Showing posts with label deepwater drilling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deepwater drilling. Show all posts

Friday, May 10, 2013

Ignoring risks, Shell gears up for production of world's deepest offshore well

Well, fuck the residents of the Gulf of Mexico, the wildlife and sea life there. More deepwater drilling, deeper than before despite the risks. We never learn from our history, we always repeat the same mistakes.

Thursday, May 9, 2013 by Common Dreams
Deeper Than Deepwater: Shell Plans World's Riskiest Offshore Well 
- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer


Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell announced Wednesday that it will soon begin development of the world's deepest off-shore oil well, in the body of water that is home to the world's largest oil spill—BP's Deepwater Horizon oil disaster of 2010—the Gulf of Mexico.
 
 The well will be drilled almost two miles underwater in the Gulf, which is still reeling from the aftermath of the BP Deepwater disaster that spewed 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil from the busted Macondo well over the span of three months. (reports are that it's still spewing oil)

In comparison to BP's Macondo well that began at about 5,100 feet below the water—a precarious operation that ended in catastrophe—Shell's new well will begin at almost twice that depth: 9,500 feet under water. The site of the well, the "Stones field", is 200 miles south-west of New Orleans. Shell's other deep water project, Perdido, at 8,000 feet below the surface, is the well's only rival.

In addition, as the Guardian reports, although Shell's new well is unparallelled, it is not without company:
It comes a day after ExxonMobil said it would start work on a $4bn (£2.6bn) project to develop the Julia oilfield, also in the North American ocean basin, and weeks after BP delayed development of its biggest Gulf of Mexico project – Mad Dog Phase 2 – citing rising costs. [...]
[Shel] has several other projects nearby, including its 900 meter-deep Mars field, where it is adding new infrastructure, plus its Appomattox and Vito discoveries.
Shell is expected to begin production at Stones by 2016.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Growing Gas Cloud Forces Evacuation of Oil Rig in North Sea

Jesus! here we go again!!!--jef

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 by Common Dreams
French-owned platform is abandoned with no answers yet on how to avert further calamity

An oil and gas platform owned by French oil giant Total has been evacuated and an 'exclusion zone' has been set up around it, as a cloud of natural gas hovers over the site and a six-mile long 'sheen' has formed in the ocean around the rig.

Ships have been ordered by Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the UK to stay at least two miles from the Elgin PUQ platform, which sits about 150 miles off Aberdeen on Scotland's east coast, and aircraft must stay at least three miles away.

Technical teams from the oil company were investigating the cause of the gas leak but declined to give further details,according to a Total spokesman today. The company contends that although the situation is 'stable' though they admit they do not yet know the source of the leak.

Environmentalists have warned about the inherent risks of drilling in the North Sea, and Bellona, a Norwegian environmental NGO, has been monitoring this well closely.“This is a gas blowout that is out of control and is going to be so for a long time," Bellona President Frederic Hauge said. “The information we have right now indicates that it will be very challenging to prevent a blowout. This is a critical situation that is out of control.”

* * *

BBC reports:
Jake Molloy, of the RMT union which represents offshore workers, was asked if the incident was the most serious in the North Sea since the 1988 Piper Alpha oil platform tragedy which saw 167 men die
He told BBC Scotland: "Fortunately we have dealt with the human side of it, but the potential exists for catastrophic devastation. 
"If it somehow finds an ignition source we could be looking at complete destruction." [...] 
Dr Simon Boxall, an oceanographer at Southampton University, told BBC Scotland that this was not a deepwater drilling rig and platform but it was unusual in that they were drilling down 5km (3.1 miles) into the sea bed. 
He said: "It is a very deep well. The gas they are bringing up is what we call sour gas. 
"That gas has a high proportion of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide and that makes it very flammable and quite poisonous. 
"So the big problem they have got is dealing with a very combustible gas - unlike Deepwater Horizon where we were dealing with crude oil which ironically is very difficult to light sometimes."

* * *


As the news started to pour into the Bellona offices on Monday night, the information became more and more alarming. 
“The information we have right now indicates that it will be very challenging to prevent a blowout. This is a critical situation that is out of control,” Hauge said. 
Jake Molloy, the head of the section of the UK union that represents offshore oil and gas workers, agreed telling Reuters that A separate relief well may need to be drilled to ease pressure and allow emergency teams to regain entry to the rig and try to fix the problem. 
"The well in question had caused Total some problems for some considerable time ... a decision was taken weeks ago to try to kill the well, but then an incident began to develop over the weekend," said Malloy. 
"Engineers have told me that it is almost certain that gas is leaking directly from the reservoir through the pipe casing," he said – something Hauge had pointed out might be the case early Monday morning. 
So far, three oil platforms – the Elgin, Shell’s Shearwater and nearby Rowan Viking drilling rig have evacuated a total of 323 workers – 238 from Elgin alone. 
Extreme reservoirs 
The Elgin/Franklin reservoirs are located off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland in an area of ​​high petroleum activity. The fields are linked. The area contains a large field with wells up to 6000 meters deep and that hold extreme pressure and temperature. 
During the drilling of Elgin/Franklin in 2003, world records for pressure and temperature were broken as engineers found reservoir pressures between 600 and 1100 bar and temperatures reaching 200 degree Celsius. By comparison, the Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred at 896 bar. The field on which the platform is located was discovered in 1991. 
Bellona has learned that there have been incidents at the well that have veered dangerously close to accidents, including a serious incident in 2005. Other grave safety shortcomings have also been revealed in this field. 
Total was, in fact, considering killing the well when the problems began over the weekend.
“The well in question had caused Total some problems for some considerable time [...] a decision was taken weeks ago to try to kill the well, but then an incident began to develop,” Malloy was quoted by the BBC as saying. 
Elgin identified as a problem well 
According to Hauge, the Elgin/Franklin is “the well from hell.” 
The incident leading up to the bubbling disaster started early on Sunday morning at Elgin platform when workers discovered a well control problem. 
They noted a blue sheen on the water’s surface and bubbles from boiling water beneath the platform. The leak was already so large Sunday by 12:15 that 219 non-critical personnel were evacuated to Aberdeen, leaving a skeleton crew of 19 aboard the platform. 
Crews from Elgin, other platforms evacuated 
Those left behind tried to gain control of the leak. Over 114 hours, they attempted to jam the well with drilling mud with no success. At 6:14 am, they abandoned their attempts and were evacuated, which raises the chances of a major blowout significantly. 
After the evacuation, a no-fly zone of three nautical miles around the well was established. Coastguards said shipping was also being ordered to keep at least two nautical miles away.
During the evening on Monday the gas cloud is became so large that workers aboard Shell’s Shearwater platform 6 kilometers away reported they could smell it. 
Shell also evacuated 52 of the 90 workers aboard Shearwater platform, leaving 38 onboard. Thirty three of these have now been evacuated to the nearby Noble Hans Deul platform
Petroleum company Total E & P United Kingdom (TEP United Kingdom) operates the Elgin/Franklin platform and Rowan Viking rig, which was connected to Elgin. Total E & P told Bellona that both the platform and the rig are intact and confirmed that all crew have been evacuated to the mainland. 
Impossible to stop 
In Bellona's analysis, the discharge at the Elgin field is going to be very difficult to stop. When the gas escapes it becomes impossible to get back on board the platform to deal with it. Gas in the water affects the buoyancy of possible rescue rigs, and the water is flammable. [...] 
When gas and condensate coming from such great depths as great as 5000 meters at high pressures rise, they will expand exponentially on their way to the surface. Sand and debris will dig holes in metal near the bore hole. If the gas is moving outside of the well, it will dig further and further into the bore’s rise. 
Problematic relief wells 
Bellona believes that when a platform is evacuated, the only remaining measure to bring the situation under control is drilling a relief well – as was done at Deepwater Horizon. 
But Bellona fears this may difficult if not impossible. Such a well must be drilled very deep depending on how deep the leak in the Elgin well is. To dig the relief well, workers must somehow drill in under the leak and put in a new plug. Doing this depends on using highly advanced platforms in a nearly surgical procedure that can take months. 
High gas concentrations in the area along with the fact that gas is in the air as far as 6 kilometers away is telling as it shows how far from any platform a relief well must be drilled to avoid aerial gas pollution. 
But with buoyancy and flammability issues to consider, any rig drilling a relief well would have to do it from a great distance. To get a rig any closer than 10 kilometers, said Hauge, rescue workers would have to set the gas in the sea on fire. 
But if there are platforms available to drill from such distance and this deep, the question that remains is will they do it? This, thinks Bellona, will be very difficult to arrange. Platforms of this nature would first have to be released from their current contracts, which will take time as such highly specialized rigs are used for drilling other complex wells. Drilling for the relief well alone could then take as long as three months if not far longer. 
So task number one at the moment, says Bellona, is to immediately secure a drilling platform that is capable of drilling the relief well. If such equipment is available, it must immediately be requisitioned. 
If drilling a relief well is not possible, the only solution is the worst-case scenario of letting the reservoir blow out until all of its pressure is tamped down. As the quantity of gas in the reservoir is unknown, fears that large amounts remain are founded. This gas would then be released into the water and air for a long time to come. 
Environmental impact 
The environmental consequences of this accident could be substantial. Having large amounts of hydrocarbons in water and on the surface is not desirable. It will not look like an oil spill, but the hydrocarbons released will have many of the same dramatic effects. Bacteria, for instance, ingest hydrocarbons and hence consume enormous amounts of oxygen in the water. Condensate blue sheen on the surface of the water will destroy the plumage of sea foul. 
Should the situation develop to the point where all the gas from the reservoir is released, it will lead to major emissions of greenhouse gasses: When unburned natural gas enters the atmosphere, its detrimental effect on the atmosphere is 20 times worse than CO2.
Difficult choices ahead 
The coming days will lead to difficult choices as Total struggles to bring the lead under control. If the worst case scenario does indeed occur, it must be considered whether setting fire to the spill is not the best course of action. This too will have environmental consequences, putting Total and the government between the devil and the deep blue sea. 
The Elgin/Franklin accident bears similarities to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, the only real difference being that Elgin is pumping gas condensate and not crude oil into the sea. The Rowan Viking rig is a brand new platform launched in 2010 and considered – like the Deepwater Horizon rig – to be state of the art for the drilling industry. 
Rough conditions in the North Sea 
The drilling was taking place under difficult conditions, with extreme pressure, high temperatures and great depths of the reservoir. Drilling in such circumstances involves enormous gambles: In situations like this, there are no ready-made solutions for dealing with the worst-case scenario, as Deepwater Horizon showed.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Whistleblower: BP Oil Platform Faces 'Present and Imminent Danger'

Saturday, March 17, 2012 by Common Dreams
Whistleblower claims about BP's Atlantis filed this week argue against Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's claims platform is safe

A whistleblower who has a standing lawsuit against BP has argued this week that the company's Atlantis Project, located 150 miles south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico, faces "present and imminent danger."

The whistleblower, Kenneth Abbott, is a former BP contractor on the Atlantis. His lawsuit says that BP failed to keep required records of the safety systems for the Atlantis.

Back in 2010, Food & Water Watch, which joined Abbott's lawsuit, warned that the massive Deepwater Horizon oil disaster foreshadowed another Gulf of Mexico disaster caused by BP's Atlantis platform. At that time, Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, said, “We have evidence that Atlantis is unsafe and is in danger of creating an even worse spill than the one caused by the Deepwater Horizon explosion.”

* * *


The Times-Picayune: BP Atlantis whistleblower alleges imminent safety threat for first time
BP Atlantis in 2006 (photo: munchicken) 
A whistleblower is alleging for the first time in a yearslong lawsuit against BP that its massive Atlantis oil platform operation off the Louisiana coast faces present and imminent danger. 
Kenneth Abbott first complained in 2009 that BP had failed to keep required records of the design of pressure-relief systems and other safety mechanisms onboard the Atlantis. [...] 
[T]he U.S. government joined in some of his claims when an independent reviewer justified many of Abbott's complaints. But BP, and later the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, determined that the lack of safety records did not pose any imminent threat. 
Abbott's latest filing in the Houston court this week argues otherwise. [...] 
[T]he Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released a report in March 2011 that declared the Atlantis rig safe, in spite of its failure to maintain proper records on board.

* * *

WASHINGTON - April 22 - Following Tuesday's explosion on the Deepwater Horizon Platform, leased and operated by British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico, the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch is warning of the possibility of a similarly tragic disaster involving the company's Atlantis Project- one of the world's deepest semi-submersible oil and natural gas platforms, located 150 miles south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Last year, a whistleblower and former company contractor alleged that the Atlantis platform has been operating without a large percentage of the engineer-approved documents needed for it to operate safely. An independent engineer later substantiated these concerns, concluding that a BP database showed that over 85 percent of the Atlantis Project's Piping and Instrument drawings lacked final engineer-approval, and that the project should be immediately shut down until those documents could be accounted for and are independently verified. 
"The tragic explosion on the Deepwater Horizon platform is an urgent reminder of the calamity that could occur if BP's Atlantis platform is operating without the approved documents necessary for ensuring its safety," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "This accident and the recent Massey mine disaster in West Virginia underscore a complete lack of regulatory oversight over the operations of the fossil fuel industry." 
BP has denied the whistleblower's assertions regarding Atlantis, going so far as to write a letter to Congressional staff saying that they are "unsubstantiated," even though internal documents show that in August 2008, BP management was aware of the problems and believed that the document deficiencies "could lead to catastrophic Operator error." An investigation conducted by the company's Ombudsman in April 2009 seems to substantiate the charges, although the investigation's results did not become known until this month. BP has never acknowledged that the Ombudsman conducted an investigation of the project's document deficiencies. 
"BP's recklessness in regards to the Atlantis project is a clear example of how the company has a pattern of failing to comply with minimum industry standards for worker and environmental safety," said Mike Sawyer, an Engineer at Apex Safety Consultants, who verified the contractor-turned-whistleblower's concerns about the company's lack of proper documents. 
In March 2010, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the agency charged with overseeing the nation's offshore oil and gas platforms, announced that it would investigate these allegations in response to a letter from Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and 18 of his colleagues calling for an investigation and a report on the findings issued to Congress. Food & Water Watch brought the situation to Representative Grijalva's attention in October of 2009. 
Last week, Food & Water Watch submitted a letter to MMS detailing the key issues that need to be addressed with MMS's investigation, highlighting the recently-surfaced information about BP's own Ombudsman investigation. The organization called on MMS to conduct a thorough investigation of the situation, including interviewing the contractor-turned whistleblower who unearthed these potential safety hazards, and to penalize BP to the fullest extent of the law. 
"The accident on the Horizon platform further highlights the importance of MMS's investigation of the Atlantis Project, as well as its regulation of offshore drilling activities in that area. As energy companies push to open more of the Outer Continental Shelf, MMS needs to make sure that companies like BP are operating safely and adhering to the law. If the agency does not adequately do so with its investigation of the BP Atlantis Project, the House Natural Resources Committee needs to hold oversight hearings and ensure that the explosion and mishap of the Horizon platform is not replicated," said Zach Corrigan, Food & Water Watch's senior staff attorney. 
Read Food & Water Watch's full timeline of the problems associated with the BP Atlantis Project here.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Why High Gas Prices Are Here to Stay

A Tough-Oil World
by MICHAEL T. KLARE

Oil prices are now higher than they have ever been — except for a few frenzied moments before the global economic meltdown of 2008. Many immediate factors are contributing to this surge, including Iran’s threats to block oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, fears of a new Middle Eastern war, and turmoil in energy-rich Nigeria. Some of these pressures could ease in the months ahead, providing temporary relief at the gas pump. But the principal cause of higher prices — a fundamental shift in the structure of the oil industry — cannot be reversed, and so oil prices are destined to remain high for a long time to come.

In energy terms, we are now entering a world whose grim nature has yet to be fully grasped. This pivotal shift has been brought about by the disappearance of relatively accessible and inexpensive petroleum — “easy oil,” in the parlance of industry analysts; in other words, the kind of oil that powered a staggering expansion of global wealth over the past 65 years and the creation of endless car-oriented suburban communities. This oil is now nearly gone.

The world still harbors large reserves of petroleum, but these are of the hard-to-reach, hard-to-refine, “tough oil” variety. From now on, every barrel we consume will be more costly to extract, more costly to refine — and so more expensive at the gas pump.
Those who claim that the world remains “awash” in oil are technically correct: the planet still harbors vast reserves of petroleum. But propagandists for the oil industry usually fail to emphasize that not all oil reservoirs are alike: some are located close to the surface or near to shore, and are contained in soft, porous rock; others are located deep underground, far offshore, or trapped in unyielding rock formations. The former sites are relatively easy to exploit and yield a liquid fuel that can readily be refined into usable liquids; the latter can only be exploited through costly, environmentally hazardous techniques, and often result in a product which must be heavily processed before refining can even begin.

The simple truth of the matter is this: most of the world’s easy reserves have already been depleted — except for those in war-torn countries like Iraq. Virtually all of the oil that’s left is contained in harder-to-reach, tougher reserves. These include deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, and shale oil, along with Canadian “oil sands” — which are not composed of oil at all, but of mud, sand, and tar-like bitumen. So-called unconventional reserves of these types can be exploited, but often at a staggering price, not just in dollars but also in damage to the environment.

In the oil business, this reality was first acknowledged by the chairman and CEO of Chevron, David O’Reilly, in a 2005 letter published in many American newspapers. “One thing is clear,” he wrote, “the era of easy oil is over.” Not only were many existing oil fields in decline, he noted, but “new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically, and even politically.”

Further evidence for this shift was provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a 2010 review of world oil prospects. In preparation for its report, the agency examined historic yields at the world’s largest producing fields — the “easy oil” on which the world still relies for the overwhelming bulk of its energy. The results were astonishing: those fields were expected to lose three-quarters of their productive capacity over the next 25 years, eliminating 52 million barrels per day from the world’s oil supplies, or about 75% of current world crude oil output. The implications were staggering: either find new oil to replace those 52 million barrels or the Age of Petroleum will soon draw to a close and the world economy would collapse.

Of course, as the IEA made clear back in 2010, there will be new oil, but only of the tough variety that will exact a price from us all — and from the planet, too. To grasp the implications of our growing reliance on tough oil, it’s worth taking a whirlwind tour of some of the more hair-raising and easily damaged spots on Earth. So fasten your seatbelts: first we’re heading out to sea — way, way out — to survey the “promising” new world of twenty-first-century oil.

Deepwater Oil
Oil companies have been drilling in offshore areas for some time, especially in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caspian Sea. Until recently, however, such endeavors invariably took place in relatively shallow waters — a few hundred feet, at most — allowing oil companies to use conventional drills mounted on extended piers. Deepwater drilling, in depths exceeding 1,000 feet, is an entirely different matter. It requires specialized, sophisticated, and immensely costly drilling platforms that can run into the billions of dollars to produce.

The Deepwater Horizon, destroyed in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 as a result of a catastrophic blowout, is typical enough of this phenomenon. The vessel was built in 2001 for some $500 million, and cost around $1 million per day to staff and maintain. Partly as a result of these high costs, BP was in a hurry to finish work on its ill-fated Macondo well and move the Deepwater Horizon to another drilling location. Such financial considerations, many analysts believe, explain the haste with which the vessel’s crew sealed the well — leading to a leakage of explosive gases into the wellbore and the resulting blast. BP will now have to pay somewhere in excess of $30 billion to satisfy all the claims for the damage done by its massive oil spill.

Following the disaster, the Obama administration imposed a temporary ban on deep-offshore drilling. Barely two years later, drilling in the Gulf’s deep waters is back to pre-disaster levels. President Obama has also signed an agreement with Mexico allowing drilling in the deepest part of the Gulf, along the U.S.-Mexican maritime boundary.

Meanwhile, deepwater drilling is picking up speed elsewhere. Brazil, for example, is moving to exploit its “pre-salt” fields (so-called because they lie below a layer of shifting salt) in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean far off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. New offshore fields are similarly being developed in deep waters off Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.
By 2020, says energy analyst John Westwood, such deepwater fields will supply 10% of the world’s oil, up from only 1% in 1995. But that added production will not come cheaply: most of these new fields will cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to develop, and will only prove profitable as long as oil continues to sell for $90 or more per barrel.

Brazil’s offshore fields, considered by some experts the most promising new oil discovery of this century, will prove especially pricey, because they lie beneath one and a half miles of water and two and a half miles of sand, rock, and salt. The world’s most advanced, costly drilling equipment — some of it still being developed — will be needed. Petrobras, the state-controlled energy firm, has already committed $53 billion to the project for 2011-2015, and most analysts believe that will be only a modest down payment on a staggering final price tag.

Arctic Oil
The Arctic is expected to provide a significant share of the world’s future oil supply. Until recently, production in the far north has been very limited. Other than in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska and a number of fields in Siberia, the major companies have largely shunned the region. But now, seeing few other options, they are preparing for major forays into a melting Arctic.
From any perspective, the Arctic is the last place you want to go to drill for oil. Storms are frequent, and winter temperatures plunge far below freezing. Most ordinary equipment will not operate under these conditions. Specialized (and costly) replacements are necessary. Working crews cannot live in the region for long. Most basic supplies — food, fuel, construction materials — must be brought in from thousands of miles away at phenomenal cost.

But the Arctic has its attractions: billions of barrels of untapped oil, to be exact. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the area north of the Arctic Circle, with just 6% of the planet’s surface, contains an estimated 13% of its remaining oil (and an even larger share of its undeveloped natural gas) — numbers no other region can match.

With few other places left to go, the major energy firms are now gearing up for an energy rush to exploit the Arctic’s riches. This summer, Royal Dutch Shell is expected to begin test drilling in portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas adjacent to northern Alaska. (The Obama administration must still award final operating permits for these activities, but approval is expected.) At the same time, Statoil and other firms are planning extended drilling in the Barents Sea, north of Norway.

As with all such extreme energy scenarios, increased production in the Arctic will significantly boost oil company operating costs. Shell, for example, has already spent $4 billion alone on preparations for test drilling in offshore Alaska, without producing a single barrel of oil. Full-scale development in this ecologically fragile region, fiercely opposed by environmentalists and local Native peoples, will multiply this figure many times over.

Tar Sands and Heavy Oil
Another significant share of the world’s future petroleum supply is expected to come from Canadian tar sands (also called “oil sands”) and the extra-heavy oil of Venezuela. Neither of these is oil as normally understood. Not being liquid in their natural state, they cannot be extracted by traditional drilling materials, but they do exist in great abundance. According to the USGS, Canada’s tar sands contain the equivalent of 1.7 trillion barrels of conventional (liquid) oil, while Venezuela’s heavy oil deposits are said to harbor another trillion barrels of oil equivalent — although not all of this material is considered “recoverable” with existing technology.

Those who claim that the Petroleum Age is far from over often point to these reserves as evidence that the world can still draw on immense supplies of untapped fossil fuels. And it is certainly conceivable that, with the application of advanced technologies and a total indifference to environmental consequences, these resources will indeed be harvested. But easy oil this is not.

Until now, Canada’s tar sands have been obtained through a process akin to strip mining, utilizing monster shovels to pry a mixture of sand and bitumen out of the ground. But most of the near-surface bitumen in the tar-sands-rich province of Alberta has now been exhausted, which means all future extraction will require a far more complex and costly process. Steam will have to be injected into deeper concentrations to melt the bitumen and allow its recovery by massive pumps. This requires a colossal investment of infrastructure and energy, as well as the construction of treatment facilities for all the resulting toxic wastes. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, the full development of Alberta’s oil sands would require a minimum investment of $218 billion over the next 25 years, not including the cost of building pipelines to the United States (such as the proposed Keystone XL) for processing in U.S. refineries.

The development of Venezuela’s heavy oil will require investment on a comparable scale. The Orinoco belt, an especially dense concentration of heavy oil adjoining the Orinoco River, is believed to contain recoverable reserves of 513 billion barrels of oil — perhaps the largest source of untapped petroleum on the planet. But converting this molasses-like form of bitumen into a useable liquid fuel far exceeds the technical capacity or financial resources of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. Accordingly, it is now seeking foreign partners willing to invest the $10-$20 billion needed just to build the necessary facilities.

The Hidden Costs
Tough-oil reserves like these will provide most of the world’s new oil in the years ahead. One thing is clear: even if they can replace easy oil in our lives, the cost of everything oil-related — whether at the gas pump, in oil-based products, in fertilizers, in just about every nook and cranny of our lives — is going to rise. Get used to it. If things proceed as presently planned, we will be in hock to big oil for decades to come.
And those are only the most obvious costs in a situation in which hidden costs abound, especially to the environment. As with the Deepwater Horizondisaster, oil extraction in deep-offshore areas and other extreme geographical locations will ensure ever greater environmental risks. After all, approximately five million gallons of oil were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico, thanks to BP’s negligence, causing extensive damage to marine animals and coastal habitats.

Keep in mind that, as catastrophic as it was, it occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, where vast cleanup forces could be mobilized and the ecosystem’s natural recovery capacity was relatively robust. The Arctic and Greenland represent a different story altogether, given their distance from established recovery capabilities and the extreme vulnerability of their ecosystems. Efforts to restore such areas in the wake of massive oil spills would cost many times the $30-$40 billion BP is expected to pay for the Deepwater Horizon damage and be far less effective.

In addition to all this, many of the most promising tough-oil fields lie in Russia, the Caspian Sea basin, and conflict-prone areas of Africa. To operate in these areas, oil companies will be faced not only with the predictably high costs of extraction, but also additional costs involving local systems of bribery and extortion, sabotage by guerrilla groups, and the consequences of civil conflict.

And don’t forget the final cost: If all these barrels of oil and oil-like substances are truly produced from the least inviting of places on this planet, then for decades to come we will continue to massively burn fossil fuels, creating ever more greenhouse gases as if there were no tomorrow. And here’s the sad truth: if we proceed down the tough-oil path instead of investing as massively in alternative energies, we may foreclose any hope of averting the most catastrophic consequences of a hotter and more turbulent planet.

So yes, there is oil out there. But no, it won’t get cheaper, no matter how much there is. And yes, the oil companies can get it, but looked at realistically, who would want it?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Satellite Imagery Shows Shell Nigerian Spill Worse Than Reported


by Emily Gertz 
 
A Shell deepwater drilling site off the Nigerian coast that the company reported leaking on Wednesday may have spilled up to 2.4 million gallons, according to nonprofit environmental satellite monitoring group SkyTruth.

 
ESA Envisat radar satellite image showing a major oil spill in the waters off the coast of Nigeria, via SkyTruth. If so, that’s far worse than indicated in statements made so far by Royal Dutch Shell, which has put the amount of oil leaked at the Bonga offshore site at “less than 40,000 barrels,” (1.7 million gallons).

“That could mean anything from 1 gallon to 1.7 million gallons,” John Amos, founder and president of satellite-imaging nonprofit SkyTruth told TPM.

Oil must be at least 1 micron (1/1000th of a millimeter) thick to be seen from a satellite, according to Amos. The visible rainbow sheen, he says, means that the oil could be anywhere from .3 to 10 microns thick, depending on two different sets of guidelines.

Amos used an image from a European Space Agency radar satellite (the ASAR instrument) to determine that as of mid-week, the spill covered an area of 923 square kilometers (356 square miles).

So if the spill is 5 microns thick—the estimate where the two sets of guidelines intersect—the oil would add up to around 1.2 million gallons, Amos said.

Shell has stated that the spill’s thickness is mostly less than 1/100th of a millimeter, or 10 microns, a statement which leaves a big data gap as well.

“If the whole slick is, on average, 10 microns thick, that’s 2.4 million gallons,” Amos said.

Reached for comment, Shell did not acknowledge SkyTruth’s estimate, and and would only reiterate the 40,000 barrel figure.

On Saturday, Shell released an updated, upbeat statement assuring observers that the spill had been contained and was shrinking thanks to the use of dispersals. As the company’s statement reads: “Current estimates based on over flights indicate less than 10,000 barrels of oil remain on the surface of the water.”

The Bonga spill took place Tuesday, December 20, when oil was being transferred between storage ships. The ordinary production capacity of the field was 200,000 barrels a day, and 10 percent of Nigeria’s overall monthly oil production, according to Reuters.

Presumably, Shell would know how much oil it started with on the day of the spill compared to how much remains, according to Amos.

“We have a lot more to hear from Shell about what actually happened at this site,” Amos told TPM.

Shell has been using floating production and storage offloading, or FPSO technology at the Bonga oilfield, “in which crude oil is piped to floating, mobile tanks, usually converted supertankers, rather than fixed platforms. Shuttle tankers collect oil from the FPSO and carry it to market,” as Wired reported earlier this week.

FPSO is a much cheaper way for an oil company to drill offshore, compared to setting up a drilling platform.

In addition, Shell has reported several oil spills off the coast of Nigeria since it began operating there in 2002, which it blames on sabotage and theft.

Amos believes Shell has a big incentive to be more transparent about the Bonga spill: the company recently received the Obama adminstration’s conditional approval to drill in the Arctic.

“If they weren’t honest [about the Bonga oil spill] and it was discovered they weren’t, I think that would make our government less likely to ease up on drilling restrictions in the Arctic,” he says.

Another recent Shell update states that “survelliance and aerial photos” show the spill breaking up, and that it has not reached the Nigerian coast. SkyTruth hasn’t been able to confirm or debunk this statement so far.

Amos believes Shell has caught on that groups like SkyTruth are using remote sensing to monitor its operations and vet its public statements.

For proof he points to a statement on Shell’s web site, posted after Amos blogged about the size of the Bonga oil slick, stating that while the spill’s extent, “as seen on satellite images, is very large, it’s also very thin.”

Says Amos, “The days when this stuff was so expensive and techie that only oil companies had access to it are over.”

Monday, October 17, 2011

Obama Allows BP Back Into Bidding for Gulf Drilling Rights


US regulator declines to enforce 'death penalty' on oil company despite environmentalists' fury
by Terry Macalister 
 
The Obama administration has infuriated environmentalists by giving BP the green light to bid for new drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Governments should be administering the death penalty to all deepwater drilling rather than waiting for yet more devastating incidents like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico or in any other part of the world," argued Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth. 

The move – seen as a major step in the company's political rehabilitation as an offshore driller following the Deepwater Horizon accident – was revealed by the head of the US safety regulator after a congressional hearing in Washington.

"They don't have a deeply flawed record offshore," said Michael Bromwich, head of the newly formed Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. "The question is: 'Do you administer the administrative death penalty based on one incident?', and we have concluded that's not appropriate."

Drilling rights are sold off on a regular basis but many believed BP would be ruled out as unsuitable after the gulf well blowout that killed 11 workers and polluted the beaches of southern states. The next sale comes up in December, when more than 8m hectares (20m acres) of offshore rights will come up for grabs.

BP declined to comment, but Friends of the Earth said it was appalled. "Governments should be administering the death penalty to all deepwater drilling rather than waiting for yet more devastating incidents like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico or in any other part of the world," argued Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at the environmental group.

"It is not just BP operations that are deeply flawed," he added. "There is not a single oil company that can say with a high degree of confidence that it can drill safely and how it will clear up if something goes wrong. It is clear in the context of climate change we need to develop new clean technologies, not hunt for fossil fuels in ever more remote and hard-to-reach areas."

BP has already introduced changes to its offshore safety regime that it claims now leaves it with tougher standards than the regulator demands, but it has yet to gain approval to drill new wells.

The oil company has for many years been the biggest operator in the gulf, but it was pilloried by politicians after the Deepwater Horizon spill and its former chief executive, Tony Hayward, was said to be the most hated person in the US.

Over the last 18 months, BP has gradually seen some of its reputation rebuilt, not least because several studies have suggested that US contractors on the project, such as Transocean and Halliburton, ought to share some of the blame. BP has also helped itself by paying for a massive clean-up and compensation programme, but it still faces huge lawsuits and even possible criminal charges.

On Thursday BP, Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, and well-cementing specialist Halliburton were formally charged with breaches of offshore regulations on 15 separate occasions. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of $35,000 per violation per day but the real threat to BP is if it is found guilty of gross negligence by any court – which would trigger billion-dollar claims under the US's Clean Water Act.

BP, now with its first American chief executive in Bob Dudley, was keen to emphasise the significance of the two contractors being drawn into the legal net, because those firms have argued that BP was at the heart of the Gulf accident. BP is trying to convince them to contribute their share of the compensation it has paid out already. "The issuance today of notices of non-compliance to BP, Transocean and Halliburton makes clear that contractors, like operators, are responsible for properly conducting their deepwater drilling activities and are accountable to the US government and the American public for their conduct," said BP in a statement.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Oil Exploration Under Arctic Ice Could Cause 'Uncontrollable' Natural Disaster

by Michael McCarthy 
 
 
Any serious oil spill in the ice of the Arctic, the "new frontier" for oil exploration, is likely to be an uncontrollable environmental disaster despoiling vast areas of the world's most untouched ecosystem, one of the world's leading polar scientists has told The Independent.


Oil from an undersea leak will not only be very hard to deal with in Arctic conditions, it will interact with the surface sea ice and become absorbed in it, and will be transported by it for as much as 1,000 miles across the ocean, according to Peter Wadhams, Professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

The interaction, discovered in large-scale experiments 30 years ago, means that the Arctic oil rush, which was given a huge boost last week with a $3.2 billion (£1.9bn) investment from Exxon Mobil, is likely to be the riskiest form of oil exploration ever undertaken, said Professor Wadhams, who is a former director of Cambridge's Scott Polar Research Institute.

"If there is serious oil spill under ice in the Arctic it will be very hard, if not impossible to stop it becoming an environmental catastrophe," he said. "It will be very much harder to deal with than a major spill in open water."

The world's oil companies are now turning to the Far North as supplies elsewhere across the globe start to run out or become harder to extract, and both the potential profits from Arctic oil, and the fears about the damage that extracting it may do, are enormous.

The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves. Some of it is under land, as in Alaska's North Slope field, but large amounts of it are known to lie under the seabeds of the Arctic Ocean and Baffin Bay off Greenland, which are ice-covered for all or part of the year, depending on the region.

It is this offshore oil which is now the focus of a new exploration rush, with Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon among the strongest contenders, focusing on the Arctic Ocean itself, while the first wells in the sea off Greenland are already being drilled by Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy.

However, many observers are seriously alarmed about the spill risks in the extreme conditions, especially in the wake of BP's calamitous leak at the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico last year, which could not be controlled for three months, released as much as five million barrels of crude, and came close to wrecking the company.

"A spill in the Arctic would essentially make dealing with something like Deepwater Horizon look almost straightforward," said Ben Ayliffe, polar campaigner for Greenpeace.

"There are problems with ice encroachment, the remoteness of the Arctic, darkness, extreme weather, deep water, high seas, freezing conditions and icebergs. Basically it would mean that responding to a Gulf of Mexico-style spill off somewhere like Greenland would be impossible."

Yet Professor Wadhams, who was the first civilian scientist to travel under the Arctic ice in a submarine, in 1971, and who has made five more under-ice trips, is spotlighting an even greater level of concern with his knowledge of how oil and ice interact – with potentially calamitous consequences.

It stems from large-scale experiments he took part in off the coast of Canada in the 1970s, in which substantial quantities of oil were deliberately released into the frozen sea, to see how it behaved. "What we found, and one of the great difficulties, is that spilled oil becomes encapsulated in the ice and is then transported around the Arctic by it," he said.

"The oil is caught underneath the ice, so you can't get at immediately to clean it up or burn it off. You don't know exactly where it is, and then it gets encapsulated in the new ice which grows underneath, so you then have a kind of oil sandwich inside the pack ice.

"And that's being transported around the Arctic and isn't released until spring, when it may be several hundred or even a thousand miles from the source of the spill, so you can have a huge area of the Arctic becoming polluted by oil without initially it being clear where that oil is."

He added: "Once it is released in springtime, it's very toxic, because the encapsulation in the ice preserves the oil from weathering, so that instead of the lighter fraction evaporating and the heavier fraction becoming just tar balls, you have fresh oil being released exactly where the ice is melting, usually round the edge of the pack ice where you've got a lot of migratory birds.

"Not great for the environment. In fact, I think the appropriate word would be 'terrible'."
Professor Wadhams is so concerned that he is helping to organize a high-level scientific workshop on the subject of oil spills in sea ice, in Italy later this month.

While companies such as Cairn Energy stress that they will be drilling exploratory wells only in the summer months, in areas of sea which are ice-free, it is likely that once oil production actually begins, it will be a year-round business and continue through the winter when production facilities are ice-bound. "We would need to produce all year round, in order to make the whole thing worthwhile," a spokesman for Shell said at the weekend.

The oil companies insist that they are aware of the risks and have prepared detailed oil spill response plans, but Professor Wadhams, who has read several of them, said they did not amount to comprehensive plans for dealing with oil in ice.

The expert

* Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, is an oceanographer and glaciologist and one of the world's leading experts on polar ice. He is celebrated for submarine voyages beneath it.

His concern about how sea ice will interact with oil from a spill as the Arctic is opened up for drilling is so great that he has helped to convene an international high-level academic seminar to discuss Oil Spills in Sea Ice – and Future at Italy's Polar Geographical Institute in Fermo, Italy, from 20-23 September.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

BP Expects to Resume Drilling in Gulf of Mexico within Months

(This is sickeningly ridiculous!--jef)



by Terry Macalister


BP has predicted it will be back drilling in the Gulf of Mexico within a matter of months despite continuing legal threats and rows over pollution from last year's Deepwater Horizon disaster.

"We expect to be back and actively drilling during the second half of the year," Byron Grote, the company's chief financial officer, told financial analysts from the City of London on Wednesday.

The comments are likely to infuriate environmentalists who believe BP should be kept away from the Gulf, and could upset a US offshore regulator still considering whether to grant permits to BP.

Verbal gaffes by former chief executive Tony Hayward in the wake of the Macondo well accident 12 months ago damaged the company's reputation in America as it attracted widespread criticism from the White House downwards.

Grote was speaking as BP revealed it had taken a further $400 million of extra charges relating to Macondo in its first quarter financial results, which helped dent profits.

The company has not drilled any wells in the US Gulf since a moratorium was introduced last summer but formally lifted again in October. Some rival firms have already been granted permission to drill new deepwater wells, but not BP.

A spokesman for the British company said it had applied to resume drilling production wells to keep up output levels at important fields such as Thunderhorse and Atlantis. "This is clearly subject to the regulator's permission being granted," he added.

Hopes that drilling could begin soon come barely a month after the US justice department confirmed it was still considering a range of civil and criminal charges against BP. It also comes amid continuing arguments over how much oil or dispersant chemicals used in the aftermath of Macondo continue to damage the waters of the Gulf.

The financial figures for the first three months of the year were boosted by much higher oil prices but were also damaged by the chancellor, George Osborne, taking a billion dollar bite out of profits. Changes announced in the March budget on North Sea oil fields cost BP $683 million in extra taxes over the first quarter of the year while a further $400m is expected to go in 2012 owing to fiscal treatment covering the decommissioning of platforms.

The higher tax charge in the first three months helped replacement cost profits dip to $5.5 billion from $5.6 billion during the same period a year ago but the figures were also hampered by an 11% slump in production volumes and higher operating costs.

These special items outweighed a substantial increase in oil prices year on year and a very strong performance from its Russian business, TNK-BP, where BP is in conflict with its oligarch partners over a proposed tie-up with another local group, Rosneft.

The tax hit from Osborne has infuriated the North Sea oil and gas industry which claims hundreds of jobs stand to be lost. There has been a series of meetings between company executives and government officials but so far Osborne has shown little sign of backing down.
Osborne presented the move last month as a "fair fuel stabiliser" which would raise the tax rate on oil producers to avoid having to increase the tariff on pump petrol, which has reached record levels.

The chancellor said the change would raise £2 billion of extra taxes but BP's figure of $683 million is the first from a company and BP is still one of the largest in the North Sea. The BP tax rate went up from 30% to 37% over the first quarter as a result of the move, said a company spokesman.

The oil group has gradually been running down its UK interests and is talking to potential buyers about various gas fields it wants to sell along with the Wytch Farm onshore field in Dorset.

BP has disposed of $24 billion worth of assets worldwide as part of a cash-raising move to help pay for the $41billion cost of Deepwater Horizon.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Congress Fails To Pass A Single Oil Spill Law (2 articles)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 by Huffington Post
by Marcus Baram

NEW YORK -- Soon after his son Gordon died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion last April, Keith Jones made eight trips to Washington D.C. to push for stronger safety measures in offshore oil drilling and to increase the compensation paid to victims of the tragic accident. He met with President Obama, who apologized for the families' "unimaginable grief" and cradled Gordon's baby boy Maxwell in his arms.

In the year since the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history, Congress hasn't adopted any major laws on oil and gas drilling -- despite introducing more than 150 bills to improve the safety and oversight of offshore drilling and holding more than 60 hearings to discuss the spill's causes and consequences with regulators, oil company officials, grieving relatives and Gulf-area fishermen. When Jones arrived on Capitol Hill, he says he was mobbed by Senators and Representatives eager to express their condolences and to promise that they would swiftly pass legislation to make sure such a tragedy never happens again.

He is still waiting.

In the year since the worst environmental disaster in the nation's history, Congress hasn't adopted any major laws on oil and gas drilling -- despite introducing more than 150 bills to improve the safety and oversight of offshore drilling and holding more than 60 hearings to discuss the spill's causes and consequences with regulators, oil company officials, grieving relatives and Gulf-area fishermen.

"Nothing has happened," said Jones, speaking by phone from his law office in Baton Rouge. "When oil was still gushing out of the Gulf, everybody wanted to do everything right, to do whatever they could to keep that from happening again. But that was then. Now, everybody is back to drilling more, making more money and not worrying about safety. That attitude is what cost the lives of 11 men and caused the biggest environmental disaster in our history," he said.
Jones traces the inaction to political gridlock and to the nation’s fading attention span. He claims that as soon as the gushing undersea well was capped and the nonstop TV coverage slowed to a trickle in July, he no longer commanded the same attention.

"I remember the day they capped that well -- those images had been up in the corner of every TV screen, all that oil gushing into the ocean -- I stopped seeing senators and congressmen and started seeing staffers."

In January, President Obama's oil spill commission released a slew of recommendations for changes that would seek to ensure safer drilling operations, provide better spill response, lift the existing liability cap on oil companies and secure funding for coastal restoration efforts in the Gulf. Yet though bipartisan leaders of the commission have personally lobbied members of Congress, no major legislation has been adopted. Lawmakers did accept the commission's recommendation for a budget increase for the federal agency with oversight of offshore drilling.
"I am disappointed," said oil spill commission co-chairman William Reilly, a former EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush. He added that he is worried by House Natural Resources Committee chair Rep. Doc Hastings’ (R-Wash.) intention “to wait until all the investigations are resolved before developing his own legislation. One hopes that it will be responsive to the commission's recommendations," Reilly said.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that would enact many of the commission's recommendations has little chance of passing, given the Republican majority in the House.
Markey expressed his disappointment at the lack of a legislative response in a statement provided to The Huffington Post:

"One year after the BP spill began, the American people and the citizens of the Gulf shouldn't believe that another major spill couldn't occur, or that our response wouldn't be as sub-par as it was during last summer's spill. Many holes still exist in our offshore drilling safety regime, and another spill could happen again."

About 18 months after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 -- the largest spill in the nation's history at the time -- Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, which required companies to detail their spill-prevention and spill-cleanup plans, notes Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser at Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation group.

"You're seeing Congress pretend that Deepwater never happened," he said. "You're seeing them say, 'Let's take similar risks in sensitive areas, in spite of what happened.’”

Just last week, the House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills to accelerate the offshore drilling permitting process and open up new areas to drilling off the coasts of California, Florida, Massachusetts and North Carolina. The bill's sponsor, Hastings, says his legislation increases safety oversight by writing a requirement for government permitting of offshore drilling projects into federal law.

The legislation, which would require federal regulators to act on offshore drilling permits within 30 days, alarmed environmentalists and members of the administration who expressed their concern that it rushes an important process.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar blamed Republicans for having a "sense of amnesia" about last year's spill, adding, "much of the legislation that I have seen being bandied around, especially with the House Republicans, is almost as if the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well incident never happened."

The opposition to new legislation that requires stricter oversight largely stems from the anti-regulatory zeal of conservative lawmakers and from the influence of the oil industry, say congressional staffers from both parties.

In 2010, the oil and gas industry spent more than $146 million to lobby the federal government and donated $28 million to federal campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
"The lobbying is relentless and continuous on the Hill," says John Amos, a former oil industry geologist who heads the SkyTruth environmental group. "And the public sector groups are no match for the well-oiled machine that the American Petroleum Institute is."

Shortly before he introduced his legislation, Hastings held a closed-door, invitation-only meeting with top energy lobbyists, Politico reported. A spokesperson for Hastings did not return several requests for comment.

And BP is back to making contributions to politicians -- largely to GOP leaders -- breaking a self-imposed moratorium on such donations in the wake of the oil spill. The oil giant gave $5,000 contributions to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), among others.

Last week, Louisiana's senators, Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R), introduced legislation that calls for dedicating at least 80 percent of BP penalties paid under the Clean Water Act to Gulf states to restore the coastal ecosystem and its economies damaged by the spill.

Some lawmakers from both parties have argued that new legislation should await the results of several ongoing investigations into the accident by the National Academy of Engineering and the Chemical Safety Board. Though the same caution was preached in advance of the oil spill commission's findings in January, no new legislation has been proposed. Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) expressed his concern about the tendency in Washington for incidents to prompt new laws "and a whole new level of bureaucracy. ... There's no question we need to improve oversight, but I rather doubt that a new law is a good thing," he told the Shreveport Times. "That's sort of a knee-jerk reaction we have in Washington."

Offshore drilling watchdog SkyTruth's John Amos, whose satellite-imagery exposed the true extent of the spill, advocates legislation that requires stronger oversight of deepwater drilling but agreed it “may be appropriate to keep your powder dry while the Chemical Safety Board [probe] is still going on."

Some of the presidential oil spill commission's recommendations have been adopted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement, the regulatory agency that oversees offshore drilling. Led by former prosecutor Michael Bromwich, the successor agency to the scandal-prone Minerals Management Service has won praise for ramping up oversight, though critics claim that it still depends too much on industry-written standards and has not yet revamped its oil spill response plans. Since imposing new safety and environmental rules, the bureau has approved 46 new shallow-water wells and 10 permits for deepwater drilling projects that had been blocked by Obama's moratorium in the wake of the oil spill.

Among Jones's biggest frustrations was to witness first-hand the collapse of an uncontroversial bill to change an archaic law, the Death on the High Seas Act, that limits the damages that the families of the 11 victims of the Deepwater Horizon can recover. After passing the House, the bill was held up in the Senate due to lobbying by cruise lines and shipping companies until Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-Del.) adjusted it to only apply to the Deepwater victims. But one senator, Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blocked the body from voting on it in December, just before the end of the congressional session.

Jones said that he tried to talk to the senator but "he didn't have time for me." One of DeMint's staffers told Jones that the senator objected because he did not believe that Congress should pass laws that have a retroactive effect, the staffer claimed.

"That's a lie," thundered Jones, explaining that DeMint voted in the House to pass legislation in 2000 that amended the liability for aviation accidents to make it retroactive by five years. And a week after blocking the bill to amend the Death on the High Seas Act, DeMint supported the legislation to help treat 9/11 first responders.

DeMint was also the only senator who prevented a vote by unanimous consent on a bill that would have given President Obama's oil spill commission subpoena power -- a spokesman later said that DeMint himself did not object to the provision but that he was acting on behalf of "members of the Republican conference." He eventually lifted the block and the measure passed. A similar measure had earlier passed the House by a vote of 420-1.
A spokesperson for DeMint declined several requests for comment.

Former Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) who voted for the bill to amend the Death on the High Seas Act, says he was stunned that it didn't pass, especially since it appears that there was negligence.

"How do you tell these people that you and your children don't get a thing?” he asked. “In good conscience, it's difficult for me to understand."

+++++++++


3,200 Gulf Wells Unplugged, Unprotected
by Jeff Donn

More than 3,200 oil and gas wells classified as active lie abandoned beneath the Gulf of Mexico, with no cement plugging to help prevent leaks that could threaten the same waters fouled by last year's BP spill, The Associated Press has learned.

These wells likely pose an even greater environmental threat than the 27,000 wells in the Gulf that have been plugged and classified officially as "permanently abandoned" or "temporarily abandoned." Those sealed wells were first tallied and reported as a major leaking threat in an investigative report by the AP in July.


The unplugged wells haven't been used for at least five years, and there are no plans to restore production on them, according to the federal government. Operators have not been required to plug the wells because their leases have not expired.

As a result, there is little to prevent powerful leaks from pushing to the surface. Even depleted wells can repressurize from work on nearby wells or shifts in oil or gas layers beneath the surface, petroleum engineers say. But no one is watching to make sure that doesn't happen.
The addition of the unused but officially active wells, as documented in a list provided to the AP by federal officials under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, means at least three-fifths of the 50,000 wells ever drilled in the Gulf have been left behind with no routine monitoring for leaks.

The 27,000 decommissioned wells were drilled mostly on federal leases that have now expired. Government rules for expired leases on the sea floor require operators to plug the wells or make plans to reuse them within a year. In its original report, the AP documented how oil and gas companies regularly flouted the rules regarding temporary abandonment, with some wells "temporarily abandoned" since the 1950s.

Rules for unexpired leases are different, and have allowed operators to simply walk away from idle wells. Some of the roughly 3,200 unsealed wells contained in the latest list were drilled 60 years ago, and most are more than 10 years old.

Federal regulators described idle wells on active leases as a "potential threat" to the environment in a September letter to operators announcing a new program, dubbed "Idle Iron," to plug them within three years. The letter said the program would cover more than 3,000 idle wells but didn't say what kind of wells would be included or whether the wells already contained at least some cement plugging.

The list of specific wells covered by the Idle Iron initiative was provided to the AP by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which regulates oil and gas leases on federal lands on the sea floor.

BOEMRE refused to provide the list when the AP first requested it in September. The agency said at the time that it first wanted to verify with gas and oil companies that the wells were correctly classified. The AP argued that the FOIA provides access to records as they exist at the time of the request, but the agency still refused to release the material.

In finally providing the list last month, BOEMRE said the wells had been "verified." But several weeks later, a representative of the agency, Eileen Angelico, contacted the AP and said it had mistakenly released the original unverified list.

It is that version — a listing of wells as they were classified in September without any challenges from the industry — that the AP has analyzed and used as a basis for this story. Angelico said the verified list wasn't yet ready, despite the earlier assurance that the released list had been checked by operators.

The list cites the American Petroleum Institute number of 3,253 oil or gas wells targeted by the initiative in September. Ninety-nine percent of them, or 3,212, were classified as completed wells. Most were drilled for regular production, but a few were exploratory.

Just 41 of the Idle Iron wells — 1 percent — were already classified in September as "temporarily abandoned."

When wells are drilled, they are lined with metal casing, which is then encased in cement to further shore up the borehole.

Whole segments of wells that are permanently abandoned are plugged with additional lengths of cement — known as plugs — to prevent any oil or gas from pushing its way to the top. Then, the top of the casing is sheared off, and a cap is placed over it.

When wells are temporarily abandoned, fewer cement plugs are placed, so it is easier to drill through the plugs and resume production, if desired.

The typical well in the Iron Idle program is finished only with a wellhead, which is the top of the metal lining, and perhaps a device called a tree, a faucet-like rig equipped with valves to open and shut the flow of hydrocarbons during production.

Federal regulators have acknowledged that even some plugged wells have leaked in the past. And, as the AP disclosed last summer, there is no routine monitoring of abandoned wells — plugged or unplugged.

The oil and gas industry generally views plugging on unexpired leases as an inconvenience and prefers the freedom to resume operations at any time on such wells.

When BP's Deepwater Horizon well blew in the Gulf last April 20, it was being temporarily abandoned to await later production. A poor cement plugging job has been identified as a chief cause of the deadly explosion and spill.

Engineers say the metal and cement lining inside abandoned wells, as well as the plugs, can break down over time and allow leaking. Petroleum or corrosive brine, which is even saltier than sea water, can leak from under the sea floor, harming aquatic life.

The most dramatic threat from the Idle Iron wells is a gusher akin to the BP spill, though probably on a smaller scale, specialists say.

Roger N. Anderson, an energy geophysicist at Columbia University, said he worries about a catastrophic failure of the cement lining in the unplugged wells. "The one thing we don't know very much about is how the cement will age. Highways only last so long, and the cement starts to degrade," he said.

Another danger is that many of the unused Idle Iron wells may be slowly leaking, hurting sea creatures that have adapted to the natural petroleum seepage from the sea floor, but not to higher amounts. "Elevated chronic leaks from thousands of sources spread widely across the Gulf can have much more impact than single spills," said Doug Rader, an ecologist for the Environmental Defense Fund.

A third danger is that hurricanes or other storms will wreck underwater structures and make them leak.

David Pettit, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the lack of oversight of unused wells makes him nervous.

"I have no idea how badly they may be leaking," he said, adding that federal regulators should start with checking some of the oldest wells.

Under the Idle Iron program, operators can choose to seal the wells with a complete series of plugs and sheared-off well lining for permanent abandonment, or with fewer plugs for temporary abandonment.

As a third choice, they may apply limited plugs strategically around the oil or gas zones within the well — but must then seal the well more thoroughly within two more years.

It's not clear if companies would be required to fully seal the Idle Iron wells that are already listed as temporarily abandoned.

Under the new rules, future wells that drop out of production on active leases also must be sealed within three years.

Gene Beck, a petroleum engineer at Texas A&M University who used to work in the petroleum industry, said many companies won't like the Idle Iron program "because it's going to cost a lot of money." It is not clear how much, but companies will have to spend at least $3 billion to permanently plug wells on both active and expired federal leases, according to earlier BOEMRE estimates.

Apache Corp., which operates the most Idle Iron wells with 587 in its portfolio, foresees spending $317 million to plug and decommission its own assets in the Gulf just this year.
Drew Hunger, who manages Gulf decommissioning work for Apache, said he views the timetable of the Idle Iron program as reasonably ambitious, but he added that it also appears to allow for "the limitations on available contractor equipment and manpower."

He said industry complaints about the program revolve around the paperwork and the limited size of BOEMRE's staffing to process it.

Chevron U.S.A., the company with the second-highest number of wells in the program at 528, did not respond to a request for comment. BP has 24 such wells and also did not respond.
Federal officials have said little about how the new program will be enforced. Neither the BOEMRE nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors sea pollution, responded to repeated requests for interviews about the program.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

BP's Secret Deepwater Blowout, another one...

Tuesday 19 April 2011
by Greg Palast, Truthout and Buzzflash


Only 17 months before BP's Deepwater Horizon rig suffered a deadly blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, another BP deepwater oil platform also blew out.

You've heard and seen much about the Gulf disaster that killed 11 BP workers. If you have not heard about the earlier blowout, it's because BP has kept the full story under wraps. Nor did BP inform Congress or US safety regulators, and BP, along with its oil industry partners, have preferred to keep it that way.

The earlier blowout occurred in September 2008 on BP's Central Azeri platform in the Caspian Sea.

As one memo marked "secret" puts it, "Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition." The Caspian oil platform was a spark away from exploding, but luck was with the 211 rig workers.

It was eerily similar to the Gulf catastrophe as it involved BP's controversial "quick set" drilling cement.

The question we have to ask: If BP had laid out the true and full facts to Congress and regulators about the earlier blowout, would those 11 Gulf workers be alive today - and the Gulf Coast spared oil-spill poisons?

The bigger question is, why is there no clear law to require disclosure? If you bump into another car on the Los Angeles freeway, you have to report it. But there seems no clear requirement on corporations to report a disaster in which knowledge of it could save lives.

Five months prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, BP's Chief of Exploration in the Gulf, David Rainey, testified before Congress against increased safety regulation of its deepwater drilling operation. Despite the company's knowledge of the Caspian blowout a year earlier, the oil company's man told the Senate Energy Committee that BP's methods are, "both safe and protective of the environment."

Really? BP's quick-dry cement saves money, but other drillers find it too risky in deepwater. It was a key factor in the Caspian blowout. Would US regulators or Congress have permitted BP to continue to use this cement had they known? Would they have investigated before issuing permits to drill?

This is not about BP the industry Bad Boy. This is about a system that condones silence, the withholding of life-and-death information.

Even BP's oil company partners, including Chevron and Exxon, were kept in the dark. It is only through WikiLeaks that my own investigations team was able to confirm insider tips I had received about the Caspian blowout. In that same confidential memo mentioned earlier, the US Embassy in Azerbaijan complained, "At least some of BP's [Caspian] partners are similarly upset with BP's performance in this episode, as they claim BP has sought to limit information flow about this event even to its [Caspian] partners."

In defense of its behavior, BP told me it did in fact report the "gas release" to the regulators of Azerbaijan. That's small comfort. This former Soviet republic is a police state dictatorship propped up by the BP group's oil royalties. A public investigation was out of the question.

In December, I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan's capital, to investigate BP and the blowout for British television. I was arrested, though, as a foreign reporter, quickly released. But my eye witnesses got the message and all were too afraid tell their stories on camera.

BP has, in fact, never admitted a blowout occurred, though when confronted by my network, did not deny it. At the time, BP told curious press that the workers had merely been evacuated as a "precaution" due to gas bubbles "in the area of" the drilling platform, implying a benign natural gas leak from a crack in the sea floor, not a life-threatening system failure.

In its 2009 report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), BP inched closer to the full truth. Though not mentioning "blowout" or "cement," the company placed the leak "under" the platform.

This points to a cruel irony: the SEC requires full disclosure of events that might cause harm to the performance of BP's financial securities. But reporting on events that might harm humans? That's not so clear.

However, the solution is clear as could be. International corporations should be required to disclose events that threaten people and the environment, not just the price of their stock.

As radiation wafts across the Pacific from Japan, it is clear that threats to health and safety do not respect national borders. What happens in Fukushima or Baku affects lives and property in the USA.

"Regulation" has become a dirty word in US politics. Corporations have convinced the public to fear little bureaucrats with thick rulebooks. But let us remember why government began to regulate these creatures. As Andrew Jackson said, "Corporations have neither bodies to kick nor souls to damn."

Kicking and damning have no effect, but rules do. And after all, when international regulation protects profits, as in the case of patents and copyrights, corporate America is all for it.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Spill changed little in the Gulf oil industry

April 17, 2011
Despite a ten-month stoppage after Gulf oil spill disaster, a restarted oil industry works under no new regulations
By Mark Strassmann (CBS News)

Wednesday marks the first anniversary of the explosion aboard BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, triggering a leak that took nearly three months to stop.

One year later, CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann reports that in some ways, the oil business has changed, and in others, it has not.

After BP's disaster exploded into view, the nation saw that 11 lives were lost, and nearly five million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf. All of it was preventable. Critics vowed never again.

Almost a year later, ten new deepwater wells are underway. Some are already drilling other sites, with rigs on the way. The Gulf is back open for business.

"To see activity again is just great," said Dwayne Rebstock, Allport Services' CEO.

Rebstock's Louisiana company services the oil industry's supply ships. He's happy to re-hire ten laid-off workers, but puzzled by what's really changed.

"I don't see any improvements that were made to any degree or level that justifies the ten months the industry was shut down," Rebstock said.

Even government regulators admit they have a long way to go, despite mandating new disaster plans from drilling operators. From requesting data on worse case spill rates, to updating response time to drill a relief well, in addition to overhauling standards for well design, casing and cementing, and safety.

"The deepwater horizon did come as a wake-up call to the industry. There had been complacency and over-confidence, " said Michael Bromwich with BOEMRE.

BP also displayed a good deal of incompetence. For 87 days, BP could not stop its own leak. Since the spill, industry groups created two new capping and containment systems, now for deepwater drillers in case of another major spill.

One such company is the Marine Well Containment Company. Its centerpiece is a 100 ton stacking cap, designed to collect 60,000 barrels of leaking oil a day.

"We have the equipment. We have the people. We have the pre-defined plan. We're ready to go," said Marty Massey, Marine Well Containment Company's CEO.

Getting this news system in place over a problem well is one of the unknowns. While company officials claim it will take just a few minutes, it is a system that has never been tried before on the sea floor. Every day of delay, a ruptured well could leak thousands of barrels.

Since BP's disaster, Congress has passed no new safety regulation for deepwater drilling.

"Until tough new safety standards are put on the books, then we are still gambling with the livelihoods and the life of the Gulf of Mexico," Said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.)

No coast was smeared more than Louisiana's, but the state relies on oil jobs. So its officials want more deepwater drilling as soon as possible.

At a Congressional hearing, Louisiana's Natural Resources Director Scott Angelle seemed not to have even read a presidential panel's new safety recommendations.

When asked whether safety recommendations from the president's BP oil spill commission should be implemented, Angelle said: "I'm not familiar with all the safety recommendations."

BP has refused any comment as this anniversary fuels debate about what has really changed in the Gulf.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Obama Administration Approves Fourth Gulf Deepwater Drilling Permit

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 by The Hill
by Andrew Restuccia

The Interior Department announced Tuesday it has approved another Gulf of Mexico deepwater drilling permit under a series of beefed-up safety standards.

BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich said Tuesday the administration has “growing confidence” in the industry, noting that more approvals are pending. It’s the fourth such approval for the type of project that was halted in the aftermath of last year’s Gulf oil spill.

The approval comes a day after Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) approved the first deepwater exploration plan in the Gulf since the spill, a key step in moving forward with new drilling in the region.

Pro-drilling lawmakers and the oil industry have railed against the administration for the slow-down in Gulf drilling permits since the oil spill. But the administration has stressed that it is working diligently to process applications, but it will not issue permits until companies can show they are capable of containing a massive well blowout.

BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich said Tuesday the administration has “growing confidence” in the industry, noting that more approvals are pending.

"As we have seen, the rate of deepwater permit applications is increasing, which reflects growing confidence in the industry that it understands and can comply with the applicable requirements, including the containment requirement,” he said in a statement. “We expect additional permit approvals in the near future.”

The permit BOEMRE approved will allow Exxon Mobil to drill a new well in 6,941 feet of water about 240 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It's the first of the four deepwater drilling permits approved by BOEMRE since the spill that would allow new drilling.

Exxon Mobil had received approval to drill the new well prior to the spill, but the project was halted in the aftermath of the disaster. The company had to receive approval from BOEMRE under a series of new safety standards put in place in the aftermath of the spill.

It’s the first permit to be approved by BOEMRE that will use an oil containment system developed by the Marine Well Containment Company. The Marine Well Containment Company is a coalition formed by major oil companies to develop undersea containment technology.