BP Oil

SEE BP 2

color below

see tag and BP 2 (12/15)

in the new corp doc

https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions

no lnx

guk

Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions

Chevron’s Kern River oil field in Bakersfield, California. Photograph: Guardian Design

New data shows how fossil fuel companies have driven climate crisis despite industry knowing dangers

Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline

Why we need political action to tackle the oil, coal and gas companies - video explainer

by Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts

Wed 9 Oct 2019 07.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 10 Oct 2019 09.18 EDT

The Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.

New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.

The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.

The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.

Q&A

What is the polluters project?

Those identified range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell – to state-owned companies including Saudi Aramco and Gazprom.

Chevron topped the list of the eight investor-owned corporations, followed closely by Exxon, BP and Shell. Together these four global businesses are behind more than 10% of the world’s carbon emissions since 1965.

==

==

http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/28/obama-gifts-to-big-oil  BP writes off civil $?

2New refining subsidy

Since lifting the crude oil export ban means that domestic crude can sell for a higher price on the global market, some U.S. refiners may find their margins squeezed as the price of crude itself rises. The Congressional solution? Compliment the lifting of the export ban with a new$1.8 billion tax break for refiners over the next six years.

. BP’s dirty tax break

More than five years after Deepwater Horizon, BP is still paying for its disaster. The problem is that BP is still seeing major tax breaks as part of the costs. Although it was dinged with an out-of-court settlement worth $20.8 billion, most of those costs are going to be tax deductible—allowing the company to capture a tax windfall worth $5.35 billion for the worst oils pill in U.S. history.  

==

==

3/15

In August 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Domestic Terrorism Analysis Unit distributed an intelligence bulletin [3] to all field offices warning that environmental extremism would likely become an increasing threat to the energy industry. The eight-page document argued that, even though the industry had encountered only low-level vandalism and trespassing, recent “criminal incidents” suggested that environmental extremism was on the rise. The FBI concluded: “Environmental extremism will become a greater threat to the energy industry owing to our historical understanding that some environmental extremists have progressed from committing low-level crimes against targets to more significant crimes over time in an effort to further the environmental extremism cause.”

Not long after the bulletin was distributed, a private security firm providing intelligence reports to the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security cited the FBI document in order to justify the surveillance of anti-fracking groups. The same security firm concluded that the “escalating conflict over natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania” could lead to an increase in “environmentalist activity or eco-terrorism.”

Since the 2010 FBI assessment was written, the specter of environmental extremism has been trotted out by both law enforcement and energy-industry security teams to describe a wide variety of grassroots groups opposed to the continued extraction of fossil fuels. In 2011, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP ) published a report [4] titled, “Environmental Criminal Extremism and Canada’s Energy Sector.” The RCMP warned that environmental extremism posed a “clear and present criminal threat” to the energy industry. While both the FBI and RCMP reports make an effort to distinguish between lawful protest and criminal activity, they often conflate the two – in the RCMP report the terms “violence” and “direct action” are used interchangeably – and suggest opposition to the energy industry will lead to extremism. (The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division declined to answer questions about the 2010 bulletin.)

Yet even as the resistance to “extreme energy projects” has grown in size and scope, there is little evidence to support the breathless warnings about “eco-terrorism.” There has been no upward spiral in criminality among environmental activists. To the contrary, arson, property destruction, and other acts of violence most closely associated with the radical animal rights movement of the 1980s and 1990s have become all but nonexistent. According to figures compiled by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) at the University of Maryland, there has been only a handful of incidents defined as eco-terrorism since 2010. In fact, between 2010 and 2013, the latest year for which the GTD has published figures, out of a total of 54 terror incidents in the United States, five were attributed to the Animal Liberation Front. The last recorded incident carried out by the Earth Liberation Front – the bulldozing of two radio transmission towers in Washington – was in 2009. Earth First! hasn’t appeared in the database since 1994.

Instead, environmentalists have largely relied on classic social change strategies such as choreographed nonviolent civil disobedience, carefully planned protests, and divestment from the fossil fuel industry. “Overall we’ve seen a decline in activity, in terms of violent criminal activity” among environmentalists, an FBI intelligence analyst told The Washington Post in 2012.

Nevertheless, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and many state law enforcement agencies continue to promote the idea that environmental extremism is on the rise. The oil and gas industry is spending more on security than it ever has. According to a 2013 report by Frost & Sullivan, a marketing research and consulting company, annual spending on global oil and gas infrastructure security is expected to top $30 billion in just a few years. (In comparison, $30 billion is roughly what South Korea spends on defense annually.) “Surveillance will continue to dominate the oil and gas infrastructure security market,” a summary of the report states.

At the same time, numerous intelligence-sharing networks between the private sector and law enforcement have been established at every level of government, giving rise to an unprecedented energy-intelligence complex. They range from project-specific and regional networks like the Nebraska Information Analysis Center’s Keystone Pipeline Portal community and the Marcellus Shale Operators’ Crime Committee, to federal programs like the FBI’s Oil and Natural Gas Crime Issues Special Interest Group and the Department of Homeland Security’s Oil and Natural Gas Sector Coordinating Council. These public-private partnerships, coupled with a revolving door between intelligence agencies and the more lucrative energy industry, have created a new kind of foe for the environmental movement. The fossil fuel industry is now an economic behemoth firmly hitched to the national security state.

It is true that environmentalists pose a threat to the energy industry – just not in the way the FBI or RCMP believe. The threat to the industry is existential and economic, not extremist. If the movement to end our reliance on fossil fuels prevails, the oil and gas industry will lose trillions of dollars in forecast profits. According to an estimate by the Carbon Tracker Initiative [5], if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the energy sector would have to leave more than $20 trillion worth of fossil fuels in the ground. “The oil and gas industry is doing everything they can to ensure they’re in business for the next 30 to 50 years and doing so at a time when we should be, as a nation, collectively figuring out how to stop using those same fossil fuels over the next ten years,” says Wes Gillingham, program director of Catskill Mountainkeeper [6].

Conflict between fossil fuel interests and environmentalists is inevitable. But as the contest becomes ever more stark, there seems to be little effort to distinguish between lawful political activism and illegal activities. The fossil fuel industry’s reasonable concerns about the strength of its political opponents have morphed into a kind of paranoia, one that threatens to criminalize constitutionally protected dissent.

In the years since the FBI and RCMP reports, unconventional oil and gas development has been met with sustained protest, from small scale tree sits and encampments to massive nationwide demonstrations. The opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is only the most high-profile example of resistance to the fossil fuel industry. The term “Blockadia” has been used to describe the loose network of citizens seeking to disrupt the continued exploitation of fossil fuels. Tactics vary depending on the region and political backdrop, but the emphasis has been on nonviolent civil disobedience, legal action, and ballot measures to hamper pipeline projects, ban fracking, and prevent or slow down tar sands extraction. A handful of pipeline projects ­– including Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and Williams Companies’ Constitution pipelines – have been stymied. In mid-December, after several years of intense organizing, lobbying, and direct action campaigns, New York became the first state with substantial shale gas reserves to ban fracking. Towns in Colorado, Texas, and Ohio have passed restrictions that limit oil and gas drilling.

Such successes have emboldened these groups and inspired action elsewhere. (Of course it should be noted that oil and gas development has hardly been halted; it continues apace throughout North America.) Rather than lead to an increase in criminal activity, as the FBI predicted, opposition to the oil and gas industry has, in some ways, become more mainstream. “Five years ago you would have never seen the faces of rural farmers and ranchers and tribal leaders on the front lines of climate actions,” says Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska [7], an environmental group opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. “This unlikely Cowboy and Indian Alliance that is also working shoulder to shoulder with big green groups is changing the way America looks at the issue of land, water, and climate change.”

But the new face of the environmental movement seems not to have registered with an industry intent on steamrolling its critics. In 2011, in comments that have been widely cited, a spokesman for Anadarko Petroleum described the anti-fracking movement as an “insurgency” and suggested that industry insiders download the US Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual as a guide to dealing with it. Less well known is the fact that Anadarko has built up a team of former intelligence operatives to combat what it views as an insurrection. The company’s southwest regional security manager was an officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration, where he was involved in undercover work. Another Anadarko security manager, LC Wilson, was regional commander of the Texas Department of Public Safety from 2009 to 2011 and oversaw law enforcement statewide. Anadarko has also been involved in the creation of at least two Oilfield Crime Committees, one in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, both of which are headed by former law enforcement officials. The South Texas Oilfield Crime Committee and the Marcellus Shale Operators’ Crime Committee have gathered intelligence on environmental activists and routinely exchange information with law enforcement.

Anadarko is not alone. Most large energy companies have security teams run by former FBI, Secret Service, or law enforcement personnel. The director of corporate security at Devon Energy, for example, was a special agent with the Secret Service for 14 years. Chevron’s chief security officer was the former head of the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service.And BP’s head of Government and Political Affairs from 2007 to 2012 worked for MI6, Britain’s top spy agency.

In most cases these security teams have been deployed to manage crises overseas. In Indonesia, for example, ExxonMobil ran its own intelligence operations and consulted regularly with the country’s military leaders as it sought to protect its assets amid destabilizing political conditions. In 2012 The Guardian reported that Shell Oil maintained a 1,200-person police force plus a network of undercover informants in Nigeria and spent tens of millions of dollars on security in the region.

As shale oil and gas development has expanded in North America, the frontlines of the energy wars are no longer overseas, but rather in places like Nebraska, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Range Resources, one of the largest drillers in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, has admitted to hiring veterans of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with experience in psychological warfare – or Psyops – to engage with local communities.

Neither Anadarko nor ExxonMobil nor Range Resources responded to requests for comment.

Even as the energy industry has beefed up its own in-house intelligence operations, it has established increasingly close ties with law enforcement agencies. This is partly a result of the post-9/11 national security state and the premium placed on information sharing. The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), established by the Department of Homeland Security in 2006, holds quarterly meetings to facilitate information sharing between the private sector and government agencies. (Meetings are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which means there is no public oversight. Indeed, the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 stipulates that information voluntarily submitted by industry to the DHS or DOE is protected from public disclosure.) Within CIPAC there is an Oil and Natural Gas Sector Coordinating Council and an Energy Government Coordinating Council. According to minutes from an August 2013 CIPAC meeting, the DHS has been working to provide more security clearances to the energy industry. “Currently DHS is working to enhance policies to share more classified information both cyber and non-cyber related,” the document states. Anadarko, Kinder Morgan, ExxonMobil, and the American Petroleum Institute are frequent participants and sponsors of CIPAC meetings.

In addition to CIPAC there is a Homeland Security Information Sharing Network for the Oil and Gas Industry (HSIN-ONG), a web-based platform that allows companies to communicate with each other and with law enforcement. It also gives them access to Suspicious Activity Reports and other intelligence related information. Around the same time that the information-sharing network was being created, the Department of Justice launched its National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative to “improve the sharing of suspicious activity reports among state, local, tribal, and federal law-enforcement organizations, as well as private sector entities.”

Intelligence-sharing systems also have been developed at the state level. The Nebraska Information Analysis Center (one of more than 70 Homeland Security “fusion centers”) has its own network that focuses on “possible unlawful tactics and techniques of individuals/groups opposed to Keystone XL pipeline.” According to documents obtained by Earth Island Journal through a public records request, oil infrastructure company TransCanada has its own page in the HSIN portal where suspicious activity reports can be posted. TransCanada representatives, FBI agents, county attorneys, local sheriffs, and the US assistant attorney general all have access to the Keystone pipeline network.

Despite the numerous federal, state, and regional information-sharing networks established during the past decade, the industry has been reluctant to participate in programs that might be subject to public oversight. Thus last summer the oil and gas industry announced the creation of its own information sharing and analysis center, or ISAC, which allows member companies to submit intelligence anonymously and is exempt from public disclosure.

The industry’s fear of transparency is part of a larger pattern. Oil and gas firms often express alarm about having their facilities photographed or filmed by citizen watchdogs, which can lead to official investigations. For example, in 2011 the Rocky Mountain Energy Security Group (yet another regional intelligence sharing network) issued a security report that described activists in Pavillion, Wyoming who had photographed a natural gas processing facility. The report, which was disseminated to law enforcement and security professionals in the industry, defined the behavior as “suspicious activity” and said that the information was being circulated in order to determine “whether the activity has any underlying criminal or terrorism nexus (or intent).”

In recent years the FBI has pursued environmental activists in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho for little more than taking photographs of oil and gas industry installations.In 2011, after receiving an anonymous tip, the FBI went after Texas activist Ben Kessler, a member of the direct action environmental group Rising Tide North America [8]. In November 2013 and February 2014, a Pennsylvania state trooper and member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force visited anti-fracking activists at their homes in New York and Pennsylvania under the pretext that they had trespassed while taking photos of a gas compressor station. More recently, members of Rising Tide in the Pacific Northwest have been contacted or visited by FBI agents. (The energy companies’ fear of transparency is in some ways similar to the livestock industry’s exposé anxiety, which has led to the passage of so-called ag-gag laws that prohibit the filming of farms and ranches.)

The frontlines of the energy wars are no longer overseas, but rather in places like Nebraska, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

But what happens when the private sector’s assumptions about criminal activity are wrong or misleading? In Pennsylvania the oil and gas industry has driven speculation that environmental organizations were behind several acts of vandalism at or near drilling sites, even though there’s no evidence of any link whatsoever. The unfounded assertion has spilled into the local press. In February 2014, The Williamsport Sun-Gazette in northeast Pennsylvania ran a story about the crimes headlined, “Ecoterror Target: Gas companies bolster security in response to threats.”

Jeff Monaghan, a PhD candidate in Sociology at Queen’s University in Ontario who writes on issues of surveillance, says the RCMP document reflects how deeply intertwined the suspicions of energy companies and intelligence agencies have become. “The broader context of this document is a very, very close working relationship between the Critical Infrastructure Protection team and the energy corporations. As the relationship develops the underlying belief is that environmentalists are first-and-foremost a threat to the economy. It’s really about protecting shared values of economic growth.”

Or, as the RCMP report put it, “Canada’s economic growth … and the objectives of environmentalists are in direct conflict.” Environmental activists wouldn’t disagree with that, especially given the aggressive pro-energy policies of the Harper government. What they take issue with is the highly provocative claim that their opposition to the energy industry will likely lead to criminal activity. As the interests of the state and energy sector become increasingly close, however, this perception is taking hold. Activists worry that it is shaping law enforcement’s approach to the movement and could lead to a crackdown on legal protest.

“It doesn’t surprise me that the industry is trying really hard to paint the environmental movement as fringe or dangerous, because it’s their last resort,” says Catskill Mountainkeeper’s Gillingham. “It’s behavior based on a losing argument.”

The conflict over the Keystone XL pipeline has reinforced the narrative that economic prosperity and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. Pipeline proponents like to paint the opposition as job killers and, yes, extremists. In April 2014, Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, described the pipeline as “a project that is being blocked purely by environmental extremism.” More recently, US Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, called anti-fracking activists campaigning for a moratorium “radical environmentalists.” A major Washington PR firm, Berman and Co., has launched an ad campaign bankrolled by the energy industry called “Big Green Radicals” that seeks to smear high-profile activists.

But the demonization of environmental advocates goes far beyond mere polemics. TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, has worked closely with law enforcement along the proposed pipeline route from the very early stages of its development. A certain amount of collaboration with law enforcement is to be expected with any major infrastructure project. But TransCanada has gone further. The company has pressured attorneys general to prosecute environmental activists under terrorism statutes. It has given local law enforcement advance notice of meetings with landowners whom the company describes as hostile. And the company has held workshops with local law enforcement and the FBI, including a daylong “strategy meeting” in Oklahoma with the FBI in 2012.

According to documents obtained by Earth Island Journal, the FBI distributed a bulletin in early 2013 “regarding threat concerns by environmental extremists against the Keystone Pipeline expansion project” to law enforcement across Nebraska. In its strategic plan for 2014-2017, South Dakota Homeland Security identifies what it considers to be extremist enclaves in the state, through which Keystone is proposed to pass. According to the document, “Uranium mining in the southwest part of the state and a proposed oil pipeline in the western part of the state garnered the attention of extremist environmental groups.” The report does not describe or name the groups, their intentions, or tactics. A public records request for additional documents or communication regarding “extremist environmental groups” in South Dakota was denied.

(Read the FBI bulletin here [3].)

In 2013 Earth Island Journal reported on the infiltration of a Tar Sands Resistance training camp [9] in Oklahoma. Two undercover officers from the Bryan County Sheriff’s office attended the weeklong event and shared intelligence with the Oklahoma Department of Homeland Security Fusion Center. Law enforcement was tipped off and a planned act of civil disobedience was preempted. During that same week TransCanada’s corporate security advisor was in frequent contact with the Oklahoma Fusion Center and made comments on a classified situational awareness bulletin.

In many ways Texas, where the Keystone pipeilne would terminate, is the heart of the American oil and gas industry. Not surprisingly, activists there are routinely harassed by law enforcement and corporate security for nothing more than keeping tabs on the industry. In East Houston, the city’s industrial hub and most polluted neighborhood (Houston itself is one of the most polluted cities in the country), environmental activist and community organizer Bryan Parras has been questioned by the police on several occasions and once was contacted by a Coast Guard special agent assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in Houston. The organization he helps run with his father, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services [10] (or TEJAS), has been closely watched. Parras frequently takes activists and journalists on what he calls “toxic tours” – a survey of the neighborhood’s refineries, chemical plants, and shipping ports. He’s made a point of documenting the air pollution caused by the flaring at the refineries that flank the neighborhood. He says the images “compel people to action.”

They’ve also made Parras a subject of interest for industry and law enforcement. He is routinely questioned by the police or harassed by security representatives from Valero Energy, a major refining company and one of the industries Parras monitors. In 2013 Parras got a text from a friend, Tish Stringer, saying that an agent had visited her home and wanted to know about her relationship with him. The Coast Guard special agent, David Pileggi, told Stringer he’d been tipped off by Valero.

“It’s nothing new,” Parras says. “Since 9/11 we’ve been harassed repeatedly and pulled over for taking pictures or video of the facilities.”

In an emailed statement, Bill Day, vice president of communications at Valero, said the Houston refinery is designated by Homeland Security as “critical infrastructure” and therefore must meet enhanced security requirements. “One of those requirements,” he wrote, “is that when we see people taking photos or video of our facilities, we ascertain the purpose of that activity and then report it to DHS.” According to Shauna Dunlap, media coordinator for the FBI’s Houston Division, photographing and videotaping of critical infrastructures “can be a precursor of potential criminal activity.” The Joint Terrorism Task Force, she says, is “obligated to look into each and every suspicious activity report.”

This kind of surveillance and intimidation, Parras says, is particularly chilling in an area with a large number of undocumented residents. Not only are they vulnerable to threats of deportation, but also they’re quite literally at the crossroads of environmental destruction and the risks associated with climate change. East Houston is home to a disproportionate number of the city’s largest sources of industrial pollution, four major highways, and the shipping channel that feeds into the Port of Houston. If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would terminate in East Houston; Valero has a contract with TransCanada to receive most of the oil. “On the basis of location alone these neighborhoods appear far more vulnerable to health risks than others in Greater Houston,” a 2006 study commissioned by the mayor’s office concluded. In addition, rising sea levels threaten to inundate the heavily industrialized shoreline. “It puts us at even higher risk because we’re on the coast,” says Parras. “All these facilities are right on the water.”

In many ways, for activists like Parras the last line of defense lies in taking photos, documenting the impacts of industrial pollution, and simply bearing witness. TEJAS hasn’t even engaged in civil disobedience or direct action, he says. Still, his organization is on Valero’s watch list. TEJAS organizers have been followed and photographed or videoed by Valero security personnel. Local teachers who joined Parras on one of his toxic tours were bullied into deleting photos and video they had taken of the refinery. Journalists he has shown around have been threatened by Valero that they’ll be reported to the FBI.

In the eyes of the oil and gas industry this is the new environmental extremism. And that view is being shared with law enforcement at every level.

The intimidation and surveillance have had an impact. Parras says his advocacy has been compromised by Valero’s scrutiny of his organization and the refinery’s close relationship with law enforcement. “It’s difficult to get neighbors to want to engage and speak out,” he says.

Adam Federman, recipient of a Polk Grant for Investigative Reporting, is a contributing writer to Earth Island Journal. His work has appeared in Salon, among other outlets.

==

3/15

Large institutional museums have a history of receiving funding from those who might have an interest in slanting how they cover climate issues. Oil company BP, for instance, is a corporate sponsor at Chicago’s venerable Museum of Science and Industry, whose exhibits have long promoted a cheerful upbeat “better living through science” approach and whose interactive coal mine exhibit has been one of its major attractions since 1933.

But BP is doing a little image scrubbing of its own. It announced Monday that it has dropped its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the rightwing climate denying group that is heavily funded by—you guessed it!—the Koch brothers. BP gave no reason for dropping its membership, but it follows in the footsteps of Walmart, Amazon, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola Co., Best Buy, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, eBay, Wells-Fargo and dozens of others that have dropped their ALEC membership in response to pressure from activist groups.

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/bp-liable-gulf-spill_n_6115430.html

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court panel has reaffirmed its ruling that BP is liable for federal Clean Water Act damages stemming from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the latest loss for the oil giant as it fights court decisions that could ultimately bring $18 billion in penalties.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments that there were errors in its June 4 ruling on BP's Clean Water Act liability. The ruling released Wednesday night is not the final say from the court. BP and its minority partner in the Macondo well, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., have a request pending for the full 15-member court to reconsider the issue.

The June order and Wednesday's follow-up were issued by Judges Fortunato Benavides, Carolyn Dineen King and James Dennis. They upheld U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's ruling holding the well owners are liable.

BP and Anadarko had argued they were not liable because equipment failure on the leased rig Deepwater Horizon caused the April 2010 disaster. An explosion on the rig killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf in what became the nation's worst offshore oil disaster.

Barbier has also ruled that BP was "grossly negligent" in the disaster. BP has asked Barbier to reconsider that finding, which, if it stands, would be a factor in whether the water act penalties for the company reach an estimated $18 billion.

Under the Clean Water Act, a polluter can be forced to pay from $1,100 to $4,300 per barrel of spilled oil. The higher limit applies if the company is found grossly negligent — as BP was in Barbier's ruling. But penalties can be assessed at lower amounts.

Government experts estimated that 4.2 million barrels spilled into the Gulf. BP has urged Barbier to use an estimate of 2.45 million barrels in calculating any Clean Water Act penalties.

Barbier has scheduled a trial in January to help decide how much BP owes in federal Clean Water Act penalties.

BP declined comment on the latest ruling. Anadarko did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a June interview, Loyola University law professor Blaine LeCesne said he doubts Anadarko will have to pay much, if anything, in Clean Water Act fines because its partnership gave BP complete control over how the well was drilled and run.

=

FOIA:

http://www.motherjones.com/print/185211

Right-Wing Think Tank FOIAs Climate Scientists

American Tradition Institute seeks the release of emails with journalists to find details that could be used to discredit science.

By Suzanne Goldenberg | Wed Jul. 11, 20126:00 AM EDT

This*story* [1]first appeared on theGuardian [2]website and is reproduced here as part of the*Climate Desk* [3]collaboration.

The ultra-conservative American Tradition Institute [4] has expanded its legal pursuit of climate scientists, using transparency laws to try to flush out potentially damaging emails.

The strategy—used to seek records from prominent scientists such as Michael Mann [5]—is seen by scientists as an excuse to try to dig up embarrassing or damaging communications that could be used to discredit climate science.

Now for the first time the media is being drawn in as well, with ATI seeking the release of scientists' communications with specific journalists. The list of news organisations targeted by the request [6] includes the New York Times, the Associated Press, Frontline, and the Guardian.

Earlier requests focused on exchanges between scientists. "We view this as a new chapter," said Jeff Ruch, a lawyer working with the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund [7]. "Before they were going after interactions between individual scientists. This is basically a spying operation to see who are you talking to, but presumably the idea is the same: to find material that is potential of use in discrediting a scientist."

Christopher Horner, the director of ATI's environmental law center, deployed the new tactic for the first time last week, in a July 5 open records request to two scientists at public universities in Texas.

Horner, who holds posts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute [8] as well as ATI, has led the legal pursuit of climate scientists through open records laws.

He has sought access to communications from Michael Mann, the author of the hockey stick graph, the NASA climate scientists James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, and this year, Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University.

Hayhoe turned came to public prominence when Newt Gingrich, the former Republican presidential candidate, decided to cut a chapter she had written for a forthcoming book [9] on the environment. She and Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, were targeted again last week [10] when Horner demanded their universities turn over all of the scientists' email exchanges with specified journalists dating back to November 1, 2009.

Horner also asked the scientists to hand over communications with the Union of Concerned Scientists [11], which has also been involved in defending climate scientists, as well as Richard Ades, who has served as a public relations consultant to scientists. The two universities are complying with the request.

Horner told the *Washington Examiner* [12]—a free newspaper owned by the conservative billionaire Philip Anschulz—that his decision to target contacts between scientists and journalists was prompted by a front-page article in the New York Times on clouds and New York Timeson clouds and climate change [13] contrarians. In email exchanges with the Guardian, he indicated he was looking for evidence that scientists were working with journalists and advocacy groups to undermine climate change dissenters.

Horner wrote he was concerned with "taxpayer servants who also engage in quite a bit of activism and – as famously noted in certain in famous emails, all also subject to freedom of information laws—recruiting of journalists 'to investigate and expose' those they do not like or with whom they disagree."

"You might be surprised to learn that the Texas A&M email production shows the academics actually forwarding their email discussions outside their circle. To New York Times reporters, for example," he wrote.

Scientists and campaign groups describe Horner's records requests as a "fishing expedition," aimed at trying to damage climate science.

Ruch said such motivated use of transparency laws was on the rise—and not only by conservative groups such as ATI. This year alone, his organisation, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, had heard from seven other scientists who had been subject to open record requests after appearing as expert witnesses in court cases involving mountaintop coal mining.

Last month, a pair of oceanographers accused BP of infringing on their academic freedom by demanding the release of email related to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster [14]. Meanwhile, some public universities have begun to fight back against such requests. Penn State University, where Mann now works, is not bound by open records requests. Other public universities are moving in the same direction.

Horner defended his use of transparency laws, arguing the scientists' objections were themselves political. "Our motivations are surely whatever Greenpeace's were when pioneering these requests," he said in an email. "The truth is, they see no problem with using transparency laws this way. They only have problems with people they do not like using them as such."

At the very least, such open records requests are a distraction, said Hayhoe. "These types of requests are disruptive. They require a lot of attention to respond carefully and they take away time spent doing teaching, mentoring, or doing research. For a scientist who is happiest working in a lab or on a computer it is frightening to be accused of things that are completely without basis."

At the other extreme, such records requests represent an escalation of efforts to politicise climate science, said Dessler.

"At some level it's really dirty tricks what these people are doing. They are not using the open records request in any way it is meant to be used," said Dessler. "It's certainly reasonable to get a record of what transpired—how a decision was made, how a contract was awarded, why a university president was fired. But they are not trying to use it to figure out how decisions are being made. What they want to do is to find something embarrassing, something they can use in a political debate."

Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/07/american-tradition-institute-freedom-information-law-climate-scientists

Links:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/american-tradition-institute-climate-science

[2] http://www.guardiannews.com/

[3] http://climatedesk.org/

[4] http://www.atinstitute.org/

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/michael-mann-climate-war?intcmp=239

[6] http://www.scribd.com/doc/99680945/Ati-Dessler-Txam-Foi-Request-i

[7] http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/

[8] http://cei.org/expert/christopher-c-horner

[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/06/climate-scientist-newt-gingrich-book-chapter

[10] http://www.scribd.com/doc/99680950/Ati-Dessler-Txam-Foi-Request-II

[11] http://www.ucsusa.org/

[12] http://washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-the-collusion-of-the-climate-crowd/article/2501500

[13] http://www.motherjones.com/_fcksavedurl=

[14] http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/04/bp-accused-attack-scientific-freedom

==

A pair of scientists have accused BP of an attack on academic freedom after the oil company successfully subpoenaed thousands of confidential emails related to research on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

The accusation from oceanographers Richard Camilli and Christopher Reddy offered a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes legal manoeuvring by BP in the billion-dollar legal proceedings arising from the April 2010 blow-out of its well.

It also heightened fears among scientists of an assault on academic freedoms, following the legal campaign against a number of prominent climate scientists.

In an opinion piece in the Boston Globe, the scientists, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said they volunteered in the early days of the spill to deploy robotic technology to help BP and the Coast Guard assess how much oil was gushing from the well.

The two researchers turned over some 50,000 pages of research notes and data to BP. But BP demanded more, and obtained a court subpoena for the handover of more than 3,000 confidential emails. The scientists handed over the emails last week – but with severe misgivings, they wrote.

"Our concern is not simply invasion of privacy, but the erosion of the scientific deliberative process," they wrote. They feared the email exchanges, in which the scientists discuss hitting dead ends or challenging each other on their conclusions, were open to deliberate misinterpretation.

"Incomplete thoughts and half-finished documents attached to emails can be taken out of context and impugned by people who have a motive for discrediting the findings. In addition to obscuring true scientific findings, this situation casts a chill over the scientific process. In future crises, scientists may censor or avoid deliberations, and more importantly, be reluctant to volunteer valuable expertise and technology that emergency responders don't possess."

The struggle over the emails indicates the looming legal significance of any data related to the flow of oil from the stricken well.

A former BP engineer was charged last April with destroying evidence after he deleted text messages discussing the flow of oil from the stricken well.

The justice department indicated at the time that Kurt Mix, the former engineer, was only the first to face criminal charges. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that officials were investigating whether BP executives lied to Congress about the spill during closed door briefings in the early days of the disaster.

A spokesman for BP declined to respond to the scientists on Monday.

Michael Halpern, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said it was a shoddy way to treat scientists who had volunteered to help the country in a time of crisis.

"The Woods Hole scientists saw a country in need and tried to do the right thing, and in the process got burned by a system that does not protect them. And the potential consequences are profound. Sure, scientists might be less likely to ask tough questions of each other in an environment where every sentence they write could be misrepresented," he wrote. "But they will also begin to think twice about using their knowledge to solve pressing and urgent national problems."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/04/bp-accused-attack-scientific-freedom

==

post spill huge pentagon contract: 2.5billion 2 yrs after this town 254

=

spill in lake mich?

Two new developments have linked BP oil from the 2010 Gulf disaster to ongoing wildlife, habitat, and economic impacts in Louisiana.

First, a new peer-reviewed scientific study by a team of government, academic, and non-governmental researches was released linking BP oil from the 2010 Gulf oil disaster to dolphin deaths and illness in Barataria Bay, La. Seventeen percent of the dolphins sampled were classified as being in "poor or grave condition"--meaning they are not expected to survive.

Dr. Lori Schwacke, the study's lead author, stated, "I've never seen such a high prevalence of very sick animals--and with unusual conditions such as the adrenal hormone abnormalities."

The facts are that this year alone, more than three years after the BP disaster, more than 4.6 million more pounds of oily material have been recovered from Gulf of Mexico shorelines. There is no question that more oil is out there. BP saturates the market with its pricey PR onslaught, implying that the clean-up is over and the Gulf is better than ever. But this is simply not true. The Gulf is still waiting for BP to accept responsibility to ensure restoration that it deserves.

OMG

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/bp-gulf-of-mexico-leases_n_4996314.html

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — High bids from Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC made up more than one-third of the $850.8 million total at Wednesday's federal oil lease sale for the central Gulf of Mexico. It also was the first sale since the government said BP PLC can again secure federal contracts; the company made $41.6 million in high bids.

Freeport-McMoRan's 16 high bids totaled $321.4 million, including the day's biggest — $68.8 million — and six of the 10 highest, according to the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

The second-highest bidder both for total and single bids was Chevron USA Inc., at $103.3 million and $62.4 million. That bid, announced after bids of $1.2 million, $2.6 million and $32.8 million for a Mississippi Canyon tract about 125 miles south of Dauphin Island, Ala., and about 20 miles from BP PLC Macondo well that blew wild in 2010, drew a chorus of "oohs" from the audience.

BP was the only bidder on a tract a few miles west of that one, getting it for $1.2 million. The company was suspended from new federal business after pleading guilty in November 2012 to criminal charges from a major oil spill in the Gulf two years earlier. The suspension was lifted Friday and BP bid a total of $53.8 million on 31 tracts Wednesday, with high bids on 24.

"As the nation's largest energy investor, BP is committed to the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, where we have been an active player for a quarter century and have a multi-billion dollar investment program underway," spokesman Brett Clanton said in an emailed statement. "BP's participation in today's lease sale not only underscores the importance of the region, but it is also a testament to the vital role BP plays in the American economy and to the country's energy future."

BP's highest bid was $8 million for an Atwater Valley tract about 180 miles south of Biloxi, Miss., and 10 to 15 miles northeast of the day's most hotly contested tract — the one for which Freeport-McMoRan bid $68.8 million. The other five bids included Exxon Mobil Corp.'s $45.5 million....

==

hard to imagine a company as filthy rich as BP running a scam that would cheat a state out of tens of millions of dollars. Wait, no it's not.

Minnesota is claiming in a lawsuit that BP did exactly that.

The alleged scam took advantage the nationwide problem of old, leaky underground storage tanks (the EPA calls them LUSTs, because occasionally the EPA is hot). The EPA estimates there are 78,000 such tanks buried nationwide, each of them containing funky old oil and the like, even after some 436,000 were removed in recent decades. To help rid Minnesota of the tanks' hidden pollution dangers, the state levies a fee on petroleum products that goes into its Petrofund. BP has received money from this fund to help it meet the costs of cleaning up its LUST sites. According to Minnesota's lawsuit, however, more than $25 million of BP's LUST cleanup costs were already being met by the company's insurers.

THIS STORY CONTINUES

==

**BP Announces the Defeat of Renewables**

Every year, energy giant BP (once British Petroleum) releases its “Energy Outlook” for the years ahead, an analysis of future trends in global production and consumption.  The 2014 report -- extending BP’s energy forecast to the year 2035 -- was made public on January 15th.  Typically, its release is accompanied by a press conference in which top BP executives offer commentary on the state of world energy, usually aimed at the business media.  This year, the company’s CEO, Bob Dudley, spoke with unbridled optimism about the future market for his company’s energy products, assuring his audience that the global supply of fossil fuels would remain substantial for years to come.  (Dudley took over the helm at BP after his predecessor, Tony Hayward, was dumped in the wake of the 2010Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.)

“The picture in terms of resources in the ground is a good one,” he noted.  “It’s very different to past concerns about supply peaking.  The theory of peak oil seems to have -- well -- peaked.” 

This, no doubt, produced the requisite smiles from Dudley’s oil-friendly audience.  Then his comments took a darker turn.  Can we satisfy the world’s energy requirements with fuels that are sustainable, he asked.  “Not at the moment,” he admitted.  Because of a rising tide of fossil fuel consumption, he added, “carbon emissions are currently projected to rise -- by 29% by 2035, we estimate in the Outlook.”  He acknowledged that, whatever good news might be found in that document, in this area “steps are needed to change the forecast.”

Next, Dudley tried to put a hopeful spin on the long-term climate prospect.  By replacing coal-fired power plants with less-carbon-polluting natural gas, he indicated, overall greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.  Increasing the efficiency of energy-consuming devices, he added, will also help.  All of this, however, adds up to little when it comes to the big picture of carbon emissions.  In the end, he could point to few signs of progress in the struggle to slow the advance of climate change.  “In 2035, we project that gas and coal will account for 54% of global energy demand [and oil another 27%].  While renewables will grow rapidly, their share will reach just 7%.”

Most of the media coverage of Dudley’s appearance focused on his expectations of long-term energy abundance, not what it would do to us or our planet.  Several commentators were, however, quick to note how unusual it was for an oil company CEO to address the problem of carbon emissions at all, no less express something verging on despair over the prospect of making any progress in curbing them.

“[Dudley] concludes... [that] the world is still a long way from delivering the peak in greenhouse gas emissions many scientists advise has to be achieved within the next decade to minimize the risk of dangerous climate change,”observed energy analyst James Murray at businessGreen.com.

...klare tom disp

Wealth: Li Ka-shing owns stock in Cheung Kong and Hutchison Whampoa (HW). Through HW, Li is the 

world’s largest operator of container terminals in what is now the region through which almost all 

manufacturing originates for exporting goods across oceans. He is also the world’s largest health and beauty 

retailer (by number of outlets), a real estate developer and a major supplier of electricity to Hong Kong. Li is 

a majority shareholder in Husky Energy, a Canadian oil firm that recently announced its third oil discovery in 

the South China Sea.16 Husky Energy is in ajoint-venture with BP to develop the Sunrise Oil Sands Project in

Alberta, Canada (which is proceeding despite BP shareholder concerns over its environmental impact).17

Power Networks: Li’s powerful allies include Lee Shau Kee of the Henderson Land Development, New 

World Development’s Cheng Yu-tung, casino and property magnate Stanley Ho, the Kwok family of Sun 

Hung Kai Properties, and Henry Fok Ying-tung. Li is regarded as one of Asia’s most generous 

philanthropists, having donated more than $1.4 billion to charity and other various causes.18 Beneficiaries 

include the University of California at Berkeley, which received $40 million from Li to build the Li Ka-shing 

Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, a new biosciences facility set to be completed in 2011. Li also has 

press suppression:

Arkansas BP Mayflower pipeline: Inside Climate News, which won a Pulitzer for its stories on lax oversight of pipelines, is a scrappy little outfit that is making happen just what we wanted in the era when traditional media/newspapers/investigative reporting is folding; but after the Mayflower Arkansas  BP oil spill one of its reporters, Lisa Song was trying to interview US EPA and Dept of Transportation officials, and was told they were in the command center. She tried repeatedly to get their names and contact info. She was initially turned away at the gate, but on her second try was waved through by another (pvt security?) guard. Inside the warehouse serving as the command center she went to a table with a sign “Public Affairs” and got the name of EPA spokesperson, and was in the process of getting it for DOT when Exxon spokesperson told her to leave; a second person repeated the request, adding she'd be arrested for criminal trespass if she did not comply. Another ICN reporter/publisher David Sassoon, revealed Kochs' involvement with tar sands; Koch tried to get Reuters to stop being an ICN partner, and ran ads on Google and Facebook calling him a liar. “agenda-driven, dishonest journalism” [did they say what was incorrect?].

==

BP CEO Bob Dudley says the “biggest beneficiaries” of an agreement related to the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill disaster aren't the victims, but their lawyers.

In an interview with CNBC Tuesday, Dudley said the U.S. class-action system has become an “industry” ripe with financial incentives that make plaintiffs’ lawyers eager to bring claims. “This is not right, it’s not good for American business,”Dudley said. “It happens all the time in the US with this class action plaintiff system, which is an industry and a business model.”

The comments come as the oil giant is appealing parts of its multi-billion settlement to compensate oil spill victims, claiming that it’s being “misinterpreted” and that officials are paying out exaggerated or in some cases false claims. Thevictims’ lawyers have argued in response that the company is merely trying to back away from last year's agreement.

Since the company’s victim compensation fund is dwindling and any payouts that go beyond the fund will hit BP’s future profits, it's in Dudley's interest to claim lawyers are taking advantage of the settlement. But a Businessweek story from earlier this year adds weight to Dudley's central argument.

In the wake of the settlement, the magazine reported that plaintiffs' attorneys"swarmed onto the scene" to file claims for clients, who in some cases live relatively far from the site of the spill. One lawyer admitted to the magazine that he filed a claim for a client to win damages on a revenue drop that "had nothing to do with the spill."

Class-action controversies have popped up elsewhere. In one class-action suit filed in Tampa Bay, Fla., last year, the plaintiffs stood to get no money, while their lawyers could have earned up to $300,000 in legal fees, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

==

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/lionel-h-sutton-resigns_n_3480252.html

--

climate 1 talk w/ bill alexandra   peak green invest 4% of beyond pet

==

BP stops cleanup in three Gulf states — and starts funding a new beachfront hotel

By John Upton

BP's oil-spill cleanup operations have formally wrapped up in three of the four states that were polluted following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in 2010.

After more than three years of cleanup, that sounds like an occasion to party and then relax. But it isn't. Not only has the Gulf Coast not recovered from the oil spill, but the hard work of environmental restoration has barely even begun. From the Associated Press:

==

 3 yrs after spill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Say

mark hertsgaard: 

...

BP’s cover-up was not planned in advance but devised in the heat of the moment as the oil giant scrambled to limit the PR and other damages of the disaster. Indeed, one of the chief scandals of the disaster is just how unprepared both BP and federal and state authorities were for an oil leak of this magnitude. U.S. law required that a response plan be in place before drilling began, but the plan was embarrassingly flawed. At one level, BP’s cover-up of the gulf oil disaster speaks to the enormous power that giant corporations exercise in modern society, and how unable, or unwilling, governments are to limit that power. To be sure, BP has not entirely escaped censure for its actions; depending on the outcome of the trial now under way in New Orleans, the company could end up paying tens of billions of dollars in fines and damages over and above the $4.5 billion imposed by the Justice Department in the settlement last year. But BP’s reputation appears to have survived: its market value as this article went to press was a tidy $132 billion, and few, if any, BP officials appear likely to face any legal repercussions. “If I would have killed 11 people, I’d be hanging from a noose,” says Jorey Danos. “Not BP. It’s the golden rule: the man with the gold makes the rules. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_Safety_and_Health_Administration

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/oil-companies-pay-a-pittance-in-penalties-to-offshore-drilling-regulator

Last week, as part of our coverage of the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, we noted the troubled past of the Minerals Management Service, the agency that regulates offshore oil and gas drilling.

On its website, MMS says that it issues civil penalties for serious safety violations [1]. And there have been violations. A study conducted by the Minerals Management Service found that from 2001 to 2007, :{offshore drilling :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:accidents resulted in 41 deaths and 302 injuries [2], according to The Huffington Post.

In an analysis of civil penalties levied by the regulator, we at ProPublica found that over the past 12 years the average penalty has been $45,000. Currently, MMS can fine oil and gas companies a maximum of $35,000 per violation per day [4] (PDF). The biggest fine an oil company has paid to the agency since 1998 was $810,000, paid in 2001 by Chevron. Overall, the Minerals Management Service has collected $20 million in penalties in those 12 years.

That kind of money is unlikely to sting much, considering the profits that major oil companies take in.

The British oil giant BP, for instance, made $5.6 billion in profits [5] in the first quarter of 2010 alone. As we reported last week, far from having a spotless safety record, the company has faced fines from several federal agencies in the last decade [6]: $21 million [7] from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, $50 million [8] from the Environmental Protection Agency, $300 million [6] from the Department of Justice -- just to name a few that the company has paid.

MMS fines against BP have been the equivalent of a rounding error. From 1998 through 2007 -- when MMS issued its last fine against the company -- BP paid less than $580,000 in penalties for its 12 safety violations.

Environmental groups say this simply isn't enough.

"Fines from the MMS are a tiny fraction of the financial profit these companies have made from their dangerous and environmentally devastating oil drilling operations," said Marcie Keever of Friends of the Earth. "When oil companies have been caught violating safety standards, they've been let off the hook with mere slaps on the wrist."

Lawmakers have also begun scrutinizing the safety regulator in connection with the BP oil spill in the Gulf. On Monday, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, an outspoken critic of offshore drilling, requested an inspector general's investigation [9] into MMS and its rulemaking process, to determine whether the regulator was influenced by industry lobbying.

We've called BP for comment and will update when we get it. We've also reached out to MMS requesting explanation of its penalties. The agency has yet to return our call.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/12/deepwater-horizon-lessons

http://www.propublica.org/article/latest-sanction-against-bp-goes-beyond-gulf-spill

propub: B

P has been criminally convicted in four previous cases — including a 2005 explosion in Texas that killed 15 workers — and the EPA has been considering broader debarment proceedings against the company since at least 2005. The agency had actually been nearing a decision on a contract ban in January 2010, just a few months before the Deepwater Horizon tragedy unfolded, killing 11 workers and sending more than 200 million gallons of oil into the sea.

"This is not just about the Deepwater Horizon, but about a whole lot of things and a whole lot of parts of BP," said a former government official familiar with the debarment process. "It wasn't just narrowly scoped... they are looking at it as a systemic corporate-wide issue."

A limited suspension of government contracts for a specific facility or subsidiary operations, called suspension and debarment, is standard practice after a criminal conviction.

BP pleaded guilty on Nov. 15 to federal criminal charges of manslaughter and lying to Congress and agreed to pay more than $4 billion in fines relating to the Deepwater Horizon accident, which killed 11 workers and sent more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Three of the company's managers have also been criminally charged.

But the broad sanctions announced Wednesday target the BP corporation writ large — the British-based parent company and 21 international subsidiaries are included — and reflect a mistrust for BP's operations that has been growing over more than a decade.

In this case, experts close to the case say, the timing of the government's announcement was significant.

It came just hours before the government sold new rights to drill in the Gulf of the Mexico and seems intended to prevent BP, the largest leaseholder in the Gulf, from expanding its operations there until all of its problems are resolved.

"Suspensions are always timed to prevent something from happening," said Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA debarment attorney who led the government's investigation into BP from 1997 until she retired in 2010.

"A debarment says you have chronic bad behavior, and we think you present chronic risk for the government and that you will continue this behavior," said Pascal. "The immediate need was the issuance of new leases (Wednesday) in the Gulf of Mexico."

Wednesday's actions represent the government's effort to protect its fiscal resources and protect the public economic interest by not using taxpayer money to support actions that could cost the government more money later on.

After several past BP accidents, including two oil spills in Alaska and close calls at several U.S. refineries, private consultants and government investigators have pointed to wide-ranging problems within the company's culture. The critics have warned that BP has consistently prioritized speed and profit-making over safety and regulatory compliance.

The type of suspension ordered Wednesday is a part of what the government calls a "discretionary" debarment, which means it is considering this broader "corporate culture of noncompliance" and longer history.

While the EPA is the lead agency, its debarment decision affects the Department of Interior and Department of Defense, among other agencies. BP is among the U.S.'s largest corporate contractors and supplies more than $1 billion a year worth of fuel to the military.

The temporary suspension order issued Wednesday is the first step in a still-to-be-made decision about whether BP should be formally debarred, or banned entirely from contracts for a specified length of time.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bp-oil-spill-civil-trial-20121116,0,1453194.story

��

* Botched well pressure test indicates BP gross negligence-US lawyers

* BP's actions unworthy of 'middling size company'-US lawyers

* BP rejects negligence charge

By David Ingram

WASHINGTON, Sept 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is ramping up its rhetoric against BP PLC for the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, describing in new court papers examples of what it calls "gross negligence and willful misconduct."

The court filing is the sharpest position yet taken by the U.S. government as it seeks to hold the British oil giant largely responsible for the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Gross negligence is a central issue to the case, slated to go to trial in New Orleans in January 2013. A gross negligence finding could nearly quadruple the civil damages owed by BP under the Clean Water Act to $21 billion.

The U.S. government and BP are engaged in talks to settle civil and potential criminal liability, though neither side will comment on the status of negotiations.

"The behavior, words, and actions of these BP executives would not be tolerated in a middling size company manufacturing dry goods for sale in a suburban mall," government lawyers wrote in the filing on Aug. 31 in federal court in New Orleans.

The filing comes more than two years after the disaster that struck on April 20, 2010 when a surge of methane gas known to rig hands as a "kick" sparked an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig as it was drilling the mile (1.6 km)-deep Macondo 252 well off Louisiana's coast. The rig sank two days later.

The well spewed 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 straight days, unleashing a torrent of oil that fouled the shorelines of four Gulf Coast states and eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in severity.

BP got leases when opened up after spill (kpfa on earth day sunday 9 am)

sotu 2012 bo opened up 75% of offshore

Palast says mjr role in exxon valdez p 102  Alyeska

 chuck hamel took concorde to tell BP pres valdez term problem; ex cia hired to spy, 

entraped; failed; used RC toy truck to bug hotel; busted/arrested by navy seal intel team (doing what?) p 14

BP had to pay hamel; 

braithwaite-burke passed law that Alaska oil had to be shipped and refined in Compton

grynberg sued BP

inuit?  geo gordoff made deal that req ship have local pilot;  214 also latest raDAR; demo

congress about tio vote down pipeline but native deal made ok and as promise in congr

testimony, binding, but radar boke so shut down for lack of 200$ fix, 1st GPS (cf steven

johnson tedtalk on where good ideas come from reverse engr hunch; )

alyeska demanded warning of surprise inspections 220- Lawn who objected was demoted, but

union got that reversed, so BP US chief hired Wackenhut (Geo name) to go after [elsewhere��

negligent homicide, child rape, espionage cf

native guys spill crew fired (after helping break teamster union) p220 ghost crew just

names grabbed from co directory  ARCO told BP not to spend $ until he and and exxon ok'd

224 see below

history eg shah http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/08/bps-long-history-of-destr_n_604511.html

1909 (as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company)

1954 (as the British Petroleum Company)

1998 (merger of British Petroleum and Amoco)

cf 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/26/bp_played_central_role_in_botched

Alpine Group — 13 Clients

It��s no surprise that Alpine Group tops the list, given its environment and energy pedigree. The shop was co-founded in 1996 by Richard White, former legislative coordinator for the late Rhode Island Senator John Chafee, a Republican who often bucked his party as an environmental champion, and by James Massie, a longtime energy lobbyist. Alpine Group’s stable of climate lobbyists includes former House Energy and Commerce Committee Democratic aide Courtney Johnson, former Senate Appropriations Republican staffer Les Spivey, and former staffers for three of the moderate Democratic Senators whose votes hang in the balance on climate legislation: Jason Schendle (former staffer to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana), Charles Barnett (Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas), and Rhod Shaw (Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio). Alpine Group’s list of 13 climate clients includes Ford, BP America, BNSF Railway, 3M, Duke Energy, and NRG Energy.

Climate change skeptic Horner sweeps BP CEO's meeting with Cheney under the rug

June 15, 2010 7:21 pm ET — 6 Comments

Writing on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog, Chris Horner whitewashed the role BP executives played in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force to attack Democrats over two meetings with BP officials. BP's CEO reportedly met with Cheney and his energy task force in 2001.

Horner falsely suggests BP's CEO did not meet with Bush White House

Horner: "4,700 days ... since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office." Chris Horner, a climate change skeptic, wrote in a post on BigGovernment.com: "So President Obama is meeting in the White House tomorrow with BP's chairman. The focus of public discussion of this event has been on it taking until the 57th day or so since the Deepwater Horizon rig caught fire following a well explosion, precipitating the ongoing oil leak." Horner continued:

The more relevant figure is 4,700. If my quick calculation has it right, that's the number of days since the last time a BP CEO was in the Oval Office. On that day, August 4, 1997, then-CEO, (then-Sir) John Browne, joined by Ken Lay, met in the Oval with President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

BP CEO participated in Cheney's energy task force, including a separate meeting with Cheney

BP's CEO reportedly met with Cheney.A November 16, 2005, Washington Postarticle reported, "A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress." The article further reported, "Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work."

Other BP officials met with task force. The Washington Postarticle also reported that based on records kept by the Secret Service, "[o]n March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien." The BP representatives reportedly "met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy."

Horner is funded by the oil industry

CEI has received millions of dollars from ExxonMobil.According to reports compiled by Greenpeace, ExxonMobil Corp. and its foundation donated more than $2 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where Horner is a senior fellow, from 1998 through 2005.

CEI has received more than $600,000 from Koch family foundations. According to data compiled by Media Matters Action Network, from 1986 through 2004, CEI received $666,420 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, and David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and Personal Philanthropy. Charles and David Koch reportedly each own 42 percent of Koch Industries, whose subsidiaries "have been in the petroleum business since 1940" and "engage in petroleum refining, chemicals and base oil production, crude oil supply, and wholesale marketing of fuels, base oils, petrochemicals, asphalt and other products." The president of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation is Richard Fink, who is also president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Fink is "an executive vice president and member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc., where he leads the legal, government, community relations and communication capabilities for Koch Industries," according to his bio on the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation's website.

gen'l:

corpwatch

BP plc

http://www.bp.com

Industry Areas Oil and gas exploration and production, refining/marketing and supply of petroleum products, manufacturing and marketing of Chemicals, Gas & Power generation and the manufacture of Photovoltaic (solar) cells.

Overview

Market share/importance

The oil sector accounts for about 13.3 per cent of FTSE 100 [1] in the UK BP is one of the largest players in this sector. As such, BP is one of the barometer companies of the British economy. BP's successes and failures are likely to be mirrored in the UK economy as a whole.

• BP's crude oil production in 2000 stood at 1,928 thousand barrels per-day,[2]
• Gas production at 7,609 million cubic-feet per-day,[3]
• Total production at 3,240 thousand barrels of oil-equivalent per-day,[4]
• Gas sales at 14,471 million cubic-feet per-day,[5]
• Refinery throughputs at 2,916 thousand barrels per-day,[6]
• Marketing sales at 3,756 thousand barrels per-day,[7]
• Chemicals Production at 22,065 thousand tonnes.[8]
• BP solar is the world's largest solar electric company [9]
• For comparison
• Shell's Crude oil production in 2000 stood at 2,274 thousand barrels per-day [10]
• Shell's Natural gas production available for sale at 8,212 million standard-cubic-feet per-day [11]
• Shell's oil product sales at 5,574 thousand barrels per-day [12]
• Exxon-Mobil's liquids production in 2000 stood at 2,600 thousand barrels per-day [13]
• Exxon-Mobil's natural gas production available for sale at 10,300 million cubic-feet per-day [14]
• Exxon-Mobil's refinery throughputs at 5,600 thousand barrels per-day [15]
• Exxon-Mobil's petroleum product sales at 8,000 thousand barrels per-day [16]
• For a guide to the units used by the oil and gas industry try:http://www.nepo.go.th/ref/UNIT-OIL.html

BP ranks in the top three in terms of reserves in the global oil and gas industry with operations in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australasia and Africa [17]. More than 70% of profits are generated in Europe and the United States but the company is also pressing ahead with new exploration and production operations in Africa, South America, Asia and the Caspian sea [18].

BP is the largest retailer of gasoline in the US. [19] Marketing as AMOCO in the eastern United States and ARCO in the west, it has about 17,150 service stations nationwide [20].

Throughout the rest of the world the company has a network of 11,850 BP branded service stations [21], 1,525 in the UK [22] and products on sale in 100 countries [23]. In the UK BP also supplies fuel to petrol stations at Safeway supermarkets [24].

BP retails its Castrol branded lubricants in more than 50 countries and in addition, supplies Castrol specialist products and services to the metalworking industry [25]. Outside North America the group also markets lubricants under the BP brand.

BP is also one of the world's largest marketers of aviation fuel and a major supplier of fuels and lubricants to the shipping industry. BP supplies more than 900 ports and 1,400 airports worldwide [26].

Back to top

History

Before January 1999 the company was registered as the British Petroleum Company PLC. In January 1999 following a merger the company took on the Amoco name [27]. They retained the name BP Amoco, until April 2000 [28] The transition to the BP PLC name was managed by BPs advertising agency: Ogilvy & Mather and PR Consultants: Ogilvy PR. The change of name culminated in BPs new logo and re-branding, in the first quarter of 2001 [29].

BP was founded by William Knox D'Arcy, an Englishman who, shortly after the turn of the century, ventured to Persia (Iran) in search of oil. D'arcy's company was first registered in 1909 under the name Anglo-Persian Oil [30] and for the next 60 years the company's focus lay in the Middle East [31].

The British government acquired a controlling stake in the company shortly before the first world war as Anglo-Persian promised secure supplies of oil [32]. Between the wars Anglo-Persian expanded into Canada, South America, Africa, Papua and Europe and in 1935 the company was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [33].

��

In 1951 Iran nationalised the company's assets, at that time the UK's largest investment overseas. To counter this, the company began exploration in other Middle Eastern countries, such as Kuwait, Libya and Iraq and in 1954 the company was renamed British Petroleum Company [34]. From the late 1960s operations shifted westwards, towards the USA, (Prudhoe bay, Alaska) and the British North sea. Both of these fields came on stream in the mid 1970s transforming the company and allowing BP to weather the oil price shocks of 1973 and 1979 [35]. BP today has operations in over 70 countries [36].

The British government sold its last shares in the company in 1987 [37]. By that time BP's performance was languishing at the bottom of its sector and a number of investments had backfired. In 1992 the group posted a loss and had to embark on a drastic cost-cutting exercise. A number of key figures at the top of the company are credited with turning the company around, David Simon (Lord Simon of Highbury), Peter Sutherland and following them the current group chief executive John Brown. By 1996 the group had turned around and was performing within the top quartile of the oil and gas sector [38].

The company's recent history has been dominated by a number of mergers. BP already held a 55% stake in the US Standard Oil Company and in 1987 successfully acquired the remaining 45% and formed the company BP America [39]. 1987 also saw BP acquire Britoil the North Sea exploration company [40].

On August 11 1998 BP and Amoco: the American Oil Co. Established in 1910 [41], announced that they had agreed the world's largest-ever industrial merger [42].

On April 7th 1999 BP announced that it would buy from Enron the 50 per cent stake it did not already own in the solar electric company Solarex, the company would be called BP Solarex [43]. BP Solar's website boasts not only that BP Solar is the world's largest solar electric company but also that it has over 44 years of collective experience [44]. BP Solarex has manufacturing bases in the USA, Spain, Australia, and India and a total production capacity of 30-40 MW of solar products per-year, representing a 20 per cent share of the global market.

Also in recent years BP has combined its operations with Burmah-Castrol, well known for its Castrol branded lubricants [45] and ARCO, whose petrol is on sale across a large part of the United States [46].

Activity in 1909–1979

[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg)

[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BP_Motor_Spirit,_1922.jpg "Enlarge")

A 1922 BP advertisement

In May 1901, William Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil, which he discovered in May 1908.^[17] This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was incorporated as a subsidiary of Burmah Oil Company to exploit this.^[17] In 1923, it employed future Prime Minister, Winston Churchill as a paid consultant, to lobby the British government to allow Burmah to have exclusive rights to Persian oil resources, which were successfully granted.^[18] In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).^[17]

Following World War II, AIOC and the Iranian government initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. But in March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated.^[19] The Majlis of Iran (parliament) elected a nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister. In April, the Majlis nationalised the oil industry by unanimous vote.^[20] The National Iranian Oil Company was formed as a result, displacing the AIOC.^[21] The AIOC withdrew its management from Iran, and organised an effective boycott of Iranian oil. The British government – which owned the AIOC – contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed.^[22]

By spring of 1953, incoming US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorised the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to organise a coup against the Mossadeq government with support from the British government.^[23] On 19 August 1953, Mossadeq was forced from office by the CIA conspiracy, involving the Shah and the Iranian military, and known by its codename, Operation Ajax.^[23]

Mossadeq was replaced by pro-Western general Fazlollah Zahedi^[24] and the Shah, who returned to Iran after having left the country briefly to await the outcome of the coup. The Shah abolished the democratic Constitution and assumed autocratic powers.

After the coup, Mossadeq's National Iranian Oil Company became an international consortium, and AIOC resumed operations in Iran as a member of it.^[21] The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50–50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."^[25] AIOC, as a part of the Anglo-American coup d'état deal, was not allowed to monopolise Iranian oil as before. It was limited to a 40% share in a new international consortium. For the rest, 40% went to the five major American companies and 20% went to Royal Dutch Shell and Compagnie Française des Pétroles, now Total S.A..^[26]

The AIOC became the British Petroleum Company in 1954. In 1959, the company expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska^[27] and in 1965 it was the first company to strike oil in the North Sea.^[28] In 1978 the company acquired a controlling interest in Standard Oil of Ohio or Sohio, a breakoff of the former Standard Oil that had been broken up after anti-trust litigation.^[29] In 1967 there was the disaster of the giant oil tanker, the Torrey Canyon, which founded off the English coast, even though the ship was flying the well known flag of convenience, that of Liberia. the ship was in fact operated on behalf of B.P. the Prime Minister of that time, 1967, had the ship bombed by RAF jet bombers, in an effort to break it up and sink it, in regard to the final oil spill it was futile, and the method has not been repeated. It continued to operate in Iran until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. The new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini confiscated all of the company���s assets in Iran without compensation, bringing to an end its 70-year presence in Iran.

LOBBYING

As millions of barrels of oil began pouring into the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, Democratic lawmakers began asking the question: what was the proper amount of money that the company responsible for the spill should have to pay?

This wasn't some sort of philosophical exercise. Oil companies pay money into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to help cover the costs of major disasters. But under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a company responsible for a spill is liable for only $75 million in economic damages, provided it didn't exhibit "gross negligence." The federal government picks up the next $1 billion.

Since it quickly became evident that the cost of damages to the Gulf would far exceed those figures, a group of senators, led by Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), tried to change the law. They proposed raising the $75 million cap on liability to $10 billion.

The bill was dubbed the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act." Introduced during the peak of anger over the spill and amid legitimate fears over how long the oil would continue to flow unabated, it seemed as though there was a fairly reasonable chance it would pass. When President Barack Obama not only endorsed the measure but also argued for eliminating a cap altogether, its prospects improved further.

It never even made it to an up-or-down vote. Republican senators and several oil-state Democrats -- pitching symbolic, watered-down alternatives -- filibustered the bill's consideration. A separate attempt to use unanimous consent was blocked as well.

Opponents made the same argument each time. Increasing the economic liability for offshore drilling would, as Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska) insisted, end up empowering the "biggest of the big oil" companies by discouraging the small ones from taking the risk.

The "biggest of the big oil" companies did oppose the bill, but for different reasons. The American Petroleum Institute, an umbrella organization for the industry, testified against it, calling it arbitrary and warning that it would "threaten the

viability of offshore operations" and "significantly reduce U.S. domestic oil and natural gas production."

Meanwhile, several of API's highest-profile members lobbied lawmakers on the bill, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The list included Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell and Anadarko Petroleum. It also included BP, the company directly responsible for the disastrous spill and, in turn, the legislative push to change liability law.

That BP lobbied lawmakers on the penalties companies faced for spills, as it faced penalties for causing a spill itself, underscores how even the most embattled company often sees Congress as a worthy investment. BP spent $8.43 million in 2011 on efforts to influence legislation. While that total fell far short of the nearly $16 million it spent on lobbying in 2009 -- much of it on working to defeat cap and trade legislation -- it represented a $1 million uptick from 2010 levels. It was also about .0324 percent of the company's $26 billion in profits from last year: a small price to pay to ensure the preferred legislative outcomes for the firestorm it ignited.

“It really is outrageous that after being responsible for the largest oil spill in our nation’s history, BP spent more than $8 million on D.C. lobbyists to try, among other things, to escape any effort to shut off the spigot of taxpayer subsidies,” Menendez told The Huffington Post.

Two years after the disaster on the Deepwater Horizon, BP's lobbying efforts indeed appear to have paid off. The New York Times recently reported that the company has five rigs drilling in the Gulf, "making it one of the most active drillers there." When the Obama administration held an offshore auction last December, granting leases for 20 million acres of federal water, BP successfully bid on 11 available drilling blocks. And while the company personally waived the $75 million cap and recently announced it will pay $7.8 billion to compensate those harmed by the Gulf spill, ProPublica reported "the amount is significantly less than many had expected and does not appear to require BP to spend any money that it had not already agreed to pay."

��

The quick bounce-back has been driven, in part, by a political climate that has increasingly encouraged a return to the status quo. Several bills have been introduced in Congress that were designed to upend the moratorium that the Obama administration placed on offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Others were crafted to expand and encourage the leasing of more land for drilling.

On all of them and many others, BP lobbied, often employing some of the most prestigious firms on K Street. In 2011, it paid The Duberstein Group $400,000 to lobby the national commission that investigated the spill, as well as to lobby on "issues related to offshore drilling and the Deepwater Horizon accident," according to lobbying disclosure files. BP also retained the firm to help with hearings on the Gulf disaster and to respond to "Executive Branch actions re these issues." BP paid Stuntz, Davis & Staffier $90,000 to help encourage Congress to reverse "President Obamas Offshore Moratorium Act" and advance "provisions to encourage domestic oil production." It paid The Podesta Group -- led by Tony Podesta, brother of Obama transition chief John Podesta -- $320,000 in 2011 to help with hearings on the spill and to push legislation that would restart offshore land leasing.

BP didn't just find itself spending hefty sums on legislation related to the Gulf spill. The company fought efforts to close tax loopholes that it and others in the oil industry enjoy. It paid Covington & Burling LLP $450,000 to help ensure that sanctions being placed on Iran exempted a BP-led natural gas project, according to disclosure reports. It also paid the firm Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock $60,000 in the second quarter of 2011 alone to influence the implementation of new legislation on derivatives.

None of it was illegal.

"BP is committed to providing America with energy security. And like many companies with U.S. operations, we engaged in lobbying and file quarterly lobbying reports per government regulations. These reports are publicly available and speak for themselves," BP spokesman Scott Dean told the Huffington Post. "As part of our routine engagement on a broad range of issues, we provided information to lawmakers on the consequences of legislation."

But good government groups couldn't help but notice the opportunistic timing of BP's re-emergence as a player in the influence-peddling game.

"When the spotlight was on their crude oil spilling into the Gulf, they slowed down their political giving in Washington," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund. "But when people forgot about it, they put their foot on the gas."

The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act remains stalled in Congress with virtually no prospects of reconsideration, let alone passage. But it's unfair to say that in the two years since the spill, BP and other oil companies have had a free ride. An Obama administration official noted that because of reforms put in place, companies hoping to drill off shore must now demonstrate a containment capacity for oil spills, meet requirements for well design and comply with workplace safety standards.

With those reforms in place, more than 115 shallow water permits in the Gulf of Mexico and 323 permits for deepwater activities at 98 wells have been approved. The country is thirsting for oil, making debates about economic damage liability seem passé.

"The Gold Rush in the Gulf is back on and BP is one of the companies leading the charge, with a lot of help from Congress and the Obama administration," said Alex Formuzis, a spokesman for the Environmental Working Group. "The pace with which the oil companies are moving to increase deepwater drilling off our shores seems to suggest the worst oil spill to foul U.S. waters is a distant memory."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-oil-lobbyists_n_1335556.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."

Robert A. Malone is the Chairman and President of BP America.^[1]

Prior to taking up the position, Malone had worked as chief executive of BP Shipping Limited "where he was responsible for the operation of the energy industry’s largest oil and natural gas fleet."^[1]

A biographical profile on BP's wesbite states that Malone "started his career in 1974 as a junior metallurgical engineer at Kennecott Copper Corporation in Ely, Nevada. Over the next 4 years, he had various plant and environmental engineering roles which in 1977 lead to an operational leadership position as Director of Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) for the Nevada division. In 1979, Bob became the Manager of Safety and Security for the western mining division located in Salt Lake City, Utah, and then went on to become Assistant to the Chairman and President of Kennecott Corporation in 1980."^[2]

"In 1981, Kennecott was acquired by Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO), and in 1987, British Petroleum acquired SOHIO, and Kennecott became part of BP Minerals America. During this period, Bob was the Director of HSE for both Kennecott and BP America. From 1988 to 1989, Bob was a Sloan Fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His next BP post was the Vice President of Operations at the Carborundum Company of Niagara Falls - a subsidiary of BP America, Inc. In 1993, he became President of BP Pipelines Alaska, and then in 1996, Mr. Malone was appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (APSC), operator of the Trans Alaska Oil Pipeline," the biographical profile states.^[2]

"After four years of running APSC, Bob became Western Regional President for BP America until 2002 when he became Chief Executive of BP Shipping Limited responsible for BP's global shipping operations. He was appointed into his current role as Chairman and President of BP America Inc in mid 2006. He was also named Executive Vice President of BP plc and a member of the group chief executive committee," it states.^[2]

"Mr. Malone was raised in Northeast Texas. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso, and was an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he received a Master of Science in Management," the media release states.^[1]

��

Affiliations

The 2006 BP media release states that Malone is^[1]:

• a Member of the Executive Committee of Oil Companies International Marine Forum
• a Board Member of the UK Chamber of Shipping.

Past Affiliations

The BP media release also states that Malone "has also served on the California Climate Action Registry Board of Directors, the Board of the National Petroleum Council, and was a member of the Board of Regents for the University of Alaska system. In 2003, he was selected as the Alumnus of the Year by the University of Texas at El Paso."^[1]

Articles and Resources

Sources

1. ↑ ^1.0^ ^1.1^ ^1.2^ ^1.3^ ^1.4^ BP, " Robert A. Malone to Lead BP America, Inc.", Media Release, June 19, 2006.
2. ↑ ^2.0^ ^2.1^ ^2.2^ " Robert Malone", BP website, accessed May 2008.

Related SourceWatch Articles

• Nuclear Energy Institute

External Articles

Categories: Nuclear PR | United States | Nuclear power | Stubs

The money they get is staggering. For example, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu has received $758,000 from the oil industry. The truth is, Landrieu topped the list of members of Congress who received money from BP and its executives.

Yes, the same company that created one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history when the Deepwater Horizon spilled 2.5 million gallons a day of oil in the Gulf of Mexico is one of Landrieu's biggest supporters. In return, she's become one of their biggest allies.

America Doomed says, "There is no bigger supporter of Big Oil than Senator Mary Landrieu -- she has been on their payroll for years and even the devastation in the Gulf doesn't change anything."

What executives "donated" generously to Landrieu? The current president of BP America, Lamar McKay, gave $1,000 to Landrieu's 2008 reelection campaign. Margaret Hudson, BP America's vice president, gave $1,100.

Benjamin Cannon, BP America's federal affairs director, gave $2,300. And Robert A. Malone, previous president of BP America, gave $2,300 to Landrieu's campaign.

By the way, $2,300 is the maximum campaign contribution allowed. This means the former president of BP dumped every penny he legally could into Landrieu's campaign.

Of course, Landrieu and BP officials prefer if you didn't know this information. Unlike our politicians, who like to sneak around the truth, in my new book, Barbarians of Oil, I expose the "backdoor deals" between Big Oil and our government....

How the oil industry coughed up $35 million in political donations to George W. Bush and fellow Republicans. In fact, from 1998 to 2004, the industry ponied up $440 million in political contributions. Turn to page 205 in Barbarians of Oil for all the details.

vultures palast; 2003 BP had contracts in iraq, ended by b52 245

 Palast says mjr role in exxon valdez p 102  Alyeska

 chuck hamel took concorde to tell BP pres valdez term problem; ex cia hired to spy, 

entraped; failed; used RC toy truck to bug hotel; busted/arrested by navy seal intel team (doing what?) p 14

BP had to pay hamel; 

braithwaite-burke passed law that Alaska oil had to be shipped and refined in Compton

grynberg sued BP

inuit?  geo gordoff made deal that req ship have local pilot;  214 also latest raDAR; demo

congress about tio vote down pipeline but native deal made ok and as promise in congr

testimony, binding, but radar boke so shut down for lack of 200$ fix, 1st GPS (cf steven

johnson tedtalk on where good ideas come from reverse engr hunch; )

alyeska demanded warning of surprise inspections 220- Lawn who objected was demoted, but

union got that reversed, so BP US chief hired Wackenhut (Geo name) to go after [elsewhere

negligent homicide, child rape, espionage cf

native guys spill crew fired (after helping break teamster union) p220 ghost crew just

names grabbed from co directory  ARCO told BP not to spend $ until he and and exxon ok'd

224 see below

cointelpro:

Lessons Learned: Exxon Valdez vs. Gulf Oil Spill

By Natterjack Press

The Yup'ik saw this. They saw hundreds of thousands of seabirds die. They saw thousands of sea otters die. They saw billions of salmon and herring die. This wasn't a dream; it was a very real nightmare. You may have heard of it—it was called the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

It all began on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker grounded on a reef in Prince William Sound, 40 miles off the Alaskan coast. It spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the sea, contaminating about 1,300 miles of coastline. But for the Yup'ik and other southern Alaskans, the nightmare was just beginning.

"We had suicides, domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, divorces, and we lost people in the community who went elsewhere," said Patience Andersen Faulkner, a Yup'ik from the Chugach people, on a recent visit to Louisiana coastal communities.

The sentiments of snowballing loss experienced by disaster survivors is echoed by social scientists.

J. Steven Picou, Professor of Sociology at the University of South Alabama, has for 30 years researched the impacts of disasters on communities. “These empirical findings are consistent with smaller studies of survivors of Three-Mile Island, Bhopal and Chernobyl,” he said, referring to the repercussions of past disasters.

These days, public anger is directed at BP, which had nothing to do with the Exxon Valdez spill...did it?

Actually, it did. BP was in up to its neck: It was in charge of the botched response to the spill. It was the major player in the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which controls oil production in Alaska. Exxon, despite having its name on the ship, was a junior partner. Capt. James Woodle, who was then the Alyeska's Valdez port commander, stated that four years before the disaster, he reported the following to BP's Alaska chief, George Nelson: “Due to a reduction in manning, age of equipment, limited training and lack of personnel, serious doubt exists that [we] would be able to contain and clean up effectively a medium or large size oil spill.”

BP sought to bury this report and blackmail its author. As investigative journalist Greg Palast reported, “Alyeska showed Capt. Woodle a file of his marital infidelities (all bogus). It then offered him payouts on condition that he leave the state within days, promising never to return.”

Palast added, “Charles Hamel of Washington, D.C., shaken by evidence he received from Alyeska employees, warn[ed] BP executives in London about scandalous goings-on at Valdez.” BP thanked him. “Then a secret campaign was launched to hound him out of the industry. A CIA expert was hired to wiretap Hamel's phone lines, smuggle microphones into his home, intercept his mail and try to entrap him with young women. The industrial espionage caper was personally ordered and controlled by BP executive James Hermiller, President of Alyeska. A U.S. federal judge later told Alyeska this conduct was 'reminiscent of Nazi Germany'.”

Only in 2009��20 years after the oil spill—did Exxon start paying up. It has spent this time battling Alaskan coastal communities over damages, which were initially set by the court at $5 billion. Exxon has managed to get this slashed by 90 percent to half a billion for 30,000 Natives and fishermen. There is still oil on Alaskan beaches. The fishing industry still hasn't recovered.

But don't worry: BP learned its lesson from the Exxon Valdez. Not lessons about safety or environmental protection, of course; BP has had a string of accidents, leaks and near misses over the last few years. Just recently, it spilled over 100,000 gallons of oil from its Alaska pipeline operation. This happened, according to state investigators, because “procedures weren't properly implemented.” Does this sound familiar? They did, however, learn lessons about oiling the wheels of power in their favor. In 2009, they spent $16 million on federal lobbying, with Louisiana's Sen. Mary Landrieu as the top congressional recipient.

The people of Louisiana and Florida are wondering, Why, given 20 years since the Exxon Valdez oil spill, did BP not put more time and money into preparing for another leak? The Yup'ik might remind them of Tony Hayward's words in 2009 when he said BP's “primary purpose was to generate profit for our shareholders” and that “[its] primary purpose in life was not to save the world.”

Table of Contents