News -> INDReporter WED, JUN 9 10:45AM by Leslie Turk

Salazar’s own experts opposed drilling moratorium

[UPDATE: During a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing today, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu pressed Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on why he went against the recommendation of the majority of experts who weighed in on ways to address safety in the Gulf as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion. Landrieu pleaded with the interior secretary to reduce the six-month moratorium, noting that among the companies planning layoffs because of the moratorium is Lafayette-based C&C Technologies. View the exchange here.]

ORIGINAL STORY: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has some explaining to do. The panel of experts the Obama administration turned to for advice on how to address offshore drilling safety in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and ongoing gush of oil into the Gulf of Mexico are speaking out, saying they never agreed to the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling and that Salazar misrepresented their position. The INDsider has obtained a copy of the letter penned by those experts, along with a fax they sent to Gov. Bobby Jindal and U.S. Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter.

In no uncertain terms, the experts claim Salazar falsely implied that they supported the six-month drilling moratorium. However, in his May 27 report to President Barack Obama, the interior secretary said a panel of seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering “peer reviewed” his recommendations, among which is a six-month moratorium on all drilling in water depths of more than 500 feet. That ban went into effect a few days later, shutting down more than 30 rigs.

In their letter, the angry panelists clarify that what they reviewed was an earlier version of the secretary’s report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling — and only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.

“We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts. However, we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling,” they write. “A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors.” The panel members say the blanket moratorium will not measurably reduce risk and will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy, which may greater than that of the oil spill. They say Salazar’s report highlights the safety record of the industry in drilling more than 50,000 wells on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, more than 2,000 of which were in water over 1,000 feet and 700 in depths greater than 5,000 feet. Noting that the safety of offshore workers is much better than that of the average worker in the U.S., they write, “We have been using subsea blowout preventers since the mid-1960s. The only other major pollution event from offshore drilling was 41 years ago. This was from a shallow water platform in Santa Barbara Channel drilled with a BOP on the surface of the platform.”

In the cover letter to Jindal, the panelists note that the secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, “but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions.” Read the experts’ letter here.

An Interior Department spokeswoman agreed that the experts had not given their blessing for a moratorium, and said the department did not mean to leave the impression they had, The Times-Picayune reports today.

At least one Louisiana oil services company, Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, is mounting a legal challenge to the deepwater ban, claiming the federal government has not shown justification for the shutdown. The company filed suit late Monday in U.S. District Court in New Orleans.

Salazar’s ill-conceived overreaction, many argue, will compound the devastating impact of the environmental disaster, potentially displacing tens of thousands of oilfield-related jobs. If the more than 30 rigs shut down as a result of the moratorium pull up stakes, as some have already indicated they will do, the economy of south Louisiana could be damaged irreparably.

The Lafayette Economic Development Authority is estimating a $2.4 billion economic loss to the Lafayette metro area over the next year, including $466.7 million loss in wages and income and more than 7,700 jobs lost. Of the 7,756 jobs the Lafayette MSA stands to lose, 3,751 are direct jobs lost, according to LEDA. “These numbers reflect job losses across all segments of the economy — direct, indirect and induced — and represent currently existing jobs and jobs that have yet to be created (i.e. manpower for permitted wells that have not begun drilling). As the recovery continues, it is likely that many individuals who lost jobs, specifically in the energy industry, may be able to gain new employment as part of the recovery efforts, in other locales where the rigs will be deployed, and in other sectors of the economy, which will mitigate some of the negative impact on the labor force,” says LEDA CEO Gregg Gothreaux.

 

 



Comments (5)add
...
written by Buckley , June 10, 2010 - 04:27 pm
Thank you Senator. As an inveterate conservative I rarely agree with you, but I applaud your intestinal fortitude in standing up to President Obama's political grandstanding at the expense of Louisiana.Rahm Emmanuel I am sure is advising the President that this is by for more politically damaging than Katrina and is fact much more akin to President Carter's career killing Iranian hostage crisis.It puts on broad and public display the inadequatcy of the President's glib theatrically rehearsed demeanor in the face of an actual real time crisis.As he probably would say, he don't walk it like he talks it.Because he can't.He lacks the leadership wherewithall,not to mention the experience.Sure, he would have fired Tony Hayward, not because he has been ineffectual, but because he made the President look bad.And looking good is all that Mr.Obama has ever really had going for him anyway.And because he would never carry Louisiana anyway, the fallout is, in his political view, acceptable.
...
written by planejane , June 10, 2010 - 05:47 pm
You go Buckley! Once again you nailed it.
...
written by Resident , June 10, 2010 - 08:05 pm
I have a feeling Obama and Salazar will reverse the moratorium on current drilling operations. This does seem more political than logical, especially after the panel advisers said they did not recommend stopping current operations.

Meanwhile, the Fox/Drudge/Rush echo chamber is attempting to paint this to be as bad as Bush's Katrina or Carter's hostage crisis. A cursory examination shows these to be false analogies. In Katrina and the hostage event, you had massive instantaneous events with people stranded and dying from the start. An oil spill doesn't become big news until it gets to a size sufficient enough to rival Tiger Woods' penis and the Stanley Cup.
...
written by planejane , June 10, 2010 - 10:00 pm
Resident-
I was not making an analogy between the spill and Katrina or the hostage situation in terms of their similarity as events per se. The spill is analagous, I believe, in its potential political damage to Mr.Obama. At the risk of repeating my earlier comment, The hostage standoff and the spill are very similar in that there is little in the way of Executive action that can or could address the repective problems.In many repects, this is far worse than the hostage crisis in that they were merely detained. The oil spill will continue to be a political liability until it is contained, and as of now there is no end in sight.And the longer this goes on , the more the public will cast The President in the same light as they did Jimmy Carter-as a bumbling, impotent bungler.In fact it is a sad irony that the two presidents could not swap their respective delimmas. Carter was a nuclear enginner by training and could have at least grasped the fundemantal physics related problems at play-he could at least competently evaluate the the advise of the "experts" whom Mr.Obama so fetishizes. Obama, with his rhetorical facility and penchant for being an apologist for all things American and a cowtower before despots of any stripe might have well made points with the radical Iranian clergy (his middle name would not have hurt either).So with all repect I believe that my assertion that these three events are indeed analogous in the potential damage they could umleash on a Chief Executive Officers political well being.This was my origional assertion.As conflicts each was/is unique.
...
written by Resident , June 11, 2010 - 11:58 am
planejane, my assertion is that only hard-core partisans (a small portion of the populace) will tie the oil spill's duration to Obama's political well-being. In other words, the same old people who always say that every single thing Obama does is wrong and is destroying the country. (yawn)

I'm no Obama fan and I have plenty of criticisms, but I think that a little bit of rationality shows the "bungling" and "impotent" charge to be hyperbole. I'm interested in hearing exactly what you think he did wrong.

As far as the "penchant for being an apologist for all things American and a cowtower before despots", that's your interpretation and a familiar cliche from the partisan noise machine (I suppose Reagan was a cowtower before despots for talking to the Soviets?). A lot of people were relieved to have a president attempt to reconcile with the Arab world instead of perpetrate the notion that we are enemies, although the fact that Obama is continuing to bomb their women and children at the same pace is testament to his doublespeak. Neither has he done anything to fix the evisceration of civil liberties we experienced under the last president; in fact he has supported that.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it