Copyright © by The Energy Advocate

It is considered courageous and honorable to “speak truth to power”, namely to speak the truth when the powers that be don’t want to hear it. Speaking power to truth is the opposite: using power (economic, political, legal, … let’s not limit the membership) to suppress the truth.

We have seen examples of international political bigwigs rewriting scientific sections of the IPCC reports to exaggerate the effects of CO2 on climate. More recently, we have seen a deliberate misrepresentation promulgated by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. In particular, a committee of 15 engineers from the National Academy of Engineers wrote—and signed—a report on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “’The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering,’ Salazar said in the report.” [1]

After the signatures were on paper, Salazar added the following.

‘The Secretary also recommends temporarily halting certain permitting and drilling activities. First, the Secretary recommends a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs. The Secretary further recommends an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including the relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling operations should cease as soon as safely practicable for a 6-month period.'” [2]

According to CNSNEWS, “Eight of the 15 experts consulted by the Interior Department for a report about oil drilling safety on the Outer Continental Shelf that was commissioned by President Barack Obama said they disagreed with the report’s call for a six-month halt on current deepwater offshore drilling operations-- that was added to the text of the report without their knowledge only after they had reviewed the text.” [2]

Let’s have a second look. There were fifteen engineering experts who wrote a report, Salazar said that seven experts peer-reviewed the report, and eight noted that Salazar’s recommendations differed from that of the engineering panel. Apparently, Salazar did not tell an outright lie. He merely told a half-truth, threequarters lie, one which supports the administration’s pre-determined conclusion.

It might seem prudent to halt new drilling for six months while investigations continue. After all, that well is a full mile under the surface of the water. But it’s not as if drillers have no experience. According to Randall Hoven, who has compiled data about deep-water wells, there are 218 deep-water wells in the gulf. The numbers of them in various depth ranges are shown in the table [3].

In other words, there are 93 wells in the gulf that are as deep as or deeper than BP’s Deepwater Horizon well that is presently spewing oil into the gulf. (There are also deep-water wells in the North Sea that are not listed in the table).

Successes do not guarantee future successes, of course. In fact, engineers learn far more from failures than from successes, and the present case will be no exception. They will need to find out what conditions caused this well to fail while others have been quite successful. Whatever the cause, it is obvious that drillers will be quite a bit more careful than usual, now that the disastrous consequences of failure have become evident.

[1] Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95776/engineers-sayinterior- changed.html#ixzz0qgbctlBa (McClatchy News: Truth to Power

[2] Edwin Mora, CNSNEWS, “8 of 15 Experts Consulted by Obama Administration on Offshore Drilling Safety Report Were Not Informed of Moratorium Included in Recommendations-- and Disagree With It,” June 22, 2010

[3] Randal Hoven, “Graph of the Day,” at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/graph_of_the_d ay_for_june_21_2.html

FORESEEN CONSEQUENCES

Salazar’s moratorium did not stand. His sleazy tactics did not escape the attention of Martin L.C. Feldman, Judge of the District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, where civil suit was brought against him by Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC. See Judge Feldman’s ruling [2]. Feldman said,

Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peerreviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a “misrepresentation.” It was factually incorrect. Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main Report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts have publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review, they complain, and was never agreed to by them. [Emphasis added.]

Salazar’s ruling was largely based on “irreparable harm” that might ensue. There is considerable harm from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and its ongoing oil spill, but that is a totally separate issue from perceived future harm from other deepwater wells.

There is most assuredly harm in the moratorium itself. There have been countless reports on the news to the effect that oil revenues in Louisiana account for roughly 10 times as much as tourism and fishing combined. For an administration that is allegedly promoting job growth to ignore this fact is hypocritical at best.

There are other realities. Imagine owning some machinery out in the Gulf that normally brings in a half-million dollars a day, and that a capricious Secretary of the Interior calls a moratorium based on a phony consensus, causing your equipment to be idled. Before long, you’d be bankrupt, because you have undoubtedly borrowed money to buy that equipment. As soon as possible, you’d move the equipment out to some other place, such as off the coast of Cuba or the coast of Brazil. The US would find itself importing even more foreign oil as a result.

To press that point a little further, Brazil’s Petrobas is drilling for oil in 14,022 feet (4275 m), which makes Salazar’s ban on drilling deeper than 500 feet (152 m) look a little ridiculous [5], especially since the US is helping with that venture. The Investor’s Business Daily editorial continues:

Last August, the U.S. Export-Import Bank issued a ‘preliminary commitment’ letter to Brazil's state-run Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion, with the promise of more to follow. Why are we lending billions to a foreign oil company that made $15 billion last year?

These taxpayer dollars finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Apparently there are no pristine beaches full of tourists there. Someday we may be importing that oil we're helping Brazil get at. [5]

[4]http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/GENERAL/Notices/10- 1663_doc67.pdf

[5] Editorial: “Salazar's Ban Is Soros' Bonanza,” Investors’ Business Daily, 6/26/110 at http://www.investors.com/News- AndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=538291