Peer on IG Persuit of Dead Polar Bear

Peer has posted the transcript from the 8/9 Kafka play

The IG originally begin looking into a short 2006 article by marine ecologist Dr. Charles Monnett and a colleague on sightings of drowned polar bears following a storm. This year, the IG expanded its inquiry to include alleged irregularities identified by its agents in his creation of a joint U.S.-Canadian study of polar bear movement across international boundaries, including a supposed tie between publication of the polar bear paper and award of the study. However, documents assembled by PEER reveal –

• The Canadian study was set up months before drowned polar bears were first observed, making any charge of a quid pro quo between the two unsupportable;
• Dr. Monnett did not receive any appointment with legal acquisition responsibility until after the Canadian contract was signed; and
• All of Dr. Monnett’s communications with Canadian researchers were encouraged by his own chain-of-command and procurement officials.

Rabett Run has already (like a month ago) posted most of this information, but there are some goodies, for example a letter from the chief editor of Polar Biology stating unequivocally that Andrew Derocher was NOT a reviewer of the Gleason and Monnett paper

From: Polar Biology Chief Editor Date: August 12, 2011 1:57:37 AM MDT To: Andrew Derocher
Subject: Re: Publication in Polar Biology

Dear Andrew, You're right, all this fuss seems to be a bit "bizarre" and - from an outsider's perspective - somewhat overacted. I've got news from Rolf now, and I can assure you that you were NOT among the peer reviewers of Monnett's manuscript.

A lot of people, Lubos the Lame, being one that came to Eli's attention, owe Drs. Derocher and Monnett an apologies. Bets are being taken whether they get one.

Monnett was NOT the COTR (Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) when the contract with the University of Alberta was being negotiated, but

A. Dr. Monnett did not become a COTR until AFTER study contract was executed. During the August 9th IG interview, Dr. Monnett stated that he served as the Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) for the University of Alberta study. This is correct but it was not until he was reinstated from administrative leave and had a chance to study his e-mails from this period six years ago that he found that his COTR appointment was not made until September 24, 2005 – after the final contract had been signed (see Attachment II).

Thus, during the contract approval process, which is the focus of the IG inquiry, Dr. Monnett had no responsibilities with respect to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. During this period, his role was to serve as the designated Point of Contact between the Alaska Region, and the Procurement Operations Branch and the University of Alberta.

Thus Dr. Monnett was NOT barred from looking at Dr. Derocher's proposal, indeed that was part of his responsibilities.

UPDATE: In the comments, Deech, who has experience in government contracting adds

Point of clarification: the COTR appointment is always made after contract award. Prior to award (and therefore, during negotiation), the Program official has the title "Project Officer." Between submission and award, the POC is usually the Contracting Officer (or Specialist) and the PO advises the CO on the responses to the review panel's questions and appropriateness of the budget. Of course he would have to be reading the submitted proposal, and in this instance, he would have worked with any potential Offeror as part of his market research prior to posting the solicitation.

This case may have been unusual, but it looks like Monnett acted with full knowledge of his highers up and the Contracting Office. What comes through in the transcript is the difficulty in fitting a research project to the FAR. It sounds like they were trying to get a quality study and save the government some money.

The real scandal here is that the IG, and it's representative Bozo, Eric May, HAD THIS INFORMATION MANY MONTHS AGO!! when he seized Monnett's computers.

The proposed University of Alberta study was reviewed by the OCS Scientific Committee in April 2004 and recommended for approval. Final approval was given and funds were allocated for procurement at the beginning of FY-2005. The study was only possible because the Canadians provided more than $800,000 towards the cost of the $2,000,000 study.

The original intra-agency funding mechanism was abandoned

because when the study was conceived it was expected to be an “partnership” rather than a contract since, among other reasons, the University and CWS would provide nearly $1 million funds toward the objectives. Due to difficulties with creating such agreements that span international boundaries, the MMS Contracting Officer (CO) for the study, Jane Carlson, recommended the study be prepared as a sole-source procurement.

Ah Eli has a name for the to be named later original Contracting Officer and the second one, Debra Bridge, appointed after the original CO retired 1/2005. She wrote to Monnett asking for a copy of the proposal, and he replied that he did not have it. She was not surprised

From: Bridge, Debra
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:43 AM
To: Monnett, Charles Subject:
RE: Sole Source Justification - Polar Bears

I’m happy to take on this “baggage” and will move it forward ASAP. Yes, the CO is supposed to obtain the proposal but many times this is already done by the time we get the procurement package (funny how that happens!). Anyway, I’ll move it forward just as quickly as possible. I’ll send you a copy of the FBO announcement as an FYI. My intent is to get it posted today. Anything else, let me know. Thanks. Debbie

An investigation of Eric May is needed HE HAD ALL THIS MONTHS AGO.

Monnett was TOLD to work with Derocher on the proposal by his superior James Kendall

From: Kendall, James [mailto:James.Kendall@boemre.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:38 AM
To: Monnett, Charles Cc: Benner, Lee; Carlson, Jane; Cimato, James M; Cowles, Cleveland; Wallace, Barbara; Hargrove, Michael Subject:
FW: Importance: High

Hi Chuck:
As you discussed yesterday with Jim Cimato, Lee Benner is out for the rest of the year. However, to help keep this on schedule, I reviewed the dSOW myself this A.M. and added just a couple of edits:

1) I included Chief ESB as a recipient of the quarterly reports – I really do need my staff up to speed on all our studies efforts. Often our fire drills do not allow enough time to coordinate with the Regional Programs.

2) I beefed up the verbiage regarding “Draft peer-reviewed journal article”. We recently had a very, very public “flare-up” regarding the perception that MMS has to give permission to scientists to publish ------- then, it was misconstrued as “censorship.” See my suggested verbiage.

Also, do you want to require the Contractor to have a website for the project?????

Finally, while I do want Lee to look over the dSOW, I understand that since this will conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service and/or U.Alberta (please clarify) in Canada, a Fed Bis-Ops announcement, etc. is not necessary. As such, Jane Carlson (the CO-Eli) has informed us that it is OK for you to send the draft SOW to them so they can start thinking about how to prepare their proposal.

I’ll have Lee look at it as soon as she gets back (around January 10th); any comments she has can be incorporated into the Final SOW that will be officially sent to through the procurement process to the Canadians.
Cheers, jjk

Who is this Eric May? Who made the original complaint? Inquiring auditors want to know (BTW, Monnett has the right to see the original complaint once the investigation is concluded).

Inspector Clouseau and the Pink Polar Bear

Eric May, the Department of the Interior IG investigator is on very thin ice in his jihad against Charles Monnett. Eli is happy that the bunnies are underneath sawing away

Somebunny who knows more about the Polar Bear Follies than most has put up information, about which Eli, who obviously knows it all did not know. It got caught in the spam filter in the original post, but, if this is what they got, the IG is going to be embarrassed.

Keep those cards and letters coming little hares.

---------------------------
Anonymous said...

This has been an interesting discussion, so if anyone is still monitoring here is some information that you may find interesting:

Monnett and Derocher first met on September , 2003 at a polar bear monitoring workshop being hosted by the USFWS in Anchorage, Alaska. At that time, Monnett became aware that U Alberta and the Canadian Wildlife Service were beginning a massive capture effort of polar bears that offered a unprecedented opportunity to select young animals for collaring to study their dispersive movements. The question of interest was whether the existing politically-based stock designations had any basis in reality. If not that would have profound consequences for interpreting prior attempts at modeling the recovery of the Southern Beaufort Sea population from various oil-spill scenarios.

A draft study profile was created in October 2003, followed by a budget in November that reflected significant cost sharing by the Canadians. This would contradict IG assertions that the study was created to reward Derocher for his favorable review of the 2006 paper. The dead bears were not seen until September, 2004, nearly a year after the original study profile was written. Of course, Derocher was not a peer reviewer for the Journal, as the IG asserted. That should be clear from a reading of the "Acknowledgements" in the published paper. Below are some excerpts from the original October 13th profile. In the introduction:

"The purpose of this study is to create a collaborative study of polar bear dispersal and population structure between University/Government researchers and Native subsistence hunters in villages along the Canadian Beaufort Sea, and adjacent coastlines. It will be complementary with previous and ongoing studies conducted in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea Region, but will add new insights because of the emphasis on population genetical mechanisms, particularly dispersal. Approximately 200 polar bears are expected to be captured in the Canadian Beaufort Region, each year for the next 3 years. This study is timed to take advantage of considerable savings in logistics by partnering with that ongoing study."

And the very first method is to:
"1. Develop a partnership between University and Canadian Government polar bear biologists, and Canadian Natives to implement a study of juvenile polar bears using long-lived satellite transmitters for monitoring."

Essentially the same language is published on page 155-6 of the official 2005 Annual Study Plan posted on the BOEMRE website at:

http://alaska.boemre.gov/ess/essp/sp2005.pdf

The type of study was shown as an "Intra-agency" Agreement because when the study was conceived it was expected to be an "agreement" rather than a contract since UA and CWS would provide nearly $1M funds toward the objectives.

See also the Annual Study Plan for 2010 pages 109-110 where essentially the same language continues to be used in the introduction and methods:

http://alaska.boemre.gov/ess/essp/sp2010.pdf

When it became apparent to the contracting officer that it would be difficult to procure a study with Canadians as an "agreement" the approach was changed to "sole-source", a poor fit for a study that required negotiation of objectives and details about cost-sharing so that funds could be requested through the study planning system at MMS.

A sole-source justification was drafted in late-December, 2003. On December 20, the CO directed Monnett to forward the Statement of Work to Derocher so that he could get started on his proposal as there was a hope to get the study in the field that spring. In a memo dated December 21, the Chief Scientist of MMS also directed Monnett to forward the SOW to Derocher stating that the CO had informed him that the study did not require publishing in Fed Biz Ops, which is the normal protocol for sole-source procurements. At the beginning of the year, the senior CO retired leaving a vacuum until early March when a junior CO was appointed.

After sending Derocher the proposal, Monnett and Derocher exchanged emails on January 10, 2005. In this message Monnett tells Derocher that when he is "happy" with his draft proposal to forward it and they (CM and AD) can work together to "work out any rough spots". Monnett was thinking of the usual rough spots he sees in drafts of cooperative proposals, issues with spelling out the cooperation and documentation of co-funding. Below is a copy of the January 10th email from Monnett to Derocher:

-----Original Message-----"Excellent! I was thinking about you this AM. At this end, I am waiting for a HQ reviewer of the SOW to return from holiday so that I can satisfy all the channels. I believe she is back today so things should start to move at our end, shortly. Email the draft to me when you are happy with it and together we can work out any rough spots. You will get the official RFP from the Contracting Officer after everyone is happy with the SOW. Your proposal will respond to that official contact when it occurs. Hope you had a great holiday. cm"

It turned out that a pretty decent draft was finally submitted by Derocher on April 14th. At that time Derocher was struggling with a new requirement to submit the proposal electronically. Monnett responded with the email message below.

"Sorry to take so long to reply...bit distracting around here. I'm headed to Wash DC area for next two weeks but will monitor my email and try to move your proposal along when I see it. What you have seems on target. The most important thing is that objectives and methodology conform to the statement of work, and that seems to be the case. Put in what details you can and if we have further questions we won't be shy. Hope the bureaucracy doesn't get you down. You or your bean counters should get back to the MMS Contracting Officer if you have questions on that side."

This is apparently the evidence the IG has that Monnett helped "draft" the Derocher proposal.

When the new CO came on board in early March, the new regime approached the procurement much more conservatively and a Fed Biz Ops Notice was developed. A new senior CO took over who eventually signed the award, but she was not involved in the details of the procurement. That senior CO was who the IG interviewed. No surprise she had no knowledge of what had actually taken place.

--------------------------------------

That sounds an awful lot like grants.gov v-1.0.

Please cast the video below.

Wanna Guess?

Eric May continues perfecting his  inspector Clouseau act with the release of Dr. Jeffrey Gleason's last interrogation.  In an effort to pound sand even harder, May is now looking into the Bowhead Whale Artic Survey Project database for more dead polar bears, obviously to show that Gleason and Monnett's paper was criminal.

Per an email from Special Agent Eric May, which PEER obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the IG is looking into the 30-year database of BWASP observations with special focus on the 2007 transition of the survey from Interior to the Marine Mammal Lab.  In addition, the IG wants “to determine if dead polar bears were documented in the BWASP database between 1987- 2003” in an apparent attempt to show that sightings of four drowned polar bears following a storm in 2004 was not remarkable. 

May found two dead bears noted in the margins, in wait for it, September 2004, before the big storm, after which Gleason and Monnett noted the extra dead bears, so now he is bugging the NOAA National Marine Mammal Lab to which the database was transferred last decade.  PEER has obtained some Emails in which the folks at NMML ask to be invited out, they want no part of this nonsense

The Marine Mammal Lab originally demurred on the IG request for further interviews, pointing out that all of the data had been retrieved, copied and sent back to Interior in 2011.  The IG apparently is still seeking assistance on how to unravel decades of BWASP data.  PEER has filed a formal complaint that any such review should be done by knowledgeable scientists rather than untrained criminal investigators.

Since both Monnett and Gleason have testified many times that they made a good faith effort to locate any such reports in the database, and produced records of their search, it is difficult to see how May and his superiors justify  this continuing harassment.  It is, to put it bluntly, not their job or expertise to publish data on polar bear mortality, and it is already painfully obvious that whoever sent Eric May after them had a political vendetta in mind, perhaps the DOI IG might look into that.

There is something of general interest towards the end tho.  May describes an Email forwarded by Monnett to Gleason which originated from the World Wildlife Fund UK

MAY:  And it's from Julia Woolford (phonetic) from that organization, and she forwarded this -- or she wrote this to Dr. Ian Stirling, and then forwarded it to Dr. Monnett who ultimately forwarded it to you.  And the start of the email says, "Dear Ian and (inaudible).  Once again, sorry to bother you for more information at short notice.  The interest from WWFUK in fund-raising for Arctic conservation has  increased and we have been inundated with copy which needs clearance  for possible fund-raising activities.

"One treatment that they seem keen on is the idea of more polar bears drowning as a result of climate change and melting ice.  They sent me the attached note.  I'd seen this press coverage, but didn't pay it too much attention as I assumed that it was probably not scientifically verifiable. 

"However, it looks like we need a view on this so we could avoid any potentially ill-advised fund-raising attempts by colleagues.  The  other treatment they are considering revolves more simply around polar  bears disappearing before the end of the century as a result of disappearing sea ice.

"What they want to know is what is likely to happen to the bears.

Will they simply become extinct, will they interbreed with brown bears?  What might happen?  Will be a regional extinction," -- et cetera.

This reflects well on the WWF, while they consider the situation serious, they are also considering it seriously, not wanting to make claims that go beyond the scientific evidence

So, Dr. Ian wrote to Dr. Monnett, "Hi, Chuck.  Nice to see you in (inaudible) the other day briefly.  The enclosed is self-explanatory.   It looks pretty sensational.  List it to me, but since you are the   only one with real information on this, would you mind giving a brief assessment to Woolford."

And then Dr. Monnett forwarded to you and Dr. Monnett says, "Give me a break."  Do you recall receiving this email, by chance? 

Dr. Gleason, in his answer provides the context for that reply and the reason why May's aggression is so damaging

GLEASON:. .in the first interview I had mentioned that about the time the first poster came out, it became -- it got to the point where we could not, as scientists, contact scientists or biologists in the sister agencies.

So, it got sort of weird.  We were told, "You will not talk about polar bears, sea ice, climate change or any of those issues to anybody."  And that included other scientists and other agencies.  At the same time, obviously we had requests for information, those sorts of requests, you know.

But it was sort of a weird time to be a biologist/scientist in the agency at the time, and it was one of the reasons, probably the primary reason that I left the agency up there because of this sort of, "You will not" -- which was a little disconcerting, given what was going on.

But, yes -- so, I -- I probably received multiple forwards that Chuck would get regarding the requests, and I -- obviously I wouldn't have responded to the request outside of Chuck.  I mean, Dr. Monnett.

So, -- and "Give me a break," pretty much, I think, solidifies his opinion of that request as well.

 There is no doubt that this three year clown show has had a hugely negative effect of scientists in the Department of the Interior and the US Government in general.  There is both comedy and tragedy in the testimony, frankly, if Eli were Gleason's adviser the Bunny would advise him to give monosyllabic answers.

So who is to blame for this?  In a news report from NPR on Polar Bear IG Abuse, Eli is reminded

The scientific integrity allegations regarding the journal article stem from a complaint made by a Department of the Interior employee in March of 2010, according to an August 2011 letter from the Office of Inspector General to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who had requested information on the probe.

Rabett Run is taking bets that this was RP Sr.'s pal, Indur Golklany.  Perhaps his Email needs be trolled through?

It was Dr. Monnett in the Email, Leaking to Rick Steiner and PEER

Recently, a Shell drilling vessel, the Kulluk,  broke free from it's towing lines in a storm and ran aground.  Personnel on the platform had to be rescued by the Coast Guard and there is now a major effort to refloat the Kulluk and ensure there is no secondary damage from oil leaks and such.  Neven (who else) has a good summary of the situation and can be relied on to update as sensible.

Michael Tobis last month asked Eli to explain why the Department of the Interior was going after Charles Monnett.  The Kulluk is the short answer, more specifically BOEM wanting to approve Shell's drilling plans for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.  Email leaks from Monnett were used to tie Shell, BOEM and BSEE up in court, delaying the issuance of permits four years from 2008 to late 2012 and indeed, this was the only ground that at the conclusion of their farcical investigation that the DOI Inspector General cited to reprimand Monnett.

A good summary with links to original documents of the final court decision allowing the drilling can be found on the Foreign Policy Blog.

On May 25, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) August 2011 decision to permit Shell to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas off Alaska’s north shore. The Native Village of Point Hope and the Inupiat Community of the North Slope had challenged the decision in court, as did non-profit organizations such as Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club. This is the third time that the government has had to defend its approval of Shell’s offshore drilling plans in court. The indigenous groups and NGOs sued the Bureau for approving Shell’s exploration plan, claiming that BOEM “failed to discharge its obligations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (PDF available here) in approving Shell Offshore Inc.’s plan for exploratory oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea.”

Drilling in the Chukchi Sea was approved August 30, and on Sept 20, 2012  approval was given to move the Kulluk into the Beaufort Sea to begin preliminary work

WASHINGTON — As part of the Obama Administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Director James A. Watson today announced that Shell will be allowed to move forward with certain limited preparatory activities in the Beaufort Sea offshore Alaska. Today’s action builds upon BSEE’s authorization on August 30 for Shell to conduct similar preparatory activities in the Chukchi Sea, in preparation for potential development activities in the future. . . .

BSEE inspectors are maintaining their full-time presence on the Noble Discoverer drill ship in the Chukchi, and will also be onboard the Kulluk drilling vessel full-time during its operations in the Beaufort Sea, to provide continuous oversight and monitoring of all approved activities.

Shell was anxious to get started given that it has already poured $4.5 billion into the project, money that was not earning a return as long as the issue remained in court, but it's rush has lead to one equipment malfunction after another.  The Foreign Policy Blog has a statement from Shell that is indicative of the pressure on them to start seeing a return from their investment

Shell spokesman Curtis Smith stated, “There are other appeals still pending, such as those of our air quality permits, but the favorable ruling on the exploration plan is a substantial boost for us.” The EPA granted Shell ten air quality permits in September 2011 to permit the Noble Discoverer drillship, the Kulluk drilling unit, and a support fleet of icebreakers, oil spill response vessels, and supply ships to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for up to 120 days each year. As Shell is hopeful for its prospects this summer, both the Noble Discoverer and Kulluk are being outfitted and “winterized” in a Seattle shipyard in preparation to sail to Dutch Harbor, Alaska in mid-June.

In September, they damaged a containment dome designed as one of the layers to deal with possible well blow outs.  That meant that the only work that could be started was to drill top holes, sea floor infrastructure needed before drilling deep for oil and gas and that is why the Kulluk was being moved into from the Beaufort Sea as late in the year as it was.  They moved the equipment up there as fast as they could in September, even without the containment structure, to drill the top holes  The Kulluk grounding may be the last straw.

Which now allows Eli to show MT the little men behind the curtain.  The idiotic act of Eric May, DOI IG special inspector was a futile effort to find something else to hang Monnett with.  Dr. Monnett had a strong whistle blower defense, especially because the 9th Circuit had ruled in 2008 that the emails showed BOEM had messed up their assessment of the safety of Shell's drilling plans.

Rick Steiner, the U Alaska Professor that Monnett leaked to, got tossed out of the Sea Grant program for being a general pain in the butt, and his part in this program may have contributed

PEER knew damn well what was going on and hid the cheese. Now some, not Eli of course, might look at this and advise Scott Mandia to take care when dealing with PEER.  Those folk play inside baseball

Jeffrey Gleason was collateral damage.  Eli thinks that he left BOEM and Alaska as the only way of getting out from between his bosses and Monnett.

The remaining question is how high up in DOI the effort to get rid of Monnett and hide the reason why went, especially because of the intersection with Steiner, the Sea Grant Program and NOAA  This is key from an environmental point of view, because it speaks to the Obama administration's attitude toward the Arctic environment.

UPDATE:  Unfortunately it looks like the Keystone pipeline is a done deal.  Rick Piltz points to that as the reason EPA administrator Lisa Jackson threw in the towel

Polar Bear Follies

NPR has a copy of a letter sent by the Department of Interior IG to Charles Monnett and it's pretty much what Eli figured, find something in the contracting

The polar bear researcher who was suspended from his government job last month has received a new letter from investigators that lays out actions he took that are described as being "highly inappropriate" under the rules that apply to managing federal contracts.

According to the letter, wildlife biologist Charles Monnett told investigators that he assisted a scientist in preparing that scientist's proposal for a government contract. Monnett then served as chairman of a committee that reviewed that proposal.

A lawyer with a group that is assisting Monnett says that what he did was standard practice at Monnett's office, that no other groups were competing for that sole-source contract, and that this letter "confirms our view that they are really on a witch hunt, trying to get Dr. Monnett."

MT has the best cartoon of this entire charade

Eli is seriously wondering about the "investigator", one Eric May, who appears to be on a jihad.

Yes, We Have Some Dead Polar Bear Pictures

Or at least the Alaska Dispatch does, discovered by PEER after looking through the computer files returned by Inspector Clouseau May to Charles M and featured in this splendid bit of repartee from the first interview

ERIC MAY: And just how did you know they were dead?
CHARLES MONNETT: Oh, it was really obvious. . .

It goes downhill from there

ERIC MAY: Okay. Any photos taken of it?
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, you‟ve seen the photos. Uh, Jeff, um, when he first was learning how to use the camera, he snapped several, um, very disappointing. We call them the “Pillsbury Doughbear photographs,” because you can see a shape that's consistent, you know, what looks like something you‟d cut out of a Christmas cookie or something.
ERIC MAY: Okay.
CHARLES MONNETT: Very rounded, um, and that‟s all we have.
ERIC MAY: Did you take a – attempt to make – take photos of each individual –
CHARLES MONNETT: No.
ERIC MAY: – on each observation?
CHARLES MONNETT: No, I, I – again, it‟s – we‟re, we‟re flying at a long distance from our base. We‟re trying to complete a different mission and, um, our protocol is not to break unless there‟s a, a very important reason. And I, I think we probably circled on the one that we photographed. That‟s pretty clear. But I know some of them, we didn‟t circle on. We just kept going. We, we identified them, um, you know, flying by. The water would be calm, and you‟d be able to see them for a way. And, and they were pretty obvious. You could see their heads and legs and – even at 1,500 feet.

Clowns on Ice

Unhappily for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Department of the Interior Inspector General, PEER has been putting all of the material from their jihad against Charles Monnett on line. Eli has been picking up a few crumbs.

All the bunnies know that Dr. Monnett has been directed to go back to work AND that there is now an investigation of BOEMRE AND that the Department of Justice has declined Eric May's polite suggestion of a criminal prosecution, but Eli can go a bit further by pointing first to the letter of suspension that put Monnett on administrative leave with pay which states in the first paragraph

You will remain on administrative leave pending the final results of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation into integrity issues

but now we have the BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz saying

The return of an employee to work does not suggest that future administrative actions cannot/will not be taken. Federal regulations create a presumption against lengthy administrative leaves. Lengthier administrative leaves are reserved for exceptional situations when all other options are considered insufficient to adequately protect the government's interests.

But wait, there is more. The latest letter from the IG's office is not from Eric May, but David Brown, the Special Agent in Charge, they are providing some adult supervision, and Brown is still headed down the yellow brick road.

Regarding the Mineral Management Service's sole source Contract # 1435-01-05-CT-39151, you admitted to assisting Dr. Andrew Derocher in preparing his proposal in response to the government's Request for Proposal (RFP). You further acknowledge that you then filled the position as Chair of the Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee (TPEC) for this particular contract. Accordingly, as the Chair of the TPEC, you were the government official responsible for reviewing Dr. Derocher's Proposal in order to ensure the Proposal met the minimum qualifications of the RFP. Essentially, you admitted that you reviewed a Proposal as the Chair of a TPEC, and thus the government official responsible for protecting the government's interest, that you helped draft.

How does Eli know that the OIG is headed right into the swamp? There is a letter on the PEER site from another contracting officer's technical representative who is [snark] asking for additional training.

Although I have been on Agency Technical Proposal Evaluation Committees (TPECs) for 30 years and a Contracting Officer’s Representative/Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative/Project Officer (COR/COTR/PO) for over 20 years, the issues being raised by Office of Inspector General (OIG) in regard to Dr. Monnett demonstrate that my COR training is incomplete. I therefore request that BOEMRE provide me and other CORs additional training in appropriate COR/pre-COR appointment/ potential contractor/grantee interactions. I recommend that such training be the focus of COR certification renewal training that is required during the current 2-year recertification period. This may be particularly important training for the inexperienced, first-time CORs who have taken over most of Dr. Monnett’s contracts.

and he goes on to ask some embarrassing questions

Sole-Source Contracts State of Understanding:

o I am unclear what I can share in a proposed sole-source contract. Obviously we need to find out whether the proposed sole-source “contractor” is interested and available before it makes sense to try to establish the Solicitation. FAR 15.201 encourages contact and exchange with interested parties until the solicitation is issued; at which time, further exchange of information must start going through the CO. Once the decision to solesource has made past the FedBiz notification period without comment, the language in FAR 15.201 suggests sharing of draft RFPs, one-on-one meetings, etc. with the one potential Offeror (see FAR 15.201(c)) is appropriate and encouraged. The language in FAR15.201 suggests that discussion of a presolicitation draft proposal based on a draft RFP could be appropriate in a sole-source contract for agency “participants in the acquisition process.” However, if the COR participates in any of these presolicitation, encouraged contacts and exchanges and then as usual serves as the TPEC Chair for the subsequent proposal, has the COR, in OIG words “reviewed a Proposal as …the government official responsible for protecting the government’s interest, that you helped draft?” Detailed training should be provided on the application of FAR 15.201 in sole-source procurement.

with several further examples

o I am unclear what I can share in a proposed cooperative agreement. We can have
competitive contracting or a sole-source co-op. Obviously, for the latter, we need to find out whether the co-op “contractor” is interested and available before it makes sense to try to establish the co-op. In either case, the meaningful participation role of the PO in the co-op has to be established before the Proposal can be approved. The TPEC-chair PO then reviews the revised proposal and in OIG words “reviewed a Proposal as …the government official responsible for protecting the government’s interest, that you helped draft.” Training should clarify why this help in preparing Proposals and then reviewing them is okay for co-op proposals.

The bunnies should remember that the Derocher proposal started as a coop agreement.

o The CMI Program Announcement suggests that “Proposals for topics that may be highly relevant…should be discussed with the CMI Director and BOEMRE contracts in advance of proposal development.” The BOEMRE contact is the PO and in the language of the OIG the PO would have “assisted…in preparing…Proposal.” The PO manages the review of the initial submitted Proposal. Authors of proposals which make it through the subsequent Technical Steering Committee review are told to contact the PO to discuss changes the PO wants in the proposal, including providing a meaningful participation role of the PO in the project. The PO then reviews the revised proposal and has in OIG words “reviewed a Proposal as …the government official responsible for protecting the government’s interest, that you helped draft.” Training should clarify why this help in preparing proposals and then reviewing them is okay for CMI proposals.

The snark light is lit. Smoke em'.

Polar Bear Follies Act XXIV

PEER reports that a final report from the Interior IG (Inspectors Clouseau, Eric May and Richard Larrabee) is now circulating within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under double hush secret rules which means that neither Charles Monnett and Jeffrey Gleason has seen it.  The report is known to contain recommendations for administrative actions, but what those recommended actions are is unclear.  Supposedly a decision will be reached by December 4, but "extensions" are possible.  Eli and Rabett Run have been popcorning the farce for a while, and it looks like this will last at least until Christmas.

Important UPDATES at the end

NATURE has a follow up which reports that the IG has moved the cheese again

Documents obtained by Nature through the Freedom of Information Act do not reveal the investigators' conclusions but they suggest a more specific context for Monnett’s troubles: he assisted in the writing of a proposal from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that he was also responsible for reviewing for the BOEM. He also resisted a separate initiative by oil companies.

Over five years, the NOAA study would synthesize knowledge of different elements of the Arctic environment — from marine mammals to fish to zooplankton — and offer conclusions about the overall impact of oil-and-gas exploration there.  The NOAA team was awarded the contract last year.

Monnett exchanged e-mails with the NOAA researchers between February and May 2011, made edits to their draft proposal and talked on the phone with them about how to strengthen it. Nature has seen emails from within the BOEM showing that the reason for his suspension in 2011 was management concern about similar assistance being provided to a grant applicant on another contract, which Monnett was also responsible for reviewing.

PEER points out that cooperation among government agencies is not a crime.  Eli points out that it is often rare, and some bosses think this a firing offense

UPDATE:  Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that bunnies read the comments, but then again there are often things in comments that are more important than the posts with higher added value.  Rabett Run has high class comments from knowledgeable hares and it is a smart bunny who steps out of the way and gives those with a clue their say.  There are at least a few such comments today, which the Rabett has added below.  First, from an anonobunny

The authority used for interagency agreements between BOEM and NOAA is the Fish and Wildlife Recovery Act which specifically encourages cooperative studies such as the synthesis in question. A negotiated agreement is drafted jointly and both agencies share costs and benefits of the work. It is not competitive but the study concept is reviewed by both NOAA scientists and the BOEM Committee of Scientific Advisors.

The synthesis (SOAR - see website) was specifically created to support an interdisciplinary scientific analysis of $50M BOEM research plus considerable other effort by other funders. The goal was for the study to be science based and somewhat immune from pressure from managers or industry to produce specific findings or exclude others. Industry was not excluded from participating - just required to openly share data and not block release of products. Monnett objected to the proposed study by industry because the SOAR study was ready to be awarded after 3 years of development when along came Shell and Connoco who independently tried to create an MOU with NOAA unbeknownst to the NOAA PI of SOAR. Folks involved in SOAR were concerned that the industry effort was on a faster track and would compete for researchers' time (and potentially data). When NOAA leadership realized they already had a synthesis in the bag they withdrew from the Shell MOU.

Shell then approached the North Slope Research Board with a bag of money and convinced them to sponsor the synthesis. The two efforts are very different. Industry wants what is essentially a literature review. The BOEM NOAA SOAR is an iterative process that is completely managed by scientists in which topics for cross disciplinary publications are identified and funds are provided for those researchers to come together and produce actual peer-review documents. 

 and Deech has some pointers about the process links here and here and here and others comments on this post

For grant applications, the interactions you write about are common and are encouraged (although conversations are more about generalities rather than application pre-review). (Speaking as a COR) contracts are a different ball game, however. I wrote a bunch of stuff when this first came up and I would have to read the Nature piece and go back to the earlier posts to see where this all fits in from a FAR perspective.

Deech56 

Don't Look at the Little Man Behind the Curtain

Inspector Clouseau has, after twenty seven or so months of excruciating labor, given birth to a minor reprimand for Charles Monnett.  Bunnies will recall the surreal set of cross examinations lead by Eric Colouseau May of the Department of the Interior's Inspector General Division.

Special Investigator May was indeed special in at least one sense of the word.  It was always unclear what about the polar bear paper that Monnett and Jeffrey Gleason wrote that got this amateur gumshoe with a shiny badge going.  However, the little man has indeed peaked from the curtain.  First,  the BOEM press secretary admitted the obvious

"We have confirmed that the [inspector general's] findings do not support a conclusion that the individual scientists involved engaged in scientific misconduct,"

Given the back and forth over the months it will be interesting to finally see what is in those findings, but, at least to Eli, the revealing point is what the reprimand was about, and indeed, most likely the entire farago.  Monnett

has received a letter of reprimand for allegedly improper disclosures back in 2007 and 2008 which helped reveal that Bush administration Arctic offshore drilling reviews illegally suppressed adverse environmental consequences.

and if you dig a bit into the letter of reprimand itself, lo and behold,

On April 5, 2007 you made an  improper release of an internal government document.  You forwarded an email message with the subject "Weekly report" to Robert Suydam of the North Slope Borough and to Rick Steiner, who at the time was a professor at the University of Alaska and has since served on the Board of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

PEER, of course is the group that has been providing legal representation to Dr. Monnett, who, the bunnies now learn, had been serving as an important whistle blower to PEER, and, among other things, these leaks resulted in an important loss in federal court for BOEM in a case about oil development in Alaska.  Steiner himself was involved at the University of Alaska in a very messy case where he was stripped of a grant by the University and later resigned his position.

It all goes back to BOEM and the state of Alaska wanting to develop oil resources.  Oil, not money, is at the root of all farces.  Slippery stuff.

Eli Writes

Eli, both cautious and direct (well, damnit this is Eli's blog so what did you expect), is in the habit of asking others what they mean rather than constructing elaborate finger weaves, so when White Beard (he has another missive) pointed out that something was fowl (yes Weasel, Eli knows) with parts of the DOI Inspector Clouseau report, Eli took electrons in hand and wrote to Dr. Rosa Meehan who was quoted in the IG Report in her then role as Division Chief, FWS’ Marine Mammals Management (MMM) program in Anchorage, AK

Dear Dr. Meehan,

I have been reading the DOI IG report on Charles Monnett, and came across the following statement on page 37
---------------------------
Meehan explained the distinction between threatened and endangered listings by stating that threatened “means you’ve got a population that’s in trouble” and endangered means that the “species is one that is in danger of extinction.” Meehan said that the polar bear was designated as a threatened, rather than endangered, species because at the time of MMM’s evaluation, the polar bear population was estimated to be around 200,000, and they were not likely to become extinct.

Meehan further explained that there are instances when species have been listed immediately as endangered.  Meehan said that informal interviews conducted with scientists and subject experts on modeling revealed that the evidence pointed mainly to the change in the ecosystem and its correlation to the polar bears losing prey, losing weight, and other issues.

-----------------------

On the face of it, it appears that the 200,000 estimate is too high by at least an order of magnitude, and I was wondering if you agreed that 20,000 is a better estimate or have a better estimate of the population.  Further, USGS has stated that climate change and the associated decline in summer ice in the Arctic is the most important threat to the polar bears, has the position of FWS shifted on this, or did your statement about changes in the ecosystem refer to the accelerating loss of summer ice in the Arctic?

While I would appreciate a response that I could quote or paraphrase, any request for confidentiality will be honored

Today Ethon flew in with the air Email from Dr. Meehan

Hi -

The 200,000 is definitely a typo/misquote - I usually go with the range of 20 - 25,000.

The explanation I provided is the longer version of simply saying the sea ice is going away. I haven't heard of anyone in FWS or the administration saying anything else.

Hope this is helpful.

Very, and Eli thanks Dr. Meehan because this establishes authoritatively that the best estimate of polar bear population in the Arctic is between 20 and 25K, AND that the major threat to the population is the sea ice decline, the basic implication of Monnett and Gleasons' paper as set forth in a footnote.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think the IG evasive in dancing about how the loss of habitat for a species that spends most of its foraging time on sea ice refers to the loss of sea ice.  Very artful the dodgers are, for example, they report on their interview with Douglas Krofta, the Fish and Wildlife Services Chief of the Endangered Species Listing Program,

Krofta “strongly” believed that if Monnett’s manuscript information had not been used for support, FWS would have still gone forward with the listing. Krofta believed that the manuscript helped to create an image about how the loss of sea ice causes bears to have to swim greater distances and the possible relationship between sea ice loss and more bears drowning.

He reiterated, however, that they had “very strong” data that suggested that the polar bear’s habitat itself was being lost and the effects on the polar bear were going to be severe. Because of these data, Krofta speculated FWS would have gone forward with its recommendation even without Monnett’s manuscript information.

Eli contemplates writing to the DOI IG about the shoddy work her shop is putting out.

David Brown, DOI IG Special Agent in Charge of Untruth, or the Trial of Charles M

At the end of the last interview of the Department of Interior's IG Office with Charles Monnett, David Brown, the Special Agent in Charge pin dances with Monnett's lawyer, Jeff Ruch from PEER:

Jeff Ruch: All right. The second thing, I guess, I was unclear of is, you said you were going to -- it was going to become obvious what the charges were with respect to the University of Alberta contract. I still don't know what the criminal --

David Brown: I think I said what it was -- it would be obvious what this is about.

Jeff Ruch: Oh.

David Brown: I never said anything about charges.

Jeff Ruch: So, what is the criminal offense? Why would there have been a criminal referral?

David Brown: Why would there have been a criminal referral concerning the contract issues?

Jeff Ruch: Yes. As your notice stated. Why would you have done that if there was no crime?

David Brown: Well, that's -- you know, that's your opinion as to --

Jeff Ruch: And I ask -- I'm not expressing an opinion. I'm asking what is the criminal offense that would have justified referral?

David Brown: Well, potentially there's lots of criminal offenses when you're dealing with contract issues. There's false statements. There are potential bribery issues. There's false claim issues. So, you know, depending how the fact patterns are is what the -- what a potential crime could be.

Jeff Ruch: And what was the referral based on in this case?

David Brown: I think I -- you asked me that in the beginning, if I was going to provide you with that information and I said no.

Jeff Ruch: Well, actually, you said the opposite. You said it was going to become obvious from the questions, and it didn't become obvious from the questions.

David Brown: That isn't -- that wasn't my understanding of your question. My understanding of your question was, you know, what's this about, what are the issues involving the contract about. I think we -- it's perfectly clear through the questioning from Rich Larrabee as to what our concerns were with that contract. What -- my communications with the US Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice is not -- I'm not going to divulge that.

And Charles M sums it up

Charles Monnett: Well, I'm just surprised you think this is so important that you have created as much chaos in, you know, the marine mammal research program. You really have done a lot of damage.

David Brown: Is there anything else? We can conclude?

Boemreang

The Rat brings word: PEER sums up BOEMRE gate (Eli has not pride)

“By assigning clueless criminal investigators to paw through the scientific peer review process, the Inspector General is generating heat but shedding no light,” added Ruch, pointing out that after nearly a year-long probe the IG still refuses to specify just what it is investigating and why. “Unfortunately, this fishing expedition appears to be as expertly guided as the boat trip to Gilligan’s Island.”

It's clear that the IG, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement something or other is having to walk this back, but they got hit by their own pie, and others in the IG Office are now auditing the auditors.

• Fellow BOEM colleagues of Dr. Monnett have come forward to state that his handling of the Canadian study was completely proper and conducted under standard agency procedure;

• As the IG begins to examine other research contracts, the hard drive of a key BOEM manager was found to have been wiped clean after the IG asked to examine his files; and

• The IG inquiry into the peer review publication of a paper by Dr. Monnett and a colleague on sightings of drowned polar bears following a storm is drawing outrage from scientists in both the U.S. and abroad and undermining the Obama administration’s posture on climate change.

News from the North

Ethon has been troubled by the rising cost of liver.  Given the US Post Office's problems he thinks that setting up an air post service might be useful.  The Bird has noticed that with winter, cold snow and dark, Alaskans have no trouble finding time to write letters, and he has his first customer, Whitebeard, who sends this message to all the Rabett Runners

Dear Eli and Bunnies,

Some news from the north:  Friday last, Fairbanks sitting US District Judge Ralph Beistline voided the 2010 US Fish and WildlifeService’s designation of critical Polar Bear habitat.  The critical area was mostly continental shelf in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas plus a coastal strip from Canada to Barrow, covering 187,000+ square miles, a bit more than California.  The management plan, or at least the designated area over which the plan applies, goes back to F&W for a do-over with fair odds of another round in court following.  F&W had no immediate statement, nor did the Center for Biological Diversity which joined with the Service.  The coalition of native entities who brought suit, the State of Alaska’s administration which joined with the natives on the case, and some of the plaintiffs’ political supporters made statements repeating the argument for challenging the designation.

For readers who may not have been following, the area designation is part of a required recovery plan flowing from the November 10, 2008 listing of the big white bruins by the US Interior Department as “threatened” under the Endanger Species Act.  Breistline, born in Fairbanks in 1948 and nominated to the Federal Bench late in 2001, found the area included in the designation was excessive and showed “a disconnect between the twin goals of protecting a cherished resource and allowing for growth and much needed economic development.”

Really, this is another round in the epic, decades long struggle waged in the fed and public opinion courts to fashion belt and suspenders into a chastity belt.  What’s interesting is that over half dozen local native corporations (individual villages) and the 4 regional native corporations with coastline from the Canadian Arctic border to the northern entrance of Bristol Bay in the Bearing Sea were plaintiffs.  Wearing other hats, many of the same folks are often in the courts, with various environmental organizations in opposing the oil industry over things like permits to do off-shore drilling.

Some background.  The entire State is split into 12 regional native corporation areas (not reservations, although one legacy reservation covering Annette Island in the SE panhandle exists) who are the big private land owners. The twelve have all subsurface rights for the total of 69,000 square miles of native owned land.  Each Alaska Native is a share holder in one of the 12, created in 1971 by the AK Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, pronounced ank-sa) and each has 100 shares of unalienable, dividend paying, voting stock.  There are also about 200 independent native village corporations, that were formed at the same time with similar structure.  Each native individual is also a share holder in one of these.  Village corporations selected surface title to each village’s surrounding hinterland or nearby “available” Fed land, with selection area based on the number of share holders.  Regional corporations mostly selected lands with an eye toward exploitable value in the general economy and anything village parcels was theirs already.  The actual selections of the regional and village corporations’ were to a patchwork of parcels, some very large, some small, mixed with those of the Fed and State.  As well, cities sites, and other small parcels, often in especially desirable spots, are in the mix.  The State land ownership break down is: Fed Agencies - 59.2%; State of Alaska and trusts - 28.0%; Native Corporations - 11.7%; Others - 1+%

Diligent readers of the first Charles Monnett v Agent May transcript who still having some functioning cortex remaining after the experience perhaps recall Monnett’s mentioning native power at the beginning.  A lot of that derives from land ownership. In addition, native corporations own webs of subsidiaries scattered about the general economy, but most heavily in area providing services the Federal Government.  Collectively, natives got just short of a billion ’70s era bucks to seed the various corporations.  But that’s another

CliffsNotes set, altogether.

For This Eli Pays Taxes

The theater of the absurd continues. From the comments, Charles Monnett has been ordered back to work,

"Chuck is planning to go to work. He just doesn't know what the work is going to be," says attorney Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

and the butt covering has commenced

Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, confirmed in an email that Monnett's administrative leave is coming to an end.

"He was informed that he will have no role in developing or managing contracts and will instead be in our environmental assessment division," Schwartz said in the email.

"The return of an employee to work does not suggest that future administrative actions cannot/will not be taken," Schwartz added. "Federal regulations create a presumption against lengthy administrative leaves. Lengthier administrative leaves are reserved for exceptional situations when all other options are considered insufficient to adequately protect the government's interests."

Time to investigate Michael Mann again.

Why the DOJ Don't Love Eric May

Hank (Eli prefers it when he uses his Egyptian name, Ankh) found the answer to why the Department of Justice refused the recommendation of Eric May to bring a criminal referral against Charles Monnett. Turns out that our Inspector Clouseau has a track record.

His technical incompetence maneuvered the DOJ into bringing a case which came to a rather embarrassing end against the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District,

David Overvold, the district's lawyer, Lyman McConnell and two irrigation district employees — John Baker and Shelby Cecil — were named in a 10-count indictment handed up in December 2008 by a federal grand jury in Reno. Cecil since has died.

Turns out that Mr. Cecil had lung cancer, and Eric the Idiot showed up at his house unannounced in very IC manner. Cecil opened the door and reached for his oxygen tank. May thought he was reaching for a gun and rushed him. Just what a terminally ill man needs to get better.

Federal prosecutors accuse them of carrying out a scheme from 2000-05 to alter water delivery data to earn special "efficiency credits" that would entitle the district to more water and reduce a court-ordered water debt owed to the Pyramid Lake Paiute tribe.

Ethon's new food group, Eric, was the technically challenged investigator who talked the Feds into bringing the case, and most of the information is buried under seal from the grand jury proceeding. However, the case being concluded, perhaps that (hi there Brian and Jeff) can be breached.

Overvold's lawyer, Craig Denny, had some not so nice things to say about Eric

Denney, a former federal prosecutor in Reno, has charged that May improperly coached and influenced witnesses, and altered witness statements, tainting grand jury proceedings and robbing Overvold of his right to due process.

The outcome was pretty much an egg-on-the-face outcome for the DOJ

The Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID), based in Fallon, Nevada announced today that the Honorable James C. Mahan, Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Nevada, has approved the dismissal with prejudice of all charges against the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID), Lyman McConnell, and John Baker in a federal indictment that was issued by the Grand Jury on December 3, 2008

McConnell and Baker agreed not to seek reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees and expenses in defending themselves against the charges if the government’s position was found to be vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. They also agreed not to file any claims against the government or its agents arising from the investigation and prosecution of the case.

David Overvold, TCID’s former Project Manager, who was represented by Craig Denney of Downey Brand, retired from his position at TCID, and has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion program, while continuing to assert his innocence. After the pretrial diversion is completed in 18 months, the United States will also dismiss the indictment with prejudice against Mr. Overvold. Shelby Cecil, the former TCID Water Master, who was represented by Donald Evans, had charges against him dismissed on February 13, 2009, after he passed away.

and the reasons for the dismissal were classic

“There were some significant concerns raised by these motions,” TCID defense counsel Michael Van Zandt said, “that undermined the government’s theory of the charges and demonstrated that the charges in fact were not well-founded. For example, TCID filed a motion that asserted that a political subdivision of a state, such as an irrigation district in the State of Nevada, is not legally capable of committing a crime. This is a long established view based on the fact that a governmental entity is not able to form the specific intent to defraud, only a real live person can do that.” As to the misconduct allegations, Mr. Van Zandt stated that he cannot give specific information, but indicated that it involved the manner in which the case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Inspector General under the supervision of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento.

“If a person who was knowledgeable about the operation of an irrigation district with over 600 miles of canals, laterals and drains and some 70 water meter measuring devices had been involved in the investigation, this case would never have been filed in the first place,” Van Zandt stated. “Running an irrigation district on the scale of the Newlands Project, with over 3000 water right owners, receiving over 13,000 water deliveries in a single year, takes a lot of knowledge and experience to understand what is going on and how the deliveries are measured and reported,” Mr. Schank said. “You just can’t pick up a chart or report and understand everything that was involved with that water delivery without having the necessary background, and without investigating all of the circumstances behind a water delivery,” Schank added.

Kate Rutan, the Interim Project Manager for TCID had this to say: “I witnessed an honest man give up his dreams to build something worthwhile because of this indictment. I witnessed a kind, gentle, very ill man die with the accusation that he had committed a federal crime punishable by 20 years in jail hanging over his head. I witnessed an organization of honest hardworking people brought to their knees financially because of this indictment.”

The Trial of Charles Monnett is deja vu all over again

Profit Motive

Eli has been remarking about the Keystone Pipeline environmental report from the US State Department that people, except chemical kineticists, are very bad at rate problems. Tar sand oil is expensive. Building the pipeline will decrease the cost of mining the tar sand oil, which will make it more competitive. If the pipeline is NOT built then investment into tar sand mining will be lower as the profit would be smaller. QED the effect of building or not building the pipeline will be substantial.

In short, that means that sand in the gears that raise cost discourages investment, especially investment into things with small profit margins and long payouts.  On Jan 30, the Wall Street Journal reported on a splendid example thereof.  Royal Dutch Shell Oil's new president, Ben van Beurden, is repositioning the company, to guess what, make more money.  As part of this

Shell will suspend plans to drill in the Alaskan Arctic after a federal appeals court ruled last week that the U.S. government improperly relied on "inadequate information" in the process of awarding licenses for exploration there. The Arctic plan—which has cost Shell about $5 billion in permits, personnel and equipment since 2008—has faced delays due to sea ice and a drilling rig that ran aground. The government fined Shell $1.1 million for Clean Air Act violations by rigs during the 2012 drilling effort. "The lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for  drilling in Alaska in 2014".

Shell has been very agressive about long term capital investments, not only in Alaska, but in Louisiana (a gas to diesel plant), Kazakhstan, Canada and world wide.  Within the company this set up a tension between those who thought that salvation lay in new sources and new investments and those whose focus was on the bottom line.  The problem with big bets is that they lose, and when they do, they lose a lot of money.  The hit to the bottom line has been huge (no, Shell is not losing money yet but profits are down last year from to 16 billion U$ from 27 in the year before.

Attentive bunnies may recall a few posts about the DOI, Charles Monnett and what turned out to be leaking of information to those opposing drilling in the Arctic, throwing sand in the gears.

Polar Bear Undeath

Department of Interior Special Agent (Eli observes that special in this case is in the same sense as Special Education) Eric "Orange" May takes an additional dose of stupid pills as reported by PEER. In a second interview of Jeffrey Gleason about the dead polar bears floating paper, PEER reports the following new information about May's inquisition

• Stated that other observers claimed seeing two more polar bear carcasses in open water in early September 2004, just days before Drs. Monnett and Gleason made their sightings – but these two sightings were not recorded or otherwise reported.

Not noted dead polar bear sightings are scientific misconduct now?? and here Eli thought that reporting dead polar bears was scientific misconduct. May is trying to reinforce the conclusions of the original paper??

• Queried consistency of reporting for polar bears in the Bowhead Whale Aerial Program survey computerized database in prior decades. The main question was whether “death” was properly coded as a “behavior.”

See photo above

• Spent nearly a quarter of the two-hour Gleason interview discussing a misplaced routing slip on an internal agency poster regarding sea ice retreat that was ultimately approved by the agency. IG Agent Eric May, who claimed to have found the one-third page routing slip “in the trash” asked Dr. Gleason to take a polygraph test on whether he was trying to hide it.

We are paying for this farce?

UPDATE: Even better, the Independent has a neat little follow up

This week Mr Gleason was interviewed intensively by investigators and asked if he would take a polygraph (lie detector) test; he responded that he would only take such a test if the agent interviewing him took one as well.

It's excellent farce

Lennart Bengtsson and His Nine Lives

While fairly distrustful and always on the lookout for inside knife work, Eli has come to recognize that sometime you have to wait to the end to understand what has happened. This was the case, with the Monnett issue.  There, even after it was explained to him, Michael Tobis was simply too full of good will to accept Eli's explanation. Further, sometimes bunnies can't accept reality because it would hurt their positioning.

Over at Klimazwiebel, HvS tries to make sense for his readers of what happened with Lennart Bengtsson, the GWPF and ERL.  Given his druthers, von Storch is not able to follow the music and so, at the end Eli tries to enlighten him

L’Affaire Bengtsson was all over the Climate Blog world and even penetrated into the real media. What Eli and the bunnies need is perspective. While this flood appears to have come from nowhere, it came from Sweden, and had been percolating there for a few years, but, of course, in Swedish.

There, IEHO, is the crux of the matter. Bengtsson functions in different linguistic and national worlds. It was first in Sweden that his political and science policy worlds came together, but even in Sweden, his writings in the national media, while in part skeptical of the IPCC consensus were not outside of the 97%, or at least not much. At conferences, he went further, and as a commenter on the blogs (esp of the Stockholm Initiative) he joined a far right wing view of the world and his colleagues that was despicable. (See, for example here, here and here.)  This explains the strident reaction of Rabett Run's Swedish friends for whom Bengtssons actions were not a surprise but simply the last straw

The explosion about Bengtsson's joining the GWPF, should not have surprised any speaker of Swedish or reader of Swedish climate blogs, but, of course, it was a shock to those stuck in the English (and evidently German) worlds.

In this regard HvS's perception that Bengtsson

"2) Complains that the discussion, even for climate science suffers all to much from politization, and he was trying to open new channels for communication".

is a bit naive. Maybe more than a bit but it well fits the space that HvS and EZ are trying to dig out for themselves.

Pass the alert, nae, sound the disaster klaxon far and wide.

One of the things a smart bunny learns is to listen to those who know better about an issue.  So following White Beard's advice Eli went and looked at the link to the IG Report on the matter of Charles Monnett.  Frankly it was auditing at the best, and, yes at one point the ears fell over the eyes, but something did seem a bit funny about the estimate of white bears in the Arctic, but Eli and his ilk were not employed in the polar bear census, still EEGO, 

This was not cool, as White Beard notes in the comments

At the bottom of MS page 37, Division Chief, Anchorage office of FWS’ [Fish and Wildlife Service] Marine Mammals Management’s “Meehan said that the polar bear was designated as a threatened, rather than endangered, species because at the time of MMM’s evaluation, the polar bear population was estimated to be around 200,000...” This eight (oh dear, mustn’t ever UNDERSTATE these things) ten fold OVERSTATED quantity by the IG has the worlds entire economy attremble on the edge of the abyss.

Given that the population of Alaska is about 722,000 that is less than 1 bear per 4 people and at that rate even including the north of Canada,  there would be considerably fewer people as the bears munched through the population.  But wait, there is more.  Look at the next paragraph

Meehan said that informal interviews conducted with scientists and subject experts on modeling revealed that the evidence pointed mainly to the change in the ecosystem and its correlation to the polar bears losing prey, losing weight, and other issues.

Eli would bet that those changes in the ecosystem are dominated by the loss of summer ice.  After all, it is the position of the USGS that

The main threat to polar bears now is thought to be the unidirectional decline of habit as a result of climate warming. Other impacts are human-caused mortality, contaminants and development in the Arctic.

Eli plans to get around to writing to the IG on the matter.  Send the dear a postcard.