```
[Senate Hearing 112-51, Part err]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



                                [ERRATA]

                                                         S. Hrg. 112-51

                        OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON
                                     


                 S. 516                                S. 843

                 S. 916                                S. 917


                                     

                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2011







                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-632 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC 
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 
20402-0001
 
                                [ERRATA]
                             S. Hrg. 112-51

    The referenced hearing held before the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources was inadvertently printed without 
the responses to questions from Secretary Salazar. This errata 
provides those responses as part of the hearing record.
   Responses of Secretary Salazar to Questions From Senator Murkowski
    Question 1. Mr. Secretary, what are the greatest challenges facing 
your regional headquarters in the Gulf? Other than critical pay 
authority for highly qualified engineers, what can Congress do to 
ensure better morale in your agency and aid in recruitment?

    Answer. The reforms and organizational changes that we have put in 
place since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill are far-reaching 
and their success depends in large part on providing the new agencies 
with the financial resources, tools, training and culture to be 
effective. Improving the safety of offshore drilling and the 
effectiveness of government oversight of this inherently risky activity 
will require a substantial infusion of resources into the offshore 
regulator. We agree with the Commission's strong recommendation for a 
substantial increase in the resources devoted to government oversight 
of offshore activities because an effective regulator is so clearly in 
the public's--and in industry's--interests. The budget allocation in 
the current draft of the Department's FY 2012 appropriations bill falls 
short of providing the full funding required to implement the 
reorganization of BOEMRE and inadequately funds the operational 
capacity required to implement all of our necessary and far-reaching 
reforms. For example, it does not provide the requested increase in 
offshore inspection fees of $55 million that could help to fund the 
additional needs. Increased resources are essential to creating an 
efficient, effective, transparent and stable development and regulatory 
environment.
    Question 2. Mr. Secretary, DOI has now issued a number of deepwater 
drilling permits. We all know the issuances started as soon as 
operators could prove access to subsea containment. Can you describe 
for this committee the process and authorities behind the Notice To 
Lessees and this requirement?
    Answer. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1331, et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate 
the exploration, development, and production of mineral resources on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. The Secretary has delegated this authority 
to the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 
and Enforcement. Notices to Lessees are authorized in the BOEMRE 
regulations at 30 CFR 250.103, and have historically been issued by the 
bureau as guidance documents to clarify certain bureau regulatory 
requirements and to outline the information to be provided in the 
various submissions required of lessees on the OCS.

    After the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill the Department 
began the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and 
gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history. These reforms strengthen 
requirements in areas ranging from well design and workplace safety to 
corporate accountability, and are necessary to ensure that the United 
States can safely and responsibly expand development of its energy 
resources.
    In November, 2010, BOEMRE issued NTL 2010-N10 informing lessees and 
operators that a statement, signed by an authorized company official, 
is required to be submitted with each application for a well permit 
stating that the operator will conduct all authorized activities in 
compliance with all applicable regulations. This NTL clarifies, 
supplements, and provides more detail about existing regulations, 
including 30 CFR 254.5(d), and is intended to assure compliance with 
the requirements of 30 CFR 254.23, 254.24 and 254.26(d). In particular, 
the NTL provides that BOEMRE will evaluate whether an operator has 
submitted adequate information demonstrating access to and ability to 
deploy adequate surface and subsea containment resources.
    Industry first demonstrated the ability to contain a subsea spill 
in mid-February 2011. At that time, we were able to resume issuing 
deepwater drilling permits.
    Question 3. Mr. Secretary, one of the bills under consideration 
would create a joint permitting office for Alaska OCS issues. The 
Chukchi Environment Impact Study (``EIS'') is a real driver in our 
desire to coordinate better. When will BOEMRE finish this work and 
finalize the Chukchi EIS?
    Answer. On August 18, 2011, BOEMRE released the final supplemental 
environmental impact statement for the Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193, held 
in February 2008. The supplemental EIS addresses concerns raised by the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in its July 21, 2010, 
decision remanding Lease Sale 193 back to the agency, and incorporates 
additional public comment. It also includes a new analysis of the 
potential environmental effects of a hypothetical Very Large Oil Spill 
scenario.
    The final supplemental EIS is available online at: http://
alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS_EA/2011_041_FSEIS/2011--041x.htm. BOEMRE is 
now accepting public comments on the document, and any comments 
received within the comment period will be considered by the Secretary 
in determining whether to affirm, modify, or cancel the Lease Sale. The 
final decision is due to the District Court no later than Oct. 3, 2011.
    Question 4. Mr. Secretary, there is a pending exploration plan for 
work in the Chukchi in 2012. BOEMRE has previously indicated that it 
will work on this Exploration Plan in parallel with finalizing the 
Chukchi EIS. Is this still the case? BOEMRE has begun to review the 
Chukchi exploration plan and provide feedback to the applicant on data 
gaps and information needs. Is that right?
    Answer. On May 12, 2011, Shell submitted to the Department a 
Revised Exploration Plan (EP) and associated Revised Oil Discharge 
Prevention and Contingency Plan in support of a proposed exploration 
drilling program on its Chukchi Sea leases. However, activities 
involving these leases are restricted because of the remand issued by 
the Federal Court for the Alaska District on July 21, 2010. Therefore 
BOEMRE is treating the Chukchi EP as a draft and will not take any 
official action on the draft EP until after a decision is made to 
reaffirm Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193.
    A copy of the revised plan and related information can be found at: 
http://alaska.boemre.gov/ref/ProjectHistory/2012_Shell_CK/2012x_.HTM
    Question 5. Mr. Secretary, as I understand it, the Large Spill 
Analysis is quite different and distinct from the Worst Case Discharge 
(``WCD'') at the well sites set forth in the Chukchi Exploration Plan. 
Is that right?
    Answer. Yes. A very large oil spill (VLOS) scenario is 
hypothetical, and is not an analysis of a well that any operator has 
actually proposed to drill. When an operator submits an Exploration 
Plan, that plan must specify the wells it proposes to drill and include 
an oil spill response plan that includes Worst Case Discharge values 
for these proposed wells. These values take into account specific 
depth, pressure, oil and anticipated reservoir properties for the 
proposed wells. These values may be lower than the hypothetical VLOS 
scenario used for the overall environmental analysis.
    The final supplemental SEIS contains further discussion (at p. 126) 
of the similarity and differences between the very large oil spill 
scenario and the worst case discharge analysis.
    Question 6. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that the BOEMRE's work on 
the Very Large Spill analysis is going to create confusion and 
backlash, because the general public will not distinguish between this 
analysis and the much, much lower WCD of the specific wells. What is 
BOEMRE doing to make this distinction clear?
    Answer. In general, the values for worst case discharge (WCD) under 
the regulations may be higher or lower for a specific well than a very 
large oil spill (VLOS) scenario. The revised Draft SEIS for Lease Sale 
193, issued in May 2011, was the first National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) document post-Macondo that included an analysis of a VLOS 
scenario to more thoroughly address the potential for oil spill 
impacts. The discussion in that document and in the final supplemental 
EIS, issued on August 18, presents the similarities and differences 
between the VLOS scenario and the WCD analysis. Similar and appropriate 
discussion will be included in all future NEPA documents.
    Question 7. Mr. Secretary, why does every different agency with an 
interest in a project have to do its own EIS? For instance there is a 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine 
Fisheries Service EIS in the works and it seems that a key role of a 
coordinating office--whether that's the President's coordinating task 
force or one perhaps established by legislation under consideration--
would be reconciling one EIS against another. But, in order to increase 
efficiency, couldn't BOEMRE's comprehensive EIS be used for all of 
these purposes since other agencies are involved in creating it anyway?
    Answer. We have learned through the tragedy of the Deepwater 
Horizon event that environmental analysis of the potential impacts of 
development activities is both necessary and important. Federal 
agencies establish their own National Environmental Policy Act 
procedures, in line with requirements of the Council on Environmental 
Quality, for the specific agency's authorities and decisionmaking 
processes. Agencies are, however, encouraged to incorporate by 
reference information, findings, and recommendations from existing 
studies and NEPA analyses into subsequent NEPA analyses and documents 
in order to make them more concise and focused. Additionally, when it 
is possible for one NEPA document to include the analyses to support 
decisions for multiple Federal actions, different Agencies may either 
work together (dependent upon need, timing, and available resources) as 
co-lead agencies on an EIS (as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) and BOEMRE are doing in the Gulf of Mexico for 
seismic activities), or one Agency may adopt the NEPA document of 
another agency (as NOAA preliminarily plans to coordinate on BOEMRE's 
Atlantic Coast seismic EIS), if the necessary information is included 
to support the decisions of the adopting agency.
    On May 23 BOEMRE and NOAA announced a new collaborative effort, 
implemented through a Memorandum of Understanding, that will increase 
coordination and collaboration between the two agencies to support 
environmentally sound offshore energy development. The MOU, which is 
consistent with recommendations from the President's Commission on the 
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, specifies how the 
two agencies will cooperate and coordinate by:

          1. Defining specific processes to ensure effective and timely 
        communication of agency priorities and upcoming activities;
          2. Identifying and undertaking critical environmental studies 
        and analyses;
          3. Collaborating on scientific, environmental and technical 
        issues related to the development and deployment of 
        environmentally sound and sustainable offshore renewable energy 
        technologies; and
          4. Increasing coordination and collaboration on decisions 
        related to OCS activities, including with respect to research 
        and scientific priorities.

    Question 8. Can you please describe in detail the President's plan 
for extending offshore leases affected by the moratorium, including 
what classes of leases, which areas, or which specific leases will see 
such extensions? Will all extensions be one year?
    Answer. The details of this policy, originally announced by 
President Obama as part of the Administration's Blueprint for a Secure 
Energy Future, were provided by Secretary Salazar in a June 16, 2011, 
memorandum directing BOEMRE to issue a Notice to Lessees and Operators 
(NTL) describing how operators can request extensions for up to one-
year or until drilling activities commence (whichever is less) on their 
qualifying deepwater leases. As described in the memorandum, in order 
to qualify for such a suspension, leaseholders must demonstrate that 
there was no oil or gas production on the lease as of May 15, 2011; 
that the lease is in deepwater (depths greater than 500 feet); and that 
the lease is scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 2015. The 
lease extensions will provide lessees and operators additional time to 
proceed with exploration and development of their leaseholds while 
fully complying with important safety, environmental, spill response 
and containment requirements. A copy of the memorandum can be found at: 
http://www.interior.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Implements-Steps-
to-Increase-Responsible-Domestic-Energy-Production.cfm
   Responses of Secretary Salazar to Questions From Senator Landrieu
    Question 1. Secretary Salazar, as you know, the President on 
Saturday announced in his radio address that he would extend ``drilling 
leases that were affected by the moratorium.'' When the moratorium was 
in place, companies were not allowed to participate in any activity 
related to the development of new wells. They could not file permit 
applications, they could not explore--they simply couldn't develop 
their leases. As such, Senator Hutchison and I introduced the LEASE 
ACT, as a matter of fairness to give this time back to these lease 
holders. I am very encouraged to hear the President's remarks and I am 
hoping you can speak specifically to how the agency is going to extend 
these leases? Will all leases in the Gulf be extended? For how long 
will they be extended? Please be very specific.
    Answer. The details of this policy, originally announced by 
President Obama as part of the Administration's Blueprint for a Secure 
Energy Future, were provided by Secretary Salazar in a June 16, 2011, 
memorandum directing BOEMRE to issue a Notice to Lessees and Operators 
(NTL) describing how operators can request one-year extensions for 
their qualifying deepwater leases. As described in the memorandum, in 
order to qualify for such a suspension, leaseholders must demonstrate 
that there was no oil or gas production on the lease as of May 15, 
2011; that the lease is in deepwater (depths greater than 500 feet); 
and that the lease is scheduled to expire on or before December 31, 
2015. The lease extensions will provide lessees and operators 
additional time to proceed with exploration and development of their 
leaseholds while fully complying with important safety, environmental, 
spill response and containment requirements. A copy of the memorandum 
can be found at: http://www.interior.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-
Implements-Steps-to-Increase-Responsible-Domestic-Energy-Production.cfm
    Question 2. On May 2nd, Director Bromwich stated that his agency 
has broad authority to regulate service companies who provide services 
to oil and gas operators. This is very troublesome to many of my 
constituents who provide these services to oil and gas operators. Can 
you please explain how BOEM will seek to regulate these service 
companies? In addition, can you point to the specific law or regulation 
that gives BOEM the authority to regulate offshore service companies?
    Answer. Over the past year and in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill, we have been implementing a number of critical reforms to 
strengthen the regulation of offshore oil and gas drilling and strike 
the appropriate balance between resource development and regulatory 
oversight. An important component in this reform strategy is the 
judicious exercise of regulatory authority over not only offshore 
operators, but contractors as well-as their work must also be done 
safely in order for development to proceed responsibly. Our legal 
authority encompasses the activities of all entities involved in 
developing offshore leases, to be exercised as we deem appropriate and 
as safety demands. The reason that the historical practice, has focused 
on regulating operators was that it served to preserve clarity and the 
singular responsibility of the operator. We believe that we can hold 
operators responsible--and in most cases solely responsible--without 
sacrificing the ability to pursue regulatory actions against 
contractors for the most serious violations of agency rules and 
regulations.
    Question 3. Secretary Salazar, I would like to take a moment to 
discuss with you some of the provisions in S. 917, the OCS Reform Act 
of 2011. For instance, Section 4 of the bill seeks to change the 
National Policy for the Outer Continental Shelf to be more 
environmentally friendly. However, my staff has found that the National 
Policy currently in law already has environmental safeguards built in 
and in addition, your agency, BOEM has reviewed the environmental 
protections under current law and has made changes post Deepwater 
Horizon where necessary. As such, in your opinion, do our current laws 
and regulations do enough to protect our environment while safely 
producing domestic oil and gas? Doesn't the current law already have 
enough environmental safeguards, making this provision irrelevant?
    Answer. As noted in this question, a number of the changes in S. 
917 highlight the need for increased safety of operations and 
consideration of the marine and coastal environment, including the need 
for integrated programs for both environmental research and 
technological research and development. A focus on strengthened safety 
and oversight and the environmental impacts of offshore oil and gas 
operations are--and have been--priorities of the Administration and 
have been reflected in a number of the reforms that the Department has 
made since the Deepwater Horizon spill. Statutory changes will ensure 
compliance with these important safety and environmental protection 
obligations in the future.
    Question 3a. In addition, Section 10 of this legislation would 
create a ``National Commission'' whose purpose is to examine and report 
on the facts and causes relating to the Deepwater Horizon explosion. I 
don't necessarily have anything against this, except that establishing 
a Commission now seems very untimely and outdated given the President's 
Commission and other investigations. This is what I mean about this 
legislation needing to be modified. We simply are not in the same place 
we were last year. Do you agree that establishing a Commission now is 
untimely? Is there a need to establish this Commission?
    Answer. Chairman Bingaman's and Ranking Member Murkowski's 
amendment in the nature of the substitute for S. 917 did not include 
the provision creating a national commission. We note, however, that 
over the months during and since containment of the spill associated 
with the Deepwater Horizon explosion, multiple reviews and 
investigations--some still ongoing--have resulted in reports indicating 
the need for change. Bodies ranging from the President's Commission on 
the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, the 
Department of the Interior's Inspector General, the Department's own 
Safety Oversight Board, to multiple Committees of the House and Senate, 
have indicated the need for reform not only of the way the Department 
does business but of the way oil and gas operations are carried out on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. We believe that these investigations have 
been beneficial, and have served to highlight the need for the kinds of 
reforms that this Administration is implementing to the way oil and gas 
operations are carried out on the OCS.
    Question 3b. Finally, this legislation has a conflict of interest 
section that puts restrictions on pre and post employment of BOEM 
employees, gift restrictions and heightened penalties for employees 
that violate these regulations. I know that Director Bromwich is 
actively trying to recruit new employees to work at BOEM. The conflict 
of interest provisions in this legislation seem very onerous. Can you 
please tell me whether the agency has in place regulations to mitigate 
conflicts of interest? Or how the Department of Interior addresses 
conflicts of interest? If your Department does have these regulations, 
is there a need to treat BOEM different from your other agencies? Do 
you feel that this section could hamper your Department's efforts to 
attract top notch employees?
    Answer. BOEMRE Director Bromwich has recently noted that the bureau 
issued a tough new recusal policy last year that requires employees in 
district offices, where inspections and permitting functions reside, to 
notify their supervisors about any potential conflict of interest and 
request to be recused from performing any official duty in which such a 
potential conflict exists. Examples include: inspectors are now 
required to recuse themselves from performing inspections of the 
facilities of former employers. Also, our inspectors must report any 
attempt by industry or other bureau personnel to inappropriately 
influence or interfere with their duties. BOEMRE will also soon be 
issuing a broader version of the policy that applies these ethical 
standards across the agency.
    This policy does present operational challenges for some district 
offices in the Gulf region, which are located in small communities 
where the primary employers are offshore companies. However, the need 
for tough rules defining the boundaries between regulators and the 
regulated is compelling and necessary to assure the public that our 
inspections and enforcement programs are effective, aggressive, and 
independent. Already there is evidence that these new rules are being 
followed. An internal review conducted by the bureau found more than 50 
instances, from September 2010 through April 2011, in which inspectors 
in the Gulf of Mexico appropriately recused themselves from a specific 
assignment in compliance with the policy.
    We note that the changes in S. 917 would criminalize legal 
employment by employees of the two new bureaus even if they did not 
violate the behavioral restrictions of 18 USC 207 and 5 CFR 2641. 
Current regulations impose no restrictions concerning the organization 
from which an employee may seek post Federal employment; instead, all 
restrictions pertain to the nature of the work the employee may perform 
for the organization as compared to the responsibilities carried out 
while employed by the Federal Government. We would like to continue 
working with the Committee on this issue.
    Question 4. As you know, Mr. Secretary, I have been watching the 
permits number very closely. As of yesterday, only 53 shallow water 
permits have been issued since June 8, 2010. As a reminder, shallow 
water permits were not put under the moratorium and they were not 
supposed to be affected by it. However, anyone watching the situation 
in the Gulf knows that is not the case. In 2010, from January to April, 
42 shallow water permits were issued. In 2009, 48 shallow water permits 
were issued during the same time frame. In 2011, BOEM has only issued 
25 shallow water permits during the January-April period. This is 
almost a 50 percent reduction from 2009 levels. Clearly, the permitting 
process has been slowed for the shallow water industry, which wasn't 
supposed to be affected by the moratorium. As such, can you please walk 
us through the permitting process at BOEM? I am told that the 
individual departments do not talk during the permit review, so there 
is no collaboration. How many people are involved in the review process 
and how do they work together?
    In particular, can you explain whether there are inefficiencies in 
the system that can be reformed to speed up the process to get our 
permit numbers back to historic levels? While it is true that at the 
time of the Deepwater Horizon accident offshore production levels were 
at an all-time high, the EIA has estimated that production in the Gulf 
of Mexico will decline by 680,000 barrels a day by 2012. This is a 
significant decline, and is about half of the global exports from 
Libya.
    Answer. Continuously updated information regarding the status of 
drilling permits can be found at: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/
offshore/safety/well_permits.html
    As of September 1, 2011, 70 new shallow water well permits have 
been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental 
standards on June 8, 2010, including permit applications submitted 
prior to this date. This is an average of more than 7 per month since 
fall of 2010, compared to an average of 8 permits per month in 2009.
    The permit application review process has always involved a back-
and-forth exchange of documents and information between the applicant 
and the BOEMRE Gulf of Mexico Region. In that process, permit 
application submittals are initially reviewed by BOEMRE staff, any 
deficiencies are identified, and the applications are ``returned'' to 
the operators so that the applications can be ``resubmitted'' with the 
corrected or missing information. The submission, return, and 
resubmission of a permit are accomplished through the eWell system, a 
browser-based permit review software application. The eWell system's 
submittal, return, and resubmittal process facilitates iterative, on-
going review and communication between the operator and the BOEMRE 
drilling engineer reviewing the permit in an efficient manner that 
allows the application to be modified and corrected. The process may 
include several rounds of submission and return.
    Because of this process, the Gulf Region has never had to formally 
deny a permit application, though there have been situations in which 
an operator has ``withdrawn'' an application because of a decision by 
the operator not to move forward with drilling the well. Absent a 
withdrawal, the agency and the operator work cooperatively, however 
long it may take, to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met so 
that the application may be approved. Depending on the specific 
characteristics of the well, the applicable regulatory requirements, 
and the company's readiness to demonstrate compliance with the 
requirements, this process can take anywhere from a few days to many 
months.

    Before a drilling permit can be approved, there are many direct and 
related approvals that must be in place. These may include but are not 
limited to: approval of the Exploration Plan (EP) or Development 
Operation Coordination Document (DOCD) under which the specific 
drilling permit is requested; compliance with regulations requiring an 
Oil Spill Response Plan; compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act; approval of an Oil Spill Financial Responsibility (OSFR) 
document; a geological and geophysical review of all the relevant 
hydrocarbon bearing zones: determination and verification of worst case 
discharge scenarios; and a demonstration that blowout preventer control 
systems comply with regulations.
    The drilling application review process has never involved a 
submittal followed by a simple approval or denial. Rather, BOEMRE is 
always interactively working with the applicants. Given the additional 
regulatory and informational requirements that have been developed and 
implemented since the Deepwater Horizon incident, the time required to 
prepare and review deepwater permit applications has increased as both 
the operators and the reviewing engineers adapt to the changed 
landscape. The review process, however, remains on-going, interactive, 
and open-ended.
    Director Bromwich has devoted a team to reviewing and improving 
BOEMRE's drilling permit review and approval process, a central element 
to ensuring that proposed drilling operations will be conducted safely. 
This review and evaluation process must be rigorous but efficient, so 
that proposed operations are not unduly delayed by the process. The 
team has been working on plans to address the permitting workload in 
light of current resources, and is developing a comprehensive handbook 
of related policies and practices. This handbook will be designed to 
assist permit reviewers in carrying out their responsibilities and 
ensure greater consistency across our offices and clarity for industry.
    BOEMRE has also been in constant communication with industry 
representatives and individual operators about the permitting process, 
and has already addressed specific issues with plan approval and 
permitting processes that include:

   issuing two guidance documents to provide clarity regarding 
        the steps in the permitting process and the requirements that 
        must be satisfied to meet the standards;
   issuing a permitting checklist so that operators can confirm 
        their drilling permit applications are complete before they 
        submit them, thus minimizing the need to return applications 
        because necessary information is missing; and
   development of information technology solutions to improve 
        the efficiency of processes while providing operators with 
        greater transparency into the status of the permit 
        applications.


    The goal through this process has been to provide greater clarity, 
transparency and consistency in the permitting process.
    Responses of Secretary Salazar to Questions From Senator Hoeven
    Question 1. During the May 17, 2011, committee hearing in Energy 
and Natural Resources, you testified the Department of Interior has 30 
days to approve exploration plans but no deadline to act on permits. 
Would 60 days be sufficient to review and either approve or deny a 
permit? If not, would 90 days be sufficient to review and either 
approve or deny a permit. If neither 60 nor 90 days are sufficient, how 
many days would the Interior need to review and make a decision on a 
permit and why?
    Answer. Operators continue to receive permits in both shallow and 
deep water under the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to 
offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history. These 
reforms, launched in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 
spill, strengthen requirements in areas ranging from well design and 
workplace safety to corporate accountability, and are helping ensure 
that the United States can safely and responsibly expand development of 
its energy resources. BOEMRE is always interactively working with the 
applicants. Given the additional regulatory and informational 
requirements that have been developed and implemented since the 
Deepwater Horizon incident, the time required to prepare and review 
deepwater permit applications has increased for both the operators and 
the reviewing engineers. The review process, however, remains on-going, 
interactive, and open-ended. Given the importance of ensuring that 
permit applicants satisfy these safety and environmental standards, 
statutory time constraints on permit approval are not warranted and 
could constrain the ability to ensure that permits meet safety 
standards.

    Continuously updated information regarding the status of drilling 
permits can be found at: http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/offshore/
safety/well_permits.html
    Question 2. On average, how many days does it take the Interior to 
either approve or deny an Outer Continental Shelf permit?
    Answer. The permit application review process has always involved a 
back-and-forth exchange of documents and information between the 
applicant and the BOEMRE Gulf of Mexico Region. In that process, permit 
application submittals are initially reviewed by BOEMRE staff, any 
deficiencies are identified, and the applications are ``returned'' to 
the operators so that the applications can be ``resubmitted'' with the 
corrected or missing information. The submission, return, and 
resubmission of a permit are accomplished through the eWell system, a 
browser-based permit review software application. The eWell system's 
submittal, return, and resubmittal process facilitates iterative, on-
going review and communication between the operator and the BOEMRE 
drilling engineer reviewing the permit in an efficient manner that 
allows the application to be modified and corrected. The process may 
include several rounds of submission and return. Because of this 
process, the Gulf Region has never had to formally deny a permit 
application, though there have been situations in which an operator has 
``withdrawn'' an application because of a decision by the operator not 
to move forward with drilling the well. Absent a withdrawal, the agency 
and the operator work cooperatively, however long it may take, to 
ensure that all regulatory requirements are met so that the application 
may be approved. Depending on the specific characteristics of the well, 
the applicable regulatory requirements, and the company's readiness to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements, this process can take 
anywhere from a few days to many months.
    Responses of Secretary Salazar to Questions From Senator Shaheen
    In the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, the Oil Pollution Act was 
enacted, which, among other things, created an Interagency Committee to 
focus oil spill research and development activities among various 
federal agencies. Yet, the Deepwater Horizon spill highlighted the lack 
of oil spill technology and response capabilities necessary to address 
a spill like the one we saw unfold last summer. There was a perception 
that we were still using the same technologies to clean up Deepwater 
Horizon that we used twenty years ago to clean up Exxon Valdez.
    In developing legislation last year with Sen. Mark Udall and 
Chairman Bingaman to address this critical area of need, we heard some 
reoccurring themes among those working in oil spill R&D field.
    One was the lack of dedicated funding for oil spill R&D activities, 
which was reinforced by the President's National Oil Spill Commission. 
We attempted to correct this in the legislation Chairman Bingaman, Sen. 
Udall and I introduced, setting aside $25 million a year from oil and 
gas royalties to fund these critical oil spill R&D activities.
    Question 1. Would you agree that we need to find dedicated sources 
of funding to pay for oil spill R&D?
    Answer. As intended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the companies 
that produce and transport oil are supporting research to improve oil 
spill response capabilities, with funding for related activities 
appropriated from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)-including 
funding for R&D. The OSLTF derives funding from:

   an 8-cent-per barrel tax, collected from the oil industry on 
        petroleum produced in or imported to the United States. This is 
        the largest source of revenue for oil spill research;
   transfers from other existing pollution funds. While no 
        additional funds remain to be transferred, total transfers into 
        the trust fund since 1990 have exceeded $550 million;
   interest on the trust fund principal from U.S. Treasury 
        investments;
   cost recoveries from those responsible for oil incidents;
   fines and civil penalties for violations of the Oil 
        Pollution Act financial responsibility requirements, the Clean 
        Water Act, the Deepwater Port Act, and the Trans-Alaska 
        Pipeline Authorization Act.

    With respect to activities within the Department of the Interior's 
jurisdiction, in September 2010, the Administration requested an 
additional $8.6 million as a 2011 budget amendment to the Department's 
budget for oil spill research to address key research gaps brought to 
light by the spill and the associated containment and response efforts. 
A total of $11.7 million was enacted in the FY 2011 continuing 
resolution, an increase of $5.4 million over FY 2010. The FY 2012 
budget request for oil spill research is $14.9 million and 22 full time 
employees, which is a net increase of $8.6 million and 4 full time 
employees over the FY 2010 enacted level. This increase was needed to 
address several key knowledge gaps brought to light by the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill and its troubled and lengthy spill containment and 
response efforts. The additional $8.6 million will provide contract 
research and four full time employees needed to manage the development 
and monitoring of studies.
    Other agencies in government have received or requested additional 
funding for R&D activities, as well. For example, the Environmental 
Protection Agencies received approximately $2 million in the 
supplemental appropriation for research on dispersants, and NOAA's 
Office of Response and Restoration received a $2.9M increase in the FY 
2012 President's Budget Request that would fund competitive external 
grants to increase NOAA's spill response capacity and development.
    The Department has also announced the formation of the Ocean Energy 
Safety Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from federal 
agencies as well as the offshore oil and gas industry, academic 
institutions, and other non-governmental organizations. Dr. Tom Hunter, 
the former head of the Sandia National Laboratory who was central to 
the Macondo well control effort, was selected by the Secretary to chair 
this committee, which will be a center of excellence charged with 
driving research and development and technical innovation across 
government and industry in the areas of drilling safety, well control 
and subsea containment, and oil spill response. The Administration has 
proposed that Congress pass legislation to formalize this collaboration 
by authorizing an Ocean Energy Safety Institute to connect government, 
industry, academia, and outside experts devoted to developing cutting-
edge safety, containment, and response capabilities.
    Question 2. Since the BP spill, has there been any change in the 
amount of money spent, either by government or by industry, on research 
and development for new technology that aids in response and clean-up?
    Answer. As indicated in the previous response, with respect to 
activities within the Department of the Interior's jurisdiction, in 
September 2010, the Administration requested an additional $8.6 million 
as a 2011 budget amendment to the Department's budget for oil spill 
research to address key research gaps brought to light by the spill and 
the associated containment and response efforts. A total of $11.7 
million was enacted in the FY 2011 continuing resolution, an increase 
of $5.4 million over FY 2010. The FY 2012 budget request for oil spill 
research is $14.9 million and 22 full time employees, which is a net 
increase of $8.6 million and 4 full time employees over the FY 2010 
enacted level. This increase was needed to address several key 
knowledge gaps brought to light by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 
its troubled and lengthy spill containment and response efforts. The 
additional $8.6 million will provide contract research and four full 
time employees needed to manage the development and monitoring of 
studies.
    The Department has also announced the formation of the Ocean Energy 
Safety Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from federal 
agencies as well as the offshore oil and gas industry, academic 
institutions, and other non-governmental organizations. Dr. Tom Hunter, 
the former head of the Sandia National Laboratory who was central to 
the Macondo well control effort, was selected by the Secretary to chair 
this committee, which will be a center of excellence charged with 
driving research and development and technical innovation across 
government and industry in the areas of drilling safety, well control 
and subsea containment, and oil spill response. The Administration has 
proposed that Congress pass legislation to formalize this collaboration 
by authorizing an Ocean Energy Safety Institute to connect government, 
industry, academia, and outside experts devoted to developing cutting-
edge safety, containment, and response capabilities.
    The Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill have placed 
a renewed emphasis on ensuring the safety and protection of our oceans 
and shorelines. Ohmsett laboratory has been operated by BOEMRE for 17 
years as part of our mission to ensure that the best and safest 
technologies are used in offshore oil and gas operations. It is the 
largest outdoor saltwater wave/tow tank facility in North America and 
is the only facility where full-scale oil spill response equipment 
testing, research, and training can be conducted with oil in a marine 
environment under controlled environmental conditions.
    Ohmsett plays a critical role in developing effective response 
technologies by providing independent and objective performance testing 
of full-scale oil spill response equipment, as well as training first 
responders who will be using this equipment. Many of today's 
commercially available oil spill cleanup systems and services have been 
tested at Ohmsett, as have equipment and technology currently under 
development. The facility is capable of hosting the testing and 
evaluation of a broad range of oil spill response systems and 
technologies, including chemical treating agents and dispersants, 
fireresistant containment booms, remote sensing and detection 
instruments, sorbent materials, temporary storage devices, viscous oil 
pumping units and oil water separators.
    Ohmsett is the most cost-effective method for companies to obtain 
response experience using real oil. The Ohmsett test tank allows 
testing of full-scale equipment, and the tank's wave generator 
simulates realistic sea environments while state-of-the-art data 
collection and video systems record test results.
    Question 3. The President's requested FY2012 budget includes a 
substantial increase in the funds for oil spill R&D, up to $14 million 
from $6 million. What is the plan for how this money would be spent?
    Answer. As noted above, this request is intended to provide an 
additional $8.6 million to the Oil Spill Research Program for contract 
research that will address several key knowledge gaps brought to light 
by the Deepwater Horizon spill and its spill containment and response 
efforts, as well as four FTEs that are needed to manage the development 
and monitoring of these studies.Question 4. Do you feel that the 
Department of the Interior should have a central role among other 
federal agencies in promoting and funding oil spill R&D efforts?
    Answer. The Department, through BOEMRE plays a key role in 
initiating applied research to support decision making relating to 
offshore energy development, has long conducted research in oil spill 
containment and response, and provides response training at its OHMSETT 
facility. The Department will continue to play a leadership role in 
both technology assessment and stimulation of innovation on a larger 
scale than its usual study efforts, and will continue to coordinate its 
efforts with other relevant federal agencies.
Oil Spill R&D Planning
    Another theme we've frequently heard is that the Interagency 
Committee created under the Oil Pollution Act has not worked. There was 
a sense among those we spoke to in crafting our bill last year that the 
Committee lacked leadership and direction. As one example, the Oil 
Pollution Act required the Interagency Committee to develop an oil 
spill R&D plan, which they did. However, the plan is dated April 1997 
and has not been updated since.
    Question 1. In your view, what can we do to better focus and 
coordinate our federal oil spill R&D efforts? How can we ensure that 
there is a known and understood path forward on federal oil spill R&D 
efforts?
    Answer. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution 
Research (ICCOPR) continues to serve as a forum for its federal members 
to coordinate and maintain awareness of ongoing oil pollution research 
activities. Members of the ICCOPR interact in a number of venues, 
including conferences, workshops, meetings of the National Response 
Team Science and Technology Subcommittee, and through formal meetings. 
Formal meetings of the ICCOPR are normally scheduled on a semi-annual 
basis. The Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan is currently 
being revised.
    As noted in the response to question in the previous section, the 
Department has announced the formation of an Ocean Energy Safety 
Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from federal agencies 
as well as the offshore oil and gas industry, academic institutions, 
and other non-governmental organizations. It is intended that this 
committee will be a center of excellence charged with driving research 
and development and technical innovation across government and industry 
in the areas of drilling safety, well control and subsea containment, 
and oil spill response.
    Building on pre-existing efforts, the Administration has taken 
additional efforts to advance R&D efforts in the wake of the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill. For example, as mentioned above, the Department of 
the Interior has announced the formation of the Ocean Energy Safety 
Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from federal agencies 
as well as the offshore oil and gas industry, academic institutions, 
and other non-governmental organizations. Dr. Tom Hunter, the former 
head of the Sandia National Laboratory who was central to the Macondo 
well control effort, was selected by the Secretary to chair this 
committee, which will be a center of excellence charged with driving 
research and development and technical innovation across government and 
industry in the areas of drilling safety, well control and subsea 
containment, and oil spill response. The Administration has proposed 
that Congress pass legislation to formalize this collaboration by 
authorizing an Ocean Energy Safety Institute to connect government, 
industry, academia, and outside experts devoted to developing cutting-
edge safety, containment, and response capabilities.
    Question 2. How can we get federal agencies that play a critical 
role in oil spill R&D, including the Interior Department, to better 
work together?
    Answer. As noted in the response to question 1, the Administration 
is implementing policies that will assist in focusing and driving 
future oil spill R&D efforts.
Role of Science
    I think one of the most troubling things we learned from the BP 
disaster in the Gulf was that science had taken a back seat in the 
permitting process. At the time, one of the scientists who worked for 
the Minerals Management Service was quoted in the New York Times as 
saying that MMS scientists ``are simply not allowed to conclude that 
drilling will have an impact'' on the environment (U.S. Said to Allow 
Drilling Without Needed Permits, 5/13/2010).
    Question 1. In your opinion, over the past year has there been any 
change in the culture within the Department of the Interior to take 
science seriously in the decisionmaking process, and, if the answer is 
yes, please provide some concrete evidence of that change?
    Answer. Significant reforms have taken place at the Department, 
including in the offshore program, over the first 2 1/2 years of the 
Obama Administration, and a focus on science has played a key role in 
these reforms. We have elevated the role of science in bureau decision-
making. One of the guiding principles of our reform agenda for offshore 
energy development has been a fundamental change in the approach to 
decision-making, which includes a renewed commitment to develop 
thorough, credible and unfiltered scientific data. The reorganization 
of the bureau will ensure independent and rigorous enforcement of 
safety and environmental regulations and the augmentation of science 
efforts in bureau activities through added capacity and expertise. 
Toward this end, last September a Secretarial Order was issued 
establishing a Scientific Integrity Policy for the Department that will 
cultivate and reinforce a culture of scientific integrity. In the 
offshore program, we have to devote greater resources to, and elevate 
the role of, our scientists within the offshore regulators.
    For example, in March 2010 the Department announced the proposed 
2012-2017 offshore oil and gas leasing program, providing a new 
approach to oil and gas activities on the OCS aimed at promoting the 
responsible, environmentally-sound, and scientificallygrounded 
development of oil and gas resources. Through this proposal, a new 
emphasis on both science-based decision-making and public outreach was 
announced. This included cancelling certain lease sales and clarifying 
that full environmental analysis through an Environmental Impact 
Statement will be required prior to any decision to lease in any 
additional areas.
    The Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill focused our attention on 
the Gulf of Mexico and further fueled this drive to reform. The reforms 
put in place in response to that disaster have created a strong and 
independent agency with the resources, tools and authority it needs to 
hold offshore operators accountable. The bar on industry's safety 
practices and equipment has been raised, and companies that want to 
drill now must explain how they will deal with catastrophic blowouts 
and oil spills.
    Science has been returned to its rightful place in decisions about 
offshore oil and gas development. We are conducting a new environmental 
analysis in the Gulf of Mexico that will help provide information to 
guide future leasing and development decisions there. We also continue 
to work with other federal agencies to conduct thorough environmental 
analysis and scientific study, to gather public input and comment, and 
to carefully examine the potential safety and spill risks as new areas 
are evaluated for potential oil and gas exploration and development on 
the OCS.
    The science resources available at the Department of the Interior 
are some of the most robust in the United States and include thousands 
of scientists in the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and BOEMRE. 
The various programs in the USGS and the science and research programs 
within BOEMRE also play key roles in providing scientific information 
concerning impacts from offshore energy and mineral exploration.
    Specific examples of this science-based approach include the 
science gap and sufficiency report issued in June 2011 by the USGS. 
That report, requested by Secretary Salazar, evaluates the science 
needed to better inform decisions regarding oil and natural gas 
exploration and development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska 
by identifying what the science gaps were in OCS development in the 
Arctic. While there is significant potential for development in this 
area, it is a frontier area with harsh weather conditions and unique 
fish and wildlife resources that Alaska's indigenous people rely on for 
subsistence. The report summarizes the large volume of existing 
scientific information, much of it conducted under the auspices of the 
Environmental Studies Program of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement; identifies where knowledge gaps exist; and 
provides initial guidance on new and continuing research that could 
improve decision-making.
    The information identified in this report, which can be found at 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1370, will help inform the Department's 
determinations about what we need to know to develop our Arctic energy 
resources in the right places in the right way. Among the major areas 
noted in the report where additional scientific research, analysis and 
synthesis could reduce uncertainties include the following:

   Developing a better understanding of the effects of climate 
        change on physical, biological and social conditions as well as 
        resource management strategies in the Arctic;
   Developing foundational geospatial data on the Arctic Outer 
        Continental Shelf;
   Synthesizing existing scientific information on a wide range 
        of topics on the Arctic;
   Building upon advances in spill-risk evaluation and response 
        knowledge by developing better information on key inputs to 
        spill models (such as oceanographic, weather, and ecological 
        data);
   Improving dialogue and using collaborative, comprehensive 
        science planning, both domestically and internationally.

    Another recent specific example is the use of the Outer Continental 
Shelf Scientific Committee, chartered to advise the Secretary of the 
Interior, through BOEMRE, on the feasibility, appropriateness, and 
scientific value of the bureau's OCS Environmental Studies Program. The 
Scientific Committee is a vital part of the Department's ongoing 
efforts to ensure that the appropriate scientific information is 
available on which to base decisions affecting offshore energy 
production on the OCS.
    In February 2011, the Department announced the establishment of a 
new policy to ensure and maintain the integrity of scientific and 
scholarly activities used in Departmental decision making. The policy 
follows on the Memorandum to the Heads of Departments and Agencies on 
Scientific Integrity issued in December and includes the designation 
Dr. Ralph Morgenweck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Senior Science 
Advisor, to serve as the Department's first Science Integrity Officer. 
This new policy, which will be updated as necessary, is based on the 
principles found in Secretarial Order 3305 and guided by the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy memo, issued in December 2010. The policy 
applies to all Departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or 
manage scientific or scholarly activities; analyze and/or publicly 
communicate scientific or scholarly information; or use this 
information or analyses to make policy, management or regulatory 
decisions. Additionally, the policy includes provisions for 
contractors, partners, grantees, leasees, volunteers and others, who 
conduct these activities on behalf of the Department.
    Under this new policy, the Department will:

   Use clear and unambiguous codes of conduct for scientific 
        and scholarly activities to define expectations for those 
        covered by this policy.
   Facilitate the free flow of scientific and scholarly 
        information, consistent with privacy and classification 
        standards, and in keeping with the Department's Open Government 
        Plan.
   Document the scientific and scholarly findings considered in 
        decision making and ensure public access to that information 
        and supporting data through established Departmental and Bureau 
        procedures-except for information and data that are restricted 
        from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with 
        statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential 
        Memorandum.
   Ensure that the selection and retention of employees in 
        scientific and scholarly positions or in positions that rely on 
        the results of scientific and scholarly activities are based on 
        the candidate's integrity, knowledge, credentials, and 
        experience relevant to the responsibility of the position.
   Ensure that public communications policies provide 
        procedures by which scientists and scholars may speak to the 
        media and the public about scientific and scholarly matters 
        based on their official work and areas of expertise. In no 
        circumstance may public affairs officers ask or direct Federal 
        scientists to alter scientific findings.
   Provide information to employees on whistleblower 
        protections.
   Communicate this policy and all related responsibilities to 
        contractors, cooperators, partners, permittees, leasees, 
        grantees, and volunteers who assist with 22 developing or 
        applying the results of scientific and scholarly activities on 
        behalf of the Department, as appropriate.
   Encourage the enhancement of scientific and scholarly 
        integrity through appropriate, cooperative engagement with the 
        communities of practice represented by professional societies 
        and organizations.
   Examine, track, and resolve all reasonable allegations of 
        scientific and scholarly misconduct while ensuring the rights 
        and privacy of those covered by this policy and ensuring that 
        unwarranted allegations do not result in slander, libel, or 
        other damage to them.
   Facilitate the sharing of best administrative and management 
        practices that promote the integrity of the Department's 
        scientific and scholarly activities.

    Question 2. As we restructure the handling of drilling permits 
within the Department of the Interior, how can we instill a commitment 
to scientific integrity within the new administrative units?
    Answer. Director Bromwich has devoted a team to reviewing and 
improving BOEMRE's drilling permit review and approval process, a 
central element to ensuring that proposed drilling operations will be 
conducted safely. This review and evaluation process must be rigorous 
but efficient, so that proposed operations are not unduly delayed by 
the process. The team has been working on plans to address the 
permitting workload in light of current resources, and is developing a 
comprehensive handbook of related policies and practices. This handbook 
will be designed to assist permit reviewers in carrying out their 
responsibilities and ensure greater consistency across our offices and 
clarity for industry.
    We have also elevated the role of science in bureau decision-
making. One of the guiding principles of our reform agenda for offshore 
energy development has been a fundamental change in the approach to 
decision-making, which includes a renewed commitment to develop 
thorough, credible and unfiltered scientific data. The reorganization 
of the bureau will ensure independent and rigorous enforcement of 
safety and environmental regulations and the augmentation of science 
efforts in bureau activities through added capacity and expertise. 
Toward this end, last September a Secretarial Order was issued that 
establishes a Scientific Integrity Policy for the Department that will 
cultivate and reinforce a culture of scientific integrity. In the 
offshore program, we have to devote greater resources to, and elevate 
the role of, our scientists within the offshore regulators.
    By the end of the current fiscal year, we intend to separate the 
former MMS's resource management and leasing functions from its safety 
and environmental enforcement responsibilities by establishing the 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
    BSEE will be responsible for overseeing the safety and 
environmental and regulatory compliance of offshore oil and gas and 
renewable energy operations. The functions of BSEE include oil and gas 
permitting, facility inspections, regulations and standards 
development, safety research, field operations, environmental 
compliance and enforcement, review of operator oil spill response 
plans, production and development conservation, and operating a 
national training center. This will provide the engineers who review 
permit applications and the inspectors who ensure compliance with our 
workplace and drilling safety regulations with greater independence, 
more budgetary autonomy, and clearer mission focus. The mission of BSEE 
will be to independently and rigorously enforce safety and 
environmental regulations. Our goal is to create a toughminded, but 
fair, regulator that can effectively keep pace with the risks of 
offshore drilling and will promote the development of a safety culture 
in offshore operators.
    BOEM will be responsible for promoting and managing the development 
of the nation's offshore resources, including oil, gas and renewable 
resources. This mission involves ensuring that the nation's offshore 
energy resources are made available for wise and economically sound 
development with appropriate protections for the environment. The 
structure that we have developed and that we are implementing ensures 
that effective reviews of the environmental impacts of proposed 
projects in our oceans are closely analyzed and well-understood; that 
these impacts are given appropriate weight during decision-making 
related to resource management; and that the appropriate balance is 
struck. These processes must be both rigorous and efficient so that 
operations can go forward in a timely way and with confidence that 
appropriate steps to mitigate potential environmental effects are 
taken.
    We are creating the senior position of Chief Environmental Officer 
within BOEM, who will be responsible for ensuring that environmental 
concerns are appropriately balanced in leasing and planning decisions 
and for coordinating and promoting scientific research relative to our 
oceans.
    Question 3. There is a need for balance between making sure that 
permits are issued in a timely manner and the time it takes to make 
sure that the drilling will be done in a safe and environmentally 
responsible manner. Do you feel that any of the proposed legislation we 
are considering today achieves the correct balance?
    Answer. We agree that striking this balance is a key component of 
the program. As noted in the Department's testimony for this hearing, 
S. 917 includes several new planning requirements intended to promote 
safe and responsible development. These include a requirement for 
detailed descriptions of equipment and plans to address potential well 
blowouts, which is consistent with Notice to Lessees 2010-N06, issued 
by BOEMRE and that clarifies that current regulations require that new 
filings for drilling permits, exploration plans, or development plans 
contain information specifically addressing the possibility of a 
blowout and the detailed steps that lessees or operators would take to 
prevent blowouts.
    The legislation would also extend the deadline for the Department 
to review and approve exploration plans; require that lessees obtain a 
drilling permit after approval of an exploration plan; and require 
that, prior to approval of such a permit, an engineering review of the 
well system be completed and reviewed. The Administration supports this 
authority providing for longer review time and stronger reviews of 
exploration plans prior to drilling.
    Question 4. Have we learned anything from the scientific work that 
has been done since the spill occurred that will help ensure that 
future drilling operations are done safely?
    Answer. We are using spill-related scientific work to understand 
what happened; to inform our reform and restoration efforts; and to 
help guide future development on the OCS.
    We have also elevated the role of science in bureau decision-
making. One of the guiding principles of our reform agenda for offshore 
energy development has been a fundamental change in the approach to 
decision-making, which includes a renewed commitment to develop 
thorough, credible and unfiltered scientific data. The reorganization 
of the bureau will ensure independent and rigorous enforcement of 
safety and environmental regulations and the augmentation of science 
efforts in bureau activities through added capacity and expertise. 
Toward this end, last September Secretary Salazar issued a Secretarial 
Order establishing a Scientific Integrity Policy for the Department 
that will cultivate and reinforce a culture of scientific integrity. In 
the offshore program, we have to devote greater resources to, and 
elevate the role of, our scientists within the offshore regulators.
    On the ground, industry has worked through the Marine Well 
Containment Company and the Helix Containment Group to develop well 
containment systems, cutting edge technology that meet the new, more 
stringent, requirements established by BOEMRE in its regulations.
    In addition, a significant amount of science has been, and 
continues to be, carried out in the Gulf Region as a result of the 
spill. This science is contributing, for example, to our knowledge of 
the fate of oil released from such depths, as discussed in the response 
to the next question. Similarly, information and experiences from the 
Deepwater Horizon spill, as well as the Exxon Valdez spill, have been 
used by the USGS to evaluate and inform the science needed to better 
inform decisions regarding oil and natural gas exploration and 
development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska.
    Question 5. It appeared in news reports that we had a difficult 
time even figuring out where the oil from the spill went. Has there 
been any recent scientific work that has helped us determine what 
happened to the oil?
    Answer. There has been some new work on this topic, and more will 
be published by the end of the year in a special issue of the 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Although it is still 
premature to draw final conclusions regarding details of the fate of 
the oil, some of these studies help to shed new light on this question.
    Scientists working on the oil flow rate from the well at first were 
puzzled by the fact that the apparent flow rate from the oil well, as 
measured by the oil on the ocean surface by the USGS estimated much 
less than the rate measured directly at the well in the deep sea by the 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. A recent publication in the 
journal Geophysical Research Letters by a team of NOAA scientists, who 
measured hydrocarbons evaporating from the ocean surface to the 
atmosphere, may help resolve this paradox indicating a large portion of 
the oil remained subsurface. These new data could explain the lower 
apparent flow rate at the ocean surface in the earlier USGS estimate. 
Also, research publications by David Valentine and colleagues at the 
University of California Santa Barbara demonstrate that microbes 
rapidly consumed methane in the deep ocean. The USGS has published data 
(available at http://www.usgs.gov/oilspill) from shoreline surveys that 
will help determine the impact of the oil that made landfall. Research 
into the oil's migration and distribution around the Gulf of Mexico is 
continuing and may help provide a more complete picture of where the 
oil went over time.

```