White House commission wades into “Deep Water”
The great thing about presidential commissions is that they can soberly consider complicated matters and then offer unvarnished reports on what to do. The tough part is when that information rockets around Washington, as occurred after a White House commission issued its final report on the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
The “Deep Water” report, apparently titled in reference to the doomed BP Deepwater Horizon rig, blames the deadly blowout and oil spill on government and industry complacency, and recommends more regulation of offshore drilling and a new independent safety agency. But as my colleague Ayesha Rascoe reports, the commission lacks the authority to establish drilling policies or punish companies.
Within minutes of the report’s release, and even as commission co-chair William Reilly was bragging about bringing the report in on time and under budget, interest groups started the PR barrage, with industry critical and environmental outfits largely complimentary. Two Democratic members of Congress said they’d introduce legislation to implement the commission’s recommendations.
Will that legislation go anywhere? Industry analysts are doubtful. To get an idea of how much action can be prompted by White House panels, it’s useful to take a look at two previous ones.
The 911 Commission (formally called “The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States”) was perhaps the ultimate in gracefully delivering its hard findings: “… on that September day we were unprepared. We did not grasp the magnitude of a threat that had been gathering over time. As we detail in our report, this was a failure of policy, management, capability, and – above all – a failure of imagination.”
Many of the 911 Commission’s recommendations were acted upon.
But not all presidential panels’ reports make such an impact. In case you missed it, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released its report on December 16.
Should U.S. oil royalties pay for studies of BP spill’s environmental impact?
Oil caused the mess in the Gulf of Mexico. Should U.S. oil royalties pay for scientists to study what happened, and what’s still happening, to this complex environment?
At least one scientist thinks so. Ed Overton of Louisiana State University figures the billions of dollars collected in royalties by the now-defunct and much-reviled Minerals Management Service — re-named and re-organized as the Bureau of Ocean Energy — must have enough money to pay for research into the environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon blowout and spill.
Speaking at a Senate hearing last week on the effects of oil-dispersing chemicals, Overton and other experts called the BP spill an unintentional “grand experiment” into what deep water oil exploration can do to animals, plants, water and land in the Gulf. As Overton put it, the oil and dispersants are out there now. Best to study them over the months and years ahead to figure out what they’re doing to the environment.
“The Mineral Management Service has generated royalty income to the federal government of billions of dollars. And virtually all of that money has been spent on not understanding the environment,” Overton said.
While it should be the oil industry’s obligation to know how to respond to an environmental disaster like this one, Overton said, “the government ought to have some oversight in taking some of that royalty money, a significant amount of that royalty money, and understanding how, both from an engineering perspective as well as an ecological perspective, what to do about it.”
There’s plenty that the engineers and ecologists don’t know, Overton said, starting with how to collect oil samples in deep water (there are sampling techniques to collect plants and animals, but not crude). As he told it, when the samplers went down into the Gulf, they got coated with oil, so it was impossible to tell if the oil was just a layer they passed through or whether it was a true sample of what was there at the sea bed.
Now that the Macondo well has been capped and a final “bottom kill” is seemingly within reach, it’s probably natural for everyone to want to turn the page. But researchers want to actually know what happened. Should oil royalties help pay for that research?
The federal government should allocate at least 50% of its Gulf oil spill royalties to pay for continued research of the spill itself. While it would be extremely hard to fix the stupidity of companies willing to employ substandard drilling precautions, a simpler and more effective method of clean up and eradication is out there. Pictures of stagnant brown beaches, innocent animals covered in oil, and entire ecosystems destroyed by the spill should be enough to motivate those in Washington to at least attempt to understand what happened. Oil spills are not a common occurrence, so neither is the research behind them. And for one event to virtually destroy the entire Gulf of Mexico, OUR Gulf of Mexico, for years and years to come, I believe some insight into how an event such as this can be avoided or handled more properly is necessary. Or we can focus on simply compensating those affected and be screwed next time something like this happens. We are all humans and we all make mistakes, let’s grow up and focus on taking care of business rather than pointing fingers.
Washington Extra
The special relationship has been upgraded. It is now “extraordinary”, “truly special” and “absolutely essential”.
President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, both repeatedly calling each other by their first names, were at pains today to demonstrate the warmth of ties between their two nations, despite an embarrassing row about BP, the oil spill and Lockerbie.
Joking about the temperature beer should be served and the tidiness of their children’s bedrooms, the two men, both left-handers we now realize, clearly wanted to show they enjoyed a personal rapport. A deliberate contrast to the businesslike tone of the relationship with Gordon Brown?
In the substance too, there was no argument that BP needs to pay for the oil spill but should not be forced out of business, and “violent agreement” that the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison last year was plain wrong.
Elsewhere today, evidence that getting involved in legislation to curb Wall Street excesses might not be a huge vote winner come November.
A Reuters/IPSOS poll showed Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a chief architect of the financial regulation overhaul, trailing Republican candidate John Boozman, by 19 points, by 54 percent to 35.
For more on Cameron’s visit, check out Matt Spetalnick and Matt Falloon’s story, Steve Holland’s analysis on Barack and David, Toby Zakaria’s blog on beer diplomacy. .
What does an oiled pelican look like?
You’ve probably seen the disturbing images of pelicans so badly mired in leaking oil in the Gulf of Mexico that they can barely be distinguished as birds at all — they look like part of the muck.
But nearly three months after the blowout at BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig, there are other pelicans touched by the oil where the impact is far less apparent, though still real.
Take a look at some video I took during a boat trip on July 15 along West Pass, a long channel stretching out into the ocean from Louisiana’s southern-most tip:
The video was taken aboard a small, bobbing boat with a light wind distorting sound, but it clearly shows a section of a rocky jetty stretching into the Gulf. There were hundreds of pelicans and gulls perched on the jetty; the video only shows a short section.
What’s important to look for are the dark patches on the heads, beaks and wings of some of the pelicans; that is untreated black oil, according to Joao Talocchi of the environmental group Greenpeace. There was no black oil in the water nearby, or the reddish sludge of treated oil seen in the photo of the drenched pelican above, only a few isolated pea-sized beads of emulsified oil that appeared to have been treated with dispersant chemicals.
Absolutely terrible. The images of injured or dead wildlife truly brings the pain of the region (human, animal, environmental) home in a vivid manner.
You can read a scathing, satirical rebuke of Bil Oil here if you are interested.
Politics beckon again as Obama’s Maine getaway ends
After a laid-back family getaway on Maine’s scenic shoreline, it’s back to political reality for President Barack Obama.
The first family wrapped up a three-day mini-vacation in the upscale Bar Harbor resort and boarded a small presidential jet headed for Washington, where Obama will again face the daily pressures and policy battles.
In the coming week, he will weigh the latest dose of good news together with lingering concerns about the BP oil spill, sign a Wall Street overhaul into law and hold talks with new British Prime Minister David Cameron. Enduring problems like the struggling economy, high unemployment and the war in Afghanistan also remain on his plate.
Obama may have trouble readjusting after an idyllic summer weekend spent hiking, biking and boating with first lady Michelle Obama and daughters Malia and Sasha in and around Mount Desert Island, home to rugged Acadia National Park.
For Obama, it marked a rare family vacation not interrupted by the demands of the presidency. The Obamas’ holiday plans have been overtaken in the past by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, an attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jetliner and the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.
Even the Maine vacation stirred political background noise. Some Republicans used it to criticize Obama for continuing his “leisure activities,” including occasional golf outings, during the oil spill disaster. A few insisted the Obamas should have traveled instead to the stricken Gulf coast as an example for tourists.
The White House dismissed such complaints. Supporters pointed out that Democrat Obama had vacationed far less than Republican predecessor George W. Bush at this point in his tenure.
“You work 80 hours a week? … Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”
At town hall, Ken Feinberg listens to leak victims
From Ernest Scheyder in LAROSE, La.:
At a civic center here, newly appointed oil fund administrator Ken Feinberg tried to put to rest concerns that the claims process is inefficient and learn more about the region’s unique economy.
“A program like this cannot be designed and administered from Washington,” he said. “You have to come down here and take time to listen.”
The claims process will transition from BP’s control to become the new “Gulf Coast-Feinberg” program within 20 days, and soon applicants will be able to file claims online after complaints by many affected by the leak that the process is often cumbersome, requiring stacks of paperwork and several visits to claims centers.
While Feinberg promised to make the process more efficient, he also implored victims to not give up.
“I can’t help you if you don’t file a claim,” he said. The first step, already underway, would provide victims with cash for urgent expenses, such as food, rent and utilities. Most boat deckhands, for instance, have been receiving $2,500 a month. Accepting this first phase of money does not prevent someone from suing BP, Feinberg said.
“This money is emergency money designed to tide you over until the leak stops and we can evaluate your long-term needs,” he said. Once the leak is capped, then the fund will meet with victims to determine permanent damage, much how the Sept. 11 Victims Fund operated, which Feinberg also administered.
What’s in a name? Will BOE smell sweeter than MMS?
Shakespeare definitely put it best, in that famous balcony scene from “Romeo and Juliet”: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” But what if the original smell wasn’t so great? Will a name change make a difference?
That might have been the purpose behind the Obama administration’s decision to change the name of the U.S. agency that oversees offshore oil drilling — the Minerals Management Service — to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or Bureau of Ocean Energy for short.
The name change is part of a redo at the agency, which is being broken up into three divisions so that the same agency that grants permits to drill doesn’t also oversee safety. There will also be a new chief , former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich, to lead the reorganization. The renovation at the agency comes after criticism over the old MMS’s handling of BP’s Deepwater Horizon well and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
But does BOE — or BOEMRE — come more trippingly off the tongue than MMS? Is it enough of a change? Was it necessary to change the name as the agency itself morphs into something different? And lastly, any suggestions for an improved version of the new name?
Photo credit: REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya (Roses at the Maridadi Flowers warehouse in Naivasha, Kenya, April 19, 2010)
I work in the oil & gas industry and used to be in charge of the MMS reporting so I know a few things about the agency and industry. What I find even more comical than the fact that the government thinks a name change will make a difference, is that ‘BOE’ means something already in the oil & gas industry. In the industry, we use BOE on a daily basis which means ‘barrel of oil equivalent’. I think it just shows how clueless the government and MMS are about the oil & gas industry, that they’d change the name of the MMS to BOE when the abbreviation is already being used. So not only is the government confused and clueless but now they will create confusion within the industry as to which BOE you mean when you say it or type it…
You won’t believe this – Dems cash in on Republican BP apology
Congressional Democrats are quickly trying to cash in on Joe Barton, the Republican lawmaker with ties to the oil industry who apologized to BP on national TV.
Just hours after Barton’s remarks on Thursday, the House and Senate Democratic campaign committees issued fund-raising appeals featuring and ridiculing the white-haired Texan.
“You won’t believe this,” begins the letter from the House Democratic campaign committee. “Yes, Texas Congressman Joe Barton actually apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward.”
The Senate Democratic campaign committee characterized Barton in its letter as a defender of “big polluters.”
Nathan Gonzales of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report said, “Joe Barton is not a high-profile guy. But Democrats aim to make him one.”
“BP is perhaps the most despised entity in the United States right now, and Democrats are going to do what they can to tie Barton and other Republicans to them,” Gonzales said.
“We will see how it resonates,” Gonzales said.
Joe Barton (GOBP) has done a fair amount of apologizing lately. It started with a public apology to BP, which was soon followed by an apology for the apology. Then he began apologizing to Gulf Coast Republicans, and apologized to the rest of his party for all the trouble he caused.
And then he posts a link on his Twitter page to an American Spectator article titled, “Joe Barton was right.” The article by Peter Hannaford is a robust defense of what Barton said, knocking the Obama administration for “Alinsky” tactics and hatred of business.
When a lawmaker is sincerely sorry about an ostensible mistake, and believes he was wrong, he doesn’t turn around hours later to boast publicly that he was right. It’s the kind of move that suggests his apology was made for the sake of political expedience.
Barton’s office scrambled to remove the tweet but it has, of course, been captured with screen-grabs and posted all over the internet. The American Spectator piece has been scrubbed. Barton probably realizes he’s screwed up again.
Remember, this guy is the leading House Republican on matters related to energy and climate policy. Seriously. The American people now have an easy choice to make in November.
First Oval Office address — an “inflection point” on spill – but which way?
To underscore how seriously he is taking the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama has chosen to make his nationwide address on the environmental disaster his first speech from the Oval Office, a setting presidents typically reserve for the gravest occasions – President George W. Bush spoke from there after the September 11 attacks, President Bill Clinton announced air strikes on Iraq, and President Ronald Reagan chose the Oval to talk about the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger.
Administration officials said Obama will lay out how to deal with the oil that has leaked so far and what must be done to clean up and restore the Gulf, talk about what is being done for those who have lost jobs and business because of the disaster and discuss changing U.S. energy policy to reduce dependence on oil and fossil fuel.
As he grapples with the spill, Obama has been pushing Congress to pass a new law that would fight climate change and ramp up production of renewable fuels, but the measure faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Republican leaders are sternly denouncing any effort to link provisions of the energy bill with the Gulf disaster.
“Tonight’s speech comes at an inflection point in the oil spill,” aides said, using the expression for a point marking the beginning of a significant change on a curve, or a chart.
“President Obama understands the challenges and has clear plans to meet them,” they said.
He should have given this from the site of the disaster. The oil company executives should have testified from the site also.
Lockbox may be making a political comeback
Republicans may be coming around to former Vice President Al Gore’s way of thinking. Not on climate change, but on the “lockbox.”
During his failed 2000 presidential bid, Gore talked about setting aside Social Security tax surpluses and putting them in a kind of ”lockbox” to keep them off limits for other government spending and tax cuts. NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” comedy show made great fun of the Democrat’s comment.
Now Senate Republicans have revived the idea.
Not for Social Security, but for the oil spill clean up fund. Democrats are proposing to increase the oil spill clean up fund tax to 41 cents a barrel from 8 cents a barrel. The increase is part of a bill being considered by the Senate to help the long-term unemployed, offer relief to cash-strapped states and extend some expired business tax breaks.
Democrats said the tax increase is needed to make sure enough money is in the fund to deal with future oil spills. Not all companies have pockets as deep as BP Plc, which has promised to pay for damages caused by the deep water leak in the Gulf of Mexico, Senator Dick Durbin argued during Senate debate on the bill.
The tax increase will ensure taxpayers are not stuck with the tab in case of a future spill caused by a company that is not quite so flush with cash as BP, he said.
Republicans cried foul. They accused Democrats of raising the tax to offset some of the $126 billion cost of the bill.
TC – Not only did Gore win by 540,000 recorded votes in 2000…he won by 5-7 million. First there was the 2000 Judicial Coup and the long-running media con that Bush really did win Florida, although Gore won nationally by 540,000 votes. It wasn’t even the close race the media has misled you to believe. Gore did much, much better than his official recorded vote, nationally as well as in Florida.
Here is the 1988-2008 unadjusted state exit poll data and the 1988-2008 State and National True Vote Models. Both are Google Doc spreadsheet workbooks.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011 /11/21/unadjusted-state-exit-polls-indi cate-that-al-gore-won-a-mini-landslide-i n-2000/
Al Gore won the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8% to 44.4%, a 6 MILLION VOTE MARGIN compared to the 540,000 recorded. There were nearly 6 MILLION UNCOUNTED Gore votes.
The True Vote Model, based on 1996 and 2000 votes cast, was a close match to Gore’s exit poll share. He had a 50.0% True Vote share assuming he had 75% of 8 million returning 1996 voters, whose ballots for Clinton were uncounted, and 75% of 6 million uncounted votes in 2000.
Gore won the unadjusted exit poll in the following 13 states:
AL AR AZ CO FL GA MN MO NC NM TN TX VA
But all flipped to Bush. Gore would have won the election if he held just ONE of them. The election was stolen. Gore won his home state of TN as well as FL. He even won the exit poll in TX, Bush’s home state, by 4%. But I bet you never knew that.
The exit poll/recorded vote margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 10 states:
TX AL NC TN GA AR ID MD SC FL
But that theft was just a prologue of what was to come in 2004 and 2008.
In 2004, Kerry won the True Vote in a landslide – by nearly 10 million votes. The election was stolen again. The margin discrepancy exceeded 10% in 15 states: VT DE AK CT SC VA NJ HI NH MS PA UT MN NM OH
And in 2008, Obama’s landslide was even larger. He did much, much better than his recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The 10% margin discrepancy was exceeded in an astounding 28 states.
Sorry to burst your Fox News bubble, but those are the facts.
