Our guest blogger is Kiley Kroh.

One day after the Interior Department formally issued citations to BP and its two main contractors, Halliburton and Transocean, for numerous safety and environmental violations connected to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) referred to the fines as “nothing more than a slap on the wrist.”

At Thursday’s hearing on the official report on the disaster, Markey noted that the maximum penalty stemming from the citations would be a mere $21 million for BP – just seven hours of profit for the oil giant.

Even in a worst case scenario for BP, these violations that resulted in the nearly 5 million barrels of oil spilling into the gulf would cost the company a total of $21 million. Not billion, million. Considering what we know about what caused this disaster, BP should stand for “Bigger Penalties.” BP is on pace to make more than $25 billion this year — $21 million represents a little over seven hours of profits for the oil giant. That fine obviously does not even begin to approach the amount needed to be a deterrent against a repeat of this tragedy. That fine is nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Watch it:

In a first step toward imposing civil penalties, on Wednesday Interior sent the companies formal notices that they violated multiple drilling safety regulations that were in place at the time of the spill. The government is accusing BP of violating seven regulations governing work on the outer continental shelf. Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, and Halliburton, which performed cementing work at the site, are charged with four violations each. By law, each charge carries a maximum penalty of $35,000 per day. The notices are just the beginning of a long administrative process to determine civil penalties – which are separate from the Clean Water Act fines also facing the companies – and marks the first time the government has moved to sanction contractors in addition to the well operator. The companies now have 60 days to appeal the citations.

Read more

Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Gov. Rick Perry’s energy agenda is the “Oil Above All plan” gone wild. It would allow oil companies to drill in some of our most precious places protected for our children. He justifies it by repeating Big Oil’s phony job creation numbers debunked by the Washington Post.

The Perry plan would undo safeguards from deadly smog, acid rain, mercury, and other pollution. And it ignores a clean tech future while returning to a fossil fuel past. It is of little surprise that the Perry Petroleum Pollution Plan would continue to funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to big oil companies through subsidies, while eliminating incentives for American wind and solar companies to grow. The Perry plan should be stamped “Made By Big Oil.”

Gov. Perry’s speech in Pittsburgh today highlighted his ignorance of U.S. energy policy and its consequences. He relies on “drill, baby, drill” as the heart of his agenda, which ignores the 10 percent hike in U.S. oil production and 6 percent decline in imports achieved under President Obama. He would stop efforts to improve fuel economy standards that would reduce foreign oil dependence and save families money.

Perry would likely jettison offshore oil drilling safeguards that would prevent future disasters like the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. If he wanted to protect jobs and American lives, he would not offer such a reckless policy that resulted in economic devastation for Gulf state families.

Gov. Perry’s extreme antipathy for public protection from industrial waste is embodied in his speech and administration. He would “dismantle the EPA,” halting the enforcement of safeguards that keep our water safe for drinking and air safe for breathing — public health safeguards that have saved the lives of our children, parents, and the infirm. Instead, Perry asks Americans to choose between their lives and their livelihoods, falsely claiming that regulations kill jobs.

A brand new bipartisan poll, however, found that three-quarters of independents, and nearly half of all Republicans, favor two new major air pollution standards targeted by Perry, despite an overwhelming majority of Americans — across the political spectrum — signaling their support for stronger clean air standards.

Perry’s plan would also curtail citizens’ ability to legally challenge the federal government when they believe its decisions would harm themselves or their families.

The Perry Petroleum Pollution Plan would benefit the big oil companies and their owners, while harming the rest of us. It must be rejected.

The federal investigation into the BP Gulf of Mexico oil disaster finds that cost-cutting measures by the oil giant led to the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The final report of the joint Coast Guard-Bureau of Ocean Energy investigation finds that BP and its contracting companies — Halliburton and Transocean — were responsible for the disaster that poisoned the Gulf Coast and crippled the region’s economy.

The “contributing causes” to the blowout at the Macondo prospect include “BP’s cost or time saving decisions without considering contingencies and mitigation”:

BP’s cost or time saving decisions without considering contingencies and mitigation were contributing causes of the Macondo blowout.

The failure of the rig crew to stop work on the Deepwater Horizon after encountering multiple hazards and warnings was a contributing cause of the Macondo blowout.

BP’s failure to fully assess the risks associated with a number of operational decisions leading up to the blowout was a contributing cause of the Macondo blowout.

BP’s failure to ensure all risks associated with operations on the Deepwater Horizon were as low as reasonably practicable was a contributing cause of the Macondo blowout.

BP’s failure to have full supervision and accountability over the activities associated with the Deepwater Horizon was a contributing cause of the Macondo blowout.

The report summarizes:

The loss of life at the Macondo site on April 20, 2010, and the subsequent pollution of the Gulf of Mexico through the summer of 2010 were the result of poor risk management, last‐minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response, and insufficient emergency bridge response training by companies and individuals responsible for drilling at the Macondo well and for the operation of the Deepwater Horizon.

Halliburton shares blame, the investigators find. “BP and Halliburton’s failure to perform the production casing cement job in accordance with industry‐accepted recommendations as defined in API RP 65 was a contributing cause of the blowout.” Transocean’s rig crew also made mistakes that led to the disaster. “The Deepwater Horizon crew’s (BP and Transocean) collective misinterpretation of the negative tests was a cause of the well control failure.”

Looking back a little more than a year into the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, three things are clearly evident: first, BP believes the worst of the environmental and economic damage to the region has past; second, new evidence shows that the company is clearly mistaken; and third, BP’s main priority is to improve their ruined public image.

Earlier this month BP claimed that the Gulf Coast economy is now booming:

Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that, to the extent that portions of the Gulf economy were impacted by the spill, recovery had occurred by the end of 2010, and that positive economic performance continues into 2011, with 2011 economic metrics exceeding pre-spill performance.

BP argued that “there is no basis to assume that claimants, with very limited exceptions, will incur a future loss related to the spill.” Echoing this sentiment of “economic progress,” BP’s claims administrator Ken Feinberg proudly stated, “I’ve used just over $4 billion, (and) I don’t envision a flood of new claims.” Feinberg used only one fifth of the money set aside to assist victims of the spill, and has recently closed down eight regional offices because he believes the claims have almost stopped.

Reality paints a bleak picture for the future of the region. Just last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that “crude oil continues to wash ashore along the Gulf of Mexico coast a year after” the BP oil rig exploded and 4.9 million barrels of oil spewed into the environment. Furthermore, the agency stated that “23 percent of the oil the government couldn’t account for may have settled to the bottom of the sea or remained suspended in the water as tart balls that will eventually wash ashore.” Even worse, the NOAA reported that as of July 9, “close to 500 miles of coastline in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida were still contaminated with oil from the spill.”

Local communities are challenging BP’s blanket claims of “positive economic growth” in 2011. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a field hearing in Pensacola, Florida to discuss recovery efforts and the economic impact the spill has had on the small tourism-based economy. The overall concern, echoed by state officials and business members alike, was that of long-term environmental and economic “uncertainty.”

BP recently released a statement that it will “voluntarily impose a series of additional offshore drilling standards for its Gulf of Mexico operations.” These new “self regulated” rules are potential steps in the right direction to ensure that another environmental disaster does not occur in the region. Without enforcement, however, they amount to little more than an attempt to repair the negative image of the company.

A year out, BP is still battling with the initial fact that they caused the “worst environmental disaster America has ever faced.”

-Samantha Sanfilippo, CAP Summer Intern, and resident of the Gulf Coast region.

Our guest blogger is Kiley Kroh, Associate Director for Ocean Communications at the Center for American Progress.

This week’s Senate hearing on the state of the Natural Resource Damages Assessment (NRDA) process highlighted the long bureaucratic ordeal of determining ultimate liability for last year’s Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. In the several months since the well was capped, BP has maintained it is committed to staying in the Gulf “as long as it takes.” In April the oil giant offered $1 billion to fund early restoration projects and witnesses testified that as many as 14 projects would be selected to begin as early as the end of this month.

While many were quick to commend BP for offering this money without obligation, officials on the ground are expressing growing concern over the amount of influence the corporation is able to exert. Because they control the checkbook, BP has the authority to sign off on all activities conducted by NRDA, including studies of affected areas. Garrett Graves, chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana, pointed out the “inherent conflict” this creates between the financing sources and government agencies who are trying to carry out the restoration efforts:

It is a modern-day case of Stockholm syndrome, whereby responders are dependent upon the financial resources of and have repeatedly shown signs of empathy toward the responsible parties who hold them financially captive to the detriment of the will and best interest of the public.

The damaging effects of BP’s influence over the restoration process are already showing themselves. For instance, Graves noted that the corporation has been able to move to “prematurely designate oiled areas as [requiring] ‘no further treatment.’” In other words, the party responsible for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history now has the power to dictate the course of restoration efforts.

Graves went on to articulate that it is almost impossible for government agencies to compete with the “armies of attorneys, marketing firms, PR campaigns, lobbyists, scientists and other consultants.” In the wake of the spill, the oil giant moved to quickly buy the silence of as many Gulf Coast scientists as they could, while simultaneously spending millions of dollars on flashy public-relations campaigns designed to perpetuate their message that the Gulf region was back to pre-spill conditions.

And BP’s involvement in determining their own liability doesn’t end there. Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing how to influence the work of scientists supported by a $500 million fund the company created last year to fund what it claimed would be “independent research.”

The implications of BP dictating or even influencing scientific assessment and the appropriation of restoration funds go far beyond academic interest into the impact of the spill. The oil giant faces billions of dollars in fines and penalties, and possible criminal charges arising from the disaster and they’ve already disputed the government’s estimate that 4.9 million barrels of oil spewed into the Gulf, claiming they believe it could be half that amount. While the NRDA process is likely to drag on for several months, it is impossible to imagine how the final outcome could in any way be just if the accused is also a member of the jury.