Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[BridgeTroll]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/bp-boycotts-spreading-frustration-oil-spill-boils/story?id=10800309

Boycotting BP: Who Gets Hurt?
Movements, Mainly Symbolic, Gain Traction; Head of BP Marketing Group Implores Consumers to Consider Impact on Local Operators
By RICH BLAKE
June 2, 2010â€"


Boycotts of BP filling stations are popping up all over the country amid the growing frustration over the company's failed efforts to stop a massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. But if the goal is to hurt BP's bottom line, then such efforts, not unlike those to cap the spewing undersea well, could be in vain.

"Retail gasoline sales account for such a tiny part of BP revenues, the impact of even a massive boycott would be negligible," said Phil Flynn, an energy analyst at Chicago-based PFG Best. "Such boycotts would end up hurting the wrong people."

That's because of the roughly 10,000 BP filling stations/convenience stores in the United States, the vast majority are independently operated, either by small regional distributors or individual franchise owners. All BP branded stores, as well as Amoco, which is owned by BP, are located east of the Rocky Mountains.

"I would urge consumers to think about who actually gets hurt with their boycotts," said John Kleine, executive director of Savannah, Georgia-based BPAMA, a trade group representing BP and Amoco gas station/convenience store owners and operators. "Ultimately, small, local entrepreneurs and their families are the ones who get hurt, and not necessarily BP."

Nevertheless, protests and boycotts appear to be heading into overdrive:

At least two liberal leaning organizations, including the Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizen, the consumer watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader, and Democracy for America, a Burlington, Vermont-based political action committee, have begun anti-BP campaigns. The latter group is asking its 1 million members to boycott BP stations in a campaign that started last week and features bumper stickers that read "AnyoneButBP."

Jesse Jackson has called for a boycott of BP and appeared at a protest event in Chicago last week along with the head of the Illinois Sierra Club. A few years ago, Jackson urged a boycott of BP, complaining of unfair hiring practices.

A Facebook page dedicated to promoting a BP boycott has gained a quarter-million fans in just a couple of days.


Symbolic Acts
"Boycotts are popping up all over," said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "These are symbolic acts taken by people who are outraged and frustrated. But this is a fitting response because, after all, BP over the years has spent millions promoting this image of being a green, environmentally friendly company. It was all for show. Boycotting their brand is the best way to counter that kind of charade."

Scott Dean, a BP spokesman, said he understands the boycotts, and isn't surprised by them.

"Of course people are frustrated, and let me stress that no one is more frustrated than we are," he said. "All we can ask is that people withhold judgment until they have seen our full effort to contain and clean the Gulf and stop the leak, because it is all still ongoing, and we are sparing no expense."

Dean agreed that boycotting BP stations would hurt small business owners, their families and their employees, much more than the company itself.

Meanwhile, BP's problems continue to mount, with boycotts most likely at the bottom of the list. The Attorney General Eric Holder has announced there is a criminal probe ongoing, while shares of BP shed more than $20 billion in market cap.

BPAMA's Kleine added that based on the conversations he has had with BP gas station owners there is deep concern, both over the spill itself, and over the potential backlash, such as boycotts.

"BP store operators are as concerned as anyone," Kleine said. "Probably more so. This is their livelihood."


Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/01/make_them_pay?page=0,0

Make Them Pay
How to calculate what BP owes America.
BY MICHAEL COREN | JUNE 1, 2010

"I'm worried to hell and back, so is everybody else," says Roland "Mac" McRae, 74, owner of the Cedar Point Fishing Pier on Alabama's Gulf Coast. We spoke by phone on May 29. His business leases time on a fishing pier located just a few hundred miles from the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig, which on April 22 caught fire and sank, unleashing what is now the largest and most destructive oil spill in U.S. history.

As local fishermen stay home and business plummets, McCrae tries not to think too far ahead. "I don't even go there. All my life, I've had a little jingle in my pocket," he says. "To me, life's not worth living if you don't have a little jingle in your pocket." McRae is one of an estimated 14 million people living along the Gulf of Mexico, millions of whom are likely to be affected one way or another the oil spill. "When they finally close that well, if they can," he reflects, "the entire ecology of the Bay and the Gulf of Mexico will never be the same."

Ecology isn't the only unknown. More than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude into Alaska's Prince William Sound and caused billions in damages, the United States is again facing a massive oil spill and a vast undetermined price tag. But this time, the rules are different. The legal system, also entering uncharted waters, must now grapple with two difficult questions in fielding the concerns of people like McRae. The first, of course, is: Who's to blame? The second is: Who will pay?

The first answer is easy; the second, not so much.

BP, of course, is taking the blame. The company was leasing the rig from Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company, and managed operations with subcontractors such as Halliburton, when the disaster occurred. The explosion and sinking of the rig has thus far released between 18.6 million gallons and 29.5 million gallons of oil into the blue waters of the Gulf, according to the latest government estimates. On its website, BP says it "takes full responsibility for responding to the Deepwater Horizon incident"; however, the company has already attempted to share the blame with its contractors during intense questioning at a congressional hearing.

Since the Exxon Valdez disaster, a new suite of rules and regulations has supposedly made it easier for victims of oil spills to claim damages, but the new system also limits the punitive damages and payouts communities can expect. "Before, if the oil doesn't touch you, then it didn't matter how much economic losses you suffered," says David Oesting, a lead attorney on the Exxon Valdez case with the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine. "That's all different now."

In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, adopting some recommendations of the Alaska Oil Spill Commission that made companies liable for economic harms from a spill without a court decision. To avoid the chaos that followed the Exxon Valdez spill, when 30,000 fought for compensation in hundreds of lawsuits, the new law streamlined the process. Now, BP (along with any other parties deemed "responsible") is automatically liable and must pay for all cleanup costs and damages to natural resources, property, and revenue caused by an oil spill.

Yet the Oil Pollution Act also caps damages to $75 million for spills from vessels, or $350 million from offshore facilities (it is not clear yet which limit applies to the mobile Deepwater Horizon rig). Once this amount is exhausted, claimants may receive payments up to $1 billion per incident (spill) from something called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is financed through a tax on petroleum imported or produced in the United States.

In order to even be eligible for such payments, claimants must keep a tidy tally of both damages incurred and lost revenue sources. A hotel without customers, national wildlife refuges without animals and patrons, and states with massive, oil-related clean-up costs -- all must place a dollar value on their harms and petition for compensation. A subpoena may be of less value than a calculator, says Oesting who is already involved in the BP case. "If I was [a claimant], I wouldn't hire a lawyer, I'd hire a very good forensic economist to set your losses and present your claims to BP," he says. "If they don't pay it, then go to the [Oil Spill Liability Trust] Fund. The government can duke it out with BP."

Yet limits on liability do not apply if the responsible parties committed gross negligence, wilful misconduct, or violations of government regulations. This seemed like a foregone conclusion by many in Congress even before Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Tuesday the criminal and civil investigations of BP and others for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 -- something the government is almost certain to find.

Even with criminal charges, however, Congress can intervene by removing the $75 million cap. And it remains to be seen whether the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon could lead to charges of manslaughter, or worse, against BP. It turns out that even the current law -- which has never been tested in a disaster of this magnitude -- is not such a helpful guide to predicting what will happen next.

Perhaps the biggest wild card is the possibility of lawsuits outside the purview of the Oil Pollution Act. Anyone can sue and claim damages in the courts, invoking laws that cover such incidents; most suits against Exxon were by communities and businesses. Such claims would be subject to no mandatory caps -- allowing juries to potentially exact a steep toll on BP in court.

For its part, BP has stated in news reports and congressional testimony that it expects to exceed the $75 million cap  without seeking reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. In other words, either out of a sense of responsibility or a last-ditch effort at damage control, the oil giant has  committed to paying damage claims without considering the cap (if not necessarily the true cost of damages). This does not seem to have mollified Congress, which is already debating raising liability to $10 billion. Elected officials, meanwhile, are vowing financial retribution: Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu pledged last week that BP will repay "every penny of loss to affected individuals, businesses and communities, as well as the American taxpayer."

To date, although BP says it is paying off all "legitimate" claims, only $37 million had been distributed to claimants, primarily for those in immediate dire straits. "The primary focus is on direct impacts and people's ability to earn income," says David Nicholas, a BP spokesman in Houston. "We're pushing them through as quick as possible." Of the 26,000 or so claims submitted as of May 30, the firm has paid out about 12,000, typically to shrimpers, boat captains, and others affected by government restrictions on fishing grounds.

Those paid for lost income this month are eligible next month, and much larger payments are still due for businesses and natural resources ruined by the spill. Nicholas says the total cost of the operation for the first month of the spill is at least $930 million. Yet the level of compensation so far, most observers think, is extraordinarily low, given the size of the region's population and the value of its fisheries.

BP's legal strategy has yet to emerge. For now, it has set up a website to pay out immediate claims. One prediction is that BP will settle many of the outstanding costs as soon as possible, and allow bad press to recede for as long as 2 to 3 years, before attempting to fight any cases and paying out claims of pending lawsuits.   

For McRae, at the Cedar Point Fishing Pier in Coden, Alabama, his business may not survive to see the fight. Business is down 50 percent compared to last May. He's already submitted claims to BP for the loss in customers, but says he hasn't heard back and is not optimistic after attending a meeting with company officials in the neighboring town of Gulf Shores. An accountant at the meeting representing a local condominium development raised his hand to say that he submitted 1,700 pages documenting his losses, and BP replied requesting more information. "Does that tell you they are going to do the right thing?" asks McCrae. "They are not going to do the right thing."

[BridgeTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Pollution_Act_of_1990

Oil Pollution Act of 1990
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Oil Pollution Act (101 H.R.1465, P.L. 101-380 [1]) was passed by the 101st United States Congress to mitigate and prevent civil liability for future oil spills off the coast of the United States.

The law stated that companies must have a "plan to prevent spills that may occur" and have a "detailed containment and cleanup plan" for oil spills. The law also includes a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than one million U.S. gallons (3,800 m³) in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound.[1]

History
The bill was introduced to the House by Walter B. Jones, Sr., a Democratic congressman from North Carolina's 1st congressional district, along with 79 cosponsors following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, which at the time was the largest oil spill in U.S. history. It enjoyed widespread support, passing the House 375-5 and the Senate by voice vote before conference, and unanimously in both chambers after conference. The U.S. Constitution, as interpreted in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), gives Congress the sole authority to regulate navigable waters.

In April 1998, Exxon argued in a legal action against the federal government that the Exxon Valdez should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claimed the OPA was effectively a bill of attainder, a regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone.[2] In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.[3]

Enforcement
Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, numerous U.S. Senators attempted to pass a bill to raise the $75 million cap limit to $10 billion, retroactive to before the spill occurred. This would still only constitute a fraction of the estimated total damage[citation needed]. Senators of both Republican Party and Democratic Party blocked efforts for new legislation on multiple occasions due to the potential unintended consequences that a new law could have.[4]. Democratic Party senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was quoted in saying “We want to be careful before we change any of these laws that we don’t jeopardize the operations of an ongoing industry, because there are 4,000 other wells in the Gulf that have to go on.”[4] This statute limits British Petroleum's (BP) monetary damages to $75 million for losses to private parties, although it still remains liable for all cleanup costs under the law.[5]

[finehoe]

More of BP's astonishing record of malefeasance and safety corner-cutting. From ABC News:

OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.

BP is responsible for 97 percent of safety violations.

Last Friday, two former special investigators from the criminal investigation division of the Environmental Protection Agency, quoted by the Web site Truthout, said that criminal, not civil, inquiries should have been the priority from day one. Here’s an excerpt:

Scott West, the former special agent-in-charge at the E.P.A.’s Criminal Investigation Division, who spent more than a year probing allegations that BP committed crimes in connection with a massive oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope in 2006, said the company’s prior felony and misdemeanor convictions should have immediately “raised red flags” and resulted in a federal criminal investigation. “If the company behind this disaster was Texaco or Chevron I would have likely waited a couple of days before I started to talking to people,” West said. “And the reason for that is those corporations do not enjoy the current criminal history that BP does.”… “BP is a convicted serial environmental criminal,” West said.

[Timkin]

Where do we stand on severing the pipe and capping the leak??

[JC]

Where do we stand on severing the pipe and capping the leak??

The cut is disappointingly rough!  So its a big fat maybe!

[Timkin]

Wish I could see footage of that. I would think putting a suction hose over it , would accomplish the task.  clamped on with pressure clamps.  I know its in deep water, but even so, seems putting a few clamps on a suction hose that goes to the surface would work.. in the event the cap does not work.

[JC]

Wish I could see footage of that. I would think putting a suction hose over it , would accomplish the task.  clamped on with pressure clamps.  I know its in deep water, but even so, seems putting a few clamps on a suction hose that goes to the surface would work.. in the event the cap does not work.

Yeah, they should also have boats sucking up plumes, anything would be better than nothing. 

[Timkin]

you can see a live feed of the well with the sheared off pipe.. man its really boiling oil now

[JC]

you can see a live feed of the well with the sheared off pipe.. man its really boiling oil now

Yeah, they said the flow would increase if they botched this, it appears they have!

[stjr]

They shouldn't count on one relief well.  Drill multiple ones now.  If the first one misses, more are already on the way without having to reset the clock to zero again.

Apparently this is exactly what they are now doing:

The two wells, aimed at the bottom of the runaway well that has spewed millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, represent the most conventional solution to the disaster and the one that experts say is all but certain to succeed. Once either of the relief wells strikes pay dirt, the plan is to pump heavy drilling mud and cement down it to bring the blowout under control and permanently seal the damaged well....

BP officials say that the first relief well already extended more than 12,000 feet below sea level, about halfway to the target, but because drilling gets slower as a well gets deeper, it is not expected to be finished before August. The second well was started later and is not yet as deep. President Obama said federal officials ordered BP to drill the second well as a backup shortly after the rig exploded on April 20; the company said it was planning two wells anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/science/earth/04relief.html?hp

At to current progress on the cap:

Officials reported some progress in the latest effort to place a cap over the well that would funnel at least some of the oil and gas to a ship at the surface. Using robotic submersibles to manipulate 20-foot-long shears, technicians snipped the damaged riser pipe at the wellhead. Late Thursday, they lowered the cap over it.

Live video feeds from the sea bed appeared to show oil spewing from the top of the cap. According to the plan, these leaks would be shut down slowly as oil was siphoned up to the drill ship. A BP spokesman said late Thursday night, “It looks hopeful.”

Earlier at t a news conference in Metairie, La., Adm. Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard, who is commanding the federal response to the disaster, warned that the cap might not fit snugly, increasing the possibility that water might enter along with the oil to form icelike crystals called hydrates.

[finehoe]

BP's Hayward promised Thursday that the company would clean up every drop of oil and "restore the shoreline to its original state."

Like that is even possible.  Are they also going to extract the toxic stew of dispersant that they have been spraying into the water like crazy?  Restore the coral reefs that are sure to be destroyed?  Replenish the stock of birds and fish and other creatures they've killed?

These assholes make me sick.

[samiam]

Here is an update from the gulf coast Tarballs are now washing up on the beach in Destin Florida.

I spent the day off the coast of Pascagoula Mississippi and did not see any oil but you could smell it as the winds were out of the south west.

[JaxByDefault]

More from the Gulf, as I've been working here all week:

1. New Orleans tourist areas are nearly empty. I haven't seen the FQ more empty since the storm. At Galatoire's, our usual waiter was tired of hearing tourists ask if the seafood is safe. If they're serving it -- it is.
2. Heavy Tar and/or heavy crude has washed ashore in Grand Isle, Barataria bay, Chendeleur, Navarre, Breton, Ft. Morgan, Dauphin Island, etc.
3. The towns on the Eastern Shore of Mobile Bay got tired of waiting on BP. Fairhope began their own booming operation last week. The air is thick with the smell of oil as of 11 am this morning.
4. Fishing bans has forced northern gulf fishermen largely to Apalachacola or the Texas Coast -- that is, those who could afford the expense of moving their fleet. (My usual fish market here is taking a "locals first" approach to seafood, and I sincerely appreciate that.) Please, support your local and Gulf fishermen. Commercial seafood from the Gulf is safe -- and taken only from clean water areas. Insist on US, wild caught products and help preserve this vital industry.

Everything down here is like a funeral. It's been a week full of "last for a while" -- from pots of gumbo to pelican nests.

[Timkin]

Sad news to hear.  I think the efforts set forth ( by the individuals out there working to combat this , not necessarily BP ,the Company ) are commendable.  I truly wish I could be out there helping as well.  I keep praying and hoping this situation will start getting better soon, because even if the well were completely stopped today (and it cannot be)  We will deal with this for years.

I so hope this is a lesson to Oil companies world-wide.  We have but one place to call home.  and the greed for the almighty dollar is going to be for not, if we ruin our planet to the point that it cannot be habitable.  It would not take many more of such disasters , to put us exactly into that situation.