This post is a series of letters between Whiteman Osterman and Hanna lawyer Michael Sterthous , British Petroleum’s project manager Peter Gross and Planning Board member Richard MacSherry. I have posted these letters before but this posting has been updated with a fourth letter recently sent to Planning Board member Richard MacSherryfrom Michael G. Sterthouse of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in regard to the Supplemental Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement(SDGEIS)
Additionally ,this latest letter(email) was read by Mr. Mac Sherry at the planning board meeting of Nov. 9, 2011
Letter #1
Michael G. Sterthous from Whiteman Osterman and Hanna advised Bp that the Cape Vincent’s Planning Board review of their project is “ongoing”.
Comments on the status of the completeness of the SDEIS will be delivered to BP Wind Energy‘s technical consultants over the coming months and ultimately lead to iteration of the document.
The planning board’s technical consultants have already issued a letter to BP Wind Energy advising it that the noise analysis presented in the SDEIS should be conformed to the noise analysis presented by St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC as part of its most recent submissions to the Planning Board.
Since an iteration of the current version of the SDEIS is expected, the planning Board has cancelled next week’s meeting…
It may be helpful for BP Wind Energy’s representative to schedule a time to present the project and the reports and analysis contained in the SDEIS to the Planning Board, as many members are new to the board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sterthous is assuring BP that things are going along smoothly. However, are them it was right around this time that Todd Mathis was removed from the Cape Vincent project additionally BP’s senior project manager Jim Madden left the scene as well. The planning board meeting scheduled for March 23 was cancelled
The SDEIS was submitted to the planning board Feb. 10, 2011 however, it has not been formally accepted by the board. In late February of 2011, BP’s former senior project manager Madden said in a newspaper interview that he expected the SDEIS to be accepted by the end of March. Then a public comment period would begin followed by a hearing.
However, the Cape Vincent Town Planning Board meeting scheduled for March 23, 2011 was canceled. Planning Board members were to consider the supplemental draft environmental impact statement for British Petroleum's Cape Vincent industrial wind complex.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter #2
In this letter Bp project manager Peter Gross explains to Mr. MacSherry that they are anxiously awaiting the anticipated comments from the Planning Board on their Cape Wind SDEIS.
Additionally, Gross states that BP would like to advance their project in a timely efficient manner.
Gross also requests that the Planning Board schedule a review of the SDEIS with the Planning Board and asks for a schedule ( deadline?) for the submission of any further comments so BP can receive a determination from the Planning Board that the doc is complete as soon as reasonably possible.
In other words, we have waited long enough hurry up with your positive determination.
Letter #3In this letter Planning Board Member Richard MacSherry informs Bp project manager Peter Gross that he has no knowledge of any dialogue that Mr. Edsall could have possibly had with Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, which would have led them to indicate that any review was active and that comments regarding the SDEIS would be forthcoming under any time frame.
Additionally, Mr. MacSherry states that the primary obstacles are the time it will take to fill the Planning Board vacancies and a reasonable period for all members to become familiar with BP draft and supplemental EIS documents.
And an opportunity for the Planning Board to meet with our consultants to share and compare our findings
I cannot speculate as to when all of the above-mentioned matters will be concluded; I will commit only to keeping you informed as to our progress.
letter#4
This email isfrom Michael G. Sterhouse of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna directed To Planning Board Member Richard MacSherry in regard to the Supplimentary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement(SDGEIS)
Additionally,this letter(email) was read by Mr. Mac Sherry at the planning board meeting of Nov. 9, 2011 .
4 comments:
The final cost of one of the worst environmental disasters ever could climb further. BP said that the total charge of $39.9bn was its "current best estimate of those costs that can be reliably measured at this time". So far, BP has actually paid $11.6bn in total costs since the incident, but still faces ongoing clean-up charges, compensation claims, and probably a multi-billion dollar fine from the US government." Meanwhile, this slick bunch from the UK are still running your town. No wonder Homeland Security was created. Security for foreign corporations is all.
In March 2005, a massive explosion ripped through a tower at BP's refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring 170 others. Investigators later determined that the company had ignored its own protocols on operating the tower, which was filled with gasoline, and that a warning system had been disabled. The company pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and was fined more than $50 million by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bp-gulf-oil-spill-0430#ixzz1dLa8SWS2
Gross negligence and BP . DOJ fines them pennies on the dollar for their negligence. Despite the disasters for which they should have been held 100% liable, they got to walk away every time. Meanwhile, they have enough capital to invest in wind power energy and receive lucrative subsidies. Outperforming the S&P 500 at the same time. So , with this record of unaccountability, it's not likely BP is going away. They have their own offices at the DOJ in Albany, most likely.
From CALPINE to BP, Peter Gross. here's an example of his history with energy; "In an effort to manufacture a claim against our company, Calpine has grossly mischaracterized the underlying facts of the Rosetta transaction," said Michael Rosinski, Rosetta Resources Executive Vice President and CFO. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend against Calpine's baseless claims, and prosecute our counterclaims against Calpine to recover for any and all damages Rosetta has suffered and may suffer as a consequence of Calpine's actions." Rosetta's counterclaims against Calpine allege that, if Calpine's allegation in the complaint that it was insolvent at the time of the Rosetta transaction is correct, its filings with the SEC and its warranties to Rosetta and its new investors that it was solvent at the time of the transaction would have been false and misleading, and that Calpine's board of directors and its sophisticated professionals knew or should have known of Calpine's financial condition at the time those statements were made. Rosetta further claims that Calpine breached the agreements pursuant to which Rosetta purchased the oil and gas business by failing to complete the transaction in material respects and by failing to pay over to Rosetta proceeds from operation of certain properties that Calpine sold to Rosetta. Rosetta also asserts that if Calpine obtains any recovery from Rosetta in the adversary proceeding, any such recovery would be subject to setoff against the damages Rosetta is seeking against Calpine." Calpine filed for bankruptcy protection and changed its name and investors were out of their money soon after. Gross was their VP. No wonder these scumbags are so arrogant. They can do no wrong. Right?
Post a Comment