"Judge calls BP leading culprit in oil spill disaster" by Clifford Krauss and Campbell Robertson | New York Times September 05, 2014
NEW ORLEANS — In the four years since the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has spent more than $28 billion on damage claims and cleanup costs, pleaded guilty to criminal charges and emerged a shrunken giant.
They are still swimming in profits, but never you mind.
But through it all, the company has maintained that it was not chiefly responsible for the accident, and that its contractors in the operation, Halliburton and Transocean, should shoulder as much, if not more, of the blame.
On Thursday, a federal judge here for the first time bluntly rejected those arguments, finding that BP was indeed the primary culprit and that only it had acted with “conscious disregard of known risks.” He added that BP’s “conduct was reckless.”
By finding that BP was, in legal parlance, grossly negligent in the disaster, and not merely negligent, US District Court Judge Carl J. Barbier opened the possibility of $18 billion in new civil penalties for BP, nearly quadruple the maximum Clean Water Act penalty for simple negligence and far more than the $3.5 billion the company has set aside.
The ruling stands as a milestone in environmental law given that this was the biggest offshore oil spill in American history, legal specialists said, and serves as a warning for the oil companies that continue to drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, where high pressures and temperatures in the wells test the most modern drilling technologies.
Keep the warning in mind.
“We are pleased,” US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said of the ruling.
Keep that in mind.
The decision also casts a cloud over BP’s future. Its reputation has already been sullied and important holdings in Russia are at risk because of tensions in Ukraine. In addition to the $28 billion in claim payments and cleanup costs it has paid, BP has been forced to divest itself of more than 10 percent of its oil and gas reserves, along with valuable pipelines and refining facilities to pay claims and increase its profitability.
What was that last part?
**********
Yup, poor BP.
In a toughly worded 153-page decision, Barbier reconstructed the timeline from the risky decision to drill more deeply before stopping to the hellish final minutes of hissing gas and raining mud, concluding with the deadly fireball that erupted on the night of April 20, 2010.
In a central episode, Barbier highlighted a phone call between a senior BP employee on the rig and an engineer in Houston that took place roughly 40 minutes before the explosion. In the call, the two men discussed the results of a pressure test that should have prompted quick action to prevent an impending blowout. BP did not mention this call in its own investigative report, an omission Barbier found suspicious.
While acknowledging responsibility for the accident, BP had long argued that the blame should be fully shared with Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and Halliburton, a contractor that oversaw a critical step in closing up the well.
While Barbier did find the other companies had acted with negligence, he concluded that only BP, which leased the well and was in charge of the operation, was grossly negligent. He apportioned 67 percent of the blame for the spill to BP, 30 percent to Transocean, and 3 percent to Halliburton.
I blame them all. That clear things up?
BP has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and other charges and agreed to pay $4 billion in federal criminal penalties. But the company’s ultimate civil liability is far from determined.
In 2012, BP reached a settlement with many of the individual and business plaintiffs but has battled in court over interpretations of that settlement ever since. Last month the company requested that the Supreme Court support its reading of the settlement after a federal Appeals Court rejected that argument in May.
The leaders of a group of lawyers representing the damage claimants, James P. Roy and Stephen J. Herman, reacted to Thursday’s ruling in a statement, saying, “The court has now laid bare the full extent of the level of BP’s misconduct.”
Officials from states along the gulf welcomed Thursday’s decision as ammunition for their own damage lawsuits.
The ruling only pertains to the first phase of a federal civil trial, concerning the responsibility of the blowout itself. Barbier still must rule on how much oil was spilled in the accident, the subject of a trial that took place in the fall of last year. A third phase, scheduled to start in January, will lead to a final determination of penalties under the Clean Water Act.
--more--"
"Halliburton reaches $1b Gulf oil spill settlement" by Kevin McGilland Jonathan Fahey | Associated Press September 03, 2014
NEW ORLEANS — Halliburton’s agreement to pay more than $1 billion to settle numerous claims involving the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be a way for the company and victims of the spill to avoid years of costly litigation — if all the pieces fall into place.
A federal judge has yet to approve the settlement. That same judge has rulings pending on the extent to which the parties, including Halliburton, were negligent in the deadly explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig. Those rulings could affect plaintiffs’ decisions on whether to participate in the settlement, which was announced Tuesday.
Pending action by the Supreme Court over interpretations of an earlier BP settlement with businesses also comes into play.
Joe Rice, of the law firm Motley Rice, which has been working for the plaintiffs, doesn’t see those as major barriers to the settlement.
‘‘They’re not extremely complicated pieces,’’ Rice said, ‘‘whereas the litigation would be extremely complicated.’’
The settlement involves commercial or subsistence fishermen or hunters whose catches were affected by the spill, and businesses and property owners, including local government entities, who had property touched by the oil.
They would be able to collect punitive damages from Halliburton through a fund to be administered by a court-appointed representative. The agreement also would settle claims for a separate class of businesses and individuals who were deemed to have causes of action against Halliburton under BP’s 2012 settlement with businesses affected by the spill.
Rice said the settlement, if approved by US District Judge Carl Barbier, would settle most major claims against Halliburton, except those filed by state governments affected by the spill.
Halliburton declined to comment on the settlement, other than what was in its brief official statement, which noted the company had a $1.3 billion loss-contingency provision related to the spill litigation.
So they pocketed the other $300,000, didn't they?
An RBC Capital Markets analyst, Kurt Hallead, said Tuesday that, given Halliburton’s loss contingency, the settlement should not have a major effect on profits or losses.
Oh, good.
The Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for months. BP leased the rig from Transocean Ltd. Halliburton was in charge of sealing the completed well with cement.
BP issued a statement saying that Tuesday’s settlement shows the explosion and spill were the responsibility of multiple parties.
‘‘This settlement marks the very first time — despite three years of official investigations and litigation implicating the company — that Halliburton has acknowledged that it played a role in the accident,’’ said the e-mailed statement from BP spokesman Geoff Morrell.
The deal is contingent upon a minimum number of plaintiffs signing on. If Barbier decides that gross negligence on the part of Halliburton was a major factor in the accident, plaintiffs could decide instead to hold out for a larger award.
Rice, however, downplayed that possibility.
‘‘I don’t think that a finding of gross negligence is necessarily fatal to the settlement,’’ Rice said, noting that anyone who rejected the settlement would still face years of costly litigation — with no guarantee of victory.
BP’s continued fight over the interpretation of its own 2012 settlement with businesses claiming damages from the spill also is a factor in the future of the settlement.
At issue in that case is whether, under the terms of that settlement, businesses have to prove they were directly harmed by the spill in order to collect payments.
BP has lost at the district and appellate court level. Attorneys expect to know by late October or November whether the Supreme Court will hear the matter.
Halliburton shares fell 12 cents Tuesday to close at $67.49.
--more--"
"Gulf of Mexico residents hail ruling against BP" by Michael Kunzelman and Janet McConnaughey | Associated Press September 06, 2014
NEW ORLEANS — Environmentalists, recreational fishermen, and people who make their living on the Gulf of Mexico are hailing a federal judge’s ruling that could mean $18 billion in additional fines for BP over the nation’s worst offshore oil spill.
Lisa Smith cheered and gave an emphatic ‘‘yes’’ Thursday afternoon when she heard about the decision as she fished off a beach bridge in Florida.
‘‘BP should have to pay, they’ve done a lot of damage,’’ Smith said.
In the town of Lafitte, La., David Robin said he hopes the oil company pays dearly, money that would not only mitigate damage from the spill, but also help restore Louisiana wetlands lost to erosion that experts blame in part on coastal oil and gas activity.
‘‘If we could get ahold of that money, we could carefully plan a coastal erosion battle,’’ said Robin, a plumber who owns a fishing camp in Lafitte.
US District Judge Carl Barbier ruled Thursday that BP acted with ‘‘gross negligence’’ in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster.
Under the federal Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay a maximum of $1,100 in civil fines per barrel of spilled oil, or up to $4,300 per barrel if the company is found grossly negligent. Barbier’s finding exposes BP to the much-higher amount.
Even as the oil giant vowed to appeal, BP stock fell $2.82, or nearly 6 percent, to $44.89, reducing the company’s market value by almost $9 billion.
‘‘Everybody talks about how big they are, but it’s staggering,’’ David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and former chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section, said of the price tag for the spill.
--more--"
The joy won't last long:
"US government sells 400,000 acres offshore Texas" by EMILY SCHMALL, Aug. 20, 2014
The federal government has sold more than 400,000 acres in the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas coast for oil and gas exploration and development, an official with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said Wednesday.
The acreage represents a fraction of the 21.6 million acres the agency had offered as part of the Obama administration's five-year program to aggressively develop resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. Offerings since 2012 in the western Gulf attracted buyers for about 60 million offshore acres, adding about $2.3 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
Wednesday's sales, if approved, will bring in about $110 million, the agency's western Gulf of Mexico Deputy Director Michael Celata said.
BP PLC submitted the largest number of high bids, winning 27 of the 81 tracts that sold.
Back to bu$ine$$ as usual.
It was the first sale in the western Gulf that BP participated in since the Environmental Protection Agency barred the company in December 2012 from bidding on U.S. contracts for 16 months in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill in 2010. BP spokesman Brett Clanton said the company previously bid in 2011 and 2012.
Conoco Philips spent the most of this sale's 93 bidders, paying about $61 million for a single tract in the ultra-deep-water Alaminos Canyon area.
Looks like a good investment.
"The most interest was deep water in the Lower Tertiary, a trend that we saw in previous years," Celata said from New Orleans, where the sale was held.
The Lower Tertiary is an ancient layer of the earth's crust made of dense rock. To access the mineral resources trapped within it, hydraulic fracturing activity is projected to grow in the western Gulf of Mexico by more than 10 percent this year, according to Houston-based oilfield services company Baker Hughes Inc., which operates about a third of the world's offshore fracking rigs....
Oh, so the seas are to be polluted with chemicals and more methane is to be released, etc, etc. Great.
--more--"
And speaking of fracking:
"Senators chide freight railroads on delays" by Joan Lowy | Associated Press September 11, 2014
WASHINGTON — Senators and shippers complained Wednesday that widespread delays in freight rail shipments are hurting a wide array of industries and driving some companies out of business, and they expressed doubt that the railroad companies are doing all they can to fix the problem.
The delays, which escalated late last year and continued through the spring and summer, appear to be the result of too few rail cars and too much demand from shippers, officials representing the agriculture, auto, and chemical industries told a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Lawmakers displayed a photo of a giant mound of wheat in the open because North Dakota farmers can’t get a railroad company to ship it.
More neglected infrastructure, and food is wasted in a hungry nation.
Shipping rates are 90 percent higher than they were in 2002, but service has drastically diminished, said Calvin Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council.
Edward Hamberger, the rail industry’s top lobbyist, said the industry is struggling to keep up with a sharp increase in freight demand created by the oil fracking boom in the Bakken region of North Dakota and two years of unusually bountiful harvests. The problem, he said, was worsened by an unusually harsh winter.
Honestly, I'm tired of the unusually harsh winter being trotted out when they need an excuse for the economy or something else, and then being told global warming climate change crap so they can foist a carbon tax on us all.
**********
Senator Jay Rockefeller said, ‘‘You can’t blame everything on the winter. You just can’t do that. Sorry.’’ The freight rail industry is ‘‘the most powerful, under-the-radar lobbying group’’ in Washington, he said. But he warned that their support in Congress is ebbing.
AIPAC now above radar.
‘‘I think the world is gradually going to shift against thinking like yours, and I think when that happens you will be surprised and you will be unready ... ,’’ said Rockefeller, a long-time critic of the industry.
He's retiring and the seat will likely go Republican in 2014. That's how and why he says that.
--more--"
Related: Rail union rejects deal that allowed one-person crews
Seems like a safety issue to me.
And maybe you should be more worried about these train cars:
"US plans nuclear fuel rail transport" Associated Press September 01, 2014
ATLANTA — The Department of Energy recently asked companies for ideas on how the government should get the rail cars needed to haul 150-ton casks filled with used, radioactive nuclear fuel from power plants to disposal sites. But they will not be moving anytime soon.
The latest government plans call for having an interim test storage site in 2021 and a long-term geologic depository in 2048.
No one knows where those sites will be, but the Obama administration is already thinking about contracts to develop, test, and certify the necessary rail equipment.
‘‘We know we’re going to have to do it, so you might as well do it,’’ said James Conca, senior scientist at the geoscience and environmental consulting firm UFA Ventures Inc.
In a public solicitation, the Energy Department asked for opinions on whether it should buy or lease the rail cars. It expects the cars could last 30 years, run at standard speeds on regular tracks, accommodate the heavy protective casks, and be used up to eight times annually.
Just what terrorists need to know. Thank God there are never any infrastructure issues or accident on AmeriKan rails.
In addition to a car to carry the cask, the trains would have buffer cars to maintain a safe distance between the crew and the radioactive cargo.
That's where the eyebrows go up. Will it be rolling through your town?
The US military already sends spent nuclear fuel by rail from its reactors on Navy ships to federal labs for storage.
So it IS HAPPENING NOW! We don't know where or when, but.... !!
The civilian power industry hauled more than 2,300 tons by rail from 1979 to 2007, averaging just over nine trips annually, according to government data.
--more--"
NEXT DAY UPDATE:
I always reserve the right to add on.
"Study: Want lower gas prices? Ship more oil abroad" by Jonathan Fahey | Associated Press September 10, 2014
NEW YORK — Exporting more US crude around the world would lower the price of gasoline for US drivers and benefit the US economy, according to a new study released Tuesday.
They have been pushing this for a long time now. I will address the i$$ue momentarily.
While the conclusion might be counterintuitive, the reasoning is straightforward: Exports would encourage more US oil production and put that crude on the global market. That would lower the global price of oil, the price that is linked most closely to the price of gasoline in the United States.
I already don't like where the pump is going because the whole global thing has turned out real, real bad for the rest of the 99%.
Exports of US crude oil have been banned, with few exceptions, since soon after the 1973 Arab oil embargo.
Dang Ay-rabs!
I do remember those days, the lines, the odd-even system, the denials for refills. Wonder if we are headed that way again.
Other studies have reached similar conclusions. This latest study, released Tuesday, was conducted for the Brookings Institution by NERA Economic Consulting.
Well, hey, who can argue with $elf-$erving studies?
The study was introduced by former Obama adviser Larry Summers, who made a forceful case for removing the export restrictions as soon as possible.
Oooooo-kay. That's where I started not liking the idea. That man has done more damage to the US economy than anyone on the planet.
Summers said the decades-old restrictions serve no purpose now and that exports would add jobs, improve the nation’s geopolitical standing, and generate desperately needed economic growth.
And a handful of oil companies will become rich!
‘‘We shouldn’t have prohibitions without a reason,’’ he said. ‘‘We need all the economic benefits we can get.’’
Thanks to banksters like you, Larry!
The study calculates that pump prices would fall 2 to 12 cents per gallon on average, depending on how much oil is found and when the restrictions are lifted, because oil prices would fall.
‘‘Lifting the export ban would remove an artificial barrier to crude oil production,’’ the study’s authors conclude. ‘‘The result would be lower crude oil prices worldwide.’’
They are already going down, so WTF?
The overall US economy would benefit from more oil-producing jobs, higher wages, and consumers spending the money they save on gasoline on other products, the authors conclude.
Yeah, who could argue again$t it? (Well, questioning citizens like myself but.... )
Delaying a decision on the ban, the authors say, would eliminate nearly all the potential benefits.
Whenever the propaganda pre$$ gets behind an agenda you want to hit the brakes hard. It's the whole "urgency" code for big $hove attached.
US crude exports are allowed only with special federal approval, the result of restrictions put in place after the 1973 Arab oil embargo.
Those dang.... first gas lines and then transcending physics and dropping those three towers with airplanes.... wait, one wasn't even hit by a plane and forgetful fell down late in the day.... what's up with that?
The rules went largely unchallenged for decades because oil production in the United States was slipping while demand was rising, so few thought the United States would be in a position to export oil.
The United States still uses far more crude oil than it produces. But domestic oil production is booming in North Dakota, Texas, and elsewhere thanks to improved drilling techniques.
The fracking is such a non-concern and now you know why we are at war in the Middle East).
The oil being produced is a variety of crude that foreign refineries covet and that many US refineries are not equipped to handle. Oil producers and some politicians have called for the export ban to be lifted.
Yeah, yeah, we gotta get rid of it because we don't have the right refineries. How lame. Build 'em then!
Opposition to exports comes from US refiners who benefit from lower-priced US crude and some politicians. They contend that lifting the ban would raise US crude prices, making it less profitable for domestic refiners to produce fuel. They would then reduce production, and US gasoline prices would rise.
A growing number of studies have called that into question, however.
The conclusions of the Brookings report are similar to those from a study funded by the oil industry and performed by the research firm IHS in May and a February paper by Resources for the Future, a research non-profit that receives private and government funding.
Wow, four $elf-$ervibg studies all $aying the $ame thing. Who would oppo$e that?
A survey of private, corporate, and academic economists conducted earlier this year found overwhelming support for oil exports. Ninety percent of the 30 economists surveyed said the economy would be better off if oil exports were allowed.
And hell, they are never wrong!
--more--"
What I see here is a U.S. population further impoverished unless price controls are established like in Nigeria and more wealth inequality along the lines of Saudi Arabia and Sunni sheikdoms -- except that "our guys" wear expen$ive suits.
