we don’t want to see it out there in the Gulf.”

Even DeSantis, whom Trump endorsed in a crowded Republican primary last year, signed an executive order in January committing the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to “adamantly oppose” offshore drilling. Pressure on Republicans to oppose drilling has only grown since DeSantis was elected in November, as Democrats have homed in on fighting climate change.

“It seems hard to believe that the administration would move forward with drilling off the coast of Florida less than two years before a presidential election,” said Alex Conant, a partner at Firehouse Strategies and former aide to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “It would certainly be an issue that Democrats would try to use against [Trump] throughout the state.”

Trump cares nothing about the environmental damage his horrible regime's policies are causing or the health harms done to average Americans.  More dollars to oil companies and plutocrats is all that matters. 

Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan Roils East Coast Communities

This could be the Virginia Beach oceanfront under Trump/GOP offshore drilling proposals.

Looking from my bedroom window, I can see across Hampton Roads harbor to the Norfolk Naval Base. Behind the house, we own 4.6 acres of tidal creek and marsh.  The tide that impacts these areas flow in through the mouth of Chesapeake Bay from the Atlantic Ocean all the way into the far reaches of our marshland.  A significant offshore oil spill could wreak horrific damage to not only our property, but to tourism in Virginia Beach and across the region and also devastate the local seafood industry.  The economic losses and property losses could extend into the hundreds of millions, if not more.  Yet, up and down the East Coast of America the Trump/Pence regime is pushing to open up huge areas to offshore drilling, putting local environments and economies at huge potential risk.  From Virginia on south, the opposition from local communities is near complete to the proposal.  The exception: Trump supporting Republicans like Virginia 2nd District Republican Scott Taylor who supported offshore drilling until recently (if, of course, Taylor's word can be believe - my vote is that it cannot since he votes with Trump 98% of the time) when confronted with his opponent, Elaine Luria's staunch opposition to potentially catastrophic offshore drilling.   If one opposes offshore drilling, the best way to stop it is to vote for Democrats like Elaine Luria and Tim Kaine and send Trump/Pence a strong message by flipping control of the House of Representatives (and ideally the Senate). Here are excerpts from The Atlantic that looks at Trump's dangerous effort to endanger our coastlines:

Carteret County sits in a region of North Carolina known as the Crystal Coast. It’s celebrated for its charming lighthouses, sun-bleached beaches, and relaxed atmosphere. The population is 89.9 percent white and staunchly Republican.

President Trump won the county in 2016 with 71 percent of the vote. But he has touched off an insurrection among the GOP faithful here on the issue of offshore drilling, which the county almost universally views as a threat to tourism. In that, Carteret is typical of areas up and down the Eastern Seaboard, where opposition to the Trump administration’s proposed plan to allow offshore drilling in nearly all U.S. coastal waters has become a top issue in the 2018 midterms. . . . . people are very aware “how important tourism, and the quality of life, is for our market,” he continued. “That really is our life blood.”

In Carteret County, six municipalities have already passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling and seismic testing, a controversial technique used to pinpoint petroleum deposits in the ocean floor. So have local governments in other states.

“Everyone is pretty much united” in opposition, Kies explained. And with the midterms approaching, Republicans up and down the ballot are breaking from the party line to oppose the president’s proposed plan.  

In Republican and Democratic areas alike, residents, legislators, and advocacy organizations held town halls, protested on beaches, and lobbied Washington. The military expressed concern that drilling would impact their operations off of Florida and Virginia. By the end of 2016, the Obama administration revised its plan, removing the Atlantic from the leasing program, and invoked an obscure law to ban drilling in much of the Atlantic and the Arctic.  

“It really was like a bipartisan thing,” said Alex Taurel, the conservation program director for the League of Conservation Voters. “It really translated into kind of changing the politics of offshore drilling in the Atlantic, over the course of the Obama era into this Trump era.”

The threat of an oil spill looms large; few have forgotten the damage the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster inflicted on the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, there have been 4,105 reported offshore explosions, fires, collisions, and spills, resulting in 13 deaths, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. In 2017 alone, there were 10 offshore spills.

“We could not recover from an oil spill in North Carolina,” said Bob Woodard, the chairman of the Board of Commissioners in Dare County. Woodard, who supports Trump, strongly opposes offshore drilling and says opposition in the county is “overwhelming.”

Trump issued an executive order revoking the Obama-era ban on Arctic and Atlantic drilling in April 2017, and in January of this year the Interior Department proposed a new five-year plan that included almost all American coastal waters.

Following these policy changes, offshore drilling opposition has only grown in the Southeast, and it’s front and center in some congressional campaigns this year. Candidates who’d previously expressed support for drilling now find themselves on the defensive—and have, in some cases, switched their positions.

One example can be found in Virginia’s 2nd congressional district, where Navy veteran and Democrat Elaine Luria is running to unseat Republican incumbent Scott Taylor. Her campaign has significantly featured her resistance to offshore drilling.

During Taylor’s first run for Congress in 2010, he supported drilling, before reversing that stance earlier this year. “I’m a representative,” Taylor explained to me. “In my district, all the localities passed resolutions [against drilling]. The tourism industry, the military has an issue, obviously various environmental groups, fishing industry, shellfish industry, are just about unanimously opposed to it.”

In South Carolina, offshore drilling and seismic testing have taken center stage in the first congressional district, which runs from the North Carolina border to Seabrook Island along the coast. It has one of the state’s most watched elections: Republican Representative Mark Sanford, who has long opposed offshore drilling, was defeated by primary challenger Katie Arrington, who framed herself as the Trumpian candidate.

But in June, she flipped her position (though she recently suggested she has always held that stance).

The change was a conspicuous one. Since June, five district mayors—all Republicans or independents—have endorsed her Democratic opponent in the general election, Joe Cunningham, due to his opposition to offshore drilling.

Even South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, who was the first and highest-ranking state official in the country to back Trump’s campaign in 2016, opposes drilling and seismic testing. “Opposition to offshore drilling is just about a political necessity these days,” said John Tynan, the executive director of Conservation Voters of South Carolina.

Offshore drilling is also a prominent issue in the Florida Senate race between Republican Governor Rick Scott and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. Both candidates have emphasized their opposition, though Scott, like Arrington, has been accused of flip-flopping.

Though Zinke has signaled that the Trump administration’s revised plan will likely be scaled back, a second wave of backlash is anticipated if Atlantic drilling remains on the table. And depending on when the report is released, it could have even more consequences for the midterm elections.

Again, do not take chances.  Make sure you are registered to vote and vote Democrat in November, 2018.  Your region's economic safety could depend on it.

2018 Democratic Wave Likely to Be a True Tsunami in California

With most indicators predicting a likely Democrat wave in the 2018 mid-term elections, things look even worse for Republicans in California where the wave is expected to be a veritable tsunami.  A government shutdown tomorrow due to Republicans - who control both houses of Congress - seemingly unable to pass a budget resolution will only worsen an already bleak outlook for the GOP.  The Trump/Pence decision to open the coast to offshore drilling - something equally unpopular in Virginia - only adds to the toxicity of the GOP with voters.  A piece in New York Magazine looks at the likely bloodbath for Republicans in California.  Here are highlights:

Everyone knows how strongly Democratic California is, but it’s amazing how quickly and thoroughly the Donkey Party has monopolized political power in the Golden State.

As recently as 2010, California’s governor, lieutenant governor, and state treasurer were all Republicans. Now Democrats hold every statewide elected office. In 2010 there were 19 Republican U.S. House members in the state. Now there are 14. In 2010 there were 15 Republicans in the State Senate and 32 in the State Assembly. Those numbers are now down to 13 and 25. The losing Republican presidential nominees each won 37 percent of the popular vote in California, in 2008 and 2012. The winning Republican presidential nominee took 31 percent of the vote in California in 2016.

Bad as these trends look for the GOP, they are very likely to get worse this November — possibly a lot worse. In a thorough analysis of California’s political climate, Reid Wilson describes 2018 as a “perfect storm” for Democrats. The term we will soon begin to hear is tsunami, to distinguish California from the Democratic “wave” that’s developing nationally.

[T]he few assets Republicans carry into the midterms nationally probably won’t help much in California. The GOP’s signature piece of legislation, the tax bill, is viewed very negatively in California, where it will limit or deny state and local income and property deductions to an estimated 2.5 million taxpayers. And the humming economy is more likely to be credited to California’s own Democratic leadership than to Trump, partly because the state is so large and partly because state leaders have defied Trump’s policies wherever possible.

Trump himself is extremely unpopular in the state: . . . . Just 28 percent of adults approve of Trump’s job performance, according to a December survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. . . . . Two-thirds of independents disapproved of Trump’s performance, and 57 percent of all voters said they strongly disapproved.

Most ominously for Republicans, the state’s top-two primary system, which places the top two finishers in a nonpartisan primary on the ballot in the general election, is very likely to produce a November ballot with no Republicans running for the top two positions, governor and U.S. senator. No prominent Republican appears likely to run against Dianne Feinstein and her Democratic challenger state senate leader Kevin de Leon.

Having nothing but Democrats at the top of the ballot could be disastrous for Republican turnout, while contributing to what will probably be high levels of Democratic enthusiasm in the state. . . . .The top-of-the-ballot vacuum will add to the many problems of Republican U.S. House members from marginal districts, seven of which were carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

California’s move toward a system in which most voters automatically receive mail ballots could erode one remaining GOP advantage: the tendency of Republican-leaning voters to participate at higher rates in non-presidential elections than their Democratic counterparts.

With all these problems, California Republicans are in real danger of becoming a marginal factor as voters become accustomed to Democrats as the natural governing party in the state — particularly if they succumb to the temptation of going Full Trump and spending their time lashing their fellow Californians for being godless hippie terrorist-coddling sanctuary city supporters. Republicans self-destructed in the state once before, in the 1990s, when Pete Wilson identified his party with anti-immigrant policies. If they now become the loud-and-proud “deplorables,” then their exile in the political wilderness could last for a long, long time.

North Carolina and Virginia Businesses Oppose Atlantic Offshore Drilling

Outer Banks beach

If one lives in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia or the Outer Banks of North Carolina, after the military and the U.S. government spending, the number one driver of the economy is tourism, especially tourism focused on the regions' beaches and waterways.  As I have noted before on this blog, years ago I was in-house counsel for a Fortune 50 company's oil and gas subsidiary, so I do know a thing or two about oil and gas explorations and offshore drilling (I even negotiated concession agreements with foreign governments).  While no oil company wants a drilling disaster, as the BP nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico made clear, accidents do happen and the economic and environmental consequences are dire.    Here are highlights from Think Progress on opposition to Atlantic offshore drilling:

For coastal companies that depend on a healthy stream of tourists to keep business healthy, the prospect of drilling in the Atlantic Ocean means one thing: spills that will sully beaches and drive visitors away.

More than 300 Atlantic coast businesses sent a letter to President Obama Thursday, urging him to take back his administration’s proposal to allow drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. In January, the Obama administration announced a proposal to sell oil and gas leases in offshore sites from Virginia to Georgia.

In the letter, the businesses outline the economic risk posed by offshore drilling, saying that monetary losses due to lost tourism revenue could be “devastating.” They also note that the Energy Information Administration estimates that the Atlantic Ocean holds only about 209 days’ worth of oil and 13 months’ worth of natural gas.

“Offshore drilling is incompatible with our tourism and fishing industries. When you drill, you spill, and day to day drilling operations result in chronic pollution and the industrialization of the coast for oil facilities,” the letter reads. “Look no further than the devastation the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe brought to the Gulf of Mexico’s fishing, tourism and wildlife to recognize the impact drilling would have here on the Atlantic Coast.”

Jeff Downey, owner of the Savannah, Georgia restaurant Circa 1875 and one of the signatories of the letter, said on a press call Thursday that about 85 percent of his business during the summer comes from tourists.
“If they allow offshore drilling, it will ruin our coasts first of all, and people will just stop coming,” he said. Savannah is in a hurricane zone, he said, and though hurricanes there have been rare over the last century, he worries a major storm could damage a drilling rig and cause a spill.

Cola Vaughan, owner of Cola Vaughan Realty on North Carolina’s Outer Banks, was another one of the business owners who signed on to the letter. He said businesses in the Outer Banks depend heavily on pristine beaches to attract visitors, and that even a “perceived threat” of spills would cause potential vacationers to think twice about choosing the Outer Banks.
It makes sense for businesses to be worried about a major spill. The Deepwater Horizon disaster, which killed 11 people and sent millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, took a toll on Gulf businesses. An estimated $22.7 billion in Gulf tourism money was lost from 2010 through 2013 because of the spill.  

The 300 businesses hope adding their names to the opposition will help convince the administration to give up plans for Atlantic drilling. 

“Our coasts are worth too much to risk,” they write in the letter. “Rather than exposing our beaches, families and businesses to the inherent risks of drilling, we need to move this country in the direction of renewable energy.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the husband and I live on a tidal creek, and a major oil spill offshore from Hampton Roads could foul the creek behind our home.

Our backyard and Robinson Creek last fall

Too Many Risks to Virginia Offshore Drilling?

President Obama has indicated that he wants to open areas offshore from Virginia's coast for oil and gas exploration.  The move has outraged environmentalists while thrilling Virginia Republicans who never seem to pause to worry about potential disasters that could happen.  As always, there is talk of creating new jobs, but as a former in-house attorney for a major oil company some years ago, I remain very skeptical about boasts of the number of jobs created.  From my experience, most of the technical workers would be imported in from elsewhere and send their earnings back to their home states and at best Virginia would see increases in rentals of some office space, residential housing rentals, and some small amount of business for local marine suppliers.   A column in the Virginian Pilot looks at the risks involved.  For those who don't know, the American Petroleum Institute is a lobbying arm of the major oil companies and its "studies" are about as reliable as something coming out of The Family Foundation on gays.  Here are excerpts:

IT TAKES a lot of assumptions to conclude that offshore drilling will benefit Virginia:

-- That the Navy will reverse years of analysis and decide that drilling poses no danger to its training mission offshore or its installations onshore.
-- That oil companies won't imperil Hampton Roads' tourism and commercial fishing with a spill, as has happened everywhere else.
-- That despite years of resistance, every state in America will now agree to simply hand over royalties to Virginia.
-- That Maryland and North Carolina won't care when Virginia tries to seize their territory.
-- That oil jobs - notoriously transient and temporary - will abandon places like Texas and Louisiana for Hampton Roads.
-- That a time with some of the lowest gas prices in recent history is also the time to start drilling for some of the most expensive oil and gas on the planet.

Despite all that, the White House' decision Tuesday to allow drilling off four Southeastern states was cheered by pro-petroleum politicians and their supporters. Among the parcels included was "Lease Sale 220," off Virginia's coast.

The federal decision comes less than five years after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. That disaster killed 11 and fouled huge swaths of the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental damage is inestimable.

The scope of the Deepwater Horizon disaster temporarily halted efforts to open Virginia's coast, but memories are short. Politicians from Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms to U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine cheered this week's decision.

U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, as he has before, claimed that offshore drilling would "create 25,000 good-paying jobs for Virginians." The source of that number - which has risen from 19,000 in recent years - is a study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute. The same report concludes that Atlantic coast offshore drilling would produce 279,562 jobs by 2035.

It's not likely to do so without imperiling others.   The U.S. Navy uses the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Virginia for training. In 2010, the military concluded that 72 percent of the "Lease Sale 220 area should have no oil or gas activity due to our intensive training and testing in the area and the danger this would present to oil and gas industry personnel and property."

Sessoms, Warner, Kaine and Rigell - indeed, every elected official in Virginia - is acutely aware that Oceana Naval Air Station was nearly gutted in 2005, after the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission decided houses and businesses had been allowed too close to the fence line. There was serious consideration of moving the Navy's East Coast master jet base to Florida, a prospect that would have hollowed Hampton Roads.

Navy officials aren't likely to welcome drilling in the Virginia Capes, especially after the military has warned repeatedly of the dangers, including in 2006:

"Any structures built in the water... would restrict where military air wings can fire their weapons, drive aircraft further away from the coast, increase fuel costs and wear and tear on the airframes, increase flight times en-route to training areas, and increase the risk to aircrews...."

No matter what great benefits proponents promise, the dangers are real: To Navy operations, to the environment, to the tourism industry, to commercial fishing.

None of these cautions is likely to deter drilling supporters, who've proven themselves willing to make the assumptions necessary to support the petroleum industry. Experience shows the dangers are more likely than 279,562 jobs.

The threats are greater than the promises that the Hampton Roads economy and environment won't be damaged by an industry with a long history of destruction.

Sadly, I agree with the editorial, not that this will deter the pawns in the pockets of the petroleum industry.

The Disingenuous Return of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’

For newer readers, I spent nearly the first decade of my law career in oil and gas matters - first as an attorney with a large firm that represented major oil companies in exploration and production matters and then as in-house counsel for a fortune 50 corporation's oil and gas subsidiary. A subsidiary which in some years cash-flowed the entire corporate conglomerate now known as Allied Signal. In the course of my duties I covered everything from pipeline issues, to gas processing plants to overseas offshore production ventures, including the North Sea. As a result, I DO know a thing or two about exploration costs, how long it takes to get a major production discovery on line, etc. And frankly, I want to vomit when I hear idiot politicians who know NOTHING about the industry parroting the "drill baby drill" mantra or sleaze bags from the American Petroleum Institute whining about Obama welcoming Brazil's major offshore discovery while restricting offshore drilling in the USA. Anyone who claims that offshore drilling is a solution to our current gas prices is a liar. Let me repeat that, they are LIARS. Yes, a few years back Brazil made a major discovery. But it will be likely another DECADE or more before the first barrels of production hit the oil market. And in the interests of full disclosure, the largest investment I inherited from my late mother is a chunk of Exxon stock which she never sold because of capital gains issues having purchase Mobil stock some 40 years ago. The New York Times has an editorial that rightly excoriates those - mostly Republicans, naturally - now returning to the "drill baby drill" mantra. Here are highlights from the Times' editorial:
*
With the country again facing $4-a-gallon gasoline, the time would seem ripe for a grown-up conversation on energy. What we are getting instead is a mindless rerun of the drill-baby-drill operatics of the 2008 campaign, when gas was also at $4 a gallon. Then, as now, opportunistic politicians insisted that vastly expanded oil drilling would bring relief at the pump and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Then, as now, these arguments were bogus.
*
As President Obama observed in a March 30 address on energy issues, drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. Nor can it lower prices, except at the margins. Only coordinated measures — greater auto efficiency, alternative fuels, improved mass transit — can address these issues.
*
Still the oil industry and its political allies persist in their fantasies. On Thursday, the House passed the first of three bills that will require the Interior Department to accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental or engineering reviews, reinstate lease sales off the Virginia coast that were canceled after the BP blowout, and open up protected coastal waters — East, West and in Alaska — to drilling.
*
Here’s the hard truth: Prices are set on the world market by the major producers, OPEC in particular. Even countries that produce more oil than they need, like Canada, have little leverage. Canada’s prices track ours.
*
The Energy Information Agency recently projected what would happen if the nation tripled production on the outer continental shelf. There would be no price impact at all until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.
*
By contrast, the agency found, raising the fuel efficiency of America’s cars would do real good. Increasing the fleetwide average from roughly 30 m.p.g. today to 60 m.p.g. in the next 15 years, an ambitious but not implausible goal, could bring prices down by 20 percent.
*
Some politicians get it. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is drafting a bill that seeks to repeal $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the proceeds to develop more efficient cars and alternative fuel sources.
*
Repealing these breaks would reduce the deficit and yield revenues to be invested in cleaner fuels, while having no real impact on prices. Mr. Obama may not be able to persuade the House of these simple truths. But he can and must seize whatever opportunities are offered in the Senate, involving himself, not just rhetorically, in the hard but necessary struggle for a sane energy policy.

BP Negligence - Anatomy of a Disaster. Tsunami Dager Too?

The chart and explanation set out below comes by way of Halliburton and the Times-Picayune. NOTE: Click on the image for a larger version. The pictorial makes a strong case that BP's efforts to cut corners (and lower costs) played a major role in the disaster still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. If the failure to seal the casing at the bottom occurred to save money - as many now speculate - it would seem that BP is guilty of criminal negligence and manslaughter in respect to the eleven individuals who died in the drill rig explosion.

As if the death of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico isn't disaster enough, there seems to be growing concern that a tsunami could be triggered in the Gulf if the methane trapped beneath the well explodes. A new post at Huffington Post looks at this potential catastrophic disaster. Here are a few highlights:
*
Older documents indicate that the subterranean geological formation below the "Macondo" well in the Gulf of Mexico may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit. It has been a well known fact that the methane in that oil deposit was problematic. As a result, there was a much higher risk of a blow out.
*
The crude oil from the "Macondo" well, which is damaging the Gulf of Mexico, contains around 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits. Scientists warn that gases such as methane, hydrogen sulfide and benzene, along with oil, are now depleting the oxygen in the water and are beginning to suffocate marine life creating vast "dead zones". As small microbes living in the sea feed on oil and natural gas, they consume large amounts of oxygen which they require in order to digest food, ie, convert it into energy. There is an environmental ripple effect: when oxygen levels decrease, the breakdown of oil can't advance any further.
*
A methane bubble this large -- if able to escape from under the ocean floor through fissures, cracks and fault areas -- is likely to cause a gas explosion. With the emerging evidence of fissures, the tacit fear now is this: the methane bubble may rupture the seabed and may then erupt with an explosion within the Gulf of Mexico waters. The bubble is likely to explode upwards propelled by more than 50,000 psi of pressure, bursting through the cracks and fissures of the sea floor, fracturing and rupturing miles of ocean bottom with a single extreme explosion.
*
If the toxic gas bubble explodes, it might simultaneously set off a tsunami travelling at a high speed of hundreds of miles per hour. Florida might be most exposed to the fury of a tsunami wave. The entire Gulf coastline would be vulnerable, if the tsunami is manifest. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and southern region of Georgia might experience the effects of the tsunami according to some sources.
*
While I certainly hope and pray that no enormous tsunami triggering methane explosion occurs, the irony would be that the majority of states facing destruction on their shores would be the same states that for the most part blindly supported the Bush/Cheney regime and its anti-regulation mantra. If this should happen, Karma would certainly be a bitch indeed.

Obama's Gulf Oil Speech Bombs

From the reviews that I have read, it seems that I am not alone in viewing President Obama's speech last night on the Gulf oil catastrophe as a dud. First, the speech was about a month or more too late in coming. Moreover, Obama tried to make the case that the federal government had been aggressively in charge from the get go when anyone who has watched the news daily knows that BP has been the one incompetently calling the shots and doing its best to keep the news media from being able to fully report on the disaster. In short, Obama seems to have only underscored that he's not the leader that Americans had yearned for. He's a follower and only starts to get engaged when things have passed the stage of being fully f*cked up: health care, DADT repeal, energy policy - the list goes on and on. Typically, once engaged he can give a mollifying speech, but last night fell flat. Especially since the media was simultaneously running coverage showing that NONE of the oil companies involved in offshore drilling had a competent emergency response to a major oil spill. Indeed, they all had more or less the same useless plan with the only variance being in the cover on the "plan" and how much detail was aimed at media and PR response. Obama has been in office two years now and this status is totally unacceptable. For the reality in the Gulf, first these highlights from the Mobile Press Register:
*
Oil will likely continue to wash onto Alabama's coast through Monday, according to a forecast by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Persistent winds have pushed the oil slick closer to the Alabama-Mississippi chain of barrier islands and the Florida Panhandle.
*
Saturday, the Alabama Department of Public Health expanded its warning against swimming in coastal waters. People should avoid swimming in the Mississippi Sound west of the Dauphin Island Bridge and in Bayou St. John, Cotton Bayou and Old River in Baldwin County.
*
Health officials had previously warned against swimming in Alabama's Gulf of Mexico waters off Baldwin and Mobile counties and in Mobile Bay waters at Fort Morgan. In the bay, numerous areas of oil sheen ranging from the size of a baseball field to the size of a tennis court dotted the surface Saturday afternoon. The sheens appeared on both sides of the ship channel to the north of Middle Bay Lighthouse. There were reports earlier in the day of a large amount of emulsified oil floating in that area of the bay, though none was seen during a late afternoon cruise.
*

The economy of the Gulf Coast is dying - along with marine and wildlife - as Nero, I mean Obama fiddles in Washington. The government response has been incompetent, and I suspect this disaster will be Obama's Katrina: too little, too late. Here's highlights from the Huffington Post on the President's speech:
*
Obama really, really wants to stop the oil spill. And he really, really wants to hold BP accountable for the damage they've done. And he really, really wants the Gulf Coast to come through this hardship and he really, really wants to wean us from our dependency on foreign oil, and oil in general. But "really, really wants" is not a plan, and only the bitterest and most brain-dead of political opponents would have presumed, going into tonight, that Obama had not yet properly sentimentalized his opinions on any of those matters.
*
And yet, basically what we got, in spades, was sentiment. To be sure, it was no doubt deeply felt. And for all anyone knows, there may be, already codified, a whole series of plans in the works related to stopping the oil gusher, cleaning the gulf coast, and implementing a new series of energy policies. And they may be great plans! But if you were hoping that some of that stuff would be revealed on actual teevee cameras, in prime time, well, you were S.O.L.
*
Some good news, I guess, is that Ray Mabus has been given oversight of a Gulf Coast Restoration Plan and that Michael Bromwich will be the new head of the heretofore terrible regulatory agency known as the Minerals Management Service. It may also cheer you to learn that if all goes according to plan and all the lobbyists in the world drop dead tomorrow and legislators stop behaving like a bunch of politically-compromised ass-clowns, BP will be forced to pay for the damages and the Gulf Coast will be restored.
*
I think you can swap out the references to energy and add back references to health care, and we can all take a trip down memory lane, to the time we all wondered why Obama wasn't out there, actively pushing for something specific in the arena of health care reform. Right down to the "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party" part, which basically commits Obama to a lengthy period of Chuck Grassley jacking himself off as the Republican Party returns with the idea of doing nothing that even remotely looks like it might be helpful to his Presidency.
*
One very specific action Obama could have taken tonight was to make it clear that BP's ongoing clampdown on the media attempting to cover the oil spill was not to be tolerated and must end immediately. Didn't even merit a mention!
*
How do you spell failed presidency? That's what it seems we are getting. But for Sarah Palin on the ticket, I suspect that even with his insanity, McCain now looks to have been a better choice to a number of folks.

Obama's Fatal Error in Failing to Crack Down on the Corruption of the Bush Years

I have been extremely harsh on President Barack Obama on many fronts, particularly broken campaign promises that as of this moment still have not been kept. In respect to the Gulf oil spill disaster, I have been equally harsh. Why British Petroleum - which created the disaster by its utter disregard to safety regulations and the complaints of the drilling staff - has been left in charge of addressing the disaster is mind numbing. From my oil and gas industry background, I continue to believe that BP is more concerned in salvaging the blown out well than it is in stopping the oil flow. Equally disturbing is the fact that the USA in its typical hubris has refused better technology offered by The Netherlands and Norway, both nations with major experience with offshore oil exploration - Norway from its own deep water production and The Netherlands as home of Royal Dutch Shell, the world's eight largest corporation.

*

However, what must not be lost in all of the Fox media and GOP noise is the fact that Obama's biggest error - and it was a huge error - was not to promptly overhaul the deregulation nightmare put in place by the Bush/Cheney regime. Under Bush/Cheney - and I suspect mostly under Cheney - the supposed regulators of the oil industry were in effect members of a revolving door operation staffed by either former oil industry officials or people more than willing to turn a blind (maybe even accept a bribe) eye toward criminal misconduct. Surprisingly, it is the Rolling Stone that has one of the most comprehensive articles that traces the blame back to the handiwork of Bush/Cheney. Yes, Obama screwed up an incredible scale by his failure to fully clean house at MMS. But the ultimate blame traces back to Bush/Cheney - a fact that needs to be shoved down the throats of the Fox News talking heads and Republican windbags. We need comparable investigative reporting stories that look at the torture programs and other foul initiatives put in place by the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney that Obama has yet to overhaul. Here are highlights from the Rolling Stone article (NOTE: I urge you to read the full story even though it may make you sick):
*
For weeks, the administration had been insisting that BP alone was to blame for the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf – and the ongoing failure to stop the massive leak. "They have the technical expertise to plug the hole," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had said only six days earlier. "It is their responsibility." The president, Gibbs added, lacked the authority to play anything more than a supervisory role – a curious line of argument from an administration that has reserved the right to assassinate American citizens abroad and has nationalized much of the auto industry. "If BP is not accomplishing the task, can you just federalize it?" a reporter asked. "No," Gibbs replied.
*
Now, however, the president was suddenly standing up to take command of the cleanup effort. "In case you were wondering who's responsible," Obama told the nation, "I take responsibility." Sounding chastened, he acknowledged that his administration had failed to adequately reform the Minerals Management Service, the scandal-ridden federal agency that for years had essentially allowed the oil industry to self-regulate. "There wasn't sufficient urgency," the president said. "Absolutely I take responsibility for that." He also admitted that he had been too credulous of the oil giants: "I was wrong in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." He unveiled a presidential commission to investigate the disaster, discussed the resignation of the head of MMS, and extended a moratorium on new deepwater drilling. "The buck," he reiterated the next day on the sullied Louisiana coastline, "stops with me."
*
Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency's culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years.
*
Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors.
*
During the Bush years, the Minerals Management Service, the agency in the Interior Department charged with safeguarding the environment from the ravages of drilling, descended into rank criminality. According to reports by Interior's inspector general, MMS staffers were both literally and figuratively in bed with the oil industry. When agency staffers weren't joining industry employees for coke parties or trips to corporate ski chalets, they were having sex with oil-company officials. But it was American taxpayers and the environment that were getting screwed. MMS managers were awarded cash bonuses for pushing through risky offshore leases, auditors were ordered not to investigate shady deals, and safety staffers routinely accepted gifts from the industry, allegedly even allowing oil companies to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil before tracing over them in pen.
*
"The oil companies were running MMS during those years," Bobby Maxwell, a former top auditor with the agency, told Rolling Stone last year. "Whatever they wanted, they got. Nothing was being enforced across the board at MMS."
*
Salazar was far less aggressive, however, when it came to making good on his promise to fix MMS. Though he criticized the actions of "a few rotten apples" at the agency, he left long-serving lackeys of the oil industry in charge. "The people that are ethically challenged are the career managers, the people who come up through the ranks," says a marine biologist who left the agency over the way science was tampered with by top officials. "In order to get promoted at MMS, you better get invested in this pro-development oil culture." One of the Bush-era managers whom Salazar left in place was John Goll, the agency's director for Alaska. Shortly after, the Interior secretary announced a reorganization of MMS in the wake of the Gulf disaster, Goll called a staff meeting and served cake decorated with the words "Drill, baby, drill."
*
"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"
*
The tale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is, at its core, the tale of two blowout preventers: one mechanical, one regulatory. The regulatory blowout preventer failed long before BP ever started to drill – precisely because Salazar kept in place the crooked environmental guidelines the Bush administration implemented to favor the oil industry.
*
MMS has fully understood the worst-case scenarios for deep-sea oil blowouts for more than a decade. In May 2000, an environmental assessment for deepwater drilling in the Gulf presciently warned that "spill responses may be complicated by the potential for very large magnitude spills (because of the high production rates associated with deepwater wells).
*
Enter the Bush administration. Rather than heeding such warnings, MMS simply assumed that a big spill couldn't happen. "There was a complete failure to even contemplate the possibility of a disaster like the one in the Gulf," says Holly Doremus, an environmental-law expert at the University of California. "In their thinking, a big spill would be something like 5,000 barrels, and the oil wouldn't even reach the shoreline." In fact, Bush's five-year plan for offshore drilling described a "large oil spill" as no more than 1,500 barrels. In April 2007, an environmental assessment covering the area where BP would drill concluded that blowouts were "low probability and low risk," even though a test funded by MMS had found that blowout preventers failed 28 percent of the time.
*
Nowhere was the absurdity of the policy more evident than in the application that BP submitted for its Deepwater Horizon well only two months after Obama took office. BP claims that a spill is "unlikely" and states that it anticipates "no adverse impacts" to endangered wildlife or fisheries. Should a spill occur, it says, "no significant adverse impacts are expected" for the region's beaches, wetlands and coastal nesting birds. The company, noting that such elements are "not required" as part of the application, contains no scenario for a potential blowout, and no site-specific plan to respond to a spill. Instead, it cites an Oil Spill Response Plan that it had prepared for the entire Gulf region.
*
Under Salazar, MMS continued to issue categorical exclusions to companies like BP, even when they lacked the necessary permits to protect endangered species. A preliminary review of the BP disaster conducted by scientists with the independent Deepwater Horizon Study Group concludes that MMS failed to enforce a host of environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act. "MMS and Interior are equally responsible for the failures here," says the former agency scientist. "They weren't willing to take the regulatory steps that could have prevented this incident."
*
BP is the last oil company on Earth that Salazar and MMS should have allowed to regulate itself. . . . The company applied the same deadly cost-cutting mentality to its oil rig in the Gulf. BP, it is important to note, is less an oil company than a bank that finances oil exploration; unlike ExxonMobil, which owns most of the equipment it uses to drill, BP contracts out almost everything. That includes the Deepwater Horizon rig that it leased from a firm called Transocean. BP shaved $500,000 off its overhead by deploying a blowout preventer without a remote-control trigger – a fail-safe measure required in many countries but not mandated by MMS, thanks to intense industry lobbying. It opted to use cheap, single-walled piping for the well, and installed only six of the 21 cement spacers recommended by its contractor, Halliburton – decisions that significantly increased the risk of a severe explosion. It also skimped on critical testing that could have shown whether explosive gas was getting into the system as it was being cemented, and began removing mud that protected the well before it was sealed with cement plugs.

*
[O]n the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the Deepwater Horizon rig went off like a bomb. From the start of its operation in the Gulf, BP had found itself struggling against powerful "kicks" from gas buildup, just as MMS had warned. Now, on April 20th, the pent-up methane exploded in a fireball that incinerated 11 workers. Like a scene out of a real-life Jerry Bruckheimer film, the half-billion-dollar rig – 32,000 tons and 30 stories tall – listed over and sank to the bottom two days later, taking a mile of pipe down with it.
*
[T]he effort, has been "like a drunk driver [BP] getting into a car wreck and then helping the police with the accident investigation." Indeed, the administration has seemed oddly untroubled about leaving the Gulf's fate in the hands of a repeat criminal offender, and uncurious about the crimes that may have been committed leading up to the initial sinking of the rig.
*
The failure of the Obama administration to crack down on BP – and to tackle the crisis with the full force of the federal government – is likely to haunt the Gulf Coast for decades to come. Oil continues to lap up onshore in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Pelican rookeries are fouled, their eggs and nests soaked in oil. The region's fisheries – some of the richest in the world – are imperiled; anglers and shrimpers have been barred from more than a third of the Gulf's waters, which may never fully recover from the toxic stew of crude and chemical dispersant now twisting in its depths. The region's beaches are empty, and tourist towns are dying. Administration officials now admit that the oil may continue to gush into the Gulf until August, when relief wells are finally in place.

Alabama Paying Price for Republican Policies

Having lived on the Gulf Coast for six years - part of it in the Mobile area - and with family roots that trace back to New Orleans, I continue to be saddened by the damage being done to both the environment and people's livelihoods as a result of British Petroleum's apparent gross negligence and wilful misconduct at the Deep Horizon well which continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, I cannot help but note the irony that through their blind support of the deregulation/smaller government worshipping Republican Party, Alabamians helped set the stage for their own misfortune. Yes, the Obama administration has dropped the ball on dealing with the disaster. But the framework that allowed the disaster in the first place was put in place by the Bush/Cheney regime. Time and time again we were told that big oil could police itself. Obviously, the mantra was a lie and now thousands of people are seeing their businesses and livelihoods wither. Whenever the GOP faults Obama's missteps, it is critical that the blame be cast back on the anti-regulation mindset that controlled Washington, D.C., for the eight years of the Bush/Cheney age of darkness. The Mobile Press Register has some details on the latest devastation along the Alabama coast. Here are some highlights: *
As unprecedented amounts of oil slathered Alabama's coastline Friday, officials closed stretches of water in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to most boat traffic to aid containment efforts.
*
The closure of Alabama waters inside Perdido Pass to all recreational boating traffic, requested by Orange Beach Mayor Tony Kennon, effectively shut down fishing from the self-titled "Red Snapper Capital of the World."
Only vessels working with BP will be allowed to use the pass until further notice.
*
The main body of the Gulf oil slick will hover just miles south of coasts on both sides of the Florida-Alabama line by Sunday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projected.
*
[Alabama Governor] Riley told members of the Press-Register's editorial board on Friday that he was dissatisfied with delays in processing claims related to the spill, and would send National Guard troops and staff from the Alabama Emergency Management Agency to help speed the process.
*
"These are small businesses and family businesses that don't have a lot to fall back on," Riley said. "They're losing business, and if they don't get help, they're gone."
*
Some of these business owners should have thought harder before casing votes for Bush/Cheney and "drill baby drill" Sarah Palin.

Did BP Deliberately Lie on Its Drilling Application?

The more facts that come out, the more it appears that British Petroleum deliberately lied on its permit application for the Deep Horizon well that is now turning much of the Gulf of Mexico into a toxic wasteland. While fault also lies with the permit review authorities who never checked out the details of the application - e.g., one of the experts cited as available for consultation in the event of a spill had in fact been dead for several years - the principal blame lies on BP which was apparently willing to say anything in order to secure the drilling permit. Obviously, someone at BP needs to be prosecuted for the knowingly false application. The facts as disclosed by the Associated Press certainly seem to support a finding of gross negligence, if not wilful misconduct on the part of BP. The facts also underscore why oil companies need to face strict liability without a liability cap in respect to all future drilling. I suspect BP factored in the maximum fines under the rules in place at the time and figured it was worth the gamble. The Virginian Pilot has some highlights:
*
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Glaring errors and omissions in BP's oil spill response plans have exposed a slapdash effort to follow environmental rules, outraging Gulf Coast residents who can see on their beaches how unprepared the company was.
*
BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one, according to an Associated Press analysis. The lengthy plans were approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well.
*
Among the glaring errors in the report: A professor is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.
*
The plan lists cold-water marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals as "sensitive biological resources." None of those animals live anywhere near the Gulf.
*
Also, names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are disconnected.

"The AP report paints a picture of a company that was making it up as it went along, while telling regulators it had the full capability to deal with a major spill," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "We know that wasn't true."
*
Legal experts say that to file criminal charges, the Justice Department will have to find evidence that BP or other companies involved in the deadly oil rig explosion and subsequent spill orchestrated a coverup, destroyed key documents or lied to government agents. Charges and civil penalties can be brought under a variety of environmental protection laws.
*
In its Deepwater Horizon plan, the British oil giant stated: "BP Exploration and Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan."
*
The plans contain wildly false assumptions about oil spills. BP's proposed method to calculate spill volume judging by the darkness of the oil sheen is way off. The internationally accepted formula would produce estimates 100 times higher.
*
The Gulf's loop current, which is projected to help eventually send oil hundreds of miles around Florida's southern tip and up the Atlantic coast, isn't mentioned in either plan.
*
There are other examples of how BP's plans have fallen short:
*
- Beaches where oil washed up within weeks of a spill were supposed to be safe from contamination because BP promised it could marshal more than enough boats to scoop up all the oil before any deepwater spill could reach shore - a claim that in retrospect seems absurd.
*
- BP's site plan regarding birds, sea turtles or endangered marine mammals ("no adverse impacts") also have proved far too optimistic. While the exact toll on the Gulf's wildlife may never be known, the effects clearly have been devastating.
*
The obvious conclusion is that BP was lying and knew it was lying but simply did not give a damn. Some folks need to go to prison to ensure that no company in the future will dare to file such a false and cavalier document.

Who's in Charge of the BP Oil Spill, Anyway?

Today's Mobile Press-Register main editorial asks a relevant question that focuses on the ineptitude of the federal government/White House's response to the BP oil spill disaster. It's a simple question of who is in charge. Clearly, it's not the feds or the White House. BP continues to dither rather than simply explode the well and seal it permanently. BP would clearly rather turn the entire Gulf of Mexico into a dead zone as opposed to lose a potentially profitable well. It's a travesty, yet the U.S. government continues to sit by with it's thumb up its butt rather than dictate to BP what WILL be done to stop the oil leakage now. Here are some highlights from the editorial (P.S. I once lived in Fairhope):
*
A MONTH ago, according to Fairhope’s assistant public works director, BP pledged to put out boom to protect the city from the effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But the oil company never followed through. Last week, when oil began showing up on Alabama beaches, the Fairhope City Council quit waiting on BP.

*
At an emergency meeting Friday, council members voted to spend about $626,000 of the $650,000 the city has received through the state from BP, and a contractor immediately began deploying boom in two layers, from the Grant Hotel Marriott in Point Clear northward to the Fairhope Yacht Club.

Fairhope’s experience does not seem to be unique along the Alabama Gulf Coast. From Gov. Bob Riley to a beachside condominium manager, people dealing with the oil spill say BP isn’t following through. Some say they’ve called for cleanup assistance and have gotten no response. So who is in charge of picking up tarballs and scraping oil off beaches?
*
Should it be local governments? Local officials know their sections of coastline better than anyone, and when a city like Fairhope sees no progress for a month, its leaders are right to take action to protect their shores. But they aren’t concerned with the big picture, and their individual actions are piecemeal.
*
But should the federal government be in charge of the cleanup, too, in addition to acting as watchdog over BP’s efforts to contain the catastrophic leak? And where’s FEMA? After all, as implied by its very name — the Federal Emergency Management Agency — FEMA is the government agency that’s designed to coordinate the federal response to emergencies.
*
Meanwhile, municipal and county governments can’t ignore the threat at the edge of their shores. Short of breaking the law, no one can blame them for taking matters into their own hands.

White House Endorses Unlimited Liability Cap For Oil Spillers

I guess it's a case of better late than never, but I cannot fathom why the White House did not get on board with removing the liability cap on oil spills a month ago or more. Oil well drilling - whether onshore or offshore - is an inherently dangerous activities which ought to face a strict liability standard. Even when evidence of negligence, possible false application statements, and sacrifices of safety to save money are not involved. Having been in Key West last week and lived on the Gulf Coast of Alabama, it makes me nauseated to think of the environmental damage that has occurred - not to mention what may yet occur. I am still dumbfounded, however, as to why the White House seems to be allowing BP to call the shots rather than the other way around. It still seems to me that destroying the well a month ago wasn't pursued - oh, I forgot, BP doesn't want to lose the well, even if it destroys the entire Gulf of Mexico. Here are highlights from Huffington Post on this belated move by Obama:
*
Democrats in Congress and officials in the White House are making yet another major push to pass legislation to make the liability for oil companies involved in damaging spills unlimited.
*
On Monday evening, the White House confirmed that it favors the most recent piece of legislation that would drop any numerical ceiling to the amount of money an oil company like BP would have to pay for economic damages caused by a spill. Currently, the cap is $75 million.
*
"The president supports removing caps on liability for oil companies engaged in offshore drilling," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Oil companies should have every incentive to maximize safety and arbitrary caps on liability create a disincentive to achieve that goal."
*
So far, votes to raise the liability cap -- first to $10 billion and then unlimited -- have failed to pass via unanimous consent in the Senate. But now, congressional negotiators are planning alternative legislative routes. On Wednesday, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the author of the liability-cap-raising bill, is set to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about his proposal.