Gov’t Pledges to Actually Do Its Job on Regulating Offshore Drilling

Photo by tsuda, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsuda/992914260/">via Flickr</a>.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Monday, the federal government issued new guidance on the permitting and oversight of offshore drilling, vowing to end the rubber-stamping of new operations that had become standard for agencies.

The updated policy basically constitutes a pledge to uphold the environmental review and enforcement process that’s already mandated under law, but has been systematically neglected for decades. A review conducted by the Council on Environmental Quality recccomended that the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (previously the Minerals Management Service) improve its policies on environmental review as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The review (and the response from DOI) seems to acknowledge that the department had not been adequately following the law when it came to environmental review of new drilling projects, or even carrying out even the most basic protocol for evaluating the potential impacts of drilling before granting approval. The government has been green-lighting projects on the assumption that they are safe, rather than actually conducting the kind of thorough reviews that are supposed to be mandatory.

“Since April 20, 2010, that assumption will be revised, and BOEM will take steps to incorporate catastrophic risk analysis going forward,” CEQ said in a report issued Monday. CEQ is charged with making sure NEPA, which requires review of the potential impact of all new federal projects, is enforced.

The Gulf well that exploded and caused untold environmental and economic damage by dumping 4.9 million barrels of oil into the water was among the many approved without adequate assessment of the risks it posed. That well was granted an exclusion from environmental review, like basically all other Gulf operations (the waiver is typically called a “categorical exclusion”). Its approval was based on initial assessments dating back to 1981 and 1986, and subsequent evaluations that indicated that risks of a blowout or spill at the site were very low.

Yesterday’s announcement amounts to a promise that BOEM will actually do their job going forward, with CEQ recommending to the Department of Interior that it stop using categorical exclusions altogether (DOI says that the use of the exclusions will be “limited” going forward). The review also reccommends an extension of the time granted for environmental review, which under current policy is only 30 days. The administration has said that the 30-day limit has impeded their ability to conduct more thorough reviews.

“In light of the increasing levels of complexity and risk—and the consequent potential environmental impacts—associated with deepwater drilling, we are taking a fresh look at the NEPA process and the types of environmental reviews that should be required for offshore activity,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said yesterday.

But that doesn’t mean we can breathe any easier about offshore drilling. As I reported in June, the feds have continued to approve new lease sales despite knowing that the environmental review process was faulty. There was no indication in yesterday’s announcement that drilling operations already approved under these bad reviews will be revisited. “Existing deepwater wells and rigs already approved under the now admittedly faulty environmental review process will not necessarily have to seek full National Environmental Policy Act or Endangered Species Act compliance,” said Bill Snape, senior council with the Center for Biological Diversity. He points out that the announcement is also specific to deepwater drilling and doesn’t include operations in shallow water, which could be just as dangerous.

So while the new guidelines are good news, they might not be enough.

* This post has been updated to clarify portions of the review.

Special Report: Check out our in-depth investigation of BP’s crimes in the Gulf, “BP’s Deep Secrets.”

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate