GOP plans defense to Dem effort to link spill to climate

Senate Republicans are plotting their defense strategy as Dems try to agree on how to pursue climate and energy legislation, in advance of a bi-partisan meeting with President Obama Tuesday.

The White House meet was postponed from last week because of the Gen. McChrystal flap.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week pulled together Republicans invited to that meeting to make sure they hold together under pressure to sign on to a climate bill. He told them to focus on the Gulf oil spill, and not tie it to climate change, as Dems want. And he warned any bill with an “energy tax” (cap-and-trade) would go nowhere.

Meanwhile Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) held two caucus meetings, the second of which was praised as “inspirational” by attendees, yet was unable to find common ground on how strong and comprehensive an energy bill should be.

Polluters should pay
Dems agreed to emphasize “polluters pay” in their bill and Reid said there should also be millions of new jobs, a cut in pollution and energy independence. But they didn’t get much further than that.

Alternatives range from the comprehensive Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act based on cap-and-trade, to a weaker version that just regulates utility companies, to an energy-only bill without any price on carbon, to a very weak bill energy bill from Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).

The problem is getting all Dems onboard and picking up at least one Republican. Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) is seen as a possible vote for linking clean energy to the spill.

But it may be difficult to get the support of all Dems. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he wants to focus on suspending the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases and pushing for clean coal – not exactly what most other Dems have in mind.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has suggested that a diverse panel of about 10 Democrats try to hammer out compromise legislation they think can get 60 votes.

But there’s not much time to act. Just one week between now and the Fourth of July and then 25 days until the August recess. After that elections will dominate.

And it won’t necessarily be easy to reach agreement on the other part of the bill – reforming offshore drilling regulations. Lifting the liability cap is already controversial.

(Sources: ClimateWire, E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

15 myths about the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010

An interesting rebuttle of falsehoods being spread about the BP oil spill. See The Daily Green.

Gulf Oil Spill: Washington Post slideshow of cleanup, hearings

View slideshow

New House bill would amend or repeal ancient laws that could let BP, Transocean off the liability hook

Archaic laws protect BP, Transocean and others from full liability in the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. So U.S. Rep. John Conyers (R-Mich.) introduced a bill Friday to amend those laws.

HR 5503 (The SPILL Bill) would amend the 90-year-old Death on the High Seas Act and Jones Act, so that families of the 11 workers killed in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion could sue for non-pecuniary damages (such as pain and suffering).

Further, the bill would strengthen bankruptcy rules to make it harder for BP to spin off part of its company responsible for the ruptured well and have that piece declare bankruptcy to avoid financial liability. Some are concerned that as costs mount the company might use bankruptcy to avoid payment.

The bill also would repeal a 160-year-old law that limits the liability of vessel owners to the value of the vessel and its cargo. Transocean lawyers had at one point planned to use this to limit the company's liability, but backed away because of objections from the Justice Department.

Finally, the bill would give states affected by the spill the power to pursue legal redress against BP and others responsible in their own courts.

“We should not allow reckless corporations to use 19th century laws to shortchange their victims,” Conyers said in a statement.

The bill is co-sponsored by 11 other representatives, including Charles Melancon (D-La.).

(Source: E&E Daily, InsideLouisianaNews.com)

Reid to use spill to fashion new energy and climate bill

(Photo of Harry Reid from Flickr and talkradionews.)

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 should make it easier to pass climate legislation to get us off fossil fuels, now that we’ve seen the damage deepwater drilling can do. Right?

Not necessarily. Pundits have been saying the Kerry-Lieberman bill will lose the possibility of any GOP support if it backs away from more offshore drilling, and it will lose Dem support if it encourages it. The lines have hardened.

So how can Dem leadership improve its chances of passing a climate and clean energy bill before the November elections, when Republicans are sure to pick up more seats?

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has had an “aha moment.” He’s going to turn this into a Spill Bill, with emphasis on holding oil companies accountable and reducing their tax breaks. With public concern about the spill running high, detractors would have more trouble voting against such a bill, he reasons.

Last week Reid sent a memo to eight committee chairmen with a role in climate and energy, asking them to put forth ideas about how to make oil drilling safer, make the companies pay for damage they cause and reduce some of the tax breaks they gained over the past decade.

Reid wants to bring a bill to the floor in July. Whether it will be a combination of oil spill and Kerry-Lieberman or oil spill and energy-only (no cap, no trade, no carbon limit) is still to be determined.

President Obama voiced his support for a comprehensive bill of the Kerry-Lieberman variety last week, but he may have to settle for less.

Reid will meet with the relevant committee chairs next Thursday to talk about how to proceed.

However they shape it, a climate/clean energy bill is going to be hard to pass before November.

My guess is they’ll end up with a Spill Bill that also encourages clean energy (perhaps with a renewable electricity standard) and other incentives to produce and use clean energy – and probably nuclear power. That may be the only way to get 60 votes, and even that will be hard.

Big Oil still has many supporters. Witness calls from Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to drill off their coasts, because their economies depend on it.

Stay tuned.

(Sources: Mother Jones, Politico, E&E News PM, Climate Progress)

Cheney task force set the stage for Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010

(Photo of Dick Cheney from Flickr and talkradionews.)


How did we get to this point, where Big Oil pretty much calls its own shots, ignoring the environmental and economic consequences of what it does?

You can blame Dick Cheney. And George Bush. And Dick Armey (then majority leader of the House, now head of the Tea Party) and Tom DeLay and a bunch of other powerful pols with oil funding and oil ties.

Former VP Cheney’s National Energy Policy Tax Force and the subsequent Energy Policy Act of 2005 set the stage for the extreme pro-oil policies and self-regulation that has now led to BP’s Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010.

Cheney always rejected efforts to reveal the machinations of the energy task force, but the subsequent legislation closely followed many of the points in the task force’s National Energy Policy Report.

Among those points:

• New authority to the Dept. of Interior to permit new drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf without adequate oversight.
• $2 billion in subsidies to encourage drilling in “ultra deepwater.”
• Tens of billions in subsidies for oil and other forms of dirty energy.
• Weakening of states’ say over drilling off their shores.
• Expansion of circumstances to waive environmental reviews.

Two excellent posts, by Climate Progress and The Center for American Progress go into much more detail about the impact of having two oil men in the White House and Texas oil-linked leadership in the House between 2001-2005. They’re definitely worth reading.

BP, other Big Oil said they had technology to stop blowouts

(Image of "top hat" attempt to stem oil flow from Flickr and Mick Licht, NotionsCapital.com.)

BP and other drilling companies in the Gulf assured the Minerals Management Service – in writing – that they had the “proven equipment and technology” to handle deepwater oil spills like the one we’re seeing now.

They didn’t describe what that technology was and MMS didn’t ask. Top hat? Junk shot?

Most of the 36 deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf got approval by giving the same assurances, according to a Greenwire analysis of MMS records. Nearly all plans said they could handle a “worst case scenario” which BP defined as 162,000 barrels a day, far more than the estimated 12,000 to 25,000 a day of this spill.

Seven plans had identical wording: "In the event of an unanticipated blowout resulting in an oil spill, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry wide standards for using proven equipment and technology for such responses."

Many of the companies said because of their “response capabilities” even a major spill would cause no major damage.

Now we know otherwise.

Last week President Obama suspended 33 deepwater drilling operations in the Gulf.

Some members of the Senate Environment Committee have asked for a criminal investigation of BP’s alleged “false statements,” which might also lead to looking at other drilling companies making similar assurances, including Exxon and Marathon Oil.

(Source: Greenwire)

White House asks Congress for help for oil spill victims

(Photo of White House from Flickr and photographer dcJohn)

The White House on Friday asked Congress to pass a number of measures to speed up help for those hurt by the Gulf oil spill. The $118 million package included:

• Lifting the $75M cap on BP’s liability (didn’t say by how much).
• Increasing the oil tax 1 cent per barrel to better fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
• Raising the trust fund cap per incident to $1.5B from $1B.
• Allocating $15M to guarantee compensation for fishermen.
• Providing $2M to inspect seafood.
• Expediting unemployment compensation and expanding it to cover self-employed fishermen.
• Expanding food stamps.
• Granting $5M in economic development.
• Authorizing the Agriculture Dept. to distribute free food to those in need.
* Giving the Interior Dept. $29M to begin more inspections, enforcement and study of potential problems.
* Allowing more time for environmental reviews before granting exploration permits.

These measures would be part of a one-time supplementary appropriation bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional action
The Senate Appropriations Committee quickly OK’d $68 million of the request, with the possibility of more to come following review by appropriate committees. The panel approved the $29 million for Interior to do additional inspections of oil rigs and $2 million for seafood inspection, among others.

An amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) to raise the liability to $10 billion was delayed until the bill reaches the Senate floor. Three Gulf Coast Senators presented an alternative for the liable company to pay up to $150,000 or the past year’s profits, whichever is more, instead of such a high cap. But Democrats have rejected that as being insufficient, saying all companies may not have as big a profit as BP did the last 12 months.

Other legislation
A flurry of other bills dealing with the spill are in the hopper.

Alaska’s two Senators are calling for an increase of 1 cent per barrel for the trust fund, rather than lifting the liability cap for each company.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) wants technical assistance grants to help businesses harmed by the spill.

Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-La.) wants more revenue sharing with states from oil and gas leases in the Gulf.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) want to establish an independent nonpartisan commission to investigate the spill.

Whitehouse, Menendez and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) are calling for removal of a cap on punitive damages.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Will BP pay for all the oil spill cleanup plus damages?

(Image from Flickr and Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.)

Who will pay for the damage caused by the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010?

Everyone is saying BP. As majority lease owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil well that is gushing a mile down on the ocean floor, BP owns most of the responsibility. BP executives have repeatedly said the company will pay for the cleanup and “legitimate claims” for economic and other damages.

But that’s not the whole story. Anadarko and Matsui, who own 35% of the lease, will have to pick up their share of the spill cleanup.

A 1990 law, enacted after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, said the companies with the oil leases would have to pay for the cleanup, plus up to $75 million for economic and natural resources damage. BP has acknowledged that this spill, really a gusher, will cost a lot more than that.

Raising the liability cap
Some senators are trying to raise the cap from $75 million. There are several proposals. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) tried to fast-track an increase to $10 billion. But it was blocked by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Others, from the Gulf Coast, say it should be one year’s profit or $150,000 million, whichever is less – to protect the little guy (guy meaning oil company.) BP is expected to see a profit of $23B this year.

The 1990 law also set up an Oil Spill Trust Fund to help pay for major spills. With a tax of 8 cents a barrel the fund is now at $1.6B, but by law just $1B of that can be spent on any one event.

Others involved in the accident, who will probably have to pay something, are Transocean, owner of the rig; Halliburton, who cemented the well, and Cameron International, maker of the faulty blowout preventer.

Then there's insurance
But they won’t have to pay all of it themselves. Each has insurance, and that insurance has re-insurance. The loss to insurance companies for this incident is estimated at between $1.5B and $3.5B by Swiss Re, whose own losses in the accident are estimated at about $200 million. The higher $3.5B figure could be reached if the oil goes ashore, which triggers another section in the policy.

Total insurance losses to date are about $700 million. The rig itself was insured at Lloyds of London for $560 million, which has already been paid, according to The Guardian in England, where BP is headquartered.

BP said at mid-week it had paid about $1.5 million in claims to fisherman and had not yet questioned the legitimacy of any claims. It also paid $25M in grants to each of the four affected states.

But government and vulnerable businesses, like tourism and fishing, are worried payment may be slow and not in full.

They also are concerned because BP asked out-of-work fishermen to sign waivers not to sue before hiring them to help with the cleanup.

In the Valdez case, some claims weren’t paid for two decades and the Supreme Court reduced punitive damages from $2.5B to $500M at the end of long drawn-out court fight. NOAA estimates there is still 21,000 gallons of oil on the Alaska shoreline.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire, E&E TV, LA Times, New York Times, The Guardian, The Hill, National Post,
PlanetArk. )

Is PB's remedy for oil spill only making matters worse?

Joe Romm, author of the award-winning blog Climate Progress, has an excellent lead story in Salon about the dangers of BP dispersing oil, which it is doing now. Would you rather protect sea birds and other wildlife on the land or marine life at the bottom of the sea? See Salon.com

Did Lieberman really say, “Accidents will happen” about oil spill? Lines harden on climate bill over offshore drilling

(Photo of Deepwater Horizon explosion that lead to massive oil leak from Flickr and SkyTruth)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was explaining Tuesday why expanded offshore drilling would not be taken out of the climate bill, despite some Dem Senators’ calls for its removal in light of the horrendous ongoing spill fouling the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters, “This terrible accident is very rare in drilling. Accidents will happen. You learn from them and you try to make sure they don’t happen again.”

So, let’s see. Of the three sponsors of the Senate climate bill, who have worked long and hard to craft something palatable to all parties, the Republican, Lindsey Graham (S.C.) dropped out about a week ago in a snit because immigration reform might come up before climate. Now Lieberman is insisting on keeping offshore oil in the bill despite the Gulf disaster.

And many likely supporters of the bill (all of whom are Dems because they’re the only ones supporting it) are now saying “no” to the offshore drilling section.

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) spoke out a news conference, backed up by the heads of some major environmental groups.

Nelson said if he had to filibuster to stop the bill, he would.

And a group of Dems, in a meeting Tuesday with chief sponsor John Kerry (D-Mass.) found themselves sharply split on the issue, according to Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who was there.

Doesn’t look too good. The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman alliance and their efforts to pass a climate bill seem to be falling apart. The only thing that could have been worse is if they’d had that press conference with heads of big oil companies in support last week as planned.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, “Personally I will have a very hard time ever voting for offshore drilling again.” Of course, he was already having some trouble voting for a bill that targeted coal.

Nonetheless, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was upbeat Tuesday, saying that perhaps the bill would get a boost from the oil spill. Calling the Gulf spill “just staggering,” he said maybe it could get Senators interested in doing something about energy.

I dunno. Doesn’t look to good to me.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Associated Press, CllimateWire, the Hill)

NOAA map shows spread of oil spill through Monday morning

Check out this good map of the oil spill up through Monday morning (with projections for tomorrow). Looks like it's backing away from the coast -- at least for now.

The Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010: If a wind turbine had exploded we wouldn't be facing this mess

(Photo of oil slick taken Saturday from Flickr and SkyTruth)

It’s ironic that approval for the Cape Wind Project came the same week at the Great Gulf Oil Spill of 2010.

It’s taken 9 years to get approval for the 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, where the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) factor kept blocking it. The turbines, which will be 5-14 miles away from land, will reportedly look smaller than a quarter in your hand.

And if one of those falls over or explodes, all we’ll get is what comic Stephen Colbert deemed “a catastrophic wind spill.”

With the BP oil rig that self-destroyed in the Gulf 12 days ago, we’re getting inestimable damage to coastal regions of three or four states, as well as a major portion of the fishing industry and other wildlife. This rig was about 40 miles from shore and the leak is a mile deep, making repair very, very difficult. An oil slick, now the size of Puerto Rico, is spreading toward Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama – the same ill-fated states that had to endure Hurricane Katrina – and probably to the panhandle of Florida.

If the spill continues, as seems inevitable, it could travel down the west coast of Florida to the Keys and then be carried by the Gulf Stream up the east coast, tarring beaches and wildlife and ruining fishing and tourism.

Political fallout
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and Independent candidate for Senator) said this weekend there should be no new offshore drilling.

Christ, who flew over the slick and called it “frightening,” told Meet the Press’s David Gregory he would be for climate change legislation if he was in the Senate.

Which begs the question, what impact will the spill have on passing a climate bill? The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman bill includes expanded offshore drilling to placate Republicans, though some Democrats clearly didn’t like that part. Now they REALLY don’t like it.

As for the president, he ordered there be no new drilling leases unless there are new safety measures to avoid a repeat of the current calamity.

The legacy of Santa Barbara
Never underestimate the impact of a big oil spill on public opinion. The Santa Barbara spill of 1969 is credited with being the impetus for the environmental movement. Anti-drilling fever can spread as relentlessly as the oil slick itself.

California, though it still has 27 drilling platforms off its southern and central coast, has long had a moratorium on any new drilling there. A request to expand one drilling project, which already had opposition, will likely never get off the ground now.

You’ll note California was not included in President Obama’s loosening of offshore drilling restrictions. Nor is it in the climate bill.

And U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) told AP the Gulf spill “marks a turning point in our national discussion on new offshore oil drilling.”

People have a very long memory and strong feelings when their property is affected.

Oil versus wind
As we wait for something to stem the flow of the current disaster, which could take up to three months if all else fails and their only remedy is to drill a relief hole, let’s give a lot more thought to what would have happened if a wind turbine had exploded in the gulf. We’d hardly have noticed.

There are those who say energy independence depends on offshore drilling here. It’s either our oil or foreign oil. No it’s not. It’s either oil or clean sources like wind, solar and hydropower.

And, by the way, let’s think long and hard about a nuclear resurgnce. What if that had been a nuclear reactor?

(Sources include: NBC’s Meet the Press, Associated Press via Mother Nature Network, Christian Science Monitor, dailykos.com)