Jason Barton

Professional Information and Energy News

Archive for the ‘Policy’ Category

Sec Chu Slashes Budget, Increases Energy Tech Investments

without comments

Obama’s efforts to appease Republican calls for decreased government spending are reaching in to the Department of Energy. That’s a good thing. Apparently Secretary Chu is striving towards all sorts of increased efficiency.

In addition to the $600M in cuts, however, he’s also seeking $8B in clean energy technology research. As I pointed out in an earlier post, as long as those investments are structured to provide returns to taxpayers and to the country in general, that’s positive. If those benefits are only extended to government or firms that do not pass them along to tax payers and energy users, then they are just another boondoggle.

Energy Department to seek $600 million in budget cuts

By Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 11, 2011; 11:37 PM

The Obama administration will call for deep cuts in the headquarters staff of the Energy Department next week but will seek $8 billion in investments in the research, development and deployment of what it calls “clean energy technology programs.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu posted a note to “colleagues” on the department’s blog site Friday listing about $600 million in cuts, saying that the department will take “responsible steps to cut wasteful spending and reduce expenses.”

Read the entire article here.

Written by Jason

February 12th, 2011 at 11:44 am

Congressional Republicans Move in Two Directions at Once

without comments

Neither of these effort is close to certain, but we are seeing one prominent Senator, Dick Lugar (R-IN), possibly moving towards federal renewable energy standards, while another group is seeking to gut the President’s ability to implement the same.

These aren’t necessarily contradictory, as the efforts could lead to similar results with less power held in the White House.

Sen. Lugar is drafting a bill that could include standards increasing vehicle efficiency, renewable electricity, waste-to-energy, and other measures throughout our energy matrix.

Meanwhile, in the article from Politico below, congressional Republicans would greatly reduce the President’s ability to mandate clean energy or climate change measures through the White House or the EPA. I like the decentralization of power they are working towards, but do see some value in letting the President use those tools that have traditionally been at his disposal.

It will be interesting to see if either or both efforts is successful, and if Obama attempts to fight it by replacing Carol Browner, or concedes the point and dissolves her office.

It’s still a fascinating time to be alive.

Sen. Lugar Prepping Bill That Could Include ‘Clean Energy’ Standard

By KATIE HOWELL AND JEAN CHEMNICK of Greenwire
Published: February 11, 2011

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar is crafting broad energy legislation that could include a “clean energy” mandate similar to the one President Obama called for in his State of the Union address.

The Indiana Republican this week said his bill, which is still “weeks away,” could include a clean energy standard as well as “energy efficiency in many, many facets.”

Read this entire article here.

CR would slash EPA, White House energy office

By ROBIN BRAVENDER & PATRICK REIS & DAN BERMAN | 2/11/11 8:46 PM EST

House Republicans threw down the gauntlet at the Obama administration’s energy and environmental agenda Friday night, proposing to defund the White House energy adviser’s office and block EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to slashing the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by $3 billion – nearly twice as much as they originally proposed – GOP lawmakers included language in the continuing resolution to strip the agency of its ability to implement climate change rules.

Read this entire article here.

Energy and Climate Change Discussions in Congress

without comments

As Obama said during his campaign, and as this article reiterates, it’s preferable for Congress to take some sort of stand on a comprehensive energy policy. But if they’re not going to do it, the White House should use it’s tools to make something happen.

A buddy and I were just talking about this same set of policy decisions, drawing a parallel with how the last few weeks have impacted doing business in Egypt. Stick with me for a minute.

Corporate leaders around the world are eager to see who’s going to be in charge of Egypt, Africa’s largest economy, and an important leader in the Arab world. Of course this transition can’t be rushed, but investment will be withheld until there’s some certainty.

Good, bad, or indifferent, businesses will formulate their strategy based in large part on the policy environment in this important country.

Similarly, companies in the U.S. will make decisions regarding manufacturing practices, their vehicle fleets and transportation, and other, energy-intensive aspects of their business based in part on the policies about which our Congress continues to debate, without substantive action. Another article from the recent issue of The Economist discusses the influence of policy on energy prices as well as the trouble with policy uncertainty.

How many U.S. presidents, of both parties, have discussed the need for a comprehensive federal energy policy? I’m too tired to find the exact number, but it’s at least two. Thankfully, the article below is well researched and clearly delineates the desire on the part of several levels of government, including the present administration and the last one, as well as the call from business leaders to provide a decision on energy policy.

Plenty has already been written on this site about the need for balancing the objective of domestic, renewable energy, with economic realities, so rather than than pontificate about what SHOULD be done, I’ll just say that SOMETHING has to be done.

Congress, I know you’re busy, but this is important. If it’s only votes you’re after, figure out a way to win votes by making a decision. Dithering rarely wins the hearts and minds of voters.

Good, bad, or indifferent, whether you’re going to continue with the status quo by favoring imported fossil fuels; decide this is not a matter for the federal government and tell states they should formulate their policies independently; forge ahead with a more progressive policy that encourages research, development, and gradual implementation of domestic energy resources; or do something entirely different, please, just do something.

Grilling Lisa Jackson is a very small step. Take more steps. Soon.

Heated but hollow

Congress embarks on a rhetorical debate about greenhouse gases

Feb 10th 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | From The Economist print edition

 Grilling Ms Jackson

WHILE campaigning to become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, vowed that he would grill Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in front of his committee so often that she would need her own parking space on Capitol Hill. On February 9th Ms Jackson submitted to her first interrogation, about one of the Republican Party’s pet peeves: the EPA’s plan to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from cars and factories by decree.

That plan has been a long time in the making. During the administration of George Bush junior several states, frustrated by the administration’s refusal to address global warming, sued the EPA. They argued that it was required to use its powers under the Clean Air Act, a law from the 1960s aimed first at smog and later acid rain, to declare carbon dioxide a threat to the environment and public health and regulate it accordingly. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which decided in 2007 that the EPA did indeed have the authority to do this. But the Bush administration, which maintained that restrictions on emissions would raise the price of energy and so hurt the economy while doing little to help the climate, managed to prevaricate for almost two years before passing the buck to Barack Obama and Ms Jackson.

Read the entire article here.

Colorado Senate Attempts to Strike Delicate Energy Balance

without comments

Yikes. Once again I’m conflicted between an awareness that we need to move towards domestic, renewable energy, and an understanding that this move is expensive.

I am more than willing, and fortunate to be able, to pay 20% more in my power bill to support these efforts, but there are plenty of people who are not so inclined, and even if they were, cannot afford to do so.

One solution is energy efficiency. Homes and businesses that are properly insulated, have efficient appliances and machinery, and that use energy wisely can reduce their energy costs, thus enabling slightly higher bills per unit of energy used.

Hopefully our state legislature can succeed in striking this delicate balance.

The Associated Press February 10, 2011, 8:32AM ET

Colo. renewable energy rules survive GOP offensive

DENVER

Colorado Democrats slammed the door Wednesday on Republican plans to undo clean-energy policies adopted in recent years.

A Democrat-controlled Senate committee narrowly rejected three Republican proposals to lower consumer utility bills.

Democrats said they sympathized with residents paying steeper power bills but insisted the proposed changes would be short-sighted.

Read the entire article here.

Patience, Efficiency Are Key to Safe, Profitable Use of Brazil’s Oil

without comments

There are a lot of people with a lot to gain from drilling this “presal” oil off Brazil’s coast as quickly as possible. I have worked with some of them and understand their desire to move forward with the extraction now, not later. I also understand their many good intentions as well as their confidence that the oil can be extracted safely using existing technology, even if I don’t agree.

I can also attest, from personal experience, to the truth of the article’s contention that government bureaucracy will be as inefficient at getting the job done as it will be at distributing any public funds to Brazilians and much needed government services. The barrier however, is not the Brazilian government, but existing technology.

And yes, prices at the pump are rising with no sign of abating, but it’s hard to see how speeding this oil drilling ahead in the next few years will do much to ease those prices in anything but the longest term. Plus, oil is a great example for supply creating its own demand. Increase the supply of oil and the lowered prices will drive us to use enough gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel to keep demand and prices high.

The first paragraph in the article below describes a process that is every bit as difficult, and as dangerous, as the one employed for the Deepwater Horizon platform formerly situated in the Gulf of Mexico. These processes and others like them can be and have been done safely, though recent experience tells us that not only is this safety far from ensured, but also that if something goes wrong, the consequences remind us exactly what the word “disaster” means.

The pressure to drill now is exacerbated by the high current demand for oil in the face of growing constraints. Some are reluctant to continue drilling off U.S. shores while the people and economies of Louisiana and other Gulf states are still reeling from last summer’s spill. Regardless of your political stripe, Middle East politics make us all a bit uneasy, especially when we think of how much of our oil comes from despotic and unstable regimes there.

Slowing our demand for oil, first by increasing efficiency and reducing use of transportation fuels, and then by continuing to develop viable alternatives to petroleum, will decrease the drive to rush drilling in places like the oil fields over 7000m beneath the ocean’s surface, through 3000m of rock and another 2000m of salt.

Given time, companies such as Petrobras will certainly improve technologies so that this oil can be reached more safely, with more effective failsafes in the event something does go wrong, and likely it will all be doable at lower costs, to the companies doing the drilling and to the consumer.

The additional time will also allow Brazil to continue eliminating corruption and streamlining its bureaucracy so that the permitting process is more efficient, as are the avenues through which the government spends its revenues and improves infrastructure.

These factors combine to create win-win-win situations for people, profit, and ecological health. Patience and efficiency are key.

Brazil’s offshore oil

In deep waters

Extracting the black gold buried beneath the South Atlantic will be hard. Spending the profits wisely will be harder

Feb 3rd 2011 | CIDADE DE ANGRA DOS REIS | From The Economist print edition

THE coast of Rio de Janeiro is 290km and 70 minutes away as the helicopter flies. High overhead, gas is flaring; underfoot, enough oil to fill 330,000 barrels is waiting to be offloaded. The ocean floor is 2,150 metres beneath. Drill past 3,000 metres of rock and you will hit a layer of salt 2,140m thick. Only after boring through that fossilised ocean will you strike oil—6.5 billion barrels’ worth in the “Lula” field alone. (Supposedly, it is named for the Portuguese word for squid, not the former president called Lula for his curly hair.)

[…]

More hopeful is the prospect that technological progress, led by Petrobras, can diversify Brazil’s economy. The company employs more than 1,600 people in research and development, says Carlos Fraga, who leads these efforts. It also works with 85 Brazilian universities and research institutes, and for every one of its own researchers, another ten outside the company are working on its projects full-time. A technology cluster is springing up around Petrobras’s research labs in Rio, with university facilities alongside new $50m laboratories built by the likes of General Electric and Schlumberger.

From this perspective, the technical obstacles of sub-salt drilling look like an opportunity. Exploiting offshore oil, says Mr Fraga, could spur Brazilian innovation just as the space race did in the United States. “Just extracting the oil is not enough to move Brazil on in technological development,” says Segen Estefan of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. “These are finite resources. Brazil must seize the moment to lead in technology, not just in extracting and exporting raw materials.”

Read the entire article here.

Biofuels Are Not Limited to Corn Ethanol

without comments

It’s true that if we attempt to meet George Bush’s Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) (36 Bgals of renewable fuels by 2022) only with corn ethanol, food prices will rise as a result. But, as has been written before on this site, the rise in food prices in 2008 had more to do with petroleum prices than with ethanol.

So, if we fail to diversify our energy matrix, food prices and much of the economy as a whole will be subject to the high volatility in petroleum prices. Developing other ways of fueling our transportation fleets, and reducing the amount we transport ourselves and our goods, will go much further in terms of protecting ourselves from this volatility than will eliminating our biofuels efforts.

I’m not a proponent of corn ethanol, but I am a big proponent of objective, accurate information. So it’s also important to note that the RFS caps corn ethanol at 15B gals in 2015 (we’re now producing about 12B gals/yr). That’s still a lot, and I’m not convinced it’s a great idea, but, ceteris paribus (it means, all things being equal–Latin is fun), food prices will not likely rise much more due to corn ethanol. The rest of the biofuels we produce to meet those federal standards are supposed to come from grasses, trees, and agriculture residues. There’s still plenty that can go wrong with that, but other issues aren’t addressed in the article below, so I’ll end here.

Thanks for reading.

ps, I both dig and am disturbed by getting information from a source that provides news only if I can profit from it.

January 28, 2011

By Kerri Shannon, Associate Editor, Money Morning

U.S. Clean Energy Investment Puts Upward Pressure on Rising Food Prices

In U.S. President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday, he highlighted clean energy investment as a key component of America’s future, one that will be reflected in his budget proposal for fiscal 2012.

“With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” the president said in his speech to members of Congress. “[I]nstead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.”

This commitment to clean energy investment increases the importance of biofuels like ethanol, made from corn and other agricultural products. About 40% of U.S. corn is used to make ethanol, and increased ethanol production leads to higher corn and food prices.

Read the entire article here.

Written by Jason

January 31st, 2011 at 7:31 pm

US Military Works on Waste to Energy Conversion

without comments

Following up on a post from last year, the U.S. Military continues to increase use of renewable fuels.

I recently had the chance to speak with an Air Force pilot about other measures they’re taking to reduce their fuel consumption. While he said it’s sometimes a bit of a headache, he was glad that they were taking steps to decrease the massive, and I mean MASSIVE amounts of fuel they use.

For example, they used to idle on runways for as much as a few hours, waiting for a runway to clear or their orders to take off. Now they have a limit for how long they can sit with engines running. Apparently jets don’t just start with the turn of a key like my Subey does, so when they need to power down it takes quite a while to get back up and ready again. He admitted this was sometimes frustrating, but also said that considering the amount of fuel those jets burn even when standing still, the savings, in fuel and money, are substantial.

I was glad to hear they’re thinking about this stuff, glad to hear he and most of his colleagues are generally positive towards the changes, and also very glad that I had a chance to thank him for his service to our country.

Thanks again.

January 28, 2011 4:00 AM PST

Air Force base to gasify waste for energy

WALTHAM, Mass.–In the quest for renewable sources of energy, the military is giving garbage a go.

The Edwards Air Force base in Southern California will test out a shipping container-sized trash-to-energy unit from IST Energy. The Air Force will be the first customer for IST Energy’s Green Energy Machine (GEM), which is designed to convert waste into electricity and heat, according to the company.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20029787-54.html#ixzz1HToslyuV

Read the entire article here.

Written by Jason

January 28th, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Confusion on the Future of Energy

without comments

Well this article is puzzling. The first paragraph is tongue in cheek (I hope), and yet it has some important and accurate points, as well as some dubious ones.

Gilbert seems to be making some sort of a comment on the proceedings in Davos, but it’s not clear what his comment is, or even if he knows very much about the energy issues he’s discussing. Bloomberg is a trusted media channel, but there appears to be little to trust in Mr. Gilbert’s article.

No, oil disasters are not good. I get the point that when one happens we tend to pay more attention to safety, but it shouldn’t take that. I also get the sarcasm, but would appreciate some clarity.

Yes, our appetite for energy does threaten to compete with food and water. Biofuels can compete with food not only when we divert corn or sugar from food to fuel, but also when we divert land used for food to produce non-food crops such as grasses for cellulosic ethanol, though there are definitely ways to avoid having to make this Hobson’s choice. I’ve written about the validity and exaggeration of the competition between these two at other times, so will leave it for now, but you can read more here if you like.

Traditional fuels such as natural gas and petroleum can also stress our water supplies. Read more about water used in the tar sands for petroleum here, or about natural gas and the potential impacts of fracking on water here.

So it’s tough to know from that first paragraph what Gilbert’s take is on the developments n Davos.

He continues to obfuscate the situation further in the paragraphs that follow.

He goes on to talk about China and their use of coal, proposing they use more hydro power (see paragraph excerpted below). I wonder if Mr. Gilbert is familiar with the Three Gorges Dam. It’s not a small project.

Yes, China will use a lot of coal as they grow their economy in the coming decades, but they are also doing an admirable job of investing in and implementing renewable energy. Read more about that here.

Next is nuclear energy.  Gilbert seems to deride it, but, again, it’s unclear. He mentions the possible security concern, which is a very credible threat, since the technology used for plants such as breeder reactors brings more use and awareness of  the technology used in nuclear weapons. Risky, but potentially worth it since nuclear power can bring energy to disenfranchised people who are at risk of being wooed by terrorist organizations. We can put political or religious faces on the fights, but they are most often between the haves and the have-nots, and helping more people to be haves reduces the motivation to attack. It’s also a nice thing to do, reducing the number of have-nots, just on moral grounds.

Back to energy, Gilbert moves on to biofuels, grossly over-simplifying the issue I touched on above. Yes, the competition with energy can raise food prices, but if energy supplies are constricted, because of dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy resources or geopolitical events in the Middle East or any number of other issues, food prices will rise as well. In fact, the rise in food prices we saw in 2008 had less to do with biofuels than it did with petroleum prices (See Abbot, Hurt, and Tyner, 2009).

It takes energy to fertilize, irrigate, process, package, and transport our food, so if we resign ourselves to the current, non-renewable energy matrix, those ever-decreasing supplies will continue leading to ever-increasing food prices. Diversifying our energy matrix, prudently over time, will help to mitigate if not eliminate this threat. Bread wars could come much more easily from rising energy prices than rising energy prices could be caused by biofuels.

So, thank you, Mr. Gilbert, for giving us all of this food for thought.

Green-Energy Future Looks Black as Recession Bites: Davos Diary

By Mark Gilbert – Jan 26, 2011 6:07 AM MT
Gilbert

The future is black, not green. Get used to oil trading at $100 a barrel. Drilling disasters are good because they focus the oil industry’s attention on safety. Oh, and our insatiable thirst for yet more energy sources threatens to deplete the world’s food and water supplies.

That’s the bleak message from the World Economic Forum’s opening discussion on global energy at its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, led a panel that delivered a somber outlook for renewable energy.

[…]

Hydropower, for example, would be a great way to meet China’s future needs, especially during demand peaks in the morning and early evening, because you can switch on water- generated supply in eight minutes, whereas coal takes 32 hours to come on line, while a nuclear power reactor takes 56 hours. The problem is the huge capital-expenditure cost because the hydropower plants are typically far away from where the electricity is needed, demanding transmission networks.

[…]

The gloomiest aspect of the energy debate is the impact on agriculture. As governments champion the use of biofuels, diverting agricultural resources to producing energy raises food prices. That’s a worrying trend for those of us who reckon food and water security will be the world’s most pressing issue in the coming years.

Read the entire article here.

Determining the Benefits of Biomass-Based Energy

without comments

There are two important points to consider here: 1.Establishing the appropriate methods for the Life Cycle Analysis, and 2. Determining the definition of “Waste.”

1. Life Cycle Analysis:

Will it really take three years for life cycle carbon emissions of biomass-based electricity to be established? It shouldn’t.

It’s important to be careful, but private, public, and academic researchers can provide clear, comprehensive studies in a much shorter time frame, certainly less than a year, unless we let them stick to the typical academic and government calendars where there are no deadlines or consequences for being slow.
Fortunately, some industry folks are optimistic about the recent ruling.

Bob Cleaves, CEO and president of the Biomass Power Association (BPA), the largest U.S. biomass trade group, said the decision “provides a lot of regulatory certainty at the moment.”

“Three years is a long time,” he told SolveClimate News. “During that period, projects that are viable and are ready to be permitted, will be permitted.”

Industry believes its arguments will win out in the EPA review process. “The science is very clearly on our side. Biogenic emissions are far different than fossil fuels, and they’re beneficial to the climate,” Whiting said.

To shorten this from three years to less than one, let the private firms involved produce their own studies. They’ll be fast, and tell the academics and bureaucrats that if they want to be a part of the conversation, and they will, they need to be close behind their industry counterparts, and they will again.

There will be different results produced, but it shouldn’t take three years to analyze these results objectively and decide what is the most accurate method of accounting.

2. “Waste”:

Another important issue is the common use of the term “waste” both for agriculture and forestry (really just another form of agriculture). When the term “waste” used, they are referring to biomass that is not directly used in the industrial processes, such as food, paper, or pulp production.

But these materials, such as corn stover (corn stalks and leaves) or wood chips, are essential to soil health, which is in turn necessary for the future production of the desired products, as well as for the health of the overall ecosystem.

In naturally occurring ecological systems, there is no such thing as waste, as all materials and energy are used in the processes and entities involved.

If all biomass, or waste, is removed from the soil and used for energy or any other purposes, this is not a sustainable system in the most literal definitions of the word “sustainability”: the ability to continue the process for generations to come.

Biomass-based energy provides much promise, so long as we realize that the Earth’s biomass serves essential purposes—namely the sustenance of life and other processes that guarantee clean, healthy air, water, and soil for generations to come—beyond our immediate needs.

No, it’s not simple, but it’s also not beyond our comprehension. We need to be thoughtful.

Relax, then let’s get to work. We can do this.

Is Biomass Clean or Dirty Energy? We Won’t Know for 3 Years

content by SolveClimate

By Stacy Feldman              Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:34pm EST

A recent study out of the University of Washington supported that pint of view. Called Unintended Consequences of the Tailoring Rule’s Treatment of Biomass,  a compilation of previous research, the study concluded that “new investment in bioenergy development will be discouraged and existing biofuel facilities may be motivated to shut down or use more fossil fuels.”

The resource is seen as a particularly valuable in Southern states, which lack wind and solar opportunities available in other states.

For Sheehan and other advocates, the game plan now is to try to put the industry a freeze on growth of the industry until 2014.

“We will be calling for a moratorium on all permitting for biomass plants during this three-year period,” she said.

Cleaves of BPA said “the idea of a moratorium has no basis in law” under the Clean Air Act, which “certainly doesn’t prohibit biomass plants from being constructed.”

Read the entire article here.

BP Oil Spill Demonstrates Need for (Limited) Government Intervention

without comments

Is it possible for the gov’t to establish who–whether BP, Halliburton, Transocean, Anadarko, or others– is responsible for what portion of the damages in an efficient manner?

As has been written many times before on this site, this is the job of government: internalize the costs of these external damages so that the firms and other parties responsible are paying the bills.

The report said the explosion that triggered the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history resulted from management failures by BP and its contractors as well as “failures of government to provide effective regulatory oversight of offshore drilling.” It said the root causes of the disaster were “systemic” and “might well recur” without significant changes to industry practices and government policies.”

The regulation described here is usually highly inefficient, inhibiting firms from the innovation that makes them both safe and profitable. When firms are held responsible for the costs of their actions, rather than strangled by regulation, they can perform the risk analysis necessary to see whether or not the technology and infrastructure they have available will make a potential drilling location, yes, both safe and profitable.

Already, the report has its detractors. Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp., told reporters Thursday he did “not agree that this is an industrywide problem,” adding that the report’s conclusions shouldn’t be extended to the entire sector. Exxon was one of a number of oil companies that claimed last summer that the Gulf of Mexico blowout was a one-time event caused by unusual and risky decisions by BP.

Holding responsible those specific firms that were involved with the tragedy* also means avoiding placing blame on those firms that are more careful with their choices of where and how to drill, mine, etc.

Under this kind of scenario, the costs associated with the 2010 Gulf spill would be, for the most part, passed along to the customers of these firms, but this is a much more efficient means of paying them than having them paid by taxpayers who use the products and services provided by BP from the Deepwater Horizon rig.

This brings us back to the original question: To what extent it is possible that government establish responsibility?

The goal is to ensure that those benefitting from the the consequences, both intended and unintended, of the drilling, are also held responsible for the direct as well as indirect costs. Taxpayers benefit in different proportions that the government is not able to establish.

The companies, once faced with the fines and other clean up costs, will pass those costs along to their users, meaning We The People (private consumers, not taxpayers) are able to decide how much these benefits are really worth.

  • JANUARY 7, 2011

BP Gets Lift From Oil-Spill Report

By GUY CHAZAN

The U.S. presidential commission’s report on last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill reduces the likelihood that BP PLC will be found guilty of gross negligence, legal experts and industry analysts said Thursday, potentially lowering the ultimate cost of the disaster to the U.K.-based oil giant.

A 48-page chapter from the report, released Thursday, shone a harsh spotlight on BP’s actions in the run-up to the blast at its gulf well, but also piled criticism on two of the company’s contractors, Transocean Ltd. and Halliburton Corp.

Read the entire article here.

Written by Jason

January 11th, 2011 at 9:24 pm