U.S. spill panel question drilling policy

WASHINGTON Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:09pm EDT

Crews aboard vessels around the drillship Discoverer Enterprise continue operations to minimize the impact from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in this June 28, 2010 handout photograph. REUTERS/Walter Shinn/U.S. Coast Guard/Handout

Crews aboard vessels around the drillship Discoverer Enterprise continue operations to minimize the impact from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in this June 28, 2010 handout photograph.

Credit: Reuters/Walter Shinn/U.S. Coast Guard/Handout

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The BP oil spill was a massive "failure" in government oversight and administrations should be forced to consult with experts in the field before making expansive drilling policy, top officials of the White House's oil spill commission said on Wednesday.

Commission Co-chairman Bob Graham, a former U.S. Senator from Florida, said regulators and offshore drillers were aware of the possibility of a major well blowout, such as the one that caused the BP spill, but ignored the risks.

"We should be clear. This disaster represents an enormous and shared failure of public policy," Graham said at the commission's second public meeting probing the massive blowout in the Gulf of Mexico that has since been contained.

Criticizing the Obama Administration for not consulting experts on the decision to expand offshore drilling earlier this year, Graham said the panel may press for laws to force the Interior Department to work with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the White House Council on Environmental Quality when formulating policy.

"There isn't a culture, and this crosses administrations, that naturally reaches out to the scientists for their participation, therefore it would be appropriate to ask that Congress change the process," Graham said at the commission's second public hearing.

Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, and Nancy Sutley, head of the Council on Environmental Quality, told the hearing they did not advise the president on the decision to open parts of the east coast and Alaska to offshore drilling.

The Obama Administration unveiled the expanded exploration plan in March, but it has been put on hold since the BP spill ravaged the Gulf coast.

Liz Birnbaum, who was head of the Interior's Minerals Management Service when the plan was released, told commissioners she backed the plan. "In the end I supported the administration's decision," Birnbaum said.

She pointed out Interior's plan was less expansive than one proposed by the Bush administration.

A little over a month into the oil spill, Birnbaum resigned as head of the agency responsible for overseeing offshore drilling, which was criticized for its close relationship with oil companies it was supposed to oversee.

The panel will examine whether the lack of scientific input for the new drilling plan may be indicative of a larger problem with government's leasing policy over the years, co-chair Bill Reilly said.

"Scientists outside MMS, based on what I've been told, do not really think they have been adequately consulted or effectively involved in these decisions," said Reilly, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

At the meeting, the commission also separately discussed industry-wide safety standards to supplement government regulations in the nuclear power industry.

The meeting discussed the creation of a self-regulating structure modeled on the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

The structure could make oil companies operating offshore more accountable if there are shared responsibilities. Even now, as in the nuclear industry, one accident carries steep costs for the entire sector.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's powerful lobby, is considering the idea too.

"However, a program for the U.S. offshore industry would have to take into account its unique characteristics," said Erik Milito of API.

Milito said the offshore drilling industry involves a more diverse set of companies and practices than the nuclear industry.

(Editing by Walter Bagley and Sofina Mirza-Reid)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
tgs10 wrote:
We don’t need more oil and , in truth, the price of gas in the U.S. needs to mirror that of other industrialized countries …maybe close to $5/gal. Until then there won’t be enough public pressure and therefore political will to pursue alternative fuels. Our dependence on foreign oil is costing us enormously in terms of national security and environmental degradation, not to mention the economic costs of sending all our hard earned dollars to unfriendly countries. We have enough natural gas of our own to significantly reduce our dependence on the middle east oil teat. To find out more, go to www.pickensplan.com/

Aug 25, 2010 8:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Doc00001 wrote:
@ tgs10:

Spoken like a real Carl Paladino fan!! If this Government were responsive to public pressure they’d all commit suicide! We already pay $15 a gallon when considering the use of our military to protect corporate interests in oil. All raising the price at the pump to $5 will accomplish is to fatten some robber baron’s accounts and force even more struggling Americans into poverty! As far as natural gas,,,Those jackasses have already laid waste to quite a bit of privately owned homes and farms / ranches. With little or no accountability thanks to Cheney’s backroom deals with gas producers.

We already know what “self governing bodies” are worth. BP and their pals had one and used it to pollute the Gulf. Every unwashed, ignorant victim of the current oligarchy knows what to do but it would require the wealthy to make some sacrifice, so forget that!

Aug 25, 2010 10:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Trooth wrote:

Artificially raising the price of gasoline to make alternative fuels more competitive is idiotic. Make the alternative fuels cheaper by becoming more efficient with them than we are with gasoline is the fix. Handicapping one will just handicap the other as well.

Aug 25, 2010 7:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus