On June 15, 2010 the US Department of Energy announced that a group of federal and independent scientists convened by Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Chair of the National Incident Command’s Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) Dr. Marcia McNutt (Director of the U.S. Geological Survey) had developed a new estimate for the amount of oil gushing from the ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico that indicated the leak could be spewing up to 2.52 million gallons of crude oil per day into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico from British Petroleum’s Macondo Well.

“This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP’s well,” said Chu, who then expanded with “As we continue to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can change.  In particular, the upper number is less certain – which is exactly why we have been planning for the worst case scenario at every stage and why we are continuing to focus on responding to the upper end of the estimate, plus additional contingencies.”

Estimates from both BP and from the US Government of the amount of oil gushing from the blown out wellhead on the gulf seabed have been almost continually revised upwards since the well blowout and leak began on April 20, with widespread suspicions that BP has deliberately understated the leak rate in attempts to limit liability for the company.

It now appears that Chu may have been somewhat prescient with his statement that “it is important to realize that the numbers can change”, and that the estimate of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico may need to be increased again, since an undated internal BP document (.PDF) obtained by Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) was released by Markey on Sunday June 20 showing that BP’s own internal analysis believed that a worst-case scenario, based on damage to the well bore, could result in a leak rate from the well of 55,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil per day.  

In the document, BP stated: “If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions – the rate could be as high as ~ 100,000 barrels per day up the casing or 55,000 barrels per day up the annulus (low probability worst cases)”

“Considering what is now known about BP’s problems with this well prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion, including cementing issues, leaks in the blowout preventer and gas kicks, BP should have been more honest about the dangerous condition of the well bore,” said Markey…

“When the oil spill started, BP said it was only 1,000 barrels a day. Now we know it could end up being 100 times larger than that in a worst-case scenario,”

“This document raises very troubling questions about what BP knew and when they knew it. It is clear that, from the beginning, BP has not been straightforward with the government or the American people about the true size of this spill. Now the families living and working in the Gulf are suffering from their incompetence.”

“BP needs to tell us what it will do if the well bore is compromised and 100,000 barrels per day of oil spills into the ocean. At this point, we need real contingency planning, not a plan with dead scientists and walruses…”

100,000 barrels per day would be 4.2 million gallons of oil per day leaking into the waters of the gulf, or more every three days than the total officially reported 10.8 million gallons of crude oil the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill poured into Prince William Sound off the Gulf of Alaska.

BP’s well has now been leaking continuously for more than two months.

Congressman Markey appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press with his announcement. Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman reports in this video.

http://www.antemedius.com/files/flvplayer.swf

What may be even more troubling is a Sunday June 20 Associated Press report that states:

The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill.

That means huge quantities of methane have entered the Gulf, scientists say, potentially suffocating marine life and creating “dead zones” where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives.

“This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history,” Kessler said.

The small microbes that live in the sea have been feeding on the oil and natural gas in the water and are consuming larger quantities of oxygen, which they need to digest food. As they draw more oxygen from the water, it creates two problems. When oxygen levels drop low enough, the breakdown of oil grinds to a halt; and as it is depleted in the water, most life can’t be sustained.

All of which prompted Orlando Independent Examiner Gregory Patin to speculate that:

Given the continual incremental increases of the oil leak as well as the failure to mention the amount of methane gas escaping in to the Gulf, it does suggest that at best, this is a result of utter incompetence or outright lies. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the American people have been willfully mislead by BP, the corporate media and the US government in order to gradually condition them to accept the enormity of this disaster.

It is also possible that the environmental damage will not be able to be reversed – at least in our lifetimes. Some of the oil may be able to be cleaned up, but it is impossible to clean up methane.

If the well is leaking at this so far maximum estimated rate of 100,000 barrels per day, that times 365 days in a year would equal 36 million 500 thousand barrels leaked per year.

Oil industry analysts have estimated that there may be as much as a billion barrels or more of oil in the reservoir below BP’s Macondo Well.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said on June 16 that “One – one expert said to me – and I don’t know if this is overblown or  not – that they’re still really concerned about the structural base of  this whole operation, if the rocks get moved, this thing could really  explode and they’re sitting, what, on – on a billion potential barrels  of oil at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.”

Bloomberg noted June 19
that “The ruptured well may hold as much as 1 billion barrels, the Times  reported, citing Rick Mueller, an analyst at Energy Security Analysis in  Massachusetts.”

CBS noted on June 18 that “The oil well spewing in the Gulf of Mexico could contain as much as 1 billion barrels of oil and could keep flowing for more than a decade, the Times of London reported” and that “The Macondo oil well could be one of the largest oil discoveries in the world.”

The Times article has since been removed from their website. The Times and its sister paper The Sunday Times are published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International. News International is entirely owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch.

Given that BP’s nearby Tiber and Kaskida wells each contain at least 3 billion  barrels of oil (see this, this, this and this), estimates of more than a billion barrels for the leaking Macondo reservoir are not unreasonable.

If the well is leaking at this so far maximum estimated rate of 100,000 barrels per day, and there are 1 billion barrels of oil in the reservoir, then determining how long the well could leak if it is not plugged is a simple high school mathematics level calculation.

One billion barrels divided by 100,000 barrels per day equals 10,000 days to empty the reservoir into the Gulf of Mexico.

That would mean a continuous leak of 100,000 barrels per day for 27.39 years, if the well is not plugged.

If BP”s well is “only” leaking at half that rate – at 50,000 barrels per day – then it will leak for about 55 years, if there is a billion barrels in the reservoir, if it is not plugged.

While these admittedly back of the envelope calculations do not take into account possible pressure and daily flow rate changes over time, they certainly give a new perspective on the enormity of the catastrophe and on its potential environmental impacts.

With those calculations in mind, it is therefore no surprise that Kenneth Feinberg, the US lawyer chosen to manage the $20 Billion compensation fund BP agreed to in a June 16 deal with President Barack Obama, said that not all claimants for damages resulting from BP’s leak can be compensated:

“There’s not enough money in the world to pay every single small business that claims injury no matter where or when,” Kenneth Feinberg told the House of Representatives Committee on Small Business.

“You’ve got to decide in a principled way… and work out some definition in that regard,” he said, while stating his determination to “pay every eligible claim.”

“There’s no question that the property value has diminished as a result of the spill. That doesn’t mean that every property is entitled to compensation,” he said, adding: “There’s not enough money in the world to pay everybody who’d like to have money.”

Feinberg, who also headed a compensation fund for victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, was tapped by President Barack Obama to administer the 20-billion-dollar fund established by BP earlier this month.

The House Committee on Small Business examined the recently created $20 billion BP compensation fund for victims of the oil spill at a hearing entitled “Recovery in the Gulf: What the $20 Billion BP Claims Fund Means for Small Businesses” on June 30, 2010.

Watch Kenneth Feinberg’s testimony to the committee in this video, from the hearing…

It is also no surprise, considering the calculations above and the potential for a decades long uncontrolled leak into the Gulf of Mexico, that the day after BP agreed in meeting with Obama to the compensation fund that the International Business Times reported that the $20 billion escrow fund (.PDF) deal may in fact have been a positive outcome for BP in terms of limiting BP’s exposure over the long term:

The terms include $20 billion set aside in an escrow fund to pay for damages and $100 million in a separate fund to help oil workers who lost their jobs. In addition, BP has agreed cancel dividends for the rest of 2010.

For the $20 billion fund, BP will pay $3 billion in the third quarter of this year, $2 billion in the fourth quarter, and then $1.25 billion per quarter until the full amount is exhausted. Meanwhile, before the fund reaches $20 billion, BP will set aside U.S. assets to “assure” payments.

However, $20 billion is not the cap for liabilities and it does not include fines and penalties.

Brian Gibbons, senior oil & gas analyst at CreditSights, an independent credit research firm, said the $20 billion escrow fund – which was not overly punitive – removed a large degree of regulatory uncertainty by providing an established dollar amount and time line.

“The fear was that the government was going to do something so drastic as to effectively push the company into bankruptcy,” said Gibbons.

“Now they can come out of the meeting and say they have held BP accountable and hold up a $20 billion escrow account,” explained Gibbons.

The cost of helping the US Gulf Coast recover economically from BP’s catastrophic oil leak could run into the trillions of dollars, a US lawmaker said Thursday following a briefing from top government officials.

“It will take billions of dollars – even trillions,” Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee told reporters, citing “a presentation by the president’s team on the BP oil spill” early Thursday July 1.

The ecological environment and sea life of the Gulf of Mexico may never recover.

…………………………

Originally published at Antemedius: Liberally Critical Thinking

…………………………

“…BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all…”

Oil, that is, black gold, Texas tea…

This morning I participated in a media conference call sponsored by the White House in which Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director, White House Domestic Policy Council; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change; and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget spoke on legislation going to Congress that is targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and recovery efforts underway in the Gulf.

From the announcement of the conference call: “…The President has been clear that BP and any other responsible party will pay for all costs of stopping the spill in the Gulf and cleaning it up.  To deal more generally with the harms created by oil spills, the White House is sending legislation to Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages.  The legislation also would provide important support for the fisheries industry and for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the spill.  Additionally, the proposal would give federal agencies additional authorities to respond to disasters like Deepwater….”

The transcript [The White House later provided a transcript which was the basis for the following literal transcript taken from my audio recording of the conference call]:

….Nick Shapiro, White House Press Office:  Thank you.  Good morning, everyone.  Thanks for getting on.  Today we’re gonna have a conference call with some senior administration officials.  The call is on the record. It will detail the legislation that’s going to Congress that’s targeted at strengthening the response to the BP oil spill and the recovery efforts already underway in the Gulf. On the call you’re going to hear from Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, and Jeff Liebman, Acting Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I will start with Carol, who is going to give an overview of the effort, why this legislation is important for accountability, and the tools that it provides.  Melody will then go into what we’re trying to accomplish for families.  And then, uh, Jeff will be available to talk about any additional authorities, uh, we’re seeking for agencies and why. Uh, so without, uh, further ado, uh, Ms. Browner.

Carol Browner:  Thank you. Uh, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster, which can seriously damage the economy and environment of our Gulf states jep, and jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who live throughout the Gulf region. Since the initial explosion on the drilling rig occurred the federal government has launched a coordinated and all hands on deck relentless response to this crisis. No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods. BP will be paying for all costs of stopping the spill and cleaning it up.  And in fact, let me just quote Lamar McKay in his testimony, uh, just as recently as yesterday. He said, “Let me be really clear.  Liability, blame, fault, put it over here,” he said. “Our obligation is to deal with the spill, clean it up and make sure the impact of that spill are compensated, and we are going to do that.”

The spill has also made it very clear that updates are needed to current laws governing the liability that companies have for any damages, for any damage they cause while drilling and transporting oil. The Oil Pollution Act, for instance, was passed twenty years ago when offshore exploration and production in deepwater represented a small portion of our energy supply. To deal more generally with the harm created by oil spills as well as to toughen and update these laws the President is sending up to Congress a legislative package that will lift the caps on damage, increase the ceil, increase the ceiling on the amount of money that can be expended on recovery per incident from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and provide other authorities and funding to help the federal government respond swiftly to this crisis.

The legislation includes unemployment assistance, food and nutrition assistance, and help for those affected by the spill to find work, aid to fisheries and fishermen who have been severely impacted by the spill, funding to increase inspection of fish and seafood to protect the safety of the food we eat, and the establishment of one stop shops for those in need of aid. The bill also provides funding for additional inspections and enforcement of safety regulations on other offshore platforms and comprehensive evaluations of new policies, procedures and actions needed in light of this incident.

By passing this legislation we will clear statutory roadblocks and speed assistance to those impacted by the oil spill, as well as quickly mobilize assistance should the spill become worse and BP is not settling cam, claims quickly.

While we are asking for additional funds in some cases the federal government will not relent in pursuing full compensation for the expenses it has occurred and damage caused by this spill. And the legislation contains provisions to help us recoup those costs. Let me now turn it over to Melody Barnes….

…Nick Shapiro: I just briefly, before Melody starts, wanted to let all of you know that momentarily you’ll be getting a fact sheet that details some of this legislation.  So it should be coming to your in boxes shortly.

Melody.

Melody Barnes: Thank you so much, Carol.

Obviously of primary concern to the President is ensuring that we provide necessary assistance for families and individuals that are being impacted by the oil spill. And as Carol mentioned the legislation that’s being sent to Congress will ensure that the federal government can act, can act quickly to provide assistance in case the spill, spill gets worse or in case the responsible parties are not paying claims to affected individuals. We intend to do that through one, a series of one stop assistance centers, making sure that people can quickly and easily get access to the kinds of resources that I’m about to mention, and to also ensure that there’s no wrong door, that people, um, won’t be given the runaround in their effort to get assistance in their time of need.

We’re going to provide several different forms of, of re, of assistance in the legislation that’s being sent forward, the first being oil spill unemployment assistance.  Um, this is modeled after disaster unemployment assistance.  Um, it would be triggered in this case in the result of a spill of national significance. It will provide up to twenty-six weeks of assistance to those who are affected, but we are doing this in a way that those who can’t qualify for regular unemployment insurance will be able to, uh, be eligible. So, for example, those who are self employed, as many fishermen are, or those who, uh, may not have worked the requisite number of hours, other forms of eligibility under normal unemployment insurance assistance. Um, the benefit levels will be determined by state law.

Another form of assistance that we are going to include in the legislation is nutrition assistance. This is predicated on the SNAP program, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. And we, again, are providing this in the case of a
spill of national significance, just like the unemployment insurance assistance. Um, but in this case our goal is to make sure that people can access these resources much more quickly than those normally, uh, can acc, be accessed under SNAP, the normal SNAP program. So there are streamlined certification processes and also fewer eligibility factors and reduced procedural in, uh, requirements. The benefits will be provided in the same way that normal SNAP benefits are provided,through the electronic benefits transfer card.

Um, we also are including here a provision that enables the Department of Agriculture to provide food directly to states and distribute that food to those who are in need.

And finally, employment assistance, and we’re doing this by expanding the capacity of our Workforce Investment Act training and employment programs, so the local one stop centers. Um, and we’re doing this obviously at the state and local level by providing funding assistance to localities, um, and ensuring that we can provide needed training, um, and assistance to unemployed workers, again, fishermen and others who are out of work as a result of the oil spill, um, and making sure those, that those who have been laid off get the kind of training and increased occupational skills that they may need during this period of time.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you Melody.

Jeff Liebman: Um, nearly all of the costs that federal agencies are going to incur as a result of the spill will get charged to the responsible, uh, party, and this legislation, legislative proposal, uh, contains additional provisions to make sure, uh, that any additional costs,uh, um, that are incurred because of the legislation gets, uh, passed on to the responsible party. Um, it also, uh,to make sure that agencies have the funds they, they need to do some activities immediately, uh, it, it, uh, provides some funding, uh, to agencies that, um, need, need, uh, to act, uh, in response to the, uh, spill.  This includes, um, uh, some funding for the FDA to increase their inspections um, of, of fish, uh, to make sure that the fish, uh,  American consumers are eating, uh, is safe. Uh, it includes, uh, funding for, uh, Interior Department, for MMS, uh, to do increased inspections of all of, uh, the oil, uh, drilling facilities, uh, that they, uh, monitor. It includes, uh, some extra funding for the EPA to do, um, some additional studies of the environmental impact, um, of, of the spill.

Um, but I want to emphasize that, that, um,  most, if not, uh, the, and certainly the majority of the additional costs that are, um, would come out of this legislation will get charged to the responsible party and, and the legislation specifically, um, uh, makes clear that that is the, the case.

Nick Shapiro: Thank you everyone. Uh, now we’re gonna have time to take a few questions….

….Question: Good morning, uh, everyone.  When you say lifting the cap on damages, are you talking about retroactively increasing BP’s liability or is this for future incidents lifting the cap?

Carol Browner: Uh,yes, we are updating the statute, uh, to address all situations and, yes, we are lifting, uh, the cap retroactively.

Question: Is there a, is there an ex post facto problem in doing that?

Carol Browner: Uh, no, we do not believe so because what we are doing is updating the statute and it covers all companies.

Question: Okay, thanks….

….Question: Uh, could I ask if you’ve spoken to BP?  And BP swore up and down yesterday that they’d pay everybody everything. Uh, have, have, what exactly are you doing that would ensure that that they do that?

Carol Browner: Uh, BP, as you know, has said that they had to cover all the costs. We have told them, we have been in meetings with them, uh, that we take that to mean all. In the meantime, though, we are updating, uh, this, uh, statute as a matter of policy, as well as making, uh, sure that their, uh, commitment, the commitment by the company, uh, that they will be held to it.

Question: Thank you….

….Question: …the others, could you give us, uh, uh, an idea in the timing you expect on this, in the logistics? It will go up to the Hill today presumably. How long will it take to get passed and what does it need to go through?

Jeff Liebman: We hope to get this passed as soon as possible. There are a number of vehicles, uh, moving in this work period, uh, and we hope to work with Congress to get it done in the next few weeks.

Question: So you expect in the next few weeks that it will get passed. Have you had any feedback already from lawmakers that indicate support or any issues that they’re, that they’re concerned about?

Jeff Liebman: This needs passing as soon as possible so that we can get, uh, the tools in place to take care of the folks in the Gulf.

Question: Yeah, clearly, you want it as soon as possible, but my question is, what kind of feedback have you gotten from lawmakers? Are there any, there anything in particular that they like or that they object to that you expect to be hurdles?

Carol Browner: Uh, so, yes, the Hill has been notified that this legislation will be coming up shortly. Um, as you’re probably aware there are a number of bills that have already been introduced in both the House and the Senate, so the folks are actively engaged, hearings are underway. And we’re going to do everything in our power to move this as quickly as possible.

Question: Great, thanks, Carol….

….Question: Hi, thank you all for taking my question. Obviously, you all have been tracking this very closely. Do we have any sense of what the actual, uh, economic damages are?  Any range yet? And, and if not when can we expect such, such a figure?

Jeff Liebman: We’re setting it as closely as we can, but it, but, frankly, it’s changing very quickly and, and, uh, it varies across the states. But we don’t have an accurate number.

Question: And can I just ask one small follow-up? Why is there no, um, exact figure, just looking at the fact sheet, in the legislation for, you know, what, what size or, excuse me, how high do you want the, the ceiling to be raised on, on the damages that the, uh, government can collect?

Carol Browner: This is Carol Browner. We think it’s important to work with Congress on determining what that number will be. As you know, there are some bills that have been introduced, but we will be working with them to determine what the right number is.

Question: Thank you very much….

….Question: Uh, yes, I was wondering if this is going to include, um, a per barrel tax, uh, increase, uh, to go toward this, uh, this recovery [inaudible] fund?  Would, would, are you guys calling for that, too, or is this, um, does this not include that?

Jeff Liebman: The legislation calls for a one cent per barrel increase in the tax, uh, both from, uh, eight cents to nine cents immediately, and then from nine cents to ten cents when it’s currently scheduled to go from eight to nine, uh, in twenty seventeen….

….Question: Uh, you said you want to work with Congress to set a liability cap. Some of the legislation proposed already is ten billion. Uh, is that sort of the ballpark that you guys, are, are expecting? And can you give me sort of a total figure of the cost of this bill, and would all that be paid by BP?

Jeff Liebman: The total, uh, new discretionary spending in this bill is a hundred and eighteen, uh, million dollars. We expect that the overall majority of that, uh, would end up being reimbursed by BP.

Question: And on the liability cap?

Nick Shapiro: We’re going to work with Congress on that.

Question: {inaudible] As far as, do, do you think the ten billion dollars that’s been oppose, proposed by Congress as a cap already is a ballpark that you guys are looking at?

Nick Shapiro:  We’re going to work with Congress on it.  Don’t h
ave a ballparks for you….

….Question: Hi, everybody. Yeah, I was gonna ask about the retroactive nature of this, but that’s already been asked. So I wonder if anyone could comment on the, um, the offshore drilling, uh, provision of the climate bill that’s gonna be introduced today by, uh, Senators Kerry and Lieberman.  Is that something that the, uh, White House supports?

Carol Browner:  Hi, this is Carol Browner. We applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their tireless work in, in drafting this legislation. We think this is an important step forward. We continue to believe, the President believes, that comprehensive energy reform is crucial. Uh, we need a bill that will help us, uh, break our dependence on fossil fuels, um, create clean energy jobs, and put a cap on greenhouse, uh, gas emissions. We have seen portions of the bill, we have not seen the entire bill. We will be reviewing it in the coming days and will continue to work, uh, in, in, the Senate to secure passage of the comprehensive legislation….

….Question: Yes, hello, two questions.  One involves this one hundred eighteen million dollars in discretionary spending you believe this, this legislation would encompass, the majority to be reimbursed by BP. Is this the kind of discretionary spending that would, you expect one hundred and eighteen million each year? Is it a repeated sort of funding situation? And the other question is, uh, going a little bit further, uh, on what was just asked, do you guys, are you able to state whether you support, uh, the legislation under Kerry-Lieberman that would allow states to ban oil drilling within seventy miles off their coast?

Jeff Liebman: The one hundred and eighteen million is one time.

Carol Browner: Again we’re gonna, uh, be looking at the, uh, Kerry-Lieberman, uh, legislation. Uh, you know, obviously, uh, in light of the situation in the Gulf of Mexico, uh, this legislation, the debate around offshore drilling is, is going to be a significant one, and so we want to take a look at it.  And then we’ll be working, uh, with the Senate, uh, to see how best to proceed….

….Question: Good morning, everybody.  Could you talk a little bit about the FDA seafood inspections? I wonder how worried Americans should be about seafood coming from the Gulf, and whether the increased inspections will be soon enough and increased enough to comprehensively make sure that no bad seafood is getting into the food system.

Nick Shapiro: That’s probably best answered by the daily press conference happening at the, down at the JIC every day. They’ve done a lot on the food safety and know, these folks are here to talk about the legislation.

Question: Well, but the legislation talks about increasing, uh, money so that FDA can do more inspections, and I just wonder whether the increase will be enough to be really sort of a comprehensive barrier against tainted seafood.

Melody Barnes: Well, obviously in addition to the concerns that the President has to make sure that the families working in the Gulf are taken care of, we want to make sure that those who are eating, um, and eating out of our, our food chain and our food supply are also equally protected. So the FDA will continue to act vigilantly. We are providing additional resources to make sure that they are able to do so, and we will continue to do that as we monitor the situation very carefully.

Carol Browner: And, and at this point, there’s all of the safeguards are in place in terms of the fish, the appropriate fish closures, the appropriate inspections.  And so we have no reason to think that seafood is not, uh, safe at this point. We have to remain vigilant and I think, again, as has been said, you can get a sort of a full outline of everything that’s happening, uh, right now to ensure, uh, that the food supply is safe….

….Question: …Um, now, the one hundred eighteen [million], that’s, uh, the total for the bill? And do you subtract the twenty nine million dollars that goes to the Interior Department for, uh, money outside?  And can you give us a break, you said the majority, but is that half is paid for by BP, or can you be more specific?

Jeff Liebman: Um, so the twenty-nine [million] for Interior is a component of the hundred and eighteen [million]. Um, to the extent that a component of the hundred and eighteen [million] is directly related to the current, uh, disaster, uh, we will be able to re, charge it to, to BP. There are some things, uh, for example, inspecting, um, other oil wells in other parts of the country that we’re, we’re going to be doing increased activity, that, uh, it’s unclear whether we’ll be able to get reimbursed from the responsible party, um, for that. And that’s why we need appropriations now to make sure we can do all the things, uh, we need to do.

Question: And how hard do you think it’s going to be to get reimbursed by BP if they’ve already paid claims to fishermen, for example, for their damages, than, you know, paying this nother fifteen million dollars for unemployment, or retraining? Is that gonna be a major battle?

Carol Browner: Well, first, first of all, we, we are going to, as I said earlier, we, we take BP at their word. They say they intend to pay for all costs. Um, and when we hear all, we take it to mean all. The, um, it’s obvious people aren’t allowed to double dip. Uh, you know, an individual can’t get reimbursed one place and then attempt to get reimbursed for the same economic impact somewhere else. Uh, but to the degree that we are using federal dollars to compensate individuals, we will claim that, uh, against BP….

….Question: Uh, thanks for doing the call. Uh, if I could just ask a little more about the legislation. Uh, you, you said the Hill has been notified. But have you run it by Republicans? Is this going to be done in like a pre-packaged way direct to the floor and out by Memorial Day?  Or does this need to go through committee and kind of get hashed out with amendments and things? And um, and who will introduce it? And as you, have you been told what committee or whatever it might go to?

Jeff Liebman: I think it’s too early to tell the exact legislative strategy, but we have in our notifications talked to people on both sides of the aisle.

Question: Have you got anything back from them? I mean, okay, we’ll look at it when you get here, or, yes, we’ll agree to that in, in principle or in detail?

Jeff Liebman: I think there is a, uh, wide understanding that there is a strong need right now both to make sure federal agencies have the capacity they need to respond to this, uh, event and to make sure that we provide, uh, the assistance that people in the Gulf need.

Nick Shapiro: We got time for, uh, two more….There’s no other questions?….

….Question: Yes,….the Mexican News Agency. Thank you for taking my question. I am wondering if you are considering an international dimension, specifically, if there’s any potential damage, uh, to Mexico? Where you had any kind of contact with the Mexican government to see if they can get some reimbursement in case there is evidence of damage to, to Mexican waters?

Nick Shapiro: …We have been in touch with the Mexican government, and I’d refer you over to the Coast Guard, who is working with State Department on any international, uh, needs or requests for assistance….

….Question: Hi, yeah, I’m just wondering if you can explain the differences between the various liabilities and the claim caps. In your fact sheet that you sent out, you said that the funds will be raised, the cap on the fund will be raised to one point five billion, the cap on the natural resources damage [inaudible] would be raised to seven hundred and fifty million. But then you said that the other liability claim cap you want to negotiate with Congress. Can you explain the difference of why you’ve left that final cap on negotiations [inaudible]?

Jeff Lie
bman: Um, the, the first sort of caps you described are on the overall resources, uh, in the existing trust fund. Um, what we’re trying to do is make sure that the Coast Guard and the other agencies responding, uh, can get access, uh, to the funds they need, uh, when they need them, rather than having to stop activities while they wait for, uh, appropriations. And so the move, lifting the cap from, one billion to one point five billion, and the component of that, uh, the, uh, is for natural resources, from five hundred [million] to seven fifty [million], is a part of that, uh, effort to make sure that the existing trust fund resources can be tapped, uh, as soon as they’re needed, uh, to respond to this, uh, spill. There’s a separate issue, uh, of what the allowable, uh, damages are for, um, the responsible party, and that’s the issue that we look forward to working with Congress on.

Nick Shapiro: All right. Uh, thank you all for participating in the call. And thank you, Melody, Carol, and Jeff for your time today. And I hope everyone has a great day….