Saturday, 10 July 2010

bp: cracks started in february, cleanup just for show


July 7, 2010

Schlumberger's secret "smoking oil rig" documents

By courtesy of Wayne Madsen

Oil drilling industry inside sources have reported to WMR that "smoking gun" documents, including what are known as "mud logs" are being kept at the Tulsa, Oklahoma headquarters of Schlumberger Oilfield Services.

Mud logging entails the detailed analysis of rocky material and sediment from a borehole for signs and pressure levels and types of gas being encountered during the drilling process. Mud logging is always carried out by a third-party and in the case of the Deepwater Horizon, this function was performed by Schlumberger.

Hours before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Schlumberger engineers detected an increase in gas pressures as BP sank a bore to an unprecedented depth of 35,055 feet below sea level. It is clear that their warnings about an impending disaster were ignored by BP supervisors and the evidence of BP's criminal malfeasance sits in a secured room at Schlumberger's offices in Tulsa.

In addition to gas types and levels, the Schlumberger mud logs also contain data on the drilling and pump rates, oil flow temperatures, and lithology (rock and sediment types).

A Schlumberger timeline document reveals that the firm's team of mud loggers were on board the Deepwater Horizon hours before the April 20 explosion and left on a BP helicopter. The Schlumberger team, along with their mud log data, left the Deepwater Horizon at 11:15 am. The Deepwater Horizon exploded at 9:45 pm when high-pressured methane gas shot up through the bore hole and exploded when ignited.


Former Oil Worker Says Cleanup Just For Show

June 24, 2010
Bill Riales

GULF SHORES, Alabama - Former oil clean-up worker Candi Warren says she signed up to make a difference, but soon found out the work of cleaning the beaches was all cosmetic. That's what she was told, she says.

Warren says she knew that when crews worked during the day, the tide and surf buried oil overnight. But they were forbidden to dig it up. She quit in disgust three weeks ago despite the $18 per hour pay.

She said she was told to only clean the surface of the sand, that this is all cosmetic. She was on a crew at Gulf State Park where tourists go. She says it has priority so as to make it look like the beaches are clean.

Warren says she believes money is being wasted on the crews and says "At some point the real clean-up will have to begin, but I'm afraid the money will be gone."

She used a shovel and dug down six, eight, maybe twelve inches into the sand to show us the layers of oil close to the shoreline.


Each day, another way to define worst-case for oil spill

Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
June 23, 2010

An enduring feature of the gulf oil spill is that, even when you think you've heard the worst-case scenario, there's always another that's even more dire.

The base-line measures of the crisis have steadily worsened. The estimated flow rate keeps rising. The well is like something deranged, stronger than anyone anticipated. BP executives last month said they had a 60 to 70 percent chance of killing it with mud, but the well spit the mud out and kept blowing.

The net effect is that nothing about this well seems crazy anymore. Week by week, the truth of this disaster has drifted toward the stamping ground of the alarmists.

The most disturbing of the worst-case scenarios, one that is unsubstantiated but is driving much of the blog discussion, is that the Deepwater Horizon well has been so badly damaged that it has spawned multiple leaks from the seafloor, making containment impossible and a long-term solution much more complicated.

Video from a robotic submersible, which is making the rounds online, shows something puffing from the seafloor. Some think it's oil. Or maybe -- look again -- it's just the silt blowing in response to the forward motion of the submersible.

More trouble: A tropical wave has formed in the Caribbean and could conceivably blow through the gulf.

"We're going to have to evacuate the gulf states," said Matt Simmons, founder of Simmons and Co., an oil investment firm and, since the April 20 blowout, the unflagging source of end-of-the-world predictions. "Can you imagine evacuating 20 million people? . . . This story is 80 times worse than I thought."

The bull market for bad news means that Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government's point man for the crisis, is asked regularly about damage to the well bore, additional leaks and further failures. "Can you talk a little about the worst-case scenarios going forward?" a reporter asked Tuesday. "What happens if the relief wells don't work out?"

"We're mitigating risk on the relief well by drilling a second relief well alongside it," responded Allen, possibly the least excitable figure in this entire oil crisis.

He said he's seen no sign of the additional leaks that have gotten so many bloggers in a lather. But Allen's briefings offer plenty of fodder for the apocalyptic set. Allen repeatedly has acknowledged that there could be significant damage to the well down below the mud line. That's why, he said, the top kill effort last month was stopped: Officials feared that if they continued pumping heavy mud into the well, they would damage the casing and open new channels for hydrocarbons to leak into the rock formation.

"I think that one thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore from below the blowout preventer down to the actual oil field itself," Allen said last week. "We don't know if the well bore has been compromised or not."

And by the way, the blowout preventer is leaning, Allen said.

"The entire arrangement has kind of listed a little bit," he said. A government spokesman later said this development wasn't new.

Even the most sober analysts are quick to say that this is such an unpredictable well that almost anything is possible. Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, said additional leaks are a possible source of deep-sea plumes of oil detected by research vessels. But this part of the gulf is pocked with natural seeps, he noted. Conceivably the drilling of the well, and/or the subsequent blowout, could have affected the seeps, he said.

"Once you started disturbing the underground geology, you may have made one of those seeps even worse," he said.

But Tadeusz Patzek, a professor who is the chairman of the department of petroleum and geosystems engineering at the University of Texas, argues that the discussion has been hijacked by people who don't know what they're talking about.

"There is a lot of fast talk, which has little relation sometimes to reality," Patzek said. "And there is jumping to conclusions by the people who have no right to jump to any conclusions because they don't know."

Much of the worst-case-scenario talk has centered on the flow rate of the well. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), among the harshest critics of BP in recent weeks, generated headlines with a dramatic announcement Sunday.

"I actually have a document that shows that BP actually believes it could go upwards of 100,000 barrels per day," Markey said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "So, again, right from the beginning, BP was either lying or grossly incompetent. First they said it was only 1,000. Then they said it was 5,000 barrels. Now we're up to 100,000 barrels."

The 1,000- and 5,000-barrel figures (42,000 gallons and 210,000 gallons), however, were estimates of the actual flow; the 100,000-barrel figure (4.2 million gallons) in the internal BP document was based on a hypothetical situation. The document stated, "If BOP and wellhead are removed and if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions -- the rate could be as high as {tilde}100,000 barrels per day." The blowout preventer and wellhead have not been removed.

Another undated BP document, released by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) last week, has an even more dramatic worst-case scenario for the well's flow rate, but again one based not on the well as it is but on a theoretical formulation arrived at before the drilling. Under the heading "Maximum Discharge Calculation," the document states that, given the most "optimistic assumptions" about the size of the reservoir and the intensity of the pressure at depth and assuming a total loss of well control and no inhibitions on the flow, "a maximum case discharge of 162,000 barrels per day was estimated."

After the Deepwater Horizon rig sank, BP recalculated that estimate based on what was known about the well. BP executives in early May briefed members of Congress on their conclusion: that the absolute worst-case flow rate was 60,000 barrels, with a "more reasonable worst-case scenario" of 40,000 barrels a day, the document states.

Today the official government estimate of the flow, based on multiple techniques that include subsea video and satellite surveys of the oil sick on the surface, is 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day.

In effect, what BP considered the worst-case scenario in early May is in late June the bitter reality -- call it the new normal -- of the gulf blowout.


Cracks Show BP Was Battling Gulf Well as Early as February

BP Plc was struggling to seal cracks in its Macondo well as far back as February, more than two months before an explosion killed 11 and spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

It took 10 days to plug the first cracks, according to reports BP filed with the Minerals Management Service that were later delivered to congressional investigators. Cracks in the surrounding rock continued to complicate the drilling operation during the ensuing weeks. Left unsealed, they can allow explosive natural gas to rush up the shaft.

“Once they realized they had oil down there, all the decisions they made were designed to get that oil at the lowest cost,” said Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been working with congressional investigators probing the disaster. “It’s been a doomed voyage from the beginning.”

BP didn’t respond to calls and e-mails seeking comment. The company’s shares rose 22 pence to 359 pence today in London after the company struck a deal with the Obama administration yesterday to establish a $20 billion fund to pay cleanup costs and compensation. BP has lost 45 percent of its market value since the catastrophe.

On Feb. 13, BP told the minerals service it was trying to seal cracks in the well about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast, drilling documents obtained by Bloomberg show. Investigators are still trying to determine whether the fissures played a role in the disaster.

‘Cement Squeeze’

The company attempted a “cement squeeze,” which involves pumping cement to seal the fissures, according to a well activity report. Over the following week the company made repeated attempts to plug cracks that were draining expensive drilling fluid, known as “mud,” into the surrounding rocks.

BP used three different substances to plug the holes before succeeding, the documents show.

“Most of the time you do a squeeze and then let it dry and you’re done,” said John Wang, an assistant professor of petroleum and natural gas engineering at Penn State in University Park, Pennsylvania. “It dries within a few hours.”

Repeated squeeze attempts are unusual and may indicate rig workers are using the wrong kind of cement, Wang said.

Grappling Engineers

BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward and other top executives were ignorant of the difficulties the company’s engineers were grappling with in the well before the explosion, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said today during a hearing in Washington.

“We could find no evidence that you paid any attention to the tremendous risk BP was taking,” Waxman said as Hayward waited to testify. “There is not a single e-mail or document that you paid the slightest attention to the dangers at this well.”

BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles and exploration chief Andy Inglis “were apparently oblivious to what was happening,” said Waxman, a California Democrat. “BP’s corporate complacency is astonishing.”

In early March, BP told the minerals agency the company was having trouble maintaining control of surging natural gas, according to e-mails released May 30 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the spill.

Gas Surges

While gas surges are common in oil drilling, companies have abandoned wells if they determine the risk is too high. When a Gulf well known as Blackbeard threatened to blow out in 2006, Exxon Mobil Corp. shut the project down.

“We don’t proceed if we cannot do so safely,” Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson told a House Energy and Commerce committee panel on June 15.

On March 10, BP executive Scherie Douglas e-mailed Frank Patton, the mineral service’s drilling engineer for the New Orleans district, telling him: “We’re in the midst of a well control situation.”

The incident was a “showstopper,” said Robert Bea, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who has consulted with the Interior Department on offshore drilling safety. “They damn near blew up the rig.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at; Joe Carroll in Washington at


Peak oil postponed again

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
June 23rd, 2010

So there is plenty of oil and gas after all. Prices will bumble along gently until well into the next decade. We are becoming more efficient in our use of energy, with 3pc extra savings annually. That is a faster pace than the rising real cost of fuel. Mankind will not run out of fuel for a very long time.

The energy market is a window on the global economy

That at least is the story today from the International Energy Agency. Their medium-term outlook for fossil fuel markets is a dazzling contrast with last year’s warnings that a combination of break-neck industrialisation in China and lack of investment in new oil fields (thanks to the credit freeze) would exhaust global spare capacity by 2013.

The IEA said then that we would need “four new Saudi Arabias” within a generation to cope with the rise of China, and there were no such Saudi Arabias in sight. Such are the perils of forecasting the volatile variables of supply and demand for oil.

What has changed – apart from human emotions? For starters, the global gas market has been undergoing a revolution as a result of

a) liquefied natural gas, a technology that is only just coming into its own and allows countries such as Qatar to ship their once useless reserves of gas on frozen hulls across the world; LNG output will increase by 50pc from 2008 to 2013. Actually, this is not that new, but never mind.

b) advances in US gas extraction from rock, which have turned the US into the world’s biggest producer of gas. Europe is jumping on the bandwagon. “The development of unconventional gas in North America is of global significance,” said the agency. Indeed it is. The knock-on effects run right through the energy complex.

The IEA now expects spare capacity of oil to remain at a comfortable 3.5m barrels a day (bpd) in 2015, with consumption edging up by an extra 1m bpd each year to around 90m bpd (or 92m if global growth is stronger). All this is quite manageable. It talked of a “gentle nominal price escalation through mid-decade, with prices rising from $77 to $86″.

The alarmist stories we heard last year from certain City banks about collapsing supply (I will spare the names) were wildly wrong. The IEA’s upward revisions from 2009 come from the US, Russia, Colombia, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Egypt, and even the UK (+80,000).

Supply is rising from off-shore Brazil, the Caspian, Canadian oil sands, and biofuels, offsettting declines in the North Sea. Non-OPEC output will actually grow from 51.5m (bpd) to 52.5m by 2015. No crisis there … Latin America will jump from 3.9m to 5.1m, the old Soviet bloc from 13.3m to 13.8m.

On the demand side, America’s gasoline use is slowly “evaporating”. Consumption is falling by 0.6pc a year. This will continue after the new standard of 35.5 miles per gallon for light vehicles that came into force in April. Battery technologies for electric vehicles are on the cusp of a break-through, so long as lithium does not run short, (Half the world’s reserves are in Bolivia). Japanese researchers have built an 8-wheel prototype with a motor in each wheel that massively extends battery life because less energy is lost. “The transportation game-changer is just beginning,” said the IEA.

There are “demand risks”. Large parts of Asia, Latin America, and the Mid-East are at cusp of the “critical oil demand ‘take-off’ zone of $3,000 to $4,000 per capita income” when use explodes – ie, when they move from bicycles to scooters to cars, and install air-conditioning. Demand from emerging economies will make up 52pc of total global consumption by 2015. ( The rich countries have already hit the “S Curve” of saturation, followed by a long slow slide).

I am not an oil expert, just a curious spectator like many readers. I keep an eye on energy markets because they are a window into the global economy and the world’s strategic system.

I pass on the report without taking any particular view, and would be interested in your thoughts. My own suspicion is that Peak Oil has not been conjured away quite so easily as the IEA suggests, especially after BP’s debacle in the Gulf of Mexico.

At the very least, the marginal cost and risk cost of deep-sea drilling has rocketed. This must affect projects off Brazil, Angola, the Norwegian Arctic, and up in Russia’s `High North’. If the spill keeps gushing into the Autumn it may do to sea drilling, what Three Mile Island did to the US nuclear industry for thirty years.

Jeremy Leggett from Solarcentury and a member of the UK’s Task Force on Peak Oil argues that Big Oil has systemically overstated reserves for years to inflate share prices, shielded by captive regulators. Their deception compares to the systemic errors of the banks in the credit crunch, but ultimately on a bigger scale and with potentially more nefaste consequences.

I reserve my judgement on this. The energy market is infuriatingly opaque. But on balance, I think IEA was closer to the truth last year.


BP oil leak aftermath: Slow-motion tragedy unfolds for marine life

The wildlife haven Grand Isle is at the heart of the environmental catastrophe engulfing Louisiana

Suzanne Goldenberg in Grand Isle, Louisiana
Thursday 10 June 2010

A dead crab sits among the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil  spill

A dead crab sits among the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a beach in Grand Isle.
Photograph: Lee Celano/Reuters

Out on the water, it starts as a slight rainbow shimmer, then turns to wide orange streamers of oil whipping through the waves. Later, on the beach, we witness a vast, Olympic-sized swimming pool of dark chocolatey syrup left behind at low tide, and thick dark patches of crude bubbling on the sand.

The smell of the oil on the beach is so strong it burns your nostrils, and leaves you feeling dizzy and headachey even after a few minutes away from it.

According to marine biologist Rick Steiner, my companion on a boat ride through the slick, this is the most volatile and toxic form of crude oil in the waters and lapping on to the beaches of Grand Isle, the area at the heart of the slowly unfolding environmental apocalypse that has engulfed Louisiana, and is now moving eastwards, threatening Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Panhandle.

Fifty-three days after BP's ruptured well began spewing crude oil from 5,000ft below the sea, the wholesale slaughter of dolphins, pelicans, hermit crab and other marine life is only now becoming readily visible to humans.

So too is the futility of the Obama administration's response effort, with protective boom left to float uselessly at sea or – in the case of the Queen Bess pelican sanctuary which we visit – trapping the oil in vulnerable nesting grounds.

Steiner, 57, a marine biologist from the University of Alaska and a veteran of America's last oil spill disaster, the Exxon Valdez, says he is in the Gulf of Mexico "to bear witness", and for days he has been taking to the beaches and the waters in a Greenpeace boat gathering evidence.

The first casualties on Steiner's tour appear minutes after our boat leaves the marina and moves through Barataria Pass, prime feeding ground for bottlenose dolphins. Several appear, swimming, eating, even mating in waters criss-crossed by wide burnt-orange streamers of oil. All are at risk of absorbing toxins, from the original spill and from more than 1.2m gallons of chemicals dumped into the Gulf to try to break up the slick, says Steiner.

"They get it in their eyes. They get it in the fish they eat and it is also possible when they come to the surface and open their blowhole to breathe that they are inhaling some of it," he says.

The Greenpeace crew turn up the throttle and the boat pulls up to the orange and yellow protective boom around Queen Bess island, which was intended as a haven for the brown pelican. These birds, until recently, were on the federal government's list of endangered species and were doing OK – but now that recovery appears to have been abruptly reversed.

A dark tideline of oil encircles the island, and has crept into the marsh grasses, where the pelican nest. Many, if not most, of the adult birds had patches of oil on their chest feathers. Nearly all are doomed, says Steiner, if not now, then at some point in the future. "The risks in here to birds are not just acute mortality right here right now," he says. "There is mortality we won't see for a month or two months, or even a year."

He points out a pelican standing so still it looks like it's been made out of a slab of chocolate, another frantically flapping its spread wings to try to shake off the oil, and then another manically pecking at the spots on its chest. "He could be a candidate for cleaning, and he may survive," Steiner says. "He obviously won't if he's not cleaned."

Rescue teams have plucked hundreds of birds from the muck. But stripping oil from the feathers of stricken birds is a slow and delicate operation, and there is no assurance of the birds' survival. About a third of the rescued birds have died so far.

As we pull up to Queen Bess island, two crew boats are at work shoring up the two lines of defence for the island: an outer ring of orange and yellow protective boom intended to push the oil back out to sea, as well as an inner ring of white absorbent material that is supposed to suck up any of the crude that gets through.

Since oil began lapping at the Louisiana coast, the government has set down 2.25m ft of containment boom and 2.55m ft of absorbent material. But local sports fishermen on Grand Isle complain response crews bungled the protection zone for Queen Bess because they only put a portion of the island behind the orange and yellow barrier boom. That turned the boom into traps which pushed even greater quantities of oil onshore. Steiner agrees: "I would say 70% or 80% of the booms are doing absolutely nothing at all."

The efforts on the beaches seem equally futile. By day workers in white protective suits march along the sands of the state park on the eastern end of Grand Isle, trying to suck up the oil. But as the tide goes out there is only more oil to be found, and dozens of dead hermit crab that have struggled to flee to shore.

Steiner says he has seen it all before, after the Exxon Valdez went aground in 1989, and then in other oil spills he has monitored around the world from Lebanon to Pakistan. There is, he says, a drearily familiar pattern. "Industry always habitually understate the size of a spill and impact as well as habitually overstate the effectiveness of the response."

In the case of the Exxon Valdez, he says, the environmental impacts persisted for months or years after the tanker went aground. That catastrophe, which saw 11m gallons of crude dumped into the pristine waters of Alaska, occurred within the space of six hours.

This spill is much worse. BP's well on the ocean floor has been spewing greater volumes of crude oil into the water for 53 days. Even by the administration's most optimistic forecasts, it will keep gushing until August, and the clean-up could last well into the autumn.

"This is just the start. It is going to keep coming in even if they shut the damn thing off today," says Steiner.


BP 'manipulating search results' on Google following oil spill

June 8, 2010

BP is being accused of trying to manipulate the search results on sites like Google and Yahoo, as it attempts to salvage its battered image following the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.

The company is purchasing terms such as “oil spill”, “Deepwater Horizon” and “Gulf of Mexico”, so that when a user types these words into the search engines, the results prominently feature a “sponsored link” to BP’s official page on its response to the spill.

Critics have described BP’s move as unethical. Maureen Mackey, a writer on the Fiscal Times, an online news site, said: “What it effectively does is that it bumps down other legitimate news and opinion pieces that are addressing the spill... and \[BP are\] paying big money for that.”

The criticism comes as President Obama expressed unease at the amount of money the company was spending to counter the negative attention the company has received following the oil spill.

BP has confirmed that its digital teams based in Houston and London, together with the company’s marketing executives, are currently engaged in buying search terms.

The company sought to downplay the strategy, saying that it was aimed at helping those most affected by the spill, by providing accurate information on the correct forms to fill in and key people to contact.

When a user types any term into Google, the search engine returns the most relevant internet links relating to that term. In addition, companies can bid against each other, so that their advert also appears in the search results. These “sponsored links” are clearly distinguished and can appear above or alongside normal search results.

Groups can bid pennies or thousands of pounds for a search term, but the highest bid does not necessarily win. Google demands that adverts are “relevant” - for example, that the link is proven useful as many people have clicked on it.

BP have not revealed how much buying search terms such as “oil slick” has cost the firm. Companies are charged “per click”, meaning the more people click on the adverts, the more it will cost the firm. The New York marketing analyst Scott Slatin, who specializes in search engines, has estimated that BP is paying search engines over $10,000 a day to “own the top positions”.

Other analysts say that the move is a legitimate tactic that has been used successfully by other organisations in crises.

As the importance of the internet has grown, companies have increasingly tried to control their public image through buying advertising on search engines. Political parties across the world, include the Conservative Party during this years general election, have bought key search terms to ensure their messages are at the top of search engine results.


Who Voted to Limit the Liability of Oil Companies?

In 1990 Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. This act set liability limitations to $75 million for oil spills like the one we are witnessing in the Gulf Coast today. Setting a liability limit on damages created by oil drilling can only encourage the lowering and neglect of safety standards and procedures, ultimately causing more oil spills.

The congress-persons who voted for the Oil Pollution Act are directly responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf. They enabled British Petroleum to loosen their safety procedures, to operate without redundant oil spill prevention systems, to take risks, etc. This is the very reason the same oil spill clean up technologies used the in the late 70’s are still in place today. The Oil Pollution Act destroyed any motivation for improvement in oil spill safety, prevention and oil spill containment procedures by removing the penalties for neglect.

Many congress-persons who voted for this act are still in office today. They must be removed from office. They are in the back pocket of the oil industry and they are directly responsible for this catastrophe. Please join this facebook page and invite your friends to spread awareness for the election season >> I encourage irresponsible oil drilling, please vote me out of office.

Here are their names (these congress-persons voted for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990):

United States Senators – [source]

Richard Shelby – Alabama

John McCain – Arizona

Barbara Boxer – California

Chris Dodd – Connecticut

Joe Lieberman – Connecticut

Joe Biden – Delaware (currently Vice President)

Tom Carper – Deleware

Daniel Inouye – Hawaii

Daniel Akaka – Hawaii

Dick Durbin – Illinois

Richard Lugar – Indiana

Chuck Grassley – Iowa

Tom Harkin – Iowa

Pat Roberts – Kansas

Jim Bunning – Kentucky

Mitch McConnell – Kentucky

Olympia Snowe – Maine

Ben Cardin – Maryland

Barbara Mikulski – Maryland

John Kerry – Massachusettes

Carl Levin – Michigan

Thad Cochran – Mississippi

Kit Bond – Missouri

Max Baucus – Montana

Harry Reid – Nevada

Frank Lautenberg – New Jersey

Jeff Bingaman – New Mexico

Chuck Schumer – New York

Kent Conrad – North Dakota

Byron Dorgan – North Dakota

Jim Inhofe – Oklahoma

Ron Wyden – Oregon

Arlen Specter – Pennsylvania

Tim Johnson – South Dakota

Orrin Hatch – Utah

Patrick Leahy – Vermont

Robert Byrd – West Virgnia

Jay Rockefeller – West Virginia

Herb Kohl – Wisconsin

U.S. Congress – [source]

Don Young – Alaska

Jon Kyl – Arizona

Howard Berman – California

David Dreier – California

Elton Gallegly – California

Wally Herger – California

Jerry Lewis – California

George Miller – California

Nancy Pelosi – California

Dana Rohrabacher – California

Henry Waxman – California

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – Florida

Cliff Stearns – Florida

Bill Young – Florida

John Lewis – Georgia

Jerry Costello – Illinois

Dan Burton – Indiana

Pete Visclosky – Indiana

Hal Rogers – Kentucky

Barney Frank – Massachussetts

Ed Markey – Massachussetts

Richard Neal – Massachussetts

Steny Hoyer – Maryland

John Conyers – Michigan

John Dingell – Michigan

Dale Kildee – Michigan

Sander Levin – Michigan

Fred Upton – Michigan

Jim Oberstar – Minnesota

Gene Taylor – Mississippi

Frank Pallone – New Jersey

Chris Smith – New Jersey

Donald Payne – New Jersey

Gary Ackerman – New York

Eliot Engel – New York

Nita Lowey – New York

Charles Rangel – New York

Jose Serrano – New York

Louise Slaughter – New York

Ed Towns – New York

Howard Coble – North Carolina

David Price – North Carolina

Marcy Kaptur – Ohio

Peter DeFazio – Oregon

Paul Kanjorski – Pennsylvania

John Spratt, Jr. – South Carolina

Jim Cooper – Tennessee

John Duncan – Tennessee

Bart Gordon – Tennessee

John Tanner – Tennessee

Joe Barton – Texas

Ralph Hall – Texas

Solomon Ortiz – Texas

Lamar Smith – Texas

Frank Wolf – Virgnia

Jim McDermott – Washington

Nick Rahall – West Virginia

Alan Mollohan – West Virgninia

Dave Obey – Wisconsin

Jim Sensenbrenner – Wisconsin

Not in office but still active politically

Newt Gingrich


related post:

the cost of cheap oil, deepwater horizon highlights

No comments:

Post a Comment