• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

International Reaction - Production, Safety, Politics

LaMenchos

Moderator
Foreign countries use oil spill as a wake-up call

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/...gn-countries-use-oil-spill.html#ixzz0sL4tdnmQ

By Mimi Whitefield
Miami Herald

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been a wake-up call for the countries of the Americas ? some who fret tar balls could reach their beaches and damage fisheries and others who question the safety of their own offshore drilling programs.

British Petroleum's efforts to stop the Deepwater Horizon spill are being closely monitored in the region?

The International Union for Conservation of Nature -- the world's largest environmental network -- has called for a global moratorium on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive deepwater and polar areas.

"The technology to minimize the risks and impacts of catastrophes such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is obviously lacking at present,'' said IUCN Director General Julia Marton-Lefevre.
?
There's a general consensus that Scandinavian countries now drilling in the North Sea have more stringent requirements, said Melinda Taylor, who teaches environmental law at the University of Texas School of Law and was formerly a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund.

"Their laws aren't vastly different from the United States but they do have automatic cut-off equipment requirements that the U.S. doesn't have,'' she said. That means if an oil rig runs into problems, cut-off systems could be activated by remote control.

?

"Now Canadian laws and regulations are in flux; we're reevaluating,'' said Michael Byers, a professor of international law at the University of British Columbia. But for him, the lesson of the Gulf is ``companies must be required to have all available technology responses in place.''
?

"These pieces move from market to market, and the technology and equipment are universal,'' said Jorge Pi?on, an oil consultant and visiting research fellow at Florida International University's Center for Latin and Caribbean Studies. ``What will change now is the procedures on how the equipment is used from market to market.''

Only a handful of countries in the hemisphere are engaged in deepwater drilling. Here's a look at their programs or their future deepwater plans in the wake of the Gulf blowout.

BAHAMAS

Recently, there was speculation that the Bahamas might soon grant new exploration concessions to companies that want to look for oil in the Cay Sal area east of Cuba's oil-producing area as well as a northern block due east of Fort Lauderdale.

One hang-up: Cuba, the Bahamas and other neighboring countries need to agree on the boundaries of their underwater territories.

Proponents of drilling talk about potentially billions of barrels of oil in these waters and the jobs that an oil industry could create for the Bahamas.

But the Gulf spill also seems to have given the Bahamas pause. ``Even the best case scenario suggests that The Bahamas is at least 10 to 15 years away from even considering an application to drill a hole,'' Bahamian Environment Minister Earl Deveaux said at a recent news conference.

BRAZIL

Brazil, which potentially has the world's third largest offshore oil reserves, had its own equipment problems nine years ago when an explosion crippled an offshore rig, killing 11 workers, and sending it to the bottom of the ocean.

``Since then, they tightened up. They've got pretty good oversight and I don't think they feel the same type of danger as the U.S.,'' said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Mass.

Brazil's national petroleum company, Petrobras, is an experienced offshore driller and in recent years has made huge ultra-deep discoveries. Petrobras also has been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and its Chinook and Cascade projects are on schedule to begin production later this year.

?
CANADA

The National Energy Board, which regulates oil and gas exploration and production in the Canadian Arctic, is now reviewing offshore drilling safety and environmental requirements. ``We need to learn from what happened in the Gulf,'' said Ga?tan Caron, NEB chairman.

The board wants to complete the review, which includes a look at well control methods, possible hazards and risks to the environment, how to respond to drilling accidents and malfunctions and what can be learned from the Gulf and other major accidents, before receiving applications for Arctic drilling.

Before the Gulf spill, there had been a review of a policy to require companies to be prepared to drill a relief well during the same season if necessary. In the cold-weather climate, the drilling season is limited and if a problem arises, a company needs to have the capacity to get the relief well in on a timely basis.

Some environmental proponents want to go further and say a second relief well should be drilled at the same time as an initial well.

But oil analysts say that would be extremely expensive.

``Drilling wells at deepwater depths is a $100 million exercise and you might come up with a dry hole,'' said Pi?on. ``At the least, you'd have to identify a well as commercially viable first.''

Sean Kelly, a spokesman for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, also doesn't see it as much of a solution: ``You increase the risk by using two drilling vessels. You could have a blowout in the relief well.'' But he added, ``The relief well is the only effective way to kill a blowout.''

There are currently three projects, which have produced 1.1 billion barrels of oil, in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, but only Chevron Canada Ltd. is currently doing exploratory drilling in deep water in Orphan Basin.
?

In light of the Gulf blowout, the board also has stepped up oversight of Chevron's well, ?

Meanwhile, in New Foundland, the provincial government is conducting its own review of offshore drilling and the regulators have tightened oversight of offshore drilling.

CUBA

Most of Cuba's oil production comes from Matanzas or from shallow offshore waters. But Cupet, Cuba's state oil company, estimates that Cuba potentially has more than 20 billion barrels of undiscovered oil reserves offshore.
?.

?
There were working-level discussions between the U.S. and Cuban governments in late May. They agreed to share satellite pictures of where the oil spill is moving -- and discussed, in general terms, the impact if a spill occurred in Cuban waters.

MEXICO

Mexico's state-run oil company Pemex has done most of its offshore drilling in the relatively shallow Bay of Campeche, but it too is eyeing deepwater drilling.

Some analysts question, however, whether Pemex is prepared for the risks of deepwater drilling given its safety record. In 2007, there was a collision between a rig and floating oil platform, and in 1979 the Ixtoc I blowout took nearly 10 months to cap.

?

``The whole history of international environmental cooperation going back to the 1960s has been driven by disasters such as this,'' said Peter Haas, a political science professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

There's already a template that could be followed. A Mediterranean treaty, for example, sets standards for seabed mining and offshore drilling and also calls for a coordinated response and sharing of cleanup resources in the event of a spill, said Haas, who studies international environmental cooperation.

But reaching an agreement and getting countries to ratify it are two different things. The Mediterranean agreement was signed in 1994, said Haas, but still hasn't gone into effect because not all countries have ratified it.

?

But increased safety and having clean-up facilities at hand will come with a cost and analysts say it will increase the price of oil.

``We're not paying the real price of oil,'' said Byers. ``We're off-loading it on the environment.''
The Miami Herald
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/...gn-countries-use-oil-spill.html#ixzz0sL4IZTbE
 
Re: International Reaction - Production, Safety, Politics

Oil Spill, Foreign Help and the Jones Ac
Joshua Goldman
www.factcheck.org[/B]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/

(full article distribution permitted)

June 23, 2010
Q: Did Obama turn down foreign offers of assistance in cleaning up the Gulf oil spill? Did he refuse to waive Jones Act restrictions on foreign-flag vessels?

A: No to both questions. So far, five offers have been accepted and only one offer has been rejected. Fifteen foreign-flag vessels are working on the cleanup, and none required a waiver.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that Obama blocked foreign help with cleaning up the Gulf oil spill because he refused to waive the Jones Act, which requires all boats to be American made and crewed by Americans to work in U.S. waters, even though it has been routinely waived for similar events?

FULL ANSWER

We?ve received several questions about the federal government?s response to the oil spill. This one claims that a provision of the Merchant Marine Act, called the Jones Act, has prohibited foreign vessels from entering U.S. waters and assisting in the cleanup.

Some critics have charged ? falsely ? that Obama?s refusal to waive the Jones Act has kept foreign vessels from assisting in cleanup efforts. In a June 23 interview on "Fox & Friends," Republican Rep. Charles Djou of Hawaii was asked by show host Gretchen Carlson about the Jones Act and why the administration was refusing foreign assistance. Djou answered:

Djou, June 23: It?s important that we take help from whomever and wherever they?re willing to offer it. ? So why are we not waiving the Jones Act to allow international help to come in? ? Why we?re not waiving it here ? is baffling.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, both Republicans, have also claimed that the Jones Act, which was temporarily lifted by President Bush after Hurricane Katrina, is now standing in the way of foreign vessels bringing assistance to the United States. They are both incorrect. Palin stated this in an interview with Fox News? Greta Van Susteren:

Palin, June 11: For one, there needs to be a waiving of the Jones Act so that we could have had many, many days ago, weeks ago, some help with skimmers from elsewhere, besides just U.S. flagships, come over and help in this tragedy. And that order needs to be given to [Coast Guard] Admiral [Thad] Allen right now. It?s amazing to me and to so many others that though President Bush had been able to waive Jones Act provisions for Katrina, President Obama hasn?t thought to do that yet? And yet surely, that has been suggested by those experts around him.

In reality, the Jones Act has yet to be an issue in the response efforts. The Deepwater Horizon response team reported in a June 15 press release that there are 15 foreign flagged ships currently participating in the oil spill cleanup. None of them needed a waiver because the Jones Act does not apply. The Jones Act is a trade and commerce law that was enacted in 1920 as part of a larger Marine Merchant Act. It requires all trade delivered between U.S. ports to be carried in U.S. flagged vessels constructed in the United States and owned by American citizens. The law states its purpose is to develop a merchant marine for national defense and commerce.

Why was the Jones Act waived as part of the Hurricane Katrina response, and why hasn?t it been waived now? Katrina inflicted massive infrastructure damage, which restricted the availability of key resources. According to the Deepwater Horizon response team: "A Jones Act waiver was granted during Hurricane Katrina due to the significant disruption in the production and transportation of petroleum and/or refined petroleum products in the region during that emergency and the impact this had on national defense." The Deepwater Horizon spill has yet to affect infrastructure or oil and gas availability; the damage is environmental, and foreign vessels are approved for delivering resources and conducting offshore skimming. Although the Jones Act is currently not applicable, the federal government has taken steps to expedite the waiver process should the oil spill response require a Jones Act waiver for trade and commerce.

Also, contrary to reports such as the one on "Fox & Friends," international assistance has been accepted. To date, 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration ? including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined: France offered a chemical dispersant that is not approved for use in the United States. President Barack Obama described this process in his May 27 press conference:

Obama, May 27: The job of our response team is to say, okay, if 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let?s evaluate what they?ve offered: How fast can it get here? Is it actually going to be redundant, or will it actually add to the overall effort ? because in some cases, more may not actually be better. And decisions have been made based on the best information available that says here?s what we need right now. It may be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively utilized.

Each offer must be compliant not only with the needs outlined by the Unified Command, but also with U.S. safety regulations. The Unified Command provided us with this statement and information:

Unified Command, June 22: Those offers of international assistance that were not accepted, while greatly appreciated, did not meet the operational requirements of the Unified Command. These offers have not been declined because they may be needed in the future as response strategies change. Some challenges in accepting these offers included:

* Equipment failed to meet US requirements/specifications (i.e. dispersant not on approved list/containment boom made of non-approved material)
* Contingencies placed on the offers proved logistically impracticable when compared to other sources.
* In one instance, the offering country?s export laws prohibited delivery of the assistance
* Contingencies placed on the offers made it difficult for the Unified Command to meet the contingency

Also, all offers, except for a few, come with a serious price tag. The Associated Press compared these offers with recent aid that the U.S. gave to some of these countries. The AP reported:

Associated Press, June 18: U.S. disaster aid is almost always free of charge; other nations expect the U.S. to pay for help.

"These offers are not typically offers of aid," said Lt. Erik Halvorson, a Coast Guard spokesman. "Normally, they are offers to sell resources to BP or the U.S. government."

Reports claiming that the federal government has refused help are not only incorrect ? foreign assistance has been utilized ? but are also misleading: purchasing resources and expertise is vastly different from accepting "foreign aid."

?Joshua Goldman

Sources

?Admiral Allen Provides Guidance to Ensure Expedited Jones Act Waiver Processing Should It Be Needed.? Press release. Deepwater Horizon Unified Command. 15 Jun 2010.

?Fox & Friends.? Interview with Rep. Charles Djou. Fox News. 23 Jun 2010.

?Jones Act Fact Sheet.? Press release. Deepwater Horizon Unified Command. 18 Jun 2010

Jonsson, Patrick. "Jones Act: Maritime politics strain Gulf oil spill cleanup." Christian Science Monitor. 19 Jun 2010.

Merchant Marine Act. Pub.L. 66-261. 5 Jun 1920.

?On The Record.? Transcript. Fox News. 11 Jun 2010.

Sullivan, Eileen and Matthew Lee. "Foreign help on oil spill comes with a price tag." Associated Press. 18 Jun 2010.

Deepwater Horizon Unified Command. E-mail sent to FactCheck.org. 22 Jun 2010.

U.S. Department of State. Chart on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response: International Offers of Assistance from Governments and International Bodies. 21 Jun 2010.

The White House. Remarks by the President on the Gulf Oil Spill. Office of the Press Secretary. 27 May 2010.

Posted by FactCheck.org on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Filed under Ask FactCheck ? Tagged with Barack Obama, BP, Deepwater Horizon, Jones Act, oil spill

FactCheck Radio
In episode 17 of FactCheck Radio, we look at false and misleading oil spill claims from both Republicans and Democrats. Also, we talk about the New Mexico gubernatorial race and debunk an ad from Democrat Diane Denish, attacking Republican Susana Martinez.



Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center
2009 Webby People's Voice Winner
FactCheckED.org

About Us | Privacy | Copyright Policy | Contact Us
 
Re: International Reaction - Production, Safety, Politics

The Niger delta is a poorly characterized but globally important wetland:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/at/at0122_full.html

Nigerians angry at oil pollution double standards

Niger Delta, Nigeria (CNN) -- Nigeria's Niger Delta is one of the most oil-polluted places on the planet with more than 6,800 recorded oil spills, accounting for anywhere from 9 million to 13 million barrels of oil spilled, according to activist groups.

But occurring over the 50 years since oil production began in the Delta, this environmental disaster has never received the attention that is now being paid to the oil-spill catastrophe hitting the U.S. Gulf coast.

"The whole world is trembling and even the president of America had to do a personal visit to the site. The U.S. will have put serious measures in place to stop such situations happening in the future," said Ken Tebe -- a local environmental activist who is visibly shaken by what he regards as a double standard.

"It's funny because we've been dealing with this problem for 50 years. I even heard BP will pay $20 billion in damages (for the U.S. spill). When will such hope come to the Niger Delta?" Tebe asked.

The U.S. imports about eight percent of its oil from Nigeria. That is nearly half of Nigeria's daily oil production and makes Nigeria the fifth-largest exporter of oil to the United States.
/ /
"It's very, very bad because Nigeria is the fifth largest exporter of oil to the U.S., and the fact that Nigeria has been going through such issues for the past 50 years with little or no concern even from the U.S. government goes a long way to show you that they look at the Niger Delta as an oil field that people don't need to live in."

According to Amnesty International, people living in the Niger Delta have experienced oil spills on par with the Exxon Valdez disaster every year for the last half century.


~MORE at:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/06/29/nigeria.oil/index.html?hpt=C2
 
Back
Top