Editor’s Note: In a recent News Meeting question, CJR asked readers what they wanted to know about the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A number of them weighed in with excellent questions, some of which we have tried to answer in the following post.
Why have the oil companies never made drilling a relief well next to every new well Standard Operating Procedure?
Over the last week, there has been some discussion of imposing such a requirement. On Monday, Huffington Post political reporter Sam Stein asked Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard, who is overseeing the federal response to the oil spill, about the “benefits and shortcomings, going forward,” of requiring oil companies to drill relief wells simultaneously with new wells.
Stein wrote it up for the Huffington Post underneath a headline, “Thad Allen Advocates Pre-Emptive Relief Well Drilling To Mitigate Future Disasters,” which seems to overstate Allen’s support for the idea. During the press conference, Allen responded to Stein by saying, “I have not had that discussion. I think that would be a legitimate point to be raised and put in front of the commission as they do their work.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs followed up with an even more equivocal reply: “I would say that would fall under, I think, Sam, the regulatory framework that the [independent presidential] commission [investigating the spill] will evaluate in order to determine the best way to operate this in a failsafe atmosphere, moving forward.”
Others are also curious about the mandatory relief well option. In a long article about the threat of hurricanes disrupting the oil-spill containment effort in the Gulf of Mexico, CNN quoted a representative of the Sierra Club calling for just such a requirement. The problem is the cost. The New York Times reported last week that the two relief wells that BP is now drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in order to shut down the Macondo well cost about $100 million each. And Dave Rensink, the incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, told CNN that the cost of drilling relief wells simultaneously with exploration and production wells would be prohibitive for the industry. “You only resort to a relief well when all other options are exhausted,” he said.
The same industry resistance surfaced only a few months before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, when BP urged Canadian regulators to repeal a decades-old requirement that oil companies with leases in the Beaufort Sea have the capability to drill a relief well in the “same season” (due to winter sea ice, that means the summer) should a blowout occur. This is a far cry from mandating the simultaneous drilling of relief wells with other wells—but, apparently, even having to be prepared to drill a relief well seemed too onerous for BP.
“[F]or both technological and operational reasons, continuance of the [same-season relief well] capability is not required and is problematical for BP and other operators, and may well impede further exploration in the Beaufort Sea,” the company told (pdf) Canada’s National Energy Board.
BP’s resistance didn’t seem to get much attention at the time, but last week the U.S.-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility issued a press release reminding journalists of the incident, which proved effective. CNN, NPR, Reuters, and others have since picked up the story.
Why are volunteers and nonprofit wildlife groups not being allowed to help with wildlife cleanup? Who are the contractors and what do the wildlife biologists and wildlife rescue experts think about this? Where are the environmentalists—is our corporate media filtering them out?
Considering the significant damage the spill will inflict on Gulf ecosystems, surprisingly little media coverage has been given to environmentalists’ opinions, other than a quote here and there. This is probably due to the fact that, with millions of gallons of crude oil pouring into the Gulf, outrage has not been limited to greens. In a largely derided, but unfortunately well publicized, take on the issue, Sarah Palin claimed that environmentalists themselves were at fault for not allowing the oil companies to drill on land, thus forcing them out to places like the Gulf of Mexico.

Dear Ethan and Curtis,
May I ask, why did you not address the questions I posed when you sought questions in that earlier piece? (The questions I posed are still there, in the fourth or fifth comment.)
I'm a bit confused about the point, here. Is the point of The Observatory and of CJR mainly to fill in the informational gaps that sometimes occur in the regular news reports, or to collect answers from various news reports or other sources regarding the substantive matters (e.g., how much oil is leaking? or what do we know about whether BP might go bankrupt?), OR, instead, is the point of CJR and The Observatory to monitor the media, examine, and provide analysis associated with how well the media are reporting an issue and why? Is the point of CJR and The Observatory to be just another player in the media, or is it to examine, analyze, critique, and improve the media? To ensure that the media are genuinely serving the public good, and nothing less?
Can you clear that up for me, please?
Thanks,
Jeff
#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Sat 12 Jun 2010 at 09:53 PM
I believe this is a very nice vehicle for hearing from readers what they are questioning and seeking answers to when events occur. Please keep asking.......
#2 Posted by bob, CJR on Mon 14 Jun 2010 at 07:27 PM
Sorry, I had to confirm I could post this.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/20/bp_oil_spill_lingers
"Oil from the BP spill remains stuck on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a top scientist's video and slides that she says demonstrate the oil isn't degrading as hoped and has decimated life on parts of the sea floor.
That report is at odds with a recent report by the BP spill compensation czar that said nearly all will be well by 2012.
At a science conference in Washington Saturday, marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia aired early results of her December submarine dives around the BP spill site. She went to places she had visited in the summer and expected the oil and residue from oil-munching microbes would be gone by then. It wasn't...
The head of the agency in charge of the health of the Gulf said Saturday that she thought that "most of the oil is gone." And a Department of Energy scientist, doing research with a grant from BP from before the spill, said his examination of oil plumes in the water column show that microbes have done a "fairly fast" job of eating the oil. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab scientist Terry Hazen said his research differs from Joye's because they looked at different places at different times.
Joye's research was more widespread, but has been slower in being published in scientific literature.
In five different expeditions, the last one in December, Joye and colleagues took 250 cores of the sea floor and travelled across 2,600 square miles. Some of the locations she had been studying before the oil spill on April 20 and said there was a noticeable change. Much of the oil she found on the sea floor -- and in the water column -- was chemically fingerprinted, proving it comes from the BP spill. Joye is still waiting for results to show other oil samples she tested are from BP's Macondo well....
Earlier this month, Kenneth Feinberg, the government's oil compensation fund czar, said based on research he commissioned he figured the Gulf of Mexico would almost fully recover by 2012 -- something Joye and Lubchenco said isn't right.
"I've been to the bottom. I've seen what it looks like with my own eyes. It's not going to be fine by 2012," Joye told The Associated Press. "You see what the bottom looks like, you have a different opinion."..
NOAA chief Lubchenco said "even though the oil degraded relatively rapidly and is now mostly but not all gone, damage done to a variety of species may not become obvious for years to come."
Lubchenco Saturday also announced the start of a Gulf restoration planning process to get the Gulf back to the condition it was on Apr. 19, the day before the spill. That program would eventually be paid for BP and other parties deemed responsible for the spill. This would be separate from an already begun restoration program that would improve all aspects of the Gulf, not just the oil spill, but has not been funded by the government yet, she said."
It's good that the NOAA work is going to be funded by BP, which has been so impartial at every stage of this event, since the republicans are defunding the NOAA.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/18/gop-cuts-noaa-satellite-weather-forecasting-and-hurricane-tracking/
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 20 Feb 2011 at 05:57 PM