Turkey's State Oil Co, ExxonMobil to Develop Oil Projects in Kurdistan

ISTANBUL - Turkey's state-run oil firm has struck an agreement with U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. to develop joint projects in Kurdish-administered northern Iraq, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday.

Mr. Erdogan also said that Turkey can pursue separate arrangements with the Erbil-based Kurdistan Regional Government, or KRG.

"Countries from various parts of the world are taking steps to explore and produce oil in different parts of Iraq, and then deliver it to world oil markets," he said. "There's nothing more normal, more natural than Turkey, which provides all kinds of support and aid to its next-door neighbor, to take a step that is based on mutual benefit."

The prime minister's statements, made just before he departed for the U.S. to meet with President Barack Obama, could herald an expansion of Turkey's influence in the energy-rich north of Iraq and help it generate enough energy to meet rising demand amid a robustly growing economy.

But Washington has also been cool on ventures that lack Baghdad's approval, fearing that empowering regional players such as the Kurds and Sunnis may push Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shia, closer to Iran and tip the delicate power balance in the Middle East following the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, analysts say.

"The U.S. administration has consistently sent the same signals and repeated the same message: 'We want this to be done with Baghdad as part of a win-win-win formula involving Ankara, Erbil and Baghdad.' Obviously, by signing an agreement Turkey and Iraqi Kurds have moved to a certain stage, but whether this happens will depend to a great extent on what happens in Washington," said Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.

Exxon Mobil declined to comment on the agreement announced by Turkey's prime minister. The Kurdish regional government couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

"The deal [between Turkey's oil company and Exxon to explore in Iraqi Kurdistan] is illegal and is not in line with the Iraqi constitution. Any agreement signed without the approval of the central government is illegal," said Faisal Abdullah, spokesman for Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq's deputy prime minister for energy.

Striking an agreement with Ankara offers Iraqi Kurdistan a gateway to export its huge reserves of crude oil directly to world markets via Turkey, after a new pipeline is completed.

The move may also have destabilizing effects, coming at a time when Sunni-Shia tensions in Iraq are mounting and Mr. Maliki is seeking to assert Baghdad's authority across the country.

The Kurdish regional government and the Shia-Arab-led central government dispute control of territory, oilfields and revenue sharing from energy resources in Iraq. A KRG-Turkey deal could also deepen growing rifts between Baghdad and Ankara.

Some analysts said Tuesday's announcement contrasts sharply with a carefully honed policy in Ankara. Turkish officials have consistently called for the territorial integrity of Iraq and reiterated that they won't pursue any deals that would undermine the country's stability.

The Iraqi central government in Baghdad has long opposed the KRG's agreements with oil companies and plans for oil exports to Turkey.

"The regional government in northern Iraq has a constitutional right to 17% of [oil and gas] revenues," Mr. Erdogan said. "Since it has the ability to readily spend that share, it's in its right to use that in exchanges with Turkey.

"It is possible for us to have mutual agreements, there's nothing to prevent that," he told reporters in televised comments from Ankara before boarding his jet.

There is a deep divide between Erbil and Baghdad about the interpretation of Iraq's constitution. The Kurds maintain that it allows them the right to grant new contracts while letting the central government manage existing licenses. Yet Mr. Maliki says all new agreements need to be approved by Baghdad.

To get its energy framework with Iraqi Kurdistan moving, Turkey would have to persuade Washington to back the deal, analysts say.

"This is a step with the regional government in northern Iraq for exploration there. Now, to get results from this move, we need to get done with this trip with good results, our steps will mature accordingly," Mr. Erdogan said ahead of his meeting with Mr. Obama.

Still, that hasn't stopped drilling in northern Iraq by energy giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp., as well as smaller explorers such as Turkey-based Genel Energy PLC, run by former BP PLC (BP) chief Tony Hayward.

Genel Energy, which is listed in London and has been active in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2002, is already pumping oil and selling mostly to the domestic market. The KRG is using some of Genel's oil in a barter trade with Turkey, which provides the Kurdish government with processed petroleum products such as kerosene and fuel oil.

Hassan Hafidh, Ali Abbas and Tom Fowler contributed to this article.

Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

State Department Inspector General Probing Keystone XL Contractor’s Conflicts of Interest

In yet another investigation into the Obama Administration’s activities, the State Department Inspector General is probing the conflicts of interest surrounding the contractor that performed the Keystone XL review,.

The American public was supposed to get an honest look at the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. Instead, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), a fossil fuel contractor, hid its ties from the State Department so they could green light the project on behalf of its oil company clients.

Hiring an oil company contractor to review an oil pipeline that its clients have a financial interest in should be illegal – and it is. The Federal Government has strict laws to avoid conflicts of interest and prevent the hiring of contractors who cannot provide unbiased services.

Unredacted documents from the contractor’s proposal (revealed by Mother Jones) show that the company had worked for TransCanada, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies that have a stake in the Canadian Tar Sands.

But, ERM misled the State Department at least twice in its proposal (see C&BP’s original post on ERM’s conflicts of interest)– which may have led to its selection by the State Department to review the Keystone XL pipeline.

First, ERM answered “No” to the question “Within the past three years, have you (or your organization) had a direct or indirect relationship (financial, organizational, contractual or otherwise) with any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work?“ ERM appears to have added to the Yes/No questionnaire that, “ERM has no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada.” Regardless of the addendum, the oil company contractor misled the State Department by checking “No” to the specific question above. Despite the fact that unredacted documents show that ERM worked for TransCanada and other fossil fuel companies with a stake in Keystone XL pipeline in the three years prior to its proposal.

Second, ERM claimed it was not an energy interest. The State Department question defines an energy interest in part as any company or person engaged in research related to energy development. Yet, ERM has worked for all of the top five oil companies and dozens of other fossil fuel companies. In other words, ERM is clearly an energy interest.

How can we trust ERM to perform an honest review of the Keystone XL pipeline, if it can’t answer a yes/no question honestly?

These misleading statements should have been flagged by the State Department and the contractor should not have been able to perform the review because of these seeming conflicts of interest.

Because of the issues above, Checks & Balances Project (C&BP) and 11 environmental, faith-based and public interest organizations sent a letter  [.PDF] on April 8, 2013, calling on Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel to investigate two things: first, whether ERM hid conflicts of interest which might have excluded it from performing the Keystone XL environmental assessment and second, how State Department officials failed to flag inconsistencies in ERM’s proposal.

A few weeks later, C&BP received a voicemail from a Special Agent at the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG):

Hello Mr. Elsner, my name is Special Agent Pedro Colon from the State Department’s Office of Inspector General.  I’m calling to inform you that we have received your request and are reviewing the matter.  If you have any questions please contact me at 703-284-2688.

On May 7, 2013, I called Special Agent Colon but he was unable to speak at the time. I followed up the next day and spoke with the Special Agent via phone regarding the request for an investigation. I asked a few basic questions about the status of the complaint and asked specifically if C&BP would be informed should the complaint be fully investigated by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Special Agent Colon informed me that he could not speak to any of the questions and referred us to other staff in the OIG.

On May 9, 2013, I received an email from the OIG General Counsel saying, “that the complaint was being processed per the OIG hotline procedures and is under review.” (See the entire email correspondence here [.PDF])

I then asked the OIG General Counsel the same question he asked Mr. Colon:

If the hotline is moved out of the review process and onto the next step (an investigation?), will I be notified?

The OIG  replied via email saying that the OIG Office of Investigations will not comment if it is engaged in an investigation.

The correspondence between C&BP and the OIG indicates that there is a probe into the Keystone XL review conflicts of interest.

The public was supposed to get an honest look at the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline. Instead, ERM, an oil company contractor, misled the State Department, in what appears to be an attempt to green light the project on behalf of oil industry clients.

The American Public needs a full investigation into the conflicts of interest and misleading statements of the Keystone XL review contractor, Environmental Resources Management.

Secretary Kerry needs to stop the Keystone XL process until the Inspector General completes a full investigation of these conflicts of interest and the State Department has an unbiased review of Keystone XL’s impact.

Filed under KeystoneXL Tagged with Big Oil, Checks and Balances Project, Energy, Energy Production, Environment, ExxonMobil, John Kerry, Keystone, Keystone XL, politics, Secretary Kerry, State Department, Tar Sands, TransCanada, US State Department

View the original article here

C&BP Calls for State Dept. Investigation into Keystone XL Consultant’s Conflicts of Interest

Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and State Dept. Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel

Originally posted on April 9, 2013. 

Yesterday, Checks & Balances Project and 11 environmental, faith-based and public interest organizations called on Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel to investigate whether Environmental Resources Management (ERM) hid conflicts of interest which might have excluded it from performing the Keystone XL environmental assessment and how State Department officials failed to flag inconsistencies in ERM’s proposal. Tom Zeller, Senior Writer at The Huffington Post, wrote an article highlighting the letter callings for an investigation.

Early last month, the State Department released a 2,000 page environmental impact study for the Keystone XL pipeline claiming that the pipeline would not have major impact on the environment. But, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the consulting firm hired to perform the “draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS),” has ties to fossil fuel companies with major stakes in the Alberta Tar Sands. This conflict of interest was not accurately disclosed  in ERM’s answers on a State Department questionnaire. Checks & Balances Project considers ERM’s responses in its proposal to be intentionally misleading statements.

Unredacted Documents Uncover Conflicts of Interest
Last week, Mother Jones released unredacted versions of the ERM proposal, showing that three experts “had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone’s approval.”

The unredacted biographies show that ERM’s employees have an existing relationship with ExxonMobil and worked for TransCanada within the last three years among other companies involved in the Canadian tar sands.

Here’s more from Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll:

“ERM’s second-in-command on the Keystone report, Andrew Bielakowski, had worked on three previous pipeline projects for TransCanada over seven years as an outside consultant. He also consulted on projects for ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips, three of the Big Five oil companies that could benefit from the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of heavy crude oil taken from the Canadian tar sands.

Another ERM employee who contributed to State’s Keystone report — and whose prior work history was also redacted — previously worked for Shell Oil; a third worked as a consultant for Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Koch Industries. Shell and Koch have a significant financial interest in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. ERM itself has worked for Chevron, which has invested in Canadian tar-sands extraction, according to its website.”

When asked about who at the State Department decided to redact ERM’s biographies, a State Department spokesperson said “ERM proposed redactions of some information in the administrative documents that they considered business confidential.” Disclosing past clients may be business confidential information, but from what the biographies show, ERM may have recommended the redactions to hide conflicts of interest from public disclosure.

Problem with ERM Answers on Conflict of Interest Questionnaire 

ERM’s Proposal to the State Department

The biographies on ERM’s proposal show that the company has had direct relationships with multiple business entities that could be affected by the proposed work in the past three years.

In the “Organizational Conflict of Interest Questionnaire,” the State Department asks (page 42), “Within the past three years, have you (or your organization) had a direct or indirect relationship (financial, organizational, contractual or otherwise) with any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work?“ ERM’s Project Manager, Steve Koster, checked “No” but appears to have added to the Yes/No questionnaire that, “ERM has no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada.”

Regardless of the addendum Koster added, he still submitted an incomplete statement when checking “No” to the specific question above. Simply put, the information provided by Mr. Koster was an incomplete statement if one simply reviews the biographies of ERM’s employees for the project.

The State Department Contracting Officer should have flagged this inconsistency when reviewing the staff biographies.  ERM’s answers did not properly reveal in the Yes/No questionnaire that ERM did have a current “direct relationship” with a business enetity that could be affected by the proposed work and a relationship in the past three years with TransCanada, the company building the pipeline.

Koster’s incomplete statement on direct business relationships is not the only odd statement in ERM’s proposal. ERM also answered “No” to the question, “Are you (or your organization) an ‘energy concern?’” which the State Department defines (in part) as: “Any person — (1) significantly engaged in the business of conducting research…related to an activity described in paragraphs (i) through (v).” Paragraph (i) states: “Any person significantly engaged in the business of developing, extracting, producing, refining, transporting by pipeline, converting into synthetic fuel, distributing, or selling minerals for use as an energy source…” ERM as a research firm working for fossil fuel companies is, unequivocally, an energy interest.

So the question must be asked: If ERM is unable to accurately fill out a simple questionnaire regarding conflicts of interest, how can we trust the company to perform an unbiased environmental assessment of a 1,179 mile-long pipeline cutting through the American heartland? And, why did the State Department’s Contracting Officer not flag the inconsistencies in ERM’s Conflict of Interest Questionnaire when reviewing the proposals?

Intentions of State Department and ERM in Question

The Federal Government has strict ethics rules to prevent Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) from impacting the impartiality of government contracts and to prevent hiring contractors who cannot provide independent and unbiased services to the government.

According to a white paper from the Congressional Research Service, before the State Department could choose ERM as the contractor, the “Contracting Officer” had to make an “affirmative determination of responsibility.” All government contractors (including ERM) must be deemed responsible, in part by meeting strict ethics guidelines, known as “collateral requirements.”

According to current collateral requirements, contractors must be found “nonresponsible” when there are unavoidable and unmitigated OCIs. Checks & Balances Project believes that the Contracting Officer should have deemed ERM “nonresponsible” because the company serves as a contractor for major fossil fuel companies that have a stake in the Keystone XL pipeline. If ERM were “nonresponsible”, the company would have been ineligible to perform the environmental impact review of the Keystone XL pipeline.

These potential material incomplete statements on a Federal Government proposal calls into question the integrity of ERM and threatens millions in government contracts.

If ERM were determined to be “nonresponsible” or “excluded” because of these incomplete statements, it could jeopardize ERM’s ability to perform any work for the Federal Government. Again, according to the Congressional Research Service:

“Decisions to exclude are made by agency heads or their designees (above the contracting officer’s level) based upon evidence that contractors have committed certain integrity offenses, including any “offenses indicating a lack of business integrity or honesty that seriously affect the present responsibility of a contractor.””

Certainly these incomplete statements call into question both the independence of ERM and the judgement of the Contracting Officer in making the “affirmative determination of responsibility.” This proposal process should be investigated by the State Department Inspector General to determine if ERM’s statements are cause for exclusion.

Groups Calling for Inspector General Investigation

We believe ERM used multiple material incomplete statements and had clear conflicts of interest as shown in the unredacted documents. So, why was ERM hired by the State Department?

Checks & Balances Project asked a State Department spokesperson about the conflicts of interest and the spokesperson said: “Based on a thorough consideration of all of the information presented, including the work histories of team members, the Department concluded that ERM has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project that would constitute a conflict of interest.” Perhaps the State Department’s Contracting Offier made the decision to hire ERM because of the company’s incomplete statements on the conflict of interest questionnaire.

Harold Geisel, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. State Department

Checks & Balances Project along with 11 other groups (Better Future Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, DeSmogBlog, Forecast the Facts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, NC WARN, Oil Change International, Public Citizen’s Energy Program and Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel calling for an investigation into the matter. These incomplete statements and the determination by the Contracting Officer that ERM did not have any conflicts of interest, despite clear evidence to the contrary, are grounds for further investigation.

View the original article here

C&BP Calls for State Dept. Investigation into Keystone XL Consultant’s Conflicts of Interest

Letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and State Dept. Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel

Originally posted on April 9, 2013. 

Yesterday, Checks & Balances Project and 11 environmental, faith-based and public interest organizations called on Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel to investigate whether Environmental Resources Management (ERM) hid conflicts of interest which might have excluded it from performing the Keystone XL environmental assessment and how State Department officials failed to flag inconsistencies in ERM’s proposal. Tom Zeller, Senior Writer at The Huffington Post, wrote an article highlighting the letter callings for an investigation.

Early last month, the State Department released a 2,000 page environmental impact study for the Keystone XL pipeline claiming that the pipeline would not have major impact on the environment. But, Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the consulting firm hired to perform the “draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS),” has ties to fossil fuel companies with major stakes in the Alberta Tar Sands. This conflict of interest was not accurately disclosed  in ERM’s answers on a State Department questionnaire. Checks & Balances Project considers ERM’s responses in its proposal to be intentionally misleading statements.

Unredacted Documents Uncover Conflicts of Interest
Last week, Mother Jones released unredacted versions of the ERM proposal, showing that three experts “had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone’s approval.”

The unredacted biographies show that ERM’s employees have an existing relationship with ExxonMobil and worked for TransCanada within the last three years among other companies involved in the Canadian tar sands.

Here’s more from Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll:

“ERM’s second-in-command on the Keystone report, Andrew Bielakowski, had worked on three previous pipeline projects for TransCanada over seven years as an outside consultant. He also consulted on projects for ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips, three of the Big Five oil companies that could benefit from the Keystone XL project and increased extraction of heavy crude oil taken from the Canadian tar sands.

Another ERM employee who contributed to State’s Keystone report — and whose prior work history was also redacted — previously worked for Shell Oil; a third worked as a consultant for Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Koch Industries. Shell and Koch have a significant financial interest in the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. ERM itself has worked for Chevron, which has invested in Canadian tar-sands extraction, according to its website.”

When asked about who at the State Department decided to redact ERM’s biographies, a State Department spokesperson said “ERM proposed redactions of some information in the administrative documents that they considered business confidential.” Disclosing past clients may be business confidential information, but from what the biographies show, ERM may have recommended the redactions to hide conflicts of interest from public disclosure.

Problem with ERM Answers on Conflict of Interest Questionnaire 

ERM’s Proposal to the State Department

The biographies on ERM’s proposal show that the company has had direct relationships with multiple business entities that could be affected by the proposed work in the past three years.

In the “Organizational Conflict of Interest Questionnaire,” the State Department asks (page 42), “Within the past three years, have you (or your organization) had a direct or indirect relationship (financial, organizational, contractual or otherwise) with any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work?“ ERM’s Project Manager, Steve Koster, checked “No” but appears to have added to the Yes/No questionnaire that, “ERM has no existing contract or working relationship with TransCanada.”

Regardless of the addendum Koster added, he still submitted an incomplete statement when checking “No” to the specific question above. Simply put, the information provided by Mr. Koster was an incomplete statement if one simply reviews the biographies of ERM’s employees for the project.

The State Department Contracting Officer should have flagged this inconsistency when reviewing the staff biographies.  ERM’s answers did not properly reveal in the Yes/No questionnaire that ERM did have a current “direct relationship” with a business enetity that could be affected by the proposed work and a relationship in the past three years with TransCanada, the company building the pipeline.

Koster’s incomplete statement on direct business relationships is not the only odd statement in ERM’s proposal. ERM also answered “No” to the question, “Are you (or your organization) an ‘energy concern?’” which the State Department defines (in part) as: “Any person — (1) significantly engaged in the business of conducting research…related to an activity described in paragraphs (i) through (v).” Paragraph (i) states: “Any person significantly engaged in the business of developing, extracting, producing, refining, transporting by pipeline, converting into synthetic fuel, distributing, or selling minerals for use as an energy source…” ERM as a research firm working for fossil fuel companies is, unequivocally, an energy interest.

So the question must be asked: If ERM is unable to accurately fill out a simple questionnaire regarding conflicts of interest, how can we trust the company to perform an unbiased environmental assessment of a 1,179 mile-long pipeline cutting through the American heartland? And, why did the State Department’s Contracting Officer not flag the inconsistencies in ERM’s Conflict of Interest Questionnaire when reviewing the proposals?

Intentions of State Department and ERM in Question

The Federal Government has strict ethics rules to prevent Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) from impacting the impartiality of government contracts and to prevent hiring contractors who cannot provide independent and unbiased services to the government.

According to a white paper from the Congressional Research Service, before the State Department could choose ERM as the contractor, the “Contracting Officer” had to make an “affirmative determination of responsibility.” All government contractors (including ERM) must be deemed responsible, in part by meeting strict ethics guidelines, known as “collateral requirements.”

According to current collateral requirements, contractors must be found “nonresponsible” when there are unavoidable and unmitigated OCIs. Checks & Balances Project believes that the Contracting Officer should have deemed ERM “nonresponsible” because the company serves as a contractor for major fossil fuel companies that have a stake in the Keystone XL pipeline. If ERM were “nonresponsible”, the company would have been ineligible to perform the environmental impact review of the Keystone XL pipeline.

These potential material incomplete statements on a Federal Government proposal calls into question the integrity of ERM and threatens millions in government contracts.

If ERM were determined to be “nonresponsible” or “excluded” because of these incomplete statements, it could jeopardize ERM’s ability to perform any work for the Federal Government. Again, according to the Congressional Research Service:

“Decisions to exclude are made by agency heads or their designees (above the contracting officer’s level) based upon evidence that contractors have committed certain integrity offenses, including any “offenses indicating a lack of business integrity or honesty that seriously affect the present responsibility of a contractor.””

Certainly these incomplete statements call into question both the independence of ERM and the judgement of the Contracting Officer in making the “affirmative determination of responsibility.” This proposal process should be investigated by the State Department Inspector General to determine if ERM’s statements are cause for exclusion.

Groups Calling for Inspector General Investigation

We believe ERM used multiple material incomplete statements and had clear conflicts of interest as shown in the unredacted documents. So, why was ERM hired by the State Department?

Checks & Balances Project asked a State Department spokesperson about the conflicts of interest and the spokesperson said: “Based on a thorough consideration of all of the information presented, including the work histories of team members, the Department concluded that ERM has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project that would constitute a conflict of interest.” Perhaps the State Department’s Contracting Offier made the decision to hire ERM because of the company’s incomplete statements on the conflict of interest questionnaire.

Harold Geisel, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. State Department

Checks & Balances Project along with 11 other groups (Better Future Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, DeSmogBlog, Forecast the Facts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, NC WARN, Oil Change International, Public Citizen’s Energy Program and Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel calling for an investigation into the matter. These incomplete statements and the determination by the Contracting Officer that ERM did not have any conflicts of interest, despite clear evidence to the contrary, are grounds for further investigation.

Filed under KeystoneXL Tagged with Andrew Bielakowski, Andy Kroll, Better Future Project, Big Oil, BP, Center for Biological Diversity, Checks and Balances Project, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Chevron, Conflict of Interest, Conflicts of Interest, Congressional Research Service, ConocoPhillips, DeSmogBlog, Disclosure, Energy, Environment, Environmental Resources Management, ERM, ExxonMobil, Federal Acquisition Regulation, Federal Government, Forecast the Facts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Harold Geisel, Huffington Post, Industry, John Kerry, Keystone XL, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, Koch Industries, KXL, lobbying, Mother Jones, NC WARN, Oil Change International, politics, Public Citizen's Energy Program, Shell, State Department, Steve Koster, Tar Sands, Tom Zeller, TransCanada, Unitarian Universalist Ministry for Earth

View the original article here

State Rep. Broxson Withdraws Blackwater River Park Oil, Gas Bill

State Rep. Doug Broxson withdrew his bill that would have allowed drilling for oil and gas in the Blackwater River State Forest in Holt, Florida.

"We think the public needs to know much more about what would happen," Broxson told the News Journal Wednesday. "The timing is not perfect for pursuing this."

The bill, filed in January 2013, proposed to allow private companies to drill for oil and gas in the 190,000-acre park.

The bill would have allowed the governor's Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the ability to enter into a contract with oil development companies. The bill also stated that drilling and contracts would bring in royalties and other revenue for the state.

Broxson said he did not anticipate that opposition to the idea would be so fierce. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission granted approval for exploration in the state park – as long as the area's "natural assets" were not disturbed, he said.

David Guest, the Florida managing attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, said the idea of drilling in a state park that holds one of the nation's purest sand-bottom rivers was ludicrous.

"It's really a symbolic statement that says screw the environment," Guest said to Rigzone in an interview. "Operators can get to these resources that are held underneath the forest through directional drilling - there's really no need to do this at all."

Many opponents drew comparisons between the idea of drilling in the forest to the 2010 BP oil spill.

"Having that experience of Deepwater Horizon only two years ago, it defies logic," Guest said.

The comparison baffled Broxson.

"We certainly miscalculated that. There's no separation in their thinking of the two of what might happen on land – which is almost impossible – with what happened in the Gulf a mile deep," Broxson told News Journal.

Broxson is moving forward with the Feb. 25 town hall meeting he has set for the issue in Jay, Florida – a town in Santa Rosa County. Broxson wants to ensure that the community, estimated at 151,372 by in 2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau, is aware of the issue and answer any questions residents may have.

“I look forward to continuing this discussion on Monday and in the future as a means to safeguard our quality of life and achieve maximum economic benefit for every citizen in Northwest Florida,” he said.

The bill, which was under review in the state House's Energy & Utilities Subcommittee before being withdrew, is similar to a bill first introduced by state Rep. Clay Ford, R-Pensacola. That bill died before being passed. A similar bill in the state Senate, also granting the governor's office the same abilities in state lands across the state was never passed.

With more than 10 years of journalism experience, Robin Dupre specializes in the offshore sector of the oil and gas industry. Email Robin at rdupre@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

State Rep. Broxson Withdraws Blackwater River Park Oil, Gas Bill

State Rep. Doug Broxson withdrew his bill that would have allowed drilling for oil and gas in the Blackwater River State Forest in Holt, Florida.

"We think the public needs to know much more about what would happen," Broxson told the News Journal Wednesday. "The timing is not perfect for pursuing this."

The bill, filed in January 2013, proposed to allow private companies to drill for oil and gas in the 190,000-acre park.

The bill would have allowed the governor's Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the ability to enter into a contract with oil development companies. The bill also stated that drilling and contracts would bring in royalties and other revenue for the state.

Broxson said he did not anticipate that opposition to the idea would be so fierce. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission granted approval for exploration in the state park – as long as the area's "natural assets" were not disturbed, he said.

David Guest, the Florida managing attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, said the idea of drilling in a state park that holds one of the nation's purest sand-bottom rivers was ludicrous.

"It's really a symbolic statement that says screw the environment," Guest said to Rigzone in an interview. "Operators can get to these resources that are held underneath the forest through directional drilling - there's really no need to do this at all."

Many opponents drew comparisons between the idea of drilling in the forest to the 2010 BP oil spill.

"Having that experience of Deepwater Horizon only two years ago, it defies logic," Guest said.

The comparison baffled Broxson.

"We certainly miscalculated that. There's no separation in their thinking of the two of what might happen on land – which is almost impossible – with what happened in the Gulf a mile deep," Broxson told News Journal.

Broxson is moving forward with the Feb. 25 town hall meeting he has set for the issue in Jay, Florida – a town in Santa Rosa County. Broxson wants to ensure that the community, estimated at 151,372 by in 2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau, is aware of the issue and answer any questions residents may have.

“I look forward to continuing this discussion on Monday and in the future as a means to safeguard our quality of life and achieve maximum economic benefit for every citizen in Northwest Florida,” he said.

The bill, which was under review in the state House's Energy & Utilities Subcommittee before being withdrew, is similar to a bill first introduced by state Rep. Clay Ford, R-Pensacola. That bill died before being passed. A similar bill in the state Senate, also granting the governor's office the same abilities in state lands across the state was never passed.

With more than 10 years of journalism experience, Robin Dupre specializes in the offshore sector of the oil and gas industry. Email Robin at rdupre@rigzone.com.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

BP To Contest $34B Gulf Suits From State, Local Governments

LONDON - BP PLC plans to "vigorously contest" legal claims for tens of billions of dollars in damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster, describing the lawsuits as "seriously flawed."

Demands from U.S. state and local governments for $34 billion risk ballooning BP's overall bill for the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill to more than $90 billion, more than double the amount the U.K oil giant has already provisioned for and underscores how after almost three years the Deepwater Horizon disaster still weighs on BP.

BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley said the firm intends to contest the state economic claims "vigorously in court."

Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana are seeking the money in compensation for economic losses and property damage caused by the incident, the company disclosed in an earnings filing Tuesday. BP is already facing spill costs of around $58 billion, which includes penalties, damages and cleanup costs the U.K.-based energy giant has already paid out, committed to spend or could yet be fined when the matter goes before a New Orleans judge in a civil trial due to start Feb. 25.

However, BP said such a scenario was unlikely and sought to play down the validity of the claims, saying it considered the methodologies used to calculate the state government claims to be "seriously flawed, not supported by the legislation" and substantially overstated.

Chief Financial Officer Brian Gilvary said the bulk of the state claims are based around losses in potential tax revenues and as such will be hard to prove as BP has put a lot of stimulus money into the Gulf states to deal with the spill.

"That will be an interesting thing to try to prove given that we have provided one of the biggest fiscal stimuli that the Gulf has ever seen; we hired up over 40,000 people to deal with it and paid taxes as a consequence," Mr Gilvary said.

BP has already provided for what it believes is a "fair and reasonable" assessment of the state economic losses in its $42.2 billion provision, Mr. Gilvary said. But he declined to say how much had been allocated.

In January, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida presented their claims to BP for alleged losses including economic losses and property damages as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP said in its fourth-quarter statement.

Louisiana had also asserted similar claims as had various local governments. These claims total over $34 billion and more claims are expected to be presented, the company said.

BP has already spent or committed to spend $37 billion in cleanup costs, criminal fines and settlements with individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. Around $24 billion of that has already been paid out with the remaining sum of about $13 billion to be paid out over a number of years.

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

BP To Contest $34B Gulf Suits From State, Local Governments

LONDON - BP PLC plans to "vigorously contest" legal claims for tens of billions of dollars in damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster, describing the lawsuits as "seriously flawed."

Demands from U.S. state and local governments for $34 billion risk ballooning BP's overall bill for the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill to more than $90 billion, more than double the amount the U.K oil giant has already provisioned for and underscores how after almost three years the Deepwater Horizon disaster still weighs on BP.

BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley said the firm intends to contest the state economic claims "vigorously in court."

Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana are seeking the money in compensation for economic losses and property damage caused by the incident, the company disclosed in an earnings filing Tuesday. BP is already facing spill costs of around $58 billion, which includes penalties, damages and cleanup costs the U.K.-based energy giant has already paid out, committed to spend or could yet be fined when the matter goes before a New Orleans judge in a civil trial due to start Feb. 25.

However, BP said such a scenario was unlikely and sought to play down the validity of the claims, saying it considered the methodologies used to calculate the state government claims to be "seriously flawed, not supported by the legislation" and substantially overstated.

Chief Financial Officer Brian Gilvary said the bulk of the state claims are based around losses in potential tax revenues and as such will be hard to prove as BP has put a lot of stimulus money into the Gulf states to deal with the spill.

"That will be an interesting thing to try to prove given that we have provided one of the biggest fiscal stimuli that the Gulf has ever seen; we hired up over 40,000 people to deal with it and paid taxes as a consequence," Mr Gilvary said.

BP has already provided for what it believes is a "fair and reasonable" assessment of the state economic losses in its $42.2 billion provision, Mr. Gilvary said. But he declined to say how much had been allocated.

In January, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida presented their claims to BP for alleged losses including economic losses and property damages as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP said in its fourth-quarter statement.

Louisiana had also asserted similar claims as had various local governments. These claims total over $34 billion and more claims are expected to be presented, the company said.

BP has already spent or committed to spend $37 billion in cleanup costs, criminal fines and settlements with individuals and businesses harmed by the spill. Around $24 billion of that has already been paid out with the remaining sum of about $13 billion to be paid out over a number of years.

Copyright (c) 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.

View the original article here

Report on state business climate cites need for energy and environmental planning

Bruce Ritchie, 01/02/2013 – 04:13 PM. http://www.thefloridacurrent.com/

A Florida Department of Economic Opportunity report on the state's business climate is calling for a statewide strategy to ensure adequate future water supplies and for a statewide energy strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. 

The Legislature in 2011 passed bills reducing state oversight of local government land-use decisions and eliminating the Department of Community Affairs, while moving state planners to the new Department of Economic Opportunity. The Legislature also directed the new department to issue a report on Florida's business and economic development climate each year before Dec. 31.

While mostly laying out strategies for attracting new industries and creating jobs, the 2011 report made only slight mention of the need for protecting "critical lands, waters and habitats" and addressing potential harm from major developments.

The 2012 report, received Wednesday from DEO in response to a request, still deals mostly with the need for coordination among government agencies to attract new businesses and create jobs. But it also adds a few details about the need for policies dealing with growth management and environmental protection. 

The report says there is a critical need for a more "proactive, effective and collaborative approach" on development and infrastructure decisions at the state, regional and local levels.

DEO calls on the Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental Protection to initiate a statewide process to address economic development, land use, infrastructure and environmental stewardship over a 50-year period.

Read more at http://www.thefloridacurrent.com/article.cfm?id=30921554

View the original article here

Colorado State University wants to talk to farmers about U.S. drought

Font ResizeSuburbsBy Monte Whaley
The Denver Postdenverpost.comPosted: 12/17/2012 12:10:23 PM MSTDecember 17, 2012 8:21 PM GMTUpdated: 12/17/2012 01:21:19 PM MST

FORT COLLINS — Agriculture experts at Colorado State University are asking the state's farmers and ranchers to talk about the crippling effects of this year's drought.

The survey will gauge the impacts of one of the driest years on record but will also be used to fashion tools to manage drought in the future, say CSU agriculture economists.

"The question we ultimately want to address is, 'How do we improve the resiliency of agriculture and rural communities in Colorado?' because we expect more drought," said James Pritchett, associate professor in the CSU Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, who is leading the survey project. "It's time to make these systems more resilient, so they can adapt to changes ahead."

The CSU survey called "Telling the Story — Drought in Colorado," is funded with $35,000 from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

CSU is especially interested in responses from an estimated 600 Colorado farms and ranches with annual income surpassing $100,000. These producers are at the core of the state's agriculture industry, which chips in $40 billion each year to the Colorado economy.

The survey asks producers about the likelihood that drought could force them out of farming and ranching. It also asks about tools and strategies producers need to improve management effectiveness in the face of drought.

All of Colorado is currently suffering from drought conditions, ranging from moderate to exceptional, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

This was the case during much of the 2012 growing season, with the most severe conditions in parts of the state which produce dryland crops, such as wheat, or cattle and operations that rely on forage, said Pritchett.

There are no indications that the drought will end anytime soon. Very little snow has accumulated in western Colorado, the state's chief water source. Also, temperatures have been above average, leading to melting of even low amounts of snowpack.

CSU's survey also wants to touch on the impact the drought has had on rural communities, where agriculture is still the key to economic survival.

"The ripple effects (of the drought) can last for years," Pritchett said.

The on-line questionnaire is available now for Colorado producers.

Monte Whaley: 720-929-0907, mwhaley

View the Original article

How Republicans Would Benefit From John Kerry Secretary of State Nomination

GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns

The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook

Why Is Washington Obsessing About the Deficit and Not Jobs and Wages?
By Robert Reich The Future of Gun Control in the Aftermath of Sandy Hook
By Bill Blum Dear God! When Will It Stop?
By Marian Wright Edelman Questions I Ask Myself About the Connecticut School Shooting
By Juan Cole
Red States Surrender Health Care Oversight to Federal Government Insurance Industry Is Taking Climate Change Seriously Weaker Social Networks a Cause of Black Unemployment, Study Finds Dream of a Global Climate Deal Is Over, Experts Say U.N. Conference Produces No Internet Treaty
Watch: ‘SNL’ Honors Connecticut School Shooting Victims GOP Lawmaker’s Solution to Preventing Mass Shootings: More Guns ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More Mike Huckabee Blames Connecticut Shooting on Separation of Church and State
Hollywood’s Raid on Convention
By Richard Schickel Understanding Economics in Plain English
By Thomas Hedges, Center for Study of Responsive Law Regulate Dissent in Hong Kong, Jackie Chan Says
Fighting Manifest Destiny
By Jonathan Yardley
The Questions Education Reformers Aren’t Asking
Dig led by Mike Rose

Gore Vidal: His Life and Legacy
Dig led by Truthdig Staff

advertisement

-->
Gringos in ParadiseBy Barry Golson
$17.16

advertisement

-->
The World That Made New OrleansBy Ned Sublette
$16.47

advertisement

-->
Ash Grey T-Shirt$19

  Email    Print    Share

Tweet Posted on Dec 16, 2012 Wikimedia Commons/United States Congress

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

It seems Republicans will get their man after all. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is reportedly now President Obama’s top choice to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state after Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for the top diplomat position late last week. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations faced tough opposition from Republicans for her response to the deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

So why does the GOP want a Secretary of State John Kerry? Simple. In order to take a Cabinet post in the Obama administration, Kerry must vacate his long-held Senate seat, something that potentially paves the way for Scott Brown to be elected again to represent Massachusetts in the Senate. Brown lost his re-election bid to Democrat Elizabeth Warren last month. Republicans would love to add another member to the Senate, where they are the minority party.

The Note:

Sen. Scott Brown is widely expected to seek out his old job and he would be viewed as a strong contender, particularly in a special election to fill Kerry’s vacancy. Republicans have a tendency to perform better in special elections, which draw many fewer voters.

But it would be at least six months – assuming that Kerry is confirmed as Secretary of State, which he is expected to be- and assuming that Brown wins a special election – before he could re-join the Senate.

Massachusetts law dictates that a special election cannot take place sooner than 145 days from the time an out-going Congress member’s resignation is effective, meaning that at least 145 days must pass between the date that member actually leaves their job and the date that the special occurs. At this juncture in time,  even if Kerry is nominated tomorrow and has an incredibly quick confirmation at the beginning of the next Congress, the earliest conceivable date to reach this mark is in June, 2013.

Read more

—Posted by Tracy Bloom.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

TAGS: barack obama elizabeth warren hillary clinton john kerry massachusettes massachusetts senate race obama administration politics republicans scott brown secretary of state state department susan rice



Related Entries Why Is Washington Obsessing About the Deficit and Not Jobs and Wages? ‘Left, Right & Center:’ School Shooting, Susan Rice Withdraws, and More Understanding Economics in Plain English Economist Baker Echoes Paul Krugman: There Is No Fiscal Cliff

Email to a friend

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Red States Surrender Health Care Oversight to Federal Government

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.Get Truthdig in your inbox

Newsletter

Become a Fan

Follow Us

Subscribe

     
       #donation_div {display:none;}.popup {background:#FFF; border:1px solid #333; padding:1px;}.popup-header {height:65px; padding: 30px 40px 10px 50px;}.popup-header h2 {margin:0; padding:0; font-size:18px; float:left;}.popup-header .close-link {float:right; font-size:11px;}.popup-body {padding: 20px 70px 20px 50px;}a {color: #990000;}Close

Give the gift of independent journalism.

Support Truthdig by making a donation of at least $25 in someone's name, and we'll send him or her a signed letter of appreciation from our publisher.

With your support, we've been able to pay writers such as Chris Hedges, Col. Ann Wright, Mr. Fish and Nomi Prins.

We've sent reporters around the world, from Afghanistan to Cairo to Cuba.

Thanks to you, our mission to find and publish a range of insightful opinion and analysis from a progressive point of view continues.

Support Truthdig

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+ Google+
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2012 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. Web site development by Hop Studios 

View the Original article