We are at a watershed moment in the history of energy production—and the choices we make at this juncture will determine the fate of our planet and the national security and economic future of the United States. Between now and 2030, roughly $26 trillion will be invested in energy infrastructure worldwide. Clean energy will likely make up an increasing share of this investment with every passing year. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that $5.7 trillion will be invested in renewable electricity generation alone between 2010 and 2035.1 This new infrastructure is long-lived and costly, and the decisions made in the next decade will set the course of the global and U.S. energy system—and of the global climate—for the next century and beyond. This transition also presents an unprecedented opportunity for economic growth and job creation in the clean energy technology sector. Other countries are taking the lead in clean energy and the United States must act now if it is to remain competitive in this rapidly developing global market.
Global climate change presents one of the gravest threats to our planet’s health, and to America’s economy, its national security, and its public health. Scientists warn that we may be approaching a tipping point, after which it will become increasingly difficult, or perhaps impossible, to halt global warming and its catastrophic effects. The United States confronts this issue at the same time it faces a deepening energy crisis—characterized by skyrocketing prices, high dependence on foreign oil, and continued reliance on high-carbon fuels that worsen the climate crisis.
The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was created by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 2007 to examine and make recommendations on the interrelated issues of energy independence, national security, America’s economic future and global warming.
During its four years, the Select Committee held 80 hearings and briefings, conducted investigations, led fact finding trips with Congressional members, and contributed to the most active four years in energy and climate policy development and debate in the United States Congress.
As a result of the Select Committee’s work in raising the profile of energy and climate issues, and spurring increased debate, the House of Representatives passed several pieces of legislation that will reduce our nation’s consumption of foreign oil, increase energy efficiency, and create new jobs in the clean energy sector.
In 2007, the first year of the Select Committee, the House passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which included fuel economy provisions co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Select Committee. The bill also increased America’s use of advanced biofuels, and updated energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting systems.
The Select Committee also was instrumental in pushing for increased investment in clean energy technologies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invested $90 billion in clean energy, which jump-started new domestic industries like advanced electric batteries, boosted household energy efficiency, and helped key renewable energy sectors like wind and solar avoid collapse during the recession.
In June of 2009, the House passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, the first passage of a comprehensive energy and climate bill in the history of the U.S. Congress. The bill set ambitious carbon reduction targets, which were used by U.S. negotiators to craft the Copenhagen Accord. It also created a roadmap to create clean energy jobs and the next generation of clean energy technologies.
These legislative achievements happened as historic events indicated that swift action was needed to address a strained energy system and a dangerously destabilized climate. The years 2007-2010 are all in the top ten warmest years on record, according to NASA. Oil and gasoline prices peaked to record levels in 2007 and are on the rise again as the country emerges from the recession.
As the Select Committee ends its tenure of progress, it is clear that there is much left to be done to stabilize our global climate, and spur the development of clean energy technology and jobs here in America.
This report summarizes the results and findings of the Select Committee’s hearings and investigations, highlights legislative accomplishments that flow from the information it has developed and makes recommendations for steps moving forward.
Markey Statement on EPA's Plan for Greenhouse Gas Standards for Power Plants and Oil Refineries
WASHINGTON (December 24th, 2010) – Below is the statement from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on the Environmental Protection Agency’s release of a schedule for setting new greenhouse gas standards for power plants and oil refineries:
“The timetables announced by the Environmental Protection Agency for curbing global warming pollution from power plants and oil refineries make clear the careful and committed approach that the administration is taking to protecting public health and the environment.
“The new sources to be regulated are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases and businesses will benefit from the stable planning horizon that these rules will afford.
“The EPA standards won't be created in a vacuum.
“They will be based on technology that is already available and that these industries can affordably implement.
“We will wait to see the content of the actual rules but all can benefit from a clear timetable and an open and transparent process, which is what I will expect from Administrator Jackson.
“Putting standards for new power plants and oil refineries on the table is a good place to start moving us to a new clean energy economy that saves lives, helps halt global warming and makes us more efficient and globally competitive.”
Markey Statement on Proposed Interior Dept. Wilderness Policy
WASHINGTON (December 24, 2010) -- Today, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the incoming ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, issued the following statement in response to a new Interior Department policy to identify and protect wilderness quality public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The new Interior Department directive will instruct the BLM to identify public lands that have wilderness characteristics and to manage those areas in a way that protects their wilderness qualities.
“Protecting pristine wilderness areas for future generations is not a wild idea,” said Rep. Markey. “When it comes to managing our special public lands, for too long the Interior Department had been lost in the wilderness. Secretary Salazar's new directive will restore a common sense management policy to ensure that we do not despoil these special places.”
Longtime Environment and Energy Leader Will Fight for Jobs, Against Environmental Attacks as Ranking Member
December 16, 2010 - Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) was today selected by the House Democratic Caucus to be the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee for the 112th session of Congress.
"In the next Congress, Republicans will attempt to short-circuit the laws that keep our water clean, our air clear and our public lands pristine, while giving short shrift to emerging clean energy technologies that can create jobs and clean up our environment," said Rep. Markey. "With my fellow Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, I believe we can chart a course that will continue the progress we've made on creating energy jobs here in America, without sacrificing our nation's natural heritage."
Rep. Markey has served on the Natural Resources Committee since 1976 and has a long history of legislative accomplishments in energy and environment issues. He is the House author of the fuel economy standards in the 2007 energy bill, co-author of the clean energy and climate bill that passed the House in 2009, and several energy efficiency bills.
During his tenure in the Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Markey has authored or co-authored many pieces of legislation.
Examples include:
Legislation to ensure American taxpayers receive a fair return on oil, gas and other minerals produced on federal lands.
Legislation following the BP oil spill to ensure that this type of disaster never happens again.
Legislation to reduce the federal deficit by recovering up to $53 billion dollars in lost royalty payments from oil companies who are drilling for free offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
Legislation to promote renewable energy development while protecting our environment.
Legislation to protect our nation's most important natural treasures such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Georges Bank off the coast of New England.
Rep. Markey has served as Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming since 2007, but Republicans are eliminating the committee in the next Congress.
WASHINGTON (December 15, 2010) – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today released the following statement in response to the announcement by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency that they will be seeking damages from the parties responsible for this summer’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico:
“This is first shot across the bow from the Obama administration to hold legally accountable BP and the other companies involved in this disaster for their reckless actions.
“As we’ve seen recently with BP’s challenging of the flow rate determinations from their blown-out Macondo well, BP is already taking an aggressive stance to limit their own liability.
“It may have taken these companies months to cap their well, but they will spend years trying to cap their financial obligations to the people of the Gulf. That is why it is vital for the Obama administration to swiftly advance this legal action.
“According to the lawsuit, BP has waived its right to limit to 75 million dollars any damages that go beyond the cost of removing the oil from the Gulf. The House passed a bill that would eliminate this liability cap for BP and any other company responsible for an oil spill, but the Senate has yet to act on this legislation, or the comprehensive spill response package in which it was included. Before the Senate adjourns, they should pass this legislation to bolster the government’s case against BP and the other companies, and in future possible legal endeavors.”
December 11, 2010 - Early this morning, more than 190 countries of the world reaffirmed their commitment to fighting dangerous climate change, reaching official agreement on a set of provisions for implementation of the climate accord created last year in Copenhagen, Denmark.
"This surprisingly solid level of progress demonstrates the worldwide commitment to taking action now to combat climate change. With this agreement we can look forward to further progress next year in South Africa," said Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
"This year, the U.S. and China worked together to reach agreement on provisions that will ensure we know whether both China and the U.S. are keeping their promises. Going forward it means to world's two largest carbon emitters will continue to be at the same table.aEUREURaEUREUR
"Not only are the U.S. and China at the same table, but for now they are also, quite literally, on the same page. That's real progress, and it should be a shot in the arm for all of us fighting dangerous carbon pollution."
National Oilwell Varco Withholding Key Information from Spill Commission; Senate Republicans Still Blocking Subpoena Power for Panel
December 8, 2010 - Two members of Congress today demanded that a company involved in the BP oil spill hand over key information to the independent commission studying the disaster. The company, National Oilwell Varco, has refused to turn over access to software and other information that would allow investigators on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling to recreate the computer displays engineers saw in the moments leading up to the explosion.
The letter was sent by Representatives Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and is available HERE. The letter echoes the requests from the commission for this information by the commission, which have been ignored thus far by NOV.
This refusal to provide information highlights the ongoing need to provide the independent commission with subpoena power. The House has passed legislation granting such authority, sponsored by Reps. Markey and Capps, but Republicans in the Senate have blocked the legislation from moving forward. While the commission does not currently have subpoena power, the letter made it clear that Congress does, stating: "It will be up to those who do have subpoena authority, including the Congress, to make sure the true facts of the BP spill are placed into the public domain. We remain steadfast in our determination to ensure that happens."
Rep. Markey said: "The refusal of National Oilwell Varco to cooperate with the spill commission underscores why the panel needed to have subpoena authority, as the House has already voted to grant them. The true roadblock here is the bloc of Republican Senators that has denied the commission subpoena power."
Rep. Capps said, "It's clear that National Oilwell Varco shares the same goal as Senate Republicans, protecting BP from full scrutiny of the independent commission. The House voted nearly unanimously to grant subpoena power to the commission investigating the BP oil spill, but Senate Republicans repeatedly blocked the legislation. The BP disaster took the lives of 11 workers and ruined the livelihoods of families throughout the Gulf Coast, and the Senate Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for helping the companies responsible escape a full accounting for their actions. Congress has granted subpoena power to independent commissions, including the Warren Commission and Three Mile Island Commission. The American people deserve a full accounting of this tragedy."
December 3, 2010 - Responding to new claims from BP that the government estimates of the size of the Gulf of Mexico spill are too large, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today sent a letter to the CEO of the company asking for all materials related to his company's new position.
"BP's new claim that the spill is much smaller than previously thought flies in the face of multiple lines of evidence, and raises questions whether this is a scientific finding, or a litigious position," writes Rep. Markey to Bob Dudley. Rep. Markey asks in the letter for emails, correspondence, meeting minutes or other materials related to their new position.
Rep. Markey had previously called on BP to accept the government's Flow Rate Technical Group's estimates, so the federal government could engage in the task of determining BP's final fines for the accident. The federal government engaged independent scientists and used multiple, unrelated techniques to arrive at its flow-rate estimate. Additional independent peer-reviewed studies have corroborated the conclusions.
December 1, 2010 - Today the Obama administration will announce a new offshore drilling plan for the years 2012-2017. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs key energy panels in the House of Representatives, issued the following statement:
"Following the largest oil spill in our nation's history, this plan shows the Obama administration has heeded the lessons of the BP disaster. This plan will move America forward on a prudent path until we can ensure that when an oil company drills ultra-deep, it is ultra-safe.
"Opening up wide swaths of our coasts to oil drilling before we put the proper regulatory measures in place would have been a mistake. We can't put thousands of miles of coastline at risk for another spill when the oil companies are still not prepared to respond, and all for oil that would make an economically insignificant impact a decade or more from now.
"This drilling plan is only part of a comprehensive offshore energy plan which the Obama administration is developing, including safer forms of energy like wind and wave. Instead of looking deeper and deeper for the last remaining drops of oil, we can harness the wind that whips over the waves, and the energy from the swells off our coasts. Before we are swept away by the tide of international clean energy competition, we should push the limits of clean energy innovation, not the limits of deepwater drilling."
November 29, 2010 – While politics continue to evolve here in America, the challenges presented by our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, and the increasing destabilization of the climate continue to persist. General Wesley Clark, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and an all-star panel will discuss these ongoing challenges from national, economic and planetary security perspectives.
The Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming will hold a hearing on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. in room 210 in the Cannon House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Not Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges.”
WHAT: Select Committee hearing: “Not Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges.”
WHEN: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, at 11:00 a.m.
WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Capitol Complex, Washington, D.C. This hearing will be streamed live at globalwarming.house.gov.
WITNESSES: General Wesley K. Clark, US Army (Ret.), NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the Waterkeepers Alliance Richard L. Kauffman, Chairman of the Board, Levi Strauss & Co. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute
Chairman Stressed Flow Rate Issues, Industry Preparedness During Disaster
November 22, 2010 - A new draft report by the independent commission studying the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has found that the true flow rate of the blown-out well was not fully understood before attempts were made to stop the flow of oil, and that the companies involved and the industry were not prepared for this kind of an event. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) raised both of these issues as central to the problems with the response to the spill during the disaster, and commended the commission on its continued work.
"Anyone watching this spill unfold day after day could see that the oil industry was woefully unprepared for the disaster, and inattentive to the true size and scope of the spill as it happened," said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. "Had BP not shown such aggressive indifference to the size of the disaster, and the oil industry to preparing for such an event, then perhaps early actions could have made a difference in stopping this spill."
Chairman Markey pushed at several points in the disaster for a better estimate of the flow rate of the well. When BP, Halliburton and Transocean first appeared before Congress at a closed-door meeting with Chairman Markey and his subcommittee on May 4, 2010, Chairman Markey interrogated the companies about the flow of oil from the well, discovering that the flow of oil could reach up to 60,000 barrels per day. Following that revelation, Rep. Markey pushing for better estimates of the flow of oil, including the release of video from the underwater robots monitoring the well. Rep. Markey also revealed that BP knew the flow rate could be much higher than their initial estimates of 1,000-5,000 barrels per day.
Rep. Markey also revealed the fact that BP and the other major oil companies were all unprepared for this kind of environmental disaster. At a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in June, Rep. Markey uncovered that the oil spill response plans for the oil companies were virtually identical, with emergency contact information for long-dead scientists and walruses listed as threatened animals in the Gulf of Mexico. Rep. Markey's opening statement from that hearing can be found here: http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0269
Release of New Report on BP Accident Highlights Need for Answers from Company
November 17, 2010 - In light of another report highlighting the systemic failures that led to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) are inviting new BP CEO Bob Dudley to testify before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep Waxman chairs the full committee, and Rep. Markey chairs the subcommittee.
A report released today by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council noted that the oil spill resulted from "an insufficient consideration of risk and a lack of operating discipline." Given those findings, the Chairmen believe Mr. Dudley should testify publicly about the changes BP has made to improve the safety of its operations. The Chairmen reiterated their request for Dudley's appearance most recently in a letter sent on Friday, November 12, which can be found here.
"BP's safety practices are matters of great importance to the Congress and the American public," said Chairman Waxman. "We need to ensure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety and protection of the workers and the environment."
"This is the latest in a string of independent confirmations that systemic failures within BP's drilling practices led to this disaster," said Rep. Markey. "Bob Dudley owes the American people and the Congress an update on how they will ensure this type of accident will never occur again."
Below are links to a chain of correspondence between the Energy and Commerce Committee and Mr. Dudley.
(Nov 8, 2010) - Today, Rep. Ed Markey(D-Mass) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif) urged Senate Republicans to stop blocking legislation giving subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill investigating the BP oil spill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.
At a hearing today in Washington D.C to present the preliminary findings of the commission's investigation, Fred Bartlit, lead counsel for the commission expressed his dismay that the commission has not been granted subpoena power by Congress:
"It is clear after hearing Mr. Bartlit's testimony that without subpoena power the oil spill commission is operating without all of the tools it needs to conduct a thorough investigation of BP's disaster. It's really astonishing that Senate Republicans have not allowed a bill that passed the House nearly unanimously to even come to the floor for the vote. They need to stop defending Big Oil and allow this bill to come to the floor when Congress returns to Washington next week," said Capps.
"Every day that Senate Republicans block subpoena power for the independent commission is another day BP, Halliburton and Transocean can duck and dodge the panel's hardest questions," said Rep. Markey. "The commission has already shown its value, and Senate Republicans should stop protecting the companies responsible for the spill by preventing the pursuit of the truth in this disaster," said Markey.
Background:
On June 8th, Capps introduced legislation to give the Presidential commission subpoena power (H.R. 5481). The bill passed the House of Representatives 420-1 on June 23, 2010. The language was also included in the House-passed CLEAR Act (H.R. 3534).
"Because I don't have subpoena power, I have to look you in the eye and say I'm telling you what people told me. I can't subpoena people and put them under oath. I wish I could. I think it's damned important, but it's the way it goes."
November 8, 2010 - Following the investigative hearing today by the independent oil spill commission, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement:
"When the culture of a company favors risk-taking and cutting corners above other concerns, systemic failures like this oil spill disaster result without direct decisions being made or tradeoffs being considered.
"What is fully evident, from BP's pipeline spill in Alaska and the Texas city refinery disaster, to the Deepwater Horizon well failure, is that BP has a long and sordid history of cutting costs and pushing the limits in search of higher profits."
Chairman Markey Calls for Subpoena Power for Spill Commission to Continue Important Work, Repeats Request for Bob Dudley, BP Head, to Testify
October 28, 2010 - Responding to findings from President Obama's independent commission studying the Gulf of Mexico oil spill that show both Halliburton and BP knew the cement mixture used for BP's disastrous Macondo well was unsafe, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, issued the following statement:
"The fact that BP and Halliburton knew this cement job could fail only solidifies their liability and responsibility for this disaster. This is like building a car when you know the brakes could fail, but you sell the cars anyway.
"We now know what BP and Halliburton knew, and when they knew it. And now we know they did absolutely nothing about it.
"This revelation highlights the need for the Senate to pass my legislation giving the independent spill commission full subpoena power.
"It is also unacceptable, in light of this new finding, that BP's new CEO, Bob Dudley, continues to refuse to testify before Congress. BP and Halliburton both have new questions to answer, and they should do so without any delay."
As Bob Dudley Blames Media, Everyone Else for Reaction to Spill, New BP CEO Avoids Talking to Congress, American People
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chairman Ed Markey, 202-225-4012
WASHINGTON (October 25, 2010) – In a speech today in London, BP’s new Chief Executive Officer, Bob Dudley, blamed the media, industry rivals and “a fair number of observers” for the reaction to his company’s more than 4 million barrel oil spill – the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Meanwhile, Dudley officially refused to testify before Congress in Washington, sending a letter late Friday to Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) to decline an appearance at a congressional hearing to discuss the spill. Dudley also claimed in the speech that the company’s relationship with American officials had improved.
“The American people were told that as CEO, Bob Dudley would change BP’s attitudes and practices,” said Rep. Markey, who had requested that Mr. Dudley appear before his Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Yet BP is continuing to point the finger at everyone but themselves. Since this disaster began, BP has stood for ‘Blame Passed.’
Since the last appearance by BP leadership before Congress on June 17th, BP has released findings from their own internal investigation into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, announced an overhaul of their safety practices, and installed a new CEO.
“The American people deserve answers from BP, but when it comes to appearing before Congress, one thing BP certainly does not stand for is 'Being Present,'" said Rep. Markey. “If BP is truly committed to repairing their image and standing with the American people and government officials, Mr. Dudley can start by appearing before Congress.”
Bob Dudley Asked to Congress to Answer Questions About BP's Future
October 19, 2010 - The six month anniversary of BP's is tomorrow, but the company's new CEO, Bob Dudley, still has not agreed to attend a hearing and answer questions from Congress about the spill and BP's future efforts to clean up the mess and prevent future incidents. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has sent requests to Mr. Dudley, including proposed dates.
"Six months ago, BP's Macondo well began its months-long eruption into the Gulf of Mexico. Now that Mr. Dudley has taken the reins of BP, he can at least dedicate a few hours to answering questions about his company's efforts to clean up the Gulf region and prevent future incidents," said Rep. Markey. "This is a somber anniversary, and one that should remind the American people that the work to restore the Gulf is far from over."
October 15, 2010 - Following an announcement by the Obama administration's U.S. Trade Representative that his office would launch an investigation into China's questionable trade policies in the clean energy sector, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, issued the following statement:
"It is high time that Uncle Sam stopped acting like Uncle Sucker in its dealings with trade partners like China, who have clearly been playing fast and loose in an effort to gain an unfair competitive advantage against America's companies in the global clean energy race.aEUREUR
"I am pleased that the Obama administration has moved forward to launch an investigation into China's efforts to disadvantage American solar, wind, advanced battery, and efficient vehicle technologies, even as Chinese companies are seeking to get into the American market.
"Our ability to create good jobs and economic growth in the 21st century is directly tied to theaEUREURsuccess of the clean energy technology sector, and we need trade policies and domestic national energy policies that help advance this goal."
October 12, 2010 - Following the announcement by Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar that there would be a conditional lifting of the exploratory drilling suspension in the Gulf of Mexico, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, issued the following statement. Hundreds of platforms continued to operate in the Gulf of Mexico during the temporary deepwater drilling suspension, which affected 33 deepwater drilling rigs.
"This deepwater drilling suspension was always about keeping the Gulf workers and waters safe from another oil spill, and it has been effective in doing so. The new rules that the Interior Department has issued will help ensure that if oil companies are going to drill ultra-deep, they are doing so in a manner that is ultra-safe.
"Because there was a suspension of belief on the part of the oil industry that an accident like this could ever happen, a suspension of drilling was necessary to bring those companies back to reality.
"Much more is left to be done in the wake of the BP spill. Senate Republicans continue to block subpoena power for the independent commission investigating the spill, and the Senate has still yet to take up the spill safety legislation that the House approved last summer."
October 1, 2010 - Robert Dudley will assume the role of CEO for BP today, taking over the oil company responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Chairman Edward J. Markey has sent a letter to Mr. Dudley requesting he appear before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in Congress in order to discuss the ongoing issues and challenges still facing the families living and working in the Gulf region.
"BP is responsible for the worst environmental disaster in US history; Mr. Dudley takes over the oil company at a critical point in the clean up and compensation process and the American people are interested in hearing his plan to make the region's environment and economy whole once again," said Markey. "Now that Mr. Dudley is officially the Chief Executive officer of BP PLC, the company has released its Deepwater Horizon investigation report and reorganized BP to create a new safety division, Mr. Dudley should appear before the Subcommittee to address critical matters of safety in BP operations."
Markey first requested that Dudley appear before the Subcommittee in early August 2010 and followed up with a written invitation on August 16, 2010. On September 3, Dudley indicated that prior to becoming CEO of BP he would not be able to participate in any hearings regarding the BP Deepwater Horizon accident and BP's plans for enhancing the safety of its operations.
Separately, Markey also expressed his disappointment with the Senate's denial of subpoena power to the Oil Spill Commission. The House of Representatives voted to give the panel subpoena power by a vote of 420 to 1 on June 23, 2010.
"I am deeply disturbed by reports that the Bi-partisan BP Oil Spill commission has met with resistance and stonewalling in their quest to gather information on the Deepwater Horizon disaster," said Markey. "The Republican obstructionists in the Senate who have denied subpoena power to the commission in an attempt to shielding BP will not be able to veil the truth from the American people."
October 1, 2010 - Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), chair of twin energy and climate panels in the House, today commended the Obama Administration on its issuance of a notice of intent to develop new regulations to reduce dangerous global warming pollution from the oil used by cars and light trucks.
"I commend the Obama Administration on its plans to further reduce our dependence on oil", said Rep. Markey. "As we have learned in the past six months, it is not just a dependence on foreign oil that poses risk. These new standards will be developed as a new generation of electric and other advanced technology vehicles are introduced to the American market, and I urge the Obama Administration to set aggressive standards that use realistic projections of the costs of oil and the availability of these new technologies."
Rep. Markey is co-author of the fuel economy standards that passed Congress in 2007 that were subsequently accelerated by the Obama Administration in order to reduce the need for 2 million barrels of oil per day by 2030. These regulations, which ushered in the first meaningful increase in fuel economy standards in several decades, were supported by both automakers and the environmental community. In April, Rep. Markey urged the President to embark on the next set of vehicle standards in order to build on the successful partnership between the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the State of California, and other non-governmental stakeholders. Today's announcement represents the first step in that process.
Call for Immediate Action on Legislation Giving Subpoena Power to Oil Spill Commission
WASHINGTON - Today, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif) urged Senate Republicans to stop blocking legislation giving subpoena power to the Presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. On June 8th, Markey and Capps introduced legislation to give the Presidential commission subpoena power (H.R. 5481). The bill passed the House of Representatives 420-1 on June 23, 2010. The language was also included in the House-passed CLEAR Act (H.R. 3534).
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced companion legislation (S. 3462) in the Senate. Previous attempts to bring the House-passed bill to the floor under unanimous consent were blocked by Senate Republicans.
“While the commission is getting to the bottom of how this catastrophe happened, BP and other companies involved with the spill are still giving it the runaround. Senate Republicans need to stop providing cover for Big Oil, and pass my bill giving the commission subpoena power so it can report back to the President by the January deadline with all the facts that led to this environmental and economic catastrophe. Without this critical tool – which the co-chairmen have asked for – Big Oil will keep stonewalling the investigation in the hopes they can escape being held accountable for their mistakes. The American people deserve a full accounting and that’s what the Senate Republicans obstruction is preventing. This bill passed the House almost unanimously, and Senate Republicans won’t even let it come to the floor. They should be embarrassed,” said Capps.
“By blocking the commission subpoena power, Republican obstructionists in the Senate are shielding BP from investigators tasked with getting to the bottom of this crime,” said Markey. “The BP oil spill was the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history, lives were lost and livelihoods ruined. Yet Senate Republicans have chosen to stand with BP instead of with the families living and working in the Gulf.”
A copy of the letter to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell is below:
September 29, 2010
The Honorable Harry Reid The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:
We write to ask that you bring our legislation giving subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling to the Senate floor for a vote this week. The House of Representatives approved H.R. 5481 by a vote of 420-1 in June.
As you know, previous attempts by Senator Shaheen and others to bring the House-passed bill to the Senate floor under unanimous consent were blocked by Republicans.
While the federal government has fully cooperated with the commission and its mandate, BP and other private companies involved in the spill have failed to provide accurate and timely information to investigators regarding a number of critical issues. In fact, Commission co-chairman Bob Graham told reporters yesterday investigators have “encountered resistance to full responses to their questions.” If these companies continue to stonewall the investigation, the commission will not be able to report back to the President with all the facts that led to this environmental and economic catastrophe.
We strongly agree with a statement from Commission co-chairman William Reilly, who also said yesterday, “It is unjustifiable for Congress not to give full authority for us to use all of the instruments of the investigative process to resolve this, for the one commission that is independent and has a national mandate.”
The Senate must act this week so investigators can compel testimony from reticent companies and enable the commission to complete its report on the causes of the spill by the January deadline. Without this critical tool BP and the other companies involved in the spill may escape being held accountable for their mistakes.
The people of the Gulf of Mexico and the nation deserve an explanation of all the circumstances and decisions that led up to this disaster. Only a comprehensive independent review — with subpoena power — will ensure that the necessary lessons are learned, that practices are changed, and that future disasters are averted.
Please advance the House-passed legislation as quickly as possible to guarantee the Commission has the appropriate tools and resources it needs to get the job done.
Presents Commission with Timeline Account of BP’s Misleading Flow Rate Statements
September 28, 2010 - Supporting the investigation of BP’s reporting and planned response to its flow rate estimate following the Macondo well disaster, Rep. Edward J. Markey sent a letter today to the Bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, urging them to probe BP’s attempt to cloak the true amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
As Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Markey’s investigation demonstrated that even as BP was providing low flow rate estimates, internal documents from the company revealed that they knew from the start that the flow rate could be much higher. As part of the letter, Rep. Markey released a timeline document illustrating BP’s flow rate contradictions.
“What did BP know, and when did they know it - that is what the Commission needs to be looking into,” said Rep. Markey. “Low balling the flow rate numbers was BP’s attempt to hide both the truth and their wallet from the American people.”
In the letter to the Commission, Markey writes: “I share your concern that BP’s actions may have misled both the public and those charged with responding to the spill. I also note that the true flow rate of the well will have substantial financial implications for the company.”
Under current law, BP is required to pay a fine of at least $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled - the higher figure in the case of gross negligence being found against the company. For every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel over the more than 80 days of oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be more than $3.5 billion. The total size of the spill will also determine damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
The full text of the letter is below. CLICK HERE for a signed PDF version of the letter. CLICK HERE for a PDF of documents referenced in the Flow Rate Timeline.
September 28, 2010
The Honorable Bob Graham The Honorable William K. Reilly Co-Chairs Bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling One Thomas Circle, N.W. 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Chairmen Graham and Reilly:
I write regarding the Commission’s investigation into the manner in which BP reported on and planned its response to the flow rates of oil spewing from its Macondo Well. As you both are reported to have pointed out during yesterday’s Commission hearing, these estimates were consistently low-balled by BP. The Energy and Environment Subcommittee’s investigations into this matter demonstrates that at the same time that BP was providing these low estimates, its internal documents show that they knew all along what the likely flow rate was. As you know, accurate flow-rate estimates – that turned out to bear a striking resemblance to BP’s internal estimates - were only publicly released following extensive modeling by the Federal Flow Rate Technical Group. I hope that your work will include an investigation into just what BP knew, when it knew it, and what consequences its failure to be fully forthcoming may have had.
I share your concern that BP’s actions may have misled both the public and those charged with responding to the spill. I also note that the true flow rate of the well will have substantial financial implications for the company. Under current law, BP would have to pay a fine of at least $1,100 and up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, with the higher figure in the case of gross negligence being found against the company. So for every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel over the more than 80 days of oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be more than $3.5 billion. The total size of the spill will also determine damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
As you may know, the Subcommittee conducted numerous oversight hearings, briefings and other activities related to this matter. During the course of our investigation, we obtained numerous documents and other statements from BP that demonstrate its awareness of the likely flow rate of the well, even at the same time that it was asserting much lower flow rates publicly. I enclose a timeline of the Subcommittee’s investigation, which has links to the pertinent documents.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. My staff stands ready to assist your staff in any way possible.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Chairman House Energy and Commerce Committee
The Honorable Joe Barton Ranking Member House Energy and Commerce Committee
The Honorable Fred Upton Ranking Member Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Chairman sends letter to Secretaries Chu, Gates, Locke, and Ambassador Kirk
September 27, 2010 – Access to an obscure group of elements and materials, collectively known as rare earths, has become critical to the United States’ ability to compete for technology and manufacturing jobs in the clean energy race. Following recent friction between China and Japan, and allegations of Chinese trade violations by the United Steelworkers union, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, has sent a letter to Secretary Chu, Secretary Gates, Secretary Lock, and Ambassador Kirk seeking answers regarding access to these materials and U.S. strategy going forward to ensure secure supplies.
“Most of us may have never heard of dysprosium and other rare earth elements, but our domestic high-tech industries are in for a bad case of dyspepsia if they cannot get access to them. Rare earth elements are indispensable to our military, electronic, and industrial applications, and are critical in clean energy technologies such as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, solar panels, and energy efficient lightbulbs,” said Rep. Ed Markey. “If access to rare earth elements is restricted, a level playing field will be impossible to achieve, and the United States will lose jobs to China.”
In the past 15 years, the U.S. has become completely reliant on imports of rare earth elements, and 97 percent of the 124,000 tons produced in 2009 came from China. By 2012, global demand is projected to skyrocket to 180,000 tons annually.
It has been widely reported that Chinese officials blocked shipments of rare earth elements from China to Japan in retaliation for Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain. Meanwhile, the United Steelworkers union petitioned the U.S. Trade Representative earlier this month, alleging that China has used hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and other illegal trading practices - including restrictions on exports of rare earth elements - to undermine foreign competitors and dominate the clean energy sector.
“If Japan’s release of the Chinese fisherman this week was in any way a reaction to rare earth export restrictions by China, we have a clear demonstration of the unacceptably high strategic value these rare earth materials have reached,” said Markey. “A disturbing precedent such as this should give us pause to consider what it might take for China to take similar steps against the United States and how vulnerable the U.S. economy is to disruptions in the supply of rare earth elements.”
In the letter, Rep. Markey asked for responses to the following questions:
Is the Chinese government currently, or has the Chinese government at any point since the Chinese fishing boat captain was taken into Japanese custody on September 7, restricted the shipment of rare earth elements to Japan? How were these restrictions implemented and enforced?
With so many defense applications dependent upon rare earth elements, what are the national security implications of possible Chinese restrictions of rare earth element exports? What is being done to mitigate these impacts?
How much have Chinese exports of rare earth elements to the United States changed since the Chinese government implemented export quotas and other measures restricting the flow of rare earth elements out of the country?
What has been the impact of these export quotas on the U.S. clean energy industry and other industries dependent upon these materials?
When do you anticipate China meeting its 2010 export quota of rare earth elements?
What do you anticipate the impact on the U.S. clean energy sector and other sectors dependent upon rare earth materials will be if Chinese exports are halted after that 2010 quota is met?
The Department of Energy has announced that it is developing a strategic plan concerning rare earth metals and other materials in energy components, products and processes. What is the status of this strategic plan and when will it be available for review by members of Congress and the public?
September 20, 2010 – With international tensions over clean energy trade and competition increasing, there has never been a more pivotal time to assess America’s place in the global clean energy race.
Next Wednesday, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the form and scale of investments in the clean energy sector, where these investments are occurring around the world, what is driving them, the broader economic and employment implications of these investments, and the challenges to growing an American clean energy sector.
WHEN: Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.
WHERE: 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC and on the web at globalwarming.house.gov
WHO: Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research, Deutsche Bank Michael Liebreich, Chief Executive, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Ravi Viswanathan, General Partner, New Energy Associates Tom Carbone, Chief Executive Officer, Nordic Windpower
September 18, 2010 – Following the successful completion of the cementing operation -- pending final pressure tests -- permanently sealing BP’s Macondo oil well, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement:
“This spill began with a bang, ends with a whimper, and leaves a number of issues still screaming for attention.
“While BP's ‘summer of spill’ is over, the effects of this disaster will continue to affect the Gulf of Mexico and its residents for months and years ahead. The well is dead, but we must now ensure that the lessons learned from this tragedy will not die with it.
“This may be the final nail in the coffin for BP’s well, but the investigations into this crime against the environment are continuing. Inquiries by Congress, the Obama administration’s independent panel, and others will progress until every inch of this environmental crime scene has been examined and a full autopsy has been performed on the spill’s effects.
“Several issues with this spill remain unresolved. BP and other companies involved in this disaster must be held accountable for fines and other payments for the harm caused by this spill. The long-term effects of dispersants and persisting oil still are not known, and must be monitored to protect human health and the food chain as we work to restore the economy and the environment of the Gulf Coast.
“The true tragedy of this disaster would be if we turned our backs on the Gulf region after the well has been sealed. Only when the Gulf coast is environmentally recovered and economically renewed can we say that this disaster has ended.”
Features Pakistan’s Ambassador to U.S. to Discuss Historic Floods
September 21, 2010 – From New York City to Nashville, Washington to Pakistan, 2010 has seen more than its fair share of extreme weather events. To probe the long-term trends of disruptive weather events in a world beset by climate change, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a briefing to discuss these issues.
The briefing will feature Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, who will discuss the historic floods that have displaced millions of his countrymen. The briefing will also include top climate scientists.
WHAT: Select Committee briefing, “Extreme Weather in a Warming World”
WHEN: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 11 AM
WHERE: 2237 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC
WHO: Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oppenheimer, Professor, Princeton University Thomas Peterson, Chief Scientist, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Michael Wehner, Staff Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
***Winning Vehicles to be on Display at Capitol***
September 16, 2010 - Building new high-efficiency cars that reach 100 MPG will cut America’s dependence on foreign oil and save consumers money at the pump. On Thursday, September 16, 2010, the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE will be announcing the winners of their 31 month-long competition to build a production-capable vehicle that can achieve this goal.
Following the announcement, the winners of the competition will head to Capitol Hill to brief Members of Congress on their solutions. The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a congressional briefing with the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE winners at 2:00pm on Thursday September 16th, 2010 in 210 Cannon House Office Building.
Immediately following the briefing, Members of Congress will be able to view the winning X PRIZE vehicles, which will be on display at the corner of C Street and New Jersey Ave between the Longworth and Cannon buildings.
The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational nonprofit organization whose mission is to create groundbreaking new technologies that benefit humanity and inspire the formation of new industries, jobs and the revitalization of markets.
WHAT: Select Committee Briefing, “Progressive Auto X PRIZE: How Entrepreneurs Are Driving the Future of Jobs and Energy Security”
WHEN: Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 2:00 P.M.
WHERE: 210 Cannon House Office Building, Capitol Complex
Witness List: Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO, X PRIZE Foundation Oliver Kuttner, Founder and CEO, Edison2, Team Edison2 Team Leader Ron Cerven, Project development engineer, Li-Ion Motors Corp, Team Li-Ion Team Leader Jim Lorimer, US Sales Representative, 21st Century Motoring, Team X-Tracer Team Member
***PHOTO Availability with winning X PRIZE vehicles and Members of Congress will take place immediately following the briefing***
September 8, 2010 – Following the release of an internal investigative report by BP on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill from the company’s Macondo well, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, issued the following statement:
“Just as the environmental damage did not end with the capping of BP’s well, this company-run investigation is not the end of the inquiries into the BP oil spill.
“This report is not BP’s mea culpa. Of their own eight key findings, they only explicitly take responsibility for half of one. BP is happy to slice up blame, as long as they get the smallest piece.
“BP is right that there was no one event that caused the disaster, and that blame can be shared among many parties. From the assurances given by the oil industry that this type of accident wouldn’t happen and could be contained if it did, to the overly-cozy relationships established between the oil industry and regulators, the series of events leading to this spill stretches back decades and the blame spans across the entire oil industry.
“Congress continues to investigate the disaster, as does the Obama administration and the presidential commission, and those are the investigations that will hold the most weight with the public and with those tasked with overseeing the oil industry. I look forward to seeing the final results of the multiple other investigations not funded by BP or the other companies involved in this disaster. Those are the reports that will tell the real story of this disaster, and give us the lessons we need to create laws that will prevent this type of accident from happening again.”
September 2, 2010 – Following an explosion of an offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico today, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, issued the following statement:
“This explosion highlights the significant risks associated with offshore drilling, and that much is left to be done to keep America’s workers and waters safe from those risks.
“After the 13 workers on this rig are safe and sound, we have a duty to them and all oil workers to make sure the oil industry’s drilling practices are also safe and sound.”
WASHINGTON (August 25, 2010) – BP has yet again refused to accept the most recent federal government estimate of the rate of oil that leaked from the company’s Macondo well, and therefore the total estimated size of the Gulf of Mexico spill. Responding to questions from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) on whether the company would accept the numbers reached by a scientific team dedicated to determining the size of the spill, BP told Rep. Markey in a letter that the company is “continuing to evaluate available information.”
“As if we needed it, this is a clear signal that BP intends to fight the same numbers they claim to have helped create about the size of the spill,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “I continue to urge BP to accept these numbers in order to move on to the vital task of Gulf restoration, instead of endless litigation.”
The original letter sent by Rep. Markey to BP on August 11, 2010 can be found HERE.
As Rep. Markey’s letter to BP noted, the most recent estimates from the Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) were that 53,000 barrels of oil per day spilled from BP’s well immediately preceding its closure using the capping stack. However, at the beginning of the spill, 62,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well. During the 87 days that the well flowed, approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil was released.
The FRTG estimate has a plus or minus 10 percent uncertainty range. However, these are currently the best estimates of the spill. BP also has provided information, including video and other data, that led to the creation of these new estimates, and has not publicly indicated disagreement with these estimates. In the letter, BP says that it is “cooperating with the various federal agencies looking into this important matter.”
Under current law, BP will be assessed fines for each barrel of oil spilled. These fines will range from a minimum of $1,100 per barrel to up to $4,300 per barrel. The amount of oil spilled will also be used in assessing the extent of natural resource damages. The 53,000-62,000 barrel per day figure far exceeds BP’s initial estimates of 1,000-5,000 barrels per day and much more closely resembles the potential “worst case” scenario cited by BP officials to Congress of 60,000 barrels per day in early May.
In Letter to BP, Congressman ask Oil Company to Accept 4.9 million barrel flow rate number produced by U.S. Scientific Team
August 11, 2010 – In response to silence from BP following the release of an official flow rate estimate produced by the U.S. Scientific Team’s Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is calling on the oil company to accept the 4.9 million barrel of oil number so that damage claims can move forward.
In a letter to BP’s President and CEO Lamar McKay, Rep. Markey cited BP’s participation in the Unified Command process that produced the current estimate of 53,000 barrels of oil per day leaking from BP’s well immediately preceding its closure using the capping stack. The FRTG also indicated that, at the beginning of the spill, 62,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well. Because the well flowed for 87 days, 4.9 million barrels flowed into the gulf. The FRTG estimate has a plus or minus 10 percent uncertainty range.
“BP acceptance of a flow rate number is fundamental to its claim that it “is doing everything it can to make this right” for the families and businesses of the Gulf,” said Markey. “Oil may have stopped flowing from the well, but the suffering in the region continues. Low-balling or litigating the flow rate estimate would be just one more insult to the people of the Gulf.”
To read a copy of the letter to BP from Rep Markey, please click here.
Under current law, BP will be assessed fines for each barrel of oil spilled. These fines will range from a minimum of $1100 per barrel to up to $4300 per barrel. The amount of oil spilled will also be used in assessing the extent of natural resource damages. The 53,000-62,000 barrel per day figure far exceeds BP’s initial estimates of 1000-5000 barrels per day and much more closely resembles the so called “worst case” scenario cited by BP officials of 60,000 barrels per day.
If BP is found guilty of gross negligence, the fines for the oil spill will increase. For instance, for every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel, over the more than 80 days that oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be increased by $3.5 billion. The total size of the spill will also affect the amount of damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
“BP bears the black eye of the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history,” said Markey. “It’s high time BP own up to the true size of this oil spill once and for all.”
Full text of the letter follows:
August 11, 2010
Mr. Lamar McKay President and CEO, BP America, Inc. 501 Westlake Park Boulevard Houston, Texas, 70779
Dear Mr. McKay:
On August 2, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command released updated flow rate estimates for the amount of BP oil that flowed into the Gulf of Mexico prior to the initial capping of the Deepwater Horizon well on July 15, 2010. These estimates reflect the collaborative work and discussions of the National Incident Command’s Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), led by United States Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt, and a team of Department of Energy scientists and engineers, led by Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu.
According to the FRTG estimate, 53,000 barrels of oil per day were leaking from BP’s well immediately preceding its closure using the capping stack. However, at the beginning of the spill, 62,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well. Because the well flowed for 87 days, approximately 4.9 million barrels flowed into the gulf. The FRTG estimate has a plus or minus 10 percent uncertainty range.
As you know, BP is a participant in the Unified Command and assisted in the preparation of these estimates. BP has not publicly indicated disagreement with these estimates.
Under current law, BP will be assessed fines for each barrel of oil spilled. These fines will range from a minimum of $1100 per barrel to up to $4300 per barrel. The amount of oil spilled will also be used in assessing the extent of natural resource damages. The 53,000-62,000 barrel per day figure far exceeds BP’s initial estimates of 1,000-5,000 barrels per day and much more closely resembles the so called “worst case” scenario cited by BP officials of 60,000 barrels per day.
I am writing to ask whether BP will accept this more definitive FRTG estimate as the basis for its per barrel spill liability and for other legal purposes, including the assessment of natural resources damages, as well. As is evident, each per day change in the flow rate, when compiled over the 87 day life of the spill, may be worth billions of dollars to BP if in fact it is found guilty of gross negligence with regard to this spill. For instance, for every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel, over the more than 80 days that oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be increased by $3.5 billion. The total size of the spill will also affect the amount of damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
“BP is doing everything we can to make this right. We continue to work to stop the flow of oil, clean up the environmental damage, and help make sure that people are compensated for their losses.”
A similar message has been conveyed through BP’s extensive advertising campaign relating to its Gulf spill response activities. In light of BP’s stated commitment to “make this right,” the American public deserves to know whether BP plans on accepting the federal government’s official flow-rate estimate for liability purposes or whether it plans on litigating this number and low-balling the amount of oil that actually flowed into the gulf. Accordingly it is incumbent upon BP to stipulate that it will accept the FRTG’s latest flow rate estimates when the government seeks to collect its fine and assess other damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well blowout. We know that this has been the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history and it is high time for BP to legally “own up” to that fact as well.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact mine.
Sincerely, Edward J. Markey Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Cc: Honorable Henry Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member Honorable Fred Upton, Ranking Member Dr. Marcia McNutt, United States Geological Survey and Chair, Flow Rate Technical Committee
Select Committee to Examine Dramatic Sea Ice Event with Scientists and Experts
**VISUALS including Greenland satellite images and other recent data will be on display
August 9, 2010 – Last week an ice sheet covering 100 square miles broke off Greenland. This dramatic sea ice event follows the warmest six months on record and is the largest piece of Arctic ice to break free since 1962.
On Tuesday, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a briefing with scientists and experts who study the Arctic region to discuss this event and its relationship to climate change. The briefing, “The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming’s Impacts on the Arctic Region,” will be held on Tuesday, August 10th, at 9:30 A.M. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
WHAT: Select Committee Briefing, “The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming’s Impacts on the Arctic Region”
WHEN: Tuesday, August 10th, at 9:30 A.M.
WHERE: Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Capitol Complex.
WHO: Dr. Richard B. Alley, Professor of Geosciences, and Earth and Environmental Systems, The Pennsylvania State University Dr. Robert Bindschadler, Senior Research Scientist at University of Maryland Baltimore County, who has 30 years of service with NASA Dr. Andreas Muenchow, Professor of Physical Ocean Science and Engineering, University of Delaware
August 7, 2010 – An ice sheet covering 100 square miles has broken off Greenland. This giant ice island is more than four times the size of New York’s Manhattan Island and comes following the warmest six months on record. Today, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, released the following statement:
“An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country.
“So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate.
“Last summer, the House passed landmark legislation to create clean energy jobs that cut carbon pollution. However, it’s still unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the US Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage.”
Lawmakers urge FTC, GSA and other law enforcement to aggressively investigate and monitor sale and use of contaminated trailers
August 6, 2010 – Today Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La), released a letter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) indicating that resellers of the former FEMA trailers that were contaminated with the carcinogen formaldehyde may be subject to criminal penalties for failing to disclose the health risk to purchasers and by implying that the structures were appropriate to be used for housing.
According to the FTC, while civil penalties could not be levied, the Commission could take a variety of enforcement actions including equitable monetary relief, cease and desist orders, bans and disclosure remedies. However, in light of the nature of the violation and the obligations imposed on purchasers of the FEMA trailers at the time of their sale, the FTC said “criminal action would likely yield the strongest remedy for consumers” who have been victimized by the deceptive sale practices.
“Like a zombie from a bad horror film, FEMA’s toxic trailers just keep coming back to haunt the people of the Gulf coast,” said Markey. “We need to ensure that the appropriate law enforcement agencies are thoroughly and vigilantly looking into these sales so that no one is unwittingly and needlessly exposed to the formaldehyde in these trailers again.”
“The fumes from toxic FEMA trailers cause serious respiratory illnesses, especially for children and seniors, and no one should be living in them,” said Rep. Melancon. “Federal and local law enforcement must actively investigate any reports of trailers being sold for housing, to protect Louisiana families from breathing hazardous chemicals while they sleep.”
The FTC letter was in response to an inquiry from Reps. Markey and Melancon who have also questioned the General Services Administration (GSA) on their oversight of the resale of these trailers, the response from GSA has not been received. According to several cases now being investigated by the Inspector General’s office at GSA, companies that bought the trailers directly through GSA auction may have removed warning labels or otherwise not informed buyers that the trailers are not intended to be repurposed as homes. As a result several reports have indicated that these tainted trailers are being used to house some workers cleaning up oil from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Questions remain on long-term effects on food chain and marine life
August 5, 2010 – Today Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, released a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that the agency determined that chemical dispersants used to combat the Deepwater Horizon oil spill have a low potential for bioaccumulation in seafood species and do not pose a significant public health risk through human consumption. Rep. Markey is still awaiting an FDA analysis responding to his inquiry regarding reports of arsenic and other toxic byproducts of the BP oil spill that may pose a greater risk of bioaccumulating in seafood meant for human consumption.
“This bit of good news is a great first step in restoring public confidence in the safety of seafood from the Gulf region,” said Rep. Markey. “However, many significant questions still remain on the long-term consequences that these dispersant chemicals will have on the marine food chain. Now that the oil has stopped flowing vigilance in monitoring must continue to ensure that tainted seafood never makes it to the dinner table.”
Long concerned about health and environmental issues relating to the dispersants, Rep. Markey has written to the EPA, FDA and the Coast Guard questioning the use of unprecedented volumes of dispersants in the Gulf, as the chemicals had not undergone a thorough review of their toxicity or effects. After receipt of one of Markey’s first letters written on May 17th the EPA along with the Coast Guard directed BP to eliminate surface application of the chemicals except in “rare cases” for which exemptions had to be requested. Data released by Rep. Markey’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff just last week indicated that these “rare cases” occurred on a daily basis since the directive was issued.
On several occasions EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has also raised serious concerns about the unknown effects of dispersants, characterizing them as an “environmental tradeoff.” The most recent data released by EPA earlier this week indicates that while the chemicals do not appear to be acutely toxic, the long term effects these chemicals will have on the Gulf of Mexico are still unknown.
Just yesterday NOAA and the Department of the Interior jointly released a report indicating that only 8% of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico was chemically dispersed. This data suggests that dispersants were highly ineffective, since every gallon of dispersant used only dispersed just over 9 gallons of oil. By contrast, the report said that 16% of the oil was naturally dispersed without the use of these chemicals.
“I remain concerned about the long-term consequences that these dispersants mixed with oil and other toxic materials will have on our waters and on our health.” said Rep. Markey. “Continued safety and oversight of the seafood in the Gulf will protect families while helping the regions fishing and tourism industries recover.”
August 4, 2010 - Today the National Incident Command released an interagency report estimating the amount and fate of the oil spilled out of BP's Deepwater Horizon leak.
In response, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of twin climate and energy panels in the House of Representatives, released the following statement:
“I applaud the efforts by federal, state and local governments who have worked with local fisherman and workers in the Gulf on an unprecedented response effort to capture, burn and skim oil following BP’s horrific oil spill. However, at least 50% of the oil from what is now the largest oil spill in history remains in the environment in some form. That is the equivalent of nine Exxon Valdez-sized spills and does not account for the methane that has also been released from this well.
“Families working in the Gulf’s imperiled fishing and tourism industry deserve nothing less than a 100% effort to ensure that both the environment and the economy fully recover from the damage caused by BP’s oil spill.
“We still have an environmental crime scene in the Gulf of Mexico, and all Americans, especially Gulf Coast residents, fully expect investigators to continue monitoring health and safety hazards in the months and years ahead so the region can fully recover.”
August 4, 2010 - In response to reports today that the static kill operation on BP’s Macondo well was successful, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass), Chairman of twin climate and energy panels in the House of Representatives, released the following statement:
“I am pleased to hear that the static kill operation appears successful, but we’ve always known the final dance with BP’s calamitous well is a two step.
“Cementing this well permanently shut through the relief well must be the bottom line at the bottom of the ocean. I am pleased Admiral Thad Allan and Incident Command agree and continue to hold BP’s feet to the fire on this crucial step.
“Now BP must finish the job. They may consider this a ‘milestone,’ but families in the Gulf want BP to leave no stone unturned in their efforts to kill this well once and for all.”
Documents released by Rep. Markey last week also show identical BP assumption made in early July
August 2, 2010 – Today the U.S. Scientific Team charged with determining the flow rate of oil gushing into the ocean from BP’s Deepwater Horizon well reported an updated estimate of the size of the spill. They narrowed the previous estimate of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day to 53,000 barrels per day and calculated that the flow rate was as high as 62,000 barrels per day when the spill first began. The scientific team approximates that 4.9 million barrels of oil have been released from the well.
On April 28, BP officials had moved their public flow rate estimate from 1,000 barrels a day to 5,000. During a May 4th briefing to Members of Congress on the spill held by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), BP officials stated that a maximum estimated flow would be 60,000 barrels a day, with a mid-range estimate of 40,000 barrels a day in response to a question from Rep. Markey about the size of the worst-case flow rate.
“Today we learned that BP’s initial worst case scenario has been the reality since day one of this disaster,” said Rep. Markey, Chairman of Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. “Had BP owned up to the size and magnitude of this oil spill from the very beginning, the government and families in the Gulf would have been better prepared to respond to this tragedy.”
Since May, Chairman Markey has been pressuring BP to allow outside experts and scientists access to information on the size of the oil spill. Markey called for the release of high definition undersea video footage, which helped determine the size of the spill, and ensured it was made available to the public.
“It took over 100 days and the pressure of flow rate calculations by independent scientists using high-definition undersea video to tell the world what BP most likely suspected from the start,” said Markey.
Additionally, last week Rep. Markey released documents indicating that BP assumed a flow rate of 53,000 barrels per day as early as July 6 when calculating how much dispersant to apply.
The flow rate of the well will have substantial financial implications for the company. Under current law, BP would have to pay a fine of at least $1,100 and up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, with the higher figure in the case of gross negligence being found against the company. So for every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel over the more than 80 days of oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be more than $3.5 billion. The total size of the spill will also determine damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
“There is no joy in learning the true size of this horrific spill, but I hope that it will be a number that helps make families living and working in the Gulf coast whole once again,” said Markey.
Coast Guard Rubber-Stamped Applications as BP Provided Vastly Different Numbers to Congress, Executive Branch
July 31, 2010 – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, today released a letter sent to National Incident Commander Thad Allen and documents revealing that the U.S. Coast Guard, tasked with limiting BP’s use of toxic dispersants during the Gulf oil spill disaster, repeatedly allowed the oil company to use excessive amounts of the chemical on the surface of the ocean.
These exemptions were granted on a daily basis despite a prior federal directive that the company cease that tactic to combat the spill except in “rare” circumstances. The exemptions were also extended to Houma Unified Command, an oil spill response center in Houma, La., which consists of U.S. Coast Guard and other personnel and reports to the Federal On Scene Coordinator.
In many cases, these applications appeared to be rubber stamped by the Coast Guard, including pre-approvals for weeks’ worth of unlimited use, as well as retroactive approvals for surface applications of dispersants for which BP failed to obtain prior permission. These actions by the Coast Guard appear to have largely undercut a directive it co-signed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that said that dispersant chemicals be used on the ocean’s surface only in “rare cases,” and only with advance approval.
Rep. Markey's letter, based on an analysis conducted by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff, further showed that by comparing the amounts BP reported using to Congress to the amounts contained in the company’s requests for exemptions from the ban on surface dispersants it submitted to the Coast Guard, that BP often exceeded its own requests, with little indication that it informed the Coast Guard or that the Coast Guard attempted to verify whether BP was shooting past the approved volumes.
“BP carpet bombed the ocean with these chemicals, and the Coast Guard allowed them to do it,” said Rep. Markey. Rep. Markey has authored numerous oversight letters to EPA, the Coast Guard and the FDA related to dispersant use, and has additionally introduced H.R. 5608, legislation that would require more extensive testing of these chemicals before they are used. “After we discovered how toxic these chemicals really are, they had no business being spread across the Gulf in this manner.”
On May 17, Rep. Markey wrote to the EPA raising concerns about the use of unprecedented volumes of dispersants in the Gulf, as the chemicals had not undergone a thorough review of their toxicity or effects. Following a rapid analysis by the EPA, on May 26 the agency, along with the Coast Guard, directed BP to completely eliminate surface application of the chemicals except in “rare cases” for which exemptions had to be requested.
Yet following that directive, Rep. Markey’s analysis shows that more than 74 daily exemption requests were sent to the Coast Guard by BP and Houma Unified Command, and all of them were approved by the Coast Guard, usually within the same day, and despite concerns raised by EPA that the exemptions were being approved on a pro forma rather than rare basis, and that these approvals were occurring without the specific data and justification required.
The analysis also found that the amounts of surface dispersants used that were reported by BP to Congress and the amounts reported to have been used that were contained in BP’s requests for approval by the Coast Guard also vary widely, bringing into question whether BP was being truthful about the total amount used, and whether the Coast Guard was conducting rigorous monitoring and oversight over the company’s use of the chemical.
For example, in one approval request, one of BP’s top executives, Doug Suttles, claimed that the maximum daily application of dispersants on the surface in the days preceding June 16, 2010 was 3,360 gallons on June 12. However, an examination of the dispersant totals BP provided to congressional staff in its daily “Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response Updates” indicates that on June 11, BP said it applied 14,305 gallons of the chemical on the surface; on June 13, 36,000 gallons; and on June 14, 10,706 gallons.
According to publicly disclosed amounts on DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com, more than 1.8 million gallons of toxic dispersants were used to break up the oil as it came out of the well, as well as after it reached the ocean surface. The validity of those numbers are now in question.
“Either BP was lying to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how much dispersants they were shooting onto the ocean,” said Rep. Markey. “These huge discrepancies also raise the question of whether the Coast Guard made sufficient efforts to verify the information BP provided in support of its requests, and whether it exercised appropriate oversight surrounding the use of these toxic chemicals.”
MARKEY: Oil Spill Bill Boosts Safety, Reduces Deficit
House Passes Markey Safety, Whistleblower and Royalty Recovery Legislation -Recovering up to $53 Billion from Oil Companies
July 30, 2010 – Today, by a vote of 209 to 193, the House of Representatives passed critical oil spill legislation that will protect families living and working in the Gulf Coast. The CLEAR ACT (H.R. 3534) implements policy measures co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), including strong new safety measures for oil drilling, and royalty recovery legislation that will cut the deficit by up to $53 billion. The House also passed the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (H.R. 5851) co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) by a vote of 315 to 93.
“This bill will cut the deficit and stop oil companies from cutting corners on safety,” said Rep. Markey. “Families and businesses in the Gulf who have been suffering for over 100 days from BP’s oil spill disaster can take some comfort tonight knowing Congress has acted to protect them from future oil spills.”
The explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon took the lives of 11 workers and caused the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history. The oil spill has sidelined thousands of workers in the fishing industry and crippled tourism across the region.
“Congress has conducted an extensive investigation into this disaster, and the CLEAR Act corrects the fatal safety flaws that oil companies have allowed to occur,” said Markey. “My whistleblower legislation will give voice to workers who have the courage to stand against oil companies when they observe a dangerous situation.”
The legislation includes several key provisions authored by Rep. Markey, including:
Oil Revenue Recovery & Deficit Reduction:
The CLEAR ACT includes legislation authored by Chairman Markey to close royalty loopholes that have historically allowed oil companies to drill for free on public lands in the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation will recover up to $53 billion in lost tax revenue that will be directed toward reducing our national deficit.
Whistleblower Protection:
The Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (H.R. 5851) which Chairman Markey co-authored with Rep. George Miller (D-CA). Currently there is no federal law protecting oil and gas workers if they are retaliated against after speaking out on workplace health and safety violations on drilling rigs like the Deepwater Horizon. H.R. 5851 is modeled after other modern whistleblower statutes. For more information on the legislation, please CLICK HERE.
Blowout Preventer Act:
The CLEAR ACT includes legislation to ensure new safety standards for offshore oil and gas drilling. The Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a vigorous investigation into the causes of the BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. This investigation showed that the blowout preventer was riddled with problems, including a significant leak in a main hydraulic system that was improperly modified and not powerful enough to cut through joints in the drill pipe. Plus the “deadman switch” - the last line of defense - had a dead battery. Poor cementing and fatal decisions made by BP in the hours and minutes before the explosion have also been uncovered by the committee.
The Blowout Prevention Act – or BP Act – of 2010, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, Bart Stupak, and Markey was developed with bipartisan support in the Energy and Commerce Committee, passing by a unanimous 48-0 vote.
Other provisions co-authored by Markey on whistleblower protections, blowout preventer and well standards also included
July 28, 2010 – As the nation marks the 100th day of the BP oil spill, which has created the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history, Congress is moving legislation this week to address the safety concerns resulting from the disaster. Several pieces of reform legislation authored or co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) have now been included in the House oil spill response legislation scheduled for floor consideration later this week.
And in an analysis released yesterday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found the House oil spill package, H.R. 3534, would reduce the federal deficit.
“This legislation will cut the federal deficit while preventing the oil industry from cutting corners when it comes to deepwater drilling safety,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass). “This legislation presents an easy choice between standing with BP and the other oil companies, or standing with American taxpayers and reducing our deficit.”
Rep. Markey was able to include the following key provisions in the House oil spill response legislation:
Oil Revenue Recovery & Deficit Reduction
Rep. Markey’s ‘Oil Revenue Recovery’ legislation ends the practice of drilling for free by oil companies, recovering up to of $53 billion in taxpayer money from lost oil royalties in the Gulf of Mexico. This money will be directed to pay for deficit reduction.
This legislation fixes a 15-year-old legislative flaw put in place by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1995. Because of an oil company court challenge to the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act authored by the then-Republican majority along with faulty leases offered by the Interior Department in 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department is currently being forced to refund more than $2.1 billion in royalty payments that oil companies had already made from these leases, including $240 million to BP.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that taxpayers could lose up to an additional $53 billion over the next 25 years as a result of royalty-free drilling when oil prices are high.
Rep. Markey has authored similar legislation to remedy this problem for several years, and these provisions have repeatedly passed the House of Representatives in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with bipartisan support.
Two weeks ago, Rep. Markey successfully offered his language as an amendment to the CLEAR ACT in the Natural Resources Committee. The legislation would offer the dozens of oil companies currently drilling for free in the Gulf of Mexico a simple choice – they can continue to drill for free on public lands no matter how high oil prices climb, but if they do so, they will not be able to purchase new leases from the federal government.
Whistleblower Protection:
Rep. Markey is a co-author of the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act (HR 5851) along with Rep. George Miller (D-CA). Currently there is no federal law protecting oil and gas workers if they are retaliated against after speaking out on workplace health and safety violations on drilling rigs, like the Deepwater Horizon, operating on the Outer Continental Shelf. Modeled after other modern whistleblower statutes, H.R. 5851 would:
Prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee who reports to the employer, or government official they believed violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA);
Protect employees who report injuries or unsafe conditions on drilling rigs, refuse to work based on injury or impairment or a spill, or refuse to perform work in a manner that they believe violates the OCSLA;
Establish a process for an employee to appeal an employer’s retaliation by filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, and allowing a jury trial if the Secretary fails to act in a timely manner;
Make whistle blowers eligible for reinstatement, back pay and compensatory and consequential damages, and, where appropriate, exemplary damages;
Require employers to post a notice that explains employee rights and remedies under this Act and provide training to the employees of these rights.
Blowout Preventer Act:
The Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a vigorous investigation into the causes of the BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster. This investigation showed that the blowout preventer was riddled with problems, including a significant leak in a main hydraulic system that was improperly modified and not powerful enough to cut through joints in the drill pipe. Plus the “deadman switch” - the last line of defense - had a dead battery. Poor cementing and fatal decisions made by BP in the hours and minutes before the explosion have also been uncovered by the committee.
Legislation to ensure new safety standards for offshore oil and gas drilling have been designed to ensure a disaster like the BP Macondo well blowout will never happen again.
The Blowout Prevention Act – or BP Act – of 2010, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman, Bart Stupak, and Markey was developed with bipartisan support in the Energy and Commerce Committee, passing by a unanimous 48-0 vote, and includes the following provisions:
Strong safety requirements for blowout preventers and other well control systems;
Require oil company CEOs to certify the safety of each offshore well before drilling begins;
Third party certification required by independent safety evaluator;
Offshore oil and gas drilling in state waters must meet safety standards that are at least as stringent as those applicable to wells in federal waters.
Could Better Determine BP’s Liability from Disaster
(July 27, 2010) – Buried in documents sent by BP to the Coast Guard is a pivotal number that sheds light on central questions relating to BP’s oil spill – BP’s assumption of the true flow rate of the oil from the Macondo well. In the documents, released today by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), BP makes a request to apply more dispersants, and says they “assume flow rate of 53,000” barrels of oil spilled per day. This is BP’s first admission of its kind that the spill could be so large, and falls on the upper end of the current range given by government scientists.
“These are pivotal documents, where the company admits in writing the true magnitude of this spill could be at least 53,000 barrels a day,” said Rep. Markey, who received the documents as part of his investigation into the disaster. “This is a far cry from the 1,000 barrels a day BP first claimed was the total rate of the spill, and is important evidence in the government’s case to hold BP financially accountable for their disaster.”
The documents can be found HERE and are also now publicly available at restorethegulf.com following their release to Rep. Markey. The dispersant requests were sent to the Coast Guard by Doug Suttles, BP’s Chief Operating Officer. Suttles has previously discussed the potential to collect 53,000 barrels a day during the previous containment cap operation, but this document shows the same number was used to calculate the proper ratio of dispersants the company would use.
The documents are dated July 6 and 11, 2010, when the previous, ill-fitting temporary cap was on the well. BP notes in one document that they would “calculate oil escaping by subtracting oil captured by containment system from 53,000 [barrels a day],” a further admission that they used the figure to calculate oil escaping from the well.
The flow rate of the well would have substantial financial implications for the company, which is reporting its quarterly earnings today. Under current law, BP would have to pay a fine of at least $1,100 and up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, with the higher figure in the case of gross negligence being found against the company. So for every 10,000 barrels of oil spilled per day at $4,300 per barrel over the more than 80 days of oil spilled into the ocean, the fine would be more than $3.5 billion.
The total size of the spill will also determine damages BP would have to pay for the spill’s effect on natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
The current estimate from the Flow Rate Technical Group, the government and independent scientists who have worked with video, pressure and other data to estimate the flow of oil from BP’s well, falls between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels of oil spilled per day. More precise numbers are expected soon resulting from additional data collected by Department of Energy scientists as the well was being shut in with the new cap.
“In the case of BP’s financial liability and the flow rate of this spill, ambiguity is BP’s ally, and precision is the government’s,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “This document turns the tables on BP by exposing their own assumptions about the size of the spill.”
During the BP oil spill, Rep. Markey has pushed BP to provide better access to video and the spill site for independent scientists looking to measure the spill. Rep. Markey successfully pushed to make the Spillcam public, release high definition video, and held the first hearing on measuring the flow rate of the spill on May 19, 2010.
July 26, 2010 – In light of reports that Tony Hayward will leave as CEO of BP, and will receive a multi-million dollar severance package, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today demanded that BP not provide a golden parachute to Mr. Hayward until it had paid all of the costs resulting from the company’s spill.
“At a time when BP should be devoting every possible resource to ending the spill, cleaning up the Gulf and fully compensating the residents who have had their livelihoods impacted, I find it extremely troubling that BP’s board would consider providing such a large severance package to Mr. Hayward,” writes Rep. Markey to Carl-Henric Svanberg, Chairman of BP. “BP should be dedicating its resources to compensating the residents of the Gulf Coast who are the victims of this tragedy, not handing out multi-million dollar golden parachutes.”
BP has not yet fully funded the $20 billion escrow account set up to compensate Gulf of Mexico victims from the spill, and reports have indicated that BP has been slow in paying out claims.
July 25, 2010 - Following reports of BP CEO Tony Hayward's ouster as head of the company, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) issued the following statement:
“While it's now happy sailing for Tony Hayward, rough conditions will persist in the Gulf of Mexico for years to come because of his failed leadership.
“The new leaders of BP will have an uphill climb to correct the legacy left by Hayward, indelibly inked by the disaster in the Gulf.
“On Friday, I received yet another reminder of Hayward's aloof, uninformed leadership, when his own company corrected his Congressional testimony -- saying that, contrary to Hayward's assertion to Congress, the drilling mud used by the company during the failed top kill procedure contained toxic material.
“The only way BP can be considered anew is if its leadership team does everything it can to renew the Gulf and bring about a new era of safe oil exploration, governed by transparency and accountability.”
BP Provides Other Toxics Totals; Will Same Mud Formulation Be Used in “Bullhead Kill” and Future Oil Company Operations?
July 25, 2010 – Responding to questions from Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.) after BP CEO Tony Hayward’s congressional testimony in June, BP has now admitted that Hayward was wrong when he claimed that the drilling mud used by BP had no toxicity.
Tens of thousands of barrels of the drilling mud were used during the failed attempt to kill the well in late May, most of which likely escaped back into the ocean. During Hayward’s testimony on June 17, 2010 before the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Markey pushed the BP executive to disclose the ingredients of the drilling mud, which Rep. Markey noted had some of the same dangerous chemicals as antifreeze.
In response, Hayward said, “I believe all of the mud that had gone into the ocean is water-based mud with no toxicity whatsoever.” The full transcript of the hearing is available HERE (the specific exchange on this question can be found on pages 110-111)
However, in one answer delivered to Reps. Markey and Capps by BP late Friday, the company notes that Hayward erred in his testimony, and that the mud does contain ethylene glycol (a highly toxic chemical used in anti-freeze), as well as caustic soda (a highly corrosive chemical commonly known as lye).
The question remains whether the same formulation of mud will be used in the possible “bullhead kill” as well as during the relief well operations. If these operations go as planned, little or no drilling mud should escape into the ocean. However, the two Representatives wondered whether drilling mud containing toxic chemicals is used in a widespread manner by the oil and gas industry.
“Tens of thousands of barrels of toxic drilling mud were shot into the ocean during BP’s failed top kill attempt,” said Rep. Markey. “Do all drilling activities involve the use of highly toxic formulations? If so, how many tens of thousands of barrels more may have been sent into our waters or onshore wells in even the most standard of operations?”
“Time and time again, BP has failed to disclose critical data and information that is essential to our ability to track the long term effects of this spill. The bill I introduced with Mr. Markey to give subpoena power to the independent commission investigating the spill passed the House nearly unanimously but continues to languish in the Senate. This is yet another reason for Senate Republicans to grant the commission this critical tool,” said Rep. Capps.
Along with the response on toxic drilling mud (question 3), the response from BP includes information about the volumes of methanol (a highly toxic chemical) used in well operations, and answers to questions on methane and air quality measurements and worker chemical exposures, among other issues.
Original BP Gulf Response Plan Didn’t Mention Hurricanes, Tropical Storms
July 22, 2010 – As a tropical storm threatens to significantly interrupt operations at the BP spill site, perhaps delaying final resolution of the spill by two weeks, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today released information provided to him by BP on their recently-updated storm response plans. Rep. Markey asked for the information following his discovery that BP’s original Gulf of Mexico spill response plan did not mention the words “hurricane” or “tropical storm.” Yet in the response to Rep. Markey, BP insists it “always had a hurricane plan in place.”
“While BP asserts that they were prepared for this kind of weather event, it was only recently that they applied a plan to catastrophic spills,” said Rep. Markey. “It’s this same ad hoc attitude that has persisted throughout BP’s oil spill disaster.”
BP’s response to Rep. Markey, which can be found HERE, follows a letter of inquiry sent by Rep. Markey on June 30, 2010. That original letter, including information on BP’s lack of severe storm mentions in their original Gulf plan, can be found HERE.
These answers on BP’s severe storm contingency plan follow yesterday’s announcement by the other four major oil companies to assemble a rapid-response system to deal with catastrophic spills.
Companies Must Also Invest in Prevention, Response, and Cleanup Technologies, Says Chairman
July 21, 2010 – After a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigation exposed the inadequacy of the major oil companies’ Gulf of Mexico oil spill response plans, four of the top five oil companies today announced they would create a new containment system for future blowouts. The previous plans from the four companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips—were written by the same subcontractor, were 90 percent identical, and included phone numbers for long-deceased experts and mentioned the need to evacuate walruses from the Gulf of Mexico.
At a hearing before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the heads of the four companies, and BP, admitted the response plans were an “embarrassment.” Following that hearing, Reps. Markey, Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote to the companies demanding that they produce new, effective response plans for a spill. That letter can be found HERE.
“This is only one possible tool in what must be a more robust tool kit for oil companies to respond to spills,” said Rep. Markey. “This could be a positive step, but it cannot be the industry’s last.”
“While this proposal’s response time could be quicker than this spill, the proposal these companies are submitting is essentially the current BP cap system and plan for 100 percent collection of oil,” continued Rep. Markey. “This current, ad hoc system erected by BP cannot and should not be the final proposal by these companies. While this could be a rapidly-deployed system, the oil companies must do better than BP’s current apparatus with a fresh coat of paint. The oil companies must also invest more in technologies that will prevent fatal blowouts in the first place.”
The House today passed two bills that would push for better oil spill response and safety technologies. The first – H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization – will strengthen research, development, and demonstration of innovative tools, methods, and technologies for oil spill cleanup. The second – H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Program – will launch a new R&D effort in new technologies to make deepwater drilling safer and prevent future oil spill disasters.
Pressure Readings, Well Integrity Still Worrisome Says Chairman; Sends Letter to BP, Thad Allen
July 20, 2010 – With the possibility of a new well-killing strategy put on the table by BP, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today asked BP and Admiral Thad Allen about the risks of the procedure, and whether it has been authorized yet by Unified Command. In the letter, Rep. Markey notes that questions remain about the integrity of the well, leaks from the cap, and low pressure readings during the current cap test.
“We all want a quick resolution to this disaster, but we must be assured that proposed solutions will not make the disaster any worse,” writes Rep. Markey in the letter. Rep. Markey is chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “It is critical that we understand the implications of a bullhead kill attempt under the various scenarios that may be operating in the well.”
Rep. Markey notes that the same lower-than-expected pressures exerted by the oil and gas during this current testing phase that have provided the potential opportunity for this new well-killing strategy “is also at the center of an ongoing scientific assessment regarding well integrity.”
Rep. Markey also continued his calls for a better measurement of the flow rate from the well, if the opportunity presents itself, through a 100 percent collection method with ships at the surface. In the letter, Rep. Markey asks if this “bullhead kill” would kill off any chance at performing this test.
Rep. Markey asked Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior Department, about the “bullhead kill” today at a hearing Rep. Markey chaired. Sec. Salazar stated that there were concerns that would have to be addressed before the procedure was given the green light by the Obama administration.
If the well integrity has been compromised, what are the potential implications of attempting a bullhead kill procedure?
What additional risks are undertaken with the bullhead kill compared to the alternatives (i.e., a return to containment using production platforms at the sea surface or a continuation of the integrity test conditions)?
Under what conditions (e.g., pressure threshold) would the choke and kill lines used in the bullhead kill be at risk of damage?
Could forcing the hydrocarbons back into the reservoir through the bullhead kill procedure cause damage that could make the bottom kill more challenging or exacerbate any seeps that may be present?
If hydrocarbons are flowing in the annulus, will this decrease the chances of the success of the bullhead kill?
Would a bullhead kill attempt slow progress on the bottom kill in preparation? Under what conditions and on what timeline will a bullhead kill be authorized by Unified Command and pursued by BP? Once initiated, how long is the bullhead kill anticipated to take?
Would the bullhead kill also kill off any chance of conducting a 100 percent collection strategy?
July 18, 2010 -Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today sent a letter to Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad W. Allen seeking more information on the testing of the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo well and on the status of any potential decision to keep the well closed permanently. Rep. Markey noted that the shutting of the well would potentially end the possibility of doing any final analysis of the flow rate of the well by collecting 100 percent of the oil into ships on the surface. BP will have to pay a fine to the U.S. government for every barrel of oil spilled per day, up to $4,300 per barrel in the case of gross negligence.
Today, BP’s chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said: "We're not seeing any problems, at this point, any issues with the shut-in," and that because of that, Suttles said, "we'll continue to leave the well shut in." Rep. Markey wrote to Allen to seek clarification regarding this situation after Allen said yesterday, that once the test is complete, "we will immediately return to containment."
"By shutting in this well, we could be shutting off our last best chance to determine what BP could pay in government fines," said Rep. Markey.
"If it is necessary to again allow the well to flow, either because a decision to keep it shut in indefinitely is unsound, or in order to conduct the relief well ‘bottom kill’ then there would be no reason at that point for not taking the opportunity to conduct a 100 percent hydrocarbon collection test," writes Rep. Markey to Admiral Allen.
"It is imperative that we understand your current plans and be able to assess the ramifications of different options at this point," Rep. Markey wrote to Allen. " I am also concerned, as I know you are, that continuing to keep the well fully shut in, could pose risks of additional problems with well integrity, an issue that I have raised with both you and BP in separate letters over the past few weeks."
On Wednesday, Rep. Markey, the chairman the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, wrote to BP asking them for their commitment to conduct a full flow rate test, once an oil collection system was in place that could collect 100 percent of the hydrocarbons flowing from the well.
"If the well remains fully shut in until the relief well is completed, we may never have a fully accurate determination of the flow rate from this well. If so, BP -- which has consistently underestimated the flow rate -- might evade billions of dollars of fines," continues Rep. Markey in the letter.
In the letter, Rep. Markey asked Admiral Allen to respond to the following questions:
Has a decision been made to continue to shut in the well after the integrity test is complete? If so, did you make that decision or concur in it? Do the pressure readings to date indicate that this is the preferred approach?
If a decision is not made to shut in the well, and a collection strategy is put in place, when will sufficient capacity and capability be available to collect 100 percent of the oil and methane?
If a 100 percent hydrocarbon collection capacity is installed, will a 100 percent flow rate test be conducted at the earliest possible point in order to determine the true flow rate from this well as of July, 2010? If not, how will you be able to determine with any precision the actual amount of oil that has been released from the well, so that the government can determine BP’s potential legal liability for the environmental damage it has caused?
How will different collection and containment strategies affect the release of oil and methane into the ocean? Will installation of collection capacity necessarily require some release of oil and methane into the ocean, as Mr Suttles indicated? If so, how much? Will the relief well bottom kill necessarily require release of hydrocarbons into the ocean, even if the well remains shut in up to that point?
Is it possible to design an oil collection strategy (as opposed to a complete shut in) in which no more oil or methane is released into the ocean?
If collection of 100 percent of the hydrocarbons becomes possible in such way as to also prevent releases of hydrocarbons into the ocean, could that be a preferable strategy until the relief well is complete, since it would both relieve well pressure and contain hydrocarbons?
As global temperatures reach new highs, the National Academies warn of severe impacts
July 16, 2010 – Last month was the hottest June on record and completed the hottest first half of a year dating back to 1880. The record-breaking temperatures were reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All of the years since 2001 have been in the top 10 hottest and this latest temperature check shows that between increased greenhouse gases and the tail end of El Nino, 2010 will be another scorcher.
“The only person in America not running from the heat this summer is LeBron James,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). “The record breaking temperature is another warning siren that should serve as a wake up call to Congress to take action to reduce carbon pollution and add clean energy jobs so we can mitigate the impacts of climate change.”
Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice has continued its rapid decline, driving polar bears closer to extinction and threatening other Arctic wildlife. Arctic sea ice extent in June was the lowest since records began in 1979, according to NOAA. That’s now the 19th straight June with below average ice.
The record-breaking temperatures come as the National Academies release their latest assessment of global warming today. The study finds that for each degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming, there will be approximately a 25% decline in the extent of Arctic sea ice in September, a 5 – 15% reduction in the yields of corn and other food crops, and up to a 2 to 4 fold increase in the area damaged by wildfire in areas of western North America.
The report concludes that these impacts can be mitigated with significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The report makes clear that the more we use clean sources of energy that produce less carbon pollution, the healthier the planet.
With 100% Containment Possible, Total Measurement Vital, Says Chairman; Pressure Measurements from Current Tests Will Provide Additional Flow Data
July 15, 2010 – After several delays in the process to test the new cap system for the BP oil spill, the procedure has begun to see if the cap can completely shut in the well. When BP resumes collection of the oil after the tests, there will be yet another opportunity to more precisely measure the full flow of the oil.
When that collection resumes, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today called upon BP yet again to conduct a full accounting of the flow rate of the oil well to determine the size of the spill. Rep. Markey demanded such an action from BP in a letter sent to Lamar McKay, CEO of BP America.
During the current shutting of the well, pressure tests will also provide data to determine the size and magnitude of the oil and gas flow.
“In the event that additional oil collection should prove necessary, BP must collect and measure 100 percent of the hydrocarbons flowing from the well so that we can determine the actual flow rate once and for all,” writes Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“I am concerned that without such a monitored collection effort, which must be conducted under supervision of the Flow Rate Technical Group, we may never be able to provide a definitive answer to the question of how much oil has actually been released. Although there have been numerous estimates and projections for flow rate, nothing will be more conclusive than actual collection of 100 percent of the oil and methane that is now flowing from the well,” continues Rep. Markey.
Currently, the Flow Rate Technical Group estimates the flow rate to be somewhere in a wide range between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day. More precise measurements would allow the federal government to have a more accurate and realistic picture of the amount of oil that has flowed from the well since it blew out in April. BP could be fined up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled, in the case of gross negligence. That means an error of just 10,000 barrels a day in the final assessment of the spill could result in a difference of $3.6 billion in fines.
While the well may be shut in for several days to conduct pressure tests, it is likely that BP will release the well again and restart containment efforts, in part to assess the testing of the shut-in system.
With several containment ships now in place, including the Helix, the Q4000 and others, BP has claimed it would eventually be able to collect up to 80,000 barrels of oil per day, or 20,000 barrels per day more than the high end estimate from the Flow Rate Technical Group. Therefore, the potential for 100 percent collection and measurement should be feasible, although questions remain on when this full capacity would be available. Today Admiral Allen said that full containment capacity could be reached by July 24th.
In the letter, Rep. Markey states that “if BP determines that the appropriate path is to fully shut in the well, until the relief well is completed, then we would not want to delay such a process in any way.”
Below are the questions Rep. Markey asks in the letter, which is available HERE:
In the event that BP does not shut in the well completely, will BP agree to collect, under the supervision of the Flow Rate Technical Group, the full volume of oil and methane being released from the well for a period of time sufficient to make a reliable determination of the 24 hour flow rate? If not, why not?
Is the three ram capping stack exerting backpressure on the well? If so, please provide the pressure readings necessary to determine the full unimpeded flow rate.
Does BP at present have in place at the surface sufficient collection capability to collect 100 percent of the oil from the well and to measure and determine the volume of that oil?
If not, what is the current collection capacity and when will sufficient collection capacity be available?
Taxpayers Could Lose Up to $53 Billion Without Markey Legislation; Recovered Funds Fully Directed to Deficit Reduction
July 14, 2010 – Legislation authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) to recover upwards of $53 billion in lost oil drilling royalties in the Gulf of Mexico passed the Natural Resources Committee today, putting the legislation on a path towards fixing a 15-year-old legislative flaw. The recovered money would go directly to deficit reduction efforts.
“Instead of drilling for free in the Gulf of Mexico, we will finally drill for deficit dollars from these profit-rich companies,” said Rep. Markey. “This was an easy choice between standing with BP and the other oil companies that are drilling for free, or standing with American taxpayers and reducing our deficit. My colleagues chose today to stand with the American people.”
The amendment, which passed by a voice vote, would offer the dozens of oil companies currently drilling for free in the Gulf of Mexico a simple choice – they can continue to drill for free on public lands no matter how high oil prices climb, but if they do so, they will not be able to purchase new leases from the federal government.
Because of an oil company court challenge to the 1995 Deep Water Royalty Relief Act authored by the then-Republican majority along with faulty leases offered by the Interior Department in 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department is currently being forced to refund more than $2.1 billion in royalty payments that oil companies had already made from these leases, including $240 million to BP. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that taxpayers could lose an additional $53 billion over the next 25 years as a result of royalty-free drilling when oil prices are high.
Similar legislation has repeatedly passed the House of Representatives in 2006, 2007 and 2008 with bipartisan support.
With Pressure Tests Delayed, Chairman Renews Call for Information on Potential Hazards
July 14, 2010 – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today renewed his request to BP to release information on the integrity of the wellbore and sea floor leaks, especially in light of the delayed attempt to conduct pressure tests on the new containment cap system for the BP Macondo well. These efforts were delayed, at least in part, because of the need to review seismic data -- which could provide information about the integrity of the wellbore -- from around the well site.
Rep. Markey had originally requested this information on June 23rd, several weeks prior to this test, and has still not received any answers which might shed light on the current potential path of shutting in the well using the new cap system as well as with challenges that could be encountered as BP attempts to permanently stop the flow of oil and gas using a relief well. Rep. Markey also sent a letter to Thad Allen asking for information provided to Incident Command on these matters.
“Everyone is hoping for a successful outcome for this capping system, and for the relief wells,” said Rep. Markey. “But given BP’s bad track record on all of its efforts thus far, all information about the risks of these tactics must be provided to Congress and to the public.”
While BP told Rep. Markey’s staff that this information would eventually be provided, it has already been made available to executive branch staff, and is easily obtained.
“This information is available. Yet BP would rather stonewall than provide information on the potential hazards lurking in the rock formations around the well, and other risks,” said Rep. Markey.
Rep. Markey asks BP for answers to several questions from his June letter, all of which potentially relate to the current situation occurring at the well site as well as the future relief well efforts.
“Question 3 of my June 23rd letter asked BP for information needed to better understand what is known about the condition of the wellbore and about reports of sea floor leaks. It asks the following:
‘Please provide documents related to the condition of the wellbore.
Has BP attempted to determine whether the casing inside the wellbore has been damaged and if so, what were the results? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to the condition of the wellbore, as well as any future plans for such measurements going forward.
Has BP confirmed or attempted to confirm the presence of hydrocarbons leaking from anywhere other than the containment cap? If so, what were the results? Please provide all related documents.
Has BP surveyed the vicinity of the well to look for any leaks from the sea floor? If so, what area was surveyed? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to any survey(s) to identify hydrocarbon leakage from the sea floor. If no survey has been performed, why not?’”
Rep. Markey’s letter to Thad Allen, which asks for information provided to Incident Command on these questions, is available HERE.
Toxic Compounds Could Flow Through Food Chain Long After Oil Stops Flowing
July 13, 2010 – Even as BP attempts to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf with a new containment strategy, concerns are growing that oil and other toxic compounds like arsenic could continue to flow through the marine and human food chain for months or longer. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today asked the Food and Drug Administration to answer questions on the effects the BP oil spill might have on the food chain, including new concerns that arsenic could be infiltrating the marine ecosystem and food chain in the Gulf of Mexico. Rep. Markey also asks whether FDA is tracking the possibility that highly mobile fish that have been contaminated are currently being caught outside areas closed to fishing.
“I am concerned that the mixture of oil, dispersants, arsenic and other toxic compounds are having effects on seafood that may not be detectable for months,” writes Rep. Markey in the letter to FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg. Rep. Markey chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is leading the congressional investigation into the BP oil spill.
Researchers have uncovered droplets of oil inside crab larvae harvested from the Gulf of Mexico, which Rep. Markey writes is “particularly disconcerting because these larvae are a source of food for numerous aquatic species and this is therefore the first sign that hydrocarbons have entered into the food web.” The invasion of oil into the base level of the Gulf food chain means that, “despite fishery closures in areas that are known to be contaminated by oil, contamination could still be spreading into the human food chain as predators eat oil-tainted species, and then travel to areas that are not themselves closed to fishing,” Rep. Markey writes.
Another concern is arsenic. Arsenic is present in both seawater and in oil. Under normal circumstance, minerals at the ocean floor attract arsenic, burying it safely underground. Rep. Markey notes that a recent report suggests that oil, in addition to adding its own levels of arsenic to the Gulf, provides a potential barrier to this natural arsenic filtering system. “Thus the effect of the oil is two-fold, increasing the amount of arsenic present and clogging the natural mechanism the ocean uses to filter out the toxic compound,” writes Rep. Markey.
Rep. Markey asks FDA to explain their monitoring systems for these challenges, and what federal standards are currently in place for how much arsenic can be present in seafood to be consumed by humans. Rep. Markey also asks the FDA to respond to his May 25th letter to the agency, which has gone unanswered. That letter asked FDA about dispersants entering the food chain.
July 12, 2010 – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) released the following statement on the new moratorium on deepwater oil and gas exploration issued by the Obama administration today. Rep. Markey is chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
“This moratorium will reduce oil spill risk while the Gulf will continue to produce oil. As new laws and safety measures are put into place on these few dozen rigs, 97 percent of the manned rigs in the Gulf will still be allowed to work.
“When every single resource available is being deployed to combat this one spill, what would we do if there were another? The only thing worse than one rig at the bottom of the Gulf would be two.
“Before these few dozen rigs can be pushed back into service, we need to know that it is safe, and that the oil companies finally take their response responsibilities seriously. Until then, we must first compensate the workers from these rigs and allow new safety measures to be put into place.”
Relief Well Application Says July 15th Completion Date, Changes Worst-Case Scenario for Potential Spill
July 8, 2010 – Following today’s assertion by BP that they could complete the relief well within the next few weeks, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) asked for clarification from the company on that potential date, due to discrepancies in statements to the public and to the government on that plan. While BP had previously been insisting that the relief well would not be done until August, BP’s relief well application submitted to the Minerals and Management Service lists a finishing date of July 15th for the well.
July 27th is the date BP will submit financial earning statements for the second quarter of this year and speak with investors about the company’s health. Even BP’s Bob Dudley called this July 27th date “unlikely” due to variables like the weather.
“While everyone wants the quickest possible end to this disaster, we don’t need rose-colored scenarios, but realistic estimates on when this spill will finally be over,” said Rep. Markey.
In a letter sent today to BP America CEO Lamar McKay, Rep. Markey also asks BP for details on the worst-case spill scenarios included in the relief well application. The original exploration plan for the Macondo well indicated that a worst-case spill scenario would be 162,000 barrels per day (bpd). The initial April 24th, 2010 exploration plan for the relief wells also included the 162,000 bpd worst-case scenario. It was then amended on April 27th, 2010, increasing to 240,000 bpd, just 10,000 bpd below BP’s regional response plan scenario of 250,000 bpd.
“BP’s ever-changing numbers on the potential worst-case scenarios bring into question the validity of these numbers, and which one should be seen as the best estimate of the worst-case spill scenario,” writes Rep. Markey in the letter.
The relief well application also includes language from the original response plan for the Macondo well claiming that, with a spill, “due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.”
“This is clearly not the experience in the aftermath of the original Macondo well blowout. Why have you used the same language for the impact of a spill from the relief wells despite the experience of the spill from the original well?” asks Rep. Markey in the letter.
Workers Cleaning Oil By Day, Inhaling Formaldehyde By Night
July 1, 2010 – Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Charlie Melancon (D-La.) today wrote the U.S. General Services Administration asking for answers on the trailers that are being used to house some workers cleaning up the oil from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The trailers, originally provided to Gulf residents following Hurricane Katrina, were found to have unhealthy levels of formaldehyde, which is a carcinogen. The story was first reported in The New York Times.
“There are oil spill workers who are cleaning up toxic oil by day and then inhaling carcinogenic fumes by night, sometimes with their families,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “These toxic trailers are like a recurring nightmare for the people of the Gulf.”
“First hurricane survivors were exposed to hazardous fumes in these FEMA trailers, and now – five years later – oil disaster workers are facing the same threat from the exact same trailers,” said Rep. Melancon. “We want to know why these trailers are still being used as housing, despite the many warnings and safeguards that have been put in place to prevent this situation. Workers along the Gulf Coast face enough dangers in the oil spill clean-up, without unknowingly being exposed to another danger when they come home at night.”
In the letter, Reps. Markey and Melancon ask the GSA to explain how these trailers, which were never intended to be used as homes ever again, ended up being used for exactly that purpose. The Congressmen ask for details on whether proper procedures were followed when these trailers were sold, and what efforts are being taken to look into the matter.
In response to the report released by Pennsylvania State University regarding the work of climate scientist Michael Mann, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, released the following statement:
Once again Dr. Mann and his scientific work on climate change have been vindicated.
The continued attacks on his work is a desperate attempt by fossil fuel interests and skeptics to cast doubt on one piece climate science while ignoring the vast body of work that shows the dangerous build up of carbon pollution from human activity.
This exoneration follows on the heals of the UK British House of Commons own review of the emails taken from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia. They were also cleared, and the scientific evidence declared sound.
The Earth is not flat, man did land on the moon and climate change is real. The longer policy makers delay action -- hiding behind witch hunts and skeptic charades -- our nations will continue to fall behind countries like China and Germany in the race for clean energy and climate solutions that create jobs.
As Hurricane Alex Barrels Through Gulf, Chairman Queries BP on Contingency Plans
June 30, 2010 - As Hurricane Alex moves through the Gulf of Mexico today, disrupting spill response operations, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) revealed that BP makes zero mentions of the words “hurricane” or “ tropical storm” in its response plan to a Gulf spill. Following this latest revelation highlighting BP’s unpreparedness for disasters, Rep. Markey asked BP to explain their storm contingency plans in full.
“The BP plan had walruses in the Gulf, but no hurricanes,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “Walruses haven't been in the Gulf in a few million years, while a hurricane is just a few hundred miles from the spill site right now. This is yet another example of BP serial complacency.”
At an Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on June 15th, Chairman Markey and others revealed that the major oil companies had response plans that were 90 percent identical, and included references to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, and emergency contact information for long-deceased experts. The CEOs of the major oil companies testifying admitted that their response plans contained significant flaws, calling them an “embarrassment.”
The BP response plan uses the word “weather” in several instances, but never does so in an analysis of extreme weather that could markedly affect response capabilities.
Questions posed to BP America CEO Lamar McKay by Chairman Markey today in a letter are included below:
What is BP’s plan for spill response in the event that a tropical storm or hurricane passes over the overall spill area? Does BP have any such a plan or plans for increasing severity of hurricanes? Or does BP plan on simply “playing it by ear” up to the point at which a full evacuation is required and all spill response operations cease?
What does BP expect will be the effects of a tropical storm or hurricane on the damage the oil spill will cause to the environment? How could a storm change the impact of oil in the open ocean and the coast?
What is BP doing to prepare for disruption of oil clean up activities due to the impacts of a storm in the Gulf of Mexico? How could a storm impact the clean up of the oil?
Does BP have a plan for returning to spill response activities after a tropical storm or hurricane has passed over the spill area? If a hurricane passes over the spill area and spreads oil over large areas of the gulf coast, does BP have a plan for dealing with the combination of oil and general hurricane damage?
Last week I asked for information regarding the factors that could lead to delay or disruption of the installation of a better fitting cap. Given reports that Hurricane Alex could delay installation of the cap by one week, please indicate the amount of time delay that you would expect to result from a hurricane or tropical storm passing over the accident site.
Similarly, how would a tropical storm or hurricane affect the drilling of the relief wells? As I understand it, each time a full evacuation of the drilling rigs occurs, 14 days of delay will result. Is this accurate and was this possibility factored into the projected mid- August completion date for the relief wells?
June 28, 2010 — Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) sent letters to the CEOs of the ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and Chevron oil companies, requesting more information on the companies’ oil spill response plans.
As part of its investigation into the BP oil spill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce revealed that the major oil companies had response plans that were practically identical, and included references to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico and emergency contact information for long-deceased experts.
At a hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment earlier this month, the CEOs of the companies admitted that their response plans contained significant flaws, calling them an “embarrassment.”
“Each of the oil companies’ oil spill response plans are practically identical to the tragically flawed BP oil spill response plan,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter. “These oil spill response plans for the Gulf of Mexico even included references to protecting walruses and other animals that don’t inhabit the Gulf and listed a deceased scientist as an emergency resource. You and other witnesses agreed that these flaws were ‘embarrassing.’ No oil company appears to be better prepared for a disastrous oil spill than BP was.”
In the letter, the chairmen ask the companies to respond to the following questions by Friday, July 2, 2010:
Is your company’s oil spill response plan for the Gulf of Mexico adequate to protect the Gulf region from the consequences of a subsea blowout similar to the blowout at the Macondo well? If so, please explain how this conclusion is reached.
Each of the five oil companies that testified on June 15, 2010, relied upon the Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC) and its equipment to respond to potential oil spills. The MSRC is now using its equipment to respond to the BP oil spill. Are there other resources and equipment available to your company in the event of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that are not currently being used to respond to the BP spill?
Many resources that had been held in reserve for spills elsewhere in the country, such as the west coast and Alaska, have been transported for use in the Gulf of Mexico. Are there other resources and equipment available to your company in the event of an oil spill outside of the Gulf of Mexico that are not currently being used to respond to the BP spill?
Do you plan to revise your oil spill response plan? If so, when will this revision be completed?
Legislation would divert big oil subsidies to scientists, in order to improve spill prevention and response
June 25, 2010 - Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today introduced the “Stop Oil Spills Act,” a bill to fund research into new oil spill prevention and response technologies.
Following BP CEO Tony Hayward’s admission that his company did not have a “tool-kit” to respond to a sizeable spill from a deep-water well, Markey introduced the bill to create a research program to develop 21st century oil safety and spill response technologies.
“As the big oil companies have continued to push the limits to drill ultra-deep, it has become painfully clear that they have not kept pace with technology needed to make the drilling ultra-safe and to have any potential cleanup response be ultra-fast,” said Markey, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
“This legislation would divert money from Big Oil subsidies to scientists and spill response experts, to ensure that our country’s best and brightest minds can develop the technology that is sorely lacking when it comes to oil spill prevention and response.”
The SOS Act will not increase costs to taxpayers. The bill is paid for by redirecting $50 million per year in oil and gas royalty payments that are now being used to subsidize industry development of deepwater drilling technologies, something that industry has the resources and incentives to perform on its own. The bill redirects those funds to a Department of Energy grant program to develop next-generation technologies to prevent or stop offshore drilling spills.
This new program will help to ensure that we avoid future offshore well blowouts like the one that led to the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, so that in the event of a blowout, that we have the right tools on hand to stop the spill quickly and effectively.
The bill requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Interior, within 6 months to establish a program to award support for the development, demonstration, and commercialization of innovative technologies to prevent, stop, or capture large-scale accidental discharges of oil or other hydrocarbons from offshore oil and gas drilling operations, including deep-water and ultra-deepwater operations.
Chairman Also Seeks Safety Protection Information, Timeline for New Cap Installation, Updated Performance of Current Cap
(June 24, 2010) – Following an accident yesterday that caused the containment cap over the BP oil spill to be removed, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today asked for video and details from the accident. Rep. Markey, who first pushed for BP to make public the video of the undersea operations, also asked for information regarding the safety protections built into the current cap and the timeline for the swapping of containment caps in the coming weeks.
“The end result of this mishap is that thousands more barrels of oil flowed into the sea during the duration of the event. We cannot afford such errors and we need to understand clearly the facts behind it, ” writes Rep. Markey to BP America President Lamar McKay. “We also need to better understand BP’s plans for coping with such a contingency and for moving as quickly as possible to completely shut off the flow from the well.”
In the letter, (click HERE for PDF) Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, asked the following questions:
1. What was the cause of the vent closing? Was it bumped by an ROV? If so, please provide video footage of the bumping incident. If high-definition footage is available, please provide the video in that format.
2. What safety protections are provided with regard to the collection system? Is it possible for gas to rise through the collection system and create another explosion? What systems, if any, prevent such a possibility?
3. In terms of oil collection, is the cap, after being replaced, functioning as well as it previously did? Is it performing better? Or did the incident cause the performance of the cap to worsen?
4. When will the next cap be put in place and what is its current state of readiness? What are the factors that prevent placement of the cap immediately? Is the cap already fabricated and in transit or onsite? Are there additional components of the collection system that require fabrication or transport to the site? Or is placement of the cap being delayed solely due to the lack of sufficient surface handling capacity?
5. What safety measures devices will be installed on this new cap to prevent accidents, explosions or damage to the well bore?
6. Please summarize the factors that could impact the timing or success of the new cap including, but not limited to the need for fabrication of devices or new tools, arrival of supplies, arrival of processing, handling and storage capacity, and the need for any additional equipment or materials.
7. Please provide copies of all documents in your possession created since April 20, 2010 that relate to plans for efforts to place caps or oil collection systems on the well. Please provide copies of all such documents that are in your personal possession by close of business on Tuesday June 29th. Please provide copies of all such documents in the possession of or addressed to, Mr. Tony Hayward, Mr. Doug Suttles, Mr. Bob Dudley and Mr. Kent Wells within one week of receipt of this letter.
New Legislation Requires Oil Industry to Update Spill Response Plans, Calls for Updated Federal & Regional Plans, and Safer Dispersants
Contact: Chairman Ed Markey, 202-225-4012
WASHINGTON (June 25, 2010) – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today introduced legislation that would finally push the oil industry to update their spill response plans. The oil spill response plans submitted by the major oil companies were, as the companies admitted in a June 15th hearing before Rep. Markey’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee, an embarrassment, and entirely inadequate to respond to a disastrous oil spill. Rep. Markey revealed at that hearing that the companies’ plans included scenarios to protect non-existent walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, and listed phone numbers for long-dead scientists.
“This bill will finally force the oil companies to put walruses back in the Arctic, and get real safety response plans in the Gulf,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “It’s time for oil companies to get serious about the real risks and challenges associated with oil disasters. The families living and working in the Gulf Coast deserve safety response plans that are iron clad, not boilerplate.”
Investigations conducted by Chairman Markey, the Energy and Commerce Committee and others have revealed several notable and glaring problems associated with the oil companies’ response plans, including:
--The oil companies’ response plans contained scenarios to protect walruses, seals, and other species not found in the Gulf of Mexico. --The oil companies’ response plans contained the names and phone numbers of a long-dead expert. --The oil companies’ response plans contained a defunct Japanese website address for the corporation expected to provide response equipment. --In its plan specific to the Macondo well, BP said that even its worst-case spill would cause almost no environmental consequences. --The oil companies' response plans contained no spill scenario modeling based on subsurface leaks or deepwater drilling activities. --The dispersants that have been approved for use have not been tested to determine effects associated with sub-surface application or long-term use.
The legislation Rep. Markey introduced today, called the Better Oil Spill Response Plan Act of 2010, remedies these problems. It contains provisions to:
--Force the oil companies to provide the federal government with updated response plans within six months and periodically thereafter. The plans must include estimates of the worst-case scenarios for oil and gas drilling for various regions in the U.S., taking into account sub-surface and deep-water impacts. --Require the federal government to revise regulations for the oil and gas companies’ facility and vessel response plans within 1 year, making sure that these response plans will take the new worst case scenarios into account and that they are based on an accurate assessment of the geographic area where the rigs will be operating. The plans must include a demonstration and certification that the drilling operators can execute the plans. The president must approve these plans, and a provision that specified conditions for a presidential waiver of the plan approval requirement is struck. After two years, there must be an approved response plan for each facility or vessel owner. --Require the federal government to update, within nine months, its response plan and associated regulations, to take into account lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon leak, the new worst case scenarios, and the recommendations of the independent commission investigating the BP spill. The president will also be required to revise the plan (and regulations, if necessary) whenever there is a material revision to the worst case scenario. --Update regional plans within 18 months to take into account lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon leak, the new worst case scenarios, the recommendations of the independent commission and the new federal plan. These will also need to be revised whenever there is a material revision to the worst case scenario or the federal plan. --Strengthen the safety review and approval process for dispersants or other chemicals to evaluate, among other considerations, the long-term, sub-surface use of the chemicals. Publication of the chemical ingredients is required whenever a Spill of National Significance is declared. --Ensure that having an approved response plan is made part of the leasing regulations associated with all drilling and production operations subject to this Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).
Letters to EPA and Coast Guard Cite Recent Increases in Volume of Dispersants Used by Company
(June 24, 2010) – Responding to increasing use of dispersants by BP in recent days, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Coast Guard asking for an update on the analysis of the chemicals, and to respond to BP’s continued use of dispersants. The questions follow yesterday’s findings by government scientists that the underwater plumes identified are consistent with those that would be formed following the use of the chemicals, and ongoing concerns over the chemicals’ impacts on human and marine life health.
“Million of gallons of chemical dispersant have been added to the Gulf waters, contributing to a toxic stew of chemicals, oil and gas with impacts that are not well understood,” writes Rep. Markey in the letters. Rep. Markey chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
In the letters, Rep. Markey says that an analysis of BP’s recent dispersant use shows the company has not eliminated surface application of the chemicals, saying “daily volumes hover around 10,000 gallons.” BP has also exceeded the recommended daily levels of 15,000 gallons of subsurface application at the spill source.
As the EPA continues its own analysis of alternative dispersants, which Rep. Markey notes in his letter that “this type of scientific evaluation takes time to accomplish,” BP has not quite reached the goal of reducing the overall amount of dispersant used by 75 percent from the maximum daily amount of 70,000 gallons, and has yet to eliminate surface applications. In the letter to the Coast Guard, Rep. Markey asks for any copies of requests by BP to the Coast Guard to continue to use dispersants on the surface of the water, as well as the Coast Guard’s response.
Along with the toxicity of the dispersants potentially harming marine and human health, the chemicals are now being linked to the formation of large plumes of oil below the ocean’s surface. Yesterday, NOAA scientists reconfirmed the existence of these plumes, and said that their characteristics are consistent with those that would be formed following the use of chemically-dispersed oil.
In the letter to EPA, Rep. Markey asks for updates on the scientific analysis of Corexit and alternative dispersants. Rep. Markey also asks whether BP is making public all information related to the spill and its response.
Chairman Releases Letters, Documents from BP Challenging Company’s Ongoing Denial of Plumes
(June 23, 2010) – Following the release of a government analysis showing, yet again, the existence of undersea plumes of oil from the BP oil spill, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today released documents he obtained from BP related to their denial of these plumes. The documents, and the follow-up letter from Rep. Markey to BP CEO Tony Hayward, include some of the preliminary information used in this government analysis to show the existence of plumes, even as BP continued to deny the presence of the underwater clouds of oil.
“NOAA and the EPA have confirmed these plumes exist. Independent scientists have confirmed these plumes exist. Will it take a submarine ride to show these BP executives that these plumes exist?” asked Rep. Markey.
Even after pointed questioning from Rep. Markey at an Energy and Commerce hearing on June 17th, Hayward continued to equivocate on the existence of undersea plumes, prompting Rep. Markey, who is chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, to write another letter to Hayward asking for more evidence to support his company’s claims. Rep. Markey is also today releasing the initial documents acquired from BP that they claimed backed up their position that there are no plumes.
Many experts have raised concerns about these plumes’ potential to cause significant harm to aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico. This can occur via two mechanisms. First, the toxic constituents of oil and dispersants can poison the aquatic plants and animals that are exposed to them, leading to death, non-lethal harm to species, or contamination of the marine food chain. Second, as naturally-occurring bacteria consume the oil dispersed in the plumes and multiply, they also use up oxygen, and this can in turn lead to localized depletions in oxygen levels that could cause marine life to die of asphyxiation. Oxygen depleted at the depths that these plumes have been found can take years to replenish, causing long-term damage to the deep Gulf ecosystem.
Rep. Markey had originally written to BP on May 31, 2010 asking BP to substantiate Hayward’s claim the day before that BP samples showed “no evidence” that oil was suspended sub-surface.
Among BP’s evidence provided to Rep. Markey is data from the R/V Brooks McCall, one of the main sources of data for the joint government analysis released today. And yet, BP’s response omits information publicly available on EPA’s website that used BP’s own data. BP also submitted data for tests done west of the well site, but ignored independent analysis that had been conducted east of the well site.
“In short, it appears as though once again, BP is making questionable assertions using flawed and incomplete analysis in order to minimize the potential harm its leak has caused and may cause going forward,” Rep. Markey said.
Chairman Asks About Well Integrity, Design of Relief Wells, Timeframe, Sea Floor Leaks
Contact: 202-225-4012
WASHINGTON (June 23, 2010) – In an extensive inquiry letter sent to BP today, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) asked the company about the progress and design of the relief wells, which are now being drilled to shut down the still-spewing BP Macondo well. This comes on the heels of yesterday’s briefing by Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, where he said alternatives to the relief wells are being considered.
“The relief wells are still our best chance to end this spill,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “We need to know that these efforts are being conducted with the utmost of caution and competence, so that this gushing geyser of oil is safely shut off.”
The letter focuses on several main lines of inquiry, and is available by clicking HERE:
--Relief well design and timeframe, notably on the designs of the casing and cementing of the relief wells and the blowout preventers for the relief wells. In a June 15th hearing in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, BP’s Lamar McKay said that “the design of the relief well is very, very similar to the original well.” In the letter, Rep. Markey writes: “In light of the well-documented and extensive problems associated with the original well’s design, this statement is worrisome to contemplate.”
--Condition of the wellbore. Admiral Allen expressed concern last week that there may be damage to the wellbore, and the integrity of the well has been a consistent concern since the failure of the so-called “top kill” procedure.
--Reports of sea floor leaks. Rep. Markey also asks about whether there are additional leaks around the main well site, as that may impact any final efforts to seal the well and prevent further leakage of oil.
--Other potential oil and gas reservoirs. Rep. Markey asks BP to provide all geological information about the well to determine if there are other reservoirs of oil and gas aside from the main one 18,000 feet below the surface, as their presence, coupled with damage to the wellbore, could also complicate the relief well efforts.
# # #
June 23, 2010
Mr. Tony Hayward Chief Executive Officer BP PLC 1 St. James's Square London SWI Y 4PD United Kingdom
Dear Mr. Hayward:
I write to request information related to the integrity of the wellbore and casing at the Deepwater Horizon leak site, as well as to request further information on the design, testing, timeframe and likelihood of success for the relief wells being drilled today. While BP has repeatedly stated that the relief well would be completed by mid-August , I am concerned that possible damage to the wellbore and casing and the difficulty of the operation itself could result in more weeks or months before the flow of oil and gas is finally stopped.
As you know, there has been speculation that the wellbore and casing at the Deepwater Horizon leak site may have been damaged and that leaks of oil and gas may already be coming through the sea floor or through the pipe itself. The risks of this occurring were increased by BP’s decision to use a more risky drill pipe casing design, and because the riser pipe was both inadequately centered in the well-bore and inadequately cemented. Damage to these already vulnerable systems could have occurred through a number of events: via the initial explosions that sunk the rig, through erosion from the high pressures and volumes of oil and gas associated with the leak and possible washout from the formation, or due to the failed “Top Kill” efforts which blasted 30,000 barrels of drilling mud under high pressure into the well.
In fact, in his June 17 press briefing, Admiral Thad Allen stated that “I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the wellbore from below the blow out preventer down to the actual oil field itself. And we don’t know, we don’t know if the wellbore has been compromised or not. One of the reasons we did not continue with top kill at higher pressures, there was a concern that if we increased the pressure too hard it might do damage to the casings and the wellbore. What we didn’t want was open communication of any oil from the reservoir outside the wellbore that might get into the formation and work its way to the sub sea floor and then result in uncontrolled discharge at that point.”
In a June 18, 2010 article in the Times Picayune, Bob Bea of the University of California at Berkeley indicated that there is reason to believe that oil and gas is leaking from places other than the containment cap. BP officials said that a disk that is part of the subsea safety infrastructure may have failed in the initial April 20th explosion, which may have contributed to the failure of the “top-kill” . As reported by the Wall Street Journal, people familiar with BP’s “top-kill” attempt have speculated that some drilling mud may have escaped the well into the surrounding rock.
In addition to concerns related to the condition of the wellbore, I am also concerned that the relief well design, testing and likelihood of success may prove the August timeframe to be optimistic. At the June 15, 2010 hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, BP’s Lamar McKay stated in response to questions that “the design of the relief well is very, very similar to the original well.” In light of the well-documented and extensive problems associated with the original well’s design, this statement is worrisome to contemplate. Moreover, it can take more than one attempt to plug a well using a relief well. For example, it took nearly 10 months to permanently halt the Ixtoc oil spill.
In the June 17, 2010 hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, you testified that you believed the reservoir contained 50 million barrels of oil. The damage that such a quantity of oil could do, should it all leak into the Gulf of Mexico, would be staggering. It is imperative that the efforts to permanently halt the flow of oil are successful. Consequently, I ask for your prompt responses to the following questions:
Questions on relief well design and timeframe.
1) Please provide documents related to the design of the current relief wells:
a. Please include all documents related to the type of liner being used for the relief wells. Will it be a full-string system such as that used at the Macondo well, a system that includes a liner with a tie-back which provides more barriers to block any flow of oil and gas, or some other design? b. Please include all documents related to the cement jobs being performed on the relief wells. Have and will cement bond logs be used after each cement job or remedial cement job in order to ensure the integrity of the cement job? c. Please include all documents related to the blowout preventers being used for the relief wells. Are the as-built engineering documents up-to-date and available to operators on the drilling rigs? d. Have these blowout preventers been tested prior to deployment to ensure that the sort of problems reported to have occurred on the blowout preventer used on the Macondo well (related to battery power for the dead-man switch, potential failure of the control system to be connected to the shear ram, hydraulic fluid pressure leaks and other problems) do not exist? e. How many blind shear rams will the blowout preventers used for the relief well have? Who manufactured the blowout preventers that will be used? Have system integration tests been performed on them? f. What sorts of imaging or other monitoring technologies will be built into the blowout preventers used on the relief wells? Will these technologies be left in place in order to monitor for leaks once the Macondo well is sealed? g. Please include all documents related to planned or ongoing testing of the relief wells that will occur prior to the first attempt to plug the Macondo well.
2) Please provide documents related to the timeframes for relief well drilling, testing and use:
a. Please include all documents related to the expected schedule for the completion of the drilling, casing and cementing of each relief well. b. Please include all documents related to the schedule for the testing of each relief well prior to the start of the “kill” operation. c. Please include all documents related to the anticipated schedule and timeframe for killing the well. How long could each step, including filling the relief well with drilling mud, take if all goes according to plan? How long might it take from the beginning of the “kill” operation until the Macondo well is plugged? d. What is the likelihood that filling the relief wells with drilling mud will result in fractures and a subsequent loss of pressure? Please provide all relevant documents. e. In the event that the first attempt to locate the Macondo well fails, how long will it take in order to prepare a second or subsequent attempt(s)? How long will the second or subsequent attempt(s) take? Please provide a time estimate for each step needed to prepare for a second or subsequent attempt. f. Are there any known magnetic anomalies in the area or geological formations that might give rise to such anomalies in the area that will make detection of the Macondo well pipe more difficult? If so, please provide all relevant documents.
Questions on the condition of the wellbore and reports of sea floor leaks.
3) Please provide documents related to the condition of the wellbore:
a. Has BP attempted to determine whether the casing inside the wellbore has been damaged and if so, what were the results? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to the condition of the wellbore, as well as any future plans for such measurements going forward. b. Has BP confirmed or attempted to confirm the presence of hydrocarbons leaking from anywhere other than the containment cap? If so, what were the results? Please provide all related documents. c. Has BP surveyed the vicinity of the well to look for any leaks from the sea floor? If so, what area was surveyed? Please provide all measurements, images, and other documents related to any survey(s) to identify hydrocarbon leakage from the sea floor. If no survey has been performed, why not?
4) Please provide documents related to stopping a worst-case scenario blowout:
a. If hydrocarbons are leaking directly into the ocean from the wellbore or the sea floor, will this complicate, delay or otherwise impede BP’s efforts to plug the flow using the relief wells? If so, how? If not, why not? b. If BP discovers, during the relief well “kill” efforts, that hydrocarbons are also leaking from a location significantly above the target reservoir, what options exist to contain such leakage? Please provide all relevant documentation. c. Please provide all documents related to the geologic formation in which the Macondo well is located. Are there significant deposits of oil and gas in formations above the target reservoir? Please provide an estimate of the total amount of oil and gas that is contained in i) the Macondo well target formation and ii) each formation above the target formation that could leak hydrocarbons into the annulus as a result of poor cementing, damage caused by the initial explosion(s), or the failed Top Kill effort.
Questions on other potential hydrocarbon reservoirs in the well.
5) Please provide documents related to the possibility that the initial drilling encountered leakage from other formations above the target reservoir:
a. In order to understand the geological complexity of the well, please provide all geological logs, including the mud log, and all geophysical logs, including resistivity and porosity logs. b. A May 23, 2010 article entitled “Documents show BP chose a less- expensive, less–reliable method for completing well in Gulf oil spill” in the Orlando Sentinel stated that well records indicate that in late February, there was a loss in drilling mud pressure. According to the article, this could mean that the mud fractured layers of sand or shale in the formation and vanished. The article goes on to state that in early March, the pressure of the oil and gas encountered overwhelmed the pressure of the drilling mud. In mid-April, a loss of drilling mud was reportedly again experienced. Do any or all of these events indicate that oil and gas could be flowing from somewhere other than the target reservoir? If so, please explain fully, and if not, why not?
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Please provide your response no later than Friday July 2, 2010. If you have any questions or concerns, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff at 202-225-2836.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Markey Chairman Energy and Environment Subcommittee
cc: Honorable Henry Waxman, Chairman Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member Honorable Fred Upton, Ranking Member
(June 22, 2010) – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, released the following statement on the decision of a federal judge to allow 33 offshore drilling rigs to continue drilling before proper safety measures are put in place:
"This is another bad decision in a disaster riddled with bad decisions by the oil industry. The only thing worse than one oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico would be two oil spill disasters.
"This judge’s decision flies in the face of mounting evidence that there are serious safety risks that must be examined with these 33 deepwater rigs before they start drilling again.
"Ninety-seven percent of the manned rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are up and running. No one is realistically talking about shutting down offshore drilling in the Gulf.
"We would be doing the oil rig workers and citizens of the Gulf a disservice if we did not put safety first with these few rigs. The Obama administration is right to appeal, and I fully support that effort."
WASHINGTON (June 20, 2010) -- Today Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released an internal BP document showing that the company's own analysis believed that a worst-case scenario, based on damage to the well bore, could result in 100,000 barrels of oil per day.
In the document, BP stated: If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions – the rate could be as high as ~ 100,000 barrels per day up the casing or 55,000 barrels per day up the annulus (low probability worst cases)
This number is in sharp contrast to BP’s initial claim that the leak was just 1,000 barrels a day. At the time this document was made available to Congress, BP claimed the leak was 5,000 barrels a day, and told Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the worst case scenario was be 60,000 barrels a day. This document tells a different story.
“Considering what is now known about BP’s problems with this well prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, including cementing issues, leaks in the blowout preventer and gas kicks, BP should have been more honest about the dangerous condition of the well bore,” said Markey, the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
On Thursday, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen was asked in his daily briefing about the condition of the well bore. He said there, “So what I would tell you is we don’t know exactly the condition of the well bore. And that’s one of the unknowns that we’re managing around in terms of risks. And that’s the reason we didn’t go, didn’t go to excessive pressures on the top kill and decided that we’d deal with containment and then go for the final relief well.”
According to Admiral Allen: "I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself. And we don’t know, we don’t know if the well bore has been compromised or not."
What the BP document suggests that if the well bore is compromised or becomes compromised, we now know we could be looking at a flow rate 100 times BP's initial estimate. Even if we can't know for certain the condition of the well bore, we should have known how much oil could flow from it--BP did.
“When the oil spill started, BP said it was only 1,000 barrels a day. Now we know it could end up being 100 times larger than that in a worst-case scenario,” said Markey. “This document raises very troubling questions about what BP knew and when they knew it. It is clear that, from the beginning, BP has not been straightforward with the government or the American people about the true size of this spill. Now the families living and working in the Gulf are suffering from their incompetence.”
“BP needs to tell us what it will do if the well bore is compromised and 100,000 barrels per day of oil spills into the ocean. At this point, we need real contingency planning, not a plan with dead scientists and walruses,” said Markey.
June 17, 2010 – Responding to pressure from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), BP today sent a roster of workers involved in the clean up efforts to the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. After discovering yesterday that BP was withholding this information, Markey pressed BP CEO Tony Hayward to release this data today at a hearing in the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Markey asked Hayward if the company would release to the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety a roster of all workers involved in the clean up efforts, a request made by the Institute multiple times without acknowledgement. Within a few hours of Chairman Markey’s request, BP provided the information to the agency.
“We need to know just what the toxic plumes and toxic fumes are doing to workers in the Gulf,” said Markey, the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee. “There are still many troubling questions surrounding worker and resident health and safety. While it should have never taken this long for BP to concede this information, I am pleased that the company has taken the first straightforward step to provide Health and Human Services with critical information that is needed to track chemical exposure and potential health effects.”
On Wednesday, at a hearing of the Health Subcommittee, Rep. Markey learned in response to a question from Dr. John Howard, Director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that BP had failed to respond to several requests for this information.
Hearing in Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment
On Tuesday, June 15, 2010, Chairman Markey’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing with top executives of the five largest oil companies. They testified regarding the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling safety and the impacts of the nation’s dependence on oil.
WHAT: House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment hearing, "Drilling Down on America’s Energy Future: Safety, Security and Clean Energy”
TESTIMONY: Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil John Watson, Chairman and CEO, Chevron Corporation James Mulva, Chairman and CEO, ConocoPhillips Lamar McKay, President and Chairman, BP America, Inc. Marvin Odum, President, Shell Oil Company
Measurement Could Be Conducted When New Cap is Installed, Yet BP Stonewalling Scientists
June 10, 2010 – Within a few weeks, an important opportunity could present itself for scientists to directly analyze the BP oil spill site at the sea floor to better estimate the size of the flow. Scientists from the Flow Rate Technical Group have expressed to BP their desire to conduct such a measurement when a new containment cap is placed on the well, but have been met with silence from the company. Responding to this potential opportunity, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today pressed BP to allow these scientists to conduct this measurement when the cap-swap occurs.
“This measurement could help inform the ongoing effort to end the spill, which is the number one priority,” wrote Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “There are concerns that, without the best information on the size and force of this gusher, that the effectiveness of the new containment cap and relief wells could be compromised.”
BP has said recently that they will in a few weeks be switching out the current containment cap for an updated version that will be able to siphon off more oil. When the first cap is removed, and before the replacement cap is installed, the full flow of the out-of-control oil well could be measured directly.
The measurement technique, which was introduced to Rep. Markey by Dr. Ira Leifer of the Marine Sciences Institute at the University of California-Santa Barbara, would consist of injecting fluorescent dye into the flow of oil as it leaves the riser pipe during that time period. Flow rate scientists could then use their peer-reviewed methods to gauge the speed and size of the gusher of oil leaving the pipe, finally giving what would be the best estimation yet as to the size of the flow.
Dr. Leifer has indicated that other members of the flow rate team would also appreciate direct access to measure the flow, and that they do not in any way desire to interfere with the primary goal: to capture as much oil as possible and cap the well. The measurement would take only a couple of hours, and monitoring equipment could be left at the site to continue to measure the oil flow. Dr. Leifer said the equipment and team could be in place within a week, before the cap-swap is expected to occur.
Dr. Leifer told staff to Rep. Markey that BP has yet to respond to their requests for direct measurements of the oil gusher during this critical moment.
Bi-partisan GRID Act Co-Authored by Markey Would Protect Electricity System Against Attacks
June 9, 2010 - Bipartisan legislation co-authored by Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) that would protect our nation’s electricity grid from attacks today passed the House of Representatives by unanimous voice vote. The Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense Act (GRID Act) also passed by a unanimous vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
“The electric grid’s vulnerability to cyber and other attacks is one of the single greatest threats to our national security,” said Markey, Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee. “Every one of our nation’s critical systems – defense, water, healthcare, telecommunications, transportation, law enforcement, and financial services – depends on the grid. This bipartisan legislation is critical to protecting the United States against this emerging threat.”
The GRID Act would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take measures to protect the electric grid from cyber and other attacks.
Over the past year, Chairman Markey’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee held multiple hearings and classified briefings on electric grid security issues. Testimony from the Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and briefings from national security experts have emphasized the gravity of the threat America’s grid faces and the inadequacy of existing law to deal with this threat.
June 8, 2010 – Responding to complaints from experts tasked with estimating the true flow rate of the BP oil spill that they still do not have access to critical high-quality video, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today demanded that BP release the video to these experts.
In a letter to BP America CEO Lamar McKay, Rep. Markey notes complaints from scientists on the Flow Rate Technical Group that they have still not received high-quality video from the period between the cutting and removal of the sunken riser pipe and the installation of the current containment cap system. This period is vital towards determining the latest flow rate of the oil gusher.
"Experts will be able to determine the current flow rate if they have access to archived high quality video of the period after the riser was severed and before the cap was installed," writes Rep. Markey, chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "Any efforts on your part to prevent experts from determining the size of this spill is are unacceptable."
Rep. Markey requests, as he has done previously, that BP archive all footage and provide it to these experts in the highest-quality format to aid in their analysis. Rep. Markey also requests in the letter that the video be sent to him and these experts within 24 hours.
Hayward, BP Pushed by Chairman to Ascertain Better Overall Flow Number
June 6, 2010 - Following claims that the new containment method is capturing 10,000 barrels a day, and comments from BP CEO Tony Hayward indicating BP expects to eventually capture "the vast majority" of the oil, Rep. Edward J. Markey today sent a letter to BP asking for clarification on the total amount of oil that is coming out of the well. Rep. Markey, who has continually pressed for better numbers on the size of the oil gusher, said the government and the American people need to know the true size of the leak to coordinate a proper response and to correctly calculate BP's potential fines that would result from the spilled oil.
Rep. Markey also queried BP on whether the company took efforts to measure the flow after the cutting of the sunken riser pipe, but before the current containment system was put in place. He also asked what BP plans to do with the siphoned oil.
"At this time, BP appears to know how much oil is being captured, which is encouraging. Yet BP still does not appear to know precisely how much oil is actually escaping, which is discouraging," writes Rep. Markey in the letter to BP America CEO Lamar McKay. Rep. Markey chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "Estimating the size of the spill at the source, instead of when it approaches the shore, continues to be the best way to gauge the leak."
Rep. Markey notes in the letter that a proper flow rate can help inform the Obama administration's coordinated efforts to respond to BP's spill. He also reminds BP in the letter that they will face potential fines of up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled.
The letter to BP is pasted below:
June 6, 2010
Mr. Lamar McKay
President and CEO,
BP America, Inc.
501 Westlake Park Boulevard
Houston, Texas, 70779
Dear Mr. McKay:
BP has now completed severing the broken riser pipe from the Deepwater Horizon well and has placed a cap on the top of the blowout preventer. BP has now begun to collect oil through this cap. However, as is evident from the live video feeds being shot on the ocean floor, substantial quantities of oil continue to escape from around the sides of the cap and from vents on the cap. These video feeds have also shown BP applying subsea dispersant into the gushing oil plumes escaping from around the cap.
The critical question at this time is: "how much oil is escaping into the environment?" BP CEO Tony Hayward has indicated that the cap is capturing 10,000 barrels per day. Mr. Hayward has also indicated that he expects soon to be able to capture "the vast majority" of the oil spewing from the well. However, conservative official estimates of the flow rate indicated that prior to the severing of the riser, somewhere between 12,000-19,000 barrels of oil were flowing from the well. In addition, government officials have suggested that by severing the kinked and broken riser pipe, flow rates could increase by up to 20 percent.
At this time, BP appears to know how much oil is being captured, which is encouraging. Yet BP still does not appear to know precisely how much oil is actually escaping, which is discouraging. Estimating the size of the spill at the source, instead of when it approaches the shore, continues to be the best way to gauge the leak. We need to know the amount of total oil flowing from the well, taking into account both the amount of oil being collected, and the amount being released into the ocean environment. This is critical, not only in terms of the efficacy of the temporary cap solution, but also in terms of the size and extent of the needed spill response and the ultimate effects on the environment. Finally, accurate flow rate information will be required to determine BP’s financial liability in terms of fines, which could be as high as $4,300 per barrel.
Therefore please answer the following questions immediately:
What is the total estimated volume of oil flowing from the well, taking into account both the amount of oil being captured and the amount of oil that is being released into the ocean? What is the basis for this estimate?
Prior to placement of the cap, but after complete severing of the riser pipe, did BP estimate the volume of flow from the well? Did BP determine whether the severing of the riser pipe did, in fact, increase the overall amount of flow? If so, by what percentage did the flow increase? If not when will BP perform this calculation? Please take account of any such calculation in the answer to question 1.
With regard to the estimate of 10,000 barrels of oil per day being recovered, is the material being recovered at the surface just oil or is it a mix of oil, seawater and other materials? How does the answer to this question affect your response to question 1? Is the 10,000 barrels per day estimate for just oil?
What is BP going to do with the oil it is recovering?
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment chaired by Representative Markey will host the following hearing on TUESDAY (6.15):
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing entitled “Drilling Down on America’s Energy Future: Safety, Security, and Clean Energy” on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
Witnesses: Rex Tillerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ExxonMobil John Watson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron Corporation James Mulva, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ConocoPhillips Lamar McKay, President and Chairman, BP America, Inc. Marvin Odum, President, Shell Oil Company
Call from Chairman for Independent Scientist Funding Met with Stunning Response from Major Player in Oil Spill Incident
June 4, 2010 – When Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) wrote to the companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to request contributions to an independent science fund, BP responded within three days with a commitment of $500 million, one of the few bright spots in this disaster.
Halliburton, on the other hand, has responded with a different tactic: deny responsibility for the disaster, and contribute zero funds.
In a letter sent to Rep. Markey late yesterday, Halliburton President Tim Probert said that he did not believe that Halliburton is among the companies bearing responsibility for the oil spill, even though Halliburton was the company working on the failed cement plug on the Deepwater Horizon rig. And the company refused to donate any funds to the Surface and Underwater Research Fund—or SURF Fund—that Rep. Markey has spearheaded.
“Halliburton is apparently more worried about litigation than scientific investigation,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “In order to prevent catastrophes like this from ever occurring again, this disaster needs to be a teachable, researchable moment. Halliburton seems more worried about their own impeachable moment.”
Following BP CEO Admission of Unpreparedness, Chairman Will Push for 21st Century Safety and Response Technologies in “Oil SOS” Fund
June 3, 2010 – Following BP CEO Tony Hayward’s admission that his company did not have a “tool-kit” for a sizeable spill from a deep-water well, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) announced that he would introduce a bill creating an oil company-funded research and development program to create 21st century oil safety and spill response technologies.
“From junk shots to top hats, this spill shows that BP and the oil industry paid more attention to drilling ultra-deep instead of creating ultra-safe technologies to prevent and respond to a crisis. The oil companies have not developed new solutions to contain their own pollution,” said Rep. Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “The oil companies have been more focused on paying shareholder dividends than creating safety devices, and it’s now time to force them into creating 21st century safety and response solutions.”
Rep. Markey will introduce a bill -- the Oil SOS (Safety for Offshore Spills) Fund -- when Congress returns from recess that will seek to recover funds from faulty drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico that allow oil companies to drill without paying royalties and redirect some of those funds into a safety and response R&D fund. Currently, due to a poorly drafted law passed in 1995 -- the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act – and a court challenge from the oil companies, some oil producers that received leases between 1996 and 2000 in the Gulf of Mexico are currently drilling on public land for free.
Even as the spill continues in the Gulf of Mexico, the Interior Department is required to refund or credit $2.1 billion to dozens of companies due to these faulty oil leases, including $240 million to BP. In the future, these companies stand to keep $53 billion dollars in future royalties.
Rep. Markey’s legislation would create a fund to support badly needed investments in developing the technologies to better respond to future oil spills and design safer technologies to prevent spills. A portion of the recovered oil company payments would be directed to the technology fund. Rep. Markey’s bill would also repeal expanded royalty relief that was created under a 2005 energy bill passed by the Republican Congress.
Hayward’s confession today also directly contradicted information BP submitted in their oil response plan to the Interior Department, where the company certified to the government that they could handle a spill of 250,000 barrels a day, or about the size of an Exxon Valdez every day.
“From the Valdez to Santa Barbara to spills around the world, the oil companies know their own potential for disaster. And yet they continue to show themselves to be woefully unprepared,” said Rep. Markey.
BP Follows Markey Request to Provide More Footage, With Pipe Cut Scientists Can Assess Change in Flow Rate
June 3, 2010 – As BP attempts today to place the “top cap” containment dome on their oil spill source 5,000 below the Gulf of Mexico, the company finally relented to calls from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and is now providing the live video feeds from all 12 possible rovers operating below the surface.
“These dozen views of the spill will finally provide the American public and independent observers the unfettered access needed to assess both the progress and destruction happening a mile below the Gulf,” said Rep. Markey, who first called and put up a live feed of the spill on Thursday, May 20th. “The release of the Spillcam brought the urgency of this disaster into homes across the United States, and this new level of transparency will allow for robust, real-time information to the world.”
Now that the pipe at the top of the blowout preventer has been cut, this video is more important than ever. Scientists can now use it to reassess the change in flow rate, and better determine the true size and scope of this disaster.
The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Rep. Markey chairs, has been providing a streaming feed of the 12 possible cameras to television networks for the last week to improve transparency of the operations. These new 12 Internet feeds will now be available on the Select Committee website and on BP’s website.
On Monday, Chairman Markey sent a letter to BP America CEO Lamar McKay reiterating his request for the 12 camera feeds. Rep. Markey cited the lag time in information given to the public during the failed "top kill" attempt to seal the still-spilling BP oil well, and some discrepancies in camera angles and availability during those operations, as reasons to provide the 12 camera feed for future operations. This followed several other calls from Rep. Markey to provide all 12 feeds.
Company Claims Underwater Clouds of Oil Do Not Exist; Chairman Asks for Evidence
May 31, 2010 -- Following media reports where BP CEO Tony Hayward claimed that BP had found "no evidence" of underwater oil plumes, even though they have been discovered and documented by scientists, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today sent a letter of inquiry to Hayward asking for documentation to substantiate his claims.
"BP in this instance means 'Blind to Plumes,'" said Rep. Markey, chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is leading an investigation into the BP oil spill.
"The confirmation of the presence of large quantities of oil sub-surface could help to inform clean-up and response efforts, and it is vital that there is unfettered access to all relevant data or analysis," writes Markey in his letter to Hayward .
Rep. Markey notes that University of South Florida researchers recently found a 22 mile long plume of dispersed oil. Many independent news organizations have also taken footage of these plumes, which some scientists believe may be related to the use of dispersants.
The full text of the letter is pasted below:
# # #
aEUREUR
May 31, 2010
Mr. Lamar McKay
President and CEO
BP America, Inc.
510 Westlake Park Boulevard
Houston , Texas 70779
Dear Mr. McKay:
I write to request information regarding statements that BP CEO Tony Hayward reportedly made yesterday, in which he asserted that all oil being spewed from the gushing Deepwater Horizon well is on the surface of the ocean, and not dispersed in vast, undersea plumes as some independent scientists have found.
As you know, several scientists have independently found large volumes of oil under the surface of water, and some have speculated that these may have been formed as a result of the use of dispersants sub-surface. For example, the University of South Florida College of Marine Science recently reported that it found a 22 mile long undersea plume of dispersed oil at a location that raised concern about its proximity to the food chain for sea life in the waters of Florida . Other researchers have found similar evidence of such plumes.
However, according to media reports, Mr. Hayward stated yesterday that BP’s samples showed "no evidence" that oil was suspended sub-surface in this manner, going on to state that:
"The oil is on the surface. Oil has a specific gravity that's about half that of water. It wants to get to the surface because of the difference in specific gravity."
The confirmation of the presence of large quantities of oil sub-surface could help to inform clean-up and response efforts, and it is vital that there is unfettered access to all relevant data or analysis. Consequently, I ask that you provide me with the following:
1) Copies of all measurements, calculations or other supporting materials on which Mr. Hayward based his statements regarding the existence of sub-surface plumes of oil (including indications of BP’ s methodology or any observational equipment used).
2) Any additional information on which Mr. Hayward based his statements.
Please provide these materials to me no later than close of business on Friday June 4, 2010. If you have any questions or concerns, or to arrange for delivery of the requested materials, please have your staff contact Dr. Michal Freedhoff of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff at 202-225-2836.
Ample Video Coverage Also Needed to Assess New Flow Following Cutting of Riser Pipe, Says Chairman
May 31, 2010-- Citing the lag time in information given to the public during the failed "top kill" attempt to seal the still-spilling BP oil well, and some discrepancies in camera angles and availability during those operations, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today reiterated his desire for complete transparency from BP regarding the video feeds from their company's underwater operations.
"We cannot tolerate any delay or gaps in our understanding of the spill site, given that thousands of barrels of oil are spewing forth each day into the gulf, with catastrophic long-term consequences," writes Rep. Markey in a letter to BP America head Lamar McKay. "We need to see for ourselves in real time the effects of the severing of the pipe and to be able to continue to monitor that situation throughout the crisis."
As BP readies to sever the sunken riser pipe in advance of the new strategy to attach a new containment effort, Rep. Markey expresses particular concern in the letter about obtaining an accurate assessment of the rate of the spill after the riser is cut. While BP has asserted there should be no change in the flow of oil, Obama administration officials and others have expressed skepticism regarding that prediction, as the bent riser was potentially providing counteractive force on the spill, reducing the size.
"As I and others have noted to you repeatedly, getting an accurate assessment of flow rate is essential for crafting an appropriate spill response—therefore it is equally essential that video data be available to us all, including the flow rate technical committee and other outside experts, for full evaluation of the true situation," writes Markey in the letter.
The full text of the letter is pasted below:
# # #
May 31, 2010
Mr. Lamar McKay
President and CEO
BP America, Inc.
510 Westlake Park Boulevard
Houston, Texas 70779
Dear Mr. McKay:
Last week, on May 24, I wrote a letter to you regarding the need for BP to maintain complete transparency regarding its operations to stop the flow of oil at the Deepwater Horizon accident site, 5000 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. As I noted in that letter, BP is capturing live footage from multiple cameras at the accident site and in order to get a clear picture of the true situation, the American public and the news media needs to be able to see all cameras operating in real time, in the same way that BP executives and engineers, and others involved in accident operations, are able to see such operations. There is no excuse for not providing us this basic information.
The need for such information was apparent during the recent "top kill" operation, when BP suspended pumping of mud at certain points of the project, attempted to use "bridging material" as part of a "junk shot" and made numerous other tactical decisions during the process, without providing clarity to the public and news media at the time such decisions were happening. That is unacceptable, given the very high stakes involved in this disaster and the right we all have to know whether your actions are proceeding according to plan and as projected. There cannot be any delay or gaps in our understanding of this situation, given that thousands of barrels of oil are spewing forth each day into the gulf, with catastrophic long-term consequences.
Therefore, I am reiterating my request that, from now on, all cameras be made available in live streaming feed to the public and news media. In this regard, I note that the view of the feed does not always seem to include all cameras, since at times camera shots appear on the single live feed that is publicly available, but do not also appear on the multi-camera view screen you have provided to me. BP should not be controlling the view the American public has of this disaster in our ocean.
Yesterday, BP Executive Bob Dudley suggested that the severing of the broken marine riser from the blowout preventer would likely not change "significantly" the rate of oil flowing from the well. However, government representatives, including Assistant to the President, Carol M. Browner, have suggested that severing of the riser pipe could increase the flow by up to 20%. As I have communicated to you repeatedly, getting an accurate estimate of the flow rate is essential in ensuring an appropriate spill response—therefore it is equally essential that video data be available to us all, including the flow rate technical group and other outside experts, for full evaluation of the true situation. All parties need to see for themselves in real time the effects of the severing of the pipe and to be able to continue to monitor that situation throughout the crisis.
I want to continue to make clear that in seeking such live video feed, I do not want to compromise operations or affect the integrity of the video feed. However, I believe that the streaming that you have provided to date has demonstrated that you are able to provide such feeds without any such effects.
Finally, I am reiterating my request that all video be time-stamped and dated, available in easy to access, multiple formats and that it all be archived, with the archived footage being provided to me as soon as possible. It was my understanding from your staff that such archived footage would be provided to me immediately after the "top kill" operation. I have not received any such footage. As we continue to investigate all aspects of BP’s response to this crisis, in the days and weeks ahead, access to this information will be critical to ensuring that we have nothing less than the complete picture.
I would appreciate your prompt response to this letter.
Program Derived from Waxman-Markey Bill Will Help Get Clean Energy Innovations from Lab to Marketplace
May 28, 2010 – A pilot program to create a Clean Energy Consortium, which would link research universities, national labs, industry, and other state and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in clean energy development, today passed the House of Representatives as an amendment the science and technology research bill, America COMPETES. The program, authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.), is based on a program originally included in the House-passed Waxman-Markey clean energy bill.
“Clean Energy Consortia will link inventors with investors, professors with producers, and get clean energy technologies out of the laboratories and into factories,” said Rep. Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We need our energy R&D to help create more American GDP. These centers will do just that.”
“The passage of the Clean Energy Consortium program will ensure that new clean energy technologies and innovations can move from the laboratory to the market,” said Rep. Capps. “Half of the growth in GDP since WWII is attributable to the adoption of new technology. Getting new technologies to market is essential to maintaining our economic competitiveness.”
The program would support the development of energy technologies through a Clean Energy Consortium selected competitively by the Secretary of Energy. The Consortium would be regionally based and include large research universities, government labs, industry, and other organizations with expertise in clean energy development. A grant would be available for up to $10 million per year for three years to establish and operate a Clean Energy Consortium.
The idea has received endorsements from Technet, the National Venture Capital Association, the Clean Economy Network, the New England Clean Energy Council, and other groups focused on regional innovation.
May 25, 2010 – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) along with Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), today announced the introduction of the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010. The legislation will help create jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil by providing incentives to consumers to purchase electric vehicles, grants to selected communities to demonstrate widespread deployment of electric vehicles, and other measures to incentivize both deployment and domestic production of the needed vehicle components and charging infrastructure.
“The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act will lead to a surge in job creation, help consumers, recharge our economy and greatly enhance our national and environmental security,” said Markey. “We import most of the oil we use, much of it from countries that seek to do us harm. The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is yet another reminder that it’s time for America to start driving toward a clean energy future, and electric vehicles can help power the way.
“From plug-in hybrids to all-electric cars, the auto industry is moving quickly to meet consumer demand for more efficient vehicles that cost less to fuel up,” said Biggert, a senior member of the House Science and Technology Committee. “Thanks to these innovations, America is making great strides toward reducing emissions and cutting our dependence on expensive foreign oil. But our electric and transportation infrastructure must keep pace with technology. The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act will accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles and put new energy technologies within reach of more consumers and motorists. It also will help regional communities establish themselves as models for the development and installation of the next generation of transportation infrastructure, including public charging stations. I look forward to working with my colleague, Chairman Markey, to advance this legislation and help put America’s transportation system on the fast track to electrification.”
Said Rep. Eshoo: “Our nation has been developing electric vehicles since the days of Thomas Edison. Sadly, he gave up on his dream, but Ed Markey and I have not given up on ours. The Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act builds on the work we did in the House passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which includes electric vehicle provisions, and it contains my bill H.R. 1742, to ensure that our nation develops the infrastructure necessary to ensure electric vehicles are a reality. The bill we are introducing today will make it possible to drive an electric vehicle from Menlo Park, New Jersey to Menlo Park, California spurring innovation and job creation along the way.”
Said Rep. McNerney: “This is a critical time to work with my colleagues to author the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act, bipartisan legislation that will help advance the widespread use of electric vehicles. There’s great potential for economic growth and job creation in this field and, right now with such high unemployment, it’s more important than ever to lay the groundwork for these new opportunities. I look forward to our continued efforts to advance this legislation.”
Highlights of the Electric Drive Vehicle Deployment Act include:
The Secretary of Energy will competitively award $800 million to 5 different deployment communities around the country, with the objective of deploying 700,000 electric vehicles in those communities within six years.
At least $2,000 in additional consumer incentives for the first 100,000 consumers purchasing electric vehicles in these communities would be provided.
All Americans would continue to be eligible for the electric vehicle tax credit, which reduces the prices of an electric vehicle by up to $7500, and additionally, tax credits of the costs of purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging equipment for individuals (up to $2000) or businesses (up to $50,000 for multiple equipment purchases) would be extended.
Additional research, development, deployment and manufacturing incentives are provided for technologies that enable the widespread deployment of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
Chairman Markey Releases Documents Showing BP Low-balled Flow Rate; Lower Spill Estimate Means Lower Financial Liability for Company
May 27, 2010 – Following the release of a report on the flow rate of the oil spill by a technical team assembled by the Obama administration, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today continued to raise questions about BP’s potential motivations to low-ball the flow rate and size of the spill, and released new documents showing BP knew the spill could have been much bigger than they claimed.
The report, conducted by the National Incident Command’s Flow Rate Technical Group, found that the spill was likely between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels a day, far above the 1,000-5,000 barrels a day BP estimated for most of the spill’s duration. Rep. Markey has engaged with numerous independent scientists on this issue who claimed the spill was much larger than BP’s estimates.
“Now we know what we always knew—this spill is much larger than BP has claimed,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “What’s clear is that BP has had an interest in low-balling the size of their accident, since every barrel spilled increases how much they could be fined by the government.”
Yesterday Rep. Markey pressed this point with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, citing documents he obtained from BP that showed BP knew as early as a week after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that the spill could have been much higher than their initial estimate of 1,000 barrels. Secretary Salazar agreed with Rep. Markey that BP could have a financial interest in underestimating the size of the spill.
One document, dated April 27, shows that BP’s high estimate for the daily rate of the spill was 14,266 barrels per day, well within the midrange of today’s technical group report. Yet one day later, BP was asserting to the public that the spill was only 1,000 barrels a day – their low estimate for the size of the spill.
The implications for BP’s financial liability are directly tied to the size of the spill. Under current law -- the Clean Water Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, following the Exxon Valdez disaster -- a company that spills oil is subject to fines up to $1,000 per barrel, or up to $3,000 per barrel in the case of gross negligence.
For BP, the difference between an estimate of 1,000 barrels per day and one of 14,000 barrels a day could really be the difference between $5 to $15 million per day in fines versus $14 to $42 million per day. That means, at the end of yesterday, the 37th day of the spill, the difference could potentially be between $37 million in fines or $1.5 billion in fines, according to BP’s own estimates from the documents.
According to the range reached by the technical group today, BP could be subject to between $444 million and $2.1 billion in potential fines for the oil spilled thus far.
“BP has to stop protecting their liability and start dealing with the reality of the size of this spill,” said Rep. Markey. “Knowing the size of the spill is vital to all facets of this spill, from response to recovery to accountability.”
May 25, 2010 – Responding to pressure from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), BP tonight agreed to continue to show a live feed of the attempt to plug the oil spill as the company attempts the so-called “top kill” measure.
Below is the statement of Rep. Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee:
“BP made the right decision to allow the public to see this potentially historical event for themselves. The hopes of millions of Americans rest on this effort, and the world deserves a first-hand view of the top kill attempt.
“BP should now take the next step and make the full 12 possible video feeds available to the public, not just one single feed.”
After Releasing Public Video Feed, BP Blackout for Well Termination Attempt
May 25, 2010 – After pushing BP into providing a live feed of the spill at the bottom of the ocean, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today learned that BP will terminate the live feed during BP’s pivotal attempt to seal the well this week. BP informed Rep. Markey’s office that the live feed would be terminated some time early Wednesday morning, and would continue to be offline until after the attempt at the so-called “top kill” is completed.
“It is outrageous that BP would kill the video feed for the top kill. This BP blackout will obscure a vital moment in this disaster,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “After more than a month of spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP is essentially saying to the American people the solution will not be televised.”
Last week, after Rep. Markey’s request, BP agreed to provide live footage of the subsea spill operations. Rep. Markey first provided a live link to the accident site a few minutes before 1:30 PM EST on Thursday, May 20. Demand for the video from the public and the news media was overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the Select Committee Web site in the first 24 hours. The Energy and Commerce Committee was also able to provide access to the feeds due to Rep. Markey's request.
According to a BP technical video released yesterday, many of the preparations for the top kill attempt have already been completed. Therefore, Rep. Markey questioned today why the actual attempt to plug the leaking well could not be shown to the American public.
“No one wants to interfere with the operations during the top kill. With those preparations mostly done, now the world should see whether or not this strategy works, and we should see it in real time,” said Rep. Markey.
Rep. Markey yesterday had also asked BP to provide all 12 available feeds from the accident site, and yesterday released a YouTube video showing the differences between the one feed the public has been allowed to see and the 12 possible feeds available to BP. To view this video, click HERE.
With Continued Use of Chemicals, Chairman Asks for Details on Monitoring Regime, Human Health Impacts
May 25, 2010 – In light of continued use of chemical oil dispersants by BP, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today asked the Food and Drug Administration for information on how Gulf seafood that could be purchased and eaten by humans will be monitored for potential long-term exposure to chemicals.
“I am concerned that because these toxic chemicals were not intended to be used for such long durations, and were not intended to be used at such depths, there could be serious and unknown long-term consequences for the marine ecosystem, the food chain and human health,” Rep. Markey writes in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
“The FDA has an important role to play in monitoring the impact of the spill and the dispersants being used on our food supply, as the Gulf Coast fisheries will not recover from this disaster unless the public has confidence in the safety of seafood from the Gulf,” Rep. Markey explained.
At a briefing last week before the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which Rep. Markey chairs, ocean scientists, including experts in toxicology, expressed concern regarding the long-term effects of these chemicals on fish and other marine life in the Gulf of Mexico. They also explained that there were unknown consequences for human health as these animals consumed each other up the food chain, leading to human consumption of fish or other seafood from the Gulf.
In the letter today, Rep. Markey asks for additional information from the FDA on the monitoring and testing of seafood and other marine life for the presence of these chemicals, and the federal standards that exist to protect the public from consuming contaminated seafood.
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency directed BP to reduce its use of dispersants, including the known-toxic chemical formulation called Corexit. However, BP will continue to use the dispersant at the sea floor to disperse the oil. To date, more than 800,000 gallons of dispersant have been applied either on the surface of the Gulf or at the spill source.
May 24, 2010 – Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that BP’s analysis on the effects from using oil dispersants was flawed, directed the company to reduce the use of Corexit dispersants for surface applications because it has been shown to be ineffective, and ordered BP to continue to search for less toxic substances in consultation with EPA scientists. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, who first raised these concerns last week, released the following statement:
“Just like many aspects of their spill response, BP gets an ‘F’ on its analysis of dispersants, and EPA has rightly told it to redo its assignment and this time, show all its work.
“Despite the assertions made by BP that dispersants can be safely used, we know almost nothing about the potential harm from the long-term use of any of these chemicals on the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico, and even less about their potential to enter the food chain and ultimately harm humans.
“Last Friday, I held a briefing with scientists who said that there were more unknown than known effects from these chemicals. I share their unease. However, BP 's failure to assure the safety of its drilling operations has left the government with no silver bullets and almost no good choices. I will continue to work with a dedicated EPA to study these chemicals and ensure that we are not causing another crisis while trying to mitigate the effects of this catastrophic leak.”
BP Still Not Showing All Feeds; Chairman Releases New Footage, YouTube Example of BP's Multiple Video Capabilities
May 24, 2010 -- Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today called on BP to ensure that the public has full access to all video footage from the sea floor. After coaxing BP to provide a live feed of the undersea operations at the leak site and surrounding area, Rep. Markey today also asked BP to make public all 12 possible feeds. He noted that the current single camera shot, available through BP’s or Chairman Markey’s Web sites, does not show the full range of oil leaks and activities.
“BP currently has the ability to view several video images from the ocean floor at one time, using as many as 12 cameras,” writes Rep. Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, in a letter to BP. “It is incumbent upon BP to at least provide the American public with a complete and accurate picture of the situation as it unfolds.”
In addition to calling for access to multiple video screens, the letter also raised questions on time stamp information and whether the footage would be archived for the public.
The letter sent to BP America CEO Lamar McKay can be found by clicking HERE.
Last week, after Rep. Markey’s request, BP agreed to provide live footage of the subsea spill operations. Rep. Markey first provided a live link to the accident site a few minutes before 1:30 PM EST on Thursday, May 20. Demand for the video from the public and the news media was overwhelming. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the Select Committee (www.globalwarming.house.gov) Web site in the first 24 hours. The Energy and Commerce Committee was also able to provide access to the feeds due to Rep. Markey's request.
To show the discrepancies in the available footage and the provided footage, Rep. Markey released a YouTube video showing the multi-screen images that have been provided to his office, featuring video of multiple leak sites on the ocean floor.
To view BP’s multi-screen camera views, and other not-yet-seen footage, please click HERE.
In the letter, Rep. Markey made clear that he did not want the public viewing to interfere with operations by BP and others in any way. However, he did stress the need to make all archived footage of BP’s containment dome effort, the upcoming “Top Kill” and other attempts to kill the well.
“This video record will be critically important to scientists and engineers who can learn from BP efforts as they develop new technologies to stop deep water oil spills,” said Rep. Markey.
Friday Request from Chairman Markey Leads to Huge Commitment from BP Today; Halliburton, Transocean Should Also Contribute, Says Chairman
WASHINGTON (May 24, 2010) – Following a written request on Friday from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) to the companies responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to establish a fund for scientists and researchers, BP today pledged to donate $500 million to create such a fund. This fund follows the intent of Rep. Markey’s suggestion to assist independent, objective scientists in developing solutions to halt the flow of oil, monitor the spill and assess the ecological impacts on the Gulf.
“The more oil that is spilled, the more we will need our best minds working on this problem. Science will help plug this well and end this crisis, and this fund will help scientists plug the holes in our knowledge of the accident, the solutions, and the ecological damage that will result from this disaster,” said Rep. Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
On Friday, Rep. Markey sent a letter to BP America CEO Lamar McKay, Transocean CEO Steve Newman, and Halliburton CEO David Lesar. To view a copy of the letter, please CLICK HERE.
Rep. Markey called this scientist fund the Surface and Underwater Research Fund, or “SURF”, and asked the three companies involved in the spill to provide the money for the fund. While BP has committed to donating these funds today, Halliburton and Transocean have yet to do so.
“This fund should not decrease the liability of these companies, but it will help increase the potential livability of the Gulf of Mexico following this spill,” said Rep. Markey.
As BP Resists EPA's Directive on Chemicals, Questions Remain on Alternatives
May 23, 2010 -- Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who raised questions on the oil dispersants used by BP to battle the oil spill three days before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency directed BP to use less toxic alternatives, today issued the following statement on BP's apparent refusal to meet the directive:
"BP 's failure to assure the safety of its drilling operations has left the government with no silver bullets and almost no good choices.
"While we know the chemical BP has been using is more toxic to aquatic life than other options, the reality is we know almost nothing about the potential harm from the long-term use of any of these chemicals on the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico, and even less about their potential to enter the food chain and ultimately harm humans.
"On Friday, I held a briefing with independent scientists assessing the long-term impacts in the Gulf. What is most frightening about the long-term effects of the oil and the dispersant chemicals isn't what we know, it is what we just don't know.
"I will continue to do all we can to ensure that in trying to mitigate the effects of one environmental catastrophe, we don't create another."
Chairman Says BP, Halliburton, Transocean Should Establish Oil Spill “SURF”-- Surface and Underwater Research Fund; Would Help End Specter of Conflict of Interest
May 21, 2010 - Today, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) sent a letter to the companies responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico urging the creation of an independent fund for outside scientists and researchers. This fund would help independent, objective scientists develop solutions to halt the flow of oil, monitor the spill and assess the ecological impacts on the Gulf.
“We need to have all of our best minds on board and all hands on deck to confront this ongoing environmental catastrophe,” writes Rep. Markey in a letter to the heads of BP, Halliburton and Transocean. “Allowing independent scientists to sample our oceans and provide their own independent tests -- using their own laboratories -- will be critical in generating reliable and unbiased information.”
The letter was sent to BP America CEO Lamar McKay, Transocean CEO Steve Newman, and Halliburton CEO David Lesar. To view a copy of the letter, please CLICK HERE.
Rep. Markey announced the fund at a briefing he held today with top ocean and toxic scientists. The scientists noted how much was still unknown about the spill, and how additional capacity to conduct research could greatly aid their ability to assess the spill.
“Your companies bear complete responsibility for this disaster and have a duty to assist with the investigation of the causes of the spill, to implement solutions that halt the flow of oil, to monitor the spill’s location and trajectory, and to assess ecological impacts on the human, marine, and coastal populations of the oil and the oil/dispersant mixes being released,” wrote Rep. Markey to BP, Halliburton and Transocean.
Directive to Choose Less Toxic Chemical Follows Markey Letter to EPA
May 20, 2010 -- Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for ordering BP to use less toxic dispersant chemicals in the company’s cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico. The company has been applying these chemicals deep underwater in an effort to mitigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. EPA’s announcement comes just three days after Rep. Markey sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that raised questions about the potential toxicity of the trademarked formulation, called Corexit, that BP had selected for use, and whether the chemical could be contributing to new reports of large undersea “plumes” of oil suspended thousands of feet below the water's surface.
“I commend the Obama administration for acting swiftly to address my concerns that the dispersant BP chose to use is more toxic than other available formulations,” said Rep. Markey, who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “The effect of long-term use of dispersants on the marine ecosystem has not been extensively studied, and we need to act with the utmost of caution.”
Rep. Markey’s May 17, 2010 letter, which can be found here, noted that some formulations of Corexit, the substances being used in the Gulf of Mexico, were banned in Britain more than a decade ago due to their tested harmful effects to sea life. The letter also asks about the effects of water temperature and pressure on the chemicals, as they are currently and for the first time being used at 5,000 feet where the temperature is near freezing and the pressure of the water is extremely high. Rep. Markey also asked EPA whether these chemicals could accumulate in marine life over time, and what human health impacts could result from eating Gulf seafood.
“The tests used to measure the toxicity of dispersants involve only a 96-hour dose to the marine animals that will be exposed to them – clearly, their effects when they’re used over longer periods might be significantly more damaging,” said Rep. Markey. “The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans. We must ensure that these chemicals, which are being touted as a way to mitigate the effects of the spill, first do no harm to marine life.”
BP Acquiesces to Markey’s Request, Will Release Video Stream Tonight to Chairman
May 19, 2010 – Following a demand from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) for a live feed of the BP oil spill to be made publicly available on the web, BP said they would release the feed and it will be shown on Rep. Markey’s committee website at www.globalwarming.house.gov. The release of the live link to Rep. Markey is expected tonight.
“This may be BP’s footage, but it’s America’s ocean. Now anyone will be able to see the real-time effects the BP spill is having on our ocean,” said Rep. Markey, who conducted a briefing today with independent scientists where he reiterated the call for a video feed. “This footage will aid analysis by independent scientists blocked by BP from coming to see the spill.”
Markey sent letters earlier today to BP America’s CEO Lamar McKay asking for the footage to be made public on BP’s website. If BP could not host the footage, Rep. Markey offered to host it on his website free of charge.
“BP is going to have to pay for the cleanup of this spill and the long-term damage. Hosting this video on our website is the only freebie they’re going to get,” Rep. Markey said.
Rep. Markey has frequently queried BP for more information on the exact size of the spill and on their refusal to engage with outside scientists. Independent scientists have examined video, satellite photos and other aspects of the spill and determined that it may be much bigger than estimated. Today at a briefing Rep. Markey held in his Energy and Environment Subcommittee, independent scientists from Purdue University and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said that the estimate of a 5,000 barrel per day leak was an underestimation of the flow. The scientists said with more data, they could better calculate the flow of oil from the sea floor.
"This is 4th grade math. We know the numerator here—the couple thousand barrels a day BP is siphoning out of the sunken pipe. But we still don’t know the denominator," said Rep. Markey. "BP is capturing a fraction of the oil, but they don’t know what that fraction is. By releasing this video, we’ve taken the first step towards allowing better access to the information BP has about this spill."
Public, Scientists Deserve to See All Video from Spill, Says Chairman; Markey Offers to Host Feed on Website If BP Cannot
(May 19, 2010) – In advance of hosting a congressional briefing today with independent scientists on the true size of the oil leak, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to BP America’s CEO Lamar McKay asking that the company make a live stream of video from the oil leak site publicly available to give unfettered access of the accident and recovery to scientists and the American public. BP currently has several remotely controlled submersibles taking video of the accident site 24 hours a day, but has only released a fraction of the video. Rep. Markey also sent a letter to Admiral Thad Allen of the Coast Guard on the matter.
The letters are publicly available on the web here and here.
“Allowing the public to view this video could provide our best scientists and engineers with information that could be helpful in developing much needed solutions to the ongoing oil spill, both in terms of subsea operations and surface spill response,” writes Rep. Markey in the letter. Rep. Markey chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee. “Congress and the American public have the right to know what is happening in real time, so that they can understand and react to the situation as it develops.”
Rep. Markey has frequently queried BP for more information on the exact size of the spill and on their refusal to engage with outside scientists. Independent scientists have examined video, satellite photos and other aspects of the spill and determined that it may be much bigger. One analysis by Steve Wereley from Purdue University put the rate of spill at 70,000 barrels a day, much higher than the BP-pushed estimate of 5,000 barrels a day.
If BP cannot host the live video stream, Rep. Markey’s offered to do so on his award-winning website, www.globalwarming.house.gov, at no cost to BP. Rep. Markey suggests that all congressional committees be given the same unfettered access to the video feed.
Information on the briefing at 2 PM today is below:
The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a briefing entitled, “Sizing up the BP Oil Spill: Science and Engineering Measuring Methods,” on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building and online at www.energycommerce.house.gov.
WITNESSES: Steve Wereley, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University Richard Camilli, Associate Scientist, Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, NASA Frank Muller-Karger, Professor of Biological Oceanography and Remote Sensing, University of South Florida
President of NAS to Appear at Select Committee Hearing Tomorrow
May 19, 2010 – Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-author of the House-passed Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill, and chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, today released the following statement on the new scientific reports released by the National Academies of Science:
“How many more warnings do we need from scientists before we finally act as a nation to cut the dangerous pollution we create by burning oil, coal and other fossil fuels? These new reports released today yet again show that we should have acted yesterday.
“Now that the House has passed the Waxman-Markey bill, the Senate must take similar action and complete their process by the end of this year. We have no more days, weeks, months or years to lose in the effort to create more clean energy and less carbon pollution.
“Tomorrow I will host the president of the National Academies of Science to discuss these findings and the harsh politics heaped on our climate scientists. The time for debate is over, the time for action is now.”
Information on tomorrow’s hearing is below:
Washington, D.C. – The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Yet even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.
On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” will feature prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing will explore scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.
WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena
WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC and online.
WITNESS LIST: Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University
Markey Statement on President Appointing Independent Oil Spill Commission
Follows Legislation Introduced by Chairman Markey, Rep. Capps
WASHINGTON (May 17, 2010) – Following legislation introduced by Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.), President Obama will appoint an independent commission to look into the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and make recommendations to avoid such disasters in the future.
"Whether it’s a nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island or an oil blowout one mile deep, appointing an independent review panel is critical to reduce the risks of future accidents," said Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "Following the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown, President Carter appointed an independent panel to investigate the cause of the meltdown and recommend safety improvements. President Obama creating an independent blue-ribbon panel on this oil spill will help provide the recommendations to ensure that similar disasters do not happen again."
Reps. Markey and Capps introduced the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Inquiry Commission Act of 2010 (H.R. 5241) on May 6, 2010.
The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.
On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” will feature prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing will explore scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.
WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena
WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC and online
WITNESS LIST:
Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University
Questions Arise on Chemicals Used in Gulf Spill, Including Link to Giant Undersea Oil Plumes
(May 17, 2010) Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today queried the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the dangers of applying oil-dispersing chemicals deep underwater as an effort to mitigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In the letter sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Rep. Markey raises questions about the potential toxicity of the trademarked formulation, called Corexit, and whether the chemical could be contributing to new reports of large undersea “plumes” of oil suspended thousands of feet below the water's surface.
“The release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemicals into the Gulf of Mexico could be an unprecedented, large and aggressive experiment on our oceans,” said Rep. Markey, chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is conducting an extensive investigation into the spill. “The information regarding the chemical composition, efficacy and toxicity of the dispersants currently being used is scarce.”
On the first question of the levels of toxicity of the dispersant chemicals, Rep. Markey notes that some formulations of Corexit, the substances being used in the Gulf of Mexico, were banned in Britain more than a decade ago due to their tested harmful effects to sea life. Rep. Markey also asks for information on the eighteen dispersants EPA has approved for use, including a ranking of their efficacy and toxicity.
The letter also asks about the effects of water temperature and pressure on the chemicals, as they are currently and for the first time being used at 5,000 feet where the temperature is near freezing and the pressure of the water is extremely high.
Recent reports from independent scientists have told of large, undersea oil “plumes.” Instead of rising to the surface, large clouds of oil are currently suspended thousands of feet below the ocean and are found at various depths within the water column, making the issue of quantifying the spill much more difficult.
Citing concerns of scientists that the formation of these plumes may be linked to the use of dispersants, Rep. Markey asks whether EPA considered this scenario for the interaction of the dispersants with the oil plume when applied at the depth of the Deepwater Horizon leak.
Finally, Rep. Markey asks EPA whether these chemicals could accumulate in marine life over time, and what human health impacts could result from eating Gulf seafood.
In response to reports that the insertion of a siphon pipe has had indications of potential success diverting some of the leaking oil from the BP spill to oil tankers, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and also chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming issued the following statement:
"While this may be a promising development, I don't think we should get our hopes up until we know for sure that all of the oil is staying down.
"With reports of miles-long undersea clouds of oil floating around the Gulf of Mexico, and the very real possibility that more oil has been spilled than previously estimated, this crisis is far from over.
"I look forward to seeing what additional steps BP, Haliburton and Transocean take to address this disaster."
