What Really Happened When Shell Oil’s Containment Dome Failed in Puget Sound Last Month? PEER Seeks to Find Out

The damaged containment dome on the Arctic Challenger

Four weeks ago, on Saturday, September 16th, in clear, calm, warm summer weather on Puget Sound, something happened while Shell Oil was testing its new, post-Deepwater Horizon oil blowout containment dome.  The dome system was being deployed during a certification test being performed by Shell, its agent in the refurbishment and system makeover of the 35-year-old barge, Arctic Challenger, Superior Marine Technical Services, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Something happened.  The test failed miserably, and the containment dome was severely damaged.  At the time, the Los Angeles Times reported the following:

The refurbishment was completed last week and the vessel underwent sea trials in Washington’s Puget Sound, and a series of tests were successfully completed on the newly designed Arctic containment system, Op de Weegh said.

“However, during a final test, the containment dome aboard the Arctic Challenger barge was damaged,” she said.

Sources familiar with the testing said the mishap occurred when one of several clump weights was placed into about 160 feet of water to mark the area of a theoretical oil spill, to see if the containment dome aboard the barge could be lowered over it.

“When they came back to find it, it [the weight] was lost, submerged into the silt,” said one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the operation.

Engineers launched a mini-submarine known as a Remotely Operated Vehicle, which is part of Shell’s plan for putting any oil spill containment equipment into place, to help get the oil containment dome carried aboard the Challenger set over the “leak.”

“They got some of the weights set to hold the dome, then one of the eight winches on the dome became inoperative,” the source said. “They attempted to discover what was wrong by using the ROV, and got it tangled in the anchor lines of the dome and it sank into the silt.”

Divers were then dispatched to the sea floor to try to recover the dome without damaging the high-tech umbilical that controls it, he said.

It was not clear how much damage the dome ultimately suffered, but it apparently was enough to prompt Shell to abandon its well-drilling plans for the current season.

One of my confidential sources at the test site that day reported to me:

I’ve got more information from a tugboat skipper who was there, but he doesn’t want me to print it. He’s the one, based on being able to listen to the encrypted radio chatter when they were all tangled up, that called it a “clusterfuck.”

He assured me that this crew isn’t ready for a water park, let alone the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas.

On October 10th, Sen. Mark Begich held a hearing in Anchorage:

The overflow crowd also heard specifics on what happened to a Shell oil spill response system damaged during testing.

With only weeks to go before Shell Alaska wraps up its first exploratory drilling offshore Alaska in two decades, key players told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation that the work went well and Shell has done an exemplary job despite some glitches and setbacks.

When the hearing got to finding out what happened aboard the Arctic Challenger on September 16th, a strangely different story emerged on what happened in the accident:

The barge-based containment system, including a massive dome that would be lowered over an out-of-control well, is the first of its kind and was on fast track for completion, [Shell Oil Alaska Vice President Pete] Slaiby said. It only became part of Shell’s required oil spill response after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell and Superior Energy Services, the contractor that owns and will operate the 38-year-old retrofitted barge, investigated how the dome was damaged during testing Sept. 15 off the coast of Washington state.

“Our investigation determined that a faulty electrical connection associated with one of the valves caused the valve to open, which caused the rapid descent and ultimate damage to the dome,” Slaiby told Begich.

Safety tethers prevented the dome from hitting bottom, he said. The dome was nowhere near the side of the barge and didn’t bang against it or hit anything else, Slaiby told reporters during a break in the hearing.

“But buoyancy chambers were damaged,” he said.

During the rapid descent, the water pressure “deformed the side of the dome itself,” he said. Shell and Superior are working together to improve the technical aspects of the system as well as procedures.

“The design concept, however, is solid,” Slaiby said in the hearing.

The oil spill containment barge is the fourth line of defense, he said. Crews would first try to stop a blowout with drilling mud, then turn to a blowout preventer already in place, then a capping stack, a special blowout preventer like what eventually stopped the oil from flowing from the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

The story as related to the LA Times in September, and Shell VP Slaiby’s testimony don’t match at all.  Nor does Slaiby’s account match with what I’ve been able to find out from informants.

Others are concerned too.  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Freedom of Information Act request directed toward BSEE on October 10th, immediately after the discrepancies between the post-accident story and Slaiby’s later testimony on the subject became apparent.   Here is PEER’s FOIA request in entirety, as mailed to me last week:

                                                                                    October 10, 2012

BSEE FOIA Officer

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

Ms. Debbie Kimball

Atrium Building; HE 2204

381 Elden Street

Herndon, VA 20170

RE: FOIA REQUEST                                                VIA E-MAIL, FAX & MAIL

Dear Ms. Kimball:

In mid-September, 2012, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Shell) announced that its containment dome, said to incorporate all the lessons learned from capping the Deepwater Horizon spill, was severely damaged while being tested on Puget Sound.   Shell’s oil spill response barge, Arctic Challenger, carried the containment dome.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) requests information concerning this incident, its significance, the role of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and what lessons were derived from it.  Specifically, we request the following:

1. Any documents related to the failure of the containment dome test from the Shell spill response barge Arctic Challenger in Bellingham in  2012, including any after-incident alterations or adjustments that Shell proposes to make or has made;

1. Any other deficiencies or compliance issues noted concerning the Arctic Challenger and the containment dome by any state or federal regulatory or marine conservation agency;

1. Any after-incident analysis BSEE has performed following this containment dome failure;

1. Information concerning the nature, timing and standards for future containment dome  testing or exercises, including the role played by BSEE personnel and the role, if any, for independent third-party monitoring or participation;

1. Information regarding BSEE requirements or permit conditions relating to containment domes in permits issued to Shell during calendar year 2012; and

1. Information relating to BSEE policies, standards or other requirement regarding the capacity or reliability of containment domes in spill response plans.

In a January 21, 2009 memo, President Barack Obama declared the following policy for the Executive Branch:

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption:  In the face of doubt, openness prevails.  The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.  Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve…  All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.  The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.”

For any documents or portions of documents that you block release due to specific exemption(s) from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, please provide an index itemizing and describing the documents or portions of documents withheld.  The index should, pursuant to the holding of Vaughn v. Rosen (484 F.2d 820 [D.C. Cir. 1973]cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 [1974]), provide a detailed justification for claiming a particular exemption that explains why each such exemption applies to the document or portion of a document withheld.

PEER requests that all fees be waived because “disclosure of the information is in the public interest . . . and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor” (5 U.S.C. 552 (a) (4)(A)):

1. The records concern the operations or activities of the Government.

The FOIA request is, by its terms, limited to identifiable activities of BSEE.

2. The disclosure of the requested records is likely to contribute to public understanding of these operations or activities.

The requested material concerns measures of the effectiveness of safety measures designed to contain or mitigate the enormous environmental damage from an oil spill in Arctic waters.  The requested information concerns a recent highly-publicized containment dome failure during routine testing, what lessons have been learned, countermeasures planned and the rigor of BSEE regulation in this area.  All of this information would greatly enhance public understanding of how BSEE is, or is not, fulfilling its core mission.

3. The release of requested records will contribute significantly to public understanding of the governmental activities

The nature of the information will shed direct light on the quality and extent of spill response measures required by BSEE and how those requirements are enforced.  These documents will help the public to understand the reliability of spill containment equipment slated for deployment in sensitive Arctic waters.

PEER believes that the disclosure of the requested information will offer the general public a clear picture of the rigor, prudence and efficacy of BSEE actions and policies on the single greatest challenge facing the agency since its creation

PEER intends to provide the requested information to the general public through —

• Ø Release to the news media;
• Ø Posting on the PEER web page which draws between 1,000 and 10,000 viewers per day; and
• Ø Publication in PEER’s newsletter that has a circulation of approximately 20,000, including 1,500 environmental journalists.

Through these methods, PEER generates an average of 1.5 mainstream news articles per day.  Moreover, PEER has demonstrated the ability to generate nationwide news coverage concerning related BSEE activities.  Moreover, as noted above, the Shell dome failure at the heart of this request has generated national and international media interest.

4. Disclosure would not serve a commercial interest of the requestor.

Disclosure is in no way connected with any commercial interest of the requestors in that PEER is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest organization concerned with upholding the public trust through responsible management of our nation’s resources and with supporting professional integrity within public land management and pollution control agencies.  To that end, PEER is designated as a tax-exempt organization under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue code.

If you have any questions about this FOIA request, please contact me at (202) 265-PEER. I look forward to receiving the agency’s final response within 20 working days.

Cordially,

Jeff Ruch

Executive Director

Cc. BSEE Alaska Regional FOIA Coordinator

The Arctic Challenger itself has now been certified as seaworthy by the USCG.  Shell’s drilling rigsKuluk and Noble Discoverer are drilling in the Arctic as I write:

At Begich’s October hearing, Rear Adm. Thomas Ostebo, the commander of the Coast Guard in Alaska said:

“You’re talking about a first-of-kind vessel that in less than six months they took a Arctic class barge … perfectly flat, half the size of a football field, and built an entire production facility on it, berthing for 70 people, and the ability to raise and lower a dome above a loss-of-well control that allowed them to … flare gas, process oil and clean the water and put it back in the ocean.”

The Coast Guard, which earlier had identified a number of issues with the vessel that had to be addressed, just issued a certificate of inspection for the barge, clearing it to operate at sea. The American Bureau of Shipping has classified the unique barge as well. The issues are all normal evolution for a new vessel, Ostebo said. Nothing really went wrong, he said.

David Hayes, deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, said that Shell is complying with regulations that he called the government’s “gold standard for safe and environmentally sound exploration activities.”

Shell’s two drilling rigs are still at work drilling the time-consuming initial stages of wells. The Noble Discoverer is 70 miles offshore in the Chukchi Sea, and the Kulluk is offshore, but not as far out, in the Beaufort Sea.

Each are excavating cellars to hold a blowout preventer and drilling holes some 1,500 feet down as the first stage of a well. Slaiby said they will return to finish those wells and more next year.

I’m a lot more skeptical about how ready for an emergency this operation really is than is Admiral Ostebo.

Abe Foxman Threatens to End Jewish-Christian Interfaith Dialogue Over Investigation Request

Back on October 5th, the leaders of several American Christian churches sent a joint letter to Congress:

We urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.”

More broadly, we urge Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.

Here’s the list of signatories:

Rev. Gradye Parsons Stated Clerk of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (USA)

Mark S. Hanson Presiding Bishop Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Bishop Rosemarie Wenner President, Council of Bishops United Methodist Church

Peg Birk Transitional General Secretary National Council of Churches USA

Shan Cretin General Secretary American Friends Service Committee

J Ron Byler Executive Director Mennonite Central Committee U.S.

Alexander Patico North American Secretary Orthodox Peace Fellowship

Diane Randall Executive Secretary Friends Committee on National Legislation

Dr. A. Roy Medley General Secretary American Baptist Churches, U.S.A.

Rev. Geoffrey A. Black General Minister and President United Church of Christ

Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins General Minister and President Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Rev. Julia Brown Karimu President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Division of Overseas Ministries Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples)

Rev. Dr. James A. Moos Executive Minister, United Church of Christ, Wider Church Ministries Co-Executive, Global Ministries (UCC and Disciples)

Kathy McKneely Acting Director Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Eli S. McCarthy, PhD Justice and Peace Director Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)

Some of these religious leaders issued supplementary statements from the offices of their own faith.  The United Church of Christ, representing over a million people, issued a statement:

The UCC has sought to constrain the militarization of the Middle Area after the passage of a 2005 General Synod resolution, said Dr. Peter Makari, area executive to the Middle East and Europe for Global Ministries.

“The UCC has been consistent in its condemnation of violence, regardless of its source,” Makari said.

The UCC joins its ecumenical partners “in expressing the concern that U.S. assistance to Israel has been and remains unconditional, is in violation of U.S. law on foreign assistance, and contributes toward the continuation of a military occupation of Palestinian lands, which is antithetical to efforts to promote peace between the Palestinians and Israelis,” Makari said.

The churches and religious organizations, committed to seeking a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis, also point to what they write is a “troubling and consistent pattern of disregard by the government of Israel for U.S. policies that support a just and lasting peace. Specifically, repeated demands by the U.S. government that Israel halt all settlement activity have been ignored.”

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, representing over 3.4 million parishioners, issued a long statement regarding the letter to congress, quoting the head of the church,the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop:

“When as Lutherans we say that all the baptized will strive for justice and peace in all the earth, it means that we will be immersed in complex issues. While we do not all agree on the best way to establish justice and bring peace, we will be involved in lively, respectful, passionate conversations,” said Hanson.

“From Palestinian Lutherans, I hear discouragement about the lack of progress and questions about where the voice is of American Christians,” said Hanson. “Our letter seeks to be a partial answer to such questions, that we are clear in our resolve to continue to work for a just and lasting solution for Israelis and Palestinians.”

Together, the signatory churches represent more people than live in Israel of all faiths.  Yet there were almost no news articles about the letter in the American press, outside of some Jewish community news outlets and sites, when the investigation request was sent and announced.  There were a number of them in the Israeli press.

Late this past week, though, the story gained more notice, when Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League protested the letter, and then announced he is pulling out of an upcoming National Council of Churches meeting:

The Anti-Defamation League said Thursday (Oct. 11) it has withdrawn from an Oct. 22 U.S. Jewish-Christian interfaith meeting to protest a letter from some Protestant participants that urged Congress to rethink U.S. funding to Israel.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said the signatories’ actions — without first informing Jewish groups — have “seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect” necessary for interfaith dialogue.

Daniel S. Mariaschin, executive vice president of B’nai B’rith International, called the letter “a thinly veiled attempt to try to harm Israel, and U.S.-Israel relations.” The Reform movement’s Washington-based Religious Action Center said the letter “mischaracterizes” the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories, “wrongly holds only Israel accountable” for regional problems “and does not advance the regional and security interests of the U.S.”

Interestingly, J Street, the lobbying group formed in April, 2008, as a liberal alternative to AIPAC (I hosted J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami here at firedoglake in 2011, for a book salon on his work, A New Voice for Israel), has condemned the Christians’ letter:

It was inevitable. Constantly under pressure from the Jewish center-right (Reform rabbis, for instance), J Street has thrown in the towel. Read its document of surrender. 

In response to the letter from Christian denominations urging that aid to Israel be compliant with U.S. law, J Street has joined Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation league and the half-million a year hacks that run the other Jewish organizations to blast the Christians. (See Foxman letter).

J Street agrees with them that aid to Israel is an entitlement. It must never be questioned unless you also add ” criticism of Israel’s behavior with appropriate criticism of, for instance, rocket fire from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas.” You must also  ”put the present situation into a historical or political context that might provide a fuller appreciation for the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over many decades.”

Each new month brings another Christian group to question what its relationship should be with the increasingly hostile, increasingly racist and overtly apartheid state of Israel.  And increasingly, Jewish groups in America are being asked to be openly critical of  these moves, whether it be this one, or votes to consider divesting from businesses in Israel, or with firms which enable the occupation and colonization of the West Bank.

Rather than inquire as to why these spiritually-founded religious bodies feel impelled to sanction Israel, many Jewish organizations, commentators and public figures are likening these moves to anti-Semitism, which it most certainly is not.  These Jewish protesters seem to fail to understand that these labels, thrown around like they are in such cases, not only will not stick or sting, they will further alienate Christians who are already committed to courses of action they have tied to the doctrines of their beliefs.

Marc Ellis observed the following, while covering the debate during the Presbyterian assembly vote on divestment, last summer:

When it became clear that Israel as a state wasn’t interested in justice for Palestinians and that Jewish leadership in America was only interested in silencing Christian misgivings about Israeli occupation policies, it was only a matter of time before the Jewish-Christian love fest came to an end.

Among the liberal Christian denominations, Christian support for Israel is on life support. The back-up oxygen tanks, already in use, are running empty. There isn’t any way of resurrecting the interfaith ecumenical deal. The “Christians are evil/Jews are innocent” genie is out of the bottle, never to return.

Indeed, it is out of the bottle.  Here is a comment to an article on Foxman’s announcement in Arutz Sheva:

If you really respected the other guy’s faith, you’d be practicing it. Just as is said about gays, you can hate the sin and love the person, there is nothing to love about religions that have persecuted and murdered millions of Jews for the past 2,000 years.

The bottom line is that Christian-Jewish ecumenical relations have entered a new phase over the past two years.  I expect these actions protesting Israeli and American policies, will grow more acute, rather than less.

Alaska's Number One Muckraker Andree McLeod Persists, Wins

Back in 2008, Republican activist Andree McLeod complained about then Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's administration's use of private email accounts to conduct state business.  It has been a long and winding road.  McLeod has since been put down or faintly and wanly praised by many Alaska mainstream media reporters, and pretty much every MSM commentator who chose to not ignore her.  Even most of Alaska's so-called "progressive bloggers" have largely ignored her.

I'm not quite sure why that has been the case, as Andree's complaints have always been solidly based on her well researched perceptions that some public figure or another had clearly violated a state statute.

Today, her persistence on this issue paid off, as the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in her favor:

State employees can’t use private e-mail accounts to hide their work communication from public record laws. The State Supreme Court issued a decision on the matter on Friday, that largely affirms an earlier Superior Court Ruling. The case dates back to the Sarah Palin Administration and addresses the tricky question of whether the state records law is keeping up with communication technology. 
Citizen activist, Andree McLeod originally sued the state in 2008, after she discovered Governor Palin was using a Yahoo account to conduct state business. 

McLeod wanted the court to make it illegal for state employees to use private e-mail accounts for work. And said if they did, those e-mails should be preserved for the public record.  

The Supreme Court agreed private e-mails regarding state business should be part of the public record. And McLeod’s Attorney, Donald Craig Mitchell calls the decision a victory. 

“All in all, I think this is an important development for vindicating the public interest in Alaska during the new telecommunications, e-mail age,” Mitchell said.  

But the court did not agree with McLeod that state employees should be barred from using private e-mail at all for their work. Mitchell says that’s unfortunate. But he says the point may not matter given that Governor Sean Parnell has ordered any state business conducted on private e-mails to be copied to the state e-mail system so it can be preserved.  

Dave Jones is an Assistant Attorney General with the Department of Law. He says the state is pleased with the court’s decision, which he says can be boiled down this way: 

“What really determines whether something is a public record is its content not the means through which it’s transmitted,” Jones said.

Who knows what implications this important judgement might have on the ongoing legal questions involving employees of the Parnell administration texting each other, and others, on state business via texting methods, or other electronic communication.  However, Assistant AG Jones' comment is not going to make the governor happy.

The Associated Press and Alaska Public Radio Network have covered this, but no Alaska bloggers have gotten to it.  The European blog which I've given honorary Alaskan status, Politicalgates, has, though:

It is not clear right at this moment what the immediate consequences of this decision could be. But in any case, this is clearly a major victory for Andree McLeod and a (late) slap in the face for the former Governor Sarah Palin, who believed that she is safe from public scrutiny with the extensive use of her elaborate network of private email addresses (mainly yahoo-addresses, at least three of them). The decision might also have legal consequences for similar cases in other US states. 

Our congratulations to Andree McLeod! Her persistence, despite some previous disappointing setbacks, is hugely admirable. Her tireless and effective activism serves as a shining example for other citizen activists in the USA who might be faced with similar situations.

If Obama Was President, Stuff Like This Wouldn't Be Happening. Oh - Wait...

This is another sad tale in the War on Not Terrorists.

Here's Leah's statement:

Here's the warrant:

"Anti-government or anarchist literature or material"?

God, I wish Obama had won the 2008 election, so insanity like this wasn't becoming commonplace.

More here

You can support Leah here, by sending her paperback books, or sending her a letter of support.

At least the cops didn't maim for life a 12-year-old kid like they did in this bungled Montana operation yesterday.

Paul Ryan's Secret Life

Hundreds of Japanese Cattle Dying of "Fukushima Syndrome"

According to the Japanese blog, Fukushima Diary, "Over 100 cattle have died of Fukushima syndrome since last year."  These images were submitted by one farmer.

Romney's Sea of White

He needs to get almost two-thirds of white people to vote for him to win.

Biden's Debate Challenge - Let's Look Back to the Biden-Palin Debate

There is far less attention this national election cycle to the vice president slot than there was four years ago.  The 2008 Biden-Palin debate challenged Joe Biden (who I have never liked.  At all) in far different ways than the upcoming debate with Paul Ryan presents.

Here's Marcy Wheeler, writing today, about the upcoming debate in context of what he faced in pairing off with Palin:

When DC Democrats talk about Biden’s upcoming debate performance, they seem to forget how Biden did in his debate against Sarah Palin in 2008. That was one of the biggest challenges in 08, pitting a guy with over 30 years service as a successful policy wonk Senator against a blithering, but very attractive female, idiot.  

It is often difficult for men to get the dynamic of debating women–both respecting them but not bullying them–right, and this was all the more dangerous. But Biden nailed it.  

Whatever Biden says to rebut Ryan, he is of all four candidates the most personable to people outside of the Beltway. What are called gaffes inside the Beltway are often regarded as authentic outside of it. And when Biden delivers lines like the one from his DNC (after 9:00 in the video)…   

My dad never failed to remind us that a job is a about a lot more than a paycheck. It’s about your dignity. It’s about respect. It’s about your place in the community. It’s about being able to look your child in the eye and saying ‘honey, it’s going to be okay.’ …  

He credibly addresses men and women who otherwise aren’t being spoken to in this election. If Joe Biden is an angry old man, he’s a lot like the angry old men who will swing this election.

Ryan will probably be less of a challenge than Palin was. Ryan sticks his neck out in ways that seldom work if he's discussing anything with somebody who is well prepared. There will be far less attention given to the 2012 Biden-Ryan debate than was given the 2008 Biden-Palin one. Here is the 2008 debate.

 First, a TPMTV summation:

 The entire debate: