Tomgram: Nick Turse, BP and the Pentagon's Dirty Little Secret
Posted by Nick Turse at 11:00 am, June 17, 2010
It couldn’t be worse, could it? In the Gulf, BP now claims to be retrieving
15,000 barrels of oil a day from the busted pipe 5,000 feet down. That’s
three times the total amount of oil it claimed, bare weeks ago, was coming out
of that pipe. A government panel of experts now suggests that the real figure
could be up to 60,000 barrels or 2.5 million gallons a day, the equivalent of
an Exxon Valdez spill every four days -- and some independent experts think
the figure could actually be closer to 100,000 barrels a day.
In the meantime, we just learned from the Los Angeles Times that -- go figure
-- the “primary responsibility for safety and other inspections” on
the oil rig that blew in the Gulf “rested not with the U.S. government
but with the Republic of the Marshall Islands,” and that those impoverished
islands had outsourced their responsibilities to private companies. Go BP! We
also learned that the relief wells sure to staunch the flow of oil by “early
August” could take far longer, fail, or even make matters significantly
worse; that BP cut every corner in the book to save money when drilling its
well; and, oh, that evidently even the heavens are angry at the oil giant, since
on Tuesday a lightning strike put its sole drill/retrieval ship in the Gulf
out of action for hours, leaving all that oil pouring into the water unimpeded.
However bad the bad news is, each new dawn it only seems to get worse, as does
the “collateral damage,” whether to pelicans or the Gulf's beaches
and wetlands.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, that war equivalent of BP’s Gulf disaster,
things are similarly trending downward at a startling pace as the news from
there grows ever grimmer. The model American offensive in the southern town
of Marja, declared a "success" in early May, has faltered badly and
has been labeled by Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal a “bleeding
ulcer”; the “government in a box” that he claimed the U.S. would
merrily roll out after U.S. and Afghan troops decisively shoved the Taliban
aside, is still in absentia, and the Taliban remain all too present; Afghan
President Hamid Karzai now openly indicates that he thinks the Americans can’t
win in his country and he’s planning accordingly; the much ballyhooed American
“offensive” in Afghanistan’s second largest city, Kandahar, has
once again been delayed; corruption increases; American and NATO death tolls
grow worse by the month as support for the war in the U.S. sinks; the “collateral
damage” only increases; and this week, in a piece in the New York Times,
we were told things are so bad that a serious drawdown of forces in 2011 is
considered unlikely. Go figure (again)!
And oh, the heavens are evidently not so happy with our Afghan operations either,
since Centcom commander General David Petraeus fainted while under what one
commentator called “withering” questioning about drawdown schedules
for U.S. troops in a Senate hearing room Tuesday.
To make matters more complicated, as Nick Turse, TomDispatch regular and author
of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, points out, America’s
two distant disasters are not only out of control and seemingly unstaunchable,
but more intimately connected than we might imagine. The American disaster in
Afghanistan runs, in significant part, on BP-produced fuel, and government payments
for that fuel are bolstering BP while it lives through its purgatory in the
Gulf.
In addition, lest the American people learn the absolute worst, BP, evidently
working hand-in-hand with the government, has put great effort into avoiding
unnecessarily ugly photos, potentially negative stories, and unwanted information
from the Gulf, by adopting methods of news control pioneered by the Pentagon
in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include the “embedding” of reporters
with government minders on public beaches, in the water, and in the air. It
has even evidently become the norm in the Gulf now for officials to speak of
reporters covering the scene as “media embeds.” In this way do our
disparate disasters merge in corporate and government hands. Tom
Kick Ass or Buy Gas?
How Taxpayers Are Subsidizing BP’s Disaster Through the Pentagon
By Nick Turse
Residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are livid with BP
in the wake of the massive, never-ending oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico --
and Barack Obama says they ought to be. But there’s one aspect of the BP
story that most of those angry residents of the Gulf states aren’t aware
of. And the president hasn’t had a thing to say about it.
Even as the tar balls hit Gulf beaches, their tax dollars are subsidizing
BP and so far, President Obama has not shown the slightest indication that he
plans to stop their flow into BP coffers, despite the recent call of Public
Citizen, a watchdog group, to end the nation’s business dealings with company.
In fact, the Department of Defense, which has a longstanding, multi-billion
dollar business relationship with BP, tells TomDispatch that it has no plans
to sever current business ties or curtail future contracts with the oil giant.
Talking Tough
In recent weeks, against a news backdrop of oil-soaked pelicans, President
Obama has been talking tough. “We’ve ordered BP to pay economic injury
claims, and we will make sure they deliver,” he announced on June 1st.
Days later, he rebuked the oil giant for considering plans to pay out large
dividends to shareholders and for spending tens of millions of dollars on an
advertising campaign to repair the company’s tarnished image.
"My understanding is that BP had contracted for $50 million worth of
TV advertising to manage their image in the course of this disaster," the
president said. "Now, I don't have a problem with BP fulfilling its legal
obligations. What I don't want to hear is that they're spending that kind of
money on shareholders and spending that kind of money on TV advertising, [but]
they're nickel-and-diming fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf who
are having a hard time."
As part of his ongoing attempt to deal with flak from critics who claim that
his reaction to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has been far too measured
and that his administration has mishandled its response to the disaster, Obama
told NBC “Today Show” host Matt Lauer: "I don't sit around just
talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks
because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”
While the president has been on the verbal warpath, the U.S. military has
-- with little notice -- continued to carry on a major business partnership
with BP, despite the company’s disastrous environmental record.
Repeat Offenders
As an institution, the Pentagon runs on oil. Its jet fighters, bombers, tanks,
Humvees, and other vehicles burn 75% of the fuel used by the Department of Defense.
For example, B-52 bombers consume 47,000 gallons per mission, and when an F-16
fighter kicks in its afterburners, it burns through $300 worth of fuel a minute.
In fact, according to an article in the April 2010 issue of Energy Source, the
official newsletter of the Pentagon’s fuel-buying component, the DoD purchases
three billion gallons of jet fuel per year.
Thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Department of Defense has
been consuming vast quantities of fuel. According to 2008 figures, for example,
U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan used a staggering 90 million gallons
per month. Given the base-building boom that preceded President Obama’s
Afghan surge, the 2010 figures may be significantly higher.
In 2009, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Energy Support Center (DESC),
the military spent $3.8 billion for 31.3 million barrels -- around 1.3 billion
gallons -- of oil consumed at posts, camps, and bases overseas. Moreover, DESC’s
bulk-fuels division, which purchases jet fuel and naval diesel fuel among other
petroleum products, awarded $2.2 billion in contracts to support operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan last year. Another $974 million was reportedly spent
by the ground-fuels division, which awards contracts for diesel fuel, gasoline,
and heating oil for ground operations, just for the war in Afghanistan in 2009.
The Pentagon’s foreign wars have left it particularly heavily dependent
on oil services, energy, and petroleum companies. An analysis published at Foreign
Policy in Focus found that, in 2005, 145 such companies had contracts with the
Pentagon. That year, the Department of Defense paid out more than $1.5 billion
to BP alone and a total of $8 billion taxpayer dollars, in total, to energy-related
firms on what is a far-from-complete list of companies.
In 2009, according to the Defense Energy Support Center, the military awarded
$22.5 billion in energy contracts. More than $16 billion of that went to purchasing
bulk fuel. Some 10 top petroleum suppliers got the lion’s share, more than
$11.5 billion, among them big names like Shell, Exxon Mobil and Valero. The
largest contractor, however, was BP, which received more than $2.2 billion --
almost 12% of all petroleum-contract dollars awarded by the Pentagon for the
year.
While one exceptionally powerful department of the federal government has
been feeding money into BP (and other oil giants) with abandon, BP has consistently
run afoul of U.S. government regulators from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). According to the Center for Public Integrity, “BP
account[ed] for 97 percent of all flagrant violations found in the [oil] refining
industry by government safety inspectors over the past three years.” Records
obtained by the Center demonstrate that between June 2007 and February 2010,
BP received a total of 862 citations, mostly for alleged violations of “OSHA’s
process safety management standard, a sweeping rule governing everything from
storage of flammable liquids to emergency shutdown systems.” Of these citations,
760 were considered “egregious willful,” which OSHA defines as a violation
even more severe than those committed due to “plain indifference”
or evidencing “intentional disregard for employee health and safety.”
As a result, BP faces $90 million in penalties which the company is currently
contesting.
Over those same years, BP received around $5.7 billion in federal contracts,
according to official government data. In fact, the $2.2 billion the Pentagon
paid to the oil giant in 2009 accounted for almost 16% of the company’s
nearly $14 billion in annual profits.
This fiscal year, the U.S. military has already awarded the company more than
$837 million, inking its latest deal with BP in March.
The Pentagon’s Green Revolution
In recent years, the gas-guzzling Pentagon has launched a major effort to
invest in developing green technology -- or at least give the appearance of
doing so -- with, at best, mixed results. As defense-tech writer Noah Shachtman
has pointed out, the military is “now focusing on algal feedstock for biofuel
and next-generation solar panels. One of the world's largest solar-power projects
is planned for the Army's main training center, at Fort Irwin, Calif. Billions
in stimulus money were spent to green military facilities.”
But efforts in the Bush years to develop "green" vehicles generally
stalled, flopped, or barely got rolling. Under the Obama administration, more
ambitious goals have been set, but tangible results are still lacking. Last
year, the military’s contracts for renewable fuels derived from algae,
according to DESC, added up to less than 22,000 gallons.
One major reason for this, Shachtman writes, is that “the current systems
for delivering power and fuel to war zones are reliable, if inefficient and
unsustainable. Military leaders,” he adds “don't want to jeopardize
operations in Afghanistan or Iraq for something perceived as experimental or
risky.” As a result, whatever solar panels it has installed or renewable
jet fuel it has purchased, the Pentagon remains dependent on buying huge amounts
of petroleum products from BP and other large energy corporations, and when
it comes to war-making, any substantive reduction in oil dependence appears
far off indeed.
Nonetheless, the Department of Defense has devoted significant resources to
publicizing its green efforts. The commander-in-chief has even lent a hand.
On March 31st, President Obama stood in front of a “green” F-18 Hornet
fighter designed to run partly on bio-fuels and announced to the nation that
he was proposing to open large new areas off the Atlantic coastline, the eastern
Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling.
Less than a month later, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf
of Mexico.
In the weeks since, despite Obama’s tough talk, his reported “anger
and frustration,” and his efforts to identify the proper “ass to kick,”
as well as the Pentagon’s much-touted green-energy initiative, the U.S.
military continues, as Shachtman points out, to burn “22 gallons of diesel
[fuel] per soldier per day in Afghanistan, at a cost of more than $100,000 a
person annually.”
In other words, as a direct result of war-making in distant lands, taxpayer
dollars, including those from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana,
will continue to flow into BP coffers, even as more wildlife dies, more beaches
are fouled, and more livelihoods are lost in the Gulf of Mexico.
Tough Talk and No Action
In a June 5th email message to supporters, paid for by Organizing for America,
a project of the Democratic National Committee, President Obama again acknowledged
the severity of the BP disaster and validated the anger it has unleashed. “This
spill,” he declared, “has not just damaged livelihoods. It has upended
whole communities. And the fury people feel is not just about the money they
have lost. It is about the wrenching recognition that this time their lives
may never be the same.”
“We have,” he continued, “...ordered BP to pay economic injury
claims, and this week, the federal government sent BP a preliminary bill for
$69 million to pay back American taxpayers for some of the costs of the response
so far.”
Two days later, Tyson Slocum, the director of the consumer advocacy group
Public Citizen’s energy program, sent a letter to Obama and Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates asking them to go further. He urged them to suspend, and
ultimately debar, BP and its subsidiaries from serving as defense contractors,
to terminate six current federal contracts with the company, and prohibit BP
and its subsidiaries from winning federal contracts for the next three years.
He wrote:
"Given the company's willful transgression of U.S. laws, it can no longer
be presumed that BP will responsibly perform its contractor responsibilities.
The demonstrated disregard for the law means that there is good reason to doubt
that the company will abide by its obligations under its Department of Defense
contracts. Moreover, the company's repeated violation of environmental laws
suggests an unacceptably high likelihood that BP will violate such laws in carrying
out its contractual obligations. BP's aggregate record of wrongdoing -- including
but not limited to causing the ongoing gusher in the Gulf of Mexico -- evidences
a lack of business honesty that seriously and directly affects its ability to
perform its contractual duties."
Public Citizen has yet to receive a response or any indication that the president
or the defense secretary has read the letter, Slocum informed TomDispatch this
week.
“I am not aware at this moment of any plans to curtail or cancel any
DoD contracts that may exist at this time,” Department of Defense spokesperson
Cheryl Irwin told TomDispatch. Irwin also stated that she knew of no plans to
restrict the awarding of future contracts to BP.
The president has remained silent on the issue. Repeated requests by TomDispatch
for comment from the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality went
unanswered. In a statement to TomDispatch this week, however, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) said it “is closely monitoring the investigations
into the circumstances leading to the explosion and spill at the Deepwater Horizon
facility. EPA will weigh its options under our debarment authority and take
appropriate actions.” No time frame, however, has been set for any type
of decision. “It is really premature to speculate on the Agency's actions,”
an EPA official, who asked not to be named, told TomDispatch. “We're on
hold pending the larger federal investigation.”
Yesterday, the White House and BP agreed that the oil giant would establish
a $20 billion escrow account to compensate claims resulting from the Gulf Coast
oil spill. "This should provide some assurance to small business owners
that BP is going to meet its responsibilities," said President Obama following
the announcement.
The message is clear. BP will be held accountable -- but only to a point,
and not nearly in strong enough terms, says Public Citizen’s Slocum. The
escrow account is “a no-brainer,” he told TomDispatch. “But that’s
just related to the company’s obligations to pay for a mess it created,”
he pointed out, likening the situation to an individual breaking the law. “If
I commit a crime that causes damage, I don’t just pay restitution. I pay
a punitive fine or I’m incarcerated. The question is: What is the version
of incarceration for corporations?”
Slocum sees a 2007 guilty plea by BP Products North America for a felony violation
of the Clean Air Act -- stemming from a 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas
that killed 15 workers -- as evidence that stronger sanctions are now warranted.
The fine resulting from the Texas disaster was just a “blip on their balance
sheet,” he says.
“You have to send a clear message to shareholders that committing felonies
is not tolerated in the United States. And the way you do that is through some
form of permanent sanctions.” Barring the company from government contracts,
says Slocum, would be just such a step.
With anger boiling over in the Gulf, there seemingly could be no more egregious
offender or more deserving “ass to kick” than BP’s. “I don’t
know of any other oil companies operating in America that are currently on criminal
probation,” says Slocum. “I don’t know any other oil companies
that recently pled guilty to a felony. I don’t know any other oil companies
that appear to have committed numerous acts of negligence that resulted in the
largest industrial environmental disaster in American history. BP is an outlier,
so it needs to be treated as an outlier.”
Somebody should tell the president. Again.
Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com. An award-winning journalist,
his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times,
and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author of The Complex: How the Military
Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books). His website is NickTurse.com.
Copyright 2010 Nick Turse
[Note to TomDispatch Readers: Atop my last post I urged readers to pre-order
my new book, The American Way of War: How Bush’s Wars Became Obama’s,
due out in a few days, and I made an offer as well: anyone willing to contribute
$75 or more to TomDispatch to keep this site chugging along would get a signed
copy of the book with my deepest thanks. Let me admit to my amazement that so
many were so generous! A deep bow to those of you who have already contributed,
and a small warning -- be patient. A box of my books will soon be in the mail
to me, but you may have to wait a couple of weeks to get your books. In the
meantime, so many thanks! Tom]
http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175262/ |