One man’s experience with big Oil

A guest article

I asked and received permission to reproduce a discussion group post written by Wayne Marshall. (The original post can be found in a political debate that took place on a baseball website!) I asked because of Mr. Marshall's past experience as an activist who worked hard to defend his home environment in Alaska against the depredations of big oil and, more importantly, because of the intelligence and spirit expressed by his writing. I believe both testify to the pluck needed by those who wish to contest the power belonging to these mammoth corporations and to the governmental bodies which so often remorselessly serve these corporate interests.

Steve Zielinski

* * * * *

Is it not apparent by now that there has been little government oversight and regulation, and that this is what numerous presidents and congresses have expected or assented to by their actions and inactions. Those who have cried out for better standards — such as double hulled tankers — were ridiculed as causing too much cost. I find it sad that the State of Florida successfully lobbied for years to prevent any oil lease sales in federal waters near their shores, but now they are suffering from BP's failures in the Gulf.

My current position has not involved working with oil and gas industry issues, but I was heavily involved in the past.

In the later part of the 70's I worked with local communities on Kodiak Island, Alaska who expressed their opposition to OCS lease sale #46. That sale ultimately was cancelled. While the press release announcing the cancellation spoke to concerns expressed at the public hearing, most understood the main reason it was cancelled was because the oil industry was not prepared to pay any real dollars for the lease rights. This was sadly confirmed a year or so later when the Federal Government went forward with OCS lease sale #60 in the Shelikoff Straits; an oil and gas lease sale on the westerly side of the Island that locals protested with equal or greater vigor.

My work with oil industry issues continued off and on throughout the 80's and came to a close when I left Alaska in 1989; just 6 months after the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster. The community I worked with was located over 1,000 miles from the main site of the spill, but I was involved with preliminary preparations in case the oil reached our shores. I offer a few notes from my experience:

The industry always touted the quality of their technology, their ability to respond to a problem, and their track record in not experiencing a major spill. Unfortunately, as proved to be the case with the Exxon Valdez and now the Horizon, the track record of avoiding major disasters means nothing once the disaster occurs. The industry can tout a record of not having any tanker spills of greater than 500,000 gallons in a year, but if the net result is to have a tanker disaster of about 10,000,000 gallons every 20 years, the yearly avoidance record means little. Similarly, if the record is not having any deep water wells blow out and cause spills (spill — what a cute word for the amount of doom that has befallen the Gulf, like I accidently spilled a glass of milk) of less than 100,000 gallons in any particular year, that record means nothing if the net result is to have a disaster every 30 years or so that fouls the Gulf with more than 100,000,000 million gallons of oil. In short, the industry speaks to their record of avoiding problems, but once a major problem occurs, the industry is ill prepared to respond.

The oil industry will always find a way to go get the oil and they are willing to spend the needed money — man made gravel islands in the ice pack, the trans-Alaska pipeline, and the Deepwater Horizon as examples — but they commit few resources to effective clean-up technology. It is sad that one of the most effective clean-up methods is the equivalent of someone dropping a cloth in the ocean to collect oil, then wringing it out and repeating the action again and again. Skimmers are not that effective overall and are virtually useless in 6 foot waves, but the oil industry has always touted skimmers as an effective clean-up tool, which I guess means that the ocean is always to remain calm and compliant when a spill occurs.

The industry is a goliath. In the end, the industry always wins what they need. More areas open to leasing. More opportunities to explore and develop, even if they lack the technology to address problems that may occur. More opportunities to do business by handcuffing and co-opting the very organizations that are intended to provide oversight. After what you have seen in the Gulf — do you really believe that the oil industry has the ability to manage a spill beneath the ice pack (what is left of it) off the shores of northern Alaska? But, you and I both know that drilling will continue, and may even do so without any major disasters for years, until….

In the end, I believe the moratorium will lead to little change, that drilling will continue with little oversight, and that the story of the Gulf will begin to abate a short month or two after the well is eventually (hopefully) capped in mid-August. We will have learned a little, but not a lot, and our desire to cause real change in regulation of the oil industry will begin to abate. Unfortunately, in the Gulf, as occurred in Alaska, problems caused by this spill will continue for years and likely decades.

I believe that the Obama administration's performance in response to this spill leaves much to be desired. The best thing that has been accomplished is to establish a claim fund. The fish likely are gone for a long time, but at least fisherman may receive some financial compensation for their tragic loss. From where I sit, Obama, Bush (Jr.), Clinton, Bush (Sr.) and Reagan all bowed to the industry's interests and none have required sufficient regulation and oversight.

Wayne Marshall

Higher and higher

The leakage estimate goes…

According to an Associated Press report:

Researchers studying the flow of oil from the blown-out well at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico said Thursday that as much as twice the amount of oil than previously thought may have been spewing into the sea since an oil rig exploded nearly two months ago.

It is the third — and perhaps not last — time the federal government has had to increase its estimate of how much oil is gushing.

The spill — before June 3 when a riser was cut and then a cap put on it — was flowing at daily rate that could possibly have been as high as 2.1 million gallons, twice the highest number the federal government had been saying, according to U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt, who is coordinating estimates.

I wonder what conclusions BP's risk analysts drew when they estimated the money BP would need to pay if a worst case event occurred? How likely was this kind of catastrophe given BP's common practices and the risks they entail? Did BP and its executives bet the company on what appear to be questionable practices? I ask because it is reasonable to conclude that damages caused by this disaster will, when monetized, exceed BP's capacity to pay.

Update

CNN reports that protesters and spontaneous boycotts now threaten BP branded gas stations in the United States.

Last updated on June 13, 2010 at 5:32PM

Quote of the day

Today's winner sprung from Glenn Greenwald's keypad and refers to Israel's recent terrorist attack on a humanitarian aid ship sitting in international waters:

When exactly did Israel acquire the right not only to rule over Gaza and the West Bank, but international waters as well? Their rights as sovereign are expanding faster than the BP oil spill.

Indeed they are, and Israel's sovereign rights appear as pleasing to the world as BP's oil slick!

Property rights trump civil and political rights

Surprise, surprise, surprise…

Mother Jones reporter Mac McClelland wrote:

When I tell Barbara [Martin, a BP flack] I am a reporter, she stalks off and says she's not talking to me, then comes back and hugs me and says she was just playing [when Martin told McClelland that BP owned the local police departments]. I tell her I don't understand why I can't see Elmer's Island unless I'm escorted by BP. She tells me BP's in charge because "it's BP's oil."

McClelland continues:

"But it's not BP's land."

"But BP's liable if anything happens."

"So you're saying it's a safety precaution."

"Yeah! You don't want that oil gettin' into your pores."

"But there are tourists and residents walking around in it across the street."

It’s back to the drawing board

The New York Times has reported that:

BP said Saturday that its latest attempt to stop the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico was unsuccessful, and the effort, known as a "top kill," was being scrapped in favor of yet another maneuver to stem the flow spreading into the waters.

Ken Salazar rattles a saber

Salazar is Obama's Secretary of the Interior. The New York Times quotes Salazar as saying:

"I am angry and I am frustrated that BP has been unable to stop this oil from leaking and to stop the pollution from spreading," Salazar told reporters after visiting BP's U.S. headquarters in Houston.

"We are 33 days into this effort and deadline after deadline has been missed," Salazar added, referring to the failure of containment efforts attempted so far by London-based BP to control the gushing undersea well one mile down on the ocean floor.

Why is Salazar talking tough? The Times attributes his current line to the fact that:

President Barack Obama's administration is facing growing public and political pressure to take full charge of the oil spill containment operation as criticism against BP grows.

Quote of the day

It issues from LiberalHitGirl:

I didn't look today, did the free market clean up the oil yet?

Yikes

Neoliberalism in action

While our President and his administration produce change we Americans can believe in, some of us — fishermen and women living in the Gulf region — are losing hope altogether (h/t): "The situation in the gulf is getting so dire for some in the seafood industry, they've thought about committing suicide. Steps to intervene are underway."

Obama needs to get off his skinny ass…

…and fix the mess in the Gulf of Mexico, as Rayne writing for FireDogLake suggest:

It's been more than 30 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and the well nearly a mile below on the sea floor began to erupt oil and methane, killing 11 of our fellow citizens and injuring even more both immediately and in the continuing damage which followed.

And nothing has happened of any consequence since then.

Oh, we've had a Category 5 hurricane of hot air, some decent questions from Congressional hearings, but zippo-zilch-nada in the way of an effective solution. (I pity the people of the Gulf who had to deal with another hurricane they couldn't escape.)

We had a big metal box set over the leak, not to stop it but to try to capture the oil. Anybody with the wherewithal to Google could predict this was going to fail because of the hydrates. They crystallize on contact with a solid surface in deepwaters below the average depth of the Continental Shelf.

And then we've had a tiny little pipsqueak of a hose nosed into the well pipe, which might as well have been a toothpick stuck in our mouths.

Now the White House is having a hissy behind closed doors with the media because dammitall, they can't stop asking questions about the spill. Oh that'll work, that'll make a difference; the biggest environmental disaster our country has experienced will go away if only the media shuts up about it.

Screw that. This has been nothing but a corporate-induced environmental and socio-biological experiment perpetuated on our commons without our consent, and the American public doesn't take well to experimentation without debate in advance. Witness our slow-moving policy on stem cell research, for example. We don't frigging like it.

She follows this invective by enumerating the steps the Obama Administration should if it intended to address this crisis with the seriousness it demands. Her article is must reading for those concerned about the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and the political disaster in Washington.

Pissing the night away…

Live, from the Gulf of Mexico

Webcam chat at Ustream

Some folk are just plain lucky…

With his tongue in his cheek, Lambert of Corrente asks:

126 riggers were on the Deepwater Horizon when it blew; 11 died. 7 BP executives were also on the rig; all lived. WaPo interviewed riggers on Friday; AP interviewed riggers today. Neither AP nor WaPo explains how the executives escaped the rig; nor does NOLA's Times-Picayune.

Yet surely it's important to know why all the executives lived, even though eleven workers died? If only so the same procedures that the executives followed can be generalized to make the odds better for everyone?

More bad news from the Gulf of Mexico

Living through America's Chernobyl moment

How dangerous is the BP disaster? After cogently describing the problems posed by the disaster, a collection of derivative calamities which include a growing and unstoppable oil slick polluting the oceans around the world, James Moore concludes:

Anyone who thinks this tragedy is not going to result in massive kills of marine life is either blind, ignorant, or in denial. The one scenario that we all refuse to confront is the possibility that it is beyond our capabilities to stop this undersea blast of oil. If that is the case, the flow continues until the pressure eases, which might be years. How much ecological injury will that cause our planet?

Nobody knows.

What would Forest and Bubba do?

British Petroleum cares

Yes, it does care. It cares deeply about its bottom line. As the Globe and Mail reports (link courtesy of FDL):

British Petroleum has withdrawn one of its waiver forms after fishermen in Venice, a town bracing for the arrival of an oil slick from the company's leaking rig, complained BP was trying to "pull the wool over our eyes" by asking them to sign away all rights to sue.

The waiver form was distributed Saturday at a Venice public school, where the company was offering a health and safety class for locals whom it says it will hire. Though a spokeswoman said the company does not yet know exactly what positions it's hiring for, it was accepting applications and, with them, the signed waivers.

The form reads: "I hearby agree on behalf of myself and my representatives, to hold harmless and indemnify, and to release, waive, and forever discharge BP Exploration and Production Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, regular employees and independent contractors …"

More bad news from the Gulf

The Associated Press reports that "[s]cientists fear if the oil spill isn't contained and the underwater well continues to spew unstopped, it could grow so large that it may be sucked with the currents around the Florida Keys and up the East Coast."

Gee, the oil slick might even destroy blue crab fishing in the Chesapeake Bay region. How horrible. So horrible, in fact, that a potential blue crab disaster might prove to be too much for the insiders living in the Washington metro area, thus forcing them to act intelligently on the issues raised by the Gulf disaster. Still, I will not risk holding my breath waiting for Washington to make an intelligent decision. Such a decision is so unlike our political caste.

The Gulf oil disaster timeline

Courtesy of Talking Points Memo.

Drill, baby, drill

As Louisiana faces another catastrophe, one that is wholly the product of human hands, an always courageous Sarah Palin publicly defends off-shore drilling:

We've all been shocked and saddened by the tragic events in the Gulf of Mexico. My heart breaks for coastal residents who are facing fears of the unknown impacts of the oil spill.

As an Alaskan, I can speak from the heart about the tragedy of an oil spill. For as long as I live, I will never forget the day the Exxon-Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and millions of gallons of North Slope crude poured into the waters of our beautiful Prince William Sound. The spill was devastating to so many Alaskans who, like my own family, make their living on the water from our commercial fishing industry. "Heartbreaking" was the word my husband Todd, an Alaska Native and trained oil spill responder, used to describe the scene as we watched it unfold on land and water that we feel is sacred.

Alaskans understand the tragedy of an oil spill, and we've taken steps to do all we can to prevent another Exxon tragedy, but we are still pro-development. We still believe in responsible development, which includes drilling to extract energy sources, because we know that there is an inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom. Production of our own resources means security for America and opportunities for American workers. We need oil, and if we don't drill for it here, we have to purchase it from countries that not only do not like America and can use energy purchases as a weapon against us, but also do not have the oversight that America has.

Is Palin suggesting that British Petroleum engaged in responsible drilling? that the American federal government ensures adequate environmental oversight in the drilling sites it governs? that the residents of the Gulf were made secure by the oil industry located in their region? and that they will remain secure after the initial phase of the disaster concludes?

Do any of these questions matter, as Palin sees the issue? It looks like they do not:

All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight, but even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk — whether it's sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan "drill here, drill now" not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills — my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America's domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.

It's all for the best except for those unfortunate people who live along the Gulf Coasts. For one thing, they will have the opportunity to observe the responsible folk wielding authority over the matter set ablaze one of the world's greatest natural environments so that they can practically minimize the damage the slick causes to the region as a whole. This effort will not be without perverse effects. Gulf residents can expect polluted water, foul air, decimated shorelines and much else. Yet these effects, bad as they might be, will only prove a lesser harm than the one produced by doing nothing but stopping the oil at its source. In any case, the people of the Gulf will likely have the opportunity to prepare for the next oil disaster since oil drilling in their neighborhood will not stop because it is risky and because we all know accidents will happen, as Palin points out. Their prosperity, security and peace may suffer for it, but the rest of the country will enjoy the benefits which oil provides to those with the right technology and access to the stuff. Of course, these benefits will seem like a witless diversion once the ecological crisis goes global and becomes decisive.

Obama’s Katrina moment?

The oil leak catastrophe in the Gulf

While internal debate continues over the efficacy of setting the Gulf of Mexico afire in order to destroy the oil slick which now threatens the region, local and federal government officials made a public show of their solidarity with British Petroleum officials. This incident prompted Bill Quigley to wonder:

Why then would federal and state officials hold a joint press conference with BP, given the multinational corporation's role in the unfolding disaster? Perhaps the reason was hinted at by a comment from the Secretary of the Interior in which he cautioned that the U.S. depends heavily on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the White House protested that the oil spill is not President Obama's Katrina, a public partnership between the perpetrator BP and the government certainly has the potential to become a "Katrina moment."

In other words, a disaster of this magnitude will not deter Obama and his people from pursuing their corporatist agenda.

Louisiana must now prepare to weather another preventable catastrophe.

Drill away, come what may

The New York Times reports:

Government officials said late Wednesday night that oil might be leaking from a well in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate five times that suggested by initial estimates.

In a hastily called news conference, Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry of the Coast Guard said a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had concluded that oil is leaking at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day, not 1,000 as had been estimated. While emphasizing that the estimates are rough given that the leak is at 5,000 feet below the surface, Admiral Landry said the new estimate came from observations made in flights over the slick, studying the trajectory of the spill and other variables.