jump to navigation

Obama Negotiates with Himself on Oil. Again. May 16, 2011

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

President Obama’s position on oil has been one of the most disappointing and incoherent facets of his administration to date.   On Saturday, this trend continued as the President announced a series of shifts to increase domestic oil production.

Pundits say he had to respond to high gas prices (which presidents do not control).  This maneuver is political capitulation in the face of a mismanaged narrative in the public discourse.  For years, this “debate” about gas prices has been dominated by flat out lies and misinformation in one of the more disgraceful displays of unaccountability in contemporary American politics. 

I have attempted to clear the air (pun intended) on this topic a number of times.  For a fuller explanation, please see this previous post.

Here’s the short version: conservatives claim that high gasoline prices are caused by liberal overregulation stifling domestic oil production.  That just isn’t the slightest bit true.  Oil is a global commodity, so its price is determined on the global market.  We, the United States, represent 25% of world oil demand and about 3% of world supply.  The point here is that we simply don’t have enough oil to affect global supply and thus prices.  And the kicker is that even if we could, OPEC is a cartel; they could/would effortlessly decrease their production to offset any impact we could have. 

Here’s another inconvenient truth: domestic oil production is already up 11% under Obama and was down 15% under Bush.  That reality doesn’t match this GOP argument.  Increased domestic drilling cannot lower gas prices.  Period.  Don’t take my word for it, read for yourself – even the mainstream media have finally caught on recently. 

Domestic oil production does not drive gas prices.

So back to Obama.  After failing to enact a single piece of oil-spill legislation, the President was finally starting to sound like a progressive on energy again.  In an earlier address he even pointed out the supply/demand reality I described above, although he inexplicably refused to take it to its logical conclusion that drilling cannot be a solution.  To now increase drilling as a response to gas prices validates the baldly fabricated GOP narrative.  Much like the current deficit focus, we’re conceding not only the point but adopting their frame as well.  No good can come of that.  It just doesn’t make any sense.

Recall that last year, right before the Congressional energy debate, the administration unveiled a plan to dramatically increase offshore drilling.  For which it asked nothing in return.  Rational negotiators might reward unilateral compromise.  A GOP party that miraculously resurrected itself by vociferously opposing any- and everything Obama does would of course do no such thing.  So we gave away a bargaining chip for free [that most progressives would have rather kept] and no energy bill was passed.  Also, this episode occurred just one month before the BP oil spill, which prevented the administration from using that catastrophe as a catalyst for needed change.

In both cases, the only rationale I can see is political maneuvering.  We know the Obama campaign prizes the supposedly undecided independents and what moderate Republicans still exist “in the middle.”  They think that carving out GOP territory for Obama will undercut Republican attacks.  But even if they pick up some independents, if they sell out progressives to do it that is not a net gain.  Additionally, the GOP won’t care that oil production is up – more than they want these policy objectives, they want to keep their base angry.  Have Obama’s oil moves blunted their attacks on this president as anti-oil or trickled into the Fox Newsiverse?  No. 

Obama’s tactics seem to operate from a flawed premise on bipartisanship about which I have previously written, and I am concerned about this plan.

Drill, baby, drill is political welfare for Big Oil, plain and simple.  It does not help America, it helps oil executives.  If we’re going to cave on offshore drilling, leverage it for a coherent energy policy.  If we’re going to increase domestic oil production, call it the compromise that it is and justify it as job creation (with a side of pollution and risk); don’t validate their lies.  I can stomach a certain amount of political compromise, but I can’t start defending the Fox News reality as truth.  

BP’s Oil Spill Fines Might Not Help the Gulf December 3, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

In addition to BP’s compensatory fund, the company must pay a per-barrel fine for its gratuitously spilled oil.  Under current law, that money is paid into the federal treasury instead of funding restoration efforts.

The Obama administration tapped former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to compile a report on how best to enact a long-term Gulf restoration plan.  One of the major recommendations in the Mabus Report was to pass a law directing funds from BP’s fines straight to Gulf restoration efforts.  Seems simple enough, but even obvious baby steps require prodding in this obstructionist legislative environment.

Read the full post at Change.org.

There is No Common Ground between Different Realities August 27, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To call Republicans “the Party of No” is not quite fair – they say a lot of things besides ‘no.’ But that is the full extent of their political output: speech. Currently, Republicans are more accurately the Party of Rhetoric.

Now this is partly because they are in the legislative minority, but I can’t think of any other period in our history during which the minority party decided to so fully abstain from policymaking.  You can count on one hand the number of GOP senators willing to substantively work with the Democratic majority.  It makes you wonder what the rest of them are doing with their time.

In the past, when our country faced a problem, our two political parties fought about which policy was better to address it.  That is how our legislature is supposed to function.

You may have noticed that this occurs less today.  Increasingly, the political debate has devolved into an argument not of HOW to act but rather IF any action is even warranted.  Instead of debating solutions, we find ourselves arguing about whether or not a problem exists at all:

  • This is true of climate change: conservatives don’t have their own solution, they simply deny that the problem exists.
  • This is true of healthcare: how many times during the last year were we told that “America has the best healthcare in the world”?
  • This is true of any policy that involves regulation (finance, pollution, offshore drilling etc.), because a push for deregulation instead of better regulation contains the implicit assertion that no problems exist (or that regulations somehow cause what problems there are).

Republicans deny that these problems exist altogether, and that is problematic because they are quite real.

Historically, even policies supporting inaction were not based on denial.  Consider America’s now defunct isolationism.  Advocates of non-intervention did not dispute the existence of foreign wars, they simply determined that staying out of them was a better course of action.  At least everybody was still operating in the same reality – they debated the merits of different solutions.

In 2006, Stephen Colbert told President Bush that “reality has a well-known liberal bias.”  So conservatives simply left.  Today, Republicans occupy their own reality.  They get their own news tailored to that reality, and anything that contradicts this fictitious worldview is simply denounced as biased, even empirical science.  No policy debate can occur because the conservative reality has its own facts and they distrust “ours.”  Experts are just elitists anyways.

But this planet and this country face real challenges, even if conservatives refuse to believe them.  Unfortunately, by the time they become full, immediate crises, it will be too late to act.  Think of America as riding in an SUV speeding towards a cliff: everyone in that car is in trouble – even the kid in the backseat with his eyes shut tight, plugging his ears and singing loudly to himself (presumably Mellencamp’s “[This Is] Our Country”).  But once the wheels leave the pavement, and likely well before then, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it.  That kid is only forced to finally acknowledge the outside world upon impact.

So how we can bridge this inter-reality chasm?  It may not even be possible.  But there is one way we can try (and the Daily Show has been attempting this valiantly).

The Party of Rhetoric, especially now that it has started drinking Tea, has begun to make some wild claims.  Conservatives won’t listen to our words, so we must hope that they still believe theirs.

As Republican politicians increasingly resort to fear-mongering, they make ridiculous extrapolations and predict devastating futures that result from liberal policies.  So when these disasters do not occur, we must repeat their words back to them.

It will be a while before we can utilize this strategy for most issues, but we can start small with offshore drilling now.  Conservatives and the oil industry railed against the Obama administration for its perfectly justified temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling.  They insisted that this most minimal safeguard against another massive oil spill would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and more economic devastation than the BP spill itself.

As the New York Times reported this week, that simply has not happened.  Even the administration’s estimates were overly pessimistic (to a much lesser extent).  Instead of hundreds of thousands of laid off oil workers, unemployment claims attributable to the moratorium are currently just in the hundreds.

I’m sure that the conservative reality has an explanation for this development or simply rejects it altogether.  But if we can’t even look over our shoulder and agree about what just happened, how can we possibly look ahead and safely navigate the future?

Deepwater Drilling Moratorium Version 2.0 July 14, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Last month, as most of you know, the Obama administration’s first deepwater drilling moratorium in response to the ongoing BP oil spill was overturned in a logically unsound and ostensibly political decision by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman.

This week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a second moratorium on new deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico through November 30th.  It is designed to address the “concerns” raised by Judge Feldman (download here).

I have said this before, but it must be repeated in any discussion of a deepwater drilling moratorium:

-Fact: We do not yet know what caused the blowout that sank the Deepwater Horizon rig.

-Fact: We do not have adequate prevention or containment methods for a deepwater blowout, so a massive oil spill is guaranteed if a blowout occurs.

-Fact: A massive oil spill is unacceptably destructive.

-Conclusion: Deepwater drilling must be halted AT LEAST until we know how to prevent and/or recover from deepwater blowouts.

This, in and of itself, ought to sufficiently justify a moratorium.  However, without addressing this issue, Judge Feldman somehow found the following items troubling enough to take the extreme measure of overturning the moratorium:

The original moratorium alluded to but did not explicitly describe the devastation caused by deepwater blowouts.  Judge Feldman did not think the moratorium followed logically from the 30-day safety report on which it was based.

The original moratorium covered oil rigs drilling in more than 500 feet of water.  Judge Feldman felt this depth-based cutoff was arbitrary (it’s not – in Feldman’s own words, it is “undisputed” that to drill beneath that depth, floating rigs are required to conduct the more dangerous, deepwater drilling).

The oil industry has also cited a bogus job-loss argument that I refuted in my original defense of such a drilling moratorium.  Yes, temporarily halting drilling does temporary reduce the number of drilling jobs available.  But when one considers the job loss beyond the oil industry as a result of oil spills (in nature-driven sectors such as fishing and tourism), it is clear that oil spills destroy far more jobs than a temporary halt in drilling.

This new moratorium addresses Judge Feldman’s stated concerns.

First, it essentially makes the case I have made above: it cites the oil industry’s inability to identify the cause of and thus prevent another blowout of this type.  It catalogues the utter inadequacy of every oil company’s cleanup and containment procedures in the event of a deepwater blowout.  It spells out what the rest of us already know.

Second, it removes the depth-based determination of which wells must halt their drilling.  Instead, this moratorium applies only to oil rigs “using subsea blowout preventers (BOPs) or surface BOPs on a floating facility” regardless of depth.

In regard to the scope of the moratorium, this different language appears mainly to address Feldman’s flimsy yet prohibitive criticisms of the original moratorium; it seems that the moratorium will still apply to the same 30 or so deepwater rigs currently in the Gulf.

It is true that BP was operating its rigs more recklessly than others in the oil industry.  Interestingly enough, one oil industry group (that usually spends its resources on important things like funding climate denial) has turned its guns inward on BP as the rest of the industry tries to distance itself from BP.  They released the graphic below detailing BP’s shortcomings:

BP was extra reckless with the Deepwater Horizon well, but deepwater drilling has intrinsic risks that cannot be fully negated. Click for larger.

But even the oil industry conceded during Congressional testimony that the risks of deepwater drilling cannot be avoided:

“When these things happen, we are not very well equipped to deal with them, and that’s why the emphasis is always on preventing these things from occurring.” -Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson

For the first time in my life, I agree with Rex; that, in one sentence, explains why the drilling moratorium is in place.

Some members of the presidential commission investigating the oil spill have concerns about the economic impacts of the moratorium and have changed their minds to oppose it.  However, until I hear a response to the three facts and conclusion laid out at the beginning of this post, I will support a moratorium.

Commission co-chairman Bob Graham compared the situation to Boeing’s treatment of its fleet when a defect was discovered in the cockpit glass of 1,200 planes. “They didn’t wait until all 1,200 had been examined to release the first one,” he said.  He feels that because there are only 36 or so rigs in question, we should simply be able to inspect each one, and allow them to continue drilling if and as soon as they pass inspection.

This is not an analogous situation.  The Boeing technicians knew what they were looking for; we don’t. Until you have diagnosed a problem, you cannot fix it.  An inconclusive doctor’s visit does not ipso facto cure an undiagnosed disease.

Until we know what happened, a drilling moratorium is the right move.  That’s why the European Union’s top energy minister has called for a similar moratorium on deepwater drilling as well – pending the results of an investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident.

We cannot skimp on safety precautions just because the oil industry has a stranglehold on the Gulf economy.  Whatever economic losses may accompany a halt in drilling are still BP’s fault.  If BP is compensating fishermen who not work as a result of their recklessness, they should be compensating their own employees who cannot work because of their recklessness.

The oil industry is using its drilling jobs as leverage to threaten us into prematurely lifting our moratorium.  It is perverse to cave to their demands before we have even stopped this ongoing catastrophe.

Check out this post at Grist that gives some scale to the cleanup effort.

Deeply Flawed Ruling Overturns Deepwater Drilling Moratorium June 24, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

***UPDATE: Rachel Maddow has reported more information about Judge Feldman’s oil-related investments here.***

On Tuesday, Judge Martin Feldman granted a preliminary injunction brought by the oil industry against the Obama Administration’s 6-month moratorium on floating offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  That ruling lifts the drilling ban.

First of all, it is significant that Judge Feldman has reported extensive investments in the oil industry including both Halliburton and Transocean. Shockingly enough, his ruling does not read like it was penned by an impartial arbiter.  He uses phrases like “the government admits that the industry provides relatively high paying jobs” (p. 5-6).  Like that has anything to do with the safety of offshore drilling.

In describing the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Feldman even uses the exact same analogy trotted out by conservative pundits; “Are all airplanes a danger because one was?” (p. 19).  He also adds a few more analogies, including my personal favorite: “[Are] all tankers like Exxon Valdez?” (p. 19).  YES, FELDMAN, ALL THE SINGLE-HULLED TANKERS IN THE WORLD ARE JUST LIKE EXXON VALDEZ.  That’s why we’ve switched [embarrassingly slowly] to using double-hulled tankers!

Judge Martin Feldman. One of the 37 out of 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts that have ties to the oil and gas industries.

Having read Feldman’s 22-page ruling, I am less than compelled by his arguments.

As I explained in my earlier defense of the moratorium, the logic for temporarily suspending deepwater drilling operations is very clear:

-Fact: We do not yet know what caused the blowout that sank the Deepwater Horizon rig.

-Fact: We do not have adequate prevention or containment methods for a deepwater blowout, so a massive oil spill is guaranteed if a blowout occurs.

-Fact: A massive oil spill is unacceptably destructive.

-Conclusion: Deepwater drilling must be halted AT LEAST until we know how to prevent and/or recover from deepwater blowouts.

Nobody has presented a counterargument to this logic.  This ruling does not contain one.  I don’t believe that one exists.

The oil industry and indeed Judge Feldman argue that the moratorium is a punitive action against innocent oil workers and that it would cause excessive job loss.  This is false.   Judge Feldman writes:

“Oil and gas production is quite simply elemental to Gulf communities” (p. 6).

As nice as that non sequitur would look on an oil billboard, all that says is that these communities need to diversify.

Employment has nothing to do with the justification for this moratorium. Even if it did, I have shown that blowouts such as this cause far more job loss in sustainable industries such as fishing and tourism than the moratorium would temporarily cost the drilling industry.

I find further faults in Judge Feldman’s ruling.

From a legal perspective, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations,

“for the suspension or temporary prohibition of any operation or activity, including production…if there is a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), to property, to any mineral deposits (in areas leased or not leased), or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.” (p. 7-8).

This oil spill meets EVERY ONE of these conditions, ANY ONE of which justifies a moratorium.

Now, that same piece of legislation also preserves the right of any person “having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected” by such regulations to sue to stop them (p. 8).  But those adversely affected workers do not make our oil rigs any safer or in any way reduce the threat that validates the moratorium.  If they have suffered financial burdens, make BP and friends compensate them.  Case closed.

The Administrative Procedure Act cautions that an agency action may only be overturned if it is “arbitrary” and “capricious”.  Lo and behold, Judge Feldman found this moratorium both arbitrary and capricious.

This moratorium is anything but arbitrary and whimsically impulsive.

Feldman contends that the government did not examine alternatives to the moratorium.  But until we know what caused the spill, there is no other effective preventative measure than not drilling (aside from blindly hoping it doesn’t happen again before we figure out what happened, but that’s not what I consider “effective”).

Feldman explains his ruling with the contention that the MMS report outlining the proposed drilling reforms “makes no effort to explicitly justify the moratorium: it does not discuss any irreparable harm that would warrant a suspension of operations” (p. 4).  Seriously Feldman?  Are you joking?  Have you read the news in the last two months?  You live in Louisiana for crying out loud.  Oh! I know, check the performance of your oil stocks.  Notice anything different?  Ya, something big happened.  It has consequences.

Feldman goes on to condescendingly demonstrate Secretary Salazar’s “pattern” of implying the catastrophic effects of deepwater drilling without explicitly stating them.

Instead of explaining the most convincingly implied point I have ever come across, I will take this moment to explicitly proclaim Judge Bubby Boy either decidedly dim or of integrity as oily and compromised as a deepwater blowout preventer.  Take your pick.

The points of contention continue.

Feldman repeatedly refers to the Administration’s “blanket” moratorium on offshore drilling.  If you’ve been following the oil spill, you may recall an earlier “mini-scandal” when the moratorium was announced: Secretary Salazar assembled a panel of experts to review the proposed safety reforms.  Those experts approved  – among many other reforms – a six-month moratorium on exploratory wells deeper than 1000 feet.  The final report proposed a six-month moratorium on exploratory wells deeper than 500 feet.  Everyone freaked out about DOI’s “blatant misrepresentation” of the experts’ recommendations (of which the moratorium was a small fraction).

Now, aside from sounding so far from impartial as to seem personally offended by these events, Judge Feldman wrote:

“[Eight of the experts] have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling.  They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them.  A factor that might cause some apprehension about the probity of the process that led to the Report.” (p. 3)

First off all, that last sentence sounds like the script for a Fox News anchor.  My complaint here is for those experts that oppose the moratorium as well: just what kind of moratorium would you propose?  500 feet is the switchpoint between rigs that rest on the ocean floor and floating rigs.  That is, in Judge Feldman’s own words, “undisputed” (p. 18).

The oil industry (in this case, including Judge Feldman) isn’t angry that the Department of the Interior changed the moratorium depth by 500 feet.  They’re angry that it was implemented at all.  People talk about this “blanket moratorium” as if Obama tried to stop all offshore drilling.  In fact, he attempted to do nothing of the sort.

Feldman writes that he “is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium” (p. 17).  Recurring oil spill delusion aside, “immense scope?”  Let’s look at what we’re talking about here.

The term “blanket” moratorium by itself is misleading.  The moratorium applied only to floating oil rigs drilling exploratory wells in depths deeper than 500 ft.  Existing production at those depths continued unaffected.  Shallower offshore drilling (the vast majority of offshore drilling) was unaffected.  The moratorium only applied to 33 oil rigs out of the ~4500 currently drilling in the Gulf!

How much more limited could the moratorium get? Should it only apply to deepwater wells owned by BP?  Only deepwater wells cemented by Halliburton? Only deepwater wells operated by Transocean rigs?  How about only those deepwater rigs that are about to explode and sink?

WE DON’T KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE BLOWOUT; how could we possibly refine the moratorium further? “Immense scale?”  This is the loosest-weave “blanket” moratorium in history.

Judge Feldman himself wrote that, “It is well settled that “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary that should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion” (p. 13).  That has not happened.  Yet Judge Feldman today rejected the government’s appeal to his Tuesday ruling. In doing so, he refused to delay his lifting of the drilling moratorium.    Why? For “the same reasons” given in his prior ruling. God bless America.

Full list of oil spill questions and answers here.

Oil Spill Legislation Pt. 2 June 22, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that I have devoted two recent posts to what Congress isn’t doing, it’s time once again to look at what little they actually are working on.  There are a couple of interesting pieces of oil spill legislation that have been introduced recently.  These are the most noteworthy:

Let’s start with the bad ones.

S. 3461, introduced by David Vitter (R-LA) on 6/9.  This bill would create a system for resolving claims against BP, which is fine.  But it also seeks to renegotiate BP’s lease on “Mississippi Canyon 252” (where Deepwater Horizon was drilling when it sank).

Lease renegotiation is the Republicans’ preferred vehicle to increase BP’s liability. It has two main problems:

1) It requires BP’s cooperation. In order for this to work, BP would have to say, “Ok, we admit unlimited liability.”  As TPM reported, BP could refuse or even simply walk away from the renegotiation talks.  Public pressure might prevent them from doing this, but there is no guarantee.  And certainly no good reasons to choose this over just lifting the liability cap, which takes us to the second point.

2) Lease renegotiation establishes no future precedent for oil spills.  It is the legislative embodiment of not learning from our mistakes.  If we pass this bill and no other, the $75 million liability cap will still be on the books when the next catastrophic oil spill occurs.  This is why the only cosponsor on this bill is oil industry lackey Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).  Her co-sponsorship indicates that this bill is supported by the oil industry, which in turn indicates that this bill is far too weak.

Also, it could violate the Constitution.

S. 3497, introduced by Scott Brown (R-MA) on 6/16.  This bill would “require leases under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to include a plan that describes the means and timeline for containment and termination of an ongoing discharge of oil.”  The actual legislative text is not available yet, so I don’t know exactly what this bill would require, but that this seems weak to me.  Oil companies saying “and it’ll take us 4 months to fix this thing if it blows” would seem to satisfy the requirements of this bill, nor does this appear to address the strength and efficacy of the oil company plans – is there anything in here to prevent them from submitting plans to protect walruses in the Gulf of Mexico again?

Scott Brown has offered no evidence that his is to be trusted on energy/environmental issues.  That being said, he has found a bipartisan cosponsor for this bill in Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), so we will have to wait and see what is actually in this bill.

Now, the good stuff:

S. 3514: Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit anyone from buying an oil or gas lease unless they pay into an Oil Spill Recovery Fund (unspecified amount so far) or post a bond equal to half of their outstanding liability related to oil spills or cleanups.  If the payment into the recovery fund is low, then what appears to be the intent of the bill – prevent companies in BP’s current situation from expanding their operations before paying up for oil spills – may be undercut.  But the legislative language is not available yet, so we’ll see.  Introduced by Mark Begich (D-AK) on 6/21 with 2 cosponsors.

S. 3492: In light of negligent emergency planning and the failure of all other containment options, this bill would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to require leaseholders to prepare for and actually drill at least one relief well concurrent to the drilling of any exploratory well in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).  The bill allows for “alternative measures” at least as effective as a relief well to be employed instead of a relief well as authorized by the Secretary of the Interior.  Probably unlikely to pass, but an interesting idea. Introduced by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on 6/15 with no cosponsors yet.

H.R. 5513: “Spilled Oil Royalty Collection Act.”  Oil companies pay royalties on each barrel of oil produced.  In the “unforeseeable” event of a deepwater oil spill (defined as depth > 200m), this bill would charge oil companies royalties of at least 12.5% on every barrel that comes out of the well, regardless of whether that oil is recovered, burned, “dispersed”…anything.  This bill would come into effect retroactively, right before the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  Were this to become law, it would further highlight the importance of accurate flow estimates for gushers.  Those royalties would certainly not offer much more deterrent than legal liability, but can you think of any reason that spilled oil should be exempted from royalties?  I can’t.  Especially because they are recovering and selling some of it.  Introduced by Chellie Pingree (D-ME) on 6/10 and has 2 cosponsors.

H.R. 5503: Amends the 90-year-old “Death on the High Seas Act” to make it easier for those such as the families of the 11 workers who died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion to sue for non-pecuniary losses such as pain and suffering.  The bill was introduced with a statement that read, “We should not allow reckless corporations to use 19th century laws to shortchange their victims.”  Sounds right to me.  Introduced by John Conyers (D-MI) on 6/11 and has 12 cosponsors.

The companion bill in the Senate (S. 3463) was introduced by Patrick Leahy (D-VT) first, on 6/8, and has 5 cosponsors.

S. 3478: Would repeal parts of the Limitations of Liability Act of 1851, which Transocean has invoked to attempt to cap its liability at about $27 million.  This bill wins my personal award for Most Forced Acronym as its name is the “RESTORE Act,” which is supposed to stand for “Remuneration for Ecological and Societal Tolls Occasioned by Reckless Errors.”  Introduced by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on 6/10 and has 3 cosponsors.

Bills to raise the liability cap:

S. 3472: “Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act.”  Completely lifts the standing $75 million liability cap for oil spills.  Introduced by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) on 6/9 and has 24 cosponsors.

H.R. 5520: Requires BP to pay at least $25 billion to a fund like the escrow the White House negotiated, but goes further by excluding this spill from the liability cap.  Introduced by Steve Kagen (D-WI) on 6/14 and has 32 cosponsors.

Bills to lift the deepwater drilling moratorium, which I fully support and have defended at length.


S.3489: Introduced by David Vitter (R-LA) on 6/15 and has 1 cosponsor.


H.R. 5499: Introduced John Mica (R-FL) on 6/11 and has 13 cosponsors.

H.R. 5525: Introduced by Pete Olson (R-TX) on 6/15 and has 28 cosponsors.

H.R. 5519: Introduced by Bill Cassidy (R-LA) on 6/14 and has 43 cosponsors, including some notable Gulf Democrats such as Charlie Melancon (D-LA).  Apparently Bill is more popular than John and Pete.

Sanders Amendment Defeated

Also worth mentioning but filed again under what Congress isn’t doing: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced an amendment to cut $35 billion in oil and gas royalties that don’t even add anything to the industry and would instead use $25 billion to reduce the deficit and $10 billion to encourage energy-efficient buildings.  The amendment was first blocked by climate-denier Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-KY) and then defeated in a vote, 61-39.

Full list of oil spill questions and answers here.

An Appropriately Politicized Oil Spill June 16, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Coal, Congress, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Republicans are accusing President Obama of politicizing this oil spill.  They say that he is unfairly pushing his energy agenda instead of solving this Gulf Coast tragedy.  They are wrong.

Obama recently addressed the nation about the oil spill in a speech from the Oval Office.  Even before he gave that speech, Republicans offered a preemptive rebuttal. House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) released a statement entitled:

“President Obama Should Not Use Oil Spill Crisis To Push for Job-Killing Nat’l Energy Tax”

Mike Pence (R-IN) explained it from another angle:

“The American People Don’t Want This Administration to Exploit the Crisis in the Gulf to Advance Their Disastrous Energy Policies”

First of all, both of those titles and the press releases themselves are loaded with politicized spin and focus group-tested buzzwords.  Way to depoliticize the oil spill, Republicans!  Leading by example, as usual.

Secondly, I would ask Mr. Pence to look at the Gulf and tell me whose energy policies are really disastrous – Republicans’ or Democrats’?

Republican criticisms miss their mark because the ongoing oil spill is intimately tied to energy reform. It makes both political and logical sense to connect the two.  Even factors you might think are separate are closely related.

For example, retrofitting 75,000 houses would save as much energy – each year – as has spilled into the Gulf since the spill began (maybe a bit less, I don’t know what estimate this calculation used).  And the home efficiency legislation (“Home Star”) that recently passed in the House is expected to retrofit 3.3 million homes.  If our cars were electric instead of gas-powered, those energy savings could replace our gas usage and we wouldn’t even have needed the oil that is now gushing into the Gulf.

Republicans are complaining because right now because the American public is actually demanding change, and that conflicts with the Republican status quo agenda (see stats in final paragraph).

Those who charge Obama with exploiting this disaster for pure political gain are misrepresenting the situation.  Political exploitation would involve only a tangential, non-casual relationship between the initiating disaster and the proposed response – in other words, if the proposed policy did not actually address the event or prevent it from happening again.

For example, political exploitation would be an appropriate accusation if a president attempted to ban wind power after a hurricane or tornado.  The connection is tenuous and the solution doesn’t prevent the problem.  That is not what’s happening here.

People keep drawing parallels between Hurricane Katrina and this oil spill, but there is a fundamental difference between the two: Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster; the BP oil spill is a manmade disaster in nature.  People caused it.  And people can keep it from happening again.  (The same is obviously not true of hurricanes.)

Hurricanes do not deserve a legislative response.  A preventable, manmade disaster of this magnitude most definitely does.

Cheap oil fuels the American life as we know it today.  It is our ravenous consumption of petroleum products that drives oil companies to drill ultra-deepwater wells.   As we continue to deplete the world’s cheaper, more accessible oil reserves, more dangerous, expensive drilling is the only option.

Yes, BP’s careless corner-cutting and deplorable disregard for safety caused this spill, but they would not be drilling there if we didn’t demand oil so greatly.

So when the President advances a plan to wean America off of its oil addiction, it is not opportunism or political exploitation, it is literally the appropriate response to this catastrophe.  The only way to completely eliminate the threat of another blowout is to stop the drilling altogether.  And the best way to do that is to end our addiction to oil.

Climate/energy bills, such as that passed by the House last year and the one expected in the Senate soon, essentially seek to accomplish 3 goals:

  1. Put a price on carbon dioxide emissions.
  2. Spur aggressive investment in renewable energy technologies.
  3. Increase our energy security/independence.

Oil is related to all three goals – negatively.

Greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions, such as carbon dioxide, are what is known in public policy as a “negative externality.”  They are an additional cost that is not reflected in the actual price of a good.  Oil today is bought and sold at prices that do not reflect the damage that GHG emissions cause.  (A “positive externality” would be something like the pleasant smell wafting out of a chocolate factory, for which the company is not compensated for providing.)

Putting a price on carbon will enable the oil market to function more properly because the price of oil will be more accurate (this process is known as “internalizing” the externality).  For all their chest-beating about the “free market,” conservatives have done much to stifle the freedom of energy markets.

The only reason oil is so cheap today is because it is massively subsidized.  Fossil fuel industries benefit from $550 BILLON EACH YEAR in tax breaks and government subsidies.  These subsidies keep prices artificially low.

Our country grows incensed at $4 gas.  Did you know that gasoline costs well over $6/gal in many European countries?  That’s not because it’s harder to get gas there.  America would be in shambles at those prices today.  This is a serious vulnerability.  And as long as those prices remain so low, they stifle investment in newer, cleaner, renewable sources of energy, and ensure that continue to remain vulnerable to, and dependent upon, oil.

To become energy secure, we must free ourselves from our reliance upon oil.  The U.S. passed its oil production peak in 1970, and as we continue to literally run out of American oil, the distinction between “foreign oil” and “oil” will necessarily blur.  It is impossible for us to drill our way to energy independence, because we account for 20% of the world’s oil consumption but have just 2% of its remaining supply.

New drilling won't make us more secure. Only using less oil can do that.

Coal is not an option because of the horrendously large amount of pollution it produces and its outsized contributions to climate change.  Nuclear energy will be the topic of a different post, but will not be our silver bullet.  The only energy sources that can power our country for generations to come are renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal.  We must invest in their research, development, and deployment as quickly as humanly possible.

This is what the President proposes, and it is indeed what we must do.  It was the right decision before this oil spill, and it remains the right decision during/after it.

Crises are political opportunities.  That is a fact.  In such moments, the public demands action, and leaders enjoy leniency not afforded to them under normal circumstances.  It is true that leaders have abused these powers in the past: Julius Caesar and Hitler come to mind, and George W. Bush used an attack by a nation-less terrorist group to invade an arbitrary country.

But this is not one of those situations.  It is undeniably an opportunity to advance the long-stalled energy agenda, but doing so is a proper and responsible course of action in response to this oil spill.

To exploit this crisis to resurrect his climate change legislation is just wrong.” –Mike Pence (R-IN).

Fighting climate change and reducing our oil dependence are two sides of the same coin.  Doing one accomplishes the other.  To reform our energy policy right now without addressing climate would be criminally negligent.

There has been a flurry of energy polling in the wake of the oil spill:

  • 87% of Americans favor comprehensive energy legislation that encourages renewable energy sources.
  • 76% of Americans support regulating carbons dioxide as a pollutant.
  • 69% of Americans think that the US should make a large- or medium-scale effort to reduce global warming even if it incurs large or moderate economic costs.

Tell me, Republicans, who is defying the will of the people?

Peak Oil: The Cause of Ultra-Deepwater Drilling June 11, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Climate Change, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

As Americans now know, it is difficult, risky, and expensive to obtain oil from deepwater reserves.  So why are we drilling there?  The answer to that question is a simple, two-word phrase you will hear more and more: “peak oil.

Oil is a finite resource (hence the distinction with “renewable” energy sources) that takes millions of years to form.  While more oil will eventually form on this planet again, the current global supply is, for all intents and purposes, all we’ve got.

In 1949, American geophysicist Dr. M. King Hubbert made an alarming prediction: the U.S. will start to run out of oil in 1970.  His theory was not taken very seriously at the time, but his analysis proved to be quite accurate.  As a result, peak oil is also called “Hubbert’s peak.”

On a graph, oil production forms what are essentially bell curves.  For example, in an oil field, production starts off slowly as only the first rigs come online and begin to pump oil.  Production increases quickly as more rigs are added and more oil is pumped.  Production begins to decline as rig construction tapers off or most of the oil is pumped, and then production falls quickly towards zero as the reservoir empties.  Past a certain point, no amount of extra drilling can increase the extraction rate because there is no more oil.

Oil production for a given region forms a bell curve.

This general bell curve holds at any scale: if you add up the production curves of all the individual oil wells in an oil field, you get a bell curve for that field.  If you add up the production curves of all the oil fields in a country, you get another bell curve for that country.  And if you add up all the production curves for all the countries in the world, you get our global oil production curve – also roughly a bell curve.

Hubbert analyzed data from U.S. oil fields and projected that domestic production would peak in 1970.  He was correct.  There have been many oil discoveries since then, and new technology and drilling techniques have given us access to resources previously unaccessible (including many in the Gulf of Mexico), but Hubbert’s peak accounts for this.

The U.S. passed its production peak in about 1970 - just as Hubbert predicted.

Make no mistake, any politician who tells you we need to increase domestic drilling to wean America off foreign oil is misinformed or lying to you. As of 2008, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that the U.S. imports 57% of its oil.  With our country well past its production peak, that import percentage can go nowhere but up.  The only way we can get off of foreign oil is to stop using oil altogether.  Which, as it turns out, we will have to do anyways, regardless of politics.

The longer we use oil, the more of it we will import. We simply do not have enough oil left to drill our way to energy independence.

Our planet, like our country, has an oil production peak.  While peaks are only visible in retrospect, there is concern that we are nearing or potentially even past global peak oil.  It is widely believed that OPEC has long been overstating its reserves and production capabilities.  But even if they aren’t, and we haven’t passed our global production peak yet, we will at some point in the not too distant future.

Oil consumption is steadily rising as a result of inexorable population growth and a constantly industrializing world.  Unless oil production can also continue to rise, it is only a matter of time before oil production cannot satisfy demand.  That has not happened.  And the ramifications for our oil-centric economy in a world in which oil demand vastly outstrips supply are disturbing – they are essentially doomsday scenarios for life as we know it (not because our standard of living cannot necessarily occur without oil, but because we would not be able to recover from an abrupt cessation of cheap oil if we have not already been working on suitable alternatives).

This deserves an entire post of its own, but I have to mention that oil as an energy source is used almost entirely for transportation fuel.  This is why mass transit and hybrid/electric vehicles are so important.  If we can power transportation with our electricity grid, we can eventually power transportation from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. But that transition will take time, and peak oil will not likely give us much.  Especially not if oil companies refuse to accept this reality and politicians refuse to acknowledge and act to prevent this threat.

Critics of peak oil point out that there is still a lot of oil underground, and they are correct.  However, the oil that is left is the most expensive and difficult to obtain.  Energy Return On Investment (EROI) is the ratio of how much energy is obtained from resource extraction compared to how much energy it took to get it, and EROI is a critical measure in this discussion.

There remain vast quantities of oil underground, but most of them are in places that are difficult to access or even beyond the reach of current technology.  A given oil field will provide a finite amount of energy and, at market prices, a certain amount of revenue to an oil company.  If it costs more money and energy to get that oil out of the ground, transported, and refined, than that oil will provide, then it is not worth drilling; such oil will never be extracted (unless prices rise drastically).

Think about the old gusher oil fields back at the turn of the last century, such as Spindletop in Texas.  All you had to do was pierce the reservoir and the oil flowed out under its own pressure.  The EROI from fields like this was well over 100 (and very profitable).

This kind of thing doesn't happen much anymore. Except underwater...

That doesn’t happen anymore.  Today, oil EROIs have fallen by an order of magnitude. Oil companies have long extracted the easiest-to-reach and most profitable oil reserves.  Those are gone.  What remains is the less lucrative oil.  Oil you have to actively pump out of the ground in harsh environmental conditions.  There is a gradient of extraction ease, which is largely correlated with profit potential:

Image Source: The Oil Drum

Once you move offshore, the investment (both financial and energy) is greater.  The deeper you go, the more money and energy that drilling costs.  As oil fields become depleted they lose pressure, so carbon dioxide must be injected into the ground to keep the oil flowing, and that takes more money and energy.  Aside from being terribly polluting, extracting oil from oily sand is very energy intensive; the EROI for projects like the Alberta Tar Sands is about 5.

Oil companies are drilling in ultra-deep water offshore because we are literally running out of oil. The one “bright side” of this is that as oil supply lags further and further behind demand, prices will rise (possibly into the realm of $500/barrel).  When prices go up, really hard to reach oil that was previously prohibitively expensive becomes economically feasible to recover.  But our modern world relies not just on oil, but cheap oil.  For everyday people (and small businesses), oil that expensive might as well not exist.

We may have passed global peak oil. But even if we haven't, moving off of oil should be a no-brainer.

Even if climate change didn’t present a compelling argument to move off of oil, and I cannot overemphasize how much it does, this is a transition that we will need to make anyways.  If we switch to a new fuel source before we run out of oil, we may able to make the transition without too much disruption.  But if we ignore this looming threat and try to make the transition off of oil at the last minute, a global crisis of unprecedented magnitude is a distinct possibility.  We are doing virtually nothing to avert this coming crisis.

Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know.” -M. King Hubbert (1903-1989)

Have a nice day!

If you are interested in Peak Oil, I encourage you to look up author James Kunstler, energy expert Matthew Simmons, or check out the discussion and resources on TheOilDrum.

Full list of oil spill questions/answers here.

Why the Drilling Moratorium Makes Sense June 9, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Congress, Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

-Fact: We do not yet know what caused the blowout that sank the Deepwater Horizon rig.

-Fact: We do not have adequate prevention or containment methods for a deepwater blowout, so a massive oil spill is guaranteed if a blowout occurs.

-Fact: A massive oil spill is unacceptably destructive.

-Conclusion: Deepwater drilling must be halted AT LEAST until we know how to prevent and/or recover from deepwater blowouts.

We have instituted a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in this country.  Makes sense, right?  Well politics take no heed of logic, and this drilling moratorium has plenty of critics, many of whom live right on the Gulf Coast:

“…the administration’s deepwater moratorium is a major mistake. Simply put, it will cost us more jobs and economic devastation than the oil spill itself.” -Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

No, David, it won’t (read on for proof).

Texas-based Anadarko Petroleum Corp., one of the world’s largest independent oil exploration and production companies, announced that it is closing 3 of its exploratory wells in the Gulf and moving the rigs to drill elsewhere.  Other companies are following suit.  And that is strengthening the moratorium critics.

You read that correctly: Oil companies are successfully creating political leverage against the moratorium on the oil industry.  And their political contributions are paying off.

Oil state politicians are attempting rhetorical acrobatics as they decry the oil spill and renounce the drilling moratorium in the same breath.  I would say they were walking a fine line if such a line existed, but one cannot rationally rail against and advocate for the same industry simultaneously.

That being said, here are their arguments:

“Shutting down the outer continental shelf, all that’s going to do is raise energy prices and cost American jobs,” Rep. Joe Barton* (R-TX).

*Barton is quite possibly the most scientifically challenged member of our legislature now that Ted “Internet = A Series of Tubes” Stevens has…“retired.”

The last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more.”  Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA).

In my opinion, the LAST thing we need would be to go through this ordeal again.  Or potentially even at a second site concurrently before we cap this first one.  But that’s a risk Bobby is willing to take.

Some even argue that we need the drilling jobs now more than ever because the fishing industry is dead.  To them, I would say that the enemy of your enemy may be your friend, but the problem of your problem is not your solution.

Now, the first argument, oil prices/energy security, is just false.  As I’ve previously explained in more detail, U.S. offshore oil reserves are so insignificant compared to world oil production that we cannot affect supply-side prices (which are determined on the global market) by more than a few cents if even that.

An energy consultant estimated that the moratorium could reduce domestic oil production by 80,000 barrels per day in 2011.  That may sound like a lot on its own, but not when compared to the 19,498,000 barrels of oil we consume everyday.  Bear in mind, this moratorium applies to deepwater drilling only.  We are talking about up to 33 deepwater rigs leaving from among the approximately 4,500 total rigs currently in the Gulf.  This argument does not hold any oily water.

So what about the second argument – jobs?  Conservatives are gleefully pushing this point on account of our sluggish economy, but they are doing so in a decidedly dishonest manner.

It takes a remarkable amount of self-imposed tunnel vision to view such a massive catastrophe through the single lens of employment.  But if you’re going to do it, you have to include the whole picture.  This moratorium was not imposed out of arbitrary spite.

Yes, offshore drilling creates jobs.  You know else does?  Fishing and tourism.  Offshore drilling has at least temporarily destroyed these sustainable industries in the Gulf region.

Halting deepwater drilling for 6 months may cost 40,000 jobs around the Gulf.  Louisiana will be hardest hit, so let’s take a look there:

The moratorium could cost Louisiana 20,000 jobs if all the deepwater rigs currently off its shores leave.  Ok, but many jobs did deepwater drilling cost the fishing and tourism industries?  There are 13,000 commercially licensed fishermen in Louisiana, not including deck hands and crew.  None of them can work.  Louisiana’s nine coastal parishes supported nearly 15,000 tourism-related jobs.  Do you know anyone planning any trips to coastal Louisiana right now?  I sure don’t.  So that’s well over 28,000 jobs within just Louisiana that are likely gone for at least immediate future because of this oil spill (as promised above, this proves Sen. Vitter is wrong,).

Tourism in the Gulf region is responsible for more $100 billion annually, or roughly 46% of the Gulf economy.  Even more is generated through fishing, both recreational and commercial; the Gulf of Mexico accounts for more than 50% of U.S. recreational fishing and 40% of the seafood harvested in the contiguous U.S. (including 85% of our shrimp and 60% of our oysters – but most of the seafood we eat is imported).

Unlike temporary, one-time oil revenues, the billions generated by fishing and tourism can be relied upon to sustainably support families along the Gulf year after year after year.  But not if the beaches are covered in oil, and not if the fisheries are poisoned or destroyed altogether.  Thanks to offshore drilling, all the jobs that generated all that money are threatened.

The oil industry is fond of touting the one-time benefits of its extractive drilling while completely ignoring the recurring, sustainable benefits of the industries jeopardized by drilling.  In 2007, President Bush decided to reopen Alaska’s Bristol Bay to offshore drilling (it was protected in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill).  Industry spokespeople and their congressional allies explained that opening the bay offered compelling arguments both financially and for energy security.

I have previously explained how offshore drilling helps only oil companies, not America, and does not improve our energy security.  So let’s look at the financial argument: opening the Bay offered an estimated $8 billion in oil – over the next 20 to 40 years.  Meanwhile, sustainable fishing in that area brings in $2.2 billion ANNUALLY.  In just 4 years, fishing in Bristol Bay generates more money than decades of drilling there would.  And as BP is vividly demonstrating, that fishing is threatened by offshore drilling.  (Obama restored protection to Bristol Bay as part of his offshore drilling plan in April.)

Why would we trade sustainable revenue for one-time drilling that threatens that sustainable future?  Because it enriches oil companies that spend millions on lobbying.

By now you have probably heard some of the metaphors conservatives are using to [mis]characterize the moratorium:

Halting air travel because of one plane crash. –Sen. Vitter (R-LA).

Halting car production because of a 100-car pile up. –Lee Hunt, President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors.

You get the idea.

I’ll respond to ridiculous analogies with a ridiculous hypothetical: During World War II, the U.S. economy was as close to full employment as is likely possible.  We set historic lows for unemployment (~1% in 1944) that we will probably never reach again.  Was ending WWII wrong?  It caused unemployment to rise.  It cost millions of people their jobs as soldiers and workers in war-related industries.  Should we start World War III now?  It would solve our persistent unemployment problem (in more ways than one).  This argument makes sense if all you care about is employment.

Even ignoring the environmental devastation, the jobs argument for offshore drilling is not compelling if you consider even the broader jobs situation.  In some situations, there are other valid considerations beyond local job loss in one sector.  This is one them.

Besides, if we pass a climate bill, we’re going to need a lot of people to help build wind turbines and install solar panels.  Many of those wind turbines will likely go offshore…job training programs would be an appropriate component of either a Gulf recovery package or the climate bill.

In lieu of that, I hear there’s a big clean-up project ramping up in that area.

My research for this post was disheartening.  If you want to know what subtle media bias looks like, read this poor excuse for journalism courtesy of Fox News’ more reputable cousin, the Wall Street Journal.  This article presents startlingly narrow, one-sided coverage of the topic at hand, but most readers will never even know it.  Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets do an unfortunately effective job of dressing up spin to look like news.

To be clear, I do not object to anyone’s right to make this argument.  Or even to present only half of it as they have done.  But to allow such slanted coverage to be considered “fair and balanced” and to parade under the guise of objective journalism is nothing short of intolerable.

Full list of oil spill questions/answers here.

Send BP’s Spokespeople Home May 31, 2010

Posted by Jamie Friedland in Media, Offshore Drilling, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

“There aren’t any underwater [oil] plumes.” – BP CEO Tony Hayward.

Why not?  Because Tony says so.  End of story.  At least as far as the mainstream media are concerned.

The oil is on the surface,” Hayward said. “Oil has a specific gravity that’s about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity.” –Tony Hayward, 5/30/10.

Duh.  Oil rises in water? Thanks for that expert analysis, Tony. But even a 23-year-old with an Internet connection can figure out why the oil isn’t just rising here, so that statement is a baldly transparent lie.  Hint: it has to do with the incredible amounts of toxic dispersants that YOU YOURSELF ordered injected into the well.

There is no question about the existence of these plumes.  Scientists from at least 4 different universities so far have independently found underwater oil plumes by analyzing images, video, and water samples.  They have even piloted submarines through the plumes.

Yet Tony Hayward is successfully combating scientific research in the media simply by saying that BP has found “no evidence” of such plumes, with zero elaboration on what testing they did.  BP claims to have 30 aircraft searching for signs of oil, but as I understand it most airplanes are confined to the air.  Perhaps they found no evidence because they didn’t look underwater.  Tony didn’t say and evidently was not asked.  How could anyone let him make that claim and not ask the follow up question?

This is what is wrong with our country.  I mean it.  Public accountability no longer exists It is not “gotcha” journalism to call out a public figure for a baseless lie or contradiction. That is not “media bias” or “unbalanced reporting” or any of those things.  It is JOURNALISM.  It is their jobs.  It is the reason why the media are protected in our country; democracy cannot function without objective news coverage.

As an aside, this is exactly what has happened in the politicized “debates” about climate change, healthcare, financial reform…you name it.  There are facts in this world.  Simply saying something is wrong does not ipso facto disprove its factuality or even call it into question.  And to dutifully report that “controversy” in the fanatical pursuit of “balance” is a loathsome perversion of objective journalism.  This was the subject of my honors thesis.

I still believe that BP has a compellingly strong financial incentive to lead the efforts to kill this well; there is no cost-benefit analysis that can be done in which BP benefits from having this well flow a single day longer than it has to.  Even in a scenario in which they are trying to save the well for future exploitation, the broader damage done to the company and even the industry by even a marginally larger, ongoing oil spill vastly outweighs any benefit they could gain from skimping on containment efforts.

It is worth mentioning again, however, that a similar, seemingly obvious economic argument should have compelled Exxon to use only double-hulled tankers after Exxon Valdez, but it has not.

Unfortunately, BP has another financial incentive as well.  As I pointed out last week, our biggest complaints with BP’s response are not about their containment actions, they’re about dishonesty, lack of transparency, and constantly downplaying of the scope of this disaster.  They’re about spin.

Following the blowout itself, which was obviously an engineering failure, how many critiques have you seen of BP’s engineers?  Not many.  They probably should have figured out methane hydrates would form in the first containment dome.  But our biggest problems have been with BP’s spokespeople (and executives operating in that role).  BP is doing literally as much damage control as it can.  And that is the real problem here.

BP has two, simultaneous damage control operations in action: one to protect the Gulf, and another to protect BP. One is trying to staunch the flow of hydrocarbons, the other is trying to staunch the flow of legal liability and corporate backlash.  One is taking place underwater, the other is taking place in the media.

We need this type of damage control. We could do without the other.

That Tony Hayward and BP continue to be able to make these claims is despicable.  But we have let it happen.

As one of many examples, recall the 5,000 barrel per day flow estimate.  For over a month, BP was able to low-ball the spill rate and nobody could authoritatively contest the claim.  They controlled the information.  BP barely backed down when caught in essentially Orwellian doublethink, on the day they claimed to be siphoning 5,000 bpd off of a 5,000 bpd spill.

This weekend, Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, finally conceded what the rest of us have been saying all along about the spill estimates: “BP has a financial interest in these numbers.”

And they have looked after that interest.  It is a huge boon to BP that this spill occurred offshore and at such great depth.  It might as well have happened in space.  In today’s world journalists can even embed in the military to cover wars in person, yet no journalist can independently corroborate any claim about this oil spill.  We couldn’t even see the spill until BP was forced to share the video feed.  In the absence of any other source of information, the media have trotted out BP’s statements verbatim.

New information about the spill is released almost exclusively by BP spokespeople, pre-spun and told from their perspective.  We have let them control this story, and it shows.

Tony Hayward’s fallacious denial of the underwater plumes should be everywhere.  It’s not.  I found it on the front page of the Huffington Post and buried in the 24th-27th paragraphs (out of 27) in a Washington Post article.  Thank goodness the AP also published a story.

I have been among many others to document lie after lie released by BP and covered in the media.  So let’s put an end to it.  Here’s my proposal:

The administration may well be correct in its assertion that BP is better equipped to handle the containment of this gusher.  Obviously, the government has additional resources to bring to bear, especially for the clean up operation, but BP has both the equipment and expertise that the physical solution to this problem requires.  They should continue that endeavor.  However, the administration should have assumed control of the information flow weeks ago, at the first signs of BP’s dishonesty.

If we really want to see results, we should muzzle BP’s executives and spokespeople.  Send them home.  Better yet, put them to work cleaning the despoiled beaches of Louisiana.

Currently, regardless of what happens, BP gets to spin its own story first.  This is a privilege they do not deserve and have repeatedly abused.  So let’s strip them of it.

Tony Hayward: “There's no one who wants this over more than I do. I would like my life back.” Oh cry me a river. Take it, you duplicitous menace. Go home. Your work here is done.

Instead, have BP report their updates to the administration (or an independent body of experts, if you are concerned about more propaganda). Let someone less concerned about BP’s future synthesize the progress and inform the media.

I understand the desire to grill these executives and make them stew, and that time will come.  But we must start getting objective, unfiltered information about this catastrophe.

This would not only penalize BP for its actions, it would offer them another incentive to stop this spill.  If they are not allowed to spin their story, the only way they can get good coverage is to make their success self-evident.  No more excuses.

If BP cannot control its oil wells, we cannot let them control this story.  What have they done to deserve that courtesy?

Full list of oil spill questions and answers here.