-

The area’s first noise ordinance regulating noise from permanent oil and gas activity was set Wednesday by the Bossier Parish Police Jury and will take effect April 1.

Approved in a 8-4 vote, the ordinance applies to all future development in Bossier Parish but largely includes provisions addressing anticipated noise from future permanent oil and gas structures. Police Jurors Winfred Johnston, Hank Meachum, Brad Cummings and Barry Butler were opposed to the ordinance for various reasons ranging from the possibility of noise mitigating costs being passed onto residents to what some felt were unreasonable maximum noise levels.

“It’s going to cost more for natural gas and it’s going to (increase) the fees the taxpayers of Bossier Parish pay for natural gas,” said Brad Cummings, after learning from an industry representative that noise is to be measured from a location from which it will cost millions of dollars to mitigate sound.

The cost will be passed on to the producer and in turn onto the consumer. Noise from temporary activities, those 90 days or less, are to be measured from the receptor line — the nearest occupied structure or public place where the noise can be heard, while permanent activities, those the industry representative referred to, are to be measured at the property line.

The concern over whether measurements should be from the property or receptor line has been a key area of discussion between industry and parish representatives through the ordinance’s revision process. When put before the Police Jury again Wednesday, jurors agreed it was important to extend protection to all of a taxpayer’s property and not just the homes, businesses or other occupied structures affected by the noise.

Barry Butler, who has voiced concern over the maximum sound levels outlined in the ordinance since the initial draft, reiterated his angst about the maximum decibel levels outlined in the ordinance.

Noise from commercial or residential development is not to exceed 5 decibels above the ambient noise of an area. Ambient noise is to be measured by each business and can be an expensive process, parish attorney Patrick Jackson said, adding he will be looking into how the parish can assist.

A table outlining maximum permissible sound levels was included to allow businesses another option instead of paying to establish an ambient level in their area. Those are the levels Butler is concerned with.

“All I’m asking for is 5 decibels to bring this in line with other (areas),” he said. The request was the same as many industry representatives present Wednesday.

In other business, jurors agreed to call a special election Oct. 22 to allow Bossier Parish residents to vote on a homestead exemption for fully disabled veterans. The parish originally was to consider placing the item on the April 2 ballot, but Bossier Parish Secretary Cindy Dodson said she recently discovered the matter had to be presented to Louisiana State Bond Commission and the deadline had passed for the next meeting.

The jury also appointed Jim Avery as Police Jury president for 2011; Cummings as vice president; Bill Altimus as parish administrator; Cindy Dodson as parish secretary; and Sheryl Thomas as parish treasurer.

Original Article

-

By Jonathan Tilove

Initial reaction to the Interior Department’s unveiling Wednesday of the latest chapter of its reorganization of regulation of offshore drilling was divided along predictable lines — with Environment America suggesting that “the safest drilling is no drilling at all,” and the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition complaining that it “resembles little more than reshuffling deck chairs as our industry continues to sink.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, on Wednesday fleshed out plans to divide the bureau’s 1,000 employees between two new agencies — the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

They also announced the creation of an in-house Offshore Energy Safety Advisory Committee, including representatives of federal agencies, industry, academia, national labs and various research organizations. It will be directed by Tom Hunter, former director of the Sandia National Lab, who was part of the scientific team that worked on the containment and capping of the Macondo well.

“We like Secretary Salazar’s plan to separate planning and leasing for offshore drilling from safety inspections and the enforcement of standards for the industry” said Mike Gravitz, Oceans Advocate for Environment America, a federation of 29 state environmental groups. “For far too long, the drive to maximize leasing and drilling has trumped the efforts of safety regulators, inspections and enforcement.

But, Gravitz said, “we are concerned that environmental input and reviews of the five year drilling plan, lease sales and individual drilling proposals all still lie within the Bureau’s leasing organization, where these concerns have been marginalized in the past.”

“We hope that when the detailed plan is released it calls for some structure or method for ensuring that environmental concerns are not minimized in the future,” said Graviz, adding, “Secretary Salazar and Director Bromwich have clearly worked overtime to make drilling safer and more environmentally sensitive, and we appreciate that, but the safest drilling is no drilling at all.”

Regan Nelson, senior oceans advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed with Gravitz that the creation of the safety bureau is “a good first step toward strengthening the protections we need to keep our workers and waters safe.”

“The department, though, needs to go further to ensure that safety and environmental concerns are insulated from the kind of political pressure that has compromised this crucial mission in the past,” said Nelson. “As planned, the new bureau would operate under the same assistant secretary who oversees leasing duties. Instead, the safety and environmental agency should report directly to the Secretary and be led by a Senate-confirmed fixed-term appointee.That is what the independent Oil Spill Commission recommended last week. And that is what is needed to protect our workers, waters and wildlife.”

Jim Noe of the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, had a very different take on Interior’s actions.

“While the Interior Department has moved quickly to reorganize the former MMS, to shallow water drillers its actions resemble little more than reshuffling deck chairs as our industry continues to sink,” said Noe.

“As the agency moves toward its new structure, its leaders must ask themselves whether it is adequately carrying out its mandated mission to oversee the development of America’s offshore energy resources,” said Noe. “Despite widespread acknowledgment that shallow-water operators boast an outstanding track record over sixty years of producing mainly natural gas in the Gulf, the BOEMRE’s regulatory approach to the industry over the past six months has resulted in a crippling slowdown in the issuance of permits for shallow-water operations.”

“In order for BOEMRE to constructively implement the changes announced today, it must also adopt a graduated risk approach for offshore operations based on a tiered evaluation of permits,” said Noe. “A tiered risk approach would provide the most efficient and safe oversight to energy production in the Gulf, allowing the new agency to appropriately direct resources to the highest risk wells while maintaining an elevated standard of safety for all permits.”

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, also weighed in with criticism of the way the administration is proceeding in creating a new regulatory regime.

“Louisiana’s economy hangs in the balance as this Administration continues to drag its feet on the issuing of permits for safe offshore drilling, and while we must continue to focus on safety in the Gulf, all actions we have seen by this Administration are more focused on delaying safe energy exploration in America rather than actual policy designed to get Louisianans back to work,” Scalise said.

Rep. Jeff Landry, R-New Iberia, offered a similar assessment.

“There is no doubt we needed to improve the operations of MMS because their work is critical to the safety of our workers drilling offshore,” he said. “However, it seems the administration rolls out a new drilling safety agency every week. Sooner or later, the administration is going to need to answer the question: do you actually want our drillers to go back to work or do you just want to regulate drilling out of existence through a litany of new agencies staffed with inexperienced bureaucrats?”

Original Article

-

BY: Greg LaRose, Editor

Not that it ever lacked credibility, but the regional economic development entity Greater New Orleans Inc. cemented its integrity last week when it released the second part of its three-pronged analysis of the impact of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

The first part, which was released in October, focused on the oil spill’s short-term economic effects on the state’s fisheries. GNO Inc. will evaluate how the disaster has damaged the Louisiana brand later this year.

In its current report, GNO Inc. details the aftermath of the moratorium on deepwater drilling. In it, study authors admit the impact to the energy industry has not been as severe as it was projected last year. While a precise number of jobs lost as a result of the ban on new drilling permits isn’t provided, the group notes it has been less than the 12,500 to 21,900 GNO Inc. predicted.

President Obama put the moratorium in place May 28 and lifted it Oct. 12. Since then, only two deepwater permits have been approved. By comparison, the federal government was averaging almost six permits a month over the second half of 2009.

Because GNO Inc. recognized, rather than glossed over, its off-target projections, it gives further credence to the still-troublesome forecast it gives for the state unless uncertainties in the permitting process are clarified.

In addition to quantitative research of tax revenue and employment figures, GNO Inc. researchers sought out and interviewed affected business owners. Their study, available at www.gnoinc.org, provides compelling insight from select service companies in Jefferson, Lafourche and St. Tammany parishes.

All four companies profiled reported a loss in revenue directly from the moratorium, with three reporting severe net losses and one with slightly increased profits.

Study authors credit oil spill remediation and resourceful energy sector employers with keeping people at work during the four-month moratorium. They also allude to the overall decline in the economy and its connection to Louisiana’s growing unemployment rate during months following the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

But with no significant new drilling on the horizon and cleanup activity dramatically scaled back, the predicted longevity for companies in the affected sectors will be limited.

“At the time of publication, many small, family-owned businesses which support the oil and gas industries were vulnerable,” reads the study’s closing remarks. “Without increased business – in the form of drilling activity – these companies may not survive.”

There’s no doubt GNO Inc. would love to be wrong again with its latest prediction that if permit issuance levels don’t improve, employers will have little choice but to cut jobs.

It’s not that the energy industry wants to proceed as though nothing was learned from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. To the contrary, there’s widespread acceptance that safety measures must be a part of moving forward in the Gulf of Mexico.

But one has to wonder what clearer signals need to be sent to the Obama administration that along with safety, the health of the region’s economy is at stake.

What good will heightened drilling regulations do if there’s no one left working in the industry to implement them?

Original Article

-

By Steve Korris

Leaders in litigation over the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill grabbed for power over $17 billion without making sure their followers would back them up.

As of Jan. 17, six firms that don’t belong to the plaintiff steering committee opposed its Dec. 21 proposal to rewrite the rules of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

Daniel Becnel of Reserve, Anthony Buzbee of Houston, and Camilo Salas of New Orleans objected, and three Florida firms adopted their arguments.

Salas told U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier that his clients “do not wish any interference by the PSC and they have not requested any assistance from the court.”

Barbier presides over civil suits from federal courts in Gulf Coast states by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.

The Gulf Coast Claims Facility, operating independently of the court, started with a $20 billion deposit from BP and has paid about $3 billion.

The steering committee’s proposal would disrupt further negotiations, Buzbee wrote.

He told Barbier the proposal “will only prejudice people who have received offers of settlement by unnecessarily delaying resolution of their claims.”

“Represented claimants should be able to enter into any type of agreement or release with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, or any other party for that matter, without micromanagement from other attorneys,” Buzbee wrote.

Salas wrote the same sentence but changed “from other attorneys” to “by the PSC.”

Buzbee also wrote that the court shouldn’t inject itself into private negotiations, and Salas wrote that neither the PSC nor the court should do that.

Becnel wrote that the court lacked jurisdiction over claims administrator Kenneth Feinberg because President Obama chose him.

He wrote that Feinberg stands in the shoes of the President.

He wrote that numerous lawyers from Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida have worked tirelessly with Feinberg.

“In stark contrast to these attorneys’ successful workings with the GCCF, many other attorneys’ primary impression of the GCCF seems to be as nothing more than an obstacle to more fees,” Becnel wrote.

“The more they can control and limit the efficacy and power of the GCCF, the more their fees will increase.”

He wrote that their antagonism toward Feinberg was long standing, and he predicted that motions would follow to limit him in every way.

“Mr. Feinberg has uniformly and unequivocally performed all his work honestly and efficiently,” Becnel wrote.

He wrote that more than 13,000 facility claimants are represented by counsel.

Peter Cambs, of Parker Waichmann Alonso in Bonita Springs, Fla., adopted the objections of Becnel and Buzbee on behalf of Key West Tiki Charters.

Douglas Lyons, of Lyons and Farrar in Tallahassee, adopted them on its own behalf.

Samuel Adams of Panama City adopted them on behalf of five clients in a single case.

The steering committee’s proposal drew First Amendment fire from BP, which challenged it as prior restraint on speech.

Don Haycraft of New Orleans wrote that committee members have exercised their First Amendment right to disagree with Feinberg.

He quoted Brian Barr of Pensacola, Fla., telling Reuters that Feinberg acted in BP’s interest and the best process for victims was going to court.

He quoted Stephen Herman of New Orleans telling ABA Journal that Feinberg “is nothing more than a defense lawyer trying to settle cases for BP.”

Haycraft quoted James Roy of New Orleans telling Associated Press that Feinberg “is preying on the victims in an effort to settle this case and absolve his client BP.”

He wrote that Feinberg doesn’t represent BP but is an independent contractor.

BP, responsible at the moment for all claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, has asked Barbier for a Feb. 2 hearing.

The act sets forth claim resolution procedures and prohibits the filing of civil suits by those who haven’t followed the procedures.

The act requires designation of a responsible party who must set up a claim facility.

After the spill, BP set up Gulf Coast Claims Facility and agreed to pay Feinberg’s firm $850,000 a month.

Haycraft wrote that Feinberg’s fee doesn’t come from the facility’s trust fund.

He wrote that the facility has approved and BP has paid more than 205,000 claims.

According to the steering committee, the facility has improperly obtained signatures that release claims against BP and everyone else.

Their motion alleges Feinberg doesn’t make it clear to claimants that they have claims for additional damages from Transocean, Halliburton or others.

Though they listed seven other things he doesn’t make clear and seven things they wish he would stop saying, they didn’t offer any language for Barbier’s approval.

They wrote that they didn’t seek an injunction but sought to ensure that the release and associated communications weren’t confusing or misleading.

Haycraft responded that parties to a settlement are free to agree as to its scope.

He wrote that the proposal “would encourage litigation rather than settlement, as claims which could be settled or not, and potentially liable third parties who are not released by claimants could then drag all the named parties back into the suit.”

Cameron International, on defense in Barbier’s court as blowout prevention contractor, also pleaded against limits on the scope of releases.

David Beck of Houston wrote that plaintiffs cited no authority for suggesting Barbier might rewrite releases that were products of legitimate settlements.

He wrote that the trust document doesn’t forbid Feinberg from paying claims for losses that might be attributed to third parties.

“Indeed, the Oil Pollution Act requires that BP pay such claims,” he wrote.

He wrote that when Feinberg pays a claim, the act transfer a claimant’s rights to BP.

“The claimant has no direct right against third parties like Cameron,” he wrote.

Original Article

-

By Don Briggs

On Thursday, Michael Bromwich, chief regulator of the offshore oil industry, claimed the Interior Department expects new deepwater drilling permits to be issued sometime this summer. During discussions, he noted offshore permitting likely never would return to the pace set before the Deepwater Horizon disaster. After being asked when the pace of permitting would return to the pre-April 20 levels, Bromwich retorted, “The honest answer is, probably never.” Bromwich continued by expressing his thoughts on the return of deepwater drilling by adding, “It’s around the corner, just a longer block.”

Bromwich promised the Department of Interior is doing all it can to establish the new regulatory regime for deepwater drilling without shutting down the industry for longer than necessary. It is his intention to pursue reforms that are in line with the recommendations of the President’s National Oil Spill Commission, which released its conclusions Tuesday.

The industry feels the return of deepwater drilling is not just around the corner, as Bromwich would have us believe. Unfortunately, the only thing that is around the corner is a continued shutdown of a vital industry and, of course, higher energy prices for all Americans.

The National Oil Spill Commission’s final report lays out a number of comments and recommendations that lawmakers, industry and the public must seriously vet and review over the next few months. Industry’s response to the conclusions in the report have been ill-received and for just reasons. The unfair and unbalanced recommendations set forth in the report suggest the root causes of the BP oil spill were “systemic and, absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur.”

To be clear, industry does not take the position no reform is needed in light of the tragic oil spill; however, the report’s conclusions and demonization of an entire industry for the missteps and accident of a few companies are unfair and unwarranted.

History will show industry has gone above and beyond taking the proper measures for safety preparedness and practices in its operations in the outer continental shelf. First and foremost, companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico have kept safety in mind for the environment and for their employees for decades. Since 1947, more than 50,000 successful wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico with no serious environmental or safety occurrence. Of those wells, nearly 14,000 have been drilled in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico without an incident of this magnitude. The success rate of the offshore industry is not attributable to luck or sound federal regulation. The more than 60-year successful track record of the offshore industry is due, in part, to a safety-first culture. With these facts in mind, it is discouraging the Oil Spill Commission has attempted to deflect blame for the well blowout towards an entire industry.

Industry practices in regards to safety always have been ahead of the curve to legislative measures. A panel of ill-experienced bureaucrats in Washington knows little about the complexities of offshore drilling. Companies that operate in the Gulf of Mexico do so in real-time. It’s imperative we put an end to the stall tactics and get deepwater drilling back online.

Original Article

-

A lawsuit filed in the New Orleans-based Eastern District of Louisiana federal court by Ensco Offshore Co. attempting to force the Department of the Interior to speed up permits for deepwater offshore exploration fell short of its mark today, as federal judge Martin Feldman ruled in favor of the government.

Feldman’s 29-page ruling found no legal support for Ensco’s proposition that the law requires the government approve drilling permits within a specific time period, indicating that the only avenues truly available to Louisiana’s offshore oil indusry to resurrect itself in the face of hostile action by the feds since the Deepwater Horizon accident last April are legislative or regulatory.

Ensco Offshore Co., an offshore services company, claims the government has wrongfully delayed the issuance of permits for deepwater drilling since it lifted a moratorium on the projects in October.

During a hearing Wednesday, a company lawyer noted that offshore operators have submitted 13 permit applications for drilling activities that were barred under the moratorium, and none have been approved in the past three months. The attorney, Adam Feinberg, suggested Feldman could rule that BOEM must process these applications within 30 days.

Feldman, however, said he isn’t prepared to set deadlines for the government to act on five pending permit applications in which Ensco has a contractual stake. He denied Ensco’sClick here to find out more! motion for a preliminary injunction “without prejudice,” which means the company can renew its request at a later date.

Ensco “fails to show how the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction because this court’s authority to order time-sensitive permits needs more briefing,” the judge wrote in his 29-page ruling.

The issue of the 30-day time period for permit approval has come up before. Last year, when the CLEAR Act was being debated and then-U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-Napoleonville) tried to take credit for offering an amendment that would supposedly end the then-existent moratorium on deepwater drilling, part of the stink which ensued when Melancon asserted that his legislation was similar to that offered by Sen. David Vitter. Both had in their amendments legislation essentially saying the following:

(b) Determination on Permit- Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary makes a determination that an applicant has complied with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination on whether to issue the permit.

At the time, the Louisiana Oil & Gas Association put out a communique criticizing that language, and particularly in Melancon’s amendment, as insufficient…

The Louisiana Oil & Gas Association strongly opposes this amendment to the CLEAR Act, which is soon to be up for debate. While the title of this amendment perceives to lift the ban on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, it in fact will grant overarching authority to the Secretary of the Interior.

Concerns center around “Clause B – Determination of Permit” located on page 2 of the amendment. As it is written, this language would grant the Secretary the authority to “make a determination on whether to issue” a permit. We believe a better structuring of this section should read that if an applicant complies with paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a) the Secretary shall issue the permit.

It appears, at least from the standpoint of getting offshore drilling back up and running, that LOGA was right – though the fact that the CLEAR Act died in the Senate anyway makes the question moot. Feldman can’t find anything in the law which requires that the federal organ tasked with approving drilling permits actually approve drilling permits, and Congress has failed to create a statute making that obligation manifest.

Which means that if the Obama administration wants to choke off the offshore oil business, there isn’t an enormous amount anyone can do about it until after the 2012 elections.

Crude oil sits at 91 dollars and change right now, though. Nobody really thinks it’s going down anytime soon. That’s a fact which more than any other may offer some relief to the desperate companies along the Gulf Coast.

Original Article

-

HOUMA — There’s much to be debated and digested from the 398-page report from the National Oil Spill Commission’s review of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The bipartisan report drew criticism from the industry from its conclusion that systemic safety problems have plagued the industry and that its overall safety culture was lacking. But the commission also concluded that deepwater drilling is important for the nation’s energy security and that the mistakes of the Deepwater Horizon can be fixed and prevented.

Still, those working to ease a backlog of drilling permits said the report was yet another step in getting the Gulf back to work.

“Now that it’s out, hopefully we can work through the details and have some light at the end of the tunnel,” said Chett Chiasson, director of Port Fourchon, which supplies the majority of shore-based services to deepwater oil-and-gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.

The report was the major effort of the presidential-appointed panel, which was tasked with investigating the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which killed 11 people and dispersed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the worst offshore oil spill in the nation’s history. Their goal was to highlight the mistakes to ensure it never happens again.

Here are some of its main conclusions with respect to the oil-and-gas industry:

BP, Halliburton and Transocean made major mistakes, including improperly designing the late stages of the well, failing to properly interpret tests that could have revealed well-integrity problems and missing signs that the well was going to blow.

“These errors, mistakes and management failures were not the product of a single rogue company, but instead reveal both failures and inadequate safety procedures by three key industry players that have a large presence in offshore oil-and-gas drilling throughout the world,” the report’s conclusion reads.

Representatives of business groups, including Louisiana Oil and Gas Association President Don Briggs, took exception to that conclusion.

“Industry does not take the position that no reform is needed in light of the tragic oil spill, however, to conclude and demonize an entire industry for the missteps and accident of a few companies is unfair and unwarranted,” he said in a detailed statement after the release of the report. “The success rate of the offshore industry is not attributable to luck or sound federal regulation. The over 60-year successful track record of the offshore industry is due in part to a safety-first culture.”

Kerry St. Pé is director of the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program and directed the state’s oil-spill program for more than two decades. With weak enforcement, it was all too easy for workers to become complacent and mistakes to happen, he said. “I saw a recurrence repeatedly of a failure to live up to the existing regulations,” he said.

Chiasson, however, believes the event has instilled new caution in offshore-drilling companies.

“This incident has forced everyone to re-evaluate, and caused each specific company that’s a part of drilling to take a step back, look at their operations and make sure they’re doing things in the safest way,” he said. “That being said, I don’t necessarily agree there was a total systemic issue. That’s too easy of an answer. I don’t think it’s that easy of an answer. From the day that this unfortunate incident occurred, this industry is safer.”

It’s a reminder, he said, that “you need to pay attention every single minute.”

n Industry safety. Industry is urged to form its own independent agency focused on drilling safety. It’s encouraged to use the self-policing risk model known as the “safety case” used in the North Sea, which has operators work with all their contractors to form a risk-management plan for the whole operation. It’s urged to integrate consultations with other countries on the Gulf of Mexico, including Mexico and Cuba, to improve collaboration on international drilling standards.

Government regulations. An independent safety agency should be put together, headed by a unelected person not subject to political pressures, with experience in energy and engineering. That person will have enforcement power for safety. The Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will have input on risks to drilling. Enhanced environmental protection reviews will be implemented. Regulatory agencies will be better-funded and paid for by fees or increases in lease sales paid by the companies that are involved. The liability cap of $75 million should be raised significantly.

Those lobbying to restart deepwater drilling said their initial fear was that new regulatory obligations would make it even more difficult to get permits approved.

“There are already new requirements in place,” said Lori LeBlanc, executive director of the Gulf Economic Survival Team, a Thibodaux-based nonprofit that has been working on the issue in Washington, D.C. “Our fear with this official report being released was that it would cause further delays in plan approval process.”

LeBlanc, along with other Louisiana officials including Department of Natural Resources Secretary Scott Angelle and freshman U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-New Iberia, were in Washington this week to discuss the matter with federal officials, including Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Enforcement.

LeBlanc said that she was encouraged by the exchange, in which she says Bromwich promised the report would not result in new rules being added to those already imposed in the wake of disaster on technical improvements, safety and environmental planning.

Still, many of those familiar with the report called it balanced, saying it ultimately did not side with those who would stop drilling altogether. Having Republicans retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives may also give a boost to the efforts of local advocates and put pressure on the administration to review permits more efficiently.

“On one hand, reasonably reviewed, this might thwart some of the more reckless proposals,” said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said of the report. “We’re expecting more balance and less drama out of the next Congress.”

Original Article

-

HOUMA — For 28 years, oilfield waste has been stored in open pits in Grand Bois. Residents have long complained to anyone and everyone who would listen, including state regulators, that dust and fumes from the pits have sickened their community. Drivers who pass the facility, which straddles the border between Terrebonne and Lafourche on the Bourg-Larose highway, roll up windows to avoid the acrid air.

But the waste site has never been compelled to file for an air permit with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, which only began looking into the issue when the company submitted an air permit application on its own.

In December, the DEQ announced plans to investigate whether U.S. Liquids, the company that’s owned the site since the 1990s, should have been operating with an air permit. Environmentalists and residents said the case illustrates major flaws in the state’s self-regulatory approach to industry.

The investigation was triggered when the company submitted its first-ever application for an air permit last year. The investigation will determine whether the company intended to delay applying for a permit, what health or environmental risk the company’s unpermitted emissions posed to neighbors and how long they’ve been operating without a necessary permit. There is no time line for the investigation.

Rodney Mallet, a DEQ spokesman, said the agency couldn’t comment on why U.S. Liquids was operating without an air permit because it’s part of the ongoing investigation.

“Currently we are investigating that exact thing,” Mallet said. “We’ve referred the matter to enforcement.”

U.S. Liquids CEO Manny Gonzalez did not return a call for comment.

THE FOX AND THE HEN HOUSE

The DEQ relies on voluntary compliance and self-regulation as a part of its enforcement strategy. The practice is seen as an alternative to state-imposed regulation of a company’s behavior. Proponents of voluntary compliance argue that it’s in a company’s best interest to be socially responsible in order to maintain a good public image.

“I don’t think it’s effective at all,” said Clarice Friloux, a resident of Grand Bois who has fought the waste site for years. “It’s like letting the fox watch the hen house. If they can get away with anything they want, and they can slip by not doing certain things, they’ll do it.”

Wilma Subra is an environmental toxicologist and chemist who’s worked with the Grand Bois community for 16 years. She said the facility’s waste treatment pits, which take in exploration and production wastes from onshore and offshore oil-and-gas companies, release more than 34 tons of “volatile organic compounds” per year, chemicals emitted from oil-and-gas waste as it breaks down. That includes benzene, a known cancer-causing agent.

“(DEQ) has known about these air-pollution problems for a long time,” Subra said. And the fumes from the pits have been a problem “from the very beginning, from the first cell they put in place,” she added.

Subra said residents of Grand Bois have suffered a variety of respiratory impacts, nausea and severe headaches. And when the winds blow out of the east, strong chemical odors often blanket the community.

“Self regulation is a joke when the primary interest is their bottom line,” said Anna Hrybyk, program manager with the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, a nonprofit aimed at helping small communities fight industrial pollution.

In order to protect worker and community health, Hrybyk says you can’t trust a company to report accurately on their emissions, especially when it comes to volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, like the ones emanating from U.S. Liquids’ waste treatment pits. In many cases, companies create models to determine how VOCs escape from the facility, and they may not always be accurate.

“What the company is going to do is estimate, they’re not going to use an actual measurement. And those calculations are highly variable depending on weather conditions,” Hrybyk said.

What the company should do is set up perimeter air monitors around the site to measure emissions, and make that data available to the public, she said.

‘THEY CAME FORWARD’

Don Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, which represents oil-and-gas production and service companies, said the industry has a good understanding of air regulations.

“When they add equipment and take equipment away, they know when they need a permit,” he said.

U.S. Liquids did volunteer to come forward and acknowledge needing an air permit, Briggs added.

“It doesn’t mean that someone hasn’t done something they needed to do, but they came forward,” he said.

Subra said she believes the Department of Environmental Quality should require U.S. Liquids to limit toxic emissions from its open waste pits.

“They’re going to permit the amount of (volatile organic compounds) they’re releasing, they’re not requiring them to cut back in any way,” Subra said.

The company said it is planning to replace diesel engines that run the waste-injection wells with electric engines to decrease some of the nitrogen oxide emissions they create. According to the permit, the facility emits nearly 73 tons of nitrogen oxide per year, an air pollutant emitted by engines that can cause smog.

Friloux said she doesn’t think the DEQ investigation will find U.S. Liquids committed any violations.

“I’m hopeful,” she said. “But the Department of Environmental Quality sure doesn’t want themselves to look bad, because this has been going on for so long. I’m sure they have boxes and boxes of complaints from residents. Anyone who passes on the highway knows there’s a problem.”

Friloux has asked DEQ officials to test the air, water and land around the Grand Bois facility, but was told they probably wouldn’t be able to because of budget cuts, she said. If the DEQ can’t afford it, the federal Environmental Protection Agency should be asked to do the testing, she added. If officials find U.S. Liquids guilty of permit violations, the fine money could be used to do the testing themselves, Friloux said.

“It should be used for the protection of the people here. We’re the only ones who want to protect our little Grand Bois,” Friloux said. “We keep hoping we’re going to push the right button some time, and someone will come along and say, ‘This is wrong. This shouldn’t be in the swamp. The damage has been done but we can make it right, clean it up, and move it far away from where people live.’”

Original Article