Comment: Interior Department's Offshore Oil Regulatory Rollback Relies on Big Oil Document

authordefault
on

This is a guest post from ClimateDenierRoundup.

Last week, Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary David Bernhardt testified in front of the House Natural Resources Committee about his leadership of the agency,ย flanked by โ€œswamp monstersโ€ in the audience highlighting hisย corruption.

When Rep. Huffmanย asked Bernhardt for specific examples of timesย when he told former clients โ€œno,โ€ when they asked for a policy change, he struggled to name a single instance. Remember, this is the man with so many conflicts of interestย he has to carry them on a card, so he has plenty of former clients to choose from. After being pressed further by Huffman to name something specific, Bernhardt makes a reference to a โ€œwell controlโ€ย rule.

Thatโ€™s really where it gets interesting. Bernhardtโ€™s industry clientsย actually praised the DOIโ€™s well control rollback. And not only that, but the rule actually relies on the industryโ€™s own guidance, effectively supplanting an Obama-era regulation with an American Petroleum Institute document.

As E&Eโ€™s Dylan Brownย reportedย last week, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has been monitoring the DOI as it seeks to undo rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 and polluted the Gulf of Mexico with millions of barrels of oil. POGO noticed that in the final version of the rollback, DOI advises industry to follow the advice in a document from the American Petroleum Institute. That document provides for drilling to continue when conditions might otherwise require them to stop, like when the well pressure is fluctuating outside safe parameters, as it does before aย blowout.

Importantly, POGO argues, the fact that DOI slipped this reference into the final draft with it not having appeared in previous versions means the public didnโ€™t get an opportunity to comment on it, opening it up to an easy legal challenge. Though the text of the API bulletin is not included in the text of the regulation, it was inserted โ€œby referenceโ€ in the final draft of the rule, giving it the force of law without having first gone through the normal public reviewย channel.

Instead of describing what drillers could do if pressure fluctuates, the DOI rule says they either must suspend drilling or โ€œtake further action in accordance with API Bulletin 92L.โ€ Like the inclusion ofย industry language over at EPA, it appears as though the Trump administration is so lazy, incompetent, or brazenly corrupt it canโ€™t even be bothered to pretend like itโ€™s doing anything except whatever industry wants it toย do.

And it gets worse. If you want to go look at the bulletin to find out what our government is allowing, you either have to buy it for $70 from API, or sign up for an API account. But even then, you can only view the document and not copy anything โ€” not exactly a helpful way to engage with a document that is necessary to read in order to provide an informed comment in the regulatoryย process.

If you donโ€™t want to pay API or hand over your personal info, you could go in person to a government facility in Virginia, some 30 miles outside of D.C. But even then,ย POGOโ€™s David Hilzenrath found,ย youโ€™re apt to get the run-around: when he visited, employees at that facility had never before had a visitor looking for information like that, and struggled to figure out how to grant himย access.

Once Hilzenrath finally got to see the (correct) document, he found that it โ€œreferenced documents [that] are indispensableโ€ to understanding it. And these 15 other API documents that are apparently โ€œindispensableโ€ werenโ€™t made available atย all.

Weird that the sameย administration that demandsย confidential environmental health data be made public in order for it to inform public health protections is perfectly happy to keep people from easily accessing the industry documents it uses to tear down public healthย protections.

Almost like that tobacco-industry-derived rule, and the administration of Donald โ€œDrain the Swampโ€ Trumpโ€™s embrace of it, has nothing to do with scientific integrity, and everything to do with finding ways to put polluter profits over publicย healthโ€ฆ

Main image: David Bernhardt in 2017. Credit: Bureau of Reclamation, publicย domain

authordefault

Related Posts

on

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.
on

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.
Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.