E2 Morning Round-up: Senate hopes for oil spill action fade, ‘static kill’ of BP’s ruptured well is on tap, and controversy over oil dispersing chemicals takes center stage

Political battle lines over bill preview summer campaigning

“Seems like just a message vote, unless they can work a deal on unlimited liability,” a Senate aide told The Hill Sunday.

Republicans and a few Democrats — such as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) — fear that unlimited liability will make it impossible for small and mid-sized companies to get the insurance needed to operate offshore. A GOP alternative bill would also lift the Obama administration’s six-month ban on deepwater drilling. The drilling freeze is under fire from Republicans and Gulf Coast lawmakers from both parties. Critics of the ban say it’s causing needless economic pain and will slow U.S. energy development.

Democrats, meanwhile, will bring a separate interpretation into the political campaign season if the bill tanks, casting Republican opponents as defenders of BP and “Big Oil” more generally. And they will say that Republicans are blocking energy programs that will create jobs. The bill’s title — the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act — provides a preview.

A Reid aide insists Democrats are willing to work with opponents on the bill. “We are listening to people’s concerns,” spokesman Jim Manley said.

“It was never a serious attempt by Reid,” counters Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Fight over the House oil-spill bill continues after passage

The House approved a sweeping plan Friday evening to overhaul federal drilling oversight, toughen drilling safety and environmental requirements and remove liability limits. But Republicans called new fees on oil-and-gas production and other measures de facto new energy taxes and said the bill would slow U.S. production.

Environmentalists will fight to keep it alive despite some concerns over a provision that could relax the drilling ban for some rigs.

The Pew Environment Group likes the overall bill, calling the suite of new protections “long overdue.”

“We applaud the House for taking prompt action to make significant reforms in the law so that future development off America’s coasts is science-based and ensures use of the best available technology and environmental review. There is too much at stake to move forward without these protections in place,” said Marilyn Heiman, who heads the group’s offshore energy program, in statement Friday.

The American Petroleum Institute doesn’t like the bill. “The unlimited liability provisions will drive the vast majority of American companies out of U.S. waters because they will not be able to obtain insurance coverage. Those remaining will be subject to huge cost hikes, reducing energy production, economic growth, American jobs and government revenues,” said API President Jack Gerad.

BP will begin final efforts to kill its runaway well as soon as Monday night

The planned “static kill” of the well from above is imminent while the relief well effort is also progressing.

Here’s the Associated Press early Monday morning:

“Engineers on the Gulf of Mexico hoped to begin a plan by Monday evening to shove mud and perhaps cement into the blown-out oil well at the seafloor, making it easier to end the gusher for good.”

“The only thing keeping millions more gallons of oil out of the Gulf right now is an experimental cap that has held for more than two weeks but was never meant to be permanent.”

“The so-called ‘static kill’ attempt carries no certainty, and BP PLC engineers still plan to follow it up days later by sending a stream of mud and cement into the bottom of the mile-deep underground reservoir through a relief well they’ve been digging for months.”

Concerns mounting over use of massive volumes of oil dispersants

Big stories ran over the weekend in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere about the use of the chemicals in the spill response.

Here’s a blurb from the Journal piece:

“Congress is stepping up its scrutiny of the controversial chemical dispersants sprayed on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to prevent crude from washing ashore and fouling beaches and marshes.”

“Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, is demanding that federal officials provide more information about why the chemicals continued to be used almost daily in June and July, after the Environmental Protection Agency told BP PLC to slash their use because of concerns about the effect on marine life.”

And the Post:

“While the BP well was still gushing, the Obama administration issued an order that limited the spreading of controversial dispersant chemicals on the Gulf of Mexico’s surface. Their use, officials said, should be restricted to ‘rare cases.’”

“But in reality, federal documents show, the use of dispersants wasn’t rare at all.”

“Despite the order — and concerns about the environmental effects of the dispersants — the Coast Guard granted requests to use them 74 times over 54 days, and to use them on the surface and deep underwater at the well site. The Coast Guard approved every request submitted by BP or local Coast Guard commanders in Houma, La., although in some cases it reduced the amount of the chemicals they could use, according to an analysis of the documents prepared by the office of Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).”

A Senate panel probing the dispersants meets this week

The Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a Wednesday hearing on the matter that will feature Paul Anastas, who heads EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and David Westerholm, who directs the Office of Response and Restoration at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The big oil-spill bill that the House approved Friday would impose new rules governing use of the chemicals in future spills, require new testing and establish a long-term Gulf monitoring and research program. The bill sputtering in the Senate also addresses the issue, albeit not as aggressively, with provisions on toxicity research, and review of environmental impacts and application protocols.