, , , , , , ,

Crews cleaning up the oil in one Louisiana parish have trampled the nests and eggs of birds, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said Wednesday. Among them was the brown pelican, which came off the endangered species list last year.

Nungesser said the parish doesn’t want to turn away contractors, but he called for more care when crews work in the sensitive wetlands.

He said officials recently found broken eggs and crushed chicks on Queen Bess Island, near Grand Isle.

Pelican nests trampled, official says

“The people BP sent out to clean up oil trampled the nesting grounds of brown pelicans and other birds,” he said. “Pelicans just came off the endangered species list in November of last year. They already have the oil affecting their population during their reproduction time, now we have the so-called clean up crews stomping eggs.

“The lack of urgency and general disregard for Louisiana’s wetlands and wildlife is enough to make you sick,” he said.



Obama meets with top BP officials

June 16, 2010 11:55 a.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) — President Obama sat down with top BP executives at the White House on Wednesday in a highly anticipated meeting that follows repeated administration insistences the company must pick up the tab for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

The meeting between Obama and BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg was also attended by Vice President Joe Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, among others, according to an administration official.

Also representing BP: company CEO Tony Hayward and Managing Director Bob Dudley, along with BP America CEO Lamar McKay.

The meeting was expected to last roughly two hours, according to a senior administration official.



“Piper Alpha was a turning point,” the 35-year industry veteran said, with many questioning whether production from the North Sea should continue. A commission, investigating the accident, eventually recommended 106 safety “best practices”, all of which were adopted by the industry.


Both Smith and Beitler said they believe the government may start to require mandatory relief wells in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, as Canada and Norway have done off their coasts.

Beitler also predicted that another outcome of Macondo will be more standardization of well design requirements worldwide, with the U.S. adopting regulations such as requiring acoustic activators for blowout preventers.

A recording of the Smith and Beitler session is available via podcast at this link: http://platts.com/PodcastsDetail.aspx?xmlPath=EnergyPodium/energypodium.xml. You may be asked to complete a one-time-only cost-free Platts website log-in if you haven’t filled one out previously.

Sponsored by Platts, a leading global energy and metals information provider, Platts Energy Podium provides an ongoing forum for prominent newsmakers and the press to address important energy and environmental issues.

For more information on energy and energy policy, visit the Platts website at www.platts.com.

About Platts: Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE: MHP), is a leading global provider of energy and commodities information. With a century of business experience, Platts serves customers across more than 150 countries. An independent provider, Platts serves the oil, natural gas, electricity, emissions, nuclear power, coal, petrochemical, shipping, and metals markets from 17 offices worldwide. Platts’ real-time news, pricing, analytical services and conferences help markets operate with transparency and efficiency. Traders, risk managers, analysts, and industry leaders depend upon Platts to help them make better trading and investment decisions. Additional information is available at http://www.platts.com.

About The McGraw-Hill Companies: Founded in 1888, The McGraw-Hill Companies (NYSE: MHP) is a global information and education company providing knowledge, insights and analysis in the financial, education and business information sectors through leading brands including Standard & Poor’s, McGraw-Hill Education, Platts, and J.D. Power and Associates. The Corporation has more than 280 offices in 40 countries. Sales in 2009 were $5.95 billion. Additional information is available at http://www.mcgraw-hill.com.


Source: PR Newswire



Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Current Deepwater Activity

Operator / Lease Prospect Name / Rig Name / Water Depth (feet)
Monday, June 14, 2010

1) Shell Offshore Inc. / NOBLE DANNY ADKINS / Tobago / 9,627
2) Shell Offshore Inc. / H&P 205 / Great White / 7,814
3) Statoil Gulf of Mexico LLC / MAERSK DEVELOPER / Tucker / 6,667
4) Noble Energy, Inc. / ENSCO 8501 / Santa cruz / 6,500
5) Eni US Operating Co. Inc. / T.O. MARIANAS / Triton (mc) / 5,376
6) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation / ENSCO 8500 / Red hawk / 5,334
7) Shell Offshore Inc. / T.O. DEEPWATER NAUTILUS / Mensa / 5,292
8) BP Exploration & Production Inc. / T.O. DEVELOPMENT DRILLER III / MACONDO / 5,159
9) BP Exploration & Production Inc. / GSF DEVELOPMENT DRILLER II / MACONDO / 5,132
10) Exxon Mobil Corporation AC / NABORS MODS 201 / Hoover /4,804
11) Shell Offshore Inc. / NOBLE JIM THOMPSON / Vito / 4,038
12) Shell Offshore Inc. / H&P 204 / Princess / 3,797
13) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation / T.O. DISCOVERER SPIRIT / Nansen / 3,681
14) Murphy Exploration & Production Company / NABORS MODS 200 / Front runner / 3,350
15) Shell Offshore Inc. / FRONTIER DRILLER / Glider / 3,243
16) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation / NABORS MODS RIG 150 / Gunnison / 3,152
17) Shell Offshore Inc. / AUGER / Auger / 2,862
18) Noble Energy, Inc. / OLYMPIC INTERVENTION IV / Lost ark south / 2,722
19) LLOG Exploration Offshore, Inc. / NOBLE LORRIS BOUZIGARD / Appaloosa / 2,642
20) Newfield Exploration Company / DIAMOND OCEAN VICTORY / Pyranees / 2,095
21) StatoilHydro USA E&P, Inc. / T. O. DISCOVERER AMERICAS / Krakatoa / 2,036
22) Walter Oil & Gas Corporation / DIAMOND OCEAN VOYAGER / Hummingbird / 1,183
23) Stone Energy Corporation / H&P 206 / Amberjack / 1,030
24) Shell Offshore Inc. / COIL TUBING UNIT / Boxer / 750

Total Deep Water Prospects with Drilling/WO Activity: 24





Jan 11, 2010 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil,

FERC: Federal Regulation and Oversight of Energy – Electricity

FERC regulates, monitors and investigates electricity, natural gas, hydropower, oil matters, natural gas pipelines, LNG terminals, hydroelectric dams,


This was just too interesting to pass it up –

Looking for work? Unemployed need not apply

Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.

Some job postings include restrictions such as “unemployed candidates will not be considered” or “must be currently employed.” Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.

That’s what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.

After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.

“Most executive recruiters won’t look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don’t like to admit to it,” said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.

She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she’s typically told the unemployed candidate won’t be interviewed.




BP Ready for Spill 10 Times Gulf Disaster, Plan Says

Bloomberg News, San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2010

May 31 (Bloomberg) — BP Plc said in permit applications for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that it was prepared to handle an oil spill more than ten times larger than the one now spewing crude into the waters off the southern United States.

“Proper execution of the procedures detailed in this manual will help to limit environmental and ecological damage to sensitive areas as well as minimizing loss or damage to BP facilities in the event of a petroleum release,” the company said in its oil-spill response plan, filed with the U.S. Minerals Management Service in 2008.

The company listed as its worst-case scenario a blowout in an exploratory well 57 miles west of the disaster, in a valley on the seafloor known as Mississippi Canyon. It’s about 33 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Such a blowout could have spewed 250,000 barrels a day, according to the 582-page plan.

The representations show that BP overestimated its ability to control an oil spill in waters where it’s the biggest player in a Gulf energy extraction industry worth $52 billion a year, said Bob Deans, a spokesman with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.

“BP has obviously overpromised and underdelivered,” Deans said. “They told us they had a plan that could deal with the consequences of a worst-case scenario. They don’t.”

The plan was posted on the Minerals Management Service website and was incorporated by reference into BP’s application with the agency for a permit to drill the Macondo well. The company said in that application that a worst-case blowout from that well could spew at most 162,000 barrels a day.



BP America Production Company

Frederick T. Kolb
BP America Inc.
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77079
Telephone: 281-366-5009
Fax: 281-336-5901
Email: kolbft@bp.com

Mark Stulz
Vice President, Policy & U.S. Regulatory Affairs
BP Energy Company
501 Westlake Park Blvd., Rm. 4.554A
Houston, TX 77079
Telephone: 281-366-1301
Fax: 281-366-5090
Email: mark.stultz@bp.com

BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp.

    Frederick T. Kolb
    BP America Inc.
    501 Westlake Park Blvd.
    Houston, Texas 77079
    Telephone: 281-366-5009
    Fax: 281-336-5901
    Email: kolbft@bp.com

    Mark Stulz
    Vice President, Policy & U.S. Regulatory Affairs
    BP Energy Company
    501 Westlake Park Blvd., Rm. 4.554A
    Houston, TX 77079
    Telephone: 281-366-1301
    Fax: 281-366-5090
    Email: mark.stultz@bp.com

BP Energy Company

Frederick T. Kolb
BP America Inc.
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77079
Telephone: 281-366-5009
Fax: 281-336-5901
Email: kolbft@bp.com

Mark Stulz
Vice President, Policy & U.S. Regulatory Affairs
BP Energy Company
501 Westlake Park Blvd., Rm. 4.554A
Houston, TX 77079
Telephone: 281-366-1301
Fax: 281-366-5090
Email: mark.stultz@bp.com



My Note –

Mr. Hayward needs to have company in jail subjected to one another’s company for a long- long- long- long time, including the old executives at BP that caused these things, the new executives comprehensively that caused these things and the whoever from BP that day who was the executive that insisted on doing things the way they were done which resulted in the explosion, loss of lives, loss of the rig and loss of the Gulf of Mexico and its wildlife massively and ongoing for generations.

– cricketdiane


Jail time for BP CEO?

But Goldman is among those legal experts that think its quite likely some mid-level employees at BP will go to jail.

The BP officials in charge of the drilling process aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig when it exploded, Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine, could be among the mid-level employees where blame is placed.

Reports from congressional committees and in the press have indicated BP (BP) chose cheaper, riskier drilling tactics in the lead-up to the disaster.


During a recent Coast Guard hearing, Kaluza refused to testify, pleading the fifth, and Vidrine called in sick.

But the company or individual employees could be found to be grossly negligent, she said, if they acted outside what others in the industry were doing and consider safe.

Another angle the government may be exploring is whether BP lied or misled regulators in their plans for the oil well, said John Hueston, a partner at the law firm Irell and Manella and one of the government’s prosecutors during the Enron case.

If regulators signed off on everything BP was doing, then the company may be off the hook in that department, said Hueston. (my note – but not if they were bribed or paid off to do it.)

But if BP withheld some information about the well or altered some information so they would receive permission from the Minerals Management Service to drill the well using the faster techniques, then BP employees could go to jail.

Each instance of falsifying documents would carry a sentence of up to five years, said Hueston. “If there were multiple false statements, a person could be looking at decades.”

Unless, of course, BP was found to have fostered a culture of putting profits over safety – a charge sometimes leveled against the company in the wake of the 2006 Alaska pipeline spill and the deadly 2005 Texas refinery explosion, and one BP always denies.

A third route the government will undoubtedly pursue will be violations of environmental law.

It’s illegal to release oil into the water, whether on purpose or by accident. Same is true for killing certain bird species. These are the criminal violations Exxon ultimately pleaded to after the Valdez spill.

The maximum penalty for violating the Clean Water Act is three years in jail for each count, said Scott West, a former top regional field investigator for the Environmental Protection Agency who handled the government case against BP for the 2006 Alaska pipeline spill.



My Note –

So, that means that if you or I found an eagle’s feather without having done anything to the bird and put it in our pocket, we could spend the next fifty years in jail. But, BP and other oil producing industries can poison the wildlife, marine life and birds cruelly and sadistically causing horrific and unnatural suffering to them as they die from the polluting chemical toxins from crude oil and dispersants – but never go to jail at all. And, they can kill eleven people this time and fifteen people, the last time in Texas City and pollute miles, upon miles upon thousands of miles – without consequence or jail time. No way that is right.

– cricketdiane


Amoco Capline Pipeline Company

    Mitchell Jones
    Compliance Officer
    BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (Owner Amoco Capline)
    28100 Torch Parkway
    Suite 600N
    Warrenville, IL 60555
    Telephone: 630-836-3446
    Fax: 630-836-3580
    Email: Mitch.Jones2@bp.com

Amoco High Island Pipeline Company

    Bernadette Zabransky
    Director, Pipeline Tariff and Regulatory Affairs
    Amoco High Island Pipeline Company
    801 Warrenville Road, Room 7036
    Lisle, IL 60532
    Telephone: 630-343-2680
    Fax: 630-493-3707
    Email: zabranbj@bp.com

Amoco Pipeline Company

    Bernadette Zabransky
    Director – Pipeline Tariff & Regulatory Affairs
    Amoco Pipeline Company
    28100 Torch Parkway, Suite 800
    Warrenville, IL 60555-4015
    Telephone: 630-836-5124
    Fax: 630-836-5185
    Email: zabranbj@bp.com

Anadarko Gulf of Mexico Pipeline, Inc.

    Bradley E. Boister
    Manager, Domestic Crude Oil & NGL
    Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
    P.O. Box 1330
    Houston, TX 77251-1330
    Telephone: 832-636-7212
    Fax: 832-636-7198
    Email: brad_boister@anadarko.com

    Steven J. Abbey
    Manager, Regulatory Affairs
    Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
    P.O. Box 1330
    Houston, TX 77251-1330
    Telephone: 832-636-7137
    Fax: 832-636-7147
    Email: steve_abbey@anadarko.com

BP Oil Pipeline Company

    Mitchell Jones
    Compliance Officer
    BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (Owner Amoco Capline)
    28100 Torch Parkway
    Suite 600N
    Warrenville, IL 60555
    Telephone: 630-836-3446
    Fax: 630-836-3580
    Email: Mitch.Jones2@bp.com

BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc.

    Charles J. Coulson
    BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc
    900 East Benson Blvd.
    P.O. Box 190848
    Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0848
    Telephone: 907-564-5553
    Fax: 907-564-5588
    Email: coulsocj@bp.com

    James D. Decker
    Corporate Secretary
    BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc
    900 East Benson Blvd.
    P.O. Box 190848
    Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0848
    Telephone: 907-564-5535
    Email: james.decker@bp.com

BP Transportation ( Alaska ) Inc.

    Charles J. Coulson
    BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc
    900 East Benson Blvd.
    P.O. Box 190848
    Anchorage, Alaska 99519-0848
    Telephone: 907-564-5553
    Fax: 907-564-5588
    Email: coulsocj@bp.com

    James D. Decker
    Corporate Secretary
    BP Transportation ( Alaska ) Inc.
    900 East Benson Blvd.
    P.O. Box 190848
    Anchorage , Alaska 99519-0848
    Telephone: 907-564-5535
    Fax: Not given
    Email: james.decker@bp.com



News Release: October 25, 2007 Print this page View Printable PDF Version
Docket Nos. IN07-34-000 and IN07-35-000

Commission approves two settlements for $7.3 Million; civil penalties resolve capacity release, shipper-must-have-title violations

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today assessed civil penalties totaling $7.3 million in approving settlements of two separate enforcement matters involving BP Energy Company (BP) and MGTC, Inc. (MGTC).

Both settlements involve self-reported violations of FERC’s capacity release policies. Different facts and circumstances, however, resulted in BP agreeing to settle with a payment of $7 million and MGTC settling for $300,000.

“FERC’s capacity release program is a core element of our natural gas regulatory program, and violation of the regulations and requirements governing capacity release warrants significant penalties,” Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. The Chairman also noted that “each company could have faced substantially higher penalties had it not self-reported its violations, and had it not also demonstrated exemplary cooperation with FERC’s Enforcement staff during the investigation. What should be clear to the industry is that FERC places a high value on a company’s commitment to rectifying inappropriate conduct by self-reporting its violations and cooperating with staff’s investigation.”

With these two settlements, FERC since January 2007 has approved 12 settlements with natural gas and electric entities and assessed civil penalties totaling $39.8 million.

BP Energy Company

BP will pay a civil penalty of $7 million and implement a compliance monitoring plan to resolve multiple self-reported violations of regulations for posting and bidding of released capacity, the shipper-must-have-title requirement, and the prohibition on buy-sell transactions. The violations involved thousands of individual transactions in 2005 and 2006 stemming from BP’s management of customers’ capacity rights on interstate natural gas pipeline and storage facilities.

The most serious of BP’s violations involves a practice known as “flipping,” which evidences a deliberate strategy for evading FERC regulations that require posting and competitive bidding for discounted long-term releases of capacity.

BP avoided the posting and bidding requirements by improperly arranging for serial short-term releases of discounted capacity to two BP-affiliated replacement shippers on an alternating monthly basis, an arrangement that continued for 22 months in one instance. FERC found that BP transported 24.9 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas on capacity it acquired improperly through flipping transactions. The Commission noted that this practice is “particularly serious in nature” and “warrants a substantial civil penalty.”

In addition to the flipping violations, BP had a large number of shipper-must-have-title violations and engaged in two prohibited buy-sell arrangements. In total, BP’s violations involved 49.3 Bcf of gas and occurred on 14 major pipeline systems, the Commission said. The Commission also noted that BP’s actions “directly affected the transparency of the secondary market for natural gas transportation” and “impaired the effectiveness of the Commission’s pipeline open-access policies.”

In addition to the civil penalty, BP will implement a compliance monitoring plan for at least one year under the Enforcement staff’s supervision.

MGTC, Inc.

MGTC, a recently acquired subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko), will pay a civil penalty of $300,000 and submit a compliance report to resolve its self-reported violations of the Commission’s shipper-must-have-title requirement regarding a contract for interruptible transportation on its affiliated interstate pipeline, MIGC, Inc. (MIGC).

FERC found that MGTC violated the shipper-must-have-title requirement and MIGC’s tariff, under which the title requirement applies to interruptible as well as firm transportation. MGTC transported approximately 17.2 Bcf of natural gas since 1998 in violation of the shipper-must-have-title requirement.

The Commission noted that, in addition to occurring on an interruptible contract, MGTC’s violation did not result in unjust profits, and that there was no demonstrable harm to third parties caused by MGTC’s violations.

In addition to the civil penalty, MGTC will submit a compliance report verifying the steps it has taken with respect to all related aspects of the transportation transaction(s) to correct the violation.




“Clearly we do have an oil-spill response plan in place, it was an integral part of our permitting with the MMS and it was specifically agreed with and approved by the MMS,” BP spokesman David Nicholas said in an e-mailed statement. “It sets out the actions, considerations, plans and steps that will be used in the case of an oil spill, and it is this plan that has been in action in response.”

Every well that a company drills has to be covered by a response plan that includes a worst-case scenario, said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman with the Minerals Management Service.

‘Fundamental Questions’

“The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, however, raises several fundamental questions about safety and about industry’s ability to respond to spills,” she said in an e-mailed statement. ” We have launched a full investigation of the oil spill and are in the process of implementing new safety requirements to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

BP’s plan says it has contracts with the Marine Spill Response Corp. of Herndon, Virginia, and the National Response Corp. of Great River, New York, to contain and clean up any spills through the use of dispersant chemicals sprayed from airplanes and skimming vessels that would suck up oil-filled water.

The company would also use containment booms to control the spread of oil in the Gulf and work with local environmental groups to clean affected wildlife, according to the plan.

Documents Sought

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, is seeking documents from the clean-up consultants. Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and oversight subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, sent letters on May 28 to National Response, a unit of Seacor Holdings Inc., Marine Spill Response, and O’Brien’s Response Management Inc. of Spring, Texas.

Waxman’s committee has reviewed 105,000 documents provided by companies connected with the rig.

BP’s plan says that those companies have enough oil- skimming vessels to remove about 492,000 barrels of oil a day from the water. The companies have the capacity to store 299,000 barrels a day, according to the plan.

BP spokesman John Curry said yesterday that so far, the company, through its contractors, has deployed 91 skimming vessels that have picked up a total of 312,952 barrels of oily water mixture from the spill that has gushed for almost six weeks. “That’s not all oil, it’s oily water,” he said.

A Prolonged Spill

He said the company had spread more than 3 million feet of containment boom, a floating plastic barrier designed to contain the spread of oil and direct it to skimming vessels. The boom was enough to cover about 350 miles of coastline, he said.

BP’s plan foresaw the possibility of a prolonged spill.

“If the spill went unabated, shoreline impact would depend upon existing environmental conditions,” according to the plan.

The chance of oil reaching the shoreline within 30 days was estimated at 3 percent or less for most coastal areas, except Louisiana’s Plaquemines Parish, which the company said had a 21 percent chance of seeing oil onshore within 30 days.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said on May 19 that oil was washing ashore in the Plaquemines wetlands.

Bloomberg News



My Note –

I found something but I don’t know what it means and I don’t know why all the numbers in the last column are negative – but I know what I think it might mean – somebody who knows something should look at this –

– cricketdiane


Oil Debit / Credit Calculations FY 2008


Amoco Capline Pipeline Company ( 561) 9,393,326 11,788 10,903 -885
BP Oil Pipeline Company ( 17830) 18,483,743 23,195 21,454 -1,741
BP Pipeline (Alaska) Company ( 1951) 397,388,257 498,676 461,259 -37,417
BP Pipelines(North America) Inc. ( 567) 97,292,744 122,091 112,930 -9,161
BP Transportation (Alaska) Inc ( 205) 28,638,280 35,938 33,241 -2,697
Baton Rouge Pipeline, LLC ( 615) 1,718,474 2,156 1,995 -161
Belle Fourche Pipeline Company ( 1354) 11,011,594 13,819 12,782 -1,037
Belle Rose NGL Pipeline, LLC ( 614) 468,588 588 544 -44


Platts Shipping Insight and Analysis – the latest shipping news

– [ Translate this page ]Jun 10, 2010 – Gallows humor for the BP Macondo well-weary: Which species may first become 地理信息系统数据, 全球快讯, 全球电力导报, 能源内参, FERC 内参, NRC 内参


Latest Form 133 filed on Macondo

Here is a link to the latest Form 133 (Well Activity Report) filed on the hole TO Deepwater Horizon was drilling
Here is an attempted cut & paste. Note it includes the casing schedule, but does not appear to show depths.
1. API WELL NO. (10 Digits)
BP Exploration & Production Inc.
Powell Heather
7. RIG NAME OR PRIMARY UNIT(e.g. Wireline Unit, Coil Tubing Unit, etc.)
3/27/2010 250 6500
There is no wellbore historical information available.
L 12.25 9.875 62.8 Q-125 914 16 449
L 14.5 11.875 71.8 Q-125 1800 15 696
L 16 13.625 88.2 Q-125 2400 15 677
C 20 16 97 P-110 3600 13 1120
L 22 18 117 P-110 3050 12 993
C 26 22 224.5 X-80 3400 6302
C 26 22 277.01 X-80 3400 6302
C 32.5 28 218 X-52 4414

Data is not releasable.



Msg  49640 of 53465  at  5/3/2010 1:19:08 PM  by

Molon Labe



Jun 15, 2010 10:00 AM in Energy & Sustainability | 5 comments

Deepwater spill survey: Contaminated Gulf kills thousands of sea cucumbers

By Rainer Amon

Editor’s Note: A team of researchers led by John Kessler, Texas A&M College of Geosciences chief scientist and assistant oceanography professor, has traveled to the Deepwater Horizon disaster site to study the methane leaking into the Gulf of Mexico (along with tens thousands of barrels of crude oil) daily at the site of the damaged Macondo 252 well. Kessler, along with David Valentine (an assistant professor of marine sediment geochemistry, biogeochemistry and geomicrobiology at the University of California, Santa Barbara) and the rest of his colleagues are hoping to come away with a rough estimate of the spill’s size by the time his team returns home on June 20, followed by more accurate estimates as they complete their analysis of the information collected. Other objectives of the expedition onboard the RV Cape Hatteras include trying to determine how the methane might be removed from the water (whether eaten by waterborne microorganisms or released into the atmosphere) and how methane concentrations will change over time. Rainer Amon, a Texas A&M associate professor of marine sciences and oceanography, filed the following dispatch. It’s the team’s second blog post for Scientific American.

Texas A&M, sea cucumber, DeepwaterMonday, June 14, 2010

This is our second day at sea in the general area of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. So far we have kept about seven miles [11 kilometers]  away from the epicenter of the spill. My role during this cruise is to trace the subsurface plume of oil and gas using a sensor that measures fluorescence bouncing back from certain dissolved molecules with polyaromathic hydrocarbons being one of them. Using this sensor along with other measurements like dissolved oxygen and light transmission we readily located a subsurface plume to the southwest of the spill.

The dimension of the plume, which is located at a depth of 1,100 meters, is about seven kilometers wide and about 50 meters tall. We don’t know yet what the concentration of hydrocarbons is in this plume is, but my colleagues will certainly put a number on this feature soon. The next few days we will continue to use the sensors to follow the plume and look for other plumes to the south and east of ground zero.
Texas A&M, Deepwater, sea cucumber
Starting yesterday night we have been seeing a large number of dead sea cucumbers floating on the surface. These animals live on the bottom of the ocean where they feed on sediment and suspended organic matter. I would estimate the number of dead sea cucumbers to be in the thousands and their cause of death is obviously related to the oil spill. Possible causes include direct contact with oil, the dispersant or oxygen depletion as a result of the spill. A detailed study of the benthic environment is necessary to get a detailed picture of the damage done to this environment and how it affects the ecological condition of the Gulf of Mexico.

Image of dead sea cucumbers on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico near the Deepwater site courtesy of Rainer Amon



Jun 14, 2010 05:34 PM in Energy & Sustainability | 1 comments

Deepwater spill survey: Scientists embark on methane-examining mission

By John Kessler

// <![CDATA[//

e-mail print comment

// <![CDATA[//

Texas A&M, Deepwater, oil, environmentEditor’s Note: A team of researchers led by John Kessler, Texas A&M College of Geosciences chief scientist and assistant oceanography professor, has traveled to the Deepwater Horizon disaster site to study the methane leaking into the Gulf of Mexico (along with tens thousands of barrels of crude oil) daily at the site of the damaged Macondo 252 well. Kessler, along with David Valentine (an assistant professor of marine sediment geochemistry, biogeochemistry and geomicrobiology at the University of California, Santa Barbara) and the rest of his colleagues are hoping to come away with a rough estimate of the spill’s size by the time his team returns home on June 20, followed by more accurate estimates as they complete their analysis of the information collected. Other objectives of the expedition onboard the RV Cape Hatteras include trying to determine how the methane might be removed from the water (whether eaten by waterborne microorganisms or released into the atmosphere) and how methane concentrations will change over time. This is his first blog post for Scientific American.

Saturday, June 12, 2010
After a busy three weeks of preparations, we sailed from Gulfport, Miss., at 4 p.m. Central Time. The objective of our cruise is to study the natural gas component of the oil spill, estimated by BP scientists to be 40 percent by weight of the material escaping the broken riser pipe. Natural gas in this instance is predominately methane, a potent greenhouse gas and a possible contributor to the loss of dissolved oxygen from the Gulf waters. Our measurement campaign began immediately as we left the dock. Using a continuous technique involving seawater pumps, gas chromatographs and cavity-ring down spectrometers, we measured the dissolved methane and carbon dioxide concentrations and natural stable isotopes in surface waters while the boat was underway. The natural stable isotopes are used to quantify sources, sinks and fluxes of the gases from the surface waters, and these measurements can ultimately determine gas fluxes across the air-sea interface.

Outside of only a few miles from the port, the smell of oil was abundant even though oil was not visible on the sea surface. While most oceanographic research at sea involves long hours, tight living quarters and significant manual labor, the payoff beyond the thrill of scientific discovery is the opportunity to visit beautiful, peaceful and often exotic locations on this planet. This project will most likely not involve those benefits. Nonetheless, the results of this project will contribute to our understanding of not only this spill, but also our planet in general, of which I look forward with great anticipation.Texas A&M, Deepwater, oil, Gulf

Sunday, June 13, 2010
We arrived at the spill around 3 a.m. local time. I awoke to begin our sampling and measurement campaign. In the distance (where we are not permitted to sail), one can easily see the activity of the attempts to cap the well. This includes the drill ships for the relief wells, gas flaring from the oil recovery efforts, and multiple support and supply ships. In addition to surface water sampling, which began the previous day, we began profiling the chemical and biological properties of dissolved gas in the water column. Large quantities of natural gas appear to be in subsurface water layers, but more measurements are required to characterize this feature.

Daylight revealed a near continuous sheen of oil on the sea surface and intermittent patches of thick cake batter-like oil. Quickly, this spill site is becoming familiar. By sunset, the sight of the containment efforts no longer seems foreign. Our team of scientists is working eagerly and earnestly together. The crew of the boat is remarkably efficient and helpful. We cannot collect the data fast enough to satisfy our curiosity.

Images courtesy of Texas A&M College of Geosciences/John Kessler




June 14, 2010 | 8 comments

BP unveils new oil spill plan as shares tumble


By Steve Holland and Chris Baltimore

THEODORE, Ala./HOUSTON (Reuters) – Lawmakers accused BP Plc on Monday of taking risky shortcuts on its blown-out Gulf of Mexico oil well, while President Barack Obama kept up pressure on the energy giant to swiftly compensate victims of the worst spill in U.S. history.

Setting the stage for a showdown with BP executives at congressional hearings this week, two Democratic lawmakers said the British company chose faster and cheaper drilling options in the Gulf of Mexico that “increased the danger of a catastrophic well failure.”

Millions of gallons (liters) of oil have gushed into the Gulf since an April 20 explosion on an offshore rig killed 11 workers and ruptured BP’s well. The spill has soiled 120 miles of U.S. coastline, imperiled a multibillion-dollar fishing industry and killed birds, sea turtles and dolphins.

Under intense pressure from the Obama administration, BP unveiled a new plan on Monday to vastly boost the amount of oil it is siphoning off from its ruptured well. But the leak will not be permanently sealed until BP finishes two relief wells that are due to be completed in August.

BP said it planned to send more vessels to the spill site to increase its capacity to capture oil from 15,000 barrels a day now to 40,000-53,000 barrels by the end of this month and 60,000-80,000 by mid-July.

Ahead of congressional hearings on Tuesday and Thursday, lawmakers Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak released a letter to BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward that laid out a potentially damning account of the events leading up to the rig explosion.

“It appears that BP repeatedly chose risky procedures in order to reduce costs and save time and made minimal efforts to contain the added risk,” their letter said.




For several years we have advocated the arguments for “Resiliency” for the corporate operational risk paradigm and now it seems that Homeland Security is making it’s way towards the migration away from “Protection.” And for good reason:

For example, resilience is listed as one of the five homeland security missions in the recently published Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which defines it as “fostering individual, community, and system robustness, adaptability, and capacity for rapid recovery.”

Typically, the response to resilience is focused on critical infrastructure and the protection of these assets, such as our electrical, information technology and telecommunications sectors. At some point in the asymmetric warfare being waged daily online you realize that the the only strategy has to be that of resilience as the barriers of protection continue to fail. If you think about any system that has so many moving parts, complexity and shear breadth of vulnerabilities you realize that spending all of your efforts and resources on protection is fruitless.

Now if we apply the thoughts of resilience to the physical aspects of drilling for oil offshore and defending the borders that are thousands of miles long, what comes to mind? Remember, there is no possible way to eliminate the vulnerabilities completely to an unprotected mile of the border or a blowout on the drilling platform.

You see, as you come at the problem from a point of view that has to do with “Resilience” not just protection, you begin to think of new ideas that certainly should be considered going forward.

Notably, Dr. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation spoke to this issue at a congressional hearing on resilience in the homeland in 2008. He said, “The current paradigm of ‘protecting’ infrastructure is unrealistic. We should shift our focus to that of resiliency. Resiliency is the capacity to maintain continuity of activities even in the face of threats, disaster, and adversity.”

So what would be some of the activities that we must have the capacity to maintain as we defend our U.S. borders? And what activities would we deploy, to keep oil from reaching the magnitude it has so far in the DeepWater Horizon breach in the Gulf? If you are one of these companies your Operational Risk teams are billing overtime:

Transocean Ltd (RIGN.S) (RIG.N) – The Zug, Switzerland-based company owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon Rig. The rig went into service in 2001 and was drilling the Macondo prospect about 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

BP Plc (BP.L) (BP.N) – BP hired Transocean’s rig at a rate of about $500,000 per day to drill the well. BP is the project’s operator and has a 65 percent working interest in the well.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N) – The Houston company owns a 25 percent nonoperating interest in the well.

Cameron International Corp (CAM.N) – The Houston company supplied a piece of equipment known as a blowout preventer. Blowout preventers are put in place to stop an uncontrolled flow of oil or gas. The Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer failed to operate and seal the well.

Halliburton Co (HAL.N) – The oilfield services company, which has headquarters in Dubai and Houston, provided a number of services on the Deepwater Horizon. The company was providing cementing on the well to stabilize its walls, according to Transocean’s website. (Reporting by Anna Driver in Houston; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

In each case these are wake up calls to the work that is still to be done and the ideas yet conceived to address the key issues. One item of certainty will be the increased focus on compliance and regulatory oversight. The government is already mandating the inspection of all the Gulf oil rigs for the types of safety and security measures that may be mandated for these types of incidents.



NOIA Applauds New Offshore Wind Consortium & Office


The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) strongly supports the responsible development of all offshore energy sources and applauds the announcement by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar of the establishment of both the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium and the new Atlantic Offshore Renewable Energy Office in Virginia.

“All forms of energy are important to our economic and energy security,” said NOIA President Randall Luthi. “Future energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it be wind, wave, ocean current, solar, or conventional oil and natural gas will further diversify the nation’s energy sources while generating new jobs for Americans, and reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources.”

The NOIA membership includes Cape Wind, which on April 28, 2010 received the first ever DOI approval for an offshore wind farm. Other NOIA member companies include those who are positioned to provide essential services to future offshore energy projects.



NOIA Urges DOI to Issue Drilling Moratorium Guidance


The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) sent a letter to Acting Director of the Minerals Management Service Bob Abbey urging issuance of guidance in the wake of the agency’s recent rescissions of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs). The rescission of the APDs in water depths less than 500 feet appears to signal a moratorium on drilling in shallow water in addition to deep water, causing extensive confusion among the offshore industry.

NOIA urges swift issuance of the guidance, possibly in the form of a Notice to Lessees (NTL), and recommends it further detail the additional safety measures referenced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in a May 27 report to be taken in order to proceed with the approval of APDs or exploration plans. NOIA also urges that the guidance be timely, measurable and achievable.

Should the agency decide to pursue a formal rulemaking, NOIA recommends it should also provide immediate interim guidance that would allow exploration and production during the course of the rulemaking process.

NOIA also welcomes Department of the Interior participation in an Industry Response Team it is forming with other energy trade associations, energy experts, and academia. The team will review and examine the ongoing oil spill response and make recommendations for enhancements to subsea and surface oil spill response protocols.

NOIA cautions that a lengthy shutdown of drilling will only multiply the economic and emotional stress and loss of jobs that has already devastated the region.



National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA)

NOIA is the only national trade association representing all segments of the offshore industry with an interest in the exploration and production of both traditional and renewable energy resources on the nation’s outer continental shelf.  The NOIA membership comprises more than 250 companies engaged in business activities ranging from producing to drilling, engineering to marine and air transport, offshore construction to equipment manufacture and supply, telecommunications to finance and insurance.

NOIA’s mission is to secure reliable access and a fair regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation’s valuable offshore energy resources in an environmentally responsible manner. NOIA members include producers of oil and natural gas, renewable energy, contractors, marine engineers, service and supply companies and others with an interest in producing energy from the nation’s outer continental shelf.


| About UsContact Us | Site Map |
National Ocean Industries Association
1120 G Street, NW • Suite 900 • Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.347.6900| Fax: 202.347.8650


For Immediate Release:                                                                        Contact:  Nicolette Nye

Thursday, May 6, 2010                                                                             (202) 347-6900

NOIA Member Companies Engaged in Cohesive Deepwater Horizon Response

Washington – As BP, the National Response Team, and an army of volunteers work feverishly to respond to the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico, NOIA member companies are lending their resources in an unprecedented cooperative effort to stop the flow of oil and prevent further damage to the environment.

These resources include land-based and offshore facilities, aircraft, marine vessels, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), a containment dome, subsea tooling, subsea video, dispersant, personnel, and technical expertise on suction systems, blowout preventers, dispersant injection, well construction, containment options, subsea wells, environmental science, emergency response, spill assistance, well intervention, and drilling and well competence.

“We are all working together to stop the uncontrolled release of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, as we mourn the tragic loss of 11 men and pray their families find comfort,” said Randall Luthi, President of the National Ocean Industries Association.  “We also thank all those who have worked, and continue to work 24 hours a day in rescue and response efforts, as well as in environmental impacts mitigation and oil spill cleanup.”

“Our member companies want answers as much as anyone as to the cause of this event, and we understand the offshore industry will be closely examined by the authorities at the state and national level,” Luthi continued.  “The members stand ready to cooperate and assist as aggressively as we are in the response and clean-up efforts.”

“Everyone deserves to work in a safe environment, and while there are risks associated with every industry, that risk can be significantly reduced and managed through careful consideration and evaluation,” said Luthi. “Our industry operates using incredible technology that rivals the space program. This technology and the unprecedented cooperation from NOIA member companies will be key to developing a solution that stops this accidental flow of oil into the Gulf, and helps to restore the faith of the American public in the offshore industry.”

To date, the NOIA companies below have offered and/or are providing the following assets to the response effort:


ExxonMobil has offered the use of a drilling rig as a staging base, two supply vessels, an underwater vehicle and support vessel and has provided experts to respond to BP’s request for technical advice on blowout preventers, dispersant injection, well construction and containment options. The company also continues to support the work of Tier 3 spill response and cleanup cooperatives, such as MSRC, Clean Gulf, and Oil Spill Response Ltd., to provide personnel and equipment, such as dispersants, fire boom and radios.  ExxonMobil is also identifying, procuring and manufacturing additional supplies of dispersant for potential use.

Shell Oil

  • 6 OSRVs –  initially for fire fighting and search & rescue
  • A dynamically positioned vessel with ROV
  • EC135 helicopter
  • ROV hot-stab panel
  • Dispersant
  • Containment Dome
  • Technical experts in the areas of subsea wells, Environmental Science, and Emergency Response
  • Robert Training and Conference Center (RTCC) in Robert, LA in full support of Unified Command including accommodations and press conferencing space.


  • Responded favorably to a request by BP to potentially access an adjacent ConocoPhillips’ lease for a relief well.
  • Nominated two technical experts to participate in API’s proposed joint industry government task forces
  • Reviewed BP’s current plans, offered ideas and technical assistance to BP
  • ConocoPhillips Crisis Management Emergency Response Center is in continual communication with BP’s Incident Command Center to identify potential resources needed from the ConocoPhillips Incident Management Assistant Team (IMAT).
  • As a member of both the Marine Preservation Association and the Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies, ConocoPhillips is helping fund the availability of cleanup equipment and dispersants.
  • Made available the use of spill response equipment, chartered helicopters, marine vessels and a pair of shore bases in Louisiana.
  • Established a system for employees worldwide to make charitable contributions to non-profit agencies involved in the cleanup. Contributions will be matched by ConocoPhillips.
  • Directing employees who are interested in volunteering to the central volunteer information site.

It should be noted that COP does not have any Gulf of Mexico drilling operations at this time; therefore has limited availability to boats or other equipment to offer BP to assist in the incident.

Diamond Offshore Drilling

  • 1 each 7000’ hydraulic pod hose and pod reel
  • 1 each BOP mandrel
  • 1 each DWHC BOP connector

Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)

  • Coordinating 4 C-130 aircraft (1 MSRC, 1 Commercial, 2 Air Force) spraying dispersants, along with six smaller planes that act as spotters
  • 8 Oil Spill Response Vessels (OSRVs)  – each 210’ long – on site and working actively
  • 2 additional OSRVs en route from Maine and New York.
  • 3 ocean-barges on site to capture and store oil that is skimmed up by the OSRVs
  • 6 Fast Response Vehicles – each 47’ long – on site and working the scene
  • 200 MSRC staff and field personnel, along with supervising over 1000 contractors
  • Numerous shall water barges that hold pontoons used for skimming and can be deployed in shallow water situations to protect the shoreline
  • Over 700,000 feet of boom deployed/staged under MSRC coordination
  • Several fire boom systems


Anadarko has 4 employees inside BP assisting their technical teams.


StatOil has offered both spill assistance and drilling and well competence.

BP is using the Tidewater M/V Pat Tillman to bring dispersant chemical, tanks and assorted tools for the proposed injection plan that BP has come up with to alleviate the current spill. The vessel was dispatched directly to the location where the support vessel Skandi Neptune is standing by with coil tubing lowered to the well head to inject the dispersant directly into the leak stream. In addition, BP has chartered the Tidewater M/V War Admiral which will be outfitted with equipment used to monitor current patterns in the GOM.


Oceaneering is supporting BP with people–round the clock–to work on all manner of subsea ideas.  One vessel is on location with 2 ROVs and there are 2 additional ROVs on a third party vessel that BP has hired to be on location.  In addition, Oceaneering has ROVs on both of the two other drilling rigs that BP/Transocean is bringing to the location.  Oceaneering equipment is providing the video feed from the ocean floor.

Stone Energy

Stone Energy sent its M/V “Wisconsin” to the site the first night. It was released from service the next morning. Stone has also offered the use of its MC109 Amberjack platform as needed and stands ready to assist at any time.


Heerema has offered to mobilize the heavy lift vessel “Balder” from Trinidad to help in any way possible.


Cal Dive has one 100 foot utility boat offshore, with 7 men aboard assisting in the offshore spill response; they are working directly for BP.   CalDive has submitted to BP and the USCG and the National Response Corporation a schedule of its entire 28 ship/barge fleet and 2000 person workforce in the Gulf of Mexico available to assist in the cleanup efforts.

Davis-Lynch Inc.

Davis-Lynch is working with BP to supply the necessary equipment for the relief well being drilled.

Taylor Energy

On Tues May 4th, Taylor Energy attended a Review of Preliminary Plans for Well Intersection and Dynamic Kill Operations on MC 252 #3 at BP’s office to provide assistance as a peer Operator.  Taylor Energy has recently drilled five successful intervention wells nearby at MC20 within the last sixteen months, with a sixth intervention well currently in progress.

Teledyne RD Instruments

Teledyne RD Instruments is providing Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) to measure the speed and direction of the currents for the entire water column around the accident area.

Teledyne is also working with Horizon Marine to do vessel surveys to measure the size of the plume and help model where and when the oil slick will go.

Kiewit Offshore Services

Kiewit Offshore Services regularly makes its services available in the event of a disaster or emergency, and has done so in this case, offering to assist BP and Transocean in any way they require.

Plains Exploration & Production Company

Plains made any and all of its equipment and expertise available to BP and Transocean as it responds to the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Delmar Systems

Delmar, as a leading provider of mooring-related services, is consulting with BP regarding anchor/mooring solutions to be used in whatever solutions are finalized in a solution to contain the well flow leak and diverting oil and gas to the surface for further containment.  Discussions are ongoing and Delmar is offering its full support of engineering, technical, planning and operational capability in addition to various specialty mooring equipment and hardware on a priority basis.

Bee Mar LLC

Bee Mar’s newbuild DP-2 platform supply vessel, the M/V Bee Sting, promptly answered the distress signal of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20th and joined several other vessels in performing a survivor search and rescue effort and attempting to contain the fire on the rig using its offship firefighting equipment.  Bee Mar has also offered the use of its DP-2, ABS-classed Platform Supply Vessels and conventional Offshore Supply Vessels to assist in containing the oil spill.  Additionally, Bee Mar is coordinating with environmental response companies and other vessel providers to develop new approaches to containing and cleaning up the spilled hydrocarbons.

Newfield Exploration

Newfield sent one of its support vessels, the Odyssea Diamond, to assist during the rig fire on April 20, 2010.  The vessel was subsequently utilized to tow two damaged lifeboats to Fourchon, Louisiana.  Additionally, Newfield released the Helix Q4000 semisubmersible intervention vessel to BP on April 30, requiring an early suspension of subsea well intervention operations at MC 506.  The Q4000 remains on contract with BP at this time.

NOIA is the only national trade association representing all segments of the offshore industry with an interest in the exploration and production of both traditional and renewable energy resources on the nation’s outer continental shelf.  The NOIA membership comprises more than 250 companies engaged in business activities ranging from producing to drilling, engineering to marine and air transport, offshore construction to equipment manufacture and supply, telecommunications to finance and insurance.



About NOIA

The National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), founded in 1972 with 35 members, represents all facets of the domestic offshore energy and related industries. Today, our more than 250 member companies are dedicated to the development of offshore energy for the continued growth and security of the United States.   Our membership also includes companies involved in or branching out to pursue offshore renewable and alternative energy opportunities.

NOIA members are engaged in many business activities, in addition to those listed below, including environmental safeguards, equipment supply, gas transmission, navigation, research and technology, shipping and shipyards.

To download a membership application, click here.

Companies provide communications, ocean sensing and navigation and positioning services that are essential tools for offshore operations.
Companies are involved in all phases of design, management, manufacture of components for and construction of drilling rigs, production platforms and related facilities.
Geophysical surveys produce “maps” of rock structures beneath the sea floor likely to hold oil and natural gas.
A wide range of marine engineering and consulting services includes control system design, simulation and modeling, pollution control and structure design.
Marine and air transportation’s role in the industry continues to grow as the offshore industry moves into deeper waters.
Oil and gas producers range from independent companies to the largest international oil companies, and are involved in the full range of petroleum operations.
Both established oil and gas producers and new energy companies are working
toward harnessing the power of offshore wind, waves, currents and tides.
Professional institutions involved in marine-related services include banks, investment firms, law firms and insurance underwriters.
Expanding technology allows safe drilling operations to move into deeper and more environmentally hostile regions.
Operations include diving for salvage, safety inspection, photography, pipe, cable installation and more.



Cheney Energy Task Force

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

The National Energy Policy Development Group was a group, created by Executive Order on January 29, 2001, that was chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney. The group, commonly referred to as the “Cheney Energy Task Force,” produced a National Energy Policy report in May 2001. [1] In a cover note to George W. Bush, Cheney wrote that “we have developed a national energy policy designed to help bring together business, government, local communities and citizens to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the future.” [2] (pdf) The composition of the task force, according to the report, was confined to government officials.





However, according to media reports at the time, energy industry executives participated in the Task Force. In particular, those identified as having been involved included then-Enron President and Chairman Kenneth Lay and lobbyists Haley Barbour and Marc Racicot.

In April 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, sought to obtain the records of the task force meetings. [3] In July 2001 Judicial Watch filed suit on the grounds that the administration was not “in compliance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), which mandates that certain documents, task force members, meetings, and decision-making activities be open to the public.” [4] Judicial Watch argued that the acting as energy lobbyists — “regularly attended and fully participated” in the group’s meetings held behind closed doors, and were in fact members of the group. The Sierra Club also filed suit. (The two actions were later merged.) “At issue is whether Cheney allowed private energy lobbyists and big-name campaign contributors to participate in the work of the group, and if so, whether that information should be made public,” UPI reported. [5]

The organizations claim the documents will show the extent to which the task force staff met secretly with industry executives to craft the Bush administration‘s energy policies, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and weakening power plant pollution regulations.


Between late January and April 4, 2001, when “representatives of 13 environmental groups were brought into the Old Executive Office Building for a long-anticipated meeting” with Cheney, a “confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the [April 2001] meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.”[1] “In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001.”

An earlier document obtained by the Washington Post in 2005 “was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex.”[2] “This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force’s executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.”[3]

Andrew D. Lundquist was then Director of the U.S. Department of Energy.[6]

The names of participants cited on the lists[4][5] include:

“One advocacy group that visited was the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, founded in 1998 by Grover Norquist and Gale A. Norton, who became Bush’s first interior secretary. Later, the group was run by Italia Federici, who was involved socially with Steven Griles. Griles, then Norton’s deputy at Interior, was recently sentenced to prison for obstructing a Senate investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.[19]

Not named in the document released in 2005 was Matthew Simmons [7][8]

In a November 2005 joint hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg asked the representatives of major oil companies “Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001?” Exxon’s CEO Lee Raymon, Chevron Chairman David J. O’Reilly and ConocoPhillips chief executive, James J. Mulva all said “no”. BP America chief executive Ross Pillari told the hearing he wasn’t sure as he hadn’t been with the company at the time. Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, told the hearing “not to my knowledge.”[20]

Recommendation on Coal

According to the Washington Post,Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining Association, had a meeting with Lundquist and other staffers in February. He urged the administration to give the Energy Department responsibility for promoting technology for easing global warming and to keep the issue away from the Environmental Protection Agency, which could issue regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration adopted that position.”[21]

Legal Challenges

Initially, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, tried to make the records of the policy group public. When its legal action failed, the GAO dropped the attempt.

However, a Washington-based legal advocacy group, Judicial Watch, continued its own suit in federal court against the policy group, its members and several private individuals, alleging that the defendants had failed to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

FACA compels the public disclosure of all advisory committee reports, records and documents, but does not apply to those groups composed solely of “federal officials.”

Documents online at Judicial Watch for JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP Complaint filed against NEPDG, Office of the Vice President, for compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (“FACA”), and the Freedom of Information Act.

The Department of Justice has four times appealed federal court rulings that the vice president (Dick Cheney) release task force records. That case, in which Cheney claims his office has executive privilege, is now pending before the United States Supreme Court. (See Antonin Scalia.)

  • 1 April 2004: U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman rejected arguments by Bush administration lawyers that employees from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Energy can claim special confidentiality privileges for the period when they worked for the task force, which held private meetings with energy industry representatives as it crafted a national energy policy. [9]
  • 1 April 2004: “The government must release more documents related to the White House task force that Vice President Dick Cheney convened in private to develop a national energy policy, a federal judge says. … The order Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman covers material that the Energy Department, Interior Department and other federal agencies had refused to produce since a similar federal court ruling two years ago. … Some documents released so far show energy executives met with high-level Energy Department officials, but the records Friedman ordered released now ‘could be the most telling,’ said Sharon Buccino, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘It’s kind of the top of the food chain.'” [10]
  • 24 June 2004: “The Supreme Court today rejected the Bush Administration’s argument that it has a constitutional right to keep the workings of the Cheney Energy Task Force secret. The Court refused to rule on whether Vice President Cheney must produce documents in Sierra Club’s suit and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals.” [11], [12]

Release of Documents

From Anne Gearan, “Judge orders release of energy documents,” AP, April 1, 2004:

The order Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman covers material that the Energy Department, Interior Department and other federal agencies had refused to produce since a similar federal court ruling two years ago.
The latest order could cover some material that is the subject of a separate lawsuit now before the Supreme Court. That case also involves documents about the inner workings of the energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney and housed in his office.


“As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are ‘strikingly similar’ to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward ‘a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen.’
“That same vision is apparent in many other actions. Just to mention one: we learn from Bob Woodward that the administration diverted funds earmarked for Afghanistan to preparations for an invasion of Iraq without asking or even notifying Congress.
What Mr. Cheney is defending, in other words, is a doctrine that makes the United States a sort of elected dictatorship: a system in which the president, once in office, can do whatever he likes, and isn’t obliged to consult or inform either Congress or the public.
“Today’s case is a study in the evils of premature litigation. It’s a lesson in why the cheerleader who doesn’t make the squad throws everything off when she appeals to the gym teacher, then the principal, and then the secretary of education, instead of just sucking it up and joining the band. Vice President Cheney was sued by two watchdog groups–Sierra Club [13] and Judicial Watch [14]–for information about the outsiders who served on his energy policy task force in 2001. The watchdogs contend that ‘task force’ was just a series of cozy get-togethers in which energy executives and lobbyists, including Kenneth L. Lay, took turns sitting on Cheney’s lap, licking his ear, and requesting special favors. The final report issued by the commission sort of reads that way. When Cheney was ordered to produce the rosters and minutes of these meetings as part of pretrial discovery, he appealed that order all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“So, how do you get to the Supreme Court? Mandamus, mandamus, mandamus. The government leapfrogged over the usual procedures and filed for extraordinary relief–in the form of a writ of mandamus–in the appeals court. And when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied that writ, noting that the case needed to be fully decided in the lower court first, Cheney took the up elevator to the Supreme Court instead of the down elevator back to the trial court.
“This becomes one of the key issues in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (That’s right, he’s named the lower court as his opponent.) It’s a bedrock legal principle that courts of appeals don’t decide issues over which they have no jurisdiction, and that courts of appeals don’t decide cases when there has been no final decision from a lower court, unless there’s a pretty good reason.”


  1. Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson, “Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report,” Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  2. Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, “Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force,” Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  3. Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, “Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force,” Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  4. Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, “Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force,” Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  5. Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson, “Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report,” Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  6. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  7. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  8. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  9. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  10. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  11. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  12. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  13. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  14. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  15. Milbank and Blum, Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  16. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  17. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  18. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  19. Abramowitz and Mufson, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
  20. Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, “Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force,” Washington Post, November 16, 2005.
  21. Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson, “Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report,” Washington Post, July 18, 2007

Documents & reports

External articles


  • “Washington: Appeal Sought On Energy Documents,” New York Times, September 17, 2003: “The Bush administration told a federal appeals court that it would ask the Supreme Court to review a decision that requires Vice President Dick Cheney to give the Sierra Club documents from his task force on energy. Last week, the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit let stand a panel’s decision that the government had no basis to ask the appeals court to block a lower court’s ruling that called for disclosure of information. Mr. Cheney has invoked executive privilege in keeping the documents secret.”
  • Michael Kirkland, “Risks for Cheney in energy policy case,” UPI, October 11, 2003.







My Note –

This one includes BP also –

– cricketdiane


The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (AEEG) describes itself as “a broad-based coalition whose members develop, deliver, or consume energy from all sources.” [1] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states in its 2005 annual report that it “co-founded and manages the day-to-day operations of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, a broad-based coalition whose members develop, deliver, and consume energy from all sources. The coalition represents consumers; energy companies involved in all phases of energy exploration, production, and transmission; agricultural groups; and business and labor organizations — all united in support of a comprehensive national energy plan.”[2]



// <![CDATA[

Nuclear Energy Institute

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) was a founding member of AEEG. “As a member of the Alliance, we will encourage investment in energy technologies that improve efficiency, increase output and protect the environment,” stated NEI’s Joe F. Colvin in a May 2001 press release. [3]

NEI’s financial report for 2006 lists AEEG as both an expense and a source of income. Under “program expenses,” NEI lists “Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth,” with the cost being $2,918,120. Under “income-producing activities,” NEI again lists AEEG, as bringing in $3,012,173 in revenues. NEI’s 2006 financial report describes AEEG as “educate the public and policymakers about the need for a comprehensive energy strategy.” [4]

But NEI’s 2007 financial report filed with the IRS no longer lists AEEG as an expense or a source of revenue, which may indicate that NEI is no longer a financial contributor to AEEG. [5]

According to the DeSmogBlog, “AEEG’s voice mail directs you call Rob Dubrow at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) for questions regarding billing.” [6]

Website contacts

AEEG’s website, yourenergyfuture.org, is registered to Gordon Barnes at the American Gas Association. The webmaster contact given is the Edison Electric Institute. The website was created on April 24, 2001, according to domain registration records. [7]


Lobbying disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Senate Office of Public Records list two lobbyists for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who advocated on behalf of AEEG.

In 2002, Geraldine Ferraro (then with the Golin Harris firm) registered to lobby on behalf of AEEG on the “Yucca Mountain initiative,” referring to the proposed nuclear waste repository site in Nevada. Later disclosure forms said the lobbying contract was terminated in November 2002, with some $100,000 having been spent ($60,000 in the first half of 2002 and $40,000 in the second half).

Also in 2002, JHS Associates registered to lobby behalf of AEEG, on “energy / nuclear policy issues related to Public Law No 97425.” The lobbyist identified on the contract was John H. Sununu. This contract was terminated in December 2002, with less than $10,000 spent in each half of the calendar year.


AEEG’s website says it has “more than 1,200 members” and represents “consumers; energy companies involved in all phases of energy exploration, production and transmission; agricultural groups; and business and labor organizations.” [8] It does not list its members on its website.

While “general membership in the Alliance is free … there is a fee for participation on the Alliance Steering Committee,” states AEEG’s website. [9] A brochure on the AEEG website lists the following Steering Committee members, as of March 29, 2005: [10]


Members of the Management Committee

On its website, as of February 2009, the alliance listed the members of its management committee as being[11]

Contact info

Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth
Post Office Box 1200
Washington, DC 20013-1200

Phone: 202-463-3130
Fax: 202-463-5521
Website: http://www.yourenergyfuture.org/

SourceWatch resources

External links


  1. Your Energy Future,” AEEG website, accessed March 2008.
  2. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, [http://www.uschamber.com/NR/rdonlyres/e5hbltk43bftaej6v7kfjc5olgblcltbumsgzdnr3refbxmo6m6ei6dkwwm4qogdtpazfvms2gmr4jdufe5mfdba3ff/032306lbRPT2005AnnualReport.pdf “Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs”], U.S. Chamber of Commerce, page 13.
  3. Alliance for Energy & Economic Growth Calls for Comprehensive National Energy Policy,” NEI press release, May 2, 2001.
  4. Nuclear Energy Institute IRS form 990 report for 2006 (PDF), via GuideStar, accessed February 2008.
  5. [1]Nuclear Energy Institute IRS form 990 report for 2007, via GuideStar.
  6. Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth,” DeSmogBlog profile, accessed March 2008.
  7. yourenergyfuture.org domain registration information” via Network Solutions, accessed March 2008.
  8. Your Energy Future – Members,” AEEG website, accessed March 2008.
  9. Your Energy Future – Contact us,” AEEG website, accessed March 2008.
  10. Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth brochure (PDF),” AEEG website, accessed March 2008.
  11. Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, “Members of the management committee”, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth website, accessed February 2009.



Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – FERC –

Enforcement Authorities

Click on the categories below to view additional information.



American Petroleum Institute

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

The American Petroleum Institute (API), based in Washington, D.C., is a “major research institute .. committed to using the best available scientific, economic and legal analysis to guide and support” its policy positions. The Institute’s work is member-driven and it offers “companies large and small the opportunity to participate in shaping API programs and policy priorities.” API represents more than 400 members involved in all aspects of the oil natural gas industry. The API has offices in 27 state capitals. [1]



// <![CDATA[//

Responses to Obama administration actions

“Energy Citizens” rallies

In August 2009, an API-led coalition called “Energy Citizens” announced plans to hold rallies opposing the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill in about 20 states, targeting states “whose Democratic Senators aren’t strong supporters of a stringent bill, such … Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Mark Begich of Alaska.” [1] In addition to API, “Energy Citizens” has backing from the National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, American Highway Users Alliance, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, FreedomWorks, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. [2]

“The group has loudly protested the EPA’s decision to have greenhouse gas emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act. API members include Chevron, ConocoPhillips,Exxon Mobil, GE, Halliburton and Shell.” [3]

Template fliers for the “Energy Citizens” rallies warned, “Climate change legislation being considered in Washington will cause huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain.” The fliers also claimed that the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which passed the House of Representatives in June, would “cost 2 million American jobs, raise gasoline and diesel prices up to $4,” hurt U.S. businesses and energy security. In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill would cost U.S. households “about a postage stamp a day,” while the Energy Information Administration projects that annual “energy bill costs could rise between $26 per household to to $362 by 2020.” [1]

Part of API’s blog is devoted to “Energy Citizens.” API also has an “Energy Citizens” YouTube channel.

Other climate policy-related actions

In April 2009, API sent a letter to members of Congress, in Gerard’s name, that slammed the Obama administration. It stated: “The US oil and natural gas industry has the expertise and technology to produce the energy we need to fuel economic growth, create jobs, generate significant revenues for local, state and federal governments, and bolster our national security. However, our companies cannot do so if held back by harmful, counter-productive taxes and are restricted from access to domestic oil and natural gas resources that the country urgently needs. … If imposed, these taxes and fees could have a debilitating effect on our economy, when our nation can least afford it. They would reduce investment in new energy supplies, meaning less energy produced for American consumers. We cannot tax our way out of our energy problems.” [4]

The same month, API protested the Environmental Protection Agency‘s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public health and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. “The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases,” said API’s Jack Gerard. [5]

2008 elections

In response to the November 2008 election of Democrats Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice-president, API released a statement in the name of their CEO, Jack Gerard, saying: “The American people have spoken loud and clear that they want politicians to put aside partisan bickering. …The oil and natural gas industry stands ready to help put America’s vast energy resources to good use, strengthening our nation’s economy and energy security, and providing good jobs for Americans across the country.” [6]

Earlier, Gerard had criticized Obama’s platform, saying “Obama’s plan to impose a windfall-profits tax on oil companies would harm one of the few industries that are thriving” in the economic crisis. [7]


“For 76 years, API has been the petroleum industry’s U.S. national trade association. API released its first standard in 1923, intended to promote the interchangeability of oil field equipment throughout the industry.” [2]

“Today, over 900 API standards serve as the basis for API quality programs covering production material and lubricants, and certification programs for storage tanks, pressure vessels, and piping inspectors. They also publish recommended practices, research reports, and specifications on pipelines, valves, offshore structures, oil-spill response procedures, environmental protection, exploration, facility management and much more.” [3]

Questioning global warming

An API “Communications Action Plan” from 1998 stated: “Victory will be achieved when … citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.'” [8]

Concerns about API-funded research

In April 2005, it was reported that API was overseeing a $27 million study on the health effects of benzene, funded by the major oil companies BP, Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Shell Chemical. The study was launched in 2001, in response to a National Cancer Institute study that found “workers exposed to average levels of benzene had a risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma more than four times greater than the general population.” A follow-up NCI study, published in 2005, found that “benzene had toxic effects on blood cells at 1 part per million – the level workers in the United States are allowed to be exposed to over an eight-hour workday.” Benzene is a component of gasoline, so oil companies were concerned that tighter benzene regulations would affect their operations. [4]

Although the API research wouldn’t be complete until 2007, information from “depositions, proposals to oil companies and other documents collected by a Houston law firm in unrelated lawsuits” suggests that “the results of the study already have been predicted.” The Houston Chronicle reported, “The conclusions are expected to contradict earlier research linking low- and mid-levels of benzene to cancers and other blood diseases – findings that could spawn tighter regulations.” [5]

One research proposal from a Mobil Oil toxicologist said the study would “respond to allegations from a nationwide study of benzene exposed workers.” The research proposal submitted to Marathon Oil stated that “the benzene research was expected to provide scientific support for the lack of a leukemia risk to the general population, evidence that current occupational exposure limits do not create a significant risk to workers and proof that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma could not be caused by benzene exposure.” [6]

A Powerpoint presentation on the proposed research shown to potential oil company funders “included a section describing ‘the significant issues of concern to global petroleum industry that the research would affect.’ Those issues included possible changes to the way gasoline is made, additional emissions controls and litigation.” [7]

In response to the April 2005 media reports on the benzene study, API manager of health sciences Lorraine Twerdok stated that the study “is being conducted to gain a better understanding of the relationship between benzene exposure and potential cancer risk to protect industry workers and customers.” [8]

Petroleum is “cool”

The API is the producer of a 16-minute video titled ‘Fuel-less: you can’t be cool without fuel’, which was distributed through the National Science Teachers Association. The film starts with the line “you’re not going to believe this, but everything everything I have that’s really cool comes from oil!” [9].

The API funds a website called ‘classroom energy’ [10], which aims to provide teachers and students with materials on ‘the vital role of oil and natural gas in modern life.’

An API memo leaked to the media in 1998 shed some light on the motivation for targeting schools: “Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.” [11]

Public relations

Super Bowl 2008

At the January 2008 Super Bowl U.S. football championship game, API sponsored “Kickoff to Rebuild,” highlighting its work with Rebuilding Together, a nonprofit organization that promotes homeownership. API and Rebuilding Together are launching an “Energy Efficient Homes Initiative,” which aims “to incorporate energy-efficiency measures in the more than 9,000 homes revitalized each year by Rebuilding Together.” [9]

Blogger outreach

API has been battling the oil industry‘s negative public image for years, including by doing increased media outreach. In November 2007, Reuters reported that API, along with Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell “have reached out to a conservative band of bloggers.” API “paid for seven bloggers” to take two trips in November, one to Houston and Corpus Christi, Texas, and one offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. API required the bloggers to disclose that the industry group had funded the trips, but otherwise “placed no restrictions” on them. API’s “new media advisor,” Jane Van Ryan, admitted that the bloggers chosen — for the Texas trip, Ed Morrissey, Bruce McQuain, Brian Westenhaus and the National Association of Manufacturers‘s Carter Wood — “have not been particularly critical of the industry.” While API’s blogger “outreach effort” is new, “reporters who cover the energy industry are often invited by companies to visit offshore drilling rigs or production platforms,” notes Reuters. API plans similar junkets for 2008. [10]

In May 2007, PR Week reported that API was ramping up media outreach, including bloggers for the first time. “We felt we should become more involved” in the blogosphere, explained API’s Jane Van Ryan, “because there are a lot of policies and news-related items being discussed.” The industry group held three blogger teleconferences, “on subjects including energy and environment and, most recently on May 16, gasoline prices,” reported PR Week. “Blogs the API has reached out to include The Oil Drum, Energy Outlook, and the Daily Reckoning.” API’s “team of seven media relations people” continues traditional media outreach, fielding “a ‘huge amount of calls’ from the networks, major dailies, trade press, small newspapers in ‘virtually every state,’ and consumers,” after the latest price hike. [11]

The blogger “Devil’s Advocate” wrote about an API-organized bloggers conference call on biofuels, held on February 20, 2008. “I had a very interesting blogger conference call with the American Petroleum Institute yesterday,” s/he wrote. “This time, however, I did not agree with much of their agenda. … If a product cannot stand on its own two feet making a profit, government should not be involved producing it.” Call participants were listed as Devil’s Advocate of Copious Dissent, Nate Hagens of The Oil Drum, Bruce McQuain of The QandO Blog, Robert Rapier of The Oil Drum and R-Squared, Geoff Styles of Energy Outlook, Gail Tverberg of The Oil Drum, and Brian Westenhaus of New Energy and Fuel. [12]

API held another blogger conference call on July 15, 2008. API participants included new media advisor Jane Van Ryan, CEO Red Cavaney, chief economist John Felmy and Jim Hoskins from Harris Interactive. [13] The bloggers on the call included Robert Rapier, Nate Hagens and Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum, Doug Lambert from GraniteCrok.com, Geoff Styles of Energy Outlook, “as well as several other bloggers from other sites.” [14]

An API blogger call on September 26, 2008. The API participants were Jane Van Ryan, Red Cavaney, Prentiss Searles, Sara Banaszak, Tim Sampson and Richard Ranger. The bloggers on the call were Bob McCarty from Bob McCarty Writes, Cindy Kilkenny from Fairly Conservative, Devil’s Advocate from Copious Dissent, Doug Lambert from Granite Grok, Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum, Geoff Styles from Energy Outlook, Greg Balch from Goat’s Barnyard, Jim Hoeft from Bearing Drift, Joules Burn from The Oil Drum, Joy McCann from Little Miss Attila, Peter Carlock from OPNTalk, Michael Swartz from Monoblogue, Mick Orton from FedUp Network, Pejman Yousefzadeh from RedState and A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days. [15] “We discussed refineries, what the lifting of the bans [on offshore oil drilling] mean, known and unknown reserves, employment and a few other things,” wrote “Goat” of the Barnyard blog. “API rightly pointed out that not a drop of oil was spilled by the rigs in the Gulf during the worst Mother Nature could throw at them during Katrina. … Another point was brought up about a liberal talking point that we have only a tiny percentage of the worlds oil and population but we use 25% of the world’s production of oil. That may be true but we are also the world’s biggest producer of goods and services with that oil not to mention the hundreds of other products that come from oil byproducts like plastic, paint, tires, nylon, and cosmetics.” [16] Bob McCarty also blogged about the call. [17]

API’s October 30, 2008, blogger conference call included a discussion of “the issue of ethanol subsidies and the cost incurred by taxpayers particularly now since gasoline prices have plummeted quite a bit,” according to the blogger Vulcan’s Hammer. Speakers included API’s Jane Van Ryan, Rayola Dougher and Ron Planting, along with Lou Pugliaresi of the Energy Policy Research Foundation. [18]

API held a blogger conference call on May 15, 2009, featuring Robert Ryan, the Vice President of Global Exploration at Chevron; with Justin Higgs, Chevron’s News Media Advisor; Mark Kibbe, API’s Federal Relations Director; and John Felmy, API’s Chief Economist. [19] [20]

Public talks

West Virginia

API’s traditional and online media outreach has been coupled with local speaking events across the country, by API staffers and oil company executives. In February 2008, API’s Denise McCourt addressed a Rotary Club meeting in Charleston, West Virginia. “The oil and natural gas industry hasn’t done a very good job telling people about energy issues,” McCourt told the group. So the industry has taken “a little bit of abuse by the people running for office,” she added. McCourt told the audience that higher gas prices don’t necessarily mean “atrocious profits” for oil companies. She compared what she said were 2007 profit rates of 7.6 cents per dollar of sales for the oil industry with 9.2 cents per dollar of sales for all manufacturing, except automobiles.[21]

On April 29, 2008, API’s Denise McCourt talked to the Rotary Club in Wheeling, West Virginia. “Contrary to popular belief and what some politicians might say, America’s oil companies aren’t owned just by a small group of insiders,” she told the Rotarians. “Only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by company executives. The rest is owned by tens of millions of Americans, many of them middle class.” [22] She also addressed gas prices: “When you talk about what you pay for the price of gasoline at the pump, you have to remember that 72 percent of it right now is actually the price of crude oil. … About 47 cents [per gallon] on average is actually state and local taxes. … Those are what help pay for roads and bridges around the country.” [23]


On May 7, 2008, Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister, an API adviser, will give a public talk in Newark, Delaware, as part of the University of Delaware’s spring 2008 lecture series called “Boiling Point: International Politics of Climate Change.” [24]


On May 29, 2008, API co-sponsored an event at Stanford University in California, titled, “Energy’s Future is in Technology: Innovation in Energy Supply, Energy Efficiency and Alternative/Renewable Energy.” Newsweek was the other event sponsor. [25]


In June 2008, API’s Denise McCourt talked to the Kentucky state legislature’s Special Subcommittee on Energy. “85 percent of the places in the ocean where we think we can find resources are under moratorium and we can not go there,” said McCort. “When you look at that kind of number people say wait a minute, 85 percent? Let’s say you think some areas are more particularly sensitive than others, but 85 percent of the places where we think we have oil and gas we can’t go.” [26]


In August 2008, API Chief Economist John C. Felmy spoke “to the Rotary Club of Boise about oil prices,” and also gave an interview to the Idaho Statesman newspaper. “There is little evidence that retailers are making a lot of money,” Felmy told the paper. “And it’s not the refiners, some of whom are losing money. … Right now the Department of Energy estimates that 74 percent of the cost of gas is attributable to the cost of oil.” [27]


In February 2009, API hired HBW Resources. The firm’s Andrew Browning, “a former special assistant at the Energy Department’s office of fossil energy,” is lobbying on behalf of API on “the development of domestic oil shale reserves.” [28]

In September 2008, API “hired Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti to lobby on energy drilling proposals, tax issues and chemical security legislation,” reported The Hill. “The lobbying team includes Jamie Brown, a former special assistant for legislative affairs to President Bush; Kelly Bingel, former chief of staff to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.); and David Castagnetti, former chief of staff to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).” [29]

“The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main trade group, paid Timmons & Co. $200,000 to lobby the federal government in the first half of 2007,” reported AP in August 2007. “The firm lobbied on various pieces of legislation dealing with homeland security appropriations, energy policy, taxes, price gouging and other issues. … Daniel Shapiro, former deputy chief of staff for Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., is among those registered to lobby on behalf of the institute.” [12]

API spent $4 million to lobby the federal government in 2007, according to lobbying disclosure forms. “The trade group lobbied on various appropriations bills, and on oil taxes and fees, chemical plant security, price gouging, international investment and more,” reported Associated Press. “Besides Congress, the American Petroleum Institute lobbied the departments of Defense and State, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.” [30]


Former personnel:

Contact information

American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
Phone: 202-682-8000


Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles


  1. 1.0 1.1 Ian Talley, “Lobby Groups to Use Town Hall Tactics to Oppose Climate Bill,” Wall Street Journal “Washington Wire” blog, August 11, 2009.
  2. Alex Kaplun, “‘Energy Citizens’ Take Aim at Climate Legislation,” Greenwire, August 12, 2009.
  3. “The Politics of Climate Change”, O’Dwyer’s Magazine, Feb. 2010.
  4. Noah Brenner, “API slaps administration on policy,” Upstreamonline.com, April 6, 2009.
  5. Nick Snow, “EPA issues proposed endangerment finding on GHGs,” Oil & Gas Journal, April 20, 2009.
  6. API: Oil, gas industry will work with new administration“, Oil & Gas Journal, November 5, 2008.
  7. Daniel Whitten, “Obama May Put Renewable-Energy Plan Ahead of Climate Package,” Bloomberg, November 5, 2008.
  8. U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform , “Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science,” December 12, 2007.
  9. Press release, “NFL and Rebuilding Together ‘Kickoff to Rebuild’,” Rebuilding Together via PR Newswire, February 1, 2008.
  10. Anna Driver, “Big oil, its lobby court bloggers in media push,” Reuters, November 21, 2007.
  11. Michael Bush, “API targets bloggers as prices at the pump rise,” PR Week, May 25, 2007.
  12. Devil’s Advocate, “My Conference Call on Biofuels with the American Petroleum Institute,” Copious Dissent blog, February 21, 2008.
  13. Blogger Conference Call: 2008 Energy IQ,” American Petroleum Institute, accessed August 2008.
  14. Gail Tverberg, “API Energy IQ Game and Blogger Call,” The Oil Drum blog, August 17, 2008.
  15. Transcript of API blogger conference call on energy current events (pdf),” American Petroleum Institute via Federal News Service, September 26, 2008.
  16. Goat, “API Blogger Call On Oil And Energy Production: Updated,” Goat’s Barnyard, September 28, 2008.
  17. Bob McCarty, “Oil Industry Awaits Assurances on Drilling Ban,” Bob McCarty Writes, September 28, 2008.
  18. Conference call with API,” blog Vulcan’s Hammer, October 31, 2008.
  19. David Murphy, “Blogger Conference Call with Robert Ryan, VP of Global Exploration, Chevron,” “The Oil Drum” blog, May 30, 2009.
  20. Blogger Conference Call: ‘Chevron Exploration in the Gulf of Mexico’,” EnergyTomorrow.org, May 15, 2009.
  21. Sarah K. Winn, “Rotary hears industry take on oil profits,” The Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), February 12, 2008.
  22. Fred Connors, “Speaker Says Middle Class Owns ‘Big Oil’,” The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register (West Virginia), April 30, 2008.
  23. D.K. Wright, “Oil Companies Are Defended In Gas Price Situation: The American consumer is paying more than ever for gasoline, and angrily blaming the big oil companies,” The State Journal (West Virginia), April 29, 2008.
  24. Press release, “Nobel winner to address climate change Feb. 27 at UD,” University of Delaware (Newark, Delaware), February 22, 2008.
  25. Energized Discussion,” Stanford Report (Stanford University, Stanford, California), June 4, 2008.
  26. Greg Stotelmyer, “Big Oil Talks to Kentucky Lawmakers,” WTVQ-TV (Lexington, Kentucky), June 20, 2008.
  27. Joe Estrella, “Oil industry economist tells Boise Rotary high gasoline costs are due to high cost of crude oil,” Idaho Statesman, August 15, 2008.
  28. Bottom Line,” The Hill, February 2, 2009.
  29. Bottom Line,” The Hill, September 15, 2008.
  30. Petroleum Trade Group Spent $4M Lobbying,” Associated Press, March 12, 2008.

External resources

External articles

See American Petroleum Institute:Articles



National Petroleum Council

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

The National Petroleum Council (NPC), according to its website, is a federally chartered and privately funded advisory committee that was established by the Secretary of the Interior in 1946 at the request of President Harry S. Truman and which functions now under the Department of Energy as a Oil and Natural Gas Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Energy.

The NPC is currently chartered by the Secretary of Energy, under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and states that it’s sole purpose is, “to represent the views of the oil and natural gas industries in advising, informing, and making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy with respect to any matter relating to oil and natural gas, or to the oil and gas industries submitted to it or approved by the Secretary.”

During the energy crisis years 1974 to 1977, the National Petroleum Council produced a considerable amount of information for the Ford Foundation‘s [Energy Policy Project]. [1]

It’s membership consists primarily of companies in the oil, natural gas and electrical energy business and their associated support companies.


Membership by Category

Contact Details

National Petroleum Council
1625 K Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 393-6100
Fax: (202) 331-8539
Email: info AT npc.org
Website: http://www.npc.org/

Related SourceWatch articles




NPC Membership by Category
Categories are listed by principal function

Number of Members
Integrated Oil and Gas Companies
Larger Independents
Smaller Independents and Individuals
Natural Gas Companies
Independent Oil Transporters, Refiners, and Marketers
Construction, Drilling, and Oilfield Support-Service Companies
Financial and Consultant Services
Electric Companies and Large Consumers
Non-Industry and Not-For-Profit Members

by Organization | by Name



J. Robinson West

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

J. Robinson West “is the chairman of PFC Energy Team, a leading consulting firm on the international energy industry, which he founded in 1984. Before founding PFC, he served in the Reagan administration as assistant secretary of the interior for policy, budget, and administration, with responsibility for U.S. offshore oil policy. He was a first vice president of Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., an investment banking firm, from 1977 to 1980. Before that, he served in the Ford administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense for international economic affairs and on the White House staff. He is a member of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, the National Petroleum Council, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and is president of the Wyeth Endowment for American Art. He received a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a J.D. from Temple University.“ [1] also see

According to a recent Newsweek article he is a friend of Dick Cheney‘s.

“Before founding PFC Energy in 1984, Robin served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Budget and Administration (1981-83), with responsibility for US offshore oil policy…

“Robin was nominated by the President to be a director of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the nomination was approved by the Senate. In 2004 he was elected Chairman of the USIP Board. He is also a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Robin is President of the Wyeth Foundation for American Art. He also serves as a Trustee of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S. and the Nixon Center. Robin is a member of the Board of Directors of Key Energy Services, Inc (KEG) and Cheniere Energy, Inc. (LNG) He has served as a trustee of the $3 billion Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund, as a member of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, the Industry Policy Advisory Committee on Multilateral Trade Negotiations of the US Trade Representative, and on the National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children.” [1]



// <![CDATA[//

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch articles


  1. J. Robinson West, PFC Energy, accessed November 9, 2008.
  2. Trustees, German Marshall Fund of the United States, accessed August 29, 2008.
  3. IRI International, SECINFO from 1997, accessed April 17, 2009.

External links




Environmental Issues Council

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.

The Environmental Issues Council (EIC) was established in 1993 by a number of leading U.S. industry trade associations to serve as a “new ally against ill-conceived environmental regulation.” On its website it stated that it was “promoting sound environmental policies”.

A 2001 version of its website stated that EIC was formed by groups “who saw the need to explore common sense solutions to widely-debated environmental problems. EIC members depend on the land for economic survival. As faithful stewards of the land, we have long recognized the need to balance environmental protection with economic considerations … EIC members are concerned, however, that efforts to provide for a safe and healthful environment have fallen prey to potent political constituencies who have chosen “The Environment” as their battleground. The political impasse which prevents the improvement of most major environmental statutes and the on-going battle over policy must be replaced with a positive, common sense agenda for improving environmental protection in America. The EIC is seeking to: establish balanced environmental policies based on credible science and prudent economics; develop strategies on federal policies that affect the nation’s health, environment and economic well-being; and communicate positive solutions to the private and public sectors.”[1]

The group appears to be defunct as its website is no longer active and was last indexed by the Internet Archive in April 2003.[2]



// <![CDATA[//


The EIC was chaired by A. Alan Moghissi, who also serves as chairman of the American Council on Science and Health. It claims to promote “common sense solutions to widely-debated environmental problems.”

Other Affiliations

Sponsors of the EIC include[3]:

Contact Information

Environmental Issues Council
1101 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Website: eico.org

Articles and Resources


  1. Environmental Issues Council, Welcome to the Environment Issues Council!”, March 14, 2001.
  2. “www.eico.org/”, Internet Archive, April 2, 2003.
  3. “Member Organizations”, EIC, March 14, 2001.

Related SourceWatch Articles

External Articles



  • A. Alan Moghissi
    …ghissi also serves as a member of the board of directors of the [[American Council on Science and Health]]. …tive Tomorrow]], the [[Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]], and the [[National Wilderness Institute]], a “wise use” anti-environmental organization that …
    2 KB (310 words) – 21:00, 24 January 2008
  • Energy Stewardship Alliance
    …on imported energy sources”. “Oil exploration and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s (ANWR) coastal plain is an important component,” it stat… …y front group established to promote oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    6 KB (767 words) – 07:39, 11 September 2008
  • Industry-funded organizations
    *[[American Chemistry Council]] *[[American Council on Science and Health]]
    10 KB (1212 words) – 01:15, 2 April 2008

Global Climate Coalition

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s climate change project.

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was one of the most outspoken and confrontational industry groups in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to its disbanding in early 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry trade associations, “property rights” groups affiliated with the anti-environmental Wise Use movement, and fringe groups such as Sovereignty International, which believes that global warming is a plot to enslave the world under a United Nations-led “world government.”



// <![CDATA[//



In 1989, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The members of the IPCC are governments. At approximately five-year intervals, the IPCC assembles a group of some 2,500 climate scientists from throughout the world to evaluate the evidence linking anthropogenic greenhouse gas and other emissions (such as particulates) to global climate change. The Global Climate Coalition was created in 1989, shortly after the IPCC’s first meeting.

The GCC operated until 1997 out of the offices of the National Association of Manufacturers. Its early members included Amoco, the American Forest & Paper Association, American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Chrysler, Cyprus AMAX Minerals, Exxon, Ford, General Motors, Shell Oil, Texaco, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.

For PR and lobbying, the GCC has employed “Junkman” Steven Milloy‘s former employer, the EOP Group, as well as the E. Bruce Harrison Company, a subsidiary of the giant Ruder Finn PR firm. Within the public relations industry, Harrison is an almost legendary figure who is ironically considered “the founder of green PR” because of his work for the pesticide industry in the 1960s, when he helped lead the attack on author Rachel Carson and her environmental classic, Silent Spring.

GCC activities have included publication of glossy reports, aggressive lobbying at international climate negotiation meetings, and raising concern about unemployment that it claims would result from emissions regulations. It distributed a video to hundreds of journalists claiming that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help feed the hungry people of the world. In the lead up to the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the GCC and other industry interests successfully lobbied the US government to avoid mandatory emissions controls.

In 1997, the GCC responded to international global warming treaty negotiations in Kyoto, Japan by launching an advertising campaign in the US against any agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally. This was run through an organization called the Global Climate Information Project (GCIP), which was sponsored by the GCC and the American Association of Automobile Manufacturers, among others. The GCIP was represented by Richard Pollock, a former director of Ralph Nader‘s group, Critical Mass, who switched sides to become a senior vice president for Shandwick Public Affairs, the second-largest PR firm in the United States. (Recent Shandwick clients include Browning-Ferris Industries, Central Maine Power, Georgia-Pacific Corp., Monsanto Chemical Co., New York State Electric and Gas Co., Ciba-Geigy, Ford Motor Company, Hydro-Quebec, Pfizer, and Procter & Gamble.)

GCIP’s ads were produced by Goddard*Claussen/First Tuesday, a California-based PR firm whose clients include the Chlorine Chemistry Council, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, DuPont Merck Pharmaceuticals, and the Vinyl Siding Institute. Goddard*Claussen is notorious for its “Harry and Louise” advertisement that helped derail President Clinton’s 1993 health reform proposal. Its anti-Kyoto advertisements falsely claimed, “It’s Not Global and It Won’t Work.” They also claimed that “Americans will pay the price. . . 50 cents more for every gallon of gasoline.” Actually, there was no treaty at that point, and no government proposals, then or now, have suggested a “50 cent” gallon gas tax.

By 1997, the growing scientific and public consensus regarding global warming forced a number of GCC supporters to reconsider the negative PR implications of their involvement in a group that was increasingly recognized as a self-serving anti-environmental front group. BP/Amoco withdrew from GCC after BP’s chairman admitted that “the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.” Other prominent companies that have publicly abandoned GCC include American Electric Power, Dow, Dupont, Royal Dutch Shell, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Southern Company, Texaco and General Motors.

In March 2000, GCC announced a “strategic restructuring” designed to “bring the focus of the climate debate back to the real issues.” Under the restructuring, individual companies were no longer asked to join the GCC. Instead, membership would be limited to “only trade associations” and “other like-minded organizations.” By seeking support from trade associations instead of individual companies, GCC hoped to create a layer of deniability so that affected industries could continue to support its campaign of global warming denial while avoiding boycotts and other public campaigns against individual companies.

The GCC disbanded in early 2002, explaining that it “has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.” After years spent denying that greenhouse emissions were a serious environmental problem, the organization’s parting shot at history combined a tacit admission that it had been wrong all along, along with an endorsement of the George W. Bush administration’s proposal for ineffective “voluntary” industry measures to address the problem.

Excerpts from the GCC web site

The Global Climate Coalition has been deactivated. The industry voice on climate change has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.
The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC.
The coalition also opposed Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol that would assign such stringent targets for lowering greenhouse gas emissions that economic growth in the U. S. would be severely hampered and energy prices for consumers would skyrocket. The GCC also opposed the treaty because it does not require the largest developing countries to make cuts in their emissions.
At this point, both Congress and the Administration agree that the U.S. should not accept the mandatory cuts in emissions required by the protocol.
What is the GCC?
The Global Climate Coalition is an organization of trade associations established in 1989 to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.
Currently, GCC members collectively represent more than 6 million businesses, companies and corporations in virtually every sector of U.S. business, agriculture and forestry, including electric utilities, railroads, transportation, manufacturing, small businesses, mining, oil, and coal.
As a leading voice for business and industry, both domestically and internationally, GCC volunteers and staff attend all international climate change negotiations. They also closely monitor the activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and contributes to the IPCC’s scientific assessment documents.
Domestically, the GCC represents the views of its members to legislative bodies and policymakers. And it reviews and provides comments on proposed legislation and government programs.
Businesses and industries that make up the GCC’s member trade associations are active participants in voluntary programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are part of the federal government’s U.S. Climate Action Plan.


The GCC website was decorated with numerous photos of happy children playing in idyllic farm fields, but it did not provide any information about its budget or where its money comes from. GCC was not registered as a nonprofit organization and was not required to make public disclosures of its IRS tax filings, so it is difficult to obtain even basic information about its finances. However, the information that is publicly available shows that the GCC has spent tens of millions of dollars on the global warming issue.

According to the Los Angeles Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on its 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign, an amount roughly equivalent to Greenpeace’s entire annual budget.

Common Cause has documented more than $63 million in contributions to politicians from members of the Global Climate Coalition from 1989-1999.[1]

GCC’s efforts were coordinated with separate campaigns by many of its members, such as the National Coal Association, which spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993, and the American Petroleum Institute, which paid the Burson-Marsteller PR firm $1.8 million in 1993 for a successful computer-driven “grassroots” letter and phone-in campaign to stop a proposed tax on fossil fuels.

GCC’s members and supporters included the following companies and trade associations:

Internal Documents

Case Studies

Contact Information

Global Climate Coalition
1275 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 682-9161
Email: gcc@globalclimate.org

Other SourceWatch Related Resources

External links




From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

Learn from the Center for Media & Democracy about how to research global corporations.

Learn about corporate “speech” and other “rights” v. people’s rights. And help put Americans before corporations.

BP (formerly known as “British Petroleum”) is a global oil, gas and chemical company headquartered in Britain and responsible for the largest environmental disaster ever in the United States, the April 20, 2010, blow out of its Deep Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico (discussed in more detail below). The company owns numerous refineries and chemical manufacturing plants around the world. [1] BP is the United Kingdom’s largest corporation. Its global headquartered are in London, and its U.S. hq is Houston, Texas. Its major brands include BP, AmPm, Arco, and Castrol.




BP’s Deep Horizon Disaster

BP owns the deep water oil drilling rig, “Deep Horizon,” that exploded on April 20, 2010, and has been releasing over 200,000 gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico since then. [1]

BP’s Deep Horizon Oil Disaster

BP’s actions involving the safety of this dangerous drilling operation and the efforts to contain the spill or clean it up have caused tremendous controversy. [1]For example, its use of hazardous chemicals to “disperse” to oil is leading to other significant problems and does not actually “clean up” the oil, as discussed below.[2]

Use of toxic “dispersants”

BP has used the chemical called Corexit as part of what it calls an effort to “disperse” the oil.[3] Dispersants are chemical products used to clean and control oil spills, often misleadingly analogized to dish soap because it works in a similar way; dispersants, like dishwashing liquid, bonds to the oil molecules, which is then diluted in the water.[4] However, dispersants are not anywhere near harmless as dish soap; there is little knowledge of the side-effects of using dispersants.[5] Dispersants have also never been used to the extent used by BP in the Gulf of Mexico, reaching record levels that has resulted in over 700,000 gallons of the chemical dumped into the water.[6]

Oil dispersal means the oil is neither eliminated nor reduced in toxicity. [7] Dispersing the oil renders it impossible to trap, vacuum, or soak up along the shoreline, meaning both the oil and the chemical dispersant will spread into the ocean. [8] Spreading the oil via use of dispersant masks the extent of damage created by the oil spill by allowing the oil to flow into the ocean unnoticed where it will continue damaging marine life, rather than collecting on the shore. Id.[9]

Clean-up efforts already resulting in human illness

Stories of illness are already emerging from oil spill workers. Seven workers were hospitalized Wednesday, May 26th, 2010, complaining of nausea, dizziness, and headaches.[10] Some of the first responders who have been tasked to help clean up the oil are reporting symptoms of disorientation, shortness of breath, coughing, a feeling of being drugged, and fatigue.[11] For example, one reported feeling as though he was going to die and has been “coughing up stuff because your lungs fill up.” Id.[12] Marine toxicologist Riki Ott has said the chemicals used by BP can “wreck havoc” on a person’s body and even lead to death. Id.[13] Senior policy analyst of the EPA, Hugh Kaufman likens the situation to previous toxic waste disasters, such as the World Trade Center and the Exxon Valdez clean-up: “There’s no way you can be working in that toxic soup with getting exposures.” Id.[14] Riki Ott also finds the situation reminiscent of the Exxon Valdez disaster, where the clean-up response resulted in thousands of sick workers. OSHA requires BP to provide fitted respirators[15], but these regulations go unenforced and workers in the Gulf are cleaning up the oil without even the protection of basic gloves.[16] The vice-president of the Louisiana Shrimper’s Association is demanding respirators for all fishermen, stating the dispersant is poisoning the clean-up workers.[17]

Riki Ott is calling the current situation a disaster; fishermen are falling ill but not asking for necessary protection in fear of jeopardizing their jobs.[18] Gary Burris, a fisherman who is part of the clean-up force, stated many fishermen are working sick, afraid to speak out because it could cost them their job with BP, the only income they have now because of the oil spill.[19]

On June 9th, 2010, Congressman Nadler called out BP for ignoring these growing health concerns.

BP is ignoring health concerns

Other BP spills and disasters

BP has a history of incidents, having over 8,000 other spills (of oil, dangerous chemicals, gases, etc.) since 1990, both minor and major. [1] Between 2,205 and 2,629 incidents occurred in Texas and Louisiana each and there are over two dozen other states that all have suffered a number of oil or chemical spills.[2] There were 550 previous incidents in the Mississippi Canyon near the area where the current Deepwater Horizon disaster is unfolding.[3]

Two major incidents in the recent past are the Texas City Refinery explosion and the Prudhoe Bay spill. In 2005, in a refinery located in Texas City, Texas, a unit that manufactures jet fuel exploded, leading to 15 deaths and 170 injuries.[4] Investigation showed that the accident was due in part by placing temporary trailers near very volatile units, which the BP management did to cut maintenance and capital spending costs.[5] Other factors that contributed to the accident were corroded pipes about to burst, antiquated equipment, and broken safety alarms; the poor status of the facility was both easily fixable and known by the management.[6]

In 2006, a BP pipeline in Alaska burst and 267,000 gallons of crude oil was spilled into the North Slope of Alaska’s tundra.[7] Again the cause of the accident was easily preventable: BP virtually abandoned the process of cleaning and inspecting pipes for corrosion to save on costs.[8]

BP was also accused of manipulating gas and propane prices earlier this decade.[9] Regulators alleged that BP artificially increased prices of crude oil and gasoline by buying up stocks and controlling the market; they drove up the prices by 50% by keeping supplies off the market.[10] BP eventuallly settled in 2007 and agreed to pay $303 million dollars to end the charges against them.[11]

BP Profits and Lobbying

From Marketwatch[12]:

Annual Financials for BP Plc
All amounts from December of their respective year; further information at source.
Operating Revenue
2009 – $239,272,000,000
2008 – $361,143,000,000
2007 – $284,365,000,000
2006 – $265,906,000,000

Gross Operating Profit
2009 – $47,430,000,000
2008 – $57,570,000,000
2007 – $52,915,000,000
2006 – $50,764,000,000

Operating Profit before Depreciation (EBITDA)
2009 – $33,392,000,000
2008 – $42,158,000,000
2007 – $37,544,000,000
2006 – $36,317,000,000

Income Before Tax (EBT)
2009 – $25,124,000,000
2008 – $34,283,000,000
2007 – $31,611,000,000
2006 – $35,142,000,000

Total Net Income
2009 – $16,578,000,000
2008 – $21,157,000,000
2007 – $20,845,000,000
2006 – $22,315,000,000
The BP political action committee (PAC) gave $219,500 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle – 34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans. [13] A summary of the BP PAC data is below, from Open Secrets:

Total Spent – $173,781
Contributions to Federal Candidates – $75,550 (42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans)

Total Spent – $619,255
Contributions to Federal Candidates – $198,500 (41% to Democrats, 59% to Republicans)

Total Spent – $601,696
Contributions to Federal Candidates – $219,500 (34% to Democrats, 65% to Republicans)

Total Spent – $678,337
Contributions to Federal Candidates – $220,499 (38% to Democrats, 62% to Republicans)

BP is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $122,300 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Rep. Landrieu, for her part, has been supportive of the oil industry on energy, war and climate bills.[2] (Add information from more recent reports)

More information on oil industry contributions to Congress can be found at FollowtheOilMoney.org, created by Oil Change International.

The company spent $3,650,000 for lobbying in 2006. BP used several lobbying firms but most lobbying was done with its in-house lobbyists. [14]

BP’s lobbying focuses on tax incentives for oil and gas production and opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and following U.S. trade relations and policy in the Middle East. Through membership in a trade association known as the Organization for International Investment, BP has lobbied to gain exemptions from U.S. corporate law reforms. BP has withdrawn from a coalition advocating for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but continues to seek access to the area.[15]

BP has several powerful lobbying connections.[16] They are currently working with the Brunswick Group in response to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Brunswick’s Washington D.C. office includes Hilary Rosen, former Democratic congressional aide; Anthony Coley and David Sutphen, both former aides to the late Senator Edward Kennedy; and Michele Davis, former Treasury department officer under former president George W. Bush and GOP congressional aide.[17]

BP also employs the Podesta Group, led by Anthony Podesta.[18] Podesta’s brother is John Podesta, former president Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. Id.[19]

Other major lobbyists include Jim Turner, former House Democrat of Texas, now with the Arnold & Porter firm[20]; Ken Duberstein, former White House Chief of Staff under former president Reagan[21]; republican Michelle Laxalt; and Michel Berman, president of the Duberstein firm[22].


Board of Directors From the company’s website: [3]

  • Tony Hayward, CEO

Tony Hayward began his career with BP in 1982. He’s played technical and commercial roles in BP Exploration in the U.K., France, and China and Colombia, and, in September 1995, became President of BP Venezuela. In August 1997, he returned to London as Director of BP Exploration. Hayward became Group Vice President of BP Amoco Exploration and Production as well as a member of the group’s Upstream Executive Committee in 1999. He was appointed Group Treasurer in 2000. He became Chief Executive, Exploration and Production, in January 2003. Hayward is also a nonexecutive director at Corus Group and a member of the Citibank Advisory Board. In 2005, he was appointed a Companion of the Chartered Management Inst. in the U.K. for his achievements in leadership in the energy industry.

  • Carl-Henric Svanberg, Chairman

Carl-Henric Svanberg was appointed Chairman of BP on January 1st, 2010, succeeding Peter Sutherland. Before coming to BP, Svanberg was chief executive officer of Ericsson and chairman of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. Svanberg continues to be a non-executive director of Ericsson, and is also on the boards of the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, Melker Schörling AB and the University of Uppsala. He is a member of the Steering Committee of the Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technologies and Development and of the external advisory board of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

  • Iain Conn, Chief Executive Director of Refining and Marketing

Iain Conn is the chief executive of the BP Group’s refining and marketing business and also holds regional responsibility for Europe, Southern Africa and Asia Pacific. He joined BP oil international in 1986, working in a variety of roles in commercial refining and oil trading and in corporate headquarters before moving to BP exploration in Colombia in 1996. At the end of 1997, he became senior vice president of BP oil in the US, responsible for retail and commercial marketing operations, refining and supply. On the merger between BP and Amoco, in January 1999 he moved to become vice president of BP Amoco exploration’s mid-continent business unit. At the end of 2000, he returned to London as group vice president and a member of the refining and marketing segment’s executive committee, with responsibility for BP’s marketing business in Asia, Russia, Africa and Latin America. In 2001, he took over responsibility for BP’s marketing operations in Europe and for the integration of Veba Oel. From 2002 until 2004, he was chief executive of BP petrochemicals.

  • Robert Dudley, Managing Director

Robert (Bob) Dudley is a member of the BP board of directors and a member of the BP executive management team. He will assume responsibility for broad oversight of the group’s activities in the Americas and Asia. Bob joined Amoco Corporation in 1979, for whom he worked until its merger with BP in 1998. In his early career he held a variety of engineering and commercial posts in the US and UK. From 1987 he worked on the negotiation and development of projects in the South China Sea, following which he was involved in the restructuring of oil and gas research and development activities in the US. Between 1994 and 1997 he was based in Moscow working on corporate development for both upstream and downstream businesses in Russia. In 1997 he became general manager for strategy for Amoco and following the Amoco merger was appointed to a similar role in BP in 1999. From 1999 – 2000 he was appointed executive assistant to the group chief executive officer, following which he was group vice president for BP’s renewables and alternative energy activities, with responsibilities for BP’s global solar business and wind and hydrogen activities. He then took up the role of group vice president responsible for BP’s upstream businesses in Russia, the Caspian Region, Angola, Algeria and Egypt. In 2003, following the formation of TNK-BP – a joint venture between BP and Russian partners – Bob assumed the role of president and chief executive officer until December 2008. Bob was appointed an executive director of the BP board on 6 April 2009 and is an executive vice president and a member of the executive management team.

  • Byron Grote, Chief Financial Officer

Dr. Grote is a member of the BP board of directors and a member of the BP executive management team. Dr. Grote joined The Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1979 and in 1985 became director of planning for The Standard Oil Company’s mining subsidiary, Kennecott. In 1986, he was appointed vice president, retail marketing. In 1988, Dr. Grote became commercial vice president for BP’s Alaskan North Slope production activities. In 1989, he was appointed commercial general manager of BP exploration, based in London. He became group treasurer and chief executive officer of BP finance in 1992, directing the global finance operations of the BP group. In 1994, he took up the position of regional chief executive in Latin America. He returned to London in 1995 to take up his appointment as deputy chief executive officer of BP exploration. He became group chief of staff in 1997, with responsibility for a number of corporate areas, including strategy, technology, IT, investor relations and solar. Following the merger of BP and Amoco, in 1999 he was appointed executive vice president, exploration and production. Between 1999 and 2000, he was responsible for directing the acquisition of ARCO and managing the integration of its operations into BP. Prior to his current position, he was Chief Executive of BP Chemicals from 2000 to 2002.

  • Andy Inglis, Chief Executive of Exploration and Production

Andy is a member of the BP board of directors and a member of the BP executive management team. Andy joined BP Exploration in 1980, working on various North Sea projects. Following a series of commercial roles in exploration, he became chief of staff for BP Exploration in 1997. Later that year, he led BP’s activities in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and in 1999 became vice president of the US western gas business. In 2004, Andy was appointed an executive vice president and deputy chief executive of exploration and production. Andy succeeded Tony Hayward as chief executive of BP’s exploration and production business on 1 February 2007, and also became an executive director of the BP group.

  • Paul Anderson, Non-Executive Director

Paul Anderson was appointed a non-executive director of BP on 1 February 2010. He is a member of the chairman’s and the safety, ethics and environment assurance committees. He is a non-executive director of BAE Systems PLC and of Spectra Energy Corp. He was formerly chief executive at BHP Billiton and Duke Energy where he also served as a nonexecutive director. Having previously been chief executive officer and managing director of BHP Limited and then BHP Billiton Limited and BHP Billiton Plc, he rejoined these latter boards in 2006 as a non-executive director, retiring on 31 January 2010.

  • Anthony Burgmans, Non-Executive Director

Antony Burgmans was appointed a non-executive director of BP in 2004. He is a member of the chairman’s, the remuneration and the safety, ethics and environment assurance committees. He joined Unilever in 1972, holding a succession of marketing and sales posts including, from 1988 until 1991, the chairmanship of PT Unilever Indonesia. In 1991, he was appointed to the board of Unilever, becoming business group president, ice cream and frozen foods, Europe, in 1994, and chairman of Unilever’s Europe committee, co-ordinating its European activities. In 1998, he became vice chairman of Unilever NV and in 1999, chairman of Unilever NV and vice chairman of Unilever PLC. In 2005, he became non-executive chairman of Unilever NV and Unilever PLC until his retirement in 2007. Mr Burgmans is a member of the supervisory boards of Akzo Nobel NV, AEGON NV and SHV Holdings NV.

  • Cynthia Caroll, Non-Executive Director

Cynthia Carroll was appointed a non-executive director of BP in 2007. She is a member of the chairman’s and the safety, ethics and environment assurance committees. Mrs Carroll started her career with Amoco as a petroleum geologist in oil exploration. In 1989, she joined Alcan, and in 1991 became vice president/general manager of Alcan foil products. In 1996, she was appointed managing director of Aughinish Alumina Limited, a subsidiary of Alcan Aluminium Limited, in Ireland. In 1998, she became president of bauxite, alumina and specialty chemicals and in 2002 was appointed president and chief executive officer of Alcan’s primary metals group and an officer of Alcan, Inc. in Montreal, Canada. Mrs Carroll was appointed as chief executive of Anglo American plc, the global mining group, in 2007. She is a director of Anglo Platinum Limited and De Beers s.a.

  • Sir William Castell, Non-Executive Director

Sir William Castell was appointed a non-executive director of BP in 2006. He is the senior independent director and is a member of the chairman’s and the nomination committees and chairman of the safety, ethics and environment assurance committee. Sir William spent his early career with the Wellcome Foundation, holding various positions. In 1989, he joined Amersham plc as chief executive. Following Amersham’s acquisition by General Electric in 2004, Sir William became president and chief executive officer of GE Healthcare, and a vice chairman and a director of the General Electric Company. He retired from GE Healthcare in 2006. Sir William remains a director of the General Electric Company. He was appointed as a member of the board of governors of the Wellcome Trust in 2006, subsequently becoming its chairman. Sir William was knighted in 2000. In 2004, he received the honour Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order.

  • George David, Non-Executive Director

George David was appointed as a non-executive director of BP on 11 February 2008. Mr David began his career in The Boston Consulting Group before joining the Otis Elevator Company in 1975. He held various roles in Otis and later in United Technologies Corporation (UTC), following Otis’s merger with UTC in 1977. Mr David is vice-chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and was previously a non-executive director of Citigroup.

  • Ian Davis, Non-Executive Director

Ian Davis joined the board as a non-executive director of BP on 2 April 2010. He is a member of the chairman’s, the remuneration and the audit committees. Mr Davis spent his early career at Bowater, moving to McKinsey & Company in 1979. He was managing partner of McKinsey’s practice in the UK and Ireland from 1996 to 2003. In 2003, he was appointed as chairman and worldwide managing director of McKinsey serving in this capacity until 2009. During his career with McKinsey, Mr Davis has served as a consultant on a range of global organizations across the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. He will be retiring as senior partner of McKinsey & Company in July 2010. He is a member of the Mayor of Beijing International Business Leaders’ Advisory Council, and is an advisory director of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Centre.

  • Douglas J Flint, Non-Executive Director

Douglas Flint is Group Finance Director of HSBC Holdings plc and a Director of HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad. He is a non executive director of BP plc. In June 2006 he was honoured with a CBE (Commander Of The British Empire) by Her Majesty the Queen in recognition of his services to the finance industry. Mr Flint was Chairman of the Financial Reporting Council’s review of the Turnbull Guidance on Internal Control between 2004-2005 and served on the Accounting Standards Board and the Advisory Council of the International Accounting Standards Board from 2001-2004.

  • Dr. DeAnne Julius, Non-Executive Director

DeAnne Julius began her career as a project economist with the World Bank in Washington. From 1986 until 1997, she held a succession of posts, including chief economist at British Airways and Royal Dutch Shell Group. From 1997 to 2001, she was an independent member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. She is chairman of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and a non-executive director of Lloyds TSB Group PLC, Roche Holdings SA and Serco Group plc.

  • Other Key PR Personnel

Linda Bartman is BP’s marketing communications director, with responsibility for “for 360 communications plans directed to consumers, in addition to b-to-b [business-to-business] and b-to-c [business-to-consumer] strategy for promoting the BP brand to 10,500 retail sites.” Bartman launched BP’s first lifestyle campaign, “Younger for Longer,” in 2008. The campaign used “older” athletes to promote BP’s “Invigorate” gas additive. “It’s about creating relevance for the consumer,” Bartman explained. “More than that, it’s about explaining the [product] experience, when consumers already incorporate it into a routine and [later] don’t think about it.” [23]

David Jackson was appointed company secretary in 2003. A solicitor, he is a director of BP Pension Trustees Limited, and a member of the Listing Authorities Advisory Committee.

Former Board and Staff

  • Peter D. Sutherland, former Chairman

Peter D. Sutherland served as chairman from 1997-2009, and was succeeded by Carl-Henric Svanberg on January 1, 2010. Mr. Sutherland KCMG serves as Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International. Mr. Sutherland served as Director General of GATT and Group Secretary and General Counsel of World Trade Organization from 1993 to 1995. He is a former Attorney General of Ireland and also served as European Commissioner from 1985 to 1989, responsible for competition policy. He serves as Chairman of British Petroleum, BP Amoco PLC and United Kingdom. He has also been a Independent Non Executive Director of National Westminster Bank PLC and its subsidiary, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, since January 2001. He serves as a Non-Executive Director of Foundation of the World Economic Forum. He serves as a Director of Goldman Sachs International and Member of International Advisory Board and Joint Advisory Council of Allianz AG. He served as a Director of LM Ericsson Telephone Co (formerly, Ericsson LM Telephone Co.) since 1996, Ericsson SPA since 1996 and Investor AB since 1995. He served as a Member of International Advisory Board of CNOOC Ltd. since March 20, 2003.

  • Erroll B. Davis, Jr, former Director

Erroll B. Davis is Chancellor of the University System of Georgia. Davis, who took office on February 6, 2006, had served as chairman of the board of Alliant Energy Corporation — an energy holding company with $8.3 billion in total assets and annual operating revenues of $3 billion — since 2000. Davis retired from his dual roles as president and CEO in July 2005, and retained the chairman’s post until his move to the University System.

  • Sir Tom McKillop, former Director

Sir Tom McKillop was appointed a non-executive director of BP in 2004. Following the demerger of Zeneca Group PLC from ICI PLC, in 1994 he became chief executive officer of Zeneca Pharmaceuticals and, in 1996, he was appointed to the board of Zeneca Group PLC as an executive director. Sir Tom was chief executive of AstraZeneca PLC from the merger of Astra AB and Zeneca Group PLC in 1999 until 2005. Sir Tom is chairman of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and was a non-executive director of Lloyds TSB Group PLC until 2004. Sir Tom was knighted in 2002.

Major Litigation

May 2008: Oil Firms to Pay $423 million to settle water lawsuit.
BP, along with other oil companies, is going to pay to settle lawsuit brought by hundreds of public water suppliers. [24]

2006: Alaska Prudhoe Bay Oil Spill cases The U.S. Department of Justice sued BP on behalf of the EPA on March 31, 2009, seeking millions of dollars in fines for alleged water and air pollution violations and failure to meet deadlines in a corrective action order from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.[25] BP also currently faces a civil suit brought on by the state of Alaska. Id.[26] The criminal charges against BP for the Prudhoe oil spill was settled by a plea deal in late 2007; BP was sentenced to three years probation and ordered to pay $20 million in penalties. Id.[27]

2005: Texas Refinery Explosion Lawsuits The explosion at the Texas Refinery plant in Texas City led to hundreds of lawsuits and over a thousand settlements.[28] BP set aside at least $2 billion in compensation payouts, repairs, and lost profits. Id.[29] One of the must public cases was the lawsuit brought by the daughter of two plant workers who both died in the Texas Refinery explosion; Eva Rowe’s suit was settled for an undisclosed amount and $32 million dollars in donations for health care, training, and safety regulation.[30]

1993-1995: Hazardous Substance Crime BP Exploration (Alaska), one of BP’s U.S. subsidiaries, pleaded guilty to dumping hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope on September 23, 1999.[31] BP agreed to pay $22 million dollars to resolve the criminal case as well as related civil claims. Id.[32]

BP’s Greenwashing and Recent Rebranding

Edmund John Philip Browne became group chief executive in 1995. The following year, to the surprise of many environmentalists and oil industry analysts, BP resigned from the Global Climate Coalition, which ridiculed the science pointing to human induced climate change and sought to undermine the Kyoto treaty negotiations. BP hired Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide to handle a massive $200 million public relations and advertising campaign. This campaign introduced a new logo and slogan as well as a new attitude. The re-branding – undertaken in the wake of major controversies in Europe over Shell’s role in Nigeria and its ill-fated attempt to dump the disused Brent Spar oil platform in the ocean – was aimed at differentiating BP from its rivals. BP also sought to cultivate ‘moderate’ environmental groups in a series of ‘partnerships’ with groups like the National Wildlife Federation. [4] (See the BP and the National Wildlife Federation case study). Despite their corporate rebranding, BP failed to change many of their underlying activities. An clear example of this was when a Californian air quality regulatory agency sued BP for $319 million over what it alleged were thousands of violations of emissions standards at its Carson oil refinery in the port of Los Angeles in March 2003. [5] For more, see BP and Greenwashing

BP’s Campaign to Exploit Protected Areas

Despite BP’s new campaign projecting their new environmentally conscious attitude, they backed the Bush administration’s move to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. BP, also continues to explore for oil in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Atlantic Frontier, the foothills of the Andes and Alaska. [6]. For more, see BP’s Campaign to Exploit Protected Areas.

BP’s Labor Policies

March 2005: “Pumping Poverty- Britain’s Department for International Development and the Oil Industry”
The author discusses the problems with BP’s Ocensa pipeline, especially the fact that is protected by a designated army that is financed through a $1 per barrel “war tax”. [7]

April 2004: Looking at the Principles Behind the Practices: BP Operations in Casanare Department, Colombia
This report synthesizes recurring observations into five thematic principles of operation: 1. being part of the community is fundamental to successful operation in conflict contexts; 2. political and economic leverage should go beyond mitigating negative impacts; 3. “win-win” options is key for both the company and the local communities; 4. sustainable living conditions for when the company leaves, must be created early in operations; 5. stakeholder focused management systems are the key to the business’ success. [8]

For information regarding their human rights policies, see BP’s Human Rights Record

Contact information

bp-logo.gif BP p.l.c.
1 St James’s Square
Tel +44 (0)20 7496 4000
Fax +44 (0)20 7496 4630

BP Exploration Company (Colombia) Ltd.
Carrera 9A No. 99 – 02, 9th Floor
Bogotá, Colombia
Tel: +571-628-4000 or +571-618-2777
Fax: +571-611-1127 or +571-628-4077

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles


  1. Paul Barton, “A Look at BP’s 8,000 OTHER Spills Since 1990,” CNC, May 27, 2010.
  2. Paul Barton, “A Look at BP’s 8,000 OTHER Spills Since 1990,” CNC, May 27, 2010.
  3. Paul Barton, “A Look at BP’s 8,000 OTHER Spills Since 1990,” CNC, May 27, 2010.
  4. Wade Goodwyn, “Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses,” NPR, May 6, 2010.
  5. Wade Goodwyn, “Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses,” NPR, May 6, 2010.
  6. Daniel Schorn, “The Explosion at Texas City,” CBS, October 29, 2006.
  7. John Roach, “Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling,” National Geographic, March 20, 2006.
  8. Wade Goodwyn, “Previous BP Accidents Blamed On Safety Lapses,” NPR, May 6, 2010.
  9. None Given, “BP accused of price manipulation,” BBC News, June 29, 2006.
  10. Steven Mufson, “BP Settles Propane Price-Fixing Suit,” Washington Post, October 27, 2007.
  11. Steven Mufson, “BP Settles Propane Price-Fixing Suit,” Washington Post, October 27, 2007.
  12. “BP Plc”
  13. 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets.
  14. BP lobbying expenses, Open Secrets.
  15. “Heavy Hitters: BP” Open Secrets
  16. Timothy P. Carney, “BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill,” Washington Examiner, May 12, 2010.
  17. Timothy P. Carney, “BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill,” Washington Examiner, May 12, 2010.
  18. Laura Strickler, “BP Lobbying Team’s Revolving Door,” CBS, June 1, 2010.
  19. Laura Strickler, “BP Lobbying Team’s Revolving Door,” CBS, June 1, 2010.
  20. Timothy P. Carney, “BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill,” Washington Examiner, May 12, 2010.
  21. Timothy P. Carney, “BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill,” Washington Examiner, May 12, 2010.
  22. Timothy P. Carney, “BP has deep lobbying connections to help on spill,” Washington Examiner, May 12, 2010.
  23. Nicole Zerillo, “Bartman’s innovative tactics fuel BP’s branding,” PR Week, October 20, 2008.
  24. Jad Mouawad, “Oil Giants to Settle Water Suit,” New York Times, May 8, 2008.
  25. Wesley Loy, “Federal regulators, BP work on settlement for ’06 spills”, Anchorage Daily News, May 23, 2010.
  26. Wesley Loy, “Federal regulators, BP work on settlement for ’06 spills”, Anchorage Daily News, May 23, 2010.
  27. Wesley Loy, “Federal regulators, BP work on settlement for ’06 spills”, Anchorage Daily News, May 23, 2010.
  28. “1st BP Explosion Trial Ends In Settlement,” CBS News, September 18, 2007.
  29. “1st BP Explosion Trial Ends In Settlement,” CBS News, September 18, 2007.
  30. Katy Byron, “http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/09/refinery.suit/index.html,” CNN, November 10, 2006.
  31. “BP Exploration [Alaska Pleads Guilty To Hazardous Substance Crime Will Pay $22 Million, Establish Nationwide Environmental Management System”,] “EPA”, September 23, 1999.
  32. “BP Exploration [Alaska Pleads Guilty To Hazardous Substance Crime Will Pay $22 Million, Establish Nationwide Environmental Management System”,] “EPA”, September 23, 1999.

External articles



  • Marcellus Shale
    … significant environmental concerns that have been raised about the method of extracting the gas from the shale, “[[hydrofracking]],” which is discussed… …hrough a pipe drilled into the shale at extremely high pressure. A variety of chemicals are added to the water to keep the fractures in the shale open a…
    52 KB (7212 words) – 18:26, 15 June 2010


Bureau of Land Management – Department of the Interior

Interior Finalizes Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reforms




My Note –

Going to take a break awhile.

– cricketdiane