Showing posts with label under. Show all posts
Showing posts with label under. Show all posts

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Australia to Ban Shale Mining Under Great Barrier Reef

SYDNEY - Mining for shale oil under the Great Barrier Reef will likely be banned by Australia's government, the Guardian newspaper reported Thursday, citing briefing documents. 

Queensland Energy Resources is building an onshore open-cut rock mine and a demonstration processing plant near Gladstone to determine whether to develop areas holding an estimated 8 billion barrels of shale oil after the state government lifted a moratorium on the shale-oil industry in February. 

But a briefing sent to federal environmental minister Tony Burke seen by the Guardian reportedly says that Canberra has the power to put a brake on the nascent shale-oil industry if it interferes with the reef, which is a world heritage site. 

"World heritage principals on mineral extraction are absolutely clear," the newspaper quotes Mr. Burke as saying. "You can't extract minerals or oil from under the Great Barrier Reef." 

Queensland Energy said it has no plans to mine shale reserves below the high tide line, the Guardian added.

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

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Australia to Ban Shale Mining Under Great Barrier Reef

SYDNEY - Mining for shale oil under the Great Barrier Reef will likely be banned by Australia's government, the Guardian newspaper reported Thursday, citing briefing documents. 

Queensland Energy Resources is building an onshore open-cut rock mine and a demonstration processing plant near Gladstone to determine whether to develop areas holding an estimated 8 billion barrels of shale oil after the state government lifted a moratorium on the shale-oil industry in February. 

But a briefing sent to federal environmental minister Tony Burke seen by the Guardian reportedly says that Canberra has the power to put a brake on the nascent shale-oil industry if it interferes with the reef, which is a world heritage site. 

"World heritage principals on mineral extraction are absolutely clear," the newspaper quotes Mr. Burke as saying. "You can't extract minerals or oil from under the Great Barrier Reef." 

Queensland Energy said it has no plans to mine shale reserves below the high tide line, the Guardian added.

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

Friday, April 12, 2013

Swift Wellhead Brought Under Control after Collision

Swift Energy has brought under control a well damaged by a marine vessel collision earlier this week, the company reported Friday.

The Houston-based company stopped the flow of water, oil and gas from a wellhead Thursday afternoon that was shut in at the Lake Washington field, located offshore Plaquemines Parish, La. A vessel collided with the well late Tuesday.

Swift said it was appreciative of the assistance it received from the U.S. Coast Guard, Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and Plaquemines Parish to resolve the incident "in a safe, timely and efficient manner."

No injuries resulted from the incident, Swift said in a statement Tuesday. Primary containment boom and oil skimming equipment was deployed around the well site to protect the shorelines, facilities and private property.

Swift had shut in the well in January 2008; the well has not produced since that time. A last production test done before the well was shut in recorded production levels of 18 barrels of oil per day, three barrels of water per day and 59 thousand cubic feet per day of natural gas.

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

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Court Testimony: BP Managers Under Cost-Cutting Pressure before Spill

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

NEW ORLEANS - BP PLC's managers were under pressure to cut costs significantly in the years leading up to the Deepwater Horizon accident, according to testimony at the federal trial here over liability for the 2010 explosion and oil spill.

Kevin Lacy, BP's former head of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, said in a videotaped deposition that he was told to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in costs in 2008 and 2009.

"I was never given a directive to cut corners or deliver something unsafe," Mr. Lacy said. "But there was tremendous pressure on costs."

The testimony came on the third day of the civil trial that will determine the degree of culpability that BP and other companies have for the accident, which killed 11 workers. They are being sued by the federal government, state, and local businesses that say they were hurt financially by the oil spill, which lasted for three months.

Mr. Lacy's testimony was preceded by excerpts from interviews lawyers for plaintiffs suing BP did with its former chief executive, Tony Hayward, who was asked repeatedly about speeches he had given on cost-cutting at the company. In many cases Mr. Hayward tried to point out a broader context for the statements and speeches.

On Monday, lawyers for the parties traded barbs over who was to blame for the explosion that unleashed the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Tuesday was dominated by testimony from Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who called the accident "a classic failure of management and leadership in BP" that came after many warnings to the company.

Lamar McKay, the head of BP's exploration and production business, repeatedly rebuffed attempts by a lawyer for the plaintiffs to place the entire blame for the accident on BP. Mr. McKay stressed that decision making and safety were shared responsibilities among all the companies working on the doomed rig.

The trial is scheduled to take up to three months, but could be cut short or temporarily stopped if the parties reach a settlement.

A second trial, scheduled for the fall, will determine how much oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico.

Together, they will determine the size of fines firms face under the Clean Water Act, which could total as much as $17.6 billion.

BP, which hired Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. to work on drilling its well, has said the fines would likely be under $5 billion.

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

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Court Testimony: BP Managers Under Cost-Cutting Pressure before Spill

Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

NEW ORLEANS - BP PLC's managers were under pressure to cut costs significantly in the years leading up to the Deepwater Horizon accident, according to testimony at the federal trial here over liability for the 2010 explosion and oil spill.

Kevin Lacy, BP's former head of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, said in a videotaped deposition that he was told to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in costs in 2008 and 2009.

"I was never given a directive to cut corners or deliver something unsafe," Mr. Lacy said. "But there was tremendous pressure on costs."

The testimony came on the third day of the civil trial that will determine the degree of culpability that BP and other companies have for the accident, which killed 11 workers. They are being sued by the federal government, state, and local businesses that say they were hurt financially by the oil spill, which lasted for three months.

Mr. Lacy's testimony was preceded by excerpts from interviews lawyers for plaintiffs suing BP did with its former chief executive, Tony Hayward, who was asked repeatedly about speeches he had given on cost-cutting at the company. In many cases Mr. Hayward tried to point out a broader context for the statements and speeches.

On Monday, lawyers for the parties traded barbs over who was to blame for the explosion that unleashed the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Tuesday was dominated by testimony from Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor who called the accident "a classic failure of management and leadership in BP" that came after many warnings to the company.

Lamar McKay, the head of BP's exploration and production business, repeatedly rebuffed attempts by a lawyer for the plaintiffs to place the entire blame for the accident on BP. Mr. McKay stressed that decision making and safety were shared responsibilities among all the companies working on the doomed rig.

The trial is scheduled to take up to three months, but could be cut short or temporarily stopped if the parties reach a settlement.

A second trial, scheduled for the fall, will determine how much oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico.

Together, they will determine the size of fines firms face under the Clean Water Act, which could total as much as $17.6 billion.

BP, which hired Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Co. to work on drilling its well, has said the fines would likely be under $5 billion.

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

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Nymex Crude Falls to One-Month Low, Under $95/Bbl

U.S. crude futures dropped 2.3% Wednesday on a sharp bout of midmorning selling that also pulled down gasoline prices as some investors grow concerned that high prices at the pump could crimp demand.

Oil fell to the lowest level in over a month, dropping below $95 a barrel after trading volume surged in March and April futures just after 11:00 a.m. EST.

After trading below 2,000 contracts per minute through most of the session, nearly 10,000 lots of April crude-oil futures changed hands at 11:01 a.m. EST.

The move spooked many investors and traders who have grown concerned about rising bullish bets on oil and gasoline.

"The volume spike, and the front-month going off the board hit the market," said Tariq Zahir, managing member and oil trader at Tyche Capital Advisors.

Light, sweet crude for March delivery settled $94.46 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down $2.20. The March futures contract expired at settlement Wednesday, and the more-actively traded April futures settled $1.88 lower at $95.22 a barrel.

Brent crude for April delivery was 1.9% lower at $115.30 a barrel.

Crude-oil futures have been stuck in a tight trading range between $95 and $98 a barrel for over a month. While investors have grown optimistic about the U.S. economic recovery, many are increasingly concerned that high gasoline prices could result in lower demand from drivers wary of high prices.

U.S. retail gasoline prices stood at $3.766 a gallon Wednesday, according to the AAA FuelGauge report, up from $3.305 a gallon a month ago.

After hitting a four-month high above $3.12 a gallon last week, gasoline futures have slumped. Front-month March reformulated gasoline blendstock, or RBOB, settled 6.17 cents, or 2%, lower at $3.0595 a gallon Wednesday.

Traders have piled into bullish bets on oil in recent months. Last week, the net-long position of hedge funds and other money managers stood at 209,565 contracts, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the highest level since March.

"There have been a lot of speculators in this market, so it could be time for it to correct," said Andy Lebow, a broker at Jefferies Bache.

March heating oil settled 2.43 cents lower at $3.1563 a gallon.

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

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

NOAA proposes listing 66 reef-building coral species under the Endangered Species Act

NOAA press release: November 30, 2012

In compliance with a federal court ordered deadline, and consistent with existing international protections, NOAA Fisheries announced today that it is proposing Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings for 66 coral species, including 59 in the Pacific and seven in the Caribbean. This science-based proposal is more limited than the 2009 original petition that led to a settlement agreement and the court order. In order to ensure robust input, NOAA has been engaging the public since the process began three years ago. Before this proposed listing is finalized in late 2013, there will be a 90-day public comment period during which NOAA will hold 18 public meetings.

Earlier this year, the President directed that any potential future designations of critical habitat carefully consider all public comments on relevant science and economic impact, including those that suggest methods for minimizing regulatory burdens. Therefore, any potential future critical habitat designation in connection with today’s proposed listing will include a full analysis of economic impact, including impact on jobs, and to the extent permitted by law, adopt the least burdensome means, including avoidance of unnecessary burdens and costs on states, tribes, localities, and the private sector of promoting compliance with the ESA. As this process moves forward, NOAA will work with stakeholders to minimize any potential impacts of possible future action on the economy and jobs and, in particular, on construction, fishing, farming, shipping, and other important sectors.

Corals under water

Elkhorn coral is an icon of the Florida Keys, but was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2006. (Credit: NOAA.)

“Healthy coral reefs are among the most economically valuable and biologically diverse ecosystems on earth,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary for commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Corals provide habitat to support fisheries that feed millions of people; generate jobs and income to local economies through recreation, tourism, and fisheries; and protect coastlines from storms and erosion. Yet, scientific research indicates that climate change and other activities are putting these corals at risk. This is an important, sensible next step toward preserving the benefits provided by these species, both now and into the future.”

NOAA is proposing seven species as endangered and 52 as threatened in the Pacific, and five as endangered and two as threatened in the Caribbean. In addition, the agency is proposing that two Caribbean species already listed under the Act be reclassified from threatened to endangered. NOAA is seeking public comment on the proposed listing before making a final listing decision by December 2013.

Corals have measurable economic value for communities around the world. One independent study reported that coral reefs provide approximate $483 million in annual net benefit to the U.S. economy from tourism and recreation activities and a combined annual net benefit from all goods and services of about $1.1 billion. NOAA also estimates the annual commercial value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs to be more than $100 million; reef-based recreational fisheries generate an additional $100 million annually.

Listing species as endangered does not prohibit activities like fishing or diving, but prohibits the specific “take” of those species, including harming, wounding, killing, or collecting the species. It also prohibits imports, exports, and commercial activities dealing in the species. These protections are not automatic for species listed as threatened, but can be established for them as well. Furthermore, if species are eventually listed, NOAA will consult with other federal agencies that permit projects that may harm corals to help avoid further damage. The consultation process allows NOAA to work with federal agencies and project proponents to develop ways for projects to proceed, but in a way that protects the long-term health of these important species.

NOAA has identified 19 threats to the survival of coral, including rising ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, and coral disease. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the oceans warm beyond what corals can withstand, leading to bleaching, and the frequency and severity of disease outbreaks increase, causing die-offs.

This proposed listing is in response to a 2009 petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to list 83 coral species as threatened or endangered under the ESA. In 2011, NOAA and the CBD entered into a stipulated settlement agreement requiring NOAA to submit for publication a proposal as to 82 of the 83 coral species by April 15, 2012. In March 2012, the District Court for the Northern District of California approved an amended settlement agreement ordering NOAA to submit a proposal regarding the 82 coral species on or before December 1, 2012. All of these coral species being proposed for listing are already protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

NOAA used the best available scientific information to assess the status of the species and decide if the species met the ESA’s definitions of endangered or threatened. Earlier this year, after publication of a peer-reviewed status review report and a draft management report, NOAA took an additional step of seeking public comment prior to proposing the listing. NOAA received approximately 42,000 comments and collected 400 relevant scientific articles, reports, or presentations, which were all considered when making the proposed determination.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us at www.noaa.gov and join us on Facebook, Twitter and our other social media channels.

For more information, background documents, and instructions on submitting comments, go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/82corals.html


View the original article here

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Bill Ritter said to be under consideration for Energy Secretary

Font ResizeLocal NewsBy Allison Sherry
The Denver Postdenverpost.comPosted: 12/18/2012 02:12:18 PM MSTDecember 19, 2012 2:16 AM GMTUpdated: 12/18/2012 07:16:55 PM MST


View the Original article