April 2012 Archives

[Editor's note: Michael Bromwich, the first director of the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management and Regulation, is providing the question this week. Bromwich was the Obama administration's point person in response to the BP oil spill and now runs his own consulting firm, The Bromwich Group.]

It has been two years since the Deepwater Horizon tragedy that killed 11 people, injured many others, and led to a massive oil spill. These events stunned the nation, sent shock waves through the offshore oil and gas industry, and reverberated around the world.

The oil and gas industry and the U.S. government were forced to admit that the safeguards designed to prevent a deepwater blowout were not effective; that no one had prepared adequately for containing a subsea accident; and that tools for responding to a major oil spill had advanced little in the 20 years since the Exxon Valdez disaster. The risks associated with deepwater drilling had been badly underestimated; the regulatory regime badly needed to be bolstered; capabilities to contain a subsea accident needed to be developed; and spill response assets needed to be enhanced.

Tragedy and disaster frequently lead to reexamining accepted truths. Deepwater Horizon prompted responses from both the offshore industry and the U.S. government. Much has been accomplished¬--both by the private sector and the government¬--but the work is not done. Industry and the U.S. government must continue to take steps that move offshore safety forward and drive down the risks of offshore drilling.

Although people differ on the extent of progress made so far, everyone agrees that much remains to be done. My question for the week is: What should the private sector be doing--and what is currently being done--to reduce the risks of offshore drilling?

13 responses: Amy Harder, Michael Bromwich, William O'Keefe, Jacqueline Savitz, Michael Bromwich, Marilyn Heiman, Jack Gerard, David Holt, William O'Keefe, Amy Harder, Jacqueline Savitz, Conrad Schneider, William O'Keefe

What is the right balance of federal and state regulation for natural-gas production?

The Environmental Protection Agency announced last week the first-ever federal air-emissions rules for hydraulic fracturing, an extraction process that's seen as essential for developing vast reserves of shale gas recently found all over the world but is controversial for its environmental impact. The Interior Department is expected to soon propose draft rules requiring companies drilling on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking. In addition, numerous states have already moved ahead, or are planning to move ahead, with their own laws regulating the booming natural-gas industry.

How can President Obama and Congress strike the right balance of federal rules? How can the federal government work with state and local officials to ensure adequate cooperation among all levels of government? What should the role of the states be? Is the federal government doing enough--or too much--to regulate natural gas?

What's your assessment of the EPA rules announced last week? How do they fit into the larger regulatory dynamic?

10 responses: Barry Russell, Bernard L. Weinstein, Christine McEntee, Thomas J. Pyle, Don Santa, Tom Wolf, Ann Weeks, William O'Keefe, Kathleen Sgamma, Scott Sklar

What should U.S. policy be on exporting fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, and refined oil products?

Refined petroleum products--such as diesel and oil--were the country's top export last year, according to Census Bureau data. Because of the recent natural-gas boom, companies are proposing nearly a dozen new terminals nationwide to boost exports--one up for approval this week at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The U.S. is also shipping more coal to other countries than ever, with exports reaching their highest levels in two decades, according to an AP analysis released last week.

What are the economic benefits of exporting these fossil fuels? What environmental and price concerns should the country consider? Should the Obama administration or Congress seek to block--or accelerate--any of these export trends?

17 responses: Kevin Massy, Kevin Massy, Simon Lomax, Amy Harder, Paul Sullivan, Thomas J. Pyle, George Biltz, Jack Gerard, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Marlo Lewis, William O'Keefe, Carl Pope, David Kreutzer, Bernard L. Weinstein, Hal Quinn, Daniel J. Weiss, Charles Drevna

Are EPA's clean-air rules putting an end to the coal industry?

That's what some congressional Republicans and coal-industry executives claim about the Environmental Protection Agency's numerous clean-air rules. Several regulations EPA has issued in the last three years, and most recently its greenhouse-gas rules for new power plants proposed last week, will make it more expensive to build new coal plants. Other recently finalized clean-air rules are also likely to make it more expensive to run existing coal plants, which right now account for nearly 50 percent of the nation's electricity.

EPA, some independent experts, and environmentalists maintain that the market is already shifting away from coal to natural gas, which is at near-record-low prices and emits fewer air pollutants than coal. Natural gas accounts for just a quarter of U.S. electricity.

Are EPA rules the reason the coal industry is declining? Or is natural gas and other market forces the cause? Is EPA doing enough to regulate pollution from coal-generated electricity? Should Congress or the Obama administration provide more money for promoting and researching clean-coal technology?

12 responses: Amy Harder, Michael Brune, Kevin Kennedy, Amy Harder, Brian Keane, Tom Wolf, Carl Pope, Scott Sklar, Hal Quinn, Josh Freed, William O'Keefe, Frank O’Donnell

What effect will President Obama's climate-change rules have on the nation's economy, energy mix, and environment?

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed first-ever rules that will control power-plant emissions of greenhouse-gas emissions that most scientists agree is the chief cause of climate change. The rules require all new fossil-fuel power plants to meet a standard based on an efficient natural-gas plant. EPA faces court orders to propose rules for existing plants as well for greenhouse-gas emissions of oil and natural-gas refineries.

Did EPA strike the right balance in proposing these rules? What, if anything, should Congress do in reaction to these rules? What other factors should the agency consider as it moves forward with the other climate-change rule-makings that it will address?

13 responses: John Robbins, Michael Livermore, Tim Profeta, Amy Harder, Ned Helme, Ann Weeks, Marlo Lewis, Peter Iwanowicz, Kevin Kennedy, Bill Dickenson, Graciela Chichilnisky, Scott Sklar, William O'Keefe