[Oilguy]

WMR has been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign -- more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP's liability for damage caused by what can be called a "mega-disaster."

Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP's chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR's federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world.

Plans by BP to sink a 4-story containment dome over the oil gushing from a gaping chasm one kilometer below the surface of the Gulf, where the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed 11 workers on April 20, and reports that one of the leaks has been contained is pure public relations disinformation designed to avoid panic and demands for greater action by the Obama administration, according to FEMA and Corps of Engineers sources. Sources within these agencies say the White House has been resisting releasing any "damaging information" about the oil disaster. They add that if the ocean oil geyser is not stopped within 90 days, there will be irreversible damage to the marine eco-systems of the Gulf of Mexico, north Atlantic Ocean, and beyond. At best, some Corps of Engineers experts say it could take two years to cement the chasm on the floor of the Gulf.

Only after the magnitude of the disaster became evident did Obama order Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to declare the oil disaster a "national security issue." Although the Coast Guard and FEMA are part of her department, Napolitano's actual reasoning for invoking national security was to block media coverage of the immensity of the disaster that is unfolding for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean and their coastlines.
Full article at: http://oilprice.com/Environment/Oil-Spi ... aster.html

[Plantagenet]

Very interesting.

Its also curious and worrying that BP and the Obama administration are jointly making lowball estimates of the spill rate and the amount of oil spilled.....BP and the Obama administration at first said there was no oil leak, then said there was a 1000 bbl/day leak, and now BP and the Obama administration jointly say there is a 5000 bbl/day leak.

Meanwhile private and academic experts, using standard methods that have been applied to other oil spills, calculate a 25,000 bbl day leak.

independent experts place leak at 25,000 bbl per day....five times the BP-Obama administration estimate

I can see why BP would want to minimize estimates of the amount of oil leaking, but there is an evident problem when the government kowtows to the BP line on this.

[rockdoc123]

Thats ridiculous. BP is not a US company. You could try to seize their US assets which I suspect is not the majority of their overall portfolio. Any such seizure is of course completely illegal under International law so it would go to court and the US would end up having to argue in court that there is no soverign immunity clause. This would go on for years and BP would almost certainly ask the courts to freeze any award to await on a very long appeal. The political fallout from something like this would be immense as well given BP is the next best thing to a crown jewel for the British government.

The US gov't is responsible for making the regulations. If it turns out that BP obeyed all of those requirements then somewhere the gov't has to accept some responsiblity for not having stringent enough requirements.

[Plantagenet]

The US gov't is responsible for making the regulations. If it turns out that BP obeyed all of those requirements then somewhere the gov't has to accept some responsiblity for not having stringent enough requirements.

Rockdoc is exactly right.

AND not only did the US not have as stringent a regulatory regime as some other countries, but the Obama administration actually gave the BP drilling plan a special "exemption" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 so BP did't have to submit information to the government in advance delineating BPs drilling plan for the exploding well site or take public comment or make any studies of the environmental risks that the BP plan entailed.

[dinopello]

The US gov't is responsible for making the regulations. If it turns out that BP obeyed all of those requirements then somewhere the gov't has to accept some responsiblity for not having stringent enough requirements.

That's true, and every potential safety requirement has to be weighed as to it's degree of environmental risk reduction versus unintended consequences (such as effect on the economy etc). Most of the things usually considered would not eliminate risk, of course. Not drilling at all offshore is about the only thing that would eliminate the risk of spills occuring.

If these disasters are going to happen more often due to increased risk exposure (more offshore development) then maybe there is progress that can be made on more prevention failsafes and also better response technology (if experts think there is progress to be made). I'm assuming offshore drilling is going to continue and increase (high gas prices coupled with car dependence will see to that)

[rockdoc123]

ND not only did the US not have as stringent a regulatory regime as some other countries, but the Obama administration actually gave the BP drilling plan a special "exemption" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 so BP did't have to submit information to the government in advance delineating BPs drilling plan for the exploding well site or take public comment or make any studies of the environmental risks that the BP plan entailed

once again, an EIA submission would not speak to rig safety, equipment integrity, personal training etc. Not related to this incident unless somewhere along the line BP doesn't do something it should to manage the spill.
The other thing that people need to realize is that Norway and Brazil are very stringent and apparently require live shear ram tests. Note that the ram manufacturers guaranty them for 1 use only. So by testing them for full shear you actually may have made the situation worse. And the remote switch idea would only have worked if the BOPs weren't already trashed during the kick, which I'm willing to bet they will find out was the case.
This is not cut and dried.

[Plantagenet]

An EIS can review anything and everything involved in a new project that can affect the environment. That includes technology, equipment, siting, and other technical issues. The EIS also typically includes public comments on the plan.

For instance, Here is what the MMS says about a current programmatic EIS (PEIS) for acoustic seismic studies: I've highlighted the review of "technical" topics that you suggested can't be reviewed as well as the call for public comments..

Atlantic Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has announced its intent to prepare a PEIS to evaluate potential environmental effects of multiple G&G activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). On April 2, 2010 MMS published an announcement in the Federal Register reopening the public comment for 45 days to accept comments related to future industry G&G activity on the Atlantic OCS, and listing the schedule for public scoping meetings. The public comment period will close on May 17, 2010. The purpose of the scoping meetings will be to receive comments on the scope of the PEIS, identify significant resources and issues to be analyzed in the PEIS, and identify possible alternatives to the proposed action. These activities are associated with Atlantic OCS siting for renewable energy projects, marine minerals extraction, and oil and gas exploration; these activities could take place over a period of several years. The Atlantic OCS areas that will be analyzed within the Atlantic G&G PEIS are the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area and the South Atlantic Planning Area (refer to figure below).

PowerPoint presentation for Atlantic G&G PEIS scoping meetings


The proposed PEIS will evaluate the environmental impacts of multiple G&G activities in OCS waters of the Atlantic. The proposed PEIS will be the first National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) programmatic document performed for G&G activities in the Atlantic OCS. The PEIS is proposed for the Atlantic in light of multiple applications for permits received by MMS and industry’s expressed interest in expanding activities into the Atlantic offshore waters. This PEIS will also review advances in G&G technology and improved knowledge of acoustic impacts on marine life. This PEIS will determine whether significant impacts to Atlantic resources could occur as a result of G&G activities, and where needed, outline mitigation and monitoring measures that will reduce or eliminate the potential for impacts to the environment.


Why did BP lobby the Obama White House to have them cancel the EIS for their exploding well?

Obviously they wanted to drill the exploding well as soon as possible, and they wanted to avoid the delays that reviews of their technical plan and equipment and the risks of oils spills and potential damage and the public comment periods would result in.

Given the fact that BP's well exploded, its just common sense that it would've been better for the Obama administration to have slowed things down a bit and reviewed BPs drilling plan carefully instead of fecklessly exempting BP from the usual NEPA environmental law and allowing BP to rush ahead into what has turned out to be a horrible accident.

[Maddog78]

The other thing that people need to realize is that Norway and Brazil are very stringent and apparently require live shear ram tests. Note that the ram manufacturers guaranty them for 1 use only. So by testing them for full shear you actually may have made the situation worse. And the remote switch idea would only have worked if the BOPs weren't already trashed during the kick, which I'm willing to bet they will find out was the case.
This is not cut and dried.

Agreed.

[rockdoc123]

An EIS can review anything and everything involved in a new project that can affect the environment. That includes technology, equipment, siting, and other technical issues. The EIS also typically includes public comments on the plan.

Exactly how does a remote switch or testing of shear rams have an impact on the environment? A spill has an impact on the environment. Seabed disturbance has an impact on the environment. Offloading of treated grey water has a potential impact. This is what the EIA addresses. It does not address HSE issues on rigs or equipment integrity.

Given the fact that BP's well exploded, its just common sense that it would've been better for the Obama administration to have slowed things down a bit and reviewed BPs drilling plan carefully instead of fecklessly exempting BP from the usual NEPA environmental law and allowing BP to rush ahead into what has turned out to be a horrible accident

Exactly what about the gov’t reviewing the drilling plan would have avoided this incident? Do you actually understand what happened? Apparently not.
It’s amazing to me how people on this forum who wouldn’t know the difference between the draw works and the top drive are suddenly experts on what caused and how to solve a well control issue.

[Maddog78]

It’s amazing to me how people on this forum who wouldn’t know the difference between the draw works and the top drive are suddenly experts on what caused and how to solve a well control issue.

No kidding!
There are people who have posted links to blogs where the guy is "awed"
by the size of an oil rig upon seeing it for the first time.
He's then telling the gov't what they should and shouldn't be doing up to and including a nuclear bomb.
I just shake my head.