BARDs "Big Mule" Drummond Coal Sued in the Name of "Filthy Lucre" By N. Bham, Alabama Residents

*Click title for full PDF case file

Tenth Judicial Circuit Court

Jefferson County, Alabama

10/06/2009

Causes of Action:

Count I-Negligence

Count II-Wantonness

Count III-Negligence Per Se

Count IV-Fraud

Count V-Public Nuisance

Count VI-Private Nuisance

Count VII- Trespass

Filthy Lucre--This little phrase can't be explained without looking at the word lucre. From the 14th century lucre has meant money and is referred to as such by no less writers than Chaucer and John Wyclif. These references generally included a negative connotation and gave rise to the terms "foul lucre" and "filthy lucre", which have been in use since the 16th century. "Filthy lucre" appears first in print in 1526 in the works of William Tindale:

"Teachinge thinges which they ought not, because of filthy lucre."

Tindale was using the term to mean dishonorable gain. 

Residents of North Birmingham and a nearby area, Tarrant, Alabama, have filed suit against ABC Coke Drummond Company alleging their cancers, blood diseases and respiratory diseases are the result of toxic chemicals released by Drummond's coke ovens.

All seven of the plaintiff's in this recent filing have cancer, two of those also have blood diseases and four of the seven report respiratory diseases in addition to their cancers. This filing adds to the long list of litigants against Drummond which now has as least 1500 plaintiffs.

The Summary Statement in this case speaks volumes:

SUMMARY STATEMENT

This action concerns a gross injustice committed in the name of filthy lucre--for the sake of profit. Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants spewed millions of tons of Toxicants and Noxious Odors into the North Birmingham Community and portions of the City of Tarrant, in violation of state and federal laws.

The North Birmingham Community was once the site of the Hawkins Plantation, and, as such, has always been populated by African-Americans. Similarly, the City of Tarrant was once the site of the Merriweather Farm, and has long been populated by African-Americans. Unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants, the hardships and abuses endured by the African-American slaves on the Hawkins Plantation continue in spirit to this very day, for the predominately African-American citizens who populate the North Birmingham Community and portions of the City of Tarrant remain the victims of social and environmental injustice. Callously disregarding the well-being of those citizens, and placing profit above everything else, Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants have caused their Coke Ovens to spew millions of tons of Toxicants into the North Birmingham Community and portions of the City of Tarrant, in violation of state and federal laws governing those Toxicants.

As a result of their actions, Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants have transmogrified the North Birmingham Community, a community once described as Birmingham's "prettiest suburb" with "healthful water...beautiful scenery...and pure air," and portions of the City of Tarrant, an equally pristine community on which six crystal clear streams once flowed, into cesspools of industrial waste. Indeed, even today Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants Coke Ovens continue to emit Toxicants in amounts prohibited by law and in amounts that Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants officers and directors would never tolerate in their own communities, for the emissions have caused, and continue to this very day to cause, Noxious Odors twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants greed, wantonness and negligence have visited upon two peaceful communities, the North Birmingham Community and portions of the City of Tarrant, an overwhelming plague of death and disease, property damage and suffering.

The Plaintiffs, all present or past residents of the North Birmingham Community and the City of Tarrant, bring this lawsuit seeking a measure of justice, including compensation for their loses and justly deserved punishment for Drummond Company, Inc. and the Fictitious Defendants.

(end of SS page 2 Caygle V. Drummond Company, Inc.)

On Page 4 Item E the Plaintiff's assert that Drummond Co. and its "alter egos" i.e. "fictitious defendants" willfully conspired to emit and then cover up the amount of toxins being released by their facility:

E. One or more of the Fictitious Defendants (the "Conspirator Defendants") conspired (a) to release Toxicants from the Coke Ovens in quantities and in a manner in violation of law; (b) to cover up and/or to conceal the fact that the Toxicants had been and were being released from the Coke Ovens and/or (c) to evade liability for damage caused by the Toxicants and Noxious Odors by corporate restructuring and/or reorganizing. The term "Conspirator Defendant" may therefore include any officer, director, shareholder, or attorney who participated in the said conspiracy and who may, after discovery in this natter, be substituted for one of the Fictitious Defendants.

(end of Parties The Defendants page 4 Caygle V. Drummond Company, Inc.)

The chemicals released during the process of treating coal and converting it into coke are highly toxic and many of them are known dangerous carcinogens such as: PCDs/Furans, TCDDs, CDFs, PCBs and VOCs a group that includes benzene, toluene and xylene. Readers may Google any of those acronyms for a more in-depth study into what their health effects are.

The above linked article from the *Birmingham Business Journal states that:

The Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 announced earlier this month it would monitor the air quality outside four Birmingham schools to evaluate long-term exposure to air pollutants – part of a program to monitor outside air at 63 schools in 22 states. Three of the four local schools are in the North Birmingham and Tarrant area.

Media reports said the EPA’s initial findings showed the chemicals it was most concerned about – arsenic, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and lead – were below levels of short-term concern in the air around the local schools. The study will continue throughout October and November. *(1500 plaintiff's)

However, in a March 17, 2010 study by the University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Maryland in College Park and John Hopkins University in Baltimore published by USA Today entitled "The Smokestack Effect" Toxic Schools which monitored the air of almost 128,000 schools around the country in 2009, the schools in the Tarrant area along with others near the Drummond Plant rank among the worst in the nation for toxic exposure.(link)

One example: Tarrant Alternative School, Top Polluter Drummond ABC Coke:

Toxic chemicals emitted by company

• Naphthalene
• Benzene
• Ammonia
• Lead and lead compounds
• Cyanide compounds

Schools affected most by company

• Tarrant High School Tarrant, Alabama
• Tarrant Alternative School Tarrant, Alabama
• Tarrant Education Center Tarrant, Alabama
• Opportunity Center At Riggins Birmingham, Alabama
• Riggins Birmingham, Alabama

Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Why are EPA Region 4's test results startlingly different from this study? Region 4 has the reputation for being "the weakest arm of the federal agency and being more or less openly in league with the big polluters" which may help explain the discrepancy.

As we reported on previously, Region 4 also "closed the books" on five recent egregious environmental injustice cases mostly on technicalities and were admonished by the EPA's OIG for not having suitable environmental justice protocols in place despite being told to do so more than once.

Rumors have long been whispered that the immense wealth and power of Drummond and BARD have influenced these agencies to take a hands-off approach to environmental violations. We are clarifying that those are only rumors and do not imply there is any truth to them, whatever happens with these lawsuits is for the court to decide.

But the disparity between the study results and Region 4's conclusions are enough to raise valid questions, that deserve some answers, and further investigation of the "smokestack effects" emanating from Tarrant and Drummond Company, Inc.

End of Part I

 

Don Blankenship and Big Coal Form 527 to Elect Republican Enablers

This story was sent to a us from a Kentuckian who found a familiar name from our coverage of White Rock Quarries and their parent company Vecellio Group. We feel it deserves some more traction and offer to it our readers with that in mind. Think Progress filed their story under public corruption which is exactly where it belongs.

Alabama has more in common with Big Coal and special interests than just the parallel covered here, both states have seen their high court elections ramped up by the lobbyists, business groups and trial lawyers to put their favorite candidates on the bench. The story of Blankenship buying a WV judge is well known and Alabama is becoming almost as notorious with the big business backed republican takeover of the high court in the 1990s that has already paid off in a controversial Exxon ruling.

West Virginia's "backyard" and Alabama's are not so far removed as we will illustrate in this post--but for now back to our Big Coal bad boys and their latest scheme...

The premise of the Think Progress article is to demonstrate the lengths these big businesses will go to get ahead and how Washington has helped them drive a frontloader through the CF laws passed that result in unintended(?)consequences. Big Coal has learned how to work the system and take advantage of the SCOTUS rulings on corporate campaign finance laws masterfully: 

“With the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard,” wrote Roger Nicholson, senior vice president and general counsel at International Coal Group of Scott Depot, W.Va., in an undated letter he sent to other coal companies.

 “A number of coal industry representatives recently have been considering developing a 527 entity with the purpose of attempting to defeat anti-coal incumbents in select races, as well as elect pro-coal candidates running for certain open seats,” Nicholson wrote. “We’re requesting your consideration as to whether your company would be willing to meet to discuss a significant commitment to such an effort.”

 Nicholson listed three races “of interest”: Conway against Republican Rand Paul for Kentucky’s open Senate seat; Chandler against Republican Garland “Andy” Barr in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District; and Democratic U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall against Republican Elliott “Spike” Maynard in West Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District.

The other three companies involved in this 527 scheme are Alliance Resource Partners (ARP), Natural Resource Partners (NRP) and Blankenship's Massey Energy (ME).

NRP along with Consol Energy (CNX) were just recently downgraded by Barron's  while Arch Coal moved ahead of Peabody (BTU) (look for Peabody to join this unholy alliance soon)--this does not sit well with investors and corporation heads of NRP, BTU and CNX. What better way to move back into the outperform status than to muscle your way into buying the "right candidates?"

As we have reported on before, the parent company of the White Rock Quarries (WRQ) Vincent Hills  project in Vincent, Alabama is the Vecellio Group, a privately owned corporation headed by Leo Vecellio, Jr. Mr. Vecellio is on the Board of NRPs "decision makers" and has been a key executive officer since 2007.

The Seminal (FireDogLake) reported on the connection of the Massey Tragedy and NRP earlier this year by asking the same question we did; "Who Else is Culpable For Massey's Negligence?"

If the old adage of "a man is known by the company he keeps" holds true, then that explains why we keep tripping over the same uber-rich, dirty scoundrels everywhere we turn in so many issues and stories. And it always makes us wonder how much is enough for these devils--just how many yachts, multi-million dollar homes and country club memberships does one person really need?

The next time you take notice of a corruption based environmental issue and say; "That's not my community so I am not really interested in that story or what goes on in that state, it doesn't affect me," take the time to dig a little deeper and see who is behind it. Follow the money.

All of our "backyards" are connected in these environmental assaults that are perpetrated by the same recurring villains (including the politicians that enable them) who destroy our communities and usurp our political and judicial systems in their pursuit of blood money and absolute power.

 

NOAA Testifies Before A House Panel and Disputes Its Own Previous Report

Initially, NOAA claimed that "50% of the oil" had dissipated from the Gulf Spill, but last Thursday they changed course and stated before a congressional EES hearing that "3/4ths of the oil was still in the environment."

How did that happen and was it intentional?

Apparently the baseline numbers used by NOAA in the previous estimates caused a skewing of the numbers and were nothing more than an "educated guess." That would be convenient to try and paint a rosier picture of what is happening and bring about a sigh of relief that all is becoming right in the Gulf.

It would also be a big fat lie.

NOAA is a government entity, so why are they coming out with findings that will protect BP and the boys, especially when they knew their analysis would arrive at the wrong numbers? We think it was intentional at worst and inept at best.

Representative Markey took them to task on this:

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the Energy and Environment Subcommittee that held the hearing, said the administration’s initial report this month — and the trumpeting of it — gave people a "false sense of confidence" about the environmental risks that remain.

 

“Intended or not, I think the reaction to the oil budget report that was released … is one of relief,” Markey said. “People want to believe that everything is OK. I think this report and the way it is being discussed is giving many people a false sense of confidence regarding the state of the Gulf. Overconfidence breeds complacency and complacency is what got us into this situation in the first place.”



Whose responsible for this at NOAA? Bill Lehr is their senior scientist and the buck is on his desk. None of their earlier studies were peer reviewed, which would be a standard process, nor did NOAA release the models used to arrive at the wrong numbers. He's caught now and he wants to appear to be the pillar of righteousness by ensuring that this time it will be done correctly.

Markey isn't buying what he's trying to sell:

Lehr also said it would take another two months for administration officials to release their full report on the BP spill. 

“That’s not timely enough, doctor,” Markey told him. “Because if your numbers are wrong, two months from now could be too late.”

 

Said Lehr: "I will do whatever I can to speed up the report. We want to make sure it's done right."
 
 

Markey asked Lehr in the meantime to release data used to put together the initial oil budget calculation the administration released this month so it could be subjected to independent scientific review. 
 
 

“You don’t want to make the models and data available, but you've given us conclusions from the data," Markey said.
 
 

Markey also chastised Lehr for the administration prematurely releasing that report. 
 
 

“If you’re not confident that it is right, then it shouldn’t have been released,” Markey said. "Gulf residents don’t want the risks to be downplayed, or low-balled,” he said.

If anyone in this whole sordid mess has been the beacon of strength and should be praised for constantly holding those responsible in account for their failures it has been Representative Markey. We applaud him mightily.

All of this reminds us of what the Alabama officials and environmental agencies are getting wrong themselves as we have covered in previous postings.

 

In their zeal to move this issue off the front pages and subject Alabamians to unnecessary risks by encouraging them to eat the local seafood and go ahead and swim in the Gulf of Corexit, like NOAA they are jumping the gun intentionally and carelessly. By doing this, in our opinion, they exhibit no cautionary regard for their citizens and their actions reveal they only invariably care about their own potential profits and their "special interest buddies."
(originally posted 8/21/2010)

 

Alabama AG Troy King Continues to Pressure BP and Feinberg

Alabama Attorney General Troy King further advances the opinion that he has grown a pair.

Mr. Kenneth R. Feinberg
Feinberg Rozen, LLP
The Willard Office Building
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Suite 390
Washington, D.C. 20004-1008

TRANSMITTED VIA E.MAIL

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

I am in receipt of your August 9 and 19, 2010, e-mails transmitting a draft of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility Protocol for Emergency Advance Payments. I share the concerns Attorneys General Jim Hood and Buddy Caldwell conveyed in their letter to you dated August 16, 2010, and I join in them. Beyond their concerns, I remain disturbed by your refusal to incorporate more of the changes we, as Attorneys General, suggested to you in Biloxi. In fact, your latest draft demonstrates a regrettable and continued disingenuousness toward the process. Although provisions addressing final payments have been stricken from this latest draft, you appear to have largely ignored the basic principles and comments submitted by us in response to your original draft protocol.

Based on the lack of any forward progress made in your latest draft, as well as your actions and public statements since we met, it appears that the concerns of the Attorneys General and those of the citizens of our States have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed, I believe the current approach to the claims process is symptomatic of the overall strategy adopted by BP and the other responsible parties- with respect to their oil disaster and their unwillingness to fairly and adequately compensate the States and their citizens for the catastrophic damage the oil companies have caused. Their reactions, as well as yours' have left Alabama with little choice other than to initiate litigation to ensure that the State is made whole. We have done so.

Letter to Mr, Kenneth R. Feinberg
August 20.-20l0
Page Two

While I am hopeful that there will be opportunities to collaborate in the future with respect to any Final Protocol being developed for payment of individual and business claims, it appears that, at this time, there is little common ground between your views on the claims process and those of the State of Alabama and our citizens. Your comments in Biloxi made clear that you see your mandate far differently than I do. My job is to protect the interests of the State of Alabama and our citizens and that I fully intend to do, You have repeatedly stated that all claims decisions are your decisions. Your actions indicate that those decisions are not being guided by the best interests of Alabama or our citizens. I find that unfortunate. Should you ever mean what you have said and wish to engage n a meaningful discussion would welcome it. I call on you again to develop an equitable and reasonable claims process. Thus far you have not done so.

TK:oi

co: Attorney General Jim Hood

     Attorney General James Buddy Caldwell

It seems to be going around these sternly worded letters--Transocean just fired one off to BP accusing them of withholding information about the spill in their efforts to fully investigate the cause of the explosion of the rig that lead to the disaster in the Gulf. 

The new complaint by Transocean follows similar complaints by U.S. lawmakers about difficulties obtaining necessary information from BP in their investigations.

In a sternly worded letter to BP's attorneys, Transocean said the oil giant has in its sole possession information key to identifying the cause "of the tragic loss of eleven lives and the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico."

BP is calling it a "publicity stunt":

In a biting response late Thursday, BP told Transocean in a letter that Transocean's claims were "nothing more than a publicity stunt evidently designed to draw attention away from Transocean's potential role in the Deepwater Horizon tragedy."

BP would know a few things about "publicity stunts" and deflecting blame now wouldn't they?

(originally posted 8/21/2010)

 

Why ADEM and the EMC are Dangerous to Alabama

These state "environmental" agencies have been plagued by scandal and corruption for years and they have earned the phrase "in league with the big polluters" honestly. From a former director that *took favors from BARD companies to ADEM being petitioned to have all of their water permitting removed for failing miserably to do their job, they are a poster child for what's wrong for Alabama's environment.

(* Glenn was a former engineer with Alabama Power before being appointed as the ADEM head in 2005)

There is no "watchdog" only dirty dogs who sell Alabama's environment on a regular basis for a cut of the action and permitting fees. Serial offenders are often relegated to a consent order, which has no real monetary persuader to have them comply--the fines are considered the cost of doing business by these big polluters. These state agencies have much more of an incentive to continue to fine, and keep the revenue coming in than they do in taking the companies to court and putting an end to the continued violations.

One big law firm in Birmingham has an entire section in a booklet they publish periodically about "Doing Business In Alabama" and they reassure potential businesses that Alabama regulations and environmental laws are "business friendly" and "regulations are favorable to businesses."

ADEM and the EMC seem only too eager to give that attitude as much assistance as they can on a regular basis.

"Trust me, I am an expert. Don't I have an honest face?"

Recently, Bruce Freeman, the state agencies 'point man' who is from ADEMs Office of the Emergency Response, while surrounded by a group of "experts," made a grand proclamation July 22 in Mobile that Alabama's seafood was safe to eat. One woman in the group wasn't biting on that line:

DAPHNE, Ala. -- Alabama's oil response leaders address a wide variety of issues each day and a top problem is "staying ahead of misconceptions and rumors," according to Bruce Freeman, chief of the office of emergency response at the Alabama Department of Environmental Management

One of those misconceptions is that the fish and shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico and Mobile Bay are not safe to eat, Freeman told about 30 people who gathered Tuesday evening at a town hall-style meeting at Daphne City Hall.

"The fish are fine, you can eat them. We've found no problems whatsoever," Freeman said. "We go to Mississippi Sound and offshore ..." 

A woman in the audience, Daphne artist Jean-Marie McDonnell, interrupted Freeman.

"I don't believe it," she said.

"It's a fact. Ma'am, we're testing the fish and we've found no contamination. If you don't feel comfortable eating the fish then I advise you not to eat the fish," Freeman said.

"I won't," McDonnell said. 

"Fish off" Mr. Freeman, that one got away didn't it?

The "group of experts":

Freeman was one of 16 officials who sat at a long row of tables at the front of City Hall's council chamber.

They included representatives with the National Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Baldwin County Emergency Management Agency, the Centers for Disease Control, BP PLC and Alabama Marine Police. 

As we reported in a previous post, the new ADEM head Lance LeFleur claimed in a June 25th meeting of the EMC and ADEM that the "environmental impact was minimal in Alabama." What is his reasoning for arriving at that conclusion?

While we are at it, why was Mr. LeFleur chosen as the new ADEM head and did it have anything to do with his wife's *employer?:

Bob Mount: Phillips overlooked for EMC post 

The seven-member Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is poised to appoint a director of ADEM to succeed the position being vacated by Trey Glenn. One of the applicants was Dr. Doug Phillips, producer of the Alabama Public Television program Discovering Alabama. I had high hopes that the EMC would hire Doug for the position, but he wasn't even included among the top five candidates.

 The seven-member Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is poised to appoint a director of ADEM to succeed the position being vacated by Trey Glenn. One of the applicants was Dr. Doug Phillips, producer of the Alabama Public Television program Discovering Alabama. 

I had high hopes that the EMC would hire Doug for the position, but he wasn’t even included among the top five candidates.

Considering Gov. Bob Riley’s strong alliances with the Big Mules, I should have known that a naturalist who deeply cares for our states’ natural heritage, such as Dr. Phillips, wouldn’t stand a dog’s chance of being selected to head ADEM. 

Anita Archie, a Riley appointee, *chairs the EMC. She is also the lead lobbyist for the Business Council of Alabama. Ben Raines, A Mobile Press-Register reporter, points out that, “In that role, she is paid to represent the interests of the council’s 5,000 members, many of them companies whose pollution permits are regulated by ADEM.” Raines states that the Business Council describes itself as ‘the state’s most powerful and effective advocate for business and industry at the Alabama Legislature and U.S. Congress.’

*(Ms. Archie, thankfully is no longer in that position, but the fact that she was even appointed to it by Governor Riley speaks volumes and illustrates our points about these agencies.) 

Raines also states that the Council’s Web site describes Archie and her staff as “your daily eyes and ears whenever and wherever public policy that affects your bottom line is being made.” He mentions requirements in the federal Clean Water and Clean Air acts that agencies should exclude any person who gets a significant portion directly or indirectly from permit holders or applicants for a permit.

Archie, according to Raines, admits that all of her income comes from the Business Council but says that the council is not entirely funded by companies that require pollution permits. Readers can decide for themselves if Archie can legally serve as chair of the EMC, which supervises ADEM, while simultaneously deriving all of her income as a lobbyist for the Business Council.

Reportedly, the leading contender for directorship of ADEM is Lance LeFleur, owner of a plastics recycling company in Mobile. He once worked for a subsidiary of Blount Inc., which dismissed him for undisclosed reasons. He resides in Montgomery with his wife, *Elaine, who is Gov. Riley’s executive assistant.

 LeFleur is Gov. Riley’s choice to head ADEM. Surprise, surprise!

Bob Mount is emeritus professor of zoology and entomology at Auburn University and writes a weekly column for the Opelika-Auburn News.

More on this:

 Riley's support After the meeting, John Lester, the commission's vice chairman, said commissioners had evaluated a large pool of applicants, and had interviewed three finalists. The commission had not decided beforehand who would be selected, Lester said, and had not met as a group to discuss the candidates.

 LeFleur, whose wife serves as Gov. Bob Riley's executive assistant, had the support of the governor behind his candidacy.
Asked if that influenced the outcome, Lester said. ''It probably didn't hurt.''

Casi Callaway, the director of Mobile Baykeeper, said Hagood's openness was in stark contrast to the previous director and hoped that the thaw in relations between the agency and environmental groups would not be reversed.

''The new guy is the governor's guy. So was Trey, so we'll see,'' she said.

This is our main issue with these agencies and Mr. Freeman--it's all coming from Riley and we know where his loyalties lie and what his record is on truly protecting Alabama's environment; utterly dismal. We certainly cannot expect anything different from the state agencies.

There has been a strong push by BP and the federal government to feed the public this same misinformation and false reassurances that the Gulf seafood is safe and the oil has "vanished." They failed miserably in their attempts to hoodwink the public and now damning information has come out backing up the public's suspicions.

But, we have not heard from the EMC and ADEM lately since the dog and pony show in Mobile and we'd like to ask Mr. Freeman if he would like to qualify any of his previous statements given the new compelling information that has recently been published.

We would also like to ask him how much he has been paid by BP and who covered his relocation costs to Daphne, Alabama and why was that move was necessary. Or perhaps his boss, Governor Riley could enlighten us on this, but he is probably too busy fighting with AG Troy King over the BP suit, flying off to London on the taxpayer's dime, meeting with Ken Feinberg in Washington to get more oil/gas lease money, putting Greene County residents out of work and influencing the next would be Governor of Alabama to take care of his "children" to do much of anything else. 

We have a group of experts assembled ourselves--the Alabama taxpayers and they have a few questions for Governor Riley, ADEM and the EMC that deserve some answers. 

Maybe we could all meet for lunch, you all can have Gulf shrimp with a side of crow and humble pie for dessert and we'll have the usual; spamburgers and your lies, oops, we meant fries.
ADEM Enforcements drop by 78% (2009)

In Alabama, the agency responsible for enforcing clean water standards is the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. According to the ADEM Reform Coalition, ADEM only handed out $286,100 in fines for water pollution violations during the 2009 fiscal year, compared to more than $1.2 million in each of the two preceding years.

 

New Drilling In Gulf Now Requires Environmental Assesment / US DOI

US Department of the Interior

Press Release 8/16/2010

Categorical Exclusions for Gulf Offshore Activity to be Limited While Interior Reviews NEPA Process and Develops Revised Policy

Melissa Schwartz (BOEM) 202-208-3985

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEM) Director Michael R. Bromwich today announced that the department will restrict its use of categorical exclusions for offshore oil and gas development to activities involving limited environmental risk, while it undertakes a comprehensive review of its National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process and the use of categorical exclusions for exploration and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Director Bromwich and Secretary Salazar also announced that the Department of the Interior intends to conduct a new environmental analysis in the Gulf of Mexico that will help provide information to guide future leasing and development decisions. In the coming days, BOEM will publish a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Gulf.

“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,” Secretary Salazar said. “We are committed to full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of NEPA. Our decision-making must be fully informed by an understanding of the potential environmental consequences of federal actions permitting offshore oil and gas development.”  

“The NEPA review and Gulf environmental analysis are central elements of our ongoing reform of the nation’s offshore energy development and regulatory program,” Director Bromwich said. “We are building a more robust and aggressive independent oversight agency based on the development of new tools and enhanced legal and regulatory authorities, as well as on the more aggressive use of existing tools. These changes in our regulatory framework and approach will serve to hold offshore operators accountable and ensure that the industry and the country are fully prepared to deal with catastrophic blowouts and oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon.”

Today’s announcements follow the release of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) report on the former Minerals Management Service’s NEPA program. The report was done in close consultation with Interior and BOEM which replaced the Minerals Management Service.

BOEM will issue a Federal Register notice announcing a formal process for the comprehensive review and evaluation of its use of categorical exclusions in relation to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling activities. While this review is underway, Director Bromwich noted, BOEM will be using categorical exclusions on a more limited basis. For actions that potentially involve more significant environmental risk, Interior officials intend to subject more decisions to environmental assessments.  

The limited use of categorical exclusions will allow BOEM to move forward with new permits under the Secretary’s NTL-05 and NTL-06, which notified offshore lessees that shallow water drilling activity could proceed as soon as they provide additional information about potential blowout scenarios and implement additional safety measures for rigs and platforms. Most deepwater drilling activities are currently prohibited by the moratorium, but Director Bromwich has instructed his staff not to use categorical exclusions to approve deepwater drilling activities similar to the Deepwater Horizon operation even after the moratorium is lifted.  

When the review is completed, BOEM will announce a new approach to NEPA compliance that takes into account the joint recommendations included in CEQ‘s report, statutory and/or regulatory constraints, and other appropriate factors. This is consistent with the Council’s regulations directing all federal agencies to periodically review their NEPA policies and procedures.

Categorical exclusions are actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. The categorical exclusion process was established to reduce the amount of unnecessary paperwork and delay associated with NEPA compliance. If a certain type of federal action would not normally result in any environmental effects that are potentially significant, it is unnecessary to expend resources to repeatedly document that fact.  

However, exceptions to a categorical exclusion may arise and federal agencies are required to develop procedures to determine whether a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. The Categorical Exclusion Review determines whether a proposal that is categorically excluded may meet any of the Department’s extraordinary circumstances criteria, requiring an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

To read Director Bromwich’s memo, click here. The CEQ review, Report Regarding the Minerals Management Service’s National Environmental Policy Act Policies, Practices, and Procedures as They Relate to Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, is online at CEQ Review and Report. More on the categorical exclusion process is online at http://www.boemre.gov/eppd/compliance/nepa/policy/ce/index.htm.
#                #               #

BP received environmental exemptions based on "decades old data" which contributed to what happened in the Gulf.  If the Department of the Interior stands by these revisions to their archaic policies of the past, perhaps we will avoid another disaster.

MMS is to blame for some of this because they reviewed the BP project and failed to take into account what happened in the 1979 Ixtoc Gulf spill "simply because it was not in US waters." 
(the accompanying comments with the above linked Ixtoc article are well worth reading)

But this latest move only applies to new drilling, so far, and we say that does not go far enough in ensuring that another big spill does not occur. Expect massive resistance on this one from the oil and gas industry and their teams of lobbyists and lawyers.

 

Vocal BP Critic Matt Simmons Found Dead

(Part II will be posted when it becomes available)

Was Matt Simmons Founder of the Ocean Energy Institute onto something that cost him his life? Or was his underlying heart condition to blame for his "untimely death?"

August 10, 2010:

According to the Medical Examiner's office, Simmons drowned. A statement earlier in the day from the Ocean Energy institute in Rockland, which Simmons created, said Simmons suffered a heart attack while using his hot tub. The Medical Examiner's office says Simmons was suffering from heart disease, which may have been a contributing factor in the drowning.

He's not without controversy--his suggestion to "nuke the well" as a means of stopping the Gulf oil leak was met with ridicule and resistance by some:

 Kevin Roark, a spokesman for Los Alamos in New Mexico, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, said that despite rumors to the contrary, none of the laboratory's thousands of experts was devising nuclear options for the gulf."Nothing of the sort is going on here," he said in an interview. "In fact, we're not working on any intervention ideas at all. We're providing diagnostics and other support but nothing on the intervention side."

A senior Los Alamos scientist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because his comments were unauthorized, ridiculed the idea of using a nuclear blast to solve the crisis in the gulf."It's not going to happen," he said. "Technically, it would be exploring new ground in the midst of a disaster — and you might make it worse."

But others smell a conspiracy afoot and think his death was no accident:

Amicus Curiae never tried to expose the shear criminality of British Petroleum Royal Dutch Shell.

Matt Simmons did.

Therefore a clear motive for his murder.

Also, the means of his demise points to known methods of hits committed by Jackals. Induced Heart attack AND Drowning being cited as probable causes points to a ritual murder / organized hit. Quite simple to induce a heart attack in someone (known assassination technique) and then let them drown (ritual component). They’ve been doing this stuff for generations – I am pretty sure they have it down pat by now.

MP3 interview link Matt Simmons KingWorldNews July 17, 2010

We may never know what the real truth is, if there is something to the conspiracy theorists suspicions, but it will make for interesting conversations and we have to thank Mr. Simmons for exposing some compelling information about BP and BPRDS.

 

Mississippi Governor Barbour Pulls Back on State Lawsuit Against BP/ Will Alabama Follow?

credit: Ramsey

Governor Barbour recently put the cap on the state of Mississippi's lawsuit against BP and in doing so he sends up a plume of controversy for that decision based on the May 13 filing in Houston, Texas by Transocean Limited seeking a 27 million dollar limit be ordered on their liability in the Gulf Oil Spill.

According to The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., (OPA), which was enacted in an effort to streamline federal law and compensate victims of such spills there is a "90 day presentment clause," but it does not preempt state laws governing liability and compensation from oil spills:

Any claim against the company not filed within 90 days can be discharged by the court. Should Transocean later be deemed to be responsible for any part of the disaster, that part of all later filed claims could be lost.

The last day to file and remain within the 90 day window was August 11th,  Barbour halted the lawsuit on July 29th. Will this cause part of the claims to be lost due to the OPA? That may rely on what the Mississippi and Alabama laws are in addition to this being the first "hard test" of the OPA.

Not everyone will be compensated by the OPA which was passed in response to the Exxon Valdez Alaskan Spill. A great deal of the Gulf legal proceedings will be "untested waters" because this is the first serious test of the OPA, that said, for a claimant to collect what they feel are their true losses they have to file suit. BP will have a very different set of parameters in determining what they think is their fault and will fight it every inch of the way.

We believe Alabama AG Troy King was correct in erring on the side of caution, but Governor Riley does not agree with any state lawsuits being filed "prematurely" and has stated he hopes for an "out of court settlement." Like Barbour, he displays trust in BP that is not shared by the overwhelming public sentiment and distrust permeating the country.


Just where was Barbour in June while oil was coming onto Mississippi's shores--why fund-raising in Washington of course!

“The most important thing right now is the 2010 elections,” Barbour told reporters.

Continuing his record of dismissing the magnitude of the BP disaster, Barbour said on Friday after he returned to Mississippi that major slicks miles long within the Mississippi Sound “shouldn’t be a cause for alarm.” By Saturday, there were “long, wide ribbons of orange-colored oil for as far as the eye could see and acres of both heavy and light sheen moving into the Sound between the barrier islands.”

Out of the 6,000 National Guard troops President Obama has authorized for response in Mississippi, Haley Barbour has mobilized only 58.

"Monkey See Monkey Do"

Governor Riley of Alabama is mirroring Barbour's position and has enlisted the state newspapers to embarrass AG Troy King in his probably one and only wise move ever to file suit against BP before the 90 day deadline ended. In May of 2010, Riley was singing a different tune and claiming he would reconsider his stance on "drill here, drill now":

At a press conference this afternoon in Mobile, AL, the Wonk Room questioned Riley whether he would reconsider his “Drill, Baby, Drill” stance as the oil spill grows, threatening the destruction of the bayous and beaches of Mobile Bay. After a long pause, Riley answered that he “will have a completely different attitude” if the efforts to protect his state’s shores fail:

That’s a great question. After we get through this, I think all of us can make a better determination than we can now. Because with the resources that have been deployed, and if we can do what I hope we can do in Alabama to mitigate any potential environmental damage here, especially in our estuaries, then I will have a completely different attitude about whether or not it is controllable after something this dramatic happens.

We're still waiting Gov.

By the way, did you ever give any reason for deploying less 14% of the 3000 members of the National Guard Troops authorized by Obama to help with the cleanup? The press never followed him up on that one:

"So why would four Gulf Coast governors, all Republicans (although Charlie Crist recently went independent) want to delay the deployment of National Guard troops that they themselves have requested? It isn’t because of money — BP has already agreed to bear the cost of these troops. Could it possibly be for political reasons? Would a governor really sit by and watch their own states be destroyed and their own constituents’ lives and livelihoods sink in the oil muck just to score cheap political points against our president?"

Back to Barbour the "Mighty Mouse That Roars":

In a letter to the Mississippi AG Jim Hood, Barbour asserts that a "premature lawsuit will benefit plaintiff lawyers" and the lawsuit will turn this into another Exxon-Valdez fiasco and claims will "grind to a halt."

The very nature of our cumbersome beast of a legal system, especially in cases involving corporate giants who can afford to delay and wait for years, contributed more to the Exxon case moving at a plodding pace than did the filing of lawsuits against them:

The Exxon Valdez litigation went on for so long because the company argued the original punitive damages ordered, $5 billion, was excessive – an assessment the US Supreme Court agreed with, leading to a final payment of $507 million and $470 million in interest in 2009.

Governor Barbour's reasons aren't passing the leak test, but his past history might help explain his hands-off approach to BPs crimes:

BARBOUR AWASH IN BIG OIL, BIG ENERGY CASH

Barbour has long been at the intersection of special interest lobbying, elections, and campaign cash. He represents cash and carry politics at its worst:

• The oil & gas and utility industries were major contributor to his Mississippi gubernatorial campaigns, providing over $1.8 million in campaign cash. [National Institute on Money in State Politics, Accessed 7/2/09]
• According to the Center for Responsive Politics, coal companies and electric utilities lavished over half a million dollars on Barbour’s firm during his last two years as CEO and chairman, in 1998 and 1999. After taking time off to work on advisory committees for the presidential campaign of George B. Bush, Barbour returned to the firm in 2001. With the addition of new clients, including from the oil & gas industry, the firm made over a million dollars a year in dirty energy profits by the time he left again for his 2003 gubernatorial run, with $2.24 million in total for 2001-2002. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 7/2/09]

Add that to the push by the Gulf Coast Governors to persuade the federal government to relinquish some of it's lion's share of the oil and gas lease profits in the Gulf, the millions of dollars being paid to Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Louisiana in "grants and tourism advertising" by BP, along with numerous state employees working under BP contractors and the waters become a little clearer in motives.

If these states file lawsuits, their current money gushers are cut off and they upset the oil giants. The potential hundreds of millions of dollars they stand to gain in increased royalties from oil and gas drilling off their coastlines, and their inherent greed makes them play a dangerous game with the oil big boys.

These Governors are betting that all the money they have made these companies over the years will buy them favor now, and they are willing to"call" BPs bluff to be "responsible" by putting up their citizens and coastal environments as their chips.

**Update August 17th**
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 Mobile, AL – Cunningham Bounds obtained for its clients a significant victory in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by having Oil Pollution Act claims exempted from the limitation of liability action filed by the various Transocean entities involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

A call to Troy King's office today asking if this was the the intent of the state lawsuit was artfully dodged, which we expected, but a well-informed political source tells us it was "part of the AGs decision process." In which case we stand by our earlier statement that we believe King acted appropriately.
LegalSchnauzer'sCoverageofThisIssue 

August 17, 2010 Montgomery Advertiser story

**Update #2 September 17, 2010 

In the ongoing point the finger game between Riley and King, Riley has announced that King's filing is "forcing" him to slash the education fund. We find that extremely disingenuous with the millions diverted to road building and big business from the Trust Fund by the Governor. Riley is trying to score cheap political points and act as a protector for Big Oil. 
Riley could have easily taken money from one of his many pet projects funds, but instead he chooses to demonize King and use Alabama's children to do it--it is the act of a true coward.
King is right on this one:
''If I were BP's lawyers and I had been able to co-opt the governor of a state to take a public position (at) every available opportunity of attacking and undermining the work of his lawyers to protect the state, I wouldn't pay is claim either,'' King said. ''I would continue to wait and watch and see what other harm he might do to the lawsuit and to the state's position.''

 

Shelby County Reporter and Conflicts of Interest?

***Note: some links in this post will link to previous postings due to the archived stories being unceremoniously removed by the SCR upon the recent relaunch of its website.

We have covered the Shelby County Reporter and its ostensibly continued biased reporting in previous posts, and will now go more in depth and present what we believe, are valid journalistic and editorial ethics issues that deny the citizens of Shelby County, Alabama fair and accurate reporting.

The Editor of this paper, Tim Prince, also serves as president of the South Shelby Chamber of Commerce (SSCC). On the SSCC website is a "Letter from the President" which includes the Articles of Incorporation:

The South Shelby Chamber of Commerce was founded and incorporated on October 20, 1993. The original Articles of Incorporation read that, “the object of this Organization is for the purpose of promoting economic programs designed to strengthen and expand the income potential of all business within the trade area; promoting programs of civic, social and cultural nature which are designed to increase the functional and aesthetic values of the community; and discovering and correcting abuses which prevent the promotion of business expansion and community growth.” Those same ideals are still pursued 15 years later, as the Chamber and its members continue to promote and enhance the economic vitality of South Shelby County.

"Discovering and correcting abuses which prevent the promotion of business expansion and community growth."

Exactly what does that mean? Does that include citizens that organize against a proposed business for their community because they do not feel it is in keeping with the "functional and aesthetic values of the community?"

"Correcting abuses." Does that mean violating a town's zoning ordinances and running rough shod over the procedures to change said ordinances because following proper procedure is an "abuse" or impediment to "business expansion and growth?"

(One thing it doesn't mean is a valid explanation for the hiring of the Chair of the Shelby County Commission, Lindsey Allison who is a family law attorney, to represent WRQ in the zoning lawsuit filed against the City of Vincent. That move has impropriety written all over it due to her position, influence and field of law expertise.)

Just because something prevents the promotion of business expansion doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad; quite the contrary--  we have zoning and environmental and health and safety codes that “interfere” with pure greed and expansion, for good and necessary reasons.  Which is why most communities have rules about where you can put slaughterhouses, cemeteries, quarries, coal mines, gravel pits, landfills and waste-disposal plants, and less obnoxious industries that rely on toxic or dangerous materials (like mercury and cyanide) which are perfectly useful and necessary industrial materials, but require careful monitoring and mindful application.

 

One man’s “business expansion” is another man’s front yard facing an auto salvage yard as a new “neighbor.”  “Slow growth” and “no growth” are perfectly valid concepts which many communities embrace.  Other communities confuse minimum-wage jobs and toxic workplace environments with “expansion,” and invite noxious businesses into the area (usually in locations where there’s no visible impact on the wealthy and powerful).

 

“Discovering and correcting abuses” is another way of saying “eliminate all roadblocks created by anyone with environmental or safety issues, and marginalize or neutralize any person or organization who uses the law to slow down or stop unregulated expansion and growth-for-profit at any cost.”

The SSCC makes their position in being staunchly pro-business to a fault very clear; they have even used the words "aggressively promoting business" in other documents that discuss the SSCC  "ideals."

We will not fault any Chamber of Commerce for actively wanting to promote economic development within their communities--it is to be expected from those entities. But, it becomes a problem when that philosophy extends to what is supposed to be an objective public forum; the local newspaper.

The Chemical Lime plant/quarry that was championed in the SCR Editorial from 2007 has not been the boon for the City of Calera that *it was claimed it would be. Clearly, the paper was led to write such a favorable editorial by interests other than the citizens interests.

*(scroll under consent order)

Time after time we have seen stories published that exhibit bias regarding the Vincent, Alabama community and the WRQ Vincent Hills quarry  as we explained in previous postings. But it extends beyond bias and moves into the lack of accuracy in reporting on facts and figures presented in one recent story regarding Vincent's projected population growth that were just plain wrong.

We have also made note of the very restrictive TOS revisions by the paper in January 2010, that have been revised yet again with the "relaunch" of their "new web version" on August 10, 2010. Forum commentators must secure permission to post links to other stories from the originating authors/sites, which is beyond any stipulation we have seen in any TOS to date. By posting these links, without permission, the paper puts the poster in danger of copyright infringement by declaring that the poster is claiming the link as their own material.

Comments on all Vincent stories "disappeared" along with original stories, other comments were removed that allowed readers to obtain a differing point of view, such as is presented on this site, and all the archives became inaccessible with the recent relaunching of the web paper. It lends itself to the appearance of deliberate suppression of any other point of view that media outlets should encourage even if they disagree with them.

One of our fellow bloggers who enjoys 500,000 hits per week puts it this way:

"Overly restrictive TOS and the persistent removal of comments that challenge the newspaper/writer/subject are usually the created when pretentious people are upset and are too weak to compete on a level playing field in the arena of public opinion. It sends a clear signal to the community that if you disagree or take a hard line stance, then you are unwelcome in their arena of public debate. Stifling restrictions imposed by the controllers are implemented to make sure that no one strays too far from the established thoughts and ideals."

Notes and calendar records were obtained through an FOIA request from the office of Kristine Goddard, Planner II with the Shelby County Development Board, that revealed that White Rock Quarries "maintains a blog on the SCR website." If there is a logical explanation for that we would like to hear it, because the aggressive PR firm they hired and numerous spokespeople they also employ, in addition to access to other big media outlets, raises the question of why would they need to influence the public discussion boards, if that is indeed what they "maintained the blog" for.

And why would a public newspaper allow this to occur in the first place?

Newspapers should serve three basic functions for communities: watchdog, teacher and conscience. Those three things are impossible to achieve if the reader suspects there is something else behind particular news coverage other than journalistic standards. Journalists must strive to avoid impropriety and conflicts of interest as the basic tenets of ethical journalism because a newspaper's credibility is its most vital asset.

In this case, the SCR Editor is self-defined in his role as president of the SSCC to be a strong advocate for business expansion and promotion. How can the paper he serves as Editor for possibly be fair and objective in their coverage of negative aspects of the county businesses and industries that are of interest to the public? Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest between journalistic and business goals in this situation?

When Editors place themselves in the position of putting their overlapping financial objectives from one entity to their management objectives in another, it creates a muddled atmosphere that blurs the line between journalistic standards owed to the public and business obligations to their competing corporate interests.

Corporate ideals and the public interest are often not aligned in their philosophies and journalistic impartiality is all but impossible to achieve in this scenario. Advertising dollars add to this problem because news outlets have become so dependent on their revenue that they will sometimes "look the other way" and omit certain stories and facts that would upset specific corporate clients.

Although there are no compelling laws that govern the media's suggested ethics codes that are enforceable under the First Amendment, many news organizations have adopted them and strive to "seek the truth and report it." Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

The Editor of the SCR should be promptly replaced because he has refused to disengage himself from these outside influences, and in doing so, he has lost all editorial credibility resulting from his position with the SSCC and their ideals.

This county has long labored under the delusion that the public figures rooted in Columbiana's power structure and special interests have the absolute right to control the news presented to the Shelby County residents. They would be wrong in that assumption and should be held accountable for their actions by the citizens of this county-- who deserve an honest, fair and accurate voice from their sole local media provider.

So say we the Opinion Board of the Vincent Alabama Confidential
**Update August 18**
We note that some past stories have made their way back onto the site, but you have to know "how to find" them. It will probably be chalked up to; "We are still working out the kinks in our new site." We thought of this too and took our own steps to document that what we saw at certain points in time.
Nice try though.