Pages

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

BP's murky deep-water future

By Ken Stier, contributorMay 11, 2010: 1:44 PM ET


(Fortune) -- Not only did the virtually impossible happen -- a blowout on the Gulf of Mexico seabed a mile down -- it happened to a top-notch oil team. BP's debacle is the U.S. oil industry's most serious setback, undercutting nearly 60 years of incremental progress in offshore drilling, and it could crimp future output from ultra-deep water, the source of an increasing share of America's -- and the world's -- oil production.

"I know all the companies have big egos, and they think they can do best, but when they see something like this happening to this [BP] team, they have to be shaking their heads and wonder what the heck is going on -- this was pretty much an all-star team," says Gary Taylor, a senior writer for Platts Oilgram News, who has four decades of experience covering the industry.



What will happen is a major industry review, both from within, and from the U.S. government.

Output will come at a higher cost as regulations tighten and insurance rates go up, in addition to the significant adjustments the industry will take on its own as the reverberations spread.

The unprecedented oil spill came less than one month after President Obama decided to open up offshore drilling in the Atlantic, from Virginia to mid-Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. But last Thursday, the Department of the Interior halted all permits for any new exploratory drilling in the outer continental shelf, pending the outcome of a 30-day investigation -- a report is due May 28 -- into the cause of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

The U.S. gets more than a third of the oil it produces domestically from the Gulf of Mexico. Already 20% to 25% of this is from ultra-deepwater; and that share is rising as fields in shallower water decline in productivity.

"We have milked the on-shore cow pretty hard in all major oil-producing basins of the world. It is the offshore really where the future is," says John Olson, a former industry analyst who is now managing director of an energy hedge fund, Houston Energy Partners.

How the spill will affect the industry's reputation

Typically, operators over-engineer and build in redundant safety systems that are meant to prepare for a worst-case scenario. But in the real world, three BP (BP) systems designed to shut the well-head off on the Deepwater Horizon rig failed.

The media raised the suspicion that the oil industry has begun to inappropriately cut corners, but insiders say the industry has a frontline stake in maintaining safety standards.

"There is a natural compulsion, that has nothing to do with regulation, to be careful," says Bob Tippee, editor of Oil & Gas Journal. "People in the industry, better than anyone, know the dangers. They are trained to know that; that's what all their education is about. They are putting their lives on the line."



While the jury is out on whether BP was negligent in this case, its reputation seems bound to deteriorate after already being seriously dented by the 16 deaths from its Texas City refinery explosion in 2005 and by the Prudhoe Bay pipeline leak in 2006.

Much rides on how quickly the company can staunch the flow of crude into the Gulf waters and how much damage the released crude does to the fishing and tourism industries. Initial efforts to cap the well failed, but the company continues to try. "My hat's off to them if they can make that work because they are taking a page out of Star Trek there with this thing," says Taylor.

BP, which owns 60% of the Mississippi Canyon 252 lease, initially suggested that blame for the accident lay elsewhere (it is not the operator), but the company has accepted responsibility for claims it acknowledged will exceed the current $75 million cap established by the Oil Pollution Act. On Monday, BP said it has spent $350 million so far on cleanup and other costs associated with the massive spill.

"If BP is successful in the next two weeks, costs could be under $1 billion," says a May 3 research note from Oppenheimer & Co., an investment firm. "If all failed until the relief well is completed in 90 days, costs could be significantly higher." By comparison, the Exxon Valdez accident 20 years ago cost more than $3.5 billion in cleanup and $5 billion in damages.

Others say BP can expect to take a hit of $6 billion or more -- in addition to its share-price loss. On Wednesday, Moody's revised its outlook for the company to negative, noting that "it is too early to exclude scenarios leading to downward pressure on [BP's] Aa1 rating."

How much of a punching bag a Democratic-controlled Congress makes of BP is another unknown variable. And, perhaps more significantly, it is also unclear whether other oil companies will opt to avoid BP as a partner, particularly on U.S. projects.

"We have every oil company and oil services company under the sun engaged with us," says David Nicholas, a spokesperson for BP. Nicholas also noted that whatever is learned from the spill will provide "invaluable lessons for the whole industry."

BP, which pioneered deepwater drilling in the North Sea, has the biggest industry presence in the Gulf in terms of leases, production, reserves, and the overall investment -- and any shift to rebalance its portfolio worldwide would be another expensive consequence of the blow-out. Although the company says it has no plans to do so, if containment and clean-up efforts go badly, brand consultants have even suggested BP may be tempted to change its name.

Does Limbaugh go too far? or is he a genius?

constituency politics ......the traveling salesman, mostly men, white, traveling and alone. He panders to them








Task Force on Childhood Obesity

May 11 2010
Michelle Obama and other Obama administration officials unveiled the findings of the Childhood Obesity Task Force report.

Take a Look at Our Action Plan to Solve the Problem of Childhood Obesity

Today, the Childhood Obesity Task Force is excited to release our action plan to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation. The First Lady will be holding a press conference this morning to talk about the report, and you can tune in and watch it live at 10:30AM EDT at www.WhiteHouse.gov/live. And make sure to take a look at the report HERE! It will serve as a roadmap for the work we need to do together to make sure that our kids grow up healthy and have the opportunity to live active lives.
The report reflects input from 12 federal agencies as well as the 2,500 submissions we got from parents, teachers, doctors, nurses and others. It includes 70 recommendations for public and private sector action, as well as concrete metrics and benchmarks to measure our progress towards our goal. Very broadly, the report makes recommendations in 5 key areas:
  1. Getting children a healthy start on life, with good prenatal care for their parents; support for breastfeeding; limits on “screen time”; and quality child care settings with nutritious food and ample opportunity for young children to be physically active.
  2. Empowering parents and caregivers with simpler, more actionable messages about nutritional choices based on the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans; improved labels on food and menus that provide clear information to help make healthy choices for children; reduced marketing of unhealthy products to children; and improved health care services, including BMI measurement for all children.
  3. Providing healthy food in schools, through improvements in federally-supported school lunches and breakfasts; upgrading the nutritional quality of other foods sold in schools; and improving nutrition education and the overall school environment.
  4. Improving access to healthy, affordable food, by eliminating “food deserts” in urban and rural America; lowering the relative prices of healthier foods; developing or reformulating food products to be healthier; and reducing the incidence of hunger, which has been linked to obesity.
  5. Getting children more physically active, through quality physical education, recess, and other opportunities in and after school; addressing aspects of the “built environment” that make it difficult for children to walk or bike safely in their communities; and improving access to safe parks, playgrounds, and indoor and outdoor recreational facilities.
Many of our ideas can be implemented right away, at little or no cost. With the First Lady’s leadership and working in strong partnership with states, local communities, and the private sector, we look forward to moving without delay to get this plan into action. Let’s Move!

More News on the Oil SPill And BP

BP fails again on stopping ruinous oil
Rachel Maddow reports on the series of failures and increasingly desperate new ideas to stem the flow of oil gushing from a damaged well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico.




Google Maps charts oil spill's growth
Interactive: Deep Horizon Oil Leak

This is a good interactive show and tells you about the sensitive land and wildlife.
Oil companies pass the buck for Gulf spill
At hearing, senator predicts 'liability chase' among well partners
Video
  BP's low-tech fixes
May 11: Engineers are deploying technology that has not changed in 20 years in an effort to stop the oil leak. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.
 BP America President Lamar McKay, Transocean President Steven Newman and Halliburton Global Business President Tim Probert are sworn in at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Tuesday in Washington.
 
updated 1:37 p.m. ET, Tues., May 11, 2010
WASHINGTON - Executives of the three companies involved in the Gulf oil disaster — BP, Transocean and Halliburton — testified before senators Tuesday and were quick to lay blame elsewhere.
In their opening statements, the executives said it was too early to draw conclusions but then explained what they thought went wrong and who was responsible.
Transocean, which owned the rig that exploded, suggested work done by subcontractor Halliburton could have been the key factor. Halliburton and BP, meanwhile, said the blowout preventer that failed on Transocean's rig was critical.
"I can see the liability chase that's going to go on," Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as the hearing got under way.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, urged the companies not to point fingers, saying that "we are all in this together."
Separately, the Obama administration announced it will split up the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling as part of its response.
In Congress, lawmakers asked oil industry giant BP, which operated the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig 40 miles off the Louisiana coast, why its drilling plans discounted the risk that such a catastrophic pipeline rupture would ever happen, and why it assumed that if a leak did occur, the oil would not pose a major threat.
A top executive of BP, which leased the rig for exploratory drilling, focused on a critical safety device that was supposed to shut off oil flow on the ocean floor in the event of a well blowout but "failed to operate."
"That was to be the fail-safe in case of an accident," said BP American President Lamar McKay, pointedly noting that the 450-ton blowout preventer — as well as the rig itself — was owned by Transocean Ltd.
Of the 126 people on the Deepwater Horizon rig when it was engulfed in flames, only seven were BP employees, said McKay.
But Transocean CEO Steven Newman sought to put responsibility on BP.
"Offshore oil and gas production projects begin and end with the operator, in this case BP," said Newman. It was BP that prepared the drilling plan and was in charge when the drilling concluded and the crew was preparing to cap the well 5,000 feet beneath the sea, he added.
To blame the blowout preventers "simply makes no sense" because there is "no reason to believe" that the equipment was not operational before the explosion, Newman argued.
Newman said it was BP that gave the go-ahead to fill the well pipe with sea water before a final cement cap was installed, reducing the downward pressure.

The executives said this was a practice that was being used frequently and that BP got approval from the federal Minerals Management Service.

Newman said there is "no reason to believe" its blowout preventer didn't work and that it might have been clogged by debris shooting up the well.
Halliburton brought in
Newman also cited Halliburton Inc., which as a subcontractor was encasing the well pipe in cement before plugging it — a process dictated by BP's drilling plan.
"The one thing we know with certainty is that on the evening of April 20, there was a sudden, catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both," Newman said. "Therein lies the root cause of this occurrence; without a disastrous failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred."
A Halliburton executive, Tim Probert, said the company's work was finished "in accordance with the requirements" set out by BP and with accepted industry practices.
Pressure tests were conducted after the cementing work was finished to demonstrate well integrity, he said. "The results of the positive test were reviewed by the well owner and the decision was made to proceed with the well program," he added.
Departing from his prepared remarks, Probert also said that "had the blowout preventer functioned as expected this catastrophe may not have occurred."
Republican Senator Jeff Sessions questioned the three executives over reports BP may have asked the government for permission to remove thick drilling mud from the well before a final cement plug was put in place by Halliburton to seal the well at the sea floor.
Sessions' home state of Alabama could suffer severe environmental and economic damages if the oil slick hits its southern coast.
McKay said he could not answer Sessions' inquiry, but that a BP investigation of the accident would examine all procedures that preceded the explosion.
Pressed on whether removing mud was unusual, Probert said "it is a procedure that has been used on multiple occasions" in offshore projects.
He added any decision to remove the drilling mud would be made between the leaseholder of the rig, in this case BP, and government regulators.
The morning hearing and an ongoing afternoon session before the Senate Environmental and Public Health Committee give lawmakers their first chance to question the executives publicly about the rig fire, attempts to stop the flow of oil and efforts to reduce the damage.
In Louisiana, the Coast Guard and the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service were beginning two days of hearings on the cause of the explosion. The list of witnesses scheduled to testify includes a Coast Guard search and rescue specialist, crew members from a cargo vessel that was tethered to the Deepwater Horizon rig and two Interior inspectors.
The Obama administration, lawmakers and environmental groups have said new regulations will likely be needed to improve safety at deepwater wells.
The executives in their testimony did not offer recommendations on how to protect workers from such explosions in the future or how to better prevent and control oil spills in the Gulf's very deep waters.
Lawmakers in the House and the Senate have also introduced legislation that would raise the amount of money BP would be responsible to dole out for economic losses caused by the spill to $10 billion, from $75 million under current law.
The oil spill casts a great deal of uncertainty on the fate of the Senate compromise climate bill set to be released this week. Some coastal state Democrats have threatened to oppose the legislation, which is expected to include measures promoting offshore drilling in new areas.
The executives will return to Capitol Hill Wednesday, when they will testify about the oil spill before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.
The hearings come during a desperate race against time to stem the oil gushing from a well ruptured after an explosion last month that killed 11 workers, sank the rig and set in motion the unfolding economic and ecological disaster.
Delays in containing the leak — estimated at 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) of oil a day — increase the chances it could become the worst U.S. oil spill ever, surpassing the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska.
BP now aims to deploy a small "top hat" dome over the leak after its effort over the weekend to cover it with a huge metal box was stymied by a buildup of crystallized gas hydrates.
In other developments:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency gave the go-ahead Monday to use oil dispersing chemicals near the sea bottom where the oil is leaking, although the agency acknowledged ecological effects of the chemical are not yet fully known. Two tests have shown the procedure helps break up the oil before it reaches the surface.




  • BP said it has spent $350 million so far on spill response activities.




  • President Barack Obama, after being briefed on the latest developments Monday, directed that more independent scientists get involved in seeking a solution to the spill. Energy Secretary Steven Chu will take a team of scientists to BP in Houston.




  • BP said it has received 4,700 claims for damages related to the spill and so far has paid out $3.5 million on 295 of the claims.



  • “BROKEN HEART” SYNDROME: REAL, POTENTIALLY DEADLY BUT RECOVERY QUICK

    Johns Hopkins Medicine
    Office of Corporate Communications
    Media contact: David March
    410-955-1534; dmarch1@jhmi.edu
    February 9, 2005
    A video news release is available.  PLAY VIDEO 
     
     “BROKEN HEART” SYNDROME: REAL, POTENTIALLY DEADLY BUT RECOVERY QUICK
    -- Hopkins scientists discover that emotional shock can trigger sudden, reversible heart failure that is not a classic heart attack
    Hopkins cardiologist Ilan Wittstein, M.D.
    *click on image for higher resolution version

    Shocking news, such as learning of the unexpected death of a loved one, has been known to cause catastrophic events, such as a heart attack. 
    Now, researchers at Johns Hopkins have discovered that sudden emotional stress can also result in severe but reversible heart muscle weakness that mimics a classic heart attack.  Patients with this condition, called stress cardiomyopathy but known colloquially as “broken heart” syndrome, are often misdiagnosed with a massive heart attack when, indeed, they have suffered from a days-long surge in adrenalin (epinephrine) and other stress hormones that temporarily “stun” the heart. 
    “Our study should help physicians distinguish between stress cardiomyopathy and heart attacks,” says study lead author and cardiologist Ilan Wittstein, M.D., an assistant professor at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and its Heart Institute.  “And it should also reassure patients that they have not had permanent heart damage.”
    In the Hopkins study, to be published in The New England Journal of Medicine online Feb. 10, the research team found that some people may respond to sudden, overwhelming emotional stress by releasing large amounts of catecholamines (notably adrenalin and noradrenalin, also called epinephrine and norepinephrine) into the blood stream, along with their breakdown products and small proteins produced by an excited nervous system.  These chemicals can be temporarily toxic to the heart, effectively stunning the muscle and producing symptoms similar to a typical heart attack, including chest pain, fluid in the lungs, shortness of breath and heart failure. 
    Upon closer examination, though, the researchers determined that cases of stress cardiomyopathy were clinically very different from a typical heart attack. 
    “After observing several cases of ‘broken heart’ syndrome at Hopkins hospitals - most of them in middle-aged or elderly women - we realized that these patients had clinical features quite different from typical cases of heart attack, and that something very different was happening,” says Wittstein.  “These cases were, initially, difficult to explain because most of the patients were previously healthy and had few risk factors for heart disease.”
    For example, examination by angiogram showed no blockages in the arteries supplying the heart.  Blood tests also failed to reveal some typical signs of a heart attack, such as highly elevated levels of cardiac enzymes that are released into the blood stream from damaged heart muscle.  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans confirmed that none of the stressed patients had suffered irreversible muscle damage.  Of greatest surprise, the team says, was that recovery rates were much faster than typically seen after a heart attack.  Stressed patients showed dramatic improvement in their hearts’ ability to pump within a few days and had complete recovery within two weeks.  In contrast, partial recovery after a heart attack can take weeks or months and, frequently, the heart muscle damage is permanent.  
    The researchers collected detailed histories and conducted several tests, including blood work, echocardiograms, electrocardiograms, coronary angiograms, MRI scans and heart biopsies, on a total of 19 patients who came to Hopkins between November 1999 and September 2003.  All had signs of an apparent heart attack immediately after some kind of sudden emotional stress, including news of a death, shock from a surprise party, fear of public speaking, armed robbery, a court appearance and a car accident.  Eighteen of the stressed patients were female, between the age of 27 and 87, with a median age of 63.  The results were then compared to seven other patients, all of whom had suffered classic, severe cases of heart attack, called a Killip class III myocardial infarction.
    When results from both groups were compared, the researchers found that initial levels of catecholamines in the stress cardiomyopathy patients were two to three times the levels among patients with classic heart attack, and seven to 34 times normal levels. 
    Catecholamine metabolites, such as metanephrine and normetanephrine, were also massively elevated, as were other stress-related proteins, such as neuropeptide Y, brain natriuretic peptide and serotonin.  These results provided added confirmation that the syndrome was stress induced.  Heart biopsies also showed an injury pattern consistent with a high catecholamine state and not heart attack.
    A hallmark feature of the syndrome was the heart’s unique contraction pattern as viewed by echocardiogram, or ultrasound.  While the base of the heart’s main pumping chamber, the left ventricle, contracted normally, there was weakened contraction in the middle and upper portions of the muscle.  Other characteristics included a distinctive pattern on electrocardiogram, or EKG.
    “How stress hormones act to stun the heart remains unknown, but there are several possible explanations that will be the subject of additional studies,” says study co-investigator and cardiologist Hunter Champion, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor at Hopkins and its Heart Institute.  “The chemicals may cause spasm in the coronary arteries, or have a direct toxic effect on the heart muscle, or cause calcium overload that results in temporary dysfunction.”
    The researchers also plan to study whether certain patients have a specific genetic vulnerability for developing stress cardiomyopathy, and why it predominantly strikes older women.
    While the folklore of “broken heart” syndrome has been around for decades, the prevalence of the condition remains unknown.  According to Wittstein, some reports exist, mainly from Japan, and describe similar syndromes, but no biochemical analyses have previously been performed that link the condition to elevated catecholamine levels.  The researchers contend that while stress cardiomyopathy is not as common as a typical heart attack, it likely occurs more frequently than doctors realize.  They expect its numbers to increase as more physicians learn to recognize the syndrome’s unique clinical features.
    Funding for this study, conducted solely at Johns Hopkins, was provided by the Bernard A. and Rebecca S. Bernard Foundation.  Other researchers who took part in this study were Trinity Bivalacqua, M.D., Ph.D.; Jeffrey Rade, M.D.; Katherine Wu, M.D.; Gary Gerstenblith, M.D.; Steven Schulman, M.D.; Kenneth Baughman, M.D.; João Lima, M.D.; and David Thiemann, M.D. 

    Seven points in the immigration bill

    Democrats focus proposal on enforcement, legalization.


    Democrats unveiled a 26-page proposal on immigration Thursday evening that closely follows a bipartisan draft hashed out by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) earlier this year.
    Here are the main points:
    * Enforce borders: The lawmakers plan to increase the number of border patrol officers and provide them with better equipment to detect fraud and smuggling. They also want to install ground sensors throughout the southern border to make it easier to detect illegal border crossing.
    * Free up jails: The proposal calls for the deportation of illegal immigrants currently detained in federal and local prisons. Going forward, judges should minimize detention when possible.
    * Verify workers: The Social Security Administration would begin issuing fraud-resistant social security cards that include a unique biometric identifier. Employers would have to verify work authorization using the new biometric system.
    * Fine employers: Companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants would face greater fines. Employers would no longer be able to deduct the wages of unverified workers from their tax returns.
    * Legalize immigrants: For the 12 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States, the proposal creates a path to citizenship. A person would begin by passing a criminal background check and paying pending fees and taxes. Eight years later, they could apply for legal resident status by demonstrating, among other things, English-language skills.
    * Legalize spouses: The lawmakers plan to give legal resident status to what they call "permanent partners" of U.S. citizens. They also plan to address immigration benefits for widows, orphans, and adopted children of U.S. citizens.
    * Amend visas: Foreign students who have or seek to attain U.S. degrees could apply for green cards, and foreign workers with visas could attain legal residency. A new provisional visa would be created for low-skilled workers, but employers would be encouraged to hire U.S. citizens before foreigners.
    -- Ambreen Ali, Congress.org



    Read more on our blog: Tea parties take on immigration. Some conservative activists are pushing other state legislatures to adopt Arizona's provisions. They also oppose the Democratic bill in Congress. ... Opponents call for Arizona boycott. Activists are trageting the state's major-league baseball team, the Arizona Diamondbacks. ... It's not the first time a state has been boycotted. ... Supporters, meantime, hope to counter the boycott. ... Student activists are becoming the face of the pro-immigration fight. Four activists walked from Miami to Washington, D.C.



    Take a Stand: Immigration

    ImmigrationThe Democratic proposal focuses on border security first, including expanding the number of border patrol officers and deporting illegal immigrants in prison.

    But it also creates a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

    A person would begin by passing a criminal background check and paying pending fees and taxes. Eight years later, they could apply for legal resident status by demonstrating, among other things, English-language skills.

    Opponents criticize this measure as "amnesty," but supporters say it is a necessary part of the plan.

    Click the appropriate link below to send your letter to Obama and your Members of Congress.
    Allow illegal immigrants a path to citizenship

    Come up with a better plan to deal with the issue



    Immigration Fight Heats Up

    ImmigrationAs a nation of immigrants, Americans have struggled with border laws for 200 years.

    For much of the 20th century immigration was controlled by a system of complicated quotas, restricting the number of legal immigrants by nationality and assigning over two-thirds of all quota numbers to Britain, Ireland, and Germany while sharply limiting immigration from Southern Europe, Asia, and Africa.

    After a 40-year campaign by minority groups for reform of federal immigration laws, the origins quota system was abolished in 1965.

    As the country debates changing immigration laws once again, we took a closer look at how the rules have changed throughout history.
     

    A brief history of immigration

    Fights over immigration law have been going on in the U.S. since the 1790s.



    As a nation of immigrants, Americans have struggled with border laws for 200 years.
    For much of the 20th century immigration was controlled by a system of complicated quotas, restricting the number of legal immigrants by nationality and assigning over two-thirds of all quota numbers to Britain, Ireland, and Germany while sharply limiting immigration from Southern Europe, Asia, and Africa.
    After a 40-year campaign by minority groups for reform of federal immigration laws, the origins quota system was abolished in 1965.
    As the country debates changing immigration laws once again, we took a closer look at how the rules have changed throughout history.
    Below, a timeline of major legal changes:
    1790: The first federal law on naturalization, which had previously been under the control of the individual states, establishes uniform rules by setting the residence requirement at two years.
    1802: Law establishes basic requirements for naturalization, including good moral character, allegiance to the Constitution, a formal declaration of intention, and testimony from witnesses.

    1862: An act prohibits the transportation of Chinese "coolies" on American ships.

    1864: The first Commissioner of Immigration appointed by President to serve under the Secretary of State. An act authorizes immigrant labor contracts whereby would-be immigrants would pledge their wages to pay for transportation (repealed in 1868).
    1875: An act prohibits the entry of undesirable immigrants for the first time, excluding criminals, prostitutes, and Asians transported without their free and voluntary consent.
    1882: Chinese Exclusion Act suspends immigration of Chinese laborers to the U.S. for ten years, provided for deportation of Chinese illegally in the U.S., bars Chinese from naturalization, permits the entry of Chinese students, teachers, merchants, or those "proceeding to the U.S. … from curiosity" (repealed in 1943).
    1891: The first comprehensive national immigration law establishes a Bureau of Immigration under the Treasury Department; restricts immigration by adding to the inadmissible classes of persons, including those "likely to become public charges," those suffering from contagious disease, and felons. Law also forbids the encouragement of immigration by advertisement; allows the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules for inspecting the borders and directs the deportation of aliens who entered the U.S. unlawfully.
    1903: Immigration Act is the first measure to provide for the exclusion of aliens on the grounds of their political opinions by excluding "anarchists, or persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow by force or violence the government of the United States." The law also provides for the deportation of aliens who became public charges within two years after entry from causes existing prior to their landing.

    1906:
    Naturalization Act makes knowledge of the English language a requirement for naturalization.
    1907: A major codification of previous immigration laws authorizes the president to refuse admission to certain persons when he was satisfied that their immigration was detrimental to labor conditions in the U.S. and creating a joint commission to make an investigation of the immigration system. Those findings were the basis of the comprehensive Immigration Act of 1917.
    1917: Immigration Act excludes illiterate aliens from entry, further restricts immigration from Asia, bars natives of the "Asia-Pacific triangle," and broadens the classes of deportable aliens.
    1921: Quota Law is the first law to limit the number of aliens of any nationality entering the United States depending on number of foreign-born persons of that nationality already living in the United States. Aliens belonging to any "recognized learned profession" and those employed as domestic servants are exempt from the quota system.
    1924: Immigration Act establishes the national origins quota system. Starting in 1927, the annual quota for any country or nationality is set in proportion to the number of inhabitants in the continental U.S. having that national origin in 1920. A preference is set for unmarried children under 21, parents, spouses of citizens aged 21 and over, and immigrants skilled in agriculture. The law also says that that no alien may enter without an immigration visa issued by an American consular officer abroad.
    1943: Act provides for the importation of temporary agricultural laborers from North, South and Central America to aid agriculture during WWII.  The program is later extended through 1947, and develops into the Mexican "Bracero Program," which lasts through 1964.
    1948: Displaced Persons Act is the first U.S. policy for admitting persons being persecuted in their native country. It permits the admission of up to 205,000 persons over two years. The law is later amended and extended through 1952.
    1951: Law amends the Agricultural Act of 1949, which served as the basic framework under which the Mexican Bracero Program operated. Under the law, the U.S. government sets up reception centers at or near the Mexican border to provide transportation, subsistence, and medical care to Mexican laborers, and guarantees that employers play prevailing wages and provide housing and adequate meals at a reasonable cost.
    1952: The McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act brings into one comprehensive statute the multiple laws which govern immigration and naturalization in the U.S. The law revises the quota system of 1924 while keeping in place limits on immigrants of certain nationalities, and giving preference to skilled aliens and relatives of U.S. citizens.
    1965: Congress abolishes the national origins quota system, eliminating national origin, race, or ancestry as a basis for immigration to the U.S. The law also allocates immigrant visas on a first come, first served basis. Still, it keeps in place a system of three categories of permissible immigrants, with caps on immigrants from the Western Hemisphere, all other nations, and immediate relatives of citizens.
    1980: Refugee Act declares the goal of providing "a permanent and systematic procedure" for the admission and resettlement of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S.
    1986: Immigration and Control Act creates the first finces for employers who knowingly hire foreigners in the country illegally. Under a compromise, the bill creates a mechanism for giving legal status (or amnesty) to millions of illegal aliens who could prove they had resided continuously in the U.S. since before 1982. It also creates a program to give seasonal agricultural workers temporary resident status.

    1990:
    Another overhaul of immigration laws reverses the visa system set up in the 1965 law. It expands the total immigration level and revises the levels set for certain categories of immigration, including the immigration of family members and employment-based immigration. It establishes special visas for highly skilled and non-agricultural temporary workers.
    1993: The North American Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act allows temporary entry on a reciprocal basis between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
    1996: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act restricts federal benefits for illegal aliens and legal non-immigrants while maintaining their access to emergency medical services, disaster relief, treatment for communicable diseases, programs delivered by community agencies, and benefits related to work. It makes most legal immigrants, except refugees, those who had worked in the U.S. for the equivalent of 10 years and veterans, ineligible for Social Security and food stamps until they became citizens, and barrs future immigrants from receiving most low-income federal benefits for five years after arrival.
    1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act focuses on stemming illegal immigration and authorizes more funding for border patrols and fences. It also speeds detention and deportation procedures, creates new penalties for alien smuggling and establishes pilot programs aimed at identifying illegal immigrants in the workplace.
    Frances Symes is a researcher for Congressional Quarterly.
    Sources: CQ Almanac, US Citizenship and Immigration Services

    Oil spill helps groups lobby

    Environmentalists are renewing efforts to end offshore drilling.


    Environmentalists are using the Gulf Coast oil spill as an opportunity to strengthen their hand in the climate change debate.
    As the sunken Deepwater Horizon oil rig continues to leak more than 250,000 gallons of oil into the ocean, activist groups hastily issued petitions and planned rallies to seal the coffin on future offshore drilling.
    Last month, groups like Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council appeared ready to go along with President Obama’s plan to expand coastal drilling. Democrats argued that the concession was necessary for moderate lawmakers to support a climate and energy bill.
    This week, those two and dozens more of the nation’s most influential environmental groups sent senators a letter saying that "any expanded offshore exploration and drilling should be off the table."
    "There's no question that it has changed the debate," Nick Berning, a spokesman with Friends of the Earth, said. "We've seen more engagement from our activists on this issue than we have in years."
    In addition to signing the letter, Berning's group has more than 19,000 signatures on a petition asking the president for a moratorium on new offshore drilling.
    Friends of the Earth had already backed away from the bipartisan plan hashed out by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) before the spill. Now the group is trying to convince lawmakers to do the same.
    "It's hard to see how the bill could pass with drilling," Berning said. Kerry and Lieberman, who plan to introduce the bill next week even if they lose their key Republican supporter, haven’t removed the offshore drilling provision.
    But the political tide seems to be changing.
    White House officials indicated that the president could switch his stance on drilling, while several Democratic senators said they would not back a climate bill that expands it.
    Activist groups are planning public rallies to ensure that lawmakers hear the public outcry over the spill.
    A group of activists protested a meeting of the Offshore Technology Conference in Houston Thursday.
    Sierra Club plans to hold a rally in New Orleans Saturday demanding that British Petroleum and the federal government help the fishermen and local communities affected by the spill. They are organizing smaller "solidarity rallies" across the country in front of BP gas stations in the coming weeks.
    Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said the group was seizing the opportunity to drive home that the Kerry-Graham plan isn’t strong enough.
    "We were willing to accept some offshore drilling if that's what it took to get Republicans to support the bill, but now we think it's totally inappropriate," he said.
    It's very possible that offshore drilling will remain a part of the bill, especially because states have an economic incentive to develop deepwater rigs.
    Paul Bledsoe, an energy expert with the Bipartisan Policy Center, said it's too early to write the energy source off.
    "The long-run factors that have led us to deepwater drilling have not changed at all," he said, adding that much of what happens will depend on how political of an issue the spill remains throughout the summer.
    If activists have any say, it will take a long time to clean up.
    Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.

     D.C. Decoder: Supreme Fight

    n this episode of "D.C. Decoder," veteran Washington journalist Craig Crawford tells you what to look for in the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle.

    Seven questions for Elena Kagan

    Advocacy groups want to learn more about her take on these issues.

    With no judicial record to dig through, conservative and liberal groups alike are scrutinizing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's past for signs of her political leanings.
    At 50, Kagan has served as the dean of Harvard Law School, associate White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, and law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall.
    Advocacy groups have drawn the most clues about Kagan's views from her tenure at Harvard, where she was praised for bridging the gap between liberals and conservatives. Indeed, she snagged several Republican votes when she was up for solicitor general last year.
    But at Harvard she also took a bold stance on the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy earned praise from liberal groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and criticism from conservative groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network.
    For now, it appears that the fight over Kagan's nomination will focus on seven key issues:
    * The military: As dean, Kagan opposed military recruiting on the Harvard campus on the basis that the Don't Ask law violated the university's anti-discrimination policy. That has won her points with liberals, but conservatives have painted her stance as anti-military. The issue could also come before the court soon as the Pentagon reviews the ban and Congress considers repealing it.
    * Affirmative action: Kagan's poor track record of hiring minorities while at Harvard troubles some liberal groups, although big players like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have backed her up. Republicans, meanwhile, have tried to paint her as favorable of affirmative action.
    * Executive power: A lot has been made on both sides about Kagan's views in favor of presidential power. She doesn't go as far as some conservatives who believe that the executive reigns supreme on matters of national security, but her statements on the issue during her confirmation hearings as solicitor general trouble some liberals.
    * Abortion: As with any nominee, Kagan will surely face questions on contentious issues like abortion, guns, and religion. Advocacy groups have been most vocal on abortion, with Americans United for Life claiming that Kagan has strong ties to pro-choice groups. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization of Women, said her group believes Kagan supports their pro-choice position but is waiting for the confirmation hearings to reveal more.
    * Citizens United: Kagan argued for the losing position in this Supreme Court case, siding against special interest groups that can now spend unlimited money on election ads. President Obama cited Kagan's passion over the issue "despite long odds of success" during Monday's nomination. Lawmakers on both sides will probably want to know more about her thinking on the court ruling.
    * The Constitution: Kagan wrote about Justice Marshall's views that the Constitution was defective until it was amended to free slaves and give women and minorities equal rights. Republicans have tried to draw from Kagan's writings some clue of her take on judges interpreting and adapting the Constitution for the present day.
    * Health care: Numerous states are challenging President Obama's health care overhaul, which was signed into law while Kagan was part of the administration. Expect questions about the issue and whether Kagan plans to recuse herself if the Supreme Court takes it on.
    Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.