AUGUST 16, 2012 REGISTERED MAIL

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT(1)

Troubled Arctic Challenger cited for small illegal discharges

Troubled Arctic Challenger cited 

for small illegal discharges

Aug 14th, 2012

by John Donovan.

By Kim MurphyAugust 13, 2012, 6:49 p.m.

SEATTLE — The containment vessel designed to capture oil in the event of a spill during exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska has itself been responsible for four minor illegal fluid discharges during the last three weeks, the Coast Guard confirmed Monday.

The discharges all involved hydraulic fluid and were generally limited to about a quart each time, all of which was contained and cleaned up. The fine was just $250. But the discharges signal Shell Exploration'scontinuing problems with the vessel, the Arctic Challenger, whose trouble-plagued retrofit in Bellingham, Wash., has delayed the launch of the first major offshore oil drilling in the U.S. Arctic in 20 years.

"They're small spills," Coast Guard spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jamie Frederick said. "I wouldn't say that a spill in the yard is necessarily uncommon. But I also wouldn't say that they happen all the time. It's common that if you spill something the first time, you get a warning, and at some point the warning turns to a fine, and that's what you saw here."

The retrofitting is being undertaken by Superior Energy Marine Technical Services, under contract to Shell.

Though the bulk of Shell's drilling fleet has long since set sail for Alaska, the Arctic Challenger remains mired in port as workers hurry to try to complete needed fixes before the vessel can be certified by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Bureau of Shipping.

The company's hoped-for target of finishing the reconstruction by Aug. 15 now has been pushed back to Aug. 30, according to sources familiar with the work. Coast Guard officials said several major systems still remain to be completed before certification can occur.

"At the end of the day, the question is: Is the Arctic Challenger any closer to obtaining a certificate of inspection? The only way to accurately reflect that is through completion of major systems and major subsystems. And as of this moment, I don't think we've made any progress since last Monday," Coast Guard spokesman Cmdr. C.T. O'Neil told the Los Angeles Times.

As of last week, the Coast Guard said about 400 inspection and plan review items remained to be satisfied, all relating to the design, construction and installation of safety, structural, mooring and machinery systems.

Frederick said all four fluid discharges were self-reported by Superior Energy. They included a spill of a quart of hydraulic fluid due to a ruptured hydraulic line on July 24, for which the company received a warning; another mechanical leak of a quart of hydraulic fluid on Aug. 4, for which another warning was issued; a leak of an additional quart on Aug. 6 due to "equipment failure," for which the company was fined $250; a discharge of five gallons of fuel on Aug. 7 from a small skiff that is a support vessel to the Arctic Challenger.

Any additional spills would be assessed a civil penalty, Frederick said.

A source familiar with the construction said Shell inspectors were alarmed when they saw evidence of a discharge near the Arctic Challenger.

"When a Shell corporate observer noticed a sheen on the water and inquired with a Superior Energy manager, he was met with resistance and told it was none of his business and to butt out," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the construction. "He insisted it was his business since this project has Shell's name all over it.… There was quite a commotion on the dock."

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said he did not have any information on the accidental releases.

"Having said that, a discharge — no matter how small — is unacceptable. We are pleased with the progress being made and look forward to sea trials in the days ahead," Smith said in an email to The Times.

With more than $4 billion invested in the long-delayed Arctic drilling program, Shell has had to scale back its ambitions for the summer drilling season and now expects to drill only about two wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday he had received no concrete proposal from the company to extend the drilling cutoff deadline — put in place to wind up operations and allow time for any needed cleanup before the onset of winter ice. The deadline is currently set for late September in the Chukchi Sea and late October in the Beaufort Sea.

"It's necessary for Shell to be able to demonstrate that they have met the regulatory requirements that we have put in place," Salazar said at a news conference in Anchorage. "If they are not met, then there will not be a Shell exploration effort that will take place this year."

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

ARTICLE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Los Angeles Times, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution,Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea 

August 15, 2012 third e-mail

antonio jr. Buensuceso antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com	Aug 15
to dzuccala

August 15, 2012

Dear Ms. Debbie Zuccala,

Please be informed that I am sending  this e-mail to you

for the third time. Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail to

let me know that the information and question I posted therein

have come to your knowledge and attention.

I will appreciate your kind and early response  on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: WWTP Grade 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION
To: dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>


August 14,  2012

Dear Ms. Debbie Zuccala,

I am sending again this  e-mail  from me  dated  August 8, 2012 .

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail to let me know  that the

information and question I posted therein  have come to  your

knowledge and attention.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM
Subject: WWTP Grade 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION
To: dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>


August   8,  2012

Ms. Debbie Zuccala

Office of Operator Certification

Division of Financial Assistance

Dear  Ms. Debbie Zucalla,

Re: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR -IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION

I received your letter dated August 2, 2012 informing me  the following: 

1.   Acknowledgment of the receipt of my application and fees for Waste Water Treatment Plant

      Operator-in-Training (OIT)  Certification.

2.   Review of my application indicates that I am not currently employed in operations  at a   

      municipal wastewater treatment plant  (WWTP)

3.   To be eligible for an (OIT) Certificate, a person must be employed  in the day-to-day

      operations of a WWTP  overseen by Public Utilities Commission

4.   Therefore, an (OIT) Certification  cannot be issued in my favor.

As I looked over the duplicate copy application form that I have submitted to you,

I noticed  that I have filled up the form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"  indicating a fee of  $95 for GRADE 1 Level  where,

I should have filled up  the form titled "EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR " with a lower fee of  $80 .

My intention is to take the GRADE 1 Level WWTP Operator Exam in October  6,  2012,

and be certified  after passing the examination. Am I qualified to take this examination ?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero III passes away

From : GMA News

Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero III passes away

August 13, 2012 7:33am

309 137 2 1347

(Updated 7:47 a.m.) - Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero III, the father of incumbent Sen. Francis Escudero, passed away in his Quezon City house before dawn Monday, the office of the House Secretary General said.

Rep. Escudero, 69, died in his sleep after battling cancer for two years, a text message from the office of House Secretary General Marilyn Barua-Yap confirmed.

His remains will be brought to the Mt. Carmel Church in New Manila in Quezon City on Monday afternoon, the House Secretary General added.

Rep. Escudero died at about 3:30 a.m., radio dzBB's Nimfa Ravelo reported.

The dzBB report said Sen. Escudero thanked those who offered prayers for the family, and asked the public for more prayers.

A separate report by dzBB's Rowena Salvacion quoted House majority leader Neptali Gonzales II as saying Escudero was a "big loss" to the House of Representatives.

The Philippine flag at the House of Representatives in Quezon City is to fly at half-mast to mourn his death.

The report said the elder Escudero, despite his failing health, even attended President Benigno Aquino III's State of the Nation Address last July 23.

At the time, the report said Escudero was wheelchair-bound and had to be assisted when boarding his vehicle.

Escudero's page in the House of Representatives website indicated he chaired the basic education and culture committee and was a vice chairman of the food security committee.

He was also a member of the following committees:

• Agrarian Reform
• Agriculture and Food
• Aquaculture and Fisheries Resources
• Bicol Recovery and Economic Development
• Civil Service and Professional Regulation
• Higher and Technical Education
• Population and Family Relations

Rep. Escudero had been part of the legislature from 1984 to 1986. He was reelected to the House of Representatives from 1987 to 1998. He again won as a congressman during the 2010 elections.

The late congressman also once became agriculture chief during the administration of Presidents Ferdinand Marcos and Fidel Ramos. –KG, GMA News

--------End of report-------------

Dear Sen. Chiz,

Nakikiramay po kami.

-Antonio L. Buensuceso at buong mag-anak.

August 14, 2012 follow up e-mail

antonio jr. Buensuceso antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com	Aug 14
to dzuccala

August 14,  2012

Dear Ms. Debbie Zuccala,

I am sending again this  e-mail  from me  dated  August 8, 2012 .

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail to let me know  that the

information and question I posted therein  have come to  your

knowledge and attention.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this matter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:19 AM
Subject: WWTP Grade 1 OPERATOR EXAMINATION APPLICATION
To: dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, antonio buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>


August   8,  2012

Ms. Debbie Zuccala

Office of Operator Certification

Division of Financial Assistance

Dear  Ms. Debbie Zucalla,

Re: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR -IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION

I received your letter dated August 2, 2012 informing me  the following: 

1.   Acknowledgment of the receipt of my application and fees for Waste Water Treatment Plant

      Operator-in-Training (OIT)  Certification.

2.   Review of my application indicates that I am not currently employed in operations  at a   

      municipal wastewater treatment plant  (WWTP)

3.   To be eligible for an (OIT) Certificate, a person must be employed  in the day-to-day

      operations of a WWTP  overseen by Public Utilities Commission

4.   Therefore, an (OIT) Certification  cannot be issued in my favor.

As I looked over the duplicate copy application form that I have submitted to you,

I noticed  that I have filled up the form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"  indicating a fee of  $95 for GRADE 1 Level  where,

I should have filled up  the form titled "EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR " with a lower fee of  $80 .

My intention is to take the GRADE 1 Level WWTP Operator Exam in October  6,  2012,

and be certified  after passing the examination. Am I qualified to take this examination ?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

DAKILANG BAYAN...PILIPINAS

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

AUGUST 8, 2012 first e-mail inquiry

antonio jr. Buensuceso antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com	Aug 9
to dzuccala

August   8,  2012

Ms. Debbie Zuccala

Office of Operator Certification

Division of Financial Assistance

Dear  Ms. Debbie Zucalla,

Re: WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR -IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION

I received your letter dated August 2, 2012 informing me  the following: 

1.   Acknowledgment of the receipt of my application and fees for Waste Water Treatment Plant

      Operator-in-Training (OIT)  Certification.

2.   Review of my application indicates that I am not currently employed in operations  at a   

      municipal wastewater treatment plant  (WWTP)

3.   To be eligible for an (OIT) Certificate, a person must be employed  in the day-to-day

      operations of a WWTP  overseen by Public Utilities Commission

4.   Therefore, an (OIT) Certification  cannot be issued in my favor.

As I looked over the duplicate copy application form that I have submitted to you,

I noticed  that I have filled up the form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT 

PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION"  indicating a fee of  $95 for GRADE 1 Level  where,

I should have filled up  the form titled "EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR " with a lower fee of  $80 .

My intention is to take the GRADE 1 Level WWTP Operator Exam in October  6,  2012,

and be certified  after passing the examination. Am I qualified to take this examination ?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

DEBBIE ZUCCALA LETTER..aug 2, 2012

‘Critical date’ and Chinese hegemony

From: Harry Roques Blog
Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:02 PM

New post on Harry Roque's Blog 'Critical date' and Chinese hegemony by harryroque China appears to be applying the law literally. The rule is where there is a dispute to territory, the claimant that can show a superior claim to the same, be it land or water, will be adjudged as having title thereto. In land territory, the rule is that discovery alone gives rise to an inchoate title that must be perfected through effective occupation. The latter entails submission of evidence that the disputed testimony was subject to the exercise of both sovereignty and jurisdiction. Some evidence recognized by tribunals as proof of effective occupation would include the simple act of hoisting the flag in small and desolate island territories, and such acts as the grant of concessions, appending the disputed territory to a local government unit, and proof that institutions such as the courts or civil register were functioning in the disputed area. This is why China has recently been attempting to bolster its claim to both the Kalayaan Group of islands and Panatag. Very recently, it created a new municipality, Sansha, that would exercise jurisdiction over the disputed islands in the West Philippine Sea. This is also why it has recently built a structure on yet another disputed island within our Kalayaan group of islands,  the Subi Reef. The order to send a 30 boat armada of Chinese fishermen is also to bolster their claim that the waters have been the subject of acquired fishing rights by its nationals. But will China's recent acts actually result in its desired result of bolstering its territorial claims? Not necessarily Justice Holmes remarked that the life of the law is not logic; it has been experience. As early as the leading case of  Palmas, an arbitration where the Americans lost Palmas Island to us, the lone arbitrator came out with a judicial technique, the "critical date" which has been adopted by other tribunals. Under this technique, international tribunals resolving territorial disputes will ignore all acts of claimants to territories after  the "critical date". This date, in turn, is the time when the controversy first arose between the parties. It is the moment in time  when the parties have advanced conflicting claims of title over the disputed territory. It is  when  the parties officially joined the issues albeit out-of-court. In the Palmas case, the lone arbitrator disregarded evidence offered by the parties after the critical date because human experience tell us that all such evidence would be self-serving. After a controversy has arisen, it is only reasonable for both parties to strengthen—rather than weaken—their respective claims. This is why after all the claimants to Kalayaan publicly advanced their claims to the islands, all of them took steps to bolster their respective claims of effective occupation over the islands. When is the critical date to the Spratlys? It would appear to vary depending on which state is making the claim. France claimed the islands in 1933 . This was met with protests from China, Japan, and even Great Britain. All those that protested the claim of France hence articulated their own basis for title to the islands. It would seem that for China and Vietnam, the latter as the successor state of France, the critical date would be 1933. But for the Philippines, the critical date would be in the 1950s after Thomas Cloma claimed discovery over the islands that he described as "res nullius"—belonging to no one. The critical date for both Malaysia and Brunei, since their claims are anchored only on the regime of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone under the UNCLOS, would be in 1984, the year when the convention took effect. Of course it is still important for the Philippines to repeatedly protest all these subsequent acts of effective occupation. Failure to protest may lead to estoppel. The international community recognizes international law as such because it forms part of a normative system.  Here, its normative content is the preservation of international peace and security.  The concept of "critical date" exists precisely to minimize the threat or the actual use of force. Were it not for this technique, claimant countries to disputed territory may resort to shooting whenever a claimant takes steps to bolster its claim after the "critical date." Because of this technique, claimants are assured that acts that transpired after the controversy may mean nothing in the resolution of the controversy and hence need not result in a gunfight. I am concerned that many of our countrymen, including those in the media, appear to be agitated with news of what China has been doing lately. Fortunately, we need not lose our cool since all these may be for naught. Like President Aquino, let's keep our cool.