Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand and Nigeria

Oil spills off the coast of New Zealand and Nigeria continue to make the point that oil has far-reaching consequences for the environment and the economy. On December 20, last year Nigeria experienced yet another oil spill, the worst in over a decade. Prior to that The Greek cargo ship Rena that ran aground off the coast of New Zealand on October 5, and then broke in two early in January 2012. Hundreds of tonnes of oil have spilled from the ship killing hundreds of birds. The Rena is already New Zealand's worst maritime disaster, and authorities say the situation will worsen with the release of even more oil.

Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline

Claims about the economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline have been contradicted by an economic analysis from economists at Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute. The new Cornell fact sheet analyzing the latest economic data about Keystone XL, concludes that the project is far too risky to undertake in a fragile economic climate.

Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline

In addition to its massive footprint, resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline is due to concerns about the environmental destruction that would result from a spill. TreeHugger has called Canadian Tar Sands oil exploitation one of the most destructive projects on earth. If fully developed, the Alberta tar sands would be the second largest source of global warming gases in the world.

Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

There has been another offshore oil spill, this time it is in the Gannet field of the North Sea. The Gannet field is co-owned with Exxon and operated by Shell. A leak in the platform flow line operated by a British subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell has already dumped 110 tons of oil into the water, and there is an oil slick about 20 miles long and 2.5 miles wide. So far there is no indication that the leak has been fully stopped.

Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies and Big Oil's Suggestion

To make cuts in American government spending the President has once again proposed ending oil subsidies. On Wednesday June 29, President Barack Obama, indicated that it reasonable to expect oil and gas companies that “have done so well” in the current economy to give up some breaks to help close federal deficits. “I don’t think that’s real radical,” he said.

In response to calls to end oil subsidies, Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told Washington Wire, rather than cutting subsidies or raising taxes on the oil and gas industry, America should increase their exploitation of domestic petroleum resources.

The industry has been pushing for more production in places such as the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Big Oil is seemingly oblivious to the environmental costs. These risks are particularly great as they apply to offshore oil.

Last summer we witnessed a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska has seen its share of devastating oil spills. The 1989, Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska impacted over 1100 miles of non-continuous coastline in Alaska. Despite miles of booms, scores of skimming ships and armies of beach washers, only 14 percent of the oil was ever cleaned up.

In the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill, more than 700 million liters of crude oil leaked into the water. Some have suggested that efforts to address the spill have exacerbated the problem. Dispersants used to reduce the size of the oil slick also impacting upon marine ecosystems. A break in a BP-owned pipeline on the North Coast of Alaska spewed 200,000 gallons of oil in March 2006.

The fact that fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change make taking advice from Big Oil sort of like asking a thief about security. Its would be a great idea if they did not want to steal from you.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Post
Independence Day 2011: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

High Oil Prices Stimulate Renewable Energy

Higher oil prices stimulate renewable energy. Renewable energy enables the world economies to grow sustainably, where our current reliance on fossil fuels is entirely unsustainable.

To stimulate renewable energy we must see what is known as supply shock. A supply shock is an event that suddenly changes the price of a commodity or service. In the case of oil this will be caused by a sudden decrease in the supply relative to demand. This sudden change affects the equilibrium price.

When oil approaches $200 per barrel we should get the shock and a stimulus effect on renewable energy. This will occur when the oil supply out paces demand by something like 10 percent.

Instability in the Middle East may very well be the catalyst that causes oil prices to go sharply higher, which in turn will create the shock that will stimulate renewable energy.

There are a great many unknowns, but renewable energy will be driven by how market demand reacts to higher oil prices.

© 2011, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Oil and Renewables
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Sustainable Growth Excludes Fossil Fuels
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
Businesses Will Lead the Transition from Oil to Renewable Energy
Sustainable Economic Growth
Greenpeace Campaign is Asking Facebook to Unfriend Coal
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
The Price of Crude Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Republican Political Finance and the 2010 Midterm Elections

Outside money has caused a huge disparity between Republicans and Democrats in the run up to the midterm elections. It is clear that money helps candidates win and this year at least 40 Democrats took in less cash than their Republican opponents. What has many concerned is the fact that outside political money is funding Republican hopefuls in campaigns across America.

Campaign finance is a big issue this election cycle in part because a Supreme Court ruling that removed contribution limits. This year, is the first national election since the Court's decision opened the floodgates enabling companies (primarily the fossil fuel industry) to spend unlimited sums to support candidates who will protect the interests of the old energy economy.

To help facilitate the influx of money, Republicans and their allies have set up new organizations, nicknamed super PACs, these groups accept and spend unlimited contributions without disclosing their donors.

The Sunlight foundation, a nonpartisan group that advocates for government transparency, estimates that nearly $100 million in what it calls "dark money" is finding its way into midterm election races. That's about half of all the money from outside groups, and most of it is going to Republicans.

The Sunlight foundation says Republican-supporting super PACs and other independent groups are outspending those allied with Democrats by nearly $41 million. The Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University puts the disparity at $63.5 million. They also cite a 73 percent rise in spending since 2008 by independent outside groups.

Environmental groups also donate money and influence the debate, however, the massive resources of the oil industry dwarf environmental groups. In 2009, the oil industry spent over $175 million lobbying against climate change legislation whereas all environmental groups together spent about 7 percent of that amount or $24 million.

Another important distinguishing factor of environmental groups lobbying efforts is that they are working to create green jobs, reduce pollution and combat climate change. Republican candidates are taking money from the petrochemical industry who are seeking to protect oil interests at the expense of green jobs and a clean energy economy.

The Democrat's efforts to pass a disclosure bill this year, ran into a wall of GOP opposition. With all the money flowing to Republican candidates from big oil, it is no wonder they resist transparency. It also helps to explain poll results favoring Republican candidates.

Americans deserve to know the truth about money that is coming from out of state, particularly money coming from those with a dirty agenda.


Related Posts
Koch Spending on Political Influence
The Kochs War on Industry Oversight and Environmental Regulation
Koch's Tea Party Republicans and Climate Change Denial
Koch Industries and the Tea Party's Corporate "Grassroots"
Republican Strategy for the 2010 Midterms and Beyond
Republican's Anti-Science Stance on Global Warming
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
The Tea Party and Republican Obstructionism
Tea Party Candidates and O'Donnell's Constitution Confusion
Tea Party's Climate Change Denial
California's Proposition 23
What is Wrong with the Right
Climate Change is a Security Issue
Environmental Issues in California and 5 Key Senate Races
The 2010 Midterms and the Fight Against Climate Change
Election 2010 Midterm Predictions
Democrat's Chances in the 2010 Midterms
The Global Work Party and US Midterm Elections
Health Care Legislation and Implications for the Environment
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
Van Jones Succumbs to Republican Pressure
Why We Did Not Get A Binding Agreement At COP15
Obama Needs the Senate to Succeed on Climate Change
Deniers Deprived of Misinformation Strategy
The Dangerous Diversion of Climategate
How to get Through to Climate Change Deniers
Sarah Palin: Tea Party Queen but No Friend of Green
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Sarah Palin Belongs on Fox Not Discovery
Palin is No Friend of Green
Palin Blames Environmentalists for Oil Spill
Limbaugh Blames the Sierra Club for Oil Spill
The New International System: The Role of Government

Obama Presidency and the Gulf Oil Spill

Although President Obama is seeking to move America away from fossil fuels, he was quick to accept responsibility for the oil spill in the Gulf and the incompetence of the Minerals Management Service (MMS).

Many Americans do not approve of the President's efforts to manage the spill. A CBS News poll found that 45 percent disapproved and 20 percent were undecided. Only 35 percent of Americans surveyed approved of the Obama administration's handling of the oil spill.

The Gulf oil spill adds fuel to those discontented about the 9.9 percent US jobless rate. With two wars, the recession of 2008 and important legislation pending, the road leading up to the November congressional elections will be a challenging one. Other geopolitical issues will also embolden critics including tensions on the Korean peninsula, in Iran and the Middle East.

Despite the chorus of criticisms, the government is making efforts to manage this environmental crisis. On May 6, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a moratorium on the issuance of final permits for new offshore drilling activity. However, the MMS approved 19 new drilling plans ­after the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon, all with exemptions from environmental review.

The Obama administration does not appear to be on top of this issue. The definition of the new drilling moratorium has changed so often that even Secretary Salazar appears confused, Salazar incorrectly reported to Congress that all new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped. As it now stands, the moratorium applies only to new permits, but does not effect those who have been issued drilling permits prior to May 6, 2010. Nor does the moratorium preclude the issuance of drilling permits like the one BP was operating under when the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Although we should move to limit all offshore oil drilling, the spill in the Gulf makes a convincing case for putting a definitive end to all deep water drilling. The sad truth is that many wells are planned or are currently being drilled off US coasts and some of these wells call for deep water drilling even more hazardous than the current leaking well in the Gulf.

The President may have successfully lead the way out of one of the most severe crises of modern times, but those without understanding will use the spill in the Gulf to fuel their rabid resistance to change. If the Republicans do prevail in November Congressional elections, it will impair the President's ability to deliver on his green promises.

President Obama inherited a host of serious problems from the Bush administration, however, it is Obama's Presidency that is in jeopardy along with his ambitious green agenda for a sustainable 21st century economy.
__________________________________

Related Posts

The Costs of Offshore Drilling
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence

Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has adversely impacted all the key players. BP's stock has dropped more than $32 billion, Likewise the stocks of Transocean which owned Deepwater Horizon, and Cameron International, which made the blowout preventer that failed, are also declining.

Transocean's shares lost almost half their value since closing above $92 on April 20th, today they are valued at under $50. Cameron has declined more than 25% from its peak.

Fitch Ratings estimated the cost of the cleanup could exceed $3 billion but insurance will likely cover most of that cost.

The Obama administration has pledged to recover "every dime" of taxpayer expense from the spill, however US law caps company liability at $75 million per spill. Transocean has already taken legal action to limit its liability to $27 million.

For the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Mobil paid out $4.3 billion in compensation, cleanup costs, fines and settlements before insurance kicked in.

A full accounting of blame appears to implicate the government agency in charge of monitoring oil rigs. The US Minerals Management Service (MMS) director, Elizabeth Birnbaum has been fired due to reports of fraternization between MMS employees and oil industry employees. The MMS regional supervisor is also alleged to have received inappropriate gifts from BP.
______________________________

Next: Obama Presidency and the Gulf Oil Spill

Related Posts
BP's Corporate Irresponsibility
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The End of Oil and the Next Energy Economy
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron and Exxon Mobil
The Business of Climate Change Deception
Palin Renews Call for Offshore Oil Exploitation
Drill Baby Drill
Peak Oil
The Economic Calamity of Peak Oil
Planning a Future Without Oil
Koch Industries' Environmental Crimes
Koch Industries Financing Climate Denial
Koch Industries Destroys the Environment & Funds Climate Denial
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence