Gobeyondoil.com: Greenpeace climbers scale rig in freezing seas as energy giants eye Arctic oil rush

FYI, this peaceful protest to halt dangerous offshore exploratory
drilling in the Arctic went off in the wee hours of the morning
Greenland time. For more info and updates please go to http://www.gobeyondoil.org/
Richard Charter

31st August 2010, Baffin Bay, Greenland – Campaigners have evaded a huge
military security operation to scale a controversial oil rig in the
freezing seas off Greenland. At dawn this morning four expert climbers
in inflatable speedboats dodged Danish Navy commandos before climbing up
the inside of the rig and hanging from it in tents suspended from ropes,
halting its drilling operation (video and stills available).

The climbers have enough supplies to occupy the hanging tents for
several days. If they succeed in stopping drilling for just a short time
then the operators, Britain’s Cairn Energy, will struggle to meet a
tight deadline to complete the exploration before winter ice conditions
force it to abandon the search for oil off Greenland until next year.

Sim McKenna from the United States, one of the campaigners hanging
fifteen metres above the bitterly cold Arctic ocean, said: “We’ve got to
keep the energy companies out of the Arctic and kick our addiction to
oil, that’s why we’re going to stop this rig from drilling for as long
as we can. The BP Gulf oil disaster showed us it’s time to go beyond
oil. The drilling rig we’re hanging off could spark an Arctic oil rush,
one that would pose a huge threat to the climate and put this fragile
environment at risk.”

McKenna, who had been helping with the Gulf clean-up operation before
joining the Greenpeace ship the Esperanza in the Arctic, continued:
“Right now this platform is the most important oil rig in the world. If
we can stop them striking oil here in the next few weeks we’ll hold back
the oil giants for at least another year, hopefully gaining enough time
for a global ban on dangerous deepwater drilling projects like this to
be enacted.”

A Danish Thetis-class 120m warship, commandos in speed boats and a
flotilla of police boats have been shadowing the Esperanza for the last
nine days. The rig has been forced to stop drilling because any breach
of the 500m security zone around it results in a routine shutdown. It is
currently drilling in volcanic rock, having failed to strike oil, and is
due to move soon to a new drill site 100km away. The campaigners hope
today’s occupation will delay the move or even cause it to be cancelled.

Last week Cairn announced it had struck gas at a site a few miles from
the occupied rig, but not oil. The fragile environment west of Disko
Island is known as Iceberg Alley due to the plentiful icebergs and tough
conditions. This has deterred oil companies from attempting exploration
there in recent years, but the world’s oil giants are watching the Cairn
project with great interest. If the Edinburgh-based company strikes oil,
analysts expect a new Arctic oil rush, with Exxon, Chevron and other
energy giants already buying up licenses to drill in the area and making
preparations to move in.

Jon Burgwald, a Greenpeace campaigner onboard the Esperanza, which is
about a kilometre from the occupied platform, said: “Instead of letting
the oil companies drill for the last drops of oil in pristine places
like the Arctic, our governments should be pushing the development of
the clean energy technologies we need to fight climate change and reduce
our dependence on dirty fuels. We already have the tools we need to go
beyond oil, all that’s missing is the determination to make it happen
quickly. That’s why we have to stop this rig from drilling for as long
as we can. We can’t let the oil giants take us all in the wrong
direction by opening up the Arctic seas to a new oil rush.”

The crew of the Esperanza includes Waldemar Wichmann, the Captain from
Argentina; Annkatrin Schneider, deck hand from Germany; Ben Stewart and
Leila Deen from the UK; Jon Burgwald from Denmark; Victor Rask from
Sweden; Mateusz Emeschajmer from Poland; Timo Puohiniemi from Finland;
Danielle, Second Mate from Australia; Mannas, Chief Engineer from
Holland; and Sim McKenna from the USA.

ENDS

For more information contact Szabina Mozes, Greenpeace International
Communication on +31 646 16 2023

For video and stills contact Melissa Thompson, Greenpeace International
Video Desk: + 31 621 296899; Emma Stoner, Greenpeace International
Picture Desk: +44 (0)207 865 8230+31

To speak to a campaigner off the coast of Greenland contact Ben Stewart,
Leila Dean or Jon Burgwald on the Esperanza on +8816 7770 1411 or +8816
7770 1412 or +8816 7770 1413.

Notes:

* The U.S. government calculates that the chance of a major spill
occurring over the lifetime of a single block of leases in its own
Arctic waters is greater than 20% – while those odds increase with every
extra license granted. If the Cairn operation strikes oil the number of
wells sunk off Greenland would increase dramatically. The well being
drilled by Cairn is at a depth of 300-500 metres, while the moratorium
introduced by President Barack Obama after the Deepwater Horizon
disaster applies to wells deeper than 152 metres. Cairn has refused to
publish a comprehensive plan for how it would deal with a spill from the
platform, and has just 14 vessels capable of reacting to a spill (BP’s
response in the Gulf of Mexico required more than 3000 vessels).

* Drilling west of Greenland is limited to a ‘summer window’
between July and early October. After this date, sea-ice becomes too
thick to allow vessels to operate and relief wells cannot be drilled
effectively. The area which contains the occupied rig is known locally
as ‘iceberg alley’. Cairn is having to tow icebergs out of the rig’s
path or use water cannons to divert them. If the icebergs are too large
the company has pledged to move the rig itself to avoid a collision.
Last month a 260km2 ice island broke off the Petermann glacier north of
Disko island and will eventually make its way south through Nares Strait
into Baffin Bay and the Labrador Current before reaching the area where
drilling is taking place.

* Cairn is run by Sir Bill Gammell, a childhood friend of both
Tony Blair and George W Bush. When Bush first met Blair his opening
words were: “I hear you know my friend Bill Gammell.” Last week Gammell
sold Cairn’s Indian operation for $9.2bn to fund the Greenland project,
describing the Arctic as his “Plan A, B and C.”[i]

* Baffin Bay is home to 80 to 90% of the world’s Narwhals. The
region is also home to blue whales, polar bears, seals, sharks,
cormorants, kittiwakes and numerous other migratory birds.

* Cairn’s Greenland project is representative of a new approach to
modern oil exploration, where self-styled ‘wildcat’ companies take on
huge financial and technical risks in the hope of hitting a previously
undiscovered reservoir of oil. The company’s complete lack of in-house
infrastructure and failure to provide a comprehensive spill response
plan raises serious questions about Cairn’s ability to deal with an
accident in one of the most hostile environments on earth.

* According to Gammell, the company seeks ‘big acreage’ to give it
a wide area for exploration, in contrast to the smaller parcels that are
routinely found in the North Sea for example. The dangers of this
approach become clear in the event of a spill, where the operation’s
remote location means there is little infrastructure already in place to
begin any clean up operation.

Ben Ayliffe | Senior Energy Solutions Campaigner
Greenpeace UK
t: 020 7865 8210
m: 07815 708 683
s: benayliffe

www.gobeyondoil.org

Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times: Louisiana: Waves Delay Work on BP’s Relief Well & Mother Nature Network: Till Depth do us Part–Deeper Drilling for Arctic

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/31brfs-WAVESDELAYWO_BRF.html

August 30, 2010

By HENRY FOUNTAIN
High seas have forced further delays in BP’s efforts to permanently plug the well that leaked millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is leading the government’s response effort, said in a conference call on Monday that waves six to eight feet high had prevented crews from replacing equipment on the seabed in preparation for the final plugging of the well through a relief well. The removal of a capping stack, which was installed atop the well last month, and the original damaged blowout preventer will eventually be replaced by another blowout preventer that can manage pressure changes resulting from the final plugging procedure. Admiral Allen said the bad weather would probably delay work for two to three days, pushing the completion of the relief well to the end of next week.

Good morning! And welcome to the Daily Briefing for Monday, August 30. To stay on top of Earth-friendly news all day, visit us at Mother Nature Network.

TILL DEPTH DO US PART: The 2010 Gulf oil spill may have been the largest such disaster in history, and hobbled BP’s race to the frontiers of oil exploration, but it was only a speed bump for the industry overall, the New York Times and Guardian report today. The Times takes a front-page look at how a new generation of futuristic, far-flung oil rigs are digging deeper and more remotely than ever to reach the Gulf’s remaining crude, while the Guardian looks ahead to how a similar bonanza might affect the Arctic. A $3 billion rig named “Perdido” (pictured) serves as the Times’ main example of the ongoing Gulf push, since Shell’s “giant steel octopus” – and the world’s deepest-reaching rig – can pump oil from 35 wells two miles deep and 200 miles from shore, all while simultaneously drilling new ones. Although accidents like the one that sunk the less sophisticated Deepwater Horizon are rare, the risks inevitably pile up as oil exploration and production becomes more complex and more remote. Perdido is a 20-hour boat trip from shore, for example, meaning a fire could run wild before rescue crews arrive; its deepwater wells also must be serviced by robots, since humans can’t dive that deep – a challenge made infamous by this summer’s BP spill. And while BP has been boxed out of the most recent rush for black gold in Greenland, the Guardian points out that rivals such as Shell, ExxonMobil and StatOil will have no trouble filling the void as vast new oil fields open up across the Arctic. Environmental advocates warn that a BP-style spill in the Arctic could drag on for years due to the region’s remote and rugged location, and Greenpeace has vowed to “make a real fight of this.” But as one senior manager at Shell tells the Times, the industry will get to that oil one way or another. “We’ve proven over the years, and the decades, that if the reserves justify it, we will find a way to do it,” he says. “The trick is how to do it safely.” (Sources: New York Times, Guardian)

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Pensacola News Journal: Oil spill: BP reverses, admits there’s oil in local waters (in FLORIDA)

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100829/NEWS01/8290333/BP-reverses-admits-there-s-oil-in-local-waters

KIMBERLY BLAIR * KBLAIR@PNJ.COM * AUGUST 29, 2010

Despite persistent denials from BP last week, thousands of pounds of weathered oil is being pulled from under the surface of Pensacola Bay every day.

During more than a dozen interviews last week, BP officials and spokespeople for a number of government agencies working on the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill response denied knowledge of oil in the bay.

Even as they spoke, however, Escambia County officials and local fishermen were reporting finding weathered oil, as they’ve been doing for weeks. BP’s own crews were hand-scooping it up, and a submerged-oil team from BP’s Deepwater Horizon Response Incident Command Post in Mobile was investigating.

“BP says it’s all gone, but it’s not. I’ve known it was out there for a month,” said a commercial fisherman who asked not to be identified because he is working for BP in the cleanup and feared losing his job.

“We were recovering it in a boat … scooping it up out of sand and dumping it into bags. They’re just trying to keep it quiet. Out of sight, out of mind.”

On Friday, Coast Guard Lt. Stephen West with the Incident Command Post finally confirmed an area of oil a quarter of a mile long and up to 50 to 60 feet off Barrancas Beach at Pensacola Naval Air Station.

He also confirmed that buckets of sunken oil were being pulled up in another area of Pensacola Bay, near Fort Pickens at Gulf Islands National Seashore.

On Saturday, Scott Piggott, who heads the Escambia and Santa Rosa cleanup operation for BP, said cleanup workers began noticing the submerged oil at Barrancas Beach in July.
“The last month, we’ve spent considerable effort to get people to concentrate on that,” he said. “Then we notice the same phenomenon at the Fort Pickens site, and cleanup has been going on there for two weeks.”

The statements from West and Piggott follow the federal government’s claim earlier this month that 70 percent of the oil is gone, with much of it dissolved like sugar in tea, according to one White House official said earlier this month.

They also came after Escambia County supplied the News Journal with two of BP’s daily reports to the county about the cleanup.

* On Wednesday, BP reported cleaning up 3,776 pounds of weathered oil from water near NAS.

* On Thursday, it reported collecting 2,207 pounds from water near NAS.

* The reports say oil was not recovered from water near Fort Pickens on those two days, though 3,255 pounds were collected from the Fort Pickens beach on Wednesday and 2,123 pounds was collected the next day.

* Piggott said 1,000 pounds were collected from underwater one day last week near Fort Pickens.

‘We don’t want BP out’

Keith Wilkins, Escambia County’s point person on environmental issues, said last week he believes a breakdown in communications in the heavily bureaucratic BP cleanup organization led to the denials about the submerged oil. Officials from a number of government agencies rotate in and out every two weeks.

“We just don’t want them to leave any stone unturned,” Wilkins said about the submerged oil investigation. “We all need to keep our eyes open, and if oil is found, we don’t want BP to get out of here until it’s all cleaned up.”

Wilkins said the oil isn’t going to go away quickly.

“People feel like we were nearing the hump and nearing the close of this,” he said. “But we’re in the middle of this, ecologically. We’ll see the residual effects for some time.”

He’s hopeful BP, the Incident Command and every scientist involved in the oil spill response remains open-minded and not dismiss reports that oil remains in the water.

“A lot of people speak in absolutes,” he said. “I think they’re wrong. There are no absolutes here. They’re constantly being surprised by what they’re finding and they’re being surprised by what they’re not finding.”

‘Messed up for a while’

A News Journal reporter went out on a boat last week with two fishermen who didn’t want to be identified.

The fishermen proved it doesn’t take long to come across oil in Pensacola Bay, Pensacola Pass or near shore in the Gulf.

They pointed out a wide swath of oily sheen floating on the surface of the water in the bay near the Pensacola Pass.

They also pointed out BP workers wading out in chest-deep water and hand-scooping oily matter from underneath the sand at Barrancas Beach.

Booms and oil-absorbent material also were being used to clean up orange-colored ribbons of oil – one a half-mile long – about a foot below the surface of the water near the beach.

The two fishermen easily found an abundance of large tar mats and tar balls of various sizes submerged under thin and thick layers of sand. When they randomly jumped into two to three feet of water in Pensacola Bay near Fort Pickens, Fort McRee and NAS and scooped up sand, they nearly always turned up some form of oily material.

They said they’re not confident all the oil will be cleaned up.

“It’s going to be messed up around here for awhile,” one said.

Recreational fisherman Mark Fuqua, 47, of Pensacola, who has fished the waters from Destin to Pensacola most of his life, discovered just how big the mess is on the first day he struck out to drop a line in the water since the fishing ban was lifted two weeks ago.
After a day of fishing in several areas of the bay on Wednesday, his boat, anchor and cast net were covered in oil.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said. “I was fishing in front of Palafox Pier and pulled up my anchor, and it looked like it had black mud on it. I reached down to try to wipe it off and it was all greasy, like greasy sand.”

The anchor was dropped in 20 feet of water.

Piggott said the reports from fishermen about finding oil often are not reliable.

“I’ve heard accounts of people who hold up their anchors that have this black stuff on it,” he said. “I can’t tell you how many times we’ve gotten reports from fishermen with sightings of sheen and oil. Ninety-nine percent of the time, these reports turn out to be organic material.”

Fuqua said Piggott’s statement “sounds typical.”

“BP is really counting on that out-of-sight, out-of-mind thing. It’s there and they know it,” he said. “They need to be exposed and made to do something about it.”

Frustration Grows

Wilkins said the county supplied Incident Command with a map showing at least 15 spots in the bay suspected of having submerged or sunken oil, including the Greenshores Project along Bayfront Parkway, Big Lagoon, Old River to Perdido Bay and Santa Rosa Sound up to the Bob Sikes Bridge.

“We want them to look at those locations because that’s where we saw oil during the worst impact,” he said.

Piggott said the discussion about looking at those locations was informal.

“I don’t know if we’ll ever find that map,” he said. “I have not seen it. I don’t think it’s been passed up to my boss in Mobile.

Escambia County Commissioner Gene Valentino said the map snafu is yet another example of the lack of communication among BP, the Coast Guard and county officials.
“It’s a mess. It’s a mess, I’m telling you,” he said. “I’m frustrated. My frustration is they still have not addressed the submerged oil in the ocean. You can’t convince me that the dispersants addressed 175,000 million gallons of oil – and some scientists say double that – that was released into the environment.”

The county also wants investigators to look for submerged oil on the second sandbar and outside the sandbar in the Gulf, where reports have said oil may have sunk into the sand.
A big concern is the three deposits of white sand off the shores of Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island that the county uses for beach renourishment.

“We want to make sure they’re not oily so we do have a source of sand,” Wilkins said.
Those sites are expected to be investigated in a few weeks, he said.

There have been no reports of oil on the sunken aircraft carrier Oriskany, which is a popular diving attraction, or on any of the county’s other artificial reefs in the Gulf, Wilkins said.
‘I’m not going to sell anything’

Frank Patti Sr., owner of Joe Patti Seafood on Pensacola’s Main Street, said oil in the bay is hurting his business and the livelihoods of local fishermen.

“It’s a terrible situation,” he said.

He said his fishermen knew oil was out there and thought BP would eventually get it.
“They kept checkin’ on it and found out BP was not going to do anything about it,” Patti said. “They’re pulling our leg and trying to do a cover-up, and that is just not satisfactory to us.”

Patti’s family has been selling locally caught seafood to customers since 1930.

“As long as there’s oil in the water,” he said, “I’m not going to sell anything from here.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Gulf Restoration Network: BP, Once Again, Wants to Push the Oil Back Into the Gulf

http://healthygulf.org/201008251483/blog/bps-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-gulf-of-mexico/bp-once-again-wants-to-push-the-oil-back-into-the-gulf

Blog – BPs Oil Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico
Wednesday, 25 August 2010 08:27

On the 23rd, BP once again asked the Corps of Engineers for an Emergency Permit to “surf wash” the beaches of Louisiana–this time on Grand Isle. The concept behind this surf washing is to push the sand, “stained” by oil, back into the Gulf, and let the waves “clean” it. BP already proposed this once for Grand Terre Island, and then subsequently withdrew their proposal due to opposition from the public and federal agencies. We opposed the surf washing of Grand Terre, and also oppose the Corps issuing an Emergency Permit for this activity on Grand Isle. Even if this was a good idea, performing this activity while there is still potential for more oil to wash up on the shore makes no sense.

In our comments we requested additional information to answer many unanswered questions regarding this proposal. For example, why do this project if more oil will wash up? How will machinery operators differentiate between oiled and “stained” sand? What are the impacts to endangered and sensitive species? How much oil will be pushed back into the Gulf? How can monitoring these projects for less than four days be adequate to determine the impacts?
If BP wants to move forward with this surf washing, they should apply for a regular (non-emergency) permit after the threat of beached oil passes. This way the public will have a much better opportunity to weigh in.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Riki Ott letter to EPA re: Documentation of continued dispersant spraying in nearshore and inland waters from Fla to La. (despite contrary claims by USCG and BP)

Sam Coleman August 27, 2010
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Via email: coleman.sam@epa.govFrom Riki Ott, PhD
Ultimate Civics Project
Earth Island Institute

Re: Documentation of continued dispersant spraying in near shore and inland waters from Florida to Louisiana (despite contrary claims by USCG and BP) and documentation that dispersants made oil sink
Dear Mr. Coleman,
During the August 25 Dockside Chat in Jean Lafitte, LA, it came to our attention that the federal agencies were unaware — or lacking proof — of the continued spraying of dispersants from Louisiana to Florida. Further, the federal agencies were woefully ignorant of the presence of subsurface oil-dispersant plumes and sunken oil on ocean and estuary water bottoms. We offer evidence to support our statements, including a recently declassified subsurface assessment plan from the Incident Command Post.
But first, you mentioned that such activities (continued spraying of dispersants and sinking oil) — if proven — would be “illegal.” As you stated, sinking agents are not allowed in oil spill response under the National Contingency Plan Subpart J §300.910 (e): “Sinking agents shall not be authorized for application to oil discharges.”
We would like to know under what laws (not regulations) such activities are illegal and what federal agency or entity has the authority to hold BP accountable, if indeed, such activity is illegal. It is not clear that the EPA has this authority.
For example, on May 19, the EPA told BP that it had 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives. Spraying of the Corexit dispersants continued unabated. On May 26, the EPA and Coast Guard told BP to eliminate the use of surface dispersants except in rare cases where there may have to be an exemption and to reduce use of dispersants by 75 percent. Yet in a letter dated July 30, the congressional Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment reported the USCG on-scene commander (OSC) had approved 74 exemption requests to spray dispersants between May 28 and July 14.
Under the National Contingency Plan Subpart J, the authorization of use §300.910 (d) gives the OSC the final authority on dispersant use: “The OSC may authorize the use of any dispersant… without obtaining the concurrence of he EPA representative… when, in the judgment of the OSC, the use of the product is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce a hazard to human life.”
Given this history of events and the NCP regulation, we would like to know what federal entity actually has the final authority to: order BP to stop spraying of dispersant; declare that spraying of dispersant after issuance of a cease and desist order is illegal; and prosecute BP for using product to sink oil.
The documentation of dispersant spraying in near shore and inland waters includes:
√ claims by USCG and BP
√ eyewitness accounts
√ fish kills in areas of eyewitness accounts
√ photos of white foam bubbles and dispersant on boat docks in areas of eyewitness accounts
√ sick people in areas of eyewitness accounts

Claims by USCG and BP – and Counter Evidence
July 30-31: Lt. Cmdr. of USCG confirms, “Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana.”
When reached for comment, Lt. Cmdr. Dale Vogelsang, liaison officer with the United State Coast Guard, told The (Destin) Log he had contacted Unified Command and they had “confirmed” that dispersants were not being used in Florida waters.
“Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana,” Vogelsang said. “We are working with Eglin and Hurlburt to confirm what the flight pattern may be. But right now, it appears to be a normal flight.”
Vogelsang also said Unified Command confirmed to him that C-130s have never been used to distribute dispersants, as they “typically use smaller aircraft.”
Contradicted by evidence in same Destin The Log article and posted on websites:
But according to an article by the 910th Airlift Wing Public Affairs Office, based in Youngstown, OH., C-130H Hercules aircraft started aerial spray operations Saturday, May 1, under the direction of the president of the United States and Secretary of Defense. “The objective of the aerial spray operation is to neutralize the oil spill with oil dispersing agents,” the article states.
A Lockheed Martin July newsletter states that “Lockheed Martin aircraft, including C-130s and P-3s, have been deployed to the Gulf region by the Air Force, Coast Guard and other government customers to perform a variety of tasks, such as monitoring, mapping and dispersant spraying.”
Further: “Throughout the effort, Lockheed Martin employees have been recognized for their contributions in a wide range of roles. IS&GS senior network engineer Lawrence Walker, for example, developed a solution to a critical networking issue involving two C-130′s that arrived from the Air Force Reserve Command’s 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown, Ohio, as part of the cleanup mission.”
May 11: USCG and BP claims of no dispersant spraying activities are further contradicted by intentional mislabeling of flight plans:
Aerial dispersant operations – Houma Status Report, Dispersant Application Guidance,
p. 4, point 8: “Use discreet IFF codes as provided on separate correspondence. This removes need to file DVFR flight plans.”
Destin – Fort Walton, FL
July 30-31: Destin Mayor Sam Seevers investigating claims of dispersant spraying
Resident and former VOO worker testified that he witnessed a military C-130 “flying from the north to the south, dropping to low levels of elevation then obviously spraying or releasing an unknown substance from the rear of the plane.”
The unknown substance, Yerkes wrote, “was not smoke, for the residue fell to the water, where smoke would have lingered.”
Austin Norwood, whose boat is contracted by Florida Fish and Wildlife, also provided a written account of a “strange incident.”
While Norwood was observing wildlife offshore, he had received a call from his site supervisor at Joe’s Bayou. After telling the supervisor that he and his crewmember were not feeling well, the supervisor had the two men come in “to get checked out because a plane had been reported in our area spraying a substance on the water about 10- 20 minutes before.”
Norwood complained of a bad headache, nasal congestion while his crewmember said he had a metallic taste in his mouth.
After filling out an incident report, both Norwood and his crewmember were directed to go to the hospital. The following day, the two men were once again “asked to go to the hospital for blood tests.”
Aug. 2: Joe Yerkes reported sludgy brown oil and foamy white dispersant bubbles in Destin and 40 miles east in St. Joe Bay, just days before a fish kill of croaker, flounder, trout, and baitfish on August 5.
Perdido Pass, AL
Aug. 24: Received report of oil debris from anchor chain while weighing anchor at position 30*15.6 N 87*32.7 W, 0.6 nm east of Perdido Pass sea buoy. Samples taken.
Dauphin Island, AL
Aug. 21: Fisherman Chris Bryant documents Corexit 9500 use
Aug. 24: Washington’s Blog interview with chemist Bob Naman
Bob Naman is the analytical chemist who performed the tests featured in WKRG’s broadcast. He was interviewed by or an August 24 report. Highlights include:
• Naman found 2-butoxyethanol in the Cotton Bayou sample. [Ingredient in 'discontinued' Corexit 9527.]
• Naman said found no propylene glycol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9500.
• Naman said he went to Dauphin Island, Alabama last night and while there observed many 250-500 gallon barrels which were labeled Corexit 9527. Naman took pictures that he will soon be sharing.
• Naman said he saw men applying the Corexit 9527 while he was in Dauphin Island and also in Bayou La Batre, Alabama.
• Naman said the Corexit 9527 is being haphazardly sprayed at night and is impacting beach sands in a highly concentrated form.
Bayou La Batre, AL
Aug. 4: Fisherman Chris Byrant documents oil-dispersant in Mississippi Sound, northwest of Katrina Cut, in an area open to fishing in state waters between Dauphin Island and Bayou La Batre
Aug. 19, Aug. 21: Rocky Kistner with NRDC documents use of Corexit 9527a and Corexit 9500 and oil-dispersant visible sheen in area open to fishing in state waters
PHOTOS
Aug. 23: Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard posting
We spotted huge plastic containers marked with Corexit warning labels on the dock public docks near Bayou La Batre. …
The next day at a town hall meeting in Buras, LA, BP Mobile Incident Commander Keith Seilhan was asked about the use of chemical dispersants. “We are not using dispersants and haven’t been for some time,” he said.
But when asked whether contractors who operate in state waters could be, he said he could not be certain. “We have lots of contractors, but no one should be using them. If they are, we need to know about it and stop it.”
Long Beach, MS
Aug. 8: Fisherman James “Catfish” Miller sampled the subsurface oil plume (VIDEO)
Miller tied an oil absorbent pad onto a pole and lowered it 8-12 feet down into deceptively clear ocean water. When he pulled it up, the pad was soaked in oil, much to the startled amazement of his guests, including Dr. Timothy Davis with the Department of Health and Human Services National Disaster Medical System. Repeated samples produced the same result. Three weeks earlier, there had been a massive fish kill along the same shoreline from Gulfport to Pass Christian.
Aug. 23: The methods for sampling subsurface oil used by Mr. Miller are also being used by Incident Command for the Deepwater Horizon as evidenced in a declassified document (p. 3).
Hancock County, MS
Aug. 23: Dispersant container found in Bayou Caddy Hancock County marsh. White foam indicative of dispersant use in marsh. Samples taken and being analyzed.
Barataria, LA
July 31: Documentation of oil in Barataria Bay.
Venice, LA
Aug. 11 (reported): Contractor sick from dispersant spraying
Summary: Based on these documents, and more, we believe that dispersant spraying in inland and near shore waters across the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana to the western Florida panhandle is occurring now and has continued unabated (before) and since July 19, the date that the seafood safety panel proclaimed was the last day dispersants were sprayed. Based on these documents, and more, we believe that the dispersant spraying in inland and near shore waters is being conducted for the sole purpose of sinking the visible oil, an activity that is supposedly illegal. According to the University of South Florida, dispersed oil micro-droplets have been documented throughout the Gulf water column and are likely to affect the entire ecosystem.
The inability of the federal and state agents who attended the Dockside Chat in Jean Lafitte, LA, on Aug. 25 to find recent subsurface oil and ocean bottom oil or dispersant spraying activity in inland or near shore waters gives us zero confidence in these same agencies’ declaration that they can find no oil or dispersant in Gulf seafood product.
Sincerely,
Riki Ott, PhD
Ultimate Civics Project
Earth Island Institute
POB 1460
Cordova, AK 99574
970-903-6818
www.RikiOtt.com

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz

Keynoter: Shark bites oil-seeking robot Waldo–during Shark Week–no oil found in Keys

This is Waldo in better days, before a shark munched it.

http://www.keysnet.com/2010/08/28/252562/shark-bites-oil-seeking-robot.html

By KEVIN WADLOW
kwadlow@keynoter.com
Posted – Sunday, August 29, 2010 07:17 AM EDT
By SEAN KINNEY

Now a shark-scarred sub-sea seeker, Waldo the scientific robot survived its latest mission to bring positive news to the Florida Keys.

The 6-foot “autonomous underwater vehicle” found no significant traces of underwater oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill in its 28 days at sea, after being launched July 19 from Mote Marine Laboratory’s Summerland Key facility, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an expedition backer.

The run, on a triangular search pattern from north of the Keys to south of Naples, was curtailed about two days early “when a shark bit into and damaged Waldo’s rudder and his left wing was lost,” council analyst Ali Chase reported in an online account.

“There’s a good chance the attack occurred during [the Discovery Channel's] Shark Week,” said Paul Johnson, a marine consultant working with the council.

The yellow, torpedo-shaped Waldo, worth an estimated $100,000, was recovered successfully.

In its first Keys-based mission during the Deepwater Horizon spill, Waldo was recovered June 2 after being knocked off course by strong currents near the Dry Tortugas.

Normally used to seek red-tide organisms, Waldo was modified to seek traces of oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“Waldo didn’t turn up any strong indications of oil on the continental shelf to the north and northwest of the Florida Keys during this run,” Chase said.

“That was excellent news,” said Johnson, a former Reef Relief president. “This was a time when the path of the oil was unknown. NRDC and [conservation group] Oceana stepped up to help safeguard the Florida Keys in a time of dire need.”

Gulf of Mexico currents and weather conditions combined to push the spill oil away from the Loop Current that could have carried it through the Florida Straits to South Florida. However, much of the spill oil apparently has settled into deepwater plumes, and the effect on the marine environment remains unknown. Information sent by Waldo during its most recent run could prove useful in another scientific field: Hurricane tracking. While at sea during Tropical Storm Bonnie, the AUV sent back water temperatures from hundreds of feet below the surface.

“How much heat is in the water determines hurricane force,” Chase said. “Measurements Waldo captured during this time will help advise future forecasting of hurricane strength.”

Truthout: Despite “All Clear,” Mississippi Sound Tests Positive for Oil


(Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)


Miller and Dahr Jamail holding oil-soaked sorbent pad. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)


(Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)


Laboratory confirmed oil-soaked sorbent pad. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)


James “Catfish” Miller, third-generation fisherman. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)


Miller and Mark Stewart attaching the sorbent pad to the weighted hook. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)

Sunday 29 August 2010

by: Dahr Jamail and Erika Blumenfeld, t r u t h o u t | Report

The State of Mississippi’s Department of Marine Resources (DMR) opened all of its territorial waters to fishing on August 6. This was done in coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Food and Drug Administration, despite concerns from commercial fishermen in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida about the presence of oil and toxic dispersants from the BP oil disaster.

On August 19, Truthout accompanied two commercial fishermen from Mississippi on a trip into the Mississippi Sound in order to test for the presence of submerged oil. Laboratory test results from samples taken on that trip show extremely high concentrations of oil in the Mississippi Sound.

James “Catfish” Miller and Mark Stewart, both lifelong fishermen, have refused to trawl for shrimp because they believe the Mississippi Sound contains submerged oil.

“I can’t tell you how hard it is for me not to be shrimping right now, because I’m a trawler,” Miller told Truthout as he piloted his shrimp boat out of Pass Christian Harbor, “That’s what I do. I trawl.”

But Miller and Stewart have been alarmed by their state’s decision to reopen the waters, and have been conducting their own tests for oil in areas where they have fished for years. Their method was simple – they tied an absorbent pad to a weighted hook, dropped it overboard for a short duration of time, then pulled it up to find the results.

On each of the eight tests Truthout witnessed, the white pads were brought up covered in a brown oily substance that the fishermen identified as a mix of BP’s crude oil and toxic dispersants. The first test conducted was approximately one-quarter mile out from the harbor, and the pad pulled up was stained brown.

“They’re letting people swim in this,” Miller exclaimed, while holding the stained pad up to the sun.

Miller and Stewart were both in BP’s Vessels Of Opportunity (VOO) program and were trained in identifying oil and dispersants. This writer took two samples from two absorbent pads that were brought up from the water that were covered in brown residue and had them tested in a private laboratory via gas chromatography.

The environmental analyst who worked with this writer did so on condition of anonymity, and performed a micro extraction that tests for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). The lower reporting limit the analyst is able to detect from a solid sample like the absorbent pad is 50 parts per million (ppm).

The first sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped overboard to a depth of approximately eight feet and held there for roughly one minute. The location of this was 30 18.461 North, 089 14.171 West, taken at 9:40 AM. This sample tested positive for oil, with a hydrocarbon concentration of 479 ppm. Seawater that is free of oil would test at zero ppm of hydrocarbons.

The second sample this writer took was from a sorbent pad dropped overboard to a depth of approximately eight feet and held there for roughly one minute. The location of this was 30 18.256 North, 089 11.241 West, taken at 10:35 AM. This sample tested positive for oil, with a hydrocarbon concentration of 587 ppm.

“For the sorbent pads, I had to include the weight of the actual pad itself, so that the extraction was done as a solid,” the environmental analyst explained. “Had I had enough liquid in these samples to do a liquid extraction, the numbers would have been substantially higher.”

Jonathan Henderson, with the nonprofit environmental group, Gulf Restoration Network, was on board to witness the sampling.

Jonathan Henderson, coastal resiliency organizer of the Gulf Restoration Network. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)

“I can verify that the shrimp boat captain retrieved what appeared to be an oily residue,” Henderson told Truthout. “My suspicion is that it was oil. It felt like oil to the touch, and it smelled like oil when you sniffed it.”

On August 11, the two fishermen brought out scientist Dr. Ed Cake of Gulf Environmental Associates. (Video from the “Bridge the Gulf Project” of that trip with Miller and Stewart finding an oil and dispersant mixture on open Mississippi fishing waters.)

Dr. Cake wrote of the experience: “When the vessel was stopped for sampling, small, 0.5- to 1.0-inch-diameter bubbles would periodically rise to the surface and shortly thereafter they would pop leaving a small oil sheen. According to the fishermen, several of BP’s Vessels-of-Opportunity (Carolina Skiffs with tanks of dispersants [Corexit?]) were hand spraying in Mississippi Sound off the Pass Christian Harbor in prior days/nights. It appears to this observer that the dispersants are still in the area and are continuing to react with oil in the waters off Pass Christian Harbor.”

Shortly thereafter, Miller took the samples to a community meeting in nearby D’Iberville to show fishermen and families the contaminated sorbent pads. At the meeting, fishermen unanimously supported a petition calling for the firing of Dr. Bill Walker, the head of Mississippi’s DMR, who is responsible for opening the fishing grounds.

On August 9, Walker, despite ongoing reports of tar balls, oil and dispersants being found in Mississippi waters, declared “there should be no new threats” and issued an order for all local coast governments to halt ongoing oil disaster work being funded by BP money that was granted to the state. Recent weeks in Mississippi waters have found fishermen and scientists finding oil in Garden Pond on Horn Island, massive fish kills near Cat Island and Biloxi, “black water” in Mississippi Sound, oil inside Pass Christian Harbor and submerged oil in Pass Christian, in addition to what Miller and Stewart showed Truthout and others with their testing.

“We’ve sent samples to all the news media we know, here in Mississippi and in [Washington] D.C.,” Stewart, a third-generation fisherman from Ocean Springs told Truthout, “We had Ray Mabus’ people on this boat, and we sent them away with contaminated samples they watched us take, and we haven’t heard back from any of them.” Raymond Mabus is the United States Secretary of the Navy and a former governor of Mississippi. President Obama tasked him with developing “a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible.”

Mabus has been accused by many Gulf Coast fishermen of not living up to his task. Thus, since neither the federal nor state governments will conduct the testing they feel is necessary, Miller and Stewart decided to take matters into their own hands.
Stewart had on board another homemade method of capturing oil in the water column. He took two tomato cages and filled them with sorbent pad, layered it in plastic to hold it together, and left a hole at the bottom for the water to flow through, creating a large sorbent cone that could flow through the water.
The method proved fruitful. After several tests in the water column, being careful to never let it touch bottom, the cone was turned a dark brown with what turned out to be a very high concentration of oil.

“Normally we have a lot of white shrimp in the Sound right now,” Stewart told Truthout of the current situation in the Mississippi Sound. “You can catch 500-800 pounds a night, but right now, there are very few people shrimping, and those that are, are catching nothing or maybe 200 pounds per night. You can’t even pay your expenses on 200 pounds per night.”

“We think they opened shrimp season prematurely,” Miller told Truthout. “How can we put our product back on the market when everybody in America knows what happened down here? I have seen so many dead animals in the last few months I can’t even keep count.”

Jonathan Henderson holding the oil-soaked sorbent cone. (Photo © Erika Blumenfeld 2010)

On August 19, several commercial shrimpers, including Miller and Stewart, held a press conference at the Biloxi Marina. Other fishermen there were not fishing because they feared making people sick from toxic seafood they might catch.

“I don’t want people to get sick,” Danny Ross, a commercial fisherman from Biloxi told Truthout. “We want the government and BP to have transparency with the Corexit dispersants.”

Ross said he has watched horseshoe crabs trying to crawl out of the water and other marine life like stingrays and flounder also trying to escape the water. He believes this is because the water is hypoxic due to the toxicity of the dispersants, of which BP admits to using approximately 1.9 million gallons.

“I will not wet a net and catch shrimp until I know it’s safe to do so,” Ross added, “I have no way of life now. I can’t shrimp and others are calling the shots. For the next 20 years, what am I supposed to do? Because that’s how long it’s going to take for our waters to be safe again.”

David Wallis, another fisherman from Biloxi, attended the press conference. “We don’t feel our seafood is safe, and we demand more testing be done,” Wallis told Truthout. “I’ve seen crabs crawling out of the water in the middle of the day. This is going to be affecting us far into the future.”

“A lot of fishermen feel as we do. Most of them I talk to don’t want the season opened, for our safety as well as others,” Wallis added. “Right now there’s barely any shrimp out there to catch. We should be overloaded with shrimp right now. That’s not normal. I won’t eat any seafood that comes out of these waters, because it’s not safe.”

Miller told Truthout that when he worked in BP’s VOO program, “I came out here and looked at the oil and they didn’t let us clean it up most days. Instead, I watched them spray dispersants on it at night, and now we’re seeing acid rain burn holes in our plants. I’ve seen them spray Corexit from Carolina Skiffs with my own eyes. For the last several weeks now they keep shoving these lies in our face. You can only turn your head so far, for so long.”

The hydrocarbon tests conducted on the samples taken by this writer only represent a tiny part of the Gulf compared to the massive area of the ocean that has been affected by BP’s oil catastrophe. A comprehensive sampling regime across the Gulf, taken regularly over the years ahead, is clearly required in order to implement appropriate cleanup responses and take public safety precautions.
On their own, Miller and Stewart have made at least seven sampling runs, covering many tens of miles of the Mississippi Sound, and have, in their words, “rarely pulled up a sorbent pad that did not contain oil residue.”

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout’s work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today! digg
»

——————————————————————————–

Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of “The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan,” (Haymarket Books, 2009), and “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq,” (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for nine months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last five years.
Erika Blumenfeld is an internationally exhibiting artist and Guggenheim Fellow with a BFA in Photography from Parsons School of Design. She is known for her Light Recordings series, and her ambitious work The Polar Project, a series of environment-focused artworks that document the environment of Antarctica and the Arctic. Blumenfeld’s installations have been exhibited widely in galleries and museums in the US and abroad, and have been featured in /Art In America/, /ARTnews/ and more than half a dozen books. She is posting her photographs of the Gulf Coast on her blog.

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz.

Spill into Washington DC: Labor Day Rally Sept. 4th & 5th, 2010

http://spillintowashington.org/

Stand up – Speak out – Be heard!
Spill into Washington DC
–a national rally–
“Man must cease attributing his problems to his environment and learn again to exercise his will — his personal responsibility.” — Albert Schweitzer

Why Rally?

Join for us two days of rallying against BP and the regulatory failures that contributed to the largest oil disaster in American history. In addition, we will honor the loss of life, as well as the land and sea most directly impacted by the explosion and its aftermath. The quest for oil has influenced international relations to the extent of war. We will tell our government and the corporate world that we will not stand idly by while the powerful spin our world out of control. It is time to address the disasters that companies like BP, and the banking industry, mete upon the entire world, with regularity, and without regard for the destruction they create. For two days families and individuals, of all political backgrounds, will peacefully come together, with ONE VOICE, to unite in our common struggle against abusive power. See the transportation page for lodging, ridesharing options, and maps of the nation’s capitol.

For Full Details and Event Schedule: Click on the About Tab, then Event Info

When & Where:
Day 1: Lafayette Park, 2-5p Day 2: Washington Mall, 11a-4p

Who: ALL PUBLIC INVITED
T-Shirts: Please see link on the right of the page. Your $20.00 donation will support the Rally by covering expenses. If you would like to pre-order a t-shirt and pick it up at the Rally, please submit your pre-order and then email Sherry Lear to let her know. learlaw@earthlink.net

Travel: Please visit Logistics page
This event is open to the public. It is a non-partisan event, so please leave a

ll political differences at home and join us with an open mind, as well as a willingness and commitment to unite our voices and fight for ourselves, for each other, for our environment, for restoring freedom, for personal responsibility, for our future.

Carpooling and Ridesharing is a proven way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. By simply consolidating passengers into fewer vehicles, we can save on fuel costs and drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions without serious changes or investments to our transportation infrastructure. Consider a carpooling option through Ride Buzz!

“A world run by the people only works if the people show up to remind the powerful that it is indeed a world of the people.”

Lydia Johnson

Special thanks to Diana Dodson

Riki Ott: An Open Letter to US EPA, Region 6

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/an-open-letter-to-us-epa_b_697376.html

Riki Ott is a Marine toxicologist and Exxon Valdez survivor –see RikiOtt.com
She’s also dead on in this assessment of illegal dispersant use and my hero for saying this. I wonder if the EPA ever replied to her. This is one of the most damning elements of the entire Gulf blowout incident.
DV

Posted: August 27, 2010 03:27 PM

U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Via email: coleman.sam@epa.gov

August 27, 2010

Re: Documentation of continued dispersant spraying in near shore and inland waters from Florida to Louisiana (despite contrary claims by USCG and BP) and documentation that dispersants made oil sink

Dear Mr. Coleman,

During the August 25 Dockside Chat in Jean Lafitte, LA, it came to our attention that the federal agencies were unaware — or lacking proof — of the continued spraying of dispersants from Louisiana to Florida. Further, the federal agencies were woefully ignorant of the presence of subsurface oil-dispersant plumes and sunken oil on ocean and estuary water bottoms. We offer evidence to support our statements, including a recently declassified subsurface assessment plan from the Incident Command Post.

But first, you mentioned that such activities (continued spraying of dispersants and sinking oil) — if proven — would be “illegal.” As you stated, sinking agents are not allowed in oil spill response under the National Contingency Plan Subpart J §300.910 (e): “Sinking agents shall not be authorized for application to oil discharges.”

We would like to know under what laws (not regulations) such activities are illegal and what federal agency or entity has the authority to hold BP accountable, if indeed, such activity is illegal. It is not clear that the EPA has this authority.

For example, on May 19, the EPA told BP that it had 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants and must apply the new form of dispersants within 72 hours of submitting the list of alternatives. Spraying of the Corexit dispersants continued unabated. On May 26, the EPA and Coast Guard told BP to eliminate the use of surface dispersants except in rare cases where there may have to be an exemption and to reduce use of dispersants by 75 percent. Yet in a letter dated July 30, the congressional Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment reported the USCG on-scene commander (OSC) had approved 74 exemption requests to spray dispersants between May 28 and July 14.

Under the National Contingency Plan Subpart J, the authorization of use §300.910 (d) gives the OSC the final authority on dispersant use: “The OSC may authorize the use of any dispersant… without obtaining the concurrence of he EPA representative… when, in the judgment of the OSC, the use of the product is necessary to prevent or substantially reduce a hazard to human life.”

Given this history of events and the NCP regulation, we would like to know what federal entity actually has the final authority to: order BP to stop spraying of dispersant; declare that spraying of dispersant after issuance of a cease and desist order is illegal; and prosecute BP for using product to sink oil.

The documentation of dispersant spraying in nearshore and inland waters includes:
√ claims by USCG and BP
√ eyewitness accounts
√ fish kills in areas of eyewitness accounts
√ photos of white foam bubbles and dispersant on boat docks in areas of eyewitness accounts
√ sick people in areas of eyewitness accounts

Claims by USCG and BP – and Counter Evidence

July 30-31: Lt. Cmdr. of USCG confirms, “Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana.”

•When reached for comment, Lt. Cmdr. Dale Vogelsang, liaison officer with the United State Coast Guard, told The (Destin) Log he had contacted Unified Command and they had “confirmed” that dispersants were not being used in Florida waters.

•”Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana,” Vogelsang said. “We are working with Eglin and Hurlburt to confirm what the flight pattern may be. But right now, it appears to be a normal flight.”

•Vogelsang also said Unified Command confirmed to him that C-130s have never been used to distribute dispersants, as they “typically use smaller aircraft.”

Contradicted by evidence in same Destin The Log article and posted on websites:

•But according to an article by the 910th Airlift Wing Public Affairs Office, based in Youngstown, OH., C-130H Hercules aircraft started aerial spray operations Saturday, May 1, under the direction of the president of the United States and Secretary of Defense. “The objective of the aerial spray operation is to neutralize the oil spill with oil dispersing agents,” the article states.

•A Lockheed Martin July newsletter states that “Lockheed Martin aircraft, including C-130s and P-3s, have been deployed to the Gulf region by the Air Force, Coast Guard and other government customers to perform a variety of tasks, such as monitoring, mapping and dispersant spraying.”

•Further: “Throughout the effort, Lockheed Martin employees have been recognized for their contributions in a wide range of roles. IS&GS senior network engineer Lawrence Walker, for example, developed a solution to a critical networking issue involving two C-130′s that arrived from the Air Force Reserve Command’s 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown, Ohio, as part of the cleanup mission.”

May 11: USCG and BP claims of no dispersant spraying activities are further contradicted by intentional mislabeling of flight plans:

•Aerial dispersant operations – Houma Status Report, Dispersant Application Guidance, p. 4, point 8: “Use discreet IFF codes as provided on separate correspondence. This removes need to file DVFR flight plans.”

Destin – Fort Walton, FL
July 30-31: Destin Mayor Sam Seevers investigating claims of dispersant spraying:

•Resident and former VOO worker Joe Yerkes testified that he witnessed a military C-130 “flying from the north to the south, dropping to low levels of elevation then obviously spraying or releasing an unknown substance from the rear of the plane.”

•The unknown substance, Yerkes wrote, “was not smoke, for the residue fell to the water, where smoke would have lingered.”

Austin Norwood, whose boat is contracted by Florida Fish and Wildlife, also provided a written account of a “strange incident.”

•While Norwood was observing wildlife offshore, he had received a call from his site supervisor at Joe’s Bayou. After telling the supervisor that he and his crewmember were not feeling well, the supervisor had the two men come in “to get checked out because a plane had been reported in our area spraying a substance on the water about 10- 20 minutes before.”

•Norwoord complained of a bad headache, nasal congestion while his crewmember said he had a metallic taste in his mouth.

•After filling out an incident report, both Norwood and his crewmember were directed to go to the hospital. The following day, the two men were once again “asked to go to the hospital for blood tests.”

Aug. 2: Joe Yerkes reported sludgy brown oil and foamy white dispersant bubbles in Destin and 40 miles east in St. Joe Bay, just days before a fish kill of croaker, flounder, trout, and baitfish on August 5.

Perdido Pass, AL
Aug. 24: Received report of oil debris from anchor chain while weighing anchor at position 30*15.6 N 87*32.7 W, 0.6 nm east of Perdido Pass sea buoy. Samples taken.

Dauphin Island, AL
Aug. 21: Fisherman Chris Bryant documents Corexit 9500 use

Aug. 24: Washington’s Blog interview with chemist Bob Naman

•Bob Naman is the analytical chemist who performed the tests featured in WKRG’s broadcast. He was interviewed by or an August 24 report. Highlights include:

•Naman found 2-butoxyethanol in the Cotton Bayou sample. [Ingredient in 'discontinued' Corexit 9527.]

•Naman said found no propylene glycol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9500.

•Naman said he went to Dauphin Island, Alabama last night and while there observed many 250-500 gallon barrels which were labeled Corexit 9527. Naman took pictures that he will soon be sharing.

•Naman said he saw men applying the Corexit 9527 while he was in Dauphin Island and also in Bayou La Batre, Alabama.

•Naman said the Corexit 9527 is being haphazardly sprayed at night and is impacting beach sands in a highly concentrated form.

Bayou La Batre, AL
Aug. 4: Fisherman Chris Byrant documents oil-dispersant in Mississippi Sound, northwest of Katrina Cut, in an area open to fishing in state waters between Dauphin Island and Bayou La Batre

Aug. 19, Aug. 21: Rocky Kistner with NRDC documents use of Corexit 9527a and Corexit 9500 and oil-dispersant visible sheen in area open to fishing in state waters

Aug. 23: Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard posting
We spotted huge plastic containers marked with Corexit warning labels on the dock public docks near Bayou La Batre. …

The next day at a town hall meeting in Buras, LA, BP Mobile Incident Commander Keith Seilhan was asked about the use of chemical dispersants. “We are not using dispersants and haven’t been for some time,” he said. But when asked whether contractors who operate in state waters could be, he said he could not be certain. “We have lots of contractors, but no one should be using them. If they are, we need to know about it and stop it.”

Long Beach, MS
Aug. 8: Fisherman James “Catfish” Miller sampled the subsurface oil plume (VIDEO)

Miller tied an oil absorbent pad onto a pole and lowered it 8-12 feet down into deceptively clear ocean water. When he pulled it up, the pad was soaked in oil, much to the startled amazement of his guests, including Dr. Timothy Davis with the Department of Health and Human Services National Disaster Medical System. Repeated samples produced the same result. Three weeks earlier, there had been a massive fish kill along the same shoreline from Gulfport to Pass Christian.

Aug. 23: The methods for sampling subsurface oil used by Mr. Miller are also being used by Incident Command for the Deepwater Horizon as evidenced in a declassified document (p. 3).

Hancock County, MS
Aug. 23: Dispersant container found in Bayou Caddy Hancock County marsh. White foam indicative of dispersant use in marsh. Samples taken and being analyzed.

Barataria, LA
July 31: Documentation of oil in Barataria Bay.

Venice, LA
Aug. 11 (reported): Contractor sick from dispersant spraying

Summary: Based on these documents, and more, we believe that dispersant spraying in inland and near shore waters across the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana to the western Florida panhandle is occurring now and has continued unabated (before) and since July 19, the date that the seafood safety panel proclaimed was the last day dispersants were sprayed. Based on these documents, and more, we believe that the dispersant spraying in inland and near shore waters is being conducted for the sole purpose of sinking the visible oil, an activity that is supposedly illegal. According to the University of South Florida, dispersed oil micro-droplets have been documented throughout the Gulf water column and are likely to affect the entire ecosystem.

The inability of the federal and state agents who attended the Dockside Chat in Jean Lafitte, LA, on Aug. 25 to find recent subsurface oil and ocean bottom oil or dispersant spraying activity in inland or near shore waters gives us zero confidence in these same agencies’ declaration that they can find no oil or dispersant in Gulf seafood product.

Sincerely,

Riki Ott, PhD
Ultimate Civics Project
Earth Island Institute
POB 1460
Cordova, AK 99574
970-903-6818
www.RikiOtt.com

Mother Nature Network: Congress: Did anyone think about the environment?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/congress-did-anyone-think-about-the-environment

Oil spill commission probes the Obama administration’s fickle stance on offshore oil drilling.
By Andrew Schenkel, Guest Columnist
Thu, Aug 26 2010 at 11:42 AM EST
Comments

NOT BUYING IT: Bob Graham had a tough time getting his head around the testimony during day one of the oil spill commission hearings. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Remember March? The Gulf oil spill hadn’t happened. President Obama was calling for increased offshore oil production. Well, the White House’s National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill and Offshore Drilling remembers March, and its wants to know more.

During round one of the commission’s hearings, its chairmen probed the Obama administration on its focus on the environment while it pushed for increased offshore drilling prior to the Gulf oil spill.

The head of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley, testified that the Obama administration did not consult her agency about the potential environmental impacts of the president’s plans.

“We weren’t asked and wouldn’t expect to be asked ahead of time whether they should [drill],” said Sutley. She added that she didn’t expect her organization to be consulted on “what level of environmental analysis is appropriate for the kinds of planning and decisions that result from that March announcement.”

So the chairwoman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality not only wasn’t asked, but wasn’t planning on being asked. At least everyone is on the same page here.

Oil spill commission co-chair, former senator and former Florida Gov. Bob Graham, couldn’t believe his ears. “If you are developing a policy to expand offshore oil and gas exploration to the extent that the president announced,” Graham began, “consultation with the agency with responsibility for oceans management and regulation and your overall umbrella agency, the Council for Environmental Quality, should be two of the people on the consultation list.”

The commission’s other co-chairman, William Reilly, seemed equally surprised and perplexed that the Obama administration rushed to judgment. “I’m disappointed that CEQ particularly, which is in the heart of the executive office of the president, was not involved, which seems to go directly to the heart of its responsibility,” said Reilly.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

CNN: Defender of the deep: The oil’s not gone

Samantha Joye, an oceanographer at the University of Georgia, has emerged as a spokeswoman for the deep ocean.

By John D. Sutter,
August 24, 2010 — Updated 1356 GMT (2156 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Samantha Joye is an oceanographer who speaks out in defense of the deep ocean
* She says we know little about what the Gulf oil spill is doing to the deep parts
* has been largely ignored as part of the disaster, she says

The 45-year-old grew up on a farm; she walked on to the UNC basketball team
Athens, Georgia (CNN) — Samantha Joye’s office is littered with otherworldly artifacts from the deep ocean: a mussel the size of a football; a vase filled with tube worms, which look like grissini breadsticks; a photo of the world’s biggest bacteria.

Above her cabinets, the University of Georgia oceanographer has posted two images of lunar landscapes. They’re bizarrely similar, she says, to the topography on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the body of water that has captivated her attention for 15 years.

Joye doesn’t just work in the Gulf. She lives for it. She stays up at night thinking about what makes it tick. And, like a close friend, she’s become fiercely protective of it.

Four months after the BP oil spill, the wiry 45-year-old — who looks like the librarian version of Angelina Jolie — has been thrust into the uncomfortable position of defending this battered ocean against the perception that the environmental disaster is over.

Based on available evidence, she says, that’s simply not true.

“I’m not trying to be a ‘doom and gloom’ pusher, but I am trying to be realistic — and we don’t have all the answers,” she said. “We’re trying to pretend we do, but we don’t.”

Last week, Joye and another scientist published a memo saying that three-quarters of the oil spilled into the Gulf — about 3 million barrels — remains in the ecosystem. It’s out of sight and perhaps out of mind, she says, but it’s not gone.

This contradicts an earlier report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The government’s “oil budget,” which was based on observations and calculated estimates, was interpreted as saying as much as three-quarters of the oil is essentially gone.

“The vast majority of the oil from the BP oil spill has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed, recovered from the wellhead or dispersed using chemicals — much of which is in the process of being degraded,” said a government news release on August 4.

Joye’s defense of lingering questions about the oil spill has inspired hate as well as praise.

Her phones have been ringing nonstop. Last Tuesday, her office voicemail filled up three times before she yanked the plug on the phone in frustration.

The e-mails rolled in, too, many hitting on this theme:

“You WANTED an ecological disaster and when it didn’t happen you are literally willing to do or say anything to make it look like there was,” one person wrote.

Joye tries not to let these comments bother her, but they do.

Still, she says she can’t back down. It’s not in her nature.

The “shrimp” fights back

Growing up on a tobacco farm in North Carolina, Joye was a self-described “shrimp” — she was short, shy, scrawny as a tube worm and hopelessly nerdy.

She was the type of kid who read the encyclopedia for fun.

But there was an intensity to her, too.

She was so competitive in basketball, for instance, that she walked on to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill team her freshman year.

“I could shoot the lights out,” she said.

As a young girl, she found herself the butt of many jokes, in part, she said, because she had no problem telling teachers about the transgressions of her peers. On several occasions, Joye recalls ratting out classmates for picking on each other or fighting.

In one such incident in middle school, Joye confronted one of her male classmates who she thought was harassing another girl.

It backfired. Joye found herself backed into a corner, both the bully and the victim now yelling at her for meddling in their business.

That incident had a curious effect on Joye: It helped bring her out of her shell.

The shy, nervous girl stopped caring as much about what people thought.

She would stand up for what she believed in.

Hooked by the deep ocean

In 1994, when Joye took her first voyage to the bottom of the Gulf, she fell in love.

“The [submersible] dive was about three or four hours long, and I spent the entire time with my jaw on the floor, my eyes bugging out of my head and just going, ‘Wow!’ ” she said.

Partly because of the wow factor and partly because it was so scientifically perplexing, Joye started to develop an emotional attachment to the deep ocean in the Gulf.

That attachment made it all the more painful for her to watch the oil disaster unfold.

“It is much more than an oil spill,” she said. “It’s kind of like an insult to your best friend, and you want to help her figure out how to make this insult go away.”

Called back to the sea

Joye rushed to the Gulf’s defense.

It wasn’t easy. She never had left her 2-year-old daughter, Sophie, at home without her. She considered staying behind, but decided in May that she had to go.

“I feel like I owe [the Gulf] a debt because it’s taught me so much,” she said. “I feel like I owe it to the system to be out there.”

The research trip made headlines and Joye became one of the first scientists to track an underwater “plume” of oil.

On Saturday, Joye left again for the Gulf — this time aboard the Oceanus on a monthlong research trip.

Again, the decision to leave was difficult. Sophie had been throwing fits in the days leading up to the trip, even though Joye had tried to hide it from her.

“I pack when she’s asleep, and I hide the suitcases in the car,” Joye said.

Christof Meile, Joye’s husband, also works in the marine sciences department at UGA. He stays home with Sophie while Joye is away. Meile supports Joye’s commitment to research, especially in such a rare circumstance as the Gulf oil disaster.

He celebrated his 40th birthday on Friday, the day Joye left home at 6 a.m. to fly to Gulfport, Mississippi, where she met the research ship. But he wasn’t bothered.

“I don’t think my life is defined by how I celebrate my birthdays,” he said.

Sophie also takes an interest in her mom’s research.

“She always asks me, ‘Did you fix the ocean yet?’ ” Joye recalled.

“And I say, ‘No, but I’m trying.’ ”

Defender of the deep

Joye won’t return from the ocean until late September.

On the voyage, she and a team of researchers are looking for answers to what Joye sees as a number of lingering questions about the oil’s effects.

Among the greatest unknowns, she says:

– What happened to the methane? It wasn’t just oil that spewed out of a pipe at the bottom of the Gulf after a BP-leased oil rig exploded and sank in April. As much as 30 to 40 percent of the fossil fuels released in the disaster were gases, Joye says, but they’ve largely been ignored in the accounting so far. Joye is interested in what liquid methane is doing to the deep ocean.

– How fast is the oil being degraded? Joye says scientists have not reported the rate at which the oil is being chewed up by micro-organisms. Without that key number, it’s difficult to say how much oil has left the system for sure, she said.

– What’s happening to the oxygen? Ocean microbes have emerged as heroes of the oil spill because they chew up and digest the oil. That’s a good thing, but they also use oxygen in the process, and that element is vital to life in the sea. Joye said not enough is known about how much oxygen has been depleted from the Gulf, particularly in the deep water, where it can take years or decades for the water to replenish its oxygen supply naturally.

Overall, Joye says federal officials have been too quick to jump to conclusions about what an unprecedented amount of oil will do to an ocean environment.

And they haven’t done enough to learn about what’s actually happening to the environment, she said.

“It’s being treated like ‘Oh, I scraped my knee and I need a Band-Aid,’ ” she said. “This needs much more than a Band-Aid.”

In a news conference on August 18, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said her agency is taking the situation seriously.

“NOAA, along with our partners in the academic and private research institutions and other federal agencies, remain vigilant in our efforts to track and monitor the oil from the marshes to the open ocean, from the surface to the bottom of the Gulf,” she said. “And we will remain in the Gulf for as long as it takes to assess the damage and restore the ecosystems.”

Joye said her biggest fear is that a lack of concern on the part of the public will mean we never devote the recourses necessary to study the oil disaster.

“It’s like truth by repetition,” she said. “You can paint a rosy picture, and that rosy picture is going to become a reality.”

Other scientists are more tempered in their observations.

Ed Overton, a professor of environmental sciences at Louisiana State University, said scientists such as Joye should be praised for their dedication to collecting as much data as possible about the oil spill and for fostering debate about how much is known about the long-term effects.

“In general, I think [Joye's point of view] is a healthy part of the debate,” he said. “I don’t call it criticism; I call it discussion. I don’t know why people are taking such offense at this discussion. None of us are god, for god’s sake.”

But he said much of the early evidence shows damage in the Gulf is not nearly as bad as was initially thought.

“What we’ve got is a patient that’s been in a horrible accident,” he said of the environmental damage to the Gulf, adding: “As it looks right now, we don’t have a broken back; we might have some broken arms.”

Joye’s mother and sister said they are surprised by the attention she’s drawn, but not by her willingness to voice what may be an unpopular opinion.

“She was sort of blindsided by the attention,” said her sister, Jenn Epperson, a geologist in California. “It’s different. A lot of people who trumpet about things are doing it for the attention. She was doing it just because she is the way she is.

“She is fierce when it comes to something she cares about.”

Special thanks to Linda Young

Houston Chronicle: DISASTER IN THE GULF Engineer says he clashed with BP over cement job

August 25, 2010

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7170050.html

He tells hearing he did good work but his ideas to cut risk were ignored
By BRETT CLANTON
Aug. 24, 2010, 9:31PM

The Halliburton Co. engineer who designed the cement job used in BP’s blown-out Macondo well defended his work Tuesday, saying if he had it to do over he would do it much the same way.

But in testimony at an investigative hearing, he also attempted to distance Halliburton from the accident, stressing that BP did not follow key recommendations of his that could have reduced the risk of a dangerous gas influx into the well.

Jesse Gagliano, a Halliburton technical sales adviser, testified that he first warned BP engineers in Houston five days before the April 20 explosion of potentially severe gas flow problems in the well if BP didn’t take corrective action.

The same warnings, he said, were in an April 18 report showing that the risks could be reduced if BP added 15 devices called centralizers to the six it had in the well to secure a section of pipe-like casing in the middle and ensure cement could be poured evenly around it.

“I never did change my recommendation of 21 centralizers,”îGagliano told a joint investigative panel of the Coast Guard and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement, which is holding public hearings in Houston this week.

Decisions about the centralizers and other aspects of the cement job have been cited as possible factors in the deadly blowout that killed 11 workers and launched the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Gagliano stopped short of saying a faulty cement job was to blame for the blowout.

In a statement responding to the testimony, BP said Halliburton was aware of the key elements of the well’s design.

“If Halliburton had significant concerns about its ability to provide a safe and high-quality cement job in the Macondo well, then it had the responsibility and obligation to refuse to perform the job,” BP said. “To do otherwise would have been morally repugnant.”

Idea shot down

Tuesday’s session was the first time Halliburton officials with firsthand knowledge of the situation gave federal investigators their version of events. Gagliano was one of two Halliburton workers who testified Tuesday at the Coast Guard-BOEMRE hearings.

Gagliano said when he first raised alarms about the well on April 15, BP initially treated it with urgency. He and two BP engineers worked late into the night on possible solutions. BP even had a helicopter deliver the additional centralizers to the Deepwater Horizon the following day.

But Brian Morel, a BP drilling engineer, had by that point already shot down the idea.

“As far as changes, it’s too late to get any more product to the rig,”îhe wrote in an April 15 e-mail to Gagliano and several senior BP drilling officials. “Our only option is to rearrange placement of these centralizers.”

Morel, through his attorney, declined to testify at the hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Testimony challenged

Gagliano, however, was challenged by a BP attorney, Richard Godfrey, who accused Halliburton of overstating warnings it provided about the cement job prior to the accident.

Godfrey said nowhere in his April 18 report did Gagliano explicitly say the Macondo well should not have cement poured down it. He noted that a separate report the same day, prepared and signed by Gagliano, called for only seven centralizers.

“You sent BP a job recommendation that you thought would fail?” Godfrey asked.

Gagliano said that the recommendation was based on procedure decisions that came from officials on the rig, which included Halliburton engineers and BP officials.

“This was not my procedure. This procedure came from the rig,” Gagliano said. “My best engineering analysis would be to run 21 centralizers.”

But Godfrey noted that despite those apparent concerns, Gagliano sent a post-job report to BP three days after the accident saying that the cement job was performed as planned and again failed to bring up previous warnings about gas flow potential or other problems.

‘Some confusion’

Earlier Tuesday, Daun Winslow, a Transocean executive who was on board the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the blowout, testified he observed confusion among rig personnel about an important well test just hours before the accident. Transocean owned and operated the rig, under contract with BP.

Winslow, a performance division manager, said he overheard a conversation in the rig’s drill shack late in the afternoon about the results of a procedure called a negative pressure test.

“It appeared there was some confusion about some pressures or volumes circulated,” he said.

During a negative test, the fluid pressure inside the well is reduced and the well is observed to see whether any gas leaks into it through the cement or casing.

Winslow’s account lines up with information BP provided investigators about well tests before the blast at about 10 p.m. The company has said a first negative pressure test around 5 p.m. failed because it showed major pressure discrepancies. A later test also showed elevated pressures in the drill pipe, BP has said. The results could suggest gas had seeped into the well bore.

Sharon Hong contributed to this story.

brett.clanton@chron.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7170114.html

Former top drilling regulator set to testify
She resigned under pressure in aftermath of April 20 blowout
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
Aug. 24, 2010, 10:25PM

WASHINGTON When the presidential commission investigating the Deepwater Horizon disaster convenes its second hearing today, the panel plans to examine regulatory lapses that may have paved the way for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Witnesses before the seven-member panel include Elizabeth Birnbaum, formerly the nation’s top drilling regulator, who will be speaking publicly for the first time since she resigned under pressure five weeks after the April 20 blowout at BP’s Macondo well. Two other previous drilling overseers are scheduled to join Birnbaum in fielding questions about whether the government has been too lax in regulating the industry.

But the panel’s attention instead could be diverted to debate over the administration’s six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, which has been challenged by oil industry leaders and Gulf Coast officials, who say the ban will devastate the region’s already hard-hit economy.

Environmentalists and the Obama administration contend that the ban – set to expire Nov. 30 – is a necessary timeout while the industry and government boost drilling safety standards, improve spill containment techniques, and ensure there is enough available cleanup equipment in case of another spill.

The drilling ban dominated the commission’s first round of meetings in New Orleans last month, as rig workers and offshore service industry representatives complained that the policy has idled roughly two dozen floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

The commission’s co- chairmen, former Environmental Protection Agency head William Reilly, and former Florida Gov. Bob Graham, also have raised concerns about the ban and questioned whether the moratorium could be lifted for some operations that pass rigorous new safety inspections.

“We are particularly interested in whether individual rigs – or categories of rigs – subject to the moratorium are sufficiently safe to allow the moratorium to be lifted with respect to those rigs,” the commission’s executive director, Richard Lazarus, said in an Aug. 6 letter to Michael Bromwich, the head of the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar created that bureau in June as part of a broad overhaul of the now-disbanded Mineral Management Service, the unit formerly headed by Birnbaum.

Low-risk operations

Although Bromwich opposes a rig-based approach to lifting the ban, he told the commission in a letter Monday that the moratorium could be partially lifted before its scheduled expiration for certain low-risk operations.

The national commission, which President Barack Obama authorized in May, is tasked with pinpointing the causes of the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and suggesting new regulations and other changes that could prevent a repeat. The panel is expected to detail its findings in January.

Its work dovetails with a series of other oil spill investigations under way – including a joint inquiry by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bromwich’s bureau that is conducting hearings this week in Houston.

Broader issues

So far, the national commission has dealt publicly with broader issues surrounding offshore drilling. For example, today’s hearing will include an 80-minute primer on the history of the industry by a Shell Exploration and Production manager, an energy consultant and the head of the World Wildlife Fund. The panel is also scheduled to hear from University of Houston business professor Tyler Priest, and officials with the American Petroleum Institute.

But the commission now is building the framework for a more focused examination about what went wrong on the Deepwater Horizon rig, spokesman Dave Cohen said. It has hired 40 researchers to investigate the disaster.

At the helm of the investigative team is Fred Bartlit, a trial lawyer who represented former President George W. Bush in the legal battles in Florida over the disputed 2000 election. Bartlit also is a veteran of another oil disaster investigation – he was chief counsel during a yearlong probe of the 1988 explosion of the Piper Alpha oil platform in the North Sea that killed 167.

Lacks subpoena power

So far, the panel has been operating without the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony from reluctant witnesses.

Lawmakers, led by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., have pushed legislation to give subpoena power to the commission, but their proposal has stalled on Capitol Hill amid other disputes over energy policy and how to boost companies’ liability for oil spills.

The panel’s findings could dictate the future of oil and gas drilling off the nation’s shores for decades. Interior Department officials also have signaled the commission’s work could help influence whether the department will modify its deep-water drilling ban in coming months.

jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Washington Post: How MMS’s partnership with industry led to failure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082406754_pf.html

IF we’re going to continue to allow offshore oil drilling while we fiddle around with becoming energy smart, then yes, more real regulatory oversight is a pressing need.
I’d rather put the money into alternative fuels and be done with fossil fuels. DV

By Juliet Eilperin and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 24, 2010; 10:14 PM
Two weeks after BP’s Macondo well blew out in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government’s Minerals Management Service finalized a regulation intended to control the undersea pressures that threaten deepwater drilling operations.

MMS did not write the rule. As it had dozens of times before, the agency adopted language provided by the oil industry’s trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, and incorporated it into the Federal Register.

MMS received two favorable public comments about the regulation: one from the Offshore Operators Committee, an industry group, and the other from BP. The regulation stated: “BP, a large oil and gas company, expressed the importance of this rule and how they have been involved with MMS and industry to develop the industry standard.”

The fact that BP – which has come under withering criticism for how it managed mounting pressure in the Macondo well – took partial credit for crafting the rule is not surprising. MMS has adopted at least 78 industry-generated standards as federal regulations, American Petroleum Institute records show.

MMS’s acquiescence stemmed from the unusual relationship it had cultivated with industry. Directed by law to “meet the nation’s energy needs,” the agency pursued that mission by declaring itself publicly and formally as industry’s partner.

Top officials and front-line workers routinely referred to the companies under their watch as “clients,” “customers” and especially “partners.” As the relationship became more intertwined, regulatory intensity subsided. MMS officials waived hundreds of environmental reviews and did not aggressively pursue companies for equipment failures. They also participated in studies financed and dominated by industry, more as collaborator than regulator. In the face of industry opposition, MMS abandoned proposals that would have increased costs but might have improved safety.

The story of how a little-known federal agency became an extension of the industry it oversaw spans three decades and four presidents. It began in 1982 with a major change in the way the nation managed its natural resources, picked up pace with initiatives to streamline bureaucracy in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and ended after the April 20 BP blowout with the Obama administration’s abrupt decision to undo the partnership.

Few in positions of power in Washington paid close attention to MMS and the hard-to-understand world it was charged with regulating. When they did, it was often to pressure the agency to increase the money it earned from leases it sold and the production that followed. Over its 28-year history, MMS grew to become one the government’s largest revenue collectors, after the Internal Revenue Service.

As oil and gas companies took their drilling operations into deeper and riskier waters, MMS had to rely on its corporate partners’ expertise. Along the way were warning signs of the partnership’s imbalance, but the industry’s track record of no major accidents provided a comfort level that proved deceptive.

Industry innovation, as it often does, had outrun and overpowered the government’s regulatory prowess, with disastrous results. They were partners, but they were not equals.

On the fly

James G. Watt, the man who created MMS, came to Washington in 1982 with a mission: to alter the way the government managed its natural resources. Coming off the hostage crisis in oil-rich Iran and gas shortages on the home front, he vowed to “mine more” and “drill more.”

Nearly three decades later, the lawyer known for his sharp mind and oversized glasses says in an interview from his home in Jackson Hole, Wyo., that he “wouldn’t change one decision.”

As Ronald Reagan’s first interior secretary, Watt wasted little time pursuing his vision. The environment, he believed, contained valuable resources that should be exploited for the good of the nation, particularly at a time of tense relations with the Soviet Union and continuing instability in the Middle East.

“The Reagan administration was for everything,” Watt says. “We wanted nuclear, we wanted solar, we wanted conservation, we wanted wind, we wanted coal. We were just doing everything we could to re-arm America, dig us out of a huge financial mess. That required energy at every level.”

For years, the U.S. Geological Survey had handled the task of collecting royalties from companies, based on the amount of oil and gas they extracted from federal land and offshore reserves. But allegations of fraud had left the program in a shambles. A panel appointed to examine the problems recommended that a new agency take over those duties as its main mission.

Watt went one step further. The Minerals Management Service he created in 1982 would not only lease tracts for exploration and collect the government’s share of oil and gas revenue, it would regulate the industry, too. That built-in conflict would hamstring the agency for decades.

As an early director of MMS, William D. Bettenberg carried out many of Watt’s orders. He recalls that the agency was created on the fly.

Bettenberg left his office in Reston one Friday afternoon and returned Monday to learn that Watt was giving MMS oversight of drilling operations in the Outer Continental Shelf, a responsibility that had rested within another Interior Department division, the Bureau of Land Management. A co-worker found a copy of Watt’s draft order on a Xerox machine and relayed the news to Bettenberg in a phone call.

As he set up the agency, Bettenberg turned to industry for guidance. “Sometimes we applied industry standards,” he says. “Many of the standards are good.”

Bettenberg, who retired in 2005 after a 41-year career, wonders whether the agency could have done more to regulate deep-sea drilling.

“This recent spill has prompted me to conclude I didn’t ask enough questions,” he says. “I suspect people didn’t keep up with technology.”

Expansion

In the face of Watt’s push for more drilling, the Democratic-controlled Congress resisted.

Rep. Les AuCoin, an outspoken Oregon Democrat, had a vision of what an oil spill off California could mean for his state. After major storms, he said, dead cows would wash up on Oregon’s beaches, plucked from Northern California coast. Oil from a blown-out well, he reasoned, would be no different.

When Watt suggested opening up the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and Georges Bank off Massachusetts to drilling in 1981, AuCoin and Republican Rep. Silvio O. Conte of Massachusetts used their posts on the powerful House Appropriations Committee to block him. They put language in a funding bill mandating that no money could be used to lease exploratory tracts in central and Northern California waters or the Georges Bank.

Leasing new tracts to oil and gas companies was MMS’s primary objective. Many agency employees spent their days determining which offshore areas would be most productive, and then auctioning those swaths to the highest bidders. Now, lawmakers were saying they had as much of a right to draw the map for drilling as MMS officials did.

Watt backed away from leasing off the California and Massachusetts coasts, but he moved to lease nearby areas, tracts that were even closer to shore. Congress responded with further restrictions, the beginning of what would become a drilling moratorium for certain regions.

The one exception: most of the Gulf of Mexico.

After Watt resigned in September 1983, lawmakers expanded the moratorium. >From 1982 to 1992, the territory declared off-limits grew from 700,000 acres off the California coast to more than 266 million acres off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, Alaska’s Bering Sea and the gulf’s eastern portion .

Again, the rest of the gulf remained open.

Lawmakers who opposed drilling found an ally in George H.W. Bush. During his 1988 presidential bid, he said offshore areas needed protection “until technology moves forward.”

In his first year as president, he canceled a slew of lease sales by executive order and established a marine sanctuary in California’s Monterey Bay. The government also bought back leases for tracts off South Florida. The result: More offshore auctions were canceled than held between 1987 and 1992.

The gulf remained the primary place for deepwater ventures, becoming what environmentalists such as Peter Galvin of the Center for Biological Diversity called a “national sacrifice area.” Today, it is home to 99 percent of the nation’s offshore oil production. Of 911 new wells in the past two years, all but 13 were drilled in the gulf.

Reinvention

Since the BP blowout, Bruce Babbitt has been reevaluating what took place during his tenure as Bill Clinton’s interior secretary, and how the nation’s oil and gas policy went awry despite his best intentions.

He belongs to an exclusive club, one of four interior secretaries to serve for eight years. In that position, he focused much of his time on preserving the country’s wild spaces. Babbitt paid less attention to MMS.

Sitting in the sleek Dupont Circle headquarters of the Environmental Defense Fund, where he now serves as an adviser, Babbitt describes how a relentless drive to reduce the federal bureaucracy in the 1990s solidified the partnership between Washington and the offshore industry. The Interior Department began to emphasize “performance-based regulation” on the assumption that industry was better positioned than the government to determine what practices worked.

“That is a mistake for which I shoulder part of the blame,” he says. “It was not a good decision. My belief, with considerable hindsight, is there is no place for performance-based regulation because of the high risk.”

Political forces were pushing the department to scale back on regulatory dictates. Clinton was seeking to “reinvent” the government – and by extension, agencies such as MMS. He put Vice President Al Gore in charge of the initiative, which sought to slash the federal workforce, reduce regulation and form “partnerships” between Washington and industry. Profound changes would take place at MMS: It was ordered to do a better job of collecting royalties, while losing nearly 10 percent of its staff during the next five years.

Reinvention also became the agency’s mantra. In October 1993, an Interior panel issued findings aimed at future drilling policies. Titled “Moving Beyond Conflict to Consensus,” it represented a paradigm shift.

Chaired by an oil drilling company executive, the panel urged a reversal of restrictions championed during the previous decade by George H.W. Bush and many members of Congress. It recommended that Interior lift the moratoriums; share revenue with states whose water would be opened up for leasing; and create incentives to spur exploration, such as royalty relief for industry. The panel called large spills in the gulf “improbable,” citing relatively low reservoir pressure that required companies to retrieve the oil and gas through “artificial lifting” in 90 percent of the wells.

Today, Babbitt says he sees how policymakers came to focus more on revenue than on risks. “This kind of partnership stuff, in a way, is an inevitable part of a system in which you are producing the second-largest amount of revenue for the U.S. government,” he says.

It turned out that MMS was not capable of navigating its dual relationship as regulator and industry partner, he says.

It took time for him to see the inherent conflict. “The full realization of that came, frankly, after I left office, when I had a chance to think in a more abstract way, when I had a chance to sort this out. It’s not an easy sort.”

Going deep

Echoes of the Interior Department panel’s recommendations were being heard in the halls of Congress. Worried that leases were declining as opportunities in shallow water dwindled, Louisiana Democrat J. Bennett Johnston used his senior position on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to seek royalty relief for companies willing to explore deeper water.

“Offshore drilling had always been very key to our [state's] economy, and the overall oil production,” he now says. “I thought we ought to make a way to make it easier to drill in deeper water. Because if you’re not going to get them to drill, that’s money you’re not going to get.”

The Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, written by Johnston and passed in 1995, exempted companies that drilled on certain leases from paying royalties. “It was not like these were a bunch of oilies getting together and deciding, ‘How can we rip off the government?’ ” says Johnston, who left Congress in 1997 and is now an American Petroleum Institute lobbyist. “These were serious policymakers figuring out how to benefit the nation.”

With the moratoriums in force, the Gulf of Mexico became a more important place to drill. The move into deeper water did not, however, prompt a discussion about greater oversight. “It was not a big focus of the Congress,” Johnston says. “There wasn’t any whistle-blower saying, ‘They’re being unsafe.’ ”

At the end of the Clinton administration, MMS itself issued a warning. In a little-noticed budget document, the agency reported in 2000 that the burgeoning number of deepwater wells had made overseeing operations in the gulf more complex. The number of companies working there had grown by 30 percent and many employees were new.

MMS cautioned: “The offshore industry significantly downsized in the 1980s. . . . The presence of workers without offshore experience is placing an added burden on the inspection and compliance program.”

If the agency was waving a red flag, few saw it.

Acceleration

After the Clinton administration set the table for the partnership, the George W. Bush administration let the industry run it.

On Jan. 29, 2001, nine days after taking office, Bush signed an executive order creating the National Energy Policy Development Group. Within weeks, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, as chairman of the task force, began holding closed-door meetings with industry officials.

Executives from BP, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell and other companies met with the vice president and his team. Jim Ford, then director of the American Petroleum Institute, sent the panel an e-mail on March 20 outlining the industry’s legislative and policy wishes. He called for limiting regulations, reducing the backlog of drilling permits, and making it easier for energy companies to access oil and gas leases.

In its report on May 16, the task force said that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf had an “impressive environmental record” and that state and federal regulations were interfering with exploration and production. The panel urged Bush to direct Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton to “consider economic incentives” for oil and gas firms and reduce the amount of royalties they had to pay.

Soon after, Bush signed two executive orders that tracked many points in Ford’s e-mail and adopted many of the Cheney panel’s recommendations.

Norton, and her deputy, J. Steven Griles, embraced the task force’s endorsement of more drilling. A Griles memo to the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality on Aug. 22, 2001, said Interior was “fully committed to playing a role in this effort” and had a “special interest and expertise” in expanding production.

‘Gung ho’

Norton’s enthusiasm for industry’s desire to go into deeper water was on display at the dedication on Feb. 26, 2005, of BP’s Thunder Horse oil platform in the gulf, then the largest in the world.

Accompanied by MMS Director Johnnie Burton, Norton declared on the trip – underwritten by BP, according to government records – that the rig was “created to protect the blue waters that it stands in, no matter how great the storm.” With the rig looming behind her, she said, “Many people have an image of offshore oil production that is frozen in time. Thunder Horse is a dramatic embodiment of how far technology has progressed.”

Less than five months later, the 13-story structure nearly capsized, the result of equipment failures during Hurricane Dennis. The mishap delayed the start of production until 2008.

During Norton’s tenure, the department adopted regulations aimed at spurring deepwater drilling in the western and central Gulf of Mexico. A 2002 rule allowed oil and gas firms to apply for additional royalty relief; two years later, another rule reduced royalty payments for companies drilling for gas in deeper water.

At the time, MMS began receiving reports that raised concerns about underwater blowout preventers, which serve as the primary device for cutting off the flow of oil in an accident. The equipment relies on a brute-force component known as a blind-shear ram to sever and crimp the pipes of a runaway well. These hydraulic-powered rams are the last line of defense against the pressure rising from deepwater reservoirs, which had proved greater than the members of the 1993 Interior panel had stated.

One study suggested requiring a second blind-shear ram for backup, but in 2003, the agency decided against that. Another report questioned whether remotely operated underwater vehicles could generate enough pressure to cut the pipes. The agency did little to address the concern.

Norton declined an interview request, saying she had testified about her tenure last month before Congress.

In 2005, finalizing a policy from the end of the Clinton era, MMS told companies that they did not have to provide detailed blowout and response scenarios for each exploration plan. The agency said the plans were “purely speculative or generic.” MMS officials did request modest budget increases for regulation. But greater oversight was not a priority, as David Abraham at the Office of Management and Budget discovered.

Abraham served as OMB’s examiner for offshore programs from 2003 to 2005. When he asked MMS officials about their plans for keeping up with expanded drilling, he said they routinely gave the same answer.

“They said, ‘Our processes work,’ ” recalls Abraham, now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “I said, ‘It’s like an airplane – everyone always says the wheels will come down, but what happens when they don’t?’ They should have had people who could say, ‘This is what we do when the wheels don’t come down.’ What they said is, ‘Don’t worry. Our regulatory regime works. ”

Abraham recalls: “They were being pushed by Congress, and they were being pushed by the White House- ‘Let’s go into this area, let’s go into that area,’ Nobody asked: Did they have the technology” to handle this?

The pressure to increase production came from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, says Lynn Scarlett, who was Norton’s assistant secretary for policy, management and budget and then deputy secretary under Norton’s successor, Dirk Kempthorne.

Those in favor of more drilling, she says, were saying ” ‘let’s go ‘gung ho’ on deepwater. Lots of countries are doing it. There wasn’t a parallel focus at the same time of, ‘If we do this, let’s have a commensurate effort on regulations for safety.’ ”

Looking back, Scarlett sees the problem not so much as one of complacency but whether MMS “fully focused on the new challenges with deepwater.” She wonders: “Was there a failure of imagination of what could happen given the new conditions?”

Scarlett says that question never reached her desk.

“It just didn’t come up,” she says. “I honestly didn’t really think about it. I wish I had.”

Easing the way

Interior officials during the Clinton and George W. Bush years also eased the way for more drilling by relaxing one of the most significant safeguards – and obstacles – the agency could impose: an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, which became law in 1970.

The legislation, enacted after a Union Oil blowout that spilled 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil into the Santa Barbara Channel, remains one of the nation’s toughest environmental laws. Beloved by activists and loathed by industry, it requires an analysis of how regulated activities might affect the environment.

In the case of oil and gas drilling in the gulf, regulators became increasingly willing to give its industry partners exemptions.

The trend took root in 1978, when the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality informed agencies that they could make “categorical exclusions” from the law as long as the proposed activity did not have “a significant effect on the human environment.” These waivers were critical because they saved companies time and money.

The Interior Department soon made it clear that offshore drilling could qualify for these exemptions. In a letter dated Nov. 20, 1980, firms operating in the central and western gulf were told that they would not have to provide “complete” environmental assessments in some instances.

MMS officials later widened the exemption, seeking in part to avoid duplicate environmental assessments of similar areas. For years, the agency’s regional director, Gulf Coast governors or the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could ask for studies. The Bush administration modified the rule in 2005, limiting such requests to the MMS regional director.

Under Clinton, categorical exclusions granted in the central and western gulf rose from three in 1997 to 795 in 2000. During the Bush administration, MMS granted an average of 650 categorical exclusions a year in the region.

The number of categorical exclusions dipped to 220 during the Obama administration’s first year. One went to BP’s Macondo well.

Last week, Interior officials announced a temporary halt on categorical exclusions and vowed a tighter review before granting waivers in the future.

‘Working partners’

In July 2006, someone with knowledge of MMS’s inner workings contacted Interior’s inspector general with troubling allegations about the agency’s office in Lakewood, Colo., which managed the royalty-in-kind program. Under the program, MMS received a portion of the oil and gas collected by companies and sold it on the market. Industry officials preferred the program because it meant less red tape and avoided time-consuming audits.

The informant said MMS employees were accepting free ski trips, football tickets and other gifts from oil and gas firms. Some partied with industry officials and, in a few cases, female MMS employees engaged in sexual relationships with them.

Essentially, the allegations suggested that the partnership in Lakewood had gone beyond consensus. It had crossed into something closer to corruption.

Witness statements from the IG’s inquiry, as well as previously unpublished e-mails, provide a more complete portrait of MMS’s mindset. Employees said it was part of their job to “partner” with industry. Accepting free trips, meals and gifts was their “way of doing business.” Some said MMS employees should be exempted from certain ethics laws because of the agency’s unique role.

Industry officials used similar language in their interviews. A Shell oilman called MMS employees “working interest partners.” Another Shell representative said he saw the royalty-in-kind division as “just another oil exploration company.” He provided gifts for “relationship-building.”

Some industry officials built relationships that extended beyond the office. One MMS employee told the agents that she had sex with two oilmen who worked with the program. When IG agents asked whether she had sex with other industry officials, she asked if they had any e-mails to refresh her memory.

“I did date people,” she told them.

One Shell official e-mailed two female MMS employees to invite them to stay with him during a retreat in Keystone, Colo., a resort town in the Rockies. “Don’t worry about bringing a thing except yourselves,” he wrote. “Nobody will say a thing about you being here for the night. As far as I’m concerned, you were in a hotel.”

One of the women replied: “You are sooo wonderful. You know how much I totally adore you. I just want to see my best buddies for a few days and unwind in the hot tub.”

The investigators provided the basis for several criminal cases involving federal contracting rules and conflict-of-interest laws, resulting in two guilty pleas. Another MMS official resigned amid allegations that he had worked for a private engineering firm and had marketed the company to government clients.

The once-obscure agency had acquired an unwanted prominence when the report became public in September 2008. Barely a week after the Obama administration took office in January 2009, the new Interior secretary, Ken Salazar, burst into the White House press room.

MMS, he announced, would be one of his first targets.

He then flew to Colorado to address agency employees about the Lakewood findings. Wearing his trademark Western cowboy hat and bolo tie, he delivered his message with two symbols of Washington by his side: his chief of staff, Tom Strickland, and Interior’s IG, Earl Devaney.

“The public knows of what happened here in Lakewood,” Salazar told the quiet crowd. “The ‘anything goes’ will end. And this department, and the Minerals Management Service, will lead the way in ending it.”

Salazar promised a new code of conduct for the agency, and he announced the end of the royalty-in-kind program following evidence that millions of dollars in revenue had been lost.

In Washington, Strickland assigned his deputy to stay on top of the IG’s investigations. But as Salazar’s team pursued other items on its agenda, MMS’s problems became less prominent.

More than a year later, in May 2010, a second IG report on the MMS office in Lake Charles, La., which handles inspections in the gulf, showed that the Lakewood problems were not isolated.

The IG agents found that Lake Charles employees had taken industry-paid hunting and fishing trips. Two MMS officials and their families had traveled to Atlanta on a corporate jet to watch Louisiana State University play in the Peach Bowl. Thirteen employees had used government computers to receive or forward pornographic images or links to pornographic Web sites. An MMS inspector had written four evaluations of an offshore drilling company while negotiating for a job with the firm. Earlier, an inspector had pleaded guilty to making false statements about receiving gifts from industry.

One agency employee, who was dating an inspector, said her boyfriend told her that the time he and other inspectors spent on the platforms amounted to mini-vacations. She told the agents that they “eat like kings, they watch porn and they take naps.”

The IG agents questioned employees about their views of the industry’s generosity, according to interview transcripts that have not been publicly disclosed.

“What, though, do you think that the oil company or the operating company gets for that?” one agent asked a MMS supervisor.

“A relationship,” he replied.

“And is that important?” the agent asked

“Yes.”

“A relationship with who?”

“With MMS.”

Industry financed

For years before the blowout, MMS allowed the oil and gas industry to play a key role in the regulatory process, often accepting recommendations from the American Petroleum Institute. There was logic behind this: The industry had the know-how and the resources to keep abreast of changing technology.

MMS also participated in studies by outside consultants, some underwritten by industry. A recent study by West Engineering Services in Texas examined the reliability of blowout preventers. Among the central questions: Could the blind-shear rams be tested less often without compromising safety?

These tests require downtime of about eight hours, which means $300,000 in lost production and wages – more if complications arise. West Engineering noted on its Web site that the industry could save an estimated $193 million a year by reducing the time and production lost in testing blowout preventers.

The company invited industry members to join the study’s steering committee. The price: $100,000 per seat. Seven companies signed on: BP, Diamond, ENI, Marathon, Chevron, Nexen and Seadrill. The American Petroleum Institute also contributed $100,000. (Other firms did not make any payments, but still had a role in the study.)

At MMS, the project raised few concerns. Reflecting the agency’s status as an industry partner, three MMS officials participated. One served on the “leadership team” with five industry officials. On the West Engineering Web page for the study, the MMS logo appeared with those of the American Petroleum Institute, the Offshore Operators Committee and the International Association of Drilling Contractors.

West Engineering’s 119-page study came out in January, three months before a blind-shear ram failed to stop the BP blowout. One recommendation: extend the testing interval for blind-shear rams from 30 days to 77.

MMS did not act on the proposal before the accident; the blind-shear ram’s failure has guaranteed it won’t act now.

West Engineering said the industry’s financial contributions played no role in its scientific findings. “The results of our work are driven by the science, the data, and our professional interpretation of that data,” the company said in a statement.

The breakup

Two weeks after Interior’s IG released its report on the Lake Charles office, Michael Bromwich was working at his law firm. He received a call from a friend in the White House legal office.

“Have you been paying attention to what’s been happening with the Minerals Management Service?” his friend asked.

“Vaguely,” Bromwich replied.

“We’d like you to head that agency.”

“What?”

Bromwich, a former Justice Department official known for cleaning up troubled institutions, was eager, but soon had serious reservations. To win him over, the administration began an all-out lobbying campaign. Strickland, Salazar’s chief of staff, gave Bromwich a call. Salazar summoned him to his office for a 11/2-hour sit-down.

Bromwich remained unconvinced – until the phone rang in his beach house in Rehoboth, Del., that weekend. It was the White House operator. Was he available to take a call from the president?

“I really want you to do this job,” Obama said.

Bromwich told him that the job came with a 90 percent pay cut, and he hadn’t fully discussed it with his wife.

“If you want me to talk to her, let me know,” Obama said.

The next week, Bromwich began as the director of the newly renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Salazar had already reorganized the agency, dividing oversight from collecting royalties. The House has passed a bill with a similar bent, but a stronger separation between regulation and revenue collection. The Senate will take up the matter this fall.

A presidential commission looking at the lessons of the BP oil spill has set its sights on MMS’s culture as well. It will hold a public hearing Wednesday.

As Bromwich has suggested, it will take more than a different name to give the agency a fresh start. “There’s a shadow of the past that people in this agency, including me, have to deal with, and we will,” he said.

Bromwich also knows it will take time and action to convince his employees and the oil companies that a new era has begun. In July, Marathon Oil chief executive Clarence P. Cazalot Jr. said he continues to think that Washington should defer to his industry.

“There’s a role for regulation,” he said, “but the regulators shouldn’t be out there telling you how to do things.”

Senior Interior officials who have spent the past four months trying to manage the ecological and public relations disaster in the gulf said they have run out patience with the partnership.

“That path didn’t work, and the public got let down in an enormous way,” Strickland says. “There is now agreement – whether everyone in the industry agrees or not, because it’s coming, it’s happening – we need more oversight, more regulation.”

eilperinj@washpost.com highams@washpost.com

Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: Gulf Oil Spill: Rick Steiner Got BP Disaster Right From The Beginning, Warns Crisis Is Far From Over

August 25, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/25/the-sage-of-spills-rick-s_n_693812.html?view=print

First Posted: 08-25-10 11:56 AM | Updated: 08-25-10 12:04 PM

Dan Froomkin, reporting

I first spoke to Rick Steiner more than three months ago — about two weeks into the Deepwater Horizon disaster — after a source recommended I talk to him for a story I was writing about the spill as a teachable moment. Steiner is a marine conservationist and activist in Alaska who started studying oil spills when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, and never stopped.

What Steiner said to me during that first interview was blunt, depressing — and struck me as having the ring of truth. Little did I know how true.

“Government and industry will habitually understate the volume of the spill and the impact, and they will overstate the effectiveness of the cleanup and their response,” he told me at the time. “There’s no such thing as an effective response. There’s never been an effective response — ever — where more than 10 or 20 percent of the oil is ever recovered from the water.

“Most of the oil that goes into the water in a major spill stays there,” he said. “And once the oil is in the water, the damage is done.”

Steiner was also one of the first scientists to warn that much if not most of BP’s oil was remaining underwater, forming giant and potentially deadly toxic plumes.

I thought of Steiner last week, as I sat in a congressional hearing room listening to Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey question Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lehr was one of the authors of an increasingly controversial federal report about the fate of BP’s spilled oil that Obama administration officials misleadingly cited as evidence that the “vast majority” of the oil was essentially gone.

Markey’s persistent questioning eventually got Lehr to acknowledge that, contrary to the administration spin, most of the spill — including the oil that has been dispersed or dissolved into the water, or evaporated into the atmosphere — is still in the Gulf ecosystem. Then Markey got Lehr to recalculate what percentage of the spill BP had actually recovered, through skimming and burning.

That amount: About 10 percent.

In other words, Steiner was right.

The other part of Steiner’s prediction — that the government and BP would low-ball the volume of the spill — had already played out very publicly. BP and NOAA both opened with a 5,000 barrel a day estimate. NOAA officials stuck to that estimate for weeks, despite the fact that they had access to video feeds from the wellhead clearly showing how far off they were. More than two weeks after some of that video was made public, the government finally, grudgingly, upped its estimates to 12,000 to 19,000 barrels daily; then 20,000 to 40,000 barrels, then 35,000 to 60,000 barrels, before finalizing its estimate in early August at 62,000 barrels a day at the beginning of the spill, declining to 53,000 barrels a day toward the end.

So it wasn’t until early August, two weeks after the well was capped, that the public was officially clued in that BP’s blowout had — by the end of June — become the largest accidental offshore oil spill in history; totaling almost 16 times the Exxon Valdez.

I talked to Steiner again this week about where things stand now, what he expects will happen next, and what he hopes will come of it all.

The first thing we talked about was that NOAA report. Steiner said it was obviously full of guesswork — and bad guesswork at that. “They shouldn’t have even tried to issue these numbers right now,” he said. “I smell politics all over it. The only plausible explanation is they were in a rush to hang the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.”

And Steiner suspects the 10 percent recovery rate for BP is actually overstated. The report based its conclusions on operational reports

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/876899/

showing that 11.1 million gallons of oil were burned and 34.7 million gallons of oily water were recovered through skimming.

But Steiner said the actual amount of oil recovered could be about half what the report claims. The oil-water mix, which officials evidently assumed was 20 percent oil, could well have been closer to 10 percent, he said. As for the burned oil figures, “they are simply coming from the BP contractors out there and then put into the Incident Command reports as gospel. As far as I know, there was no independent observation or estimation of those numbers.”

And there’s something else the government seems to have forgotten about when it comes to burning crude oil: “That’s not technically removing it from the environment.” Steiner said. “It either went into the air as atmospheric emissions, and some of that is pretty toxic stuff, or there’s a residue from burning crude that sinks to the ocean floor, sometimes in big thick mats.”

Steiner had even more critiques of the report — and the response — but his central point was one of the same he made when I first spoke with him, back in May: Once the oil is in the water, the damage is done. “You just can’t fix most of the damage caused in marine oil spills. You just can’t do it.”

That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot that BP should do. Just as the company has set up a $20 billion fund to compensate people and businesses hurt by the spill, Steiner has asked BP to set up a $20 billion restoration fund as well.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BPSteinerltr.pdf

The government’s Natural Resources Damage Assessment process will eventually result in a bill to BP to recover damages.

That money can do a lot of good. Say it turns out that this year’s bluefin tuna larvae have been wiped out. You can’t bring a year’s worth of tuna back to life, but you can take other steps to help the species — say, by paying fishermen not to kill them. Similarly, for the Gulf as a whole, you can’t take the oil out, but you can take some of the steps to heal it that were needed even before the spill. Those include reducing the massive amounts of fertilizer that flow out of the Mississippi River, forming a massive low-oxygen “Dead Zone” each year, or letting the river’s sediment and sand rebuild the marshes and barrier islands of the Delta .

“If you can’t fix directly the damage caused, do something positive for the net environmental benefit of the ecosystem that was ravaged by this event,” Steiner said.

What’s next? Some of the damage caused by BP will persist for a long, long time, Steiner said. “We’ll see injury from this for decades, in one form or another.” And the sea life that was killed outright is just the beginning. The question to ask is: “What is the immediate, sub-lethal, chronic injury that will manifest itself two, three, four years in the future?”

After the Exxon Valdez, for instance, scientists thought the Prince William Sound’s population of Pacific herring — crucial to both the food web and local fishermen — had survived the spill. But four years later, apparently due to compromised immune systems, the population crashed, never to return.

“I’m worried about the same sort of thing in the Gulf,” Steiner said.

Seabirds are also at long term risk, both because of possible nesting failures in the future, and because the oil has killed the vegetation that keeps some seabird islands from falling apart. “There’s certainly going to be some accelerated erosion on those islands,” he said.

And the plumes of underwater oil that some scientists now fear will not biodegrade rapidly may be around for some time, he said. That could have catastrophic effects on everything from plankton to sperm whales.

But ultimately, Steiner said, no one can predict what will happen with any certainty, because there are simply too many variables in complex ecosystems. The spill’s effects could reverberate up and down the food chain, if any given predator is removed, or if any given food source vanishes. “I think there’s going to be injuries that crop up in the next couple of years that are entirely unanticipated right now,” he said.

All of which leads to the same conclusion: “Our singular policy objective should be that we have to do everything possible to prevent this sort of thing ever happening again.”

Before the Obama administration lifts its deepwater-drilling moratorium — currently set to expire on Nov. 30 — Steiner said the government should do four things:

1. Complete a comprehensive risk assessment that establishes the “101 other ways” that deepwater blowouts can occur

2. Develop a much more effective risk mitigation system, i.e. better blowout preventers.

3. Develop better blowout response plans, such as the marine well containment system being developed by Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell.

4. Develop better oil spill response plan for worst-case scenarios — with equipment ready to go, precontracted responders trained and drilled, protocols established for dispersants and burning, and regional citizens advisory councils.

The first three are crucial, because they are about prevention. But the fourth is still important, Steiner said. “We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that effective oil spill response is possible, because it isn’t. Yet they still need to prepare.”
*************************
One of the strangest things about our national discourse is that it doesn’t sufficiently respect people who get things right. Indeed, particularly inside the Washington Beltway, it sometimes seems like the wronger you are about things, the more seriously you get taken.

And Steiner is used to getting punished, rather than rewarded, for his warnings — even the ones that come true. He resigned from his tenured professorship at the Unversity of Alaska last year, to protest the university’s decision to strip him of a NOAA grant

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1269

because of his outspoken opposition to oil drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

“I feel sick that people don’t want to hear the truth about risk,” he told me.

The risk Steiner talks about the most these days is the one posed by our continued use of carbon — to the grave detriment of the planet. As Steiner told me for that first story I called him about, all that carbon spewed into the Gulf was headed into the planetary ecosystem anyway, through our tailpipes.

“Our lives have been one enormous, century-long oil spill, globally,” Steiner said.

The U.S. alone uses some 20 million barrels of oil a day. Simply adopting tougher efficiency standards for power plants, cars and trucks, and electricity transmission could cut that amount in half, Steiner said. “We’re wasting twice the amount of the entire Deepwater Horizon spill ever day.”

Indeed, Steiner’s biggest fear is not what will happen to the Gulf — or even that drilling will begin again without sufficient safeguards. It’s that this spill will fade into history without fundamentally changing the way people think about oil, and without accelerating the drive toward sustainable, low-carbon energy sources.

“We’re not getting anywhere with that. That’s the thing that really worries me,” he said.

“The transcendent, take-home lesson from all of this is that we need to hasten our transition to sustainable energy. Some of the costs of oil become very clear in oil spills, but the real costs also include climate change, wars to secure oil supplies, health impacts from breathing atmospheric emissions, and supporting petro-dictators.

“We know we need to transition to sustainable, clean, low-carbon energy, and we know how. We know that the chronic, day-to-day degradation of our biosphere caused by our oil addiction — global warming, ocean acidification, coral reef death, sea level rise, floods and droughts, crop failure, forest fires, ice melt, biodiversity loss — is cumulatively more devastating than all the oil spills we can throw at ourselves.”

The oil spill wasn’t the only warning sign this summer. Thousands of people have died from the record heat, forest fires have raged across Russia, floods have ravaged Asia.

“The only real way to atone for the Deepwater Horizon disaster is to kick our disastrous oil habit, and become better stewards of our endangered home planet,” Steiner said. “We’ll see if we learn that lesson this time around.”

A much smaller oil spill in Santa Barbara 40 years ago helped mobilize the Earth Day movement, which in turn led to most of the major environmental legislation of the 20th century. By contrast, Steiner said, “the only thing we got out of Exxon Valdez was safer tankers.”

So what will be the legacy of a spill of this immensity?

“The real tragedy of Deepwater Horizon would be if we look back on this in 10 years and say: all we got out of that was better response plans,” Steiner said. “That would be the real tragedy. Then all of the lives would have been lost for nothing — and that includes human and non-human lives.”

*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

PBS Newshour: Scientist Studies Oil Dispersant’s Effects, Methane in the Gulf

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/07/scientist-studies-dispersant-use-methane-in-the-gulf.html

OIL SPILL — July 23, 2010 at 1:26 PM EDT

BY: LEA WINERMAN

On Thursday’s NewsHour, Spencer Michels reported on the ongoing controversy over the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico. BP has sprayed nearly 2 million gallons of dispersant — mostly a brand called Corexit — into the Gulf in order to break up the oil into smaller droplets that can be more readily consumed by microorganisms.
The EPA has said that using dispersant is better than the alternative — leaving oil to come ashore on beaches and marshes. And many scientists agree. But others are concerned about the unprecedented scale at which it’s been used, and worry that it could make its way into the Gulf food chain.

Among the researchers NewsHour producer Joanne Elgart Jennings spoke with was David Valentine, a geochemist at the University of California-Santa Barbara, who is studying how the Corexit might interact with the natural bacteria that usually break down oil in the Gulf. Below, Valentine demonstrates how Corexit and bacteria work to break down oil.
In addition to his work on dispersants, Valentine is also interested in the methane gas that has leaked into the Gulf along with oil from the well. In May, he proposed using measurements of the methane to help answer one of the most vexing questions of the Gulf disaster — how much oil has been leaked? Now that the well has been capped, he says, the time is right to begin those measurements. Listen to him explain how.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Riki Ott: Seafood Safety and Politics Don’t Mix

Aug 24

http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/riki-ott-seafood-safety-and-politics-dont-mixopening-of-gulf-fisheries-at-odds-with-evidence-of-harm/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChelseaGreen+%28Chelsea+Green%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Chelsea Green

Riki Ott: Seafood Safety and Politics Don’t Mix-Opening of Gulf Fisheries at Odds With Evidence of Harm

Posted on Monday, August 16th, 2010 at 9:48 am by webeditor

Eight days after returning home from his Gulf oil-spill response job, Jason Brashears has flashbacks of a scene that he witnessed one day in Lake Ponchartrain, Louisiana: Thousands of fish gasping at the surface in a sea of foamy oil and dispersant.

Brashears spent 65 days spotting oil in Lake Ponchartrain; Mobile Bay; and along the coast off Destin, Florida; Ocean Springs, Alabama; and Cat Island, Mississippi. His team reported oil sightings during the day. At night, planes sprayed dispersant to break up the oil.
The fish are not the only thing that haunts him from his Gulf work. His lungs feel “leaden,” he has trouble concentrating on his graphic designs that used to give him so much pleasure, his moods swing unpredictably, he is dizzy, and the fragrance in ordinary household products makes his eyes water and sinuses stuffy.

“You would think,” Brashears said over the phone, “that they [his subcontractor] would not send us out the next day if they knew the dispersants would make us sick. You would think they would warn us or give us a day off.”

But Brashears received no such warning. Nor did other people across the Gulf as BP applied at least 1.8 million gallons of dispersants to the oil it spilled there. Even though the number of gallons reported by BP is widely questioned as conservative, this is still by far the longest and heaviest application of dispersant in world history. Yet neither workers nor the public were, or are, being adequately informed of the risk of exposure to oil and dispersants.

I have been in the Gulf since May 3 and have witnessed the outbreak of a public-health epidemic as the oil and dispersant came ashore. Every day now, former workers, Gulf coast residents, and visitors share similar stories with me of respiratory problems, central nervous system problems, chemical sensitivities, or bad skin rashes after exposure to air or water in the Gulf – predictable illnesses from chemical exposure, all of which were avoidable given adequate warning and protection.

Stories of illnesses persist despite assurances from four federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the U.S. Coast Guard – that no levels of oil or dispersant measured in Gulf water or air were found to be unsafe.

But government officials have no credibility in communities across the Gulf because the official story does not match the reality of what people are seeing and smelling. The community stories that string together across the Gulf coast paint a picture quite different from what BP, its contractors, and our government report.

A week ago, a team dispatched by local officials with Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, discovered a beach on a barrier island oozed oil from tiny holes drilled by Hermit crabs. Oil trapped in fragile marshes degrades slowly. It’s been more than 40 years since the Florida barge ran aground in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, and spilled 200,000 gallons of fuel oil. Yet the oil is still there – and still has measurable effects on marsh life.

Off Long Beach, Mississippi, on August 8, fisherman James “Catfish” Miller tied an oil absorbent pad onto a pole and lowered it 8-12 feet down into deceptively clear ocean water. When he pulled it up, the pad was soaked in oil, much to the startled amazement of his guests, including Dr. Timothy Davis with the Department of Health and Human Services National Disaster Medical System. Repeated samples produced the same result. Three weeks earlier, there had been a massive fish kill along the same shoreline from Gulfport to Pass Christian.

Also this past weekend on a beach near Dauphin Island, Alabama, a family was alarmed to find themselves covered in thick gooey oil after swimming in what looked to be clear water.

In Florida, Joe Yerkes reported sludgy brown oil and foamy white dispersant bubbles in Destin and 40 miles east in St. Joe Bay, just days before a fish kill of croaker, flounder, trout, and baitfish on August 5.

Let’s think about this. There’s been an unprecedented release of oil and dispersants – industrial grade solvents – into the Gulf. Unprecedented means we have no past history to fall back on and really no science to guide us because it’s an ongoing experiment, right now.

The old science, the old standards, and the old protocols may be dangerously unreliable – as was the case in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Scientists relied on old science in 1989 and predicted that spill impacts would be short-term and the ecosystem would recover rapidly. Ten years later, the new science proved there were long-term impacts; 21 years later, the oiled ecosystem still has not fully recovered.

To borrow Brashears’ phrase, you would think the federal government would warn us if it thought there was – or even might be – a problem. But the framework of risk management is very narrow and limits itself to educated best guesses among the experts – until proven otherwise.

And therein lies the current danger of this evolving Gulf experiment. The federal government is re-opening vast areas of the Gulf that were closed to fishing because it has “not observed any oil” in these areas and because the “rigorous safety standards” will supposedly “ensure the seafood is safe.”

The problem is the ‘rigorous safety standards’ are outdated. The protocol relies on visual oil. What of the underwater plumes? The chart produced by NOAA last week shows, in effect, that over 50 percent of the oil (not to mention dispersant) is still in the water column as dispersed or dissolved oil. Scientists have found that the oil-dispersant mixture is getting into the foodweb.

The Food and Drug Administration only tests for oil in “edible” tissue of seafood. So if oil has contaminated a fish’s organs or other body parts, it would still be deemed safe for consumption if the flesh tested fine. If a steer had cancer in its kidney and blood, would you eat its “edible” tissue? To make matters worse, though, there is no test for dispersants – yet.

The new Coalition of Commercial Fishing Families across the Gulf is urging the federal government to use precaution rather than 30-year old standards. The coalition has asked NOAA to close all Gulf fisheries until updated protocol and standards are available to test seafood product. Fishermen are also concerned about losing consumer confidence. Kathy Birren, a commercial fisherman from Hernando Beach, Florida, stated at a Gulf of Mexico Alliance conference last week in Gulfport, “We believe that Gulf and Inland waters have been prematurely re-opened to fishing. Fishermen do not want to lose our credibility or deliver contaminated seafood to market. We have lost enough already.”

BP has already stated that it is “not responsible” for any long-term effects from its dispersant experiment. Unless American seafood consumers want to be part of the Gulf experiment, I suggest we all support our fishermen – and not trust the federal government to warn us about seafood safety.

Riki Ott’s book about the Exxon Valxez spill, Not One Drop, is available in our bookstore. Her earlier book, Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$, is also available.
Special thanks to Riki Ott and Richard Charter

LA Times blog: Gulf oil spill: Has it caused a new fish kill? (UPDATED)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/08/gulf-oil-spill-dead-fish-kill-mississippi.html

Photo: A dead fish lays along and oil boom deployed along the Louisiana shore in May. Credit: Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times

Greenspace August 23, 2010

Louisiana state biologists Monday were investigating whether a large fish kill at the mouth of the Mississippi River was caused by oil or dispersants from the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf also contains a vast dead zone created by agricultural runoff along the river.

“By our estimates, there were thousands, and I’m talking about 5,000 to 15,000 dead fish,” St. Bernard Parish President Crag Taffaro said in a news release Monday. “Different species were found dead, including crabs, sting rays, eel, drum, speckled trout, red fish, you name it, included in that kill.”

The fish were found floating at the top of the water, collected along plastic booms that were placed to contain millions of gallons of oil from the spill that was touched off by the April 20 explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The oil flowed into the gulf until July 15 when the gusher was capped.

A half-mile long swirl of thick substance with several tar balls and a strong smell of diesel was discovered Monday around Louisiana’s Grassy Island, St. Bernard Parish officials announced. Skimmers were collecting the scum.

“There is what we believe to be some recoverable oil in the area,” Taffaro said. “We will be sampling that and recovering what we can. We don’t want to jump to any conclusions because we’ve had some oxygen issues by the Bayou La Loutre Dam from time to time.

“The Marine Division of Wildlife and Fisheries is on it … It does point to the need for us to continue to monitor our waters.”

According to St. Bernard Parish spokeswoman Karen Bazile, the fish were found in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a 76-mile shipping shortcut from the Gulf of Mexico to New Orleans that was dug by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1960s. “It is blamed for massive wetlands loss and is widely believed to have worsened the flooding from Hurricane Katrina,” she said in an e-mail. “Since that storm, the federal government has paid for a rock structure across the channel at Bayou La Loutre to stop the flow of salt water, also putting an end to shipping in the channel.”

UPDATE: On Monday evening, St. Bernard Parish oil disaster information officer, Jennifer Belson, said that preliminary testing by the state’s Wildife & Fisheries indicated that the cause of the fish kill was “hypoxia” or lack of oxygen. “But we don’t have the final testing back,” she said. Hypoxia is most often caused by an excess of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural fertilizer or human waste, but it can also be caused by chemical dispersants, which were used extensively after the oil spill.

Ralph Portier, an environmental scientist at Louisiana State University, cautioned in an interview that, “A lot of things can explain a fish kill, which is not uncommon during the hot summer weather in Louisiana. It could be the nutrient-rich environment with a lot of heat. It could be rainfall. It could be changes in salinity or upwelling from disturbed sediment.”

The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, he noted, is “like a dead end canal with water that does not mix as much as you would like it to.” If oil were the cause, he said, he would expect a more gradual, rather than a sudden fish kill.

But he said he could not rule out that the fish kill could be related to the oil spill. Fresh water, which has been diverted into the marshes since the spill, can change salinity levels and affect fish, he noted. The fish kill announcement, he said, “goes to show how sensitive the (oil spill) issue is. You can imagine the angst of a lot of people in the sea food industry when they hear about a fish kill now.”

– Margot Roosevelt

Oceana to host oil meeting in Key West on Thursday, August 26th

The oil disaster in the Gulf may be capped, but the drilling continues. We need to protect our oceans from this happening again. Join us in our effort to put an end to offshore drilling.

On Thursday, Thursday, August 26th, from 6pm to 7pm, we’ll be hosting a meet-up. Come meet other people interested in protecting the world’s oceans and learn about Oceana’s campaign to End Offshore Oil Drilling and Protect Ocean Health for future generations to come.

Share your perspective in thoughtful conversation about Ocean welfare and the legacy we’re leaving our kids. We are going to brainstorm actions that we can take in days ahead and talk about how we can take a strong stand against offshore drilling and support offshore wind.

Join Us For A Meet-Up »
When: 6:00 – 7:00pm on
Thursday, August 26th

Where: Sippin Café
424 Eaton Street, Key West

RSVP to agambill@oceana.org

We will be meeting in the Sippin Café, 424 Eaton Street, Key West, from 6:00 to 7:00. The event is free, but please RSVP to attend this meet-up.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

For the oceans,
Amanda Gambill
Climate and Energy Campaign
Oceana www.oceana.org

Dr. Mercola: BP, toxic impacts on humans, dispersants, and more…..

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/16/next-major-toxic-hazard-that-can-ruin-you-and-your-childrens-health.aspx

The above link takes you to a video of Susan Shaw, internationally recognized marine toxicologist, author and explorer, who shows evidence that the toxic Gulf of Mexico oil slick is being kept off of beaches at devastating cost to the health of the deep sea.

Please sign the petition to stop the use of dispersants! Go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/25/stop-the-use-of-dispersants-in-the-gulf/
Thank you, DeeVon

**************************************
Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The BP oil leak has reportedly been plugged, but the devastation caused by the hundreds of millions of gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf, coupled with a reckless use of toxic dispersants to “clean it up,” is just beginning.

And the sad truth is, even highly trained toxicologists can only guess what the full extent of the damage will be. This is, by far, the worst oil spill in human history. The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled “only” 12 million gallons of oil — and even that ended up taking a much more complex environmental toll than toxicologists initially predicted.

There’s no doubt in my mind this disaster will take DECADES to clean up, if it’s at all possible, and the worst-case scenario is pointing to major devastation on all levels of marine life, from coral reefs and plankton to fish and air-breathing mammals.

Where Did the Massive Oil Slicks Go?
Since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, thousands of square miles in the Gulf were covered with immense patches of oil. Media images showing the extent of the destruction have been scarce — draconian measures have been implemented to limit media access and reporting on the disaster, and CNN recently reported on a new rule that prevents anyone, including reporters and photographers, from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms anywhere on the water or on beaches — but the oil was there, coating expansive stretches of ocean, nonetheless.

Now, fast-forward to early August and the New York Times reported that the oil patches are “largely gone,” and “Radar images suggest that the few remaining patches are quickly breaking down in the warm surface waters of the gulf.” They went on to report, “The slick appeared to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.”

Two days earlier, a government report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey similarly implied that the oil in the Gulf was quickly disappearing and that environmental effects were well under control.

Government Report Implies Oil is Mostly Gone!
For starters, the report estimated that only 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well, when at the height of the spill estimates revealed that 4.2 million gallons of oil were likely still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico daily.

Next the report goes on to explain that:
“It is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.
The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.”

The remaining “residual” oil, along with the oil that has been chemically and naturally dispersed are “currently being degraded naturally,” according to the government report.
With a glowing report like this one, it makes you wonder if the U.S. government is in collusion with BP. Already the report is dr

HOUSTON CHRONICLE: Raising bar for deepwater drilling By KEN SALAZAR

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7166809.html

Aug. 22, 2010, 8:41PM
For the past two decades, the deep waters of the world’s oceans have been the so-called “final frontier” for the oil and gas industry as they raced to drill deeper, faster and farther out for resources and profits.

Now, with 11 men killed and an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, it’s clear that some operators were taking too many gambles in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Those days of big risks are over.

In the four months since the Deepwater Horizon exploded, the Obama administration has launched the most aggressive, advanced and swift offshore drilling reforms ever implemented.

The goal is simple: to raise the bar on safety and environmental protections so that deepwater drilling can safely resume.

To achieve this objective, we must eliminate the gap between the technology that allows oil and gas companies to tap reserves beneath 5,000 feet of water and the laws, regulations and tools needed to ensure that energy companies are operating safely and responsibly on the outer continental shelf.

We are aggressively pursuing reform in four fundamental areas.

First, we are raising the bar on industry’s safety practices and equipment.

The Department of the Interior has implemented tough new requirements for inspecting and testing blowout preventers, casing and cementing wells, and drilling plans. The CEOs of drilling companies must now – for the first time ever – put their signature on the line to certify that their rigs comply with the law.

Second, we are requiring companies that want to drill to prove they are prepared to deal with catastrophic blowouts and oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon.

BP’s failed attempts to contain its blowout – from the “containment dome” to the “top hat” – exposed its lack of preparedness for a disaster. The previous administration exempted operators from addressing worst-case scenarios in their exploration plans, but we have closed that loophole. The oil and gas industry’s inadequate preparedness is also one of the reasons the current deepwater drilling pause is so important: We need to put effective strategies in place for containing blowouts and responding to major spills.

Third, we are continuing our campaign to put science back in its rightful place in decisions about offshore oil and gas development. In March – before the BP oil spill – I canceled the previous administration’s plans to hold four oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic Ocean because we need to develop more information about the risks and impacts of drilling in that sensitive landscape.

In the Gulf of Mexico, we must proceed with similar caution. We have launched a new environmental analysis of the Gulf that will help guide future development decisions and Interior’s agencies will be required to complete more robust environmental review of proposed deepwater drilling projects.

Finally, it is essential that we build a strong and independent agency with the resources, tools and authority it needs to hold offshore operators accountable to the law.

We are dividing the conflicting missions of the agency once known as the Minerals Management Service because the people who are leasing offshore areas for development should be separate from those responsible for policing offshore energy operations.

The former Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Bromwich, is spearheading these reforms and has already implemented a new internal investigations and review unit that will root out problems within the regulatory agency and target companies that aim to game the system.

In addition, under Bromwich, we are substantially increasing the number of inspectors for offshore oil and gas drilling rigs and platforms. For too long, the agency that regulates offshore drilling has been short on resources.

Together, the reforms we are implementing are strong, fair and risk-based. In shallow waters – where the risks are different than deep waters – drillers can continue drilling if they meet the new standards and play by the rules. Production throughout the Gulf of Mexico has also safely continued throughout the BP oil spill.

However, in the deep-water areas, where the Deepwater Horizon blowout occurred, it is necessary and appropriate to require operators to demonstrate improved safety, blowout containment and spill response practices before allowing drilling to continue.

To be sure, both the deep-water drilling moratorium and the reforms we are implementing have drawn fire from the same powerful interests who have, over the last two decades, systematically fought regulation and oversight of offshore drilling operations.

But make no mistake: Our country needs these reforms and we will deliver them. We will raise the bar for deep-water drilling. We will hold the industry accountable. And we will build the strongest and safest offshore energy development program in the world. Salazar is secretary of the Interior.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Associated Press: Spill bound BP, feds together

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38800962

What happened to government by the people? This is a perfect example of inordinate corporate influence–actually, control– of important government regulatory roles that should –of course–be independent of those regulated. DV

With crisis shifting from response to recovery, focus will be on who’s to blame

BP employees and members of the U.S. Coast Guard in the command center at the Houma Joint Information Center listen to BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles speak about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Houma, La., in June.\

By HARRY R. WEBER

* -
NEW ORLEANS – For months, the U.S. government talked with a boot-on-the-neck toughness about BP, with the president wondering aloud about whose butt to kick.

But privately, it worked hand-in-hand with the oil giant to cap the runaway Gulf well and chose to effectively be the company’s banker – allowing future drilling revenues to potentially be used as collateral for a victim compensation fund.

Now, with a new round of investigative hearings set to begin Monday on BP’s home turf and the disaster largely off the front pages, there’s worry BP PLC could get a slap on the wrist from its behind-the-scenes partner. That could trickle down to states hurt by the spill and hoping for large fines because they may share in the pie.

“I don’t think they’ve been as tough as they should have been from Day 1,” said Billy Nungesser, president of Lousiana’s hard-hit Plaquemines Parish. “We were at war. You don’t go to war and hope people respond.”

In the past few weeks, public messages from BP and the government have been almost in lockstep. The government even released a report – criticized by academic researchers and some lawmakers as too rosy – asserting that much of the oil released into the Gulf is gone, playing into BP’s message that its unprecedented response effort is working. A recent AP poll shows that BP’s image, which took a beating after the oil spill, is recovering.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Thursday that White House support for the oil report shows the administration’s “pre-occupation with the public relations of the oil spill has superseded the realities on the ground.”

That differs from the atmosphere early on, when BP was the recipient of some very tough talk from the government. A little more than a week after President Barack Obama’s on-air comment about “whose ass to kick” in early June, BP executives encouraged White House officials at a meeting in Washington to back off on the rhetoric. They reminded the government that a bankrupt company pays no bills, according to a person who was briefed on the details of the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

In mid-July, BP finally capped its runaway well and is now very close to sealing it from the bottom once and for all.

‘Trying to hide the football’
With the crisis shifting from response to recovery, the focus will be on who’s to blame and how much they should pay. The BP-government partnership raises questions about the government’s ability to be impartial in meting out punishment for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
Many of those investigating the spill are not independent.

“Whether the public accepts that remains to be seen,” said Wayne R. Andersen, a retired federal judge and the only nongovernment member of a key spill investigative panel.

The Deepwater Horizon joint investigation team that Andersen is on will hold its fourth set of hearings beginning Monday in Houston, where BP’s U.S. offices are located. The panel is charged with reaching conclusions about what happened.

Congress and the Justice Department also are investigating, and various government agencies will be determining how much BP and others should pay in fines for the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers and spilled 206 million gallons of oil.

The amount of spilled oil alone could mean a fine of up to $21 billion if BP were found to have committed gross negligence, and criminal charges could be in order if negligence is found. The figure is important to the Gulf because Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is pushing legislation that would require that at least 80 percent of the civil and criminal penalties charged to BP under the Clean Water Act be returned to the Gulf Coast for long-term economic and environmental recovery.

So if the government reaches a settlement with BP on fines that are significantly lower or, on the criminal side, lets them off easy, that could rub a lot of Americans the wrong way. By the same token, if the government comes down too hard on BP, that might hurt the government’s interests, because BP’s financial health and its ability to meet its spill obligations are tied together.

BP executives declined repeated requests for interviews for this story.

There are also other companies’ interests to consider: Transocean, the owner of the rig that exploded, and Anadarko Petroleum, a minority owner of the undersea well, will be looking to protect themselves by shifting blame to BP, while BP also will be looking to shift blame.
“They’re all trying to hide the football,” said Daniel Becnel, a Louisiana lawyer suing BP and others over the oil spill.

The ties that bind
The entire oil and gas industry will be watching closely to see if BP’s ace in the hole – its relationship with the federal government – pays off.

The ties that bind BP and the government together started forming soon after the rig explosion.
BP and U.S. Coast Guard employees sat side-by-side in a command center in Robert, La., coordinating the spill response and fielding calls together from media from around the world. That setup later moved to a high-rise office building in downtown New Orleans.

According to a person who has worked in the command center, the response team in New Orleans occupies two floors. Coast Guard and BP leaders each have a set of offices and work areas. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly known as the Minerals Management Service, also has its own office, the person said. At the height of the spill, more than 400 people were on the two floors. Now, about 200 folks sit in those offices on any given day.

Often, the people from the BP leadership team would go into the Coast Guard offices with issues and vice versa, the person said.

BP and the government also worked together to control media access.

The Coast Guard and BP coordinated access for The Associated Press aboard the Helix Q4000 vessel in early August on the day of the so-called static kill operation, in which mud and later cement was pumped into the runaway well from the top. Accompanying the AP reporter and photographer on a BP-chartered helicopter to the vessel were six BP employees and a Coast Guard liaison. A photographer working for the White House also was aboard.

Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government’s point man on the spill response, told the AP that the complexity of the response and technical know-how required made BP the natural partner.

“That may seem a little bit at odds and maybe not well understood by the American public or even some leaders, but it is in fact how we have been managing oil spills in this country for 20 years,” Allen said.

And, he said, the law dictated that the responsible party clean up the mess.

“You have to be able to tell them what you want, and they have to write a check,” Allen said. “It would be inadvisable to do that anywhere but sitting next to each other.”

‘Replace them with who?’

When asked if independent industry experts could have been brought in to work on the response instead of BP – knowing that the government would be investigating the oil giant – Allen quipped, “Replace them with who?”

Allen said the government doesn’t have the competence or capacity to deal with drilling a relief well and the type of technology it takes.

“Would you suggest I bring in a competitor?” Allen said. “One of the conundrums of this response is, and one of the things that I think is causing everybody some problems, is the federal government does not own the means of production to solve this problem at the wellhead.”
On the flip side, could independent investigators have been brought in to render judgment?

Andersen, the retired judge recently appointed to the joint Coast Guard-Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement investigative panel, said that when you are dealing with a highly technical and narrow area of expertise, there is going to be overlap of the knowledge of the regulators and those they are regulating.

“Naturally, that needs to be out on the table,” Andersen said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Pensacola News Journal: Rubio says offshore drilling not dead

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100817023

Oh great, just what we need; Rubio leading the charge for drilling in Florida waters; watch out for this guy–he’s dangerous. DV

KRIS WERNOWSKY * KWERNOWSKY@PNJ.COM * AUGUST 17, 2010

Senate hopeful Marco Rubio believes the option of offshore drilling isn’t a dead issue for Florida.

He said the issue has to be framed as one of energy independence and national security.

Rubio brought his stump speech to a group of 50 supporters at McGuire’s Irish Pub in Pensacola on Tuesday, touching on issues ranging from the oil spill and health care to religious freedom and immigration.

With the region still stinging from a ruined tourism season, with hotels still empty and a question mark over the safety of fish in the bountiful waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Rubio said a measured and safer approach to drilling will help the nation ween itself off foreign oil.

Rubio’s solution to the spoiled tourism season includes a business incubation program similar to one subsidized by the federal government after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

“Unfortunately, this has wiped out the tourism season, the hundred days a year where northwest Florida really benefits from visitors,” he said. “There’s no way to recover from that other than concentrate on creating initiatives here locally”

Judy DeCrescenzo, 59, of Pensacola asked Rubio to weigh in on a controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.

With Meek as the Democratic nominee, the poll shows Rubio, a Republican, leading a three-way race against Meek and Crist by a statistically significant margin — Rubio 38 percent, Crist 33 percent, Meek 18 percent and 11 percent undecided.

With Greene as the Democratic nominee, Crist remains in first place, but by a margin so narrow it’s a statistical tie — Crist 39 percent, Rubio 38 percent, Greene 12 percent and 11 percent undecided.

In the Democratic primary, Meek leads Greene by 40 percent to 26 percent, with 6 percent choosing other candidates and 28 percent still undecided.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Christian Science Monitor: Obama’s new offshore oil drilling rules: too many loopholes?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0817/Obama-s-new-offshore-oil-drilling-rules-too-many-loopholes

Richard is right; requiring an EA instead of an EIS is a major concession to quick permitting for more offshore oil, potentially without much needed environmental controls in place. DV

The White House’s new guidelines for offshore oil drilling in deep water were intended to make it tougher for oil companies to avoid detailed environmental reviews.

By Mark Clayton, Staff Writer / August 17, 2010

The Obama administration’s new guidelines for offshore oil drilling, which are intended to require much more detailed environmental reviews for deep-water drilling, have upset not only the oil industry, but environmentalists, too.

The recommendations unveiled by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the US Department of the Interior on Monday were touted as ratcheting back widespread uses of “categorical exclusions.”

That designation by the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) had exempted many deep-water drilling operations from detailed environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, environmental and other groups found that BP’s Macondo well that was gushing oil – as well as most other deep-water wells in the region – had been graced with a categorical exclusion.

“In light of the increasing levels of complexity and risk – and the consequent potential environmental impacts – associated with deep-water drilling, we are taking a fresh look at the NEPA process and the types of environmental reviews that should be required for offshore activity,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in a statement.

While Congress wrangles over just how to tighten environmental requirements for offshore drilling, the Obama Administration says categorical exclusions will now be used far more sparingly. Steps the CEQ called for in its review include:

* Reviewing the use of categorical exclusions for outer continental shelf, or OCS, oil and gas exploration and development “in light of the increasing levels of complexity and risk – and the consequent potential environmental impacts – associated with deep-water drilling.”

* Comprehensive NEPA review of individual deep-water exploration activities, including site-specific information “where appropriate,” a loophole that angers some environmentalists.

* Amending the OCS Lands Act to eliminate the current 30-day timeframe for approving exploration plan – and modify NEPA practices to reflect new environmental findings since the BP oil spill.

“The recommendations in this report are targeted to ensure robust environmental reviews for future oil and gas exploration and development,” Nancy Sutley, CEQ chair, said in a statement.

But limiting use of categorical exclusions could create costly delays and curb job growth, the American Petroleum Institute (API), an industry lobby group says.

“We’re concerned the change could add significantly to the department’s workload, stretching the timeline for approval of important energy development projects with no clear return in environmental protection,” Erik Milito, upstream director for API, said in a statement. “Environmental review of offshore operations under existing rules is extensive, and decisions on categorical exclusions, which are intended to avoid repetitive analysis, require review.”

Many environmentalists, however, were only marginally less irked about the recommendations than the oil industry – arguing that there were too many loopholes that would still allow categorical exclusions.

Under a directive signed Monday by Michael Bromwich, the new director of the MMS’s successor agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Enforcement and Regulation (BOEM) “shall narrow its use of categorical exclusions.”

In the very next paragraph, the requirement “not to use” such exclusions is spelled out for equipment typically used in deep-water drilling – including floating drill rigs. But the last sentence in the paragraph also appears to leave open the possibility of a return to relatively light – some argue superficial – environmental review after the current six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling expires.

“If and when the July 12 suspension is no longer in force, all plans submitted for approval that propose an activity that involves [deep-water drilling equipment] shall be subject to an environmental assessment.”

What that means, says Richard Charter, an offshore drilling specialist for the Defenders of Wildlife, is that a few months from now when the moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf is over, the standard for deep-water environmental review could be just an “Environmental Assessment,” or EA.

Under NEPA, the EA is a cursory document of a few pages that could easily devolve into a rubber-stamping exercise, he says. What’s needed, he argues, is an “Environmental Impact Statement” – a very detailed review – for each deep-water well proposal.

On the plus side, he notes, BOEM is planning to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement for the Gulf – a major evaluation that could do a lot of good, Charter says. Until then, however, the Bromwich memo paves the way for new activities in the Gulf to continue using categorical exclusions “if they are in shallow enough water and without certain risk factors,” he says.

“The Bromwich memo cuts both ways,” Mr. Charter says. “It does curb some excesses in the use of categorical exclusions.

“But this is also an interim step that will pave the way for Interior to declare that drilling can now proceed safely. We will just have to wait and see if that word ‘safely’ means anything or not,” he says.

The BOEM will soon begin a formal comprehensive review and evaluation of its use of categorical exclusions, the Interior Department reported. While that review is going on, those exclusions will be used much more sparingly, Bromwich said. After the review is complete, BOEM says it will unveil a new approach that incorporates CEQ recommendations.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Yahoo news: Gulf oil spill: Giant underwater plume challenges optimism plus Live Science: Gulf Plume Resists Oil-Eating Microbes

http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/gulf-oil-spill-giant-underwater-plume.html

19 Aug 10;

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Experts said Thursday they have mapped a 35-kilometer (22 mile) long underwater plume of oil that spewed from BP’s ruptured Gulf of Mexico well, seeming to challenge US government assertions that most of the oil has disappeared.

The oily underwater cloud measured two kilometers wide and 200 meters (650 feet) thick and was drifting through the Gulf at a depth of at least 900 meters, according to the paper by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) marine biologists, published in the journal Science.

The plume was seen as not dissipating as rapidly as experts had expected, despite widespread use of dispersants which the government has insisted have been vital to the breakdown of vast amounts of oil.

The observations were made in late June, several weeks before the ruptured wellhead was capped, and about two months after an explosion sank the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig, triggering the largest ever maritime oil spill.

Challenging US government estimates based on natural processes rapidly dissipating the toxic crude, the authors said deep-sea microbes were degrading the plume only slowly and predicted the oil would endure for some time.

“We’ve shown conclusively not only that a plume exists, but also defined its origin and near-field structure,” said lead author Richard Camilli.

The oil already “is persisting for longer periods than we would have expected,” he added.

“Many people speculated that the sub-surface oil droplets were being easily downgraded. Well, we didn’t find that. We found that it was still there.”

US and BP officials earlier this month proclaimed that about three-quarters of the oil which gushed into the Gulf had been cleaned up or dispersed through natural processes.

Around 4.9 million barrels of oil are believed to have spewed from the fractured wellhead before it was capped last month. US officials say that of that amount, 800,000 barrels were contained and funneled up to ships on the surface.

The leak not only threatened livelihoods of fishermen and tourism businesses along the US Gulf coast, but also stoked fears of long-term ecological damage.

On August 4, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the “vast majority” of oil had been evaporated, removed by cleanup teams or was dispersing naturally.

The remaining 26 percent — or about 1.3 million barrels of oil — was classified as “residual oil” and “is either on or just below the surface as residue and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments,” the report said.

The Woods Hole team used a robotic submarine equipped with an underwater mass spectrometer to detect and analyze the plume, making repeated horizontal sweeps to ascertain its size and chemical composition.

They followed the “neutrally buoyant” cloud as it migrated slowly, at 0.27 kilometers per hour, southwest of the leaking well.

The plume was then tracked for a distance of about 35 kilometers before the approach of Hurricane Alex forced the scientists to turn back.

The spectrometer found petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations of more than 50 micrograms per liter, a level that meant the samples had no smell or oil and were clear. The impacts on biodiversity remain uncertain, though.

“The plume was not a river of Hershey’s Syrup,” said Christopher Reddy, a marine biochemist. “But that’s not to say it isn’t harmful for the environment.”

The damaged well was capped on July 15. Earlier this month BP engineers plugged the site with heavy drilling fluid and then sealed it with cement.

The company aims to permanently seal the well in the second week of September, a US official said on Thursday.

Major study charts long-lasting oil plume in Gulf
Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Yahoo News 20 Aug 10;

WASHINGTON – A 22-mile-long invisible mist of oil is meandering far below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, where it will probably loiter for months or more, scientists reported Thursday in the first conclusive evidence of an underwater plume from the BP spill.

The most worrisome part is the slow pace at which the oil is breaking down in the cold, 40-degree water, making it a long-lasting but unseen threat to vulnerable marine life, experts said.

Earlier this month, top federal officials declared the oil in the spill was mostly “gone,” and it is gone in the sense you can’t see it. But the chemical ingredients of the oil persist more than a half-mile beneath the surface, researchers found.

And the oil is degrading at one-tenth the pace at which it breaks down at the surface. That means “the plumes could stick around for quite a while,” said study co-author Ben Van Mooy of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, which led the research published online in the journal Science.

Monty Graham, a scientist at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama who was not involved in the study, said: “We absolutely should be concerned that this material is drifting around for who knows how long. They say months in the (research) paper, but more likely we’ll be able to track this stuff for years.”

Late Thursday, federal officials acknowledged the deepwater oil was not degrading as fast as they initially thought, but still was breaking down “relatively rapidly.” Jane Lubchenco, chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said agency scientists and others were “working furiously” to come up with actual rates of biodegradation.

She noted a bright spot from the slow breakdown of the oil: Faster would mean a big influx of oil-eating microbes. Though they are useful, they also use up oxygen, creating “dead zones” that already plague the Gulf in the summer. Dead zones are not forming because of the oil plume, Lubchenco said.

The underwater oil was measured close to BP’s blown-out well, which is about 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. The plume started three miles from the well and extended more than 20 miles to the southwest. The oil droplets are odorless and too small to be seen by the human eye. If you swam through the plume, you wouldn’t notice it.

“The water samples when we were right in the plume look like spring water,” study chief author Richard Camilli said. “You certainly didn’t see any oil droplets and you certainly didn’t smell it.”

The scientists used complex instruments – including a special underwater mass spectrometer – to detect the chemical signature of the oil that spewed from the BP well after it ruptured April 20. The equipment was carried into the deep by submersible devices.

With more than 57,000 of these measurements, the scientists mapped a huge plume in late June when the well was still leaking. The components of oil were detected in a flow that measured more than a mile wide and more than 650 feet from top to bottom.

Federal officials said there are signs that the plume has started to break into smaller ones since the Woods Hole research cruise ended. But scientists said that wouldn’t lessen the overall harm from the oil.

The oil is at depths of 3,000 to 4,000 feet, far below the environment of the most popular Gulf fish like red snapper, tuna and mackerel. But it is not harmless. These depths are where small fish and crustaceans live. And one of the biggest migrations on Earth involves small fish that go from deep water to more shallow areas, taking nutrients from the ocean depths up to the large fish and mammals.

Those smaller creatures could be harmed by going through the oil, said Larry McKinney, director of Texas A&M University’s Gulf of Mexico research center in Corpus Christi.

Some aspects of that region are so little known that “we might lose species that we don’t know now exist,” said Graham of the Dauphin Island lab.

“This is a highly sensitive ecosystem,” agreed Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the federal agency NOAA. “The animals down at 3,300 to 3,400 feet grow slowly.” The oil not only has toxic components but could cause genetic problems even at low concentrations, he said.

Lubchenco said NOAA is “very concerned about the impact” of the oil below the surface and federal officials last week started more aggressive monitoring of it.

For much of the summer, the mere existence of underwater plumes of oil was the subject of a debate that at times pitted outside scientists against federal officials who downplayed the idea of plumes of trapped oil. Now federal officials say as much as 42 million gallons of oil may be lurking below the surface in amounts that are much smaller than the width of a human hair.

While federal officials prefer to describe the lurking oil as “an ephemeral cloud,” the Woods Hole scientists use the word “plume” repeatedly.

The study conclusively shows that a plume exists, that it came from the BP well and that it probably never got close to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, Camilli said. It is probably even larger than 22 miles long, but scientists had to stop measuring because of Hurricane Alex.

Earlier this week a University of South Florida team reported oil in amounts that were toxic to critical plant plankton deep underwater, but the crude was not necessarily in plumes. Those findings have not been reviewed by other scientists or published.

The plume is probably still around, but moving west-southwest of the BP well site at about 4 miles a day, Camilli said.

While praising the study that ended on June 28, Murawski said more recent observations show that the cloud of oil has “broken apart into a bunch of very small features, some them much farther away.” Texas A&M’s McKinney said marine life can suffer harm whether it is several smaller plumes or one giant one.

NOAA redirected much of its sampling for underwater oil after consulting with Woods Hole researchers. The federal agency is now using the techniques that the team pioneered with a robotic sub and an underwater mass spectrometer, Murawski said.

Previous attempts to define the plume were “like watching the Super Bowl on a 12-inch black-and-white TV and we try to bring to the table a 36-inch HD TV,” said Woods Hole scientist Chris Reddy. The paper, fast-tracked for the world of peer-reviewed science, was written on a boat while still in the Gulf, he said.

Reddy said he could not yet explain why the underwater plume formed at that depth. But other experts point to three factors: cold water, the way the oil spewed from the broken well, and the use of massive amounts of dispersants to break up the oil before it gets to the surface.

The decision to use 1.8 million gallons of dispersants amounted to an environmental trade-off – it meant less oil tainting the surface, where there is noticeable and productive life, but the risk of longer-term problems down below.

Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the government’s point man on the Gulf oil spill, said it was a choice between two difficult options – with the discussions going on in front of the president. In the end, officials decided to “accept the implication of the hydrocarbons in the water column rather than Barataria Bay or the Chandeleur Islands” in Louisiana.

Given the slow rate at which the oil is degrading in the cold water, Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia, and others say it is too early to even think about closing the books on the spill: “The full environmental impacts of the spill will thus not be felt for some time.”

Gulf Plume Resists Oil-Eating Microbes
Jeremy Hsu livescience.com Yahoo News 20 Aug 10;

A massive oil plume from the Deepwater Horizon blowout may survive for longer than expected against the petroleum-eating microbes in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a new study.

Researchers took a “forensic snapshot” in late June that showed higher-than-expected oxygen levels in the plume from the oil well that began gushing in April. If microbes had swarmed into the area, their feeding frenzy should have reduced oxygen levels.

But the scientists said they have only just begun to analyze all the hydrocarbon molecules found in the oil plume, which typically serve as food for the microbes. They also cautioned that the study represented just one moment in time and space, and does not show what has happened to the plume since June.

“This was two weeks in June and a relatively small area in a very large body of water,” said Christopher Reddy, a marine geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) in Massachusetts, during a press conference on Thursday.

A monster of a plume

A research ship and its companion underwater robot tracked the oil plume out to at least 22 miles (35 kilometers) from the leaking oil well. Scientists aboard spent 10 days taking samples before the threat of Hurricane Alex forced them to break off.

“Unfortunately we were not able to track this out beyond 35 kilometers, although the data suggested that the plume extended for much farther than we tracked it,” said Richard Camilli, a chief WHOI scientist of applied ocean physics and engineering, and lead author on the study paper detailed in the Aug. 19 issue of the journal Science.

At the time, the plume stretched 1.2 miles (2 km) in width and reached 650 feet (198 meters) deep. The researchers found the plume was located more than 3,000 feet (914 m) below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, holding stable at a depth of 1,100 (335 m) feet down.

Mass spectrometers aboard the robotic sub that were lowered from the ship allowed the team to begin fingerprinting the hydrocarbon molecules in the oil.

But the overall chemical analysis remains incomplete, and so the total amount of oil in the plume remains unknown. Questions about the possible hazards of the oil plume for marine life also remain up in the air.

“Without the complete picture of all the components of hydrocarbons, we can’t say much about its bioactivity or toxicity,” Camilli said.

The microbe buffet table

When the Deepwater Horizon rig first sank and unleashed an oil spill into the Gulf, experts had counted upon microbes to help break down the oil plumes. But the latest findings suggest that the microbes may feed slower than expected.

The plume also retained its massive size more than three months after the oil began gushing from the well.

Still, the results did not surprise David Valentine, a marine geochemist at the University of California, Santa Barbara who did not take part in the new study. He had participated in a separate expedition that found higher levels of microbial activity closer to the oil well.

Valentine pointed out that the new study has not yet analyzed many of the hydrocarbons in the oil plume. He added that the microbes might have quickly swarmed the leaking oil well area at first, but then slowed down in activity during the following months.

Furthermore, microbes probably break down certain hydrocarbons faster than others, Valentine said.

“I think we’ll find it’s a buffet [of hydrocarbons] down there,” Valentine told LiveScience. “The filet mignon may go quickly, but the taco bar will stay around for a while.”

The study’s researchers also gave their own warnings about drawing any premature conclusions.

“Microbes are a lot like teenagers,” Reddy said. “They work on their own time, their own scale, they do what they want when they want, and so it is often difficult to make predictions about microbe degradation, and in fact it may vary substantially in the Gulf in any one time.”

Lost and not yet found

The WHOI team hopes to also get a sense of what hydrocarbons have evaporated, and what has remained in the oil plume.

But first, researchers must relocate the oil plume again. That task of finding the missing plume has become harder since BP managed to temporarily cap the leaking oil well on the bottom of the Gulf.

“The faucet has been shut off,” Reddy acknowledged. “We don’t know where these hydrocarbons are, we saw them in June.”

The capping of the oil well means that researchers can no longer track the oil plume from its source, Valentine explained. “It’s a needle in a haystack problem,” Valentine said. “It’s a very large area, and it’s not a massive feature yet. But it will expand. Somebody will find it.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NYTimes: Gulf Oil Plume Is Not Breaking Down Fast, Research Says, see map of location

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/science/earth/20plume.html?_r=1&hp

By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

New research confirms the existence of a huge plume of dispersed oil deep in the Gulf of Mexico and suggests that it has not broken down rapidly, raising the possibility that it might pose a threat to wildlife for months or even years.

The study, the most ambitious scientific paper to emerge so far from the Deepwater Horizon spill, casts some doubt on recent statements by the federal government that oil in the gulf appears to be dissipating at a brisk clip. However, the lead scientist in the research, Richard Camilli, cautioned that the samples were taken in June and circumstances could have changed in the last two months.

The paper, which is to appear in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, http://www.sciencemag.org/ , adds to a welter of recent, and to some extent conflicting, scientific claims about the status of the gulf. While scientists generally agree that the risk of additional harm at the surface and near the shore has diminished since the well was capped a month ago, a sharp debate has arisen about the continuing risk from oil in the deep waters.

So far, scientific information about the gulf has emerged largely from government reports and statements issued by scientists. Many additional research papers are in the works, and it could be months before a clear scientific picture emerges.

The slow breakdown of deep oil that Dr. Camilli’s group found had a silver lining: it meant that the bacteria trying to eat the oil did not appear to have consumed an excessive amount of oxygen in the vicinity of the spill, alleviating concerns that the oxygen might have declined so much that it threatened sea life. On this point, Dr. Camilli’s research backs statements that the government has been making for weeks.

Dr. Camilli, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Mass., said the plume, at the time he studied it, was dissipating so slowly that it could still be in the gulf many months from now. Assuming that the physics of the plume are still similar to what his team saw in June, “it’s going to persist for quite a while before it finally dissipates or dilutes away,” he said.

Concentrations of hydrocarbons in the plume were generally low and declined gradually as the plume traveled through the gulf, although Dr. Camilli’s team has not yet completed tests on how toxic the chemicals might be to sea life.

In a report on Aug. 4, a team of government and independent scientists organized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that 74 percent of the oil from the leak had been captured directly from the wellhead; skimmed, burned, dispersed chemically or by natural processes; evaporated from the ocean surface; or dissolved into the water in microscopic droplets.

The report found that the remaining 26 percent of the oil had mostly washed ashore or collected there, was buried in sand and sediment, or was still on or below the surface as sheen or tar balls.

While the government report expressed concern about the continuing impact of the spill, it was widely viewed as evidence that the risk of additional harm in the gulf was declining.

This week, scientists at the University of Georgia, who in May were among the first to report the existence of the large plume studied by Dr. Camilli’s team, sharply challenged

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/tussle-over-gulf-oil-tally-drags-on/

the government’s assessment. They contended that the government had overestimated rates of evaporation and breakdown of the oil.

“The idea that 75 percent of the oil is gone and is of no further concern to the environment is just incorrect,” said Samantha Joye, a professor of marine sciences at the University of Georgia. She has studied the spill extensively but has not yet published her results.

Responding to the University of Georgia criticism, Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, said the government stood by its calculations. “Some of those numbers we can measure directly,” she said. “The others are the best estimates that are out there.”

Dr. Lubchenco has noted repeatedly that some of the remaining oil existed in the form of undersea plumes and cautioned that this subsurface oil could pose a threat to marine life.

In another report http://usfweb3.usf.edu/absoluteNM/templates/?a=2604&z=120

( also see )

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/oil-plumes-may-be-more-toxic-than-thought-scientists-warn/

this week, researchers from the University of South Florida said they had found oil droplets scattered in sediment along the gulf floor and in the water column, where they could pose a threat to some of the gulf’s most important fisheries.

The dispersed oil appeared to be having a toxic effect on bacteria and on phytoplankton, a group of micro-organisms that serves as a vital food for fish and other marine life, the scientists said, although they cautioned that further testing was needed.

Dr. Camilli’s paper tends to support the view that considerable oil may be lingering below the surface of the gulf. He said he was not especially surprised by the slow rate of breakdown, considering that the deep waters of the gulf are cold, about 40 degrees Fahrenheit in the vicinity of the plume.

“In colder environments, microbes operate more slowly,” Dr. Camilli said. “That’s why we have refrigerators.”

For weeks, BP, the company that owned the out-of-control well, disputed claims from scientists that a huge plume of dispersed oil droplets had formed in the gulf, with its chief executive at the time, Tony Hayward, declaring at one point, “There aren’t any plumes.” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/tony_hayward/index.html?inline=nyt-per

NOAA, while initially skeptical, ultimately confirmed the existence of such plumes in two reports. The new paper appears to dispel any lingering doubt, providing detailed evidence that one major plume and at least one minor plume existed and that they contained large quantities of hydrocarbons, albeit dispersed into tiny droplets.

Dr. Camilli’s team measured the main plume at roughly 3,600 feet below the surface; it extended for more than 20 miles southwest of the well. It was more than a mile wide in places and 600 feet thick, traveling at about four miles a day.

At the time his team studied it in June, the plume appeared to have narrowed from measurements reported early in the spill by a team that included Dr. Joye and Vernon Asper, a marine scientist from the University of Southern Mississippi, but Dr. Camilli’s results otherwise matched their report.

The slow breakdown of the plume, if verified by additional research, suggests that scientists may find themselves tracking the toxic compounds from BP’s well and trying to discern their impact on sea life for a long time.

“I expect the hydrocarbon imprint of the BP discharge will be detectable in the marine environment for the rest of my life,” Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, told Congress in prepared testimony on Thursday. “The oil is not gone and is not going away anytime soon.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

LA Times: Gulf oil spill: Most of the oil remains

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/08/noaa-official-concedes-majority-of-gulf-oil-still-there.html

– Kim Murphy in New Orleans
August 19, 2010 | 4:52 pm

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/05/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100805

a controversial “oil spill budget”

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf

Aug. 2 estimating that a large part of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon spill was gone. But in a hearing

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2106:heairng-on-the-bp-oil-spill-accounting-for-the-spilled-oil-and-ensuring-the-safety-of-seafood-from-the-gulfq&catid=130:subcommittee-on-energy-and-the-environment&Itemid=71

on Capitol Hill, a NOAA official conceded that three-fourths of the pollutants from the 4.1 million barrels spewed into the gulf are still lingering in the environment.

Bill Lehr, senior scientist with NOAA’s Office of Restoration and Response, said booming and burning probably cleaned up only about 10% of the spilled oil. Much of the oil has evaporated or dispersed, but remains a source of hydrocarbons in the ecosystem, he said.

“This is a continuing operation,” Lehr emphasized. “The spill is far from over. We’re beginning a new phase, and NOAA and all the other agencies will be involved in this.”

“We have seen some premature celebration,” said Rep. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.), who convened the House Energy and Environment subcommittee hearing. “What we have learned today is that the oil is not gone. The oil remaining in the Gulf waters or washed up on the shore is equivalent to 10 Exxon Valdez spills, and could be much more.”

The report released recently by NOAA and the Department of Interior — in which the agencies said the “vast majority” of the oil had been either recovered, dispersed or evaporated — rendered more optimistic figures because it counted as recovered the 800,000 barrels of oil captured directly by ships, Lehr conceded under questioning by Markey.

He said agency scientists also have not tallied the significant quantities of methane gas and heavy metals released into the gulf as a result of the spill.

If only 10% of the spilled oil was actually recovered, that is equivalent to the 10% to 15% recoveries scientists estimated were possible from a major spill at the time of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, Markey noted. “So it seems to me that BP comes in only at the low end of what was possible 20 years ago…. I think it’s important that even using a 21-year-old grading system, that BP has done a very poor job in cleaning up the gulf.”

Lisa Suatoni, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, added in her testimony: “We understand that the government wants to turn the corner and wants to signal that the gulf is on its way to recovery. However, the facts simply do not bear that out. There is still a huge amount of oil in the environment.”

Scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration said they are confident that seafood coming from the newly opened areas of the gulf is safe to eat. Testing for hydrocarbons and residuals from the 1.8 million gallons of chemical dispersants used to break up the oil showed no dangerous contaminants, they said.

In tests of 500 shrimp and crabs for exposure to the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are one of the most dangerous elements in crude oil, all showed levels “below levels of concern” by a factor of 500 to 1,000 “essentially similar to prior to the oil spill,” said Donald Kraemer, acting deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

In testing of 3,000 water samples, only two showed signs of dispersant. Moreover, all dispersants used when tested directly showed up as non-toxic or slightly toxic, and in combination with crude oil, no more toxic than the oil itself, which is considered moderately toxic, said Paul Anastas, an assistant EPA administrator.

– Kim Murphy in New Orleans

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Washingtonpost.com/Huffpost Reporting: NOAA Claims Scientists Reviewed Controversial Report; The Scientists Say Otherwise

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/20/noaa-claims-scientists-re_n_689428.html

The last sentence says it all: “The consistent theme,” MacDonald said, “seems to be to minimize the impact of the oil — and to act as a bottleneck for information.” This has been another in a series of government cover-ups and complicity with Big Oil. We expected better of Lubchenko and Obama. DV
First Posted: 08-20-10 04:23 PM | Updated: 08-20-10 10:14 PM

In responding to the growing furor over the public release of a scientifically dubious and overly rosy federal report about the fate of the oil that BP spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA director Jane Lubchenco has repeatedly fallen back on one particular line of defense — that independent scientists had given it their stamp of approval.

Back at the report’s unveiling on August 4, Lubchenco spoke of a “peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists.” On Thursday afternoon, she told reporters on a conference call: “The report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists.” The scientists, she said, were listed at the end of the report.

But all the scientists on that list contacted by the Huffington Post for comment this week said the exact same thing: That although they provided some input to NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), they in no way reviewed the report, and could not vouch for it.

The skimpy, four-page report dominated an entire news cycle earlier this month, with contented administration officials claiming it meant that three fourths of the oil released from BP’s well was essentially gone — evaporated, dispersed, burned, etc. But independent scientists are increasingly challenging the report’s findings and its interpretation — and they are expressing outrage that the administration released no actual data or algorithms to support its claims.

HuffPost reached seven of the 11 scientists listed on the report. One declined to comment at all, six others had things to say.

In addition to disputing Lubchenco’s characterization of their role, several of them actually took issue with the report itself.

In particular, they refuted the notion, as put forth by Lubchenco and other Obama administration officials, that the report was either scientifically precise or an authoritative account of where the oil went.

“What we were trying to do was give the Incident Command something that they could at least start with,” said Ed Overton, an emeritus professor of environmental science at Louisiana State University. “But these are estimates. There’s a difference between data and estimates.”

Overton said NOAA asked him: “How much did I think would evaporate?” He responded with some ideas, but noted: “There’s a jillion parameters which are not very amenable to modeling.”

He said he didn’t know what NOAA did with his input. “I pretty much did my estimates and let that go,” he said.

And Overton bridled at the way the report was presented — with very precise percentages attributed to different categories. For instance, the report declared that 24 percent of the oil had been dispersed.

“I didn’t like the way they say 24 percent. We don’t know that,” Overton said. “They could have said a little bit more than a quarter, a little bit less than a quarter. But not 24 percent; that’s impossible.”

Michel Boufadel is on the list, but told HuffPost he did not review the report or its calculations. And the Temple University environmental engineer also said its specificity was inappropriate.

“When you look at that dispersed amount, and it says 8 percent chemically dispersed and 16 percent naturally dispersed, there’s a high degree of uncertainty here,” he said. “Naturally dispersed could be 6 or it could be 26.”

Ron Goodman, a 30-year veteran of Exxon’s Canadian affiliate who now runs his own consulting company, was incorrectly listed on the report with an academic affiliation: “U. of Calgary.” He is only an adjunct there. He said he responded to a series of questions from NOAA — “and that was it.”

And once the report came out, he said, “I was concerned that the amount dispersed was very low. I think it was higher by maybe a factor of two or three.”

In another example of how people are reading too much into the report, there has been some discussion suggesting that its estimate that 8 percent of the oil was chemically dispersed provides a new data point regarding how well those controversial chemicals worked. Goodman, however, said he believes the government scientists didn’t base their conclusion on evidence, but on faith.

“They took the amount of dispersant that was applied, and multiplied it by 20 which is the manufacturer’s suggested amount,” he said.

Merv Fingas, a former chief researcher for Canada’s environmental protection agency, said he thought the report was purely operational in nature. “The purpose of this was for the responders, and to tell them what to do — as opposed to saying ‘golly, the oil’s all gone.’ That was never the impression. That was very badly misinterpreted.”

Fingas said the scientists stressed how broad the ranges should be for the estimates. “On the pie chart, if you say 15 percent, it could maybe be 30, it could maybe be 5.”

Told how much certainty administration officials expressed in the estimates — “we have high degree of confidence in them,” is how Lubchenco put it — Fingas was blunt.

“That’s what happens when stuff goes from scientists to politicians,” he said. “It was exactly the opposite with the scientists. We had a lot of uncertainty.”

Juan Lasheras, an engineering professor at University of California, San Diego, on the list explained: “My involvement with the estimation of the oil spill budget has been minimal. I simply assisted Bill Lehr (NOAA) in a minor way with the estimation of the size of the oil droplets generated by the rising plume. I have not been involved in any of the other calculations or in the discussion and the writing of the report.”

Jim Payne, a private environmental consultant on the list, declined to comment beyond saying: “I really don’t know that much about how that was calculated.”

Also worth noting: Four of the “independent scientists” listed on the report work for the oil industry, have until recently, and/or work for consulting companies that do business with the oil industry.

What happened here? Why did ballpark estimates clearly created to guide emergency responders suddenly get cast as a conclusive scientific facts? (See my story from a few hours ago, Questions Mount About White House’s Overly Rosy Report On Oil Spill.)

Why did administration officials mislead the public about those findings — and then claim that independent scientists had reviewed them, when the evidence suggests that they did not?

NOAA public affairs officials did not respond to requests for comment before my deadline.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who was not one of the scientists on NOAA’s list, sees this latest incident as part of an ongoing problem.

Lubchenco had previously been a key figure in the patently low-ball estimates for the oil flow, and fervently resisted acknowledging the existence of underwater oil plumes, he said.

“I’ve worked with NOAA essentially all my career and I have many good friends there, and people I respect in the agency, scientists who are really solid,” MacDonald said.

“Throughout this process, it’s been troubling to me to see the efforts of people like that passed through a filter where the objective seems to be much more political and public relations than making comments to inform the public.

“The consistent theme,” MacDonald said, “seems to be to minimize the impact of the oil — and to act as a bottleneck for information.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

LA Times: Well’s blowout preventer to be replaced before ‘bottom kill’

August 21, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100820,0,1300452.story

Well’s blowout preventer to be replaced before ‘bottom kill’
BP and U.S. officials decide to move ahead with caution to prepare for complications.
By Richard Fausset and Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
August 20, 2010
Reporting from Atlanta and New Orleans

BP and government officials said Thursday that they planned to remove the damaged existing blowout preventer on top of the company’s troubled oil well and replace it with a new, stronger one a move they said would allow them to safely carry out the final “kill” of the well, but would delay the ultimate fix until after Labor Day.

Earlier in the crisis, BP had estimated that it would be able to complete the final step to plug the well, called the “bottom kill,” in mid-August. But because the well has not been spewing oil since July 15 when crews affixed a giant cap on the blowout preventer federal and company experts have decided to move slowly and carefully, preparing thoroughly for possible complications.

“We’re taking a little more time than we would have otherwise to make sure we’ve got everyone on board with what we’re doing in a very systematic approach,” said BP Senior Vice President Kent Wells.

In a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took fire on a controversial oil spill “budget” released Aug. 2 that estimated that a large part of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon spill was gone.

In fact, perhaps three-fourths of the pollutants from the 4.1 million barrels spewed into the gulf are still lingering in the environment, Bill Lehr, senior scientist with NOAA’s Office of Restoration and Response, conceded under questioning.

“This is a continuing operation,” Lehr emphasized. “The spill is far from over. We’re beginning a new phase, and NOAA and all the other agencies will be involved in this.”

Lehr said booming and burning probably only managed to clean up about 10% of the spilled oil. Much of the oil has evaporated or dispersed, but remains a source of hydrocarbons in the ecosystem, he said. An unknown amount washed up on beaches and is no longer polluting the gulf, he added.

The Aug. 2 report rendered more optimistic figures because it included the 800,000 barrels of oil captured directly by ships, Lehr said under questioning by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass).

Agency scientists also have not tallied the significant quantities of methane gas and heavy metals released into the gulf as a result of the spill, Lehr said.

“We have seen some premature celebration,” said Markey, who convened the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing. “What we have learned today is that the oil is not gone. The oil remaining in the gulf waters or washed up on the shore is equivalent to 10 Exxon Valdez spills, and could be much more.”

Also Thursday, a group of ocean researchers announced they had found conclusive evidence of a 22-mile-long oil plume, directly attributable to the BP blowout, deep below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

The 1.2-mile wide, 650-foot high plume appears to be breaking down slowly and could linger in the Gulf “for some time,” the researchers reported.

The findings by scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, to be published Friday in the journal Science, represent the most rigorous study to date of the deepwater remnants of the BP spill.

The scientific studies and oil spill assessments come as engineers and the federal response team focus on the bottom kill, which involves drilling a relief well into the original well deep under the seafloor and injecting it with mud and concrete. A similar injection through the top of the well earlier this month appears to have successfully sealed off the inside of the well pipes.

But the plans for the bottom kill have been complicated by some good news arising from the first injection of concrete: Officials believe that the injection may have not just plugged up the well’s pipes, but also created a seal outside of them, at the base of the annulus, which is the space between the pipes and well bore.

Officials fear that with the bottom sealed off, the injection of mud from the bottom kill could cause a pressure spike inside the annulus that could burst seals at the top of the well, or even rupture the new base seal.

Experts decided to remove the old blowout preventer and replace it with a better one that can handle any pressure jolts. BP and government officials said they were confident that the well would be secure during the swap.

Thad Allen, the national spill response chief, was reluctant to give a precise timeline for the events leading up to the bottom kill, but he said that if all went well, the well could be intercepted the week after Labor Day, which is Sept. 6.

“We’re very close to putting this well away,” he said. “I think none of us wants to make a mistake at this point. And I have no problem, as national incident commander, with an overabundance of caution.”

A blowout preventer is supposed to shut down a well in the event of the kind of high-pressure geyser of oil and gas that shot through BP’s well on April 20, setting off explosions and fires that killed 11 workers.

BP’s damaged device will be placed in government custody and will likely be central to the U.S Coast Guard’s investigation into the cause of the disaster. The Department of Justice has also launched a criminal investigation.

The federal probes and a tangled web of litigation are apparently causing friction among the major companies involved. On Thursday, drilling company Transocean, which owned the stricken rig, released a seven-page letter accusing BP of withholding evidence necessary to fully investigate the blowout.

The letter, which was also sent to the U.S. Coast Guard and members of Congress, said BP had been asked seven times to turn over technical documents that might shed light on what caused the explosion. According to Transocean, BP has not provided any information since June 21.

BP said the letter was full of “misguided and misleading assertions, including the assertion that BP is ‘withholding evidence’ … Our commitment to cooperate with these investigations has been and remains unequivocal and steadfast.”

richard.fausset@latimes.com

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Fausset reported from Atlanta and Murphy reported from New Orleans.

Times staff writer Julie Cart in Los Angeles and Jim Tankersley in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

National Environmental Policy Act: Council on Environmental Quality Report on Oil & Gas Exploration & Development now available

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) conducted a review of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) policies, practices, and procedures for the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) decisions for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and development.

This review of MMS NEPA policies, practices and procedures was conducted as a result of the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon well and drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The review ascertained how MMS applied NEPA in its management of OCS oil and gas exploration and development and makes recommendations for future Department of the Interior and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (the successor agency to MMS) NEPA for decisions involving OCS oil and gas exploration and development. The scope of the review encompasses NEPA for all decisions from leasing decisions to drilling and production.

The review was issued in a report by the Chair of CEQ on August 16, 2010 and can be viewed here. The CEQ report has been released and is available on-line at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/current_developments/mmsnepa.html and a copy is attached to this e-mail.

Special thanks to: Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for NEPA Oversight, Council on Environmental Quality, 202-395-0827, HGreczmiel@ceq.eop.gov

Truth Out: Uncovering the Lies That Are Sinking the Oil

August 16, 2010

http://www.truth-out.org/uncovering-lies-that-are-sinking-oil62345

Monday 16 August 2010
by: Dahr Jamail and Erika Blumenfeld, t r u t h o u t | Report

The rampant use of toxic dispersants, out-of-state private contractors being brought in to spray them and US Coast Guard complicity are common stories now in the four states most affected by BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

Commercial and charter fishermen, residents and members of BP’s Vessels Of Opportunity (VOO) program in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have spoken with Truthout about their witnessing all of these incidents.

Toxic Dispersants Found on Recently Opened Mississippi Shrimping and Oyster Grounds

On Monday, August 9, the Director of the State of Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR), Bill Walker, despite ongoing reports of tar balls, oil and dispersants being found in Mississippi waters, declared, “there should be no new threats” and issued an order for all local coast governments to halt ongoing oil disaster work being funded by BP money that was granted to the state.

BP had allocated $25 million to Mississippi for local government disaster work. As of August 9, Walker estimated that only about $500,000 worth of invoices for oil response work had been submitted to the state. Nobody knows what the rest of the money will be used for.

Recent days in Mississippi waters found fishermen and scientists
finding oil in Garden Pond

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/08/oil_penetrates_pristine_missis.html

on Horn Island, massive fish kills near Cat Island, “black water” in Mississippi Sound and submerged oil in Pass Christian.

Mississippi residents and fishermen Truthout spoke with believe Walker’s move was from an order given by Gov. Haley Barbour, who has been heavily criticized over the years for his lobbying on behalf of the Tobacco and Oil industries.

Two days after Walker’s announcement and in response to claims from state and federal officials that Gulf Coast waters are safe and clean, fishermen took their own samples from the waters off of Pass Christian in Mississippi.

The samples were taken in water that is now open for shrimping, as well as from waters directly over Mississippi’s oyster bed, that will likely open in September for fishing.

Commercial fisherman James “Catfish” Miller, took fishermen Danny Ross Jr. and Mark Stewart, along with scientist Dr. Ed Cake of Gulf Environmental Associates and others out and they found the fishing grounds to be contaminated with oil and dispersants.

http://www.bridgethegulfproject.org/blog/6

Their method was simple – they tied an absorbent rag to a weighted hook, dropped it overboard for a short duration of time, then pulled it up to find the results. The rags were covered in a brown, oily substance that the fishermen identified as a mix of BP’s crude oil and toxic dispersants.

Shortly thereafter, Catfish Miller took the samples to a community meeting in nearby D’Iberville to show fishermen and families. At the meeting, fishermen unanimously supported a petition calling for the firing of Dr. Walker, the head of Mississippi’s DMR, who is responsible for opening the fishing grounds.

Dr. Cake wrote of the experience: “When the vessel was stopped for sampling, small, 0.5- to 1.0-inch-diameter bubbles would periodically rise to the surface and shortly thereafter they would pop leaving a small oil sheen. According to the fishermen, several of BP’s Vessels-of-Opportunity (Carolina Skiffs with tanks of dispersants [Corexit]) were hand spraying in Mississippi Sound off the Pass Christian Harbor in prior days/nights. It appears to this observer that the dispersants are still in the area and are continuing to react with oil in the waters off Pass Christian Harbor.”

Ongoing Contamination and the Carolina Skiffs

On August 13, Truthout visited Pass Christian Harbor in Mississippi. Oil sheen was present, the vapors of which could be smelled, causing our eyes to burn. Many ropes that tied boats to the dock were oiled and much of the water covered with oil sheen.

A resident, who has a yacht in the harbor, spoke with Truthout on condition of anonymity due to fears of reprisal from BP. “Last week we were sitting on our boat and you could smell the chemicals,” he explained. “It smelt like death. It was like mosquito spray, but ten times stronger. The next day I was hoarse and my lungs felt like I’d been in a smoky bar the night before.”

Oil boom was present throughout much of the harbor. Despite this, fishermen, obviously trusting Mr. Miller’s announcement about the fishing waters being clear of oil and dispersant, were trying to catch fish from their boat inside the harbor

“Last week oil filled this harbor,” the man, an ex-commercial fisherman added. “BP has bought off all our government officials, and shut them up. You can’t say the oil is gone, it’s right here! Them saying it’s not here is a bunch of bullshit.”

Truthout spoke with another man, who was recently laid off from the VOO program. He also spoke on condition of anonymity. “Just the other day one of the Carolina Skiffs passed us spraying something,” he said. “We went west instead of east as we turned and a group of Carolina Skiffs was spraying something over the water.”

A Carolina Skiff is a type of boat, usually between 13′ and 30′ long, very versatile and can function well in shallow or deep waters. They are known for having a large payload capacity and a lot of interior space.

Alarmed by what he saw, the former VOO worker called the Coast Guard to report what he believed was a private contractor company spraying dispersants. “We were later told by the Coast Guard they’d investigated the incident and told us what we saw were vacuum boats sucking oil, and they were rinsing their tanks,” he said. “But we know this is a lie and that BP is using these out of state contractors to come in and spray the dispersant at night and they are using planes to drop it as well.”

He worked in the VOO program looking for oil. When his team would find oil, upon reporting it, they would consistently be sent away without explanation or the opportunity to clean it. “They made us abort these missions,” he said. “Two days ago I put out boom in a bunch of oil for five minutes, they told me to abort the mission, so I pulled up boom soaked in oil. What the hell are we doing out there if they won’t let us work to clean up the oil?”

He told Truthout that as his and other VOO teams would be going out to work on the water in the morning, they would pass the out-of-state contractors in Carolina Skiffs coming in from what he believed to be a covert spraying of the oil with dispersant in order to sink it. He believes this was done to deliberately prevent the VOO teams from finding and collecting oil. By doing so, BP’s liability would be lessened since the oil giant will be fined for the amount of oil collected.

“BP brings in the Carolina Skiffs to spray the dispersant at night,” he added, “And they are not accountable to the Coast Guard.”

James Miller, who had taken the group out into the Mississippi Sound that found the oil/dispersants on August 11, told Truthout that the Carolina Skiff teams spraying dispersants were “common” and that it “happened all the time.”

Miller, who was in the VOO, is an eyewitness to planes spraying dispersants, as well as the Carolina Skiff crews doing the same.

“We’d roll up on a patch of oil ¦ mile wide by one mile long and they’d hold us off from cleaning it up,” Miller, speaking with Truthout at his home in D’Iberville, Mississippi, said. “We’d leave and the Carolina Skiffs would pull up and start spraying dispersants on the oil. The guys doing the spraying would wear respirators and safety glasses. Their boats have 375 gallon white drums full of the stuff and they could spray it out 150 feet. The next day there’d be the white foam that’s always there after they hit the oil with dispersants.”

Some nights VOO crews would sleep out near the work sites. “We’d sleep out there and some nights the planes would come in so close the noise would wake us from a dead sleep,” Miller added. “Again, we’d call in the oiled areas during the day and at night the planes would come in and hit the hell out of it with dispersants. That was the drill. We’d spot it and report it. They’d call us off it and send guys out in the skiffs or planes to sink it.”

Mark Stewart, from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, was in the VOO program for 70 days before being laid off on August 2. The last weeks has seen BP decreasing the number of response workers from around 45,000 down to around 30,000. The number is decreasing by the day.

Stewart, a third generation commercial fisherman, told Truthout he had regularly seen “purple looking jelly stuff, three feet thick, floating all over, as wide as a football field” and “tar balls as big as a car.” He, like Miller, is an eyewitness to planes dispensing dispersant at night, as well as the Carolina Skiff crews spraying dispersant. “I worked out off the barrier islands of Mississippi,” Stewart said. “They would relentlessly carpet bomb the oil we found with dispersants, day and night.”

Stewart, echoing what VOO employees across the Gulf Coast are saying, told Truthout his crew would regularly find oil, report it, be sent away, then either watch as planes or Carolina Skiffs would arrive to apply dispersants, or come back the next day to find the white foamy emulsified oil remnant that is left on the surface after oil has been hit with dispersants.

Stewart added, “Whenever government people, state or federal, would be flying over us, we’d be instructed to put out all our boom and start skimming, acting like we were gathering oil, even when we weren’t in the oil.”

While acting as whistleblowers, Miller and Stewart have both been accused of being “troublemakers” and “liars” by persons in the Mississippi government and some of their local media, in spite of the fact that they are doing so from deep concern for their fellow fisherman and the environment.

Meanwhile, both men told Truthout they live with chronic headaches and other symptoms they’ve been experiencing since they were exposed to toxic dispersants while in the VOO program. Recent trips to investigate their waters for oil and dispersant have worsened their symptoms.

“Why would we lie about oil and dispersant in our waters, when our livelihoods depend on our being able to fish here?” Miller asked. “I want this to be cleaned up so we can get back to how we used to live, but it doesn’t make sense for us or anyone else to fish if our waters are toxified. I don’t know why people are angry at us for speaking the truth. We’re not the ones who put the oil in the water.”

Miller is bleak about his assessment of the situation. He pointed out toward the coast and said, “Everything is dead out there. The plankton is dead. We pulled up loads of dead plankton on our trip on Wednesday. There are very few birds. We saw only a few when there are usually thousands. We only saw two porpoises when there are usually countless. We saw nothing but death.”

Coast Guard Complicity

“Lockheed Martin aircraft, including C-130s and P-3s, have been deployed to the Gulf region by the Air Force, Coast Guard and other government customers to perform a variety of tasks, such as monitoring, mapping and dispersant spraying,” states a newsletter published in July by Lockheed Martin.

An article by the 910th Airlift Wing Public Affairs Office, based in Youngstown, Ohio, states that C-130H Hercules aircraft started aerial spray operations Saturday, May 1, under the direction of the president of the United States and secretary of defense. “The objective of the aerial spray operation is to neutralize the oil spill with oil dispersing agents,” it says.

Joseph Yerkes, along with other Florida commercial fishermen and Florida residents, have seen C-130s spraying dispersants on oil floating off the coast of Florida numerous times.

But the Coast Guard denies it.

At a VOO meeting in Destin on August 3, Lt. Cmdr. Dale Vogelsang, a liaison officer with the United States Coast Guard said, “I can state, there is no dispersant being used in Florida waters.”

The room, filled mostly with commercial fishermen, who were current or former members in BP’s VOO program, erupted in protest and disbelief. When Vogelsang was immediately challenged on his statement, he replied, “I’ll investigate the C-130s.”

Two BP representatives, along with Vogelsang, found themselves confronted by a large group of angry fishermen for over an hour. At times, the meeting resembled a riot more than the question-and-answer session it was intended to be.

Yerkes, who lives on Okaloosa Island, has been a commercial fisherman and boat captain most of his life. For the last 12 years, he has owned and operated a commercial live bait business.

Employed by BP as a VOO operator for more than two months, Yerkes, along with many other local commercial fishermen in the VOO program in his area were laid off on July 20 because BP and the Coast Guard believed there was no more “recoverable oil” in their area of Florida. Yet residents, fishermen, swimmers, divers and surfers in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have been reporting oil floating atop water, sitting on the bottom and floating in the water column, in oftentimes great amounts, for the last two weeks. There have been many reports of various kinds of aircraft, including C-130s, dispensing dispersants over oil.

Yerkes provided Truthout with a letter he wrote to document his witnessing a C-130 spraying what he believes to be dispersant.

“I witnessed [from my home] a C130 military plane flying and obviously spraying” over the Gulf of Mexico on July 30, “flying from the north to the south, dropping to low levels of elevation then obviously spraying or releasing an unknown substance from the rear of the plane. This substance started leaving the plane when it was about ¦ to 1 mile offshore, with a continuous stream following out of the plane until it was out of sight flying to the south.”

The substance, Yerkes wrote, “was not smoke, for the residue fell to the water, where smoke would have lingered.” He added, “this plane was very low near the water and the flight was very similar to viewings I made over the past few weeks when dispersants were sprayed over the Gulf near our area.”

A member of the VOO program provided relevant information of a “strange incident” on condition of anonymity. He was observing wildlife offshore the same day Yerkes witnessed the C-130 when he received a call from his supervisor. He told his supervisor he and his crewmember were not feeling well, so he was instructed to return in order “to get checked out because a plane had been reported in our area spraying a substance on the water about 10-20 minutes before.” The employee complained of having a terrible headache and nasal congestion while his crewmember said he had a metallic taste in his mouth.

After filling out an incident report, both men were directed to go to the hospital. The following day the two men were “asked to go to the hospital for blood tests.”

One week after the aforementioned meeting, The Destin Log quoted Vogelsang as saying he had contacted Unified Command who “confirmed” that dispersants were not being used in Florida waters. Vogelsang added, “Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana,” a statement that Truthout has heard refuted by dozens of commercial fishermen from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Yerkes told Truthout that he, too, was aware of the Carolina Skiffs coming in from out of state to dispense dispersants over the oil. In the recent VOO meeting in Destin, Vogelsang was asked about the out-of-state contractors being brought in to work in Florida waters. He replied, “The only vessels we are using in the program are local, vetted vessels.”

His response caused an uproar of protest from the crowd, with various fishermen and VOO workers yelling that Carolina Skiffs were being brought in from out of state. To this, Vogelsang responded, “Vessels that are from out of the area are contractors with special skills.”

Vogelsang went on to claim that the amount of “product” [oil] being found in Florida is decreasing daily. This, too, caused an uproar from the room full of fishermen.
“I can take anybody in here out and show them oil, every single day,” David White, a local fishing charter captain responded. “I was in the VOO program, driving around calling in oil, telling them where it is and nobody ever came. I never saw any skimmers there and I’m talking about some serious oil. I can show you tar balls going across the bottom like tumbleweeds.”

Yerkes provided Truthout with a written statement from Lawrence Byrd, a local boat captain who was a task force leader in the VOO program from June 4 to July 21. On July 27 and 28, Byrd took BP officials, Coast Guard officials and an EPA official on a fact finding mission in search of oil.

“The Coast Guard told us if we could show them the oil, they’d put us back to work,” Yerkes told Truthout, “So Byrd took him, and other officials out on his boat and showed them the oil.”

Byrd’s statement contains many instances of the group encountering oil on the trips:

“Within 30 minutes in the Rocky Bayou and Boggy Bayou we found 4 different football field sized areas of oily sheen on the water … We moved east from there in search of weathered oil, just past Mid Bay bridge we found a 2 acre oil slick with a water bottle full of crude oil. At this time the Coast Guard Lt. had seen enough to warrant a 2nd trip with BP officials and EPA.”
The next day, July 28, Byrd wrote:

“On board were BP officials, a Parson official, 2 Coast Guard Lts and EPA. First stop Crab Island Destin where we found tar balls, dead fish and plenty of dead sargasm grass. All officials seemed very concerned about all of our findings.”
The report goes on to list further oil findings and added, “In the eyes of BP officials, Coast Guard Lts. and EPA, this was more than enough oil product to warrant the need for more VOO boats to serve as a first line of defense against this toxic pollution. To this day Destin VOO is still operating with ¦ task force in the bay and ¦ task force in Gulf with Walton County being completely unprotected! I feel all parties have good intentions but nothing is being done!”

“Somebody is stopping that process,” Yerkes told Truthout. “[Retired Coast Guard Adm.] Thad Allen stood up at Tyndall Air Force Base the same night that they sprayed dispersant on the oil in front of Destin and he said we are going to use local fishermen in each local area to do the jobs, even beyond the cleaning of the oil. The day after he said that at Tyndall … every one of the Carolina skiffs is loaded to the hilt with boom. Nobody else got reactivated.”

Yerkes expressed his frustration further. “They are lying about this whole thing and it’s got me in an uproar,” he said. “I’m by myself. I’m the only one willing to stand up. I have a lot of friends who want to stand up and speak out. They know the Coast Guard and BP are lying, but they won’t talk because they are getting paychecks and don’t want to jeopardize that. They are saying they are finding new oil all the time, but the Coast Guard claims they are testing it and saying it’s safe. I know for a fact they are not testing it and we watched and heard C130s fly every night in July.”

There is a clear pattern that VOO workers in all four states are consistently reporting:

*VOO workers identify the oil.

*They are then sent elsewhere by someone higher up the chain of command.

*Dispersants are later applied by out-of-state contractors in Carolina Skiffs (usually at night), or aircraft are used, in order to sink the oil.

*The oil “appears” gone and, therefore, no additional action is taken.
“There are surfers coming in with oil on them,” Yerkes continued, “There are divers telling us it’s on the bottom. We have VOO workers coming in after finding oil three inches thick atop the water as of last week and they go back out there and it’s gone.”
“There are stories of people getting notes on their cars, verbal and phone threats. I don’t want to become one of those people. I’m trying to heighten my profile so they don’t want to mess with me,” Yerkes added. “I want the truth to come out so the public knows. I’m trying to make BP and the government come out and tell the facts instead of lying to the public about what is going on. I want to know how much dispersants they are using, where all the oil is and the effects these are having on all of us. Somebody is lying and we want the truth.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Woods Hole documents underwater oil plume in Gulf of Mexico that is 22 miles long and 3,000 feet below surface; paper attached

See paper entitled: “Tracking Hydrocarbon Plume Transport and Biodegradation at Deepwater Horizon”
Woods Hole Tracking Hydrocarbon plumes paper(19-Aug-2010 18:00 GMT)

Contact: WHOI Media Relations
media@whoi.edu
508-289-3340
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

WHOI scientists map and confirm origin of large, underwater hydrocarbon plume in Gulf

Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have detected a plume of hydrocarbons that is at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In the study, which appears in the Aug. 19 issue of the journal Science, the researchers measured distinguishing petroleum hydrocarbons in the plume and, using them as an investigative tool, determined that the source of the plume could not have been natural oil seeps but had to have come from the blown out well.
Moreover, they reported that deep-sea microbes were degrading the plume relatively slowly, and that it was possible that the 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume had and will persist for some time.
The WHOI team based its findings on some 57,000 discrete chemical analyses measured in real time during a June 19-28 scientific cruise aboard the R/V Endeavor, which is owned by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and operated by the University of Rhode Island. They accomplished their feat using two highly advanced technologies: the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) Sentry and a type of underwater mass spectrometer known as TETHYS (Tethered Yearlong Spectrometer).
“We’ve shown conclusively not only that a plume exists, but also defined its origin and near-field structure,” said Richard Camilli of WHOI’s Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, chief scientist of the cruise and lead author of the paper. “Until now, these have been treated as a theoretical matter in the literature.
“In June, we observed the plume migrating slowly [at about 0.17 miles per hour] southwest of the source of the blowout,” said Camilli. The researchers began tracking it about three miles from the well head and out to about 22 miles (35 kilometers) until the approach of Hurricane Alex forced them away from the study area.
The study-which was enabled by three NSF RAPID grants to WHOI scientists with additional funding from the U.S. Coast Guard-confirms that a continuous plume exists “at petroleum hydrocarbon levels that are noteworthy and detectable,” Reddy said. The levels and distributions of the petroleum hydrocarbons show that “the plume is not caused by natural [oil] seeps” in the Gulf of Mexico, Camilli added.
WHOI President and Director Susan K. Avery praised the WHOI scientists for their “prudence and thoroughness, as they conducted an important, elegant study under difficult conditions in a timely manner.”
Persistent plume
The plume has shown that the oil already “is persisting for longer periods than we would have expected,” Camilli said. “Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily biodegraded.
“Well, we didn’t find that. We found it was still there.”
Whether the plume’s existence poses a significant threat to the Gulf is not yet clear, the researchers say. “We don’t know how toxic it is,” said Christopher Reddy, a WHOI marine geochemist and oil spill expert and one of the authors of the study, “and we don’t know how it formed, or why. But knowing the size, shape, depth, and heading of this plume will be vital for answering many of these questions.”
The key to the discovery and mapping of the plume was the use of the mass spectrometer TETHYS integrated into the Sentry AUV. Camilli developed the mass spectrometer in close industrial partnership with Monitor Instruments Co. in Cheswick, Pa., through a grant from the National Ocean Partnership Program. The TETHYS–which is small enough to fit within a shoebox–is capable of identifying minute quantities of petroleum and other chemical compounds in seawater instantly.
Sentry, funded by NSF and developed and operated by WHOI, is capable of exploring the ocean down to 14,764 feet (4,500 meters) depth. Equipped with its advanced analytical systems, it was able to crisscross plume boundaries continuously 19 times to help determine the trapped plume’s size, shape, and composition. This knowledge of the plume structure guided the team in collecting physical samples for further laboratory analyses using a traditional oceanographic tool, a cable-lowered water sampling system that measures conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD). This CTD, however, was instrumented with a TETHYS. In each case, the mass spectrometers were used to positively identify areas containing petroleum hydrocarbons.
“We achieved our results because we had a unique combination of scientific and technological skills,” said Dana Yoerger, a co-principal investigator and WHOI senior scientist.
Until now, scientists had suspected the existence of a plume, but attempts to detect and measure it had been inconclusive, primarily because of inadequate sampling techniques, according to the WHOI scientists. In previous research, Yoerger said, “investigators relied mostly on a conventional technique: vertical profiling. We used Sentry and TETHYS to scan large areas horizontally, which enabled us to target our vertical profiles more effectively. Our methods provide much better information about the size and shape of the plume.”
The researchers detected a class of petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations of more than 50 micrograms per liter. The water samples collected at these depths had no odor of oil and were clear. “The plume was not a river of Hershey’s Syrup,” said Reddy. “But that’s not to say it isn’t harmful to the environment.”
No Unusual Oxygen Signals
The scientists benefited not only from new technology but older methods as well. Contrary to previous predictions by other scientists, they found no “dead zones,” regions of significant oxygen depletion within the plume where almost no fish or other marine animals could survive. They attributed the discrepancy to a problem with the more modern measuring devices that can give artificially low oxygen readings when coated by oil. The team on Endeavor used an established chemical test developed in the 1880s to check the concentration of dissolved oxygen in water samples, called a Winkler titration. Of the dozens of samples analyzed for oxygen only a few from the plume layer were below expected levels, and even these samples were only slightly depleted.
WHOI geochemist Benjamin Van Mooy, also a principal investigator of the research team, said this finding could have significant implications. “If the oxygen data from the plume layer are telling us it isn’t being rapidly consumed by microbes near the well,” he said, “the hydrocarbons could persist for some time. So it is possible that oil could be transported considerable distances from the well before being degraded.”
A Rapid Response
The NSF RAPID program, which provides grants for projects having a severe urgency and require quick-response research on natural disasters or other unanticipated events, significantly speeded up the acceptance of the WHOI proposals. “In contrast to the usual six-to-eighteen-month lead time for standard scientific proposals, our plume study was funded two days after the concept was proposed to NSF and went from notification of the proposal’s acceptance to boarding the Endeavor in two-and-a-half weeks,” Reddy said.
Within days of being notified of the award, Reddy said the WHOI team reached out to NOAA, offering assistance in the laborious, but important, process of collecting and analyzing water samples for natural resource damage assessment (NRDA). In addition to conducting the work NSF funded, the WHOI team worked cooperatively with NOAA to collect data that will be used to determine damages and calculate a fair settlement for those affected by the massive spill.
“Doing a NRDA cruise is not a trivial effort. It requires a tremendous amount of coordination — from accommodating additional on-board observers to ensure a chain of custody to arranging for samples to be ferried from the research vessels every few days,” said Avery. “I’m very proud of what this team has accomplished.
“Very good science was done that will make a big difference,” Avery added. “This cruise represents an excellent example of how non-federal research organizations can work with federal agencies and how federal agencies can work together to respond to national disasters.”
While at sea, these scientists, who are experienced in the study of oil spills and natural oil seeps, faced unusual challenges from the extreme heat, water rationing, exposure to crude oil and its vapors, and 24-hour-a-day operations enabled by the URI crew.
Along with their own scientific objectives, the team also bore in mind the advice of top science officials speaking at a June 3 Gulf Oil Spill Scientific Symposium at Louisiana State University, who cautioned researchers about the importance of verification and proceeding in a scientific manner:
“We are all served best by proceeding in a careful, thoughtful, and quantifiable manner, where we can actually document everything and share it publicly,” NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco told those assembled.
At that meeting, US Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt underscored the need for peer review of interpretive results before they are released, saying “There’s nothing that throws the community into dead ends faster” than to have [poor] data out there.
Assistant Director of NSF Tim Killeen also echoed the sentiment that “quality assurance and quality control are essential for thorough work.”
“WHOI scientists attending this meeting took this advice to heart and used it as a guiding light for proper dissemination of scientific information,” Reddy said.
Reddy said the results from this study and more samples yet to be analyzed eventually could refine recent estimates about the amount of the spilled oil that remains in the Gulf.
Camilli said he and his WHOI colleagues are considering a new research proposal to look for more plumes.
Reddy said the WHOI team members know the chemical makeup of some of the plume, but not all of it. Gas chromatographic analysis of plume samples confirm the existence of benzene, toluene, ethybenzene, and total xylenes-together, called BTEX at concentrations in excess of 50 micrograms per liter. “The plume is not pure oil,” Camilli said. “But there are oil compounds in there.”
It may be “a few months of laboratory analysis and validation,” Reddy said, before they know the entire inventory of chemicals in the plume.
Camilli attributed the project’s success to WHOI’s wide range of expertise and scientific capabilities. He contrasted that with “what the oil industry does best: They know where to drill holes and how to get the oil to come out. WHOI’s expertise in oil spill forensics, marine ecological assessment, and deep submergence technology development will be essential for our nation as it updates its energy policy and offshore oil production confronts the challenges of deepwater operations.”
###
Other WHOI members of study team included Assistant Scientist James C. Kinsey and Research Associates Cameron P. McIntyre and Sean P. Sylva. The research team also included Michael V. Jakuba of the University of Sydney, Australia, and a graduate of the MIT/WHOI joint program in Oceanographic Engineering, and James V. Maloney of Monitor Instruments Co.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the ocean and its interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the ocean’s role in the changing global environment.

Special thanks to Frank Jackalone, Sierra CLub

Georgia Sea Grant Oil Spill Update: Current Status of BP Oil Spill

GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16[1]GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilChart[1]
By Chuck Hopkinson, Director, Georgia Sea Grant
August 17, 2010
On August 2, 2010, the National Incident Command (NIC) released a report on the status of oil from the BP oil spill. The findings of the report are being widely reported in the news media as suggesting that 75% of the oil is “gone” and only 25% remains. However, many independent scientists are interpreting the findings differently, with some suggesting that less than 10% is “gone” and up to 90% remains a threat to the ecosystem. Considering the vulnerability of the southeast Atlantic coast to oil being carried our way by the Gulf Stream, it is critical that we determine which of these interpretations of the report is more accurate.

To address this issue, Georgia Sea Grant organized an ad hoc group of university-based
oceanographic experts from within the state to independently evaluate and interpret the
conclusions of the NIC report. This group determined that the media interpretation of the report’s findings has been largely inaccurate and misleading. Oil that the NIC report categorizes as Evaporated or Dissolved, Naturally Dispersed and Chemically Dispersed has been widely interpreted by the media to mean “gone” and no longer a threat to the ecosystem. However, this group believes that most of the dissolved and dispersed forms of oil are still present and not necessarily harmless.

In order to better illustrate to the media, the public, community leaders and political decisionmakers the current status of oil in the ecosystem, this group focused exclusively on oil that actually entered Gulf of Mexico waters, omitting from its consideration oil that was directly captured from the wellhead. Our analysis classified oil into categories relevant to discussions of recovery and environmental impact: Burned, Skimmed, Evaporated, Degraded and Remaining.

Thus, starting with the NIC’s figure for how much oil entered the water, we estimated how much oil could have conceivably degraded and evaporated as of the date of the NOAA science report. The balance remains in the Gulf in varying forms and toxicity.

The group also considered how the vulnerability of our Atlantic coast waters has changed since BP capped the well. A listing of participating experts can be found below.

HOW MUCH OIL WAS RELEASED INTO THE GULF OF MEXICO?

There was consensus within the group that, as stated in the NIC report, approximately 4.9 million barrels emerged from the wellhead between the rig explosion on April 20, 2010 and the final capping of the well on July 15 2010.

In accounting for total oil output from the well, the NIC report includes oil piped directly from the wellhead to surface ships and prevented from ever entering the Gulf of Mexico,
approximately .8 million barrels (17%) of the total oil output. While we commend BP for
capturing this oil at great depth under difficult conditions, our analysis focused exclusively on oil that actually entered the water and from which the Gulf must now recover.

Therefore, we omitted from our discussion and our charts the .8 million barrels captured directly from the wellhead and examined the status of the 4.1 million barrels that actually entered the water. Because of this difference, percentages do not track directly from our charts to those of the NIC, but they are easily reconciled. For example, the 392,000 barrels that the NIC reports as skimmed or burned at the surface constitutes 8% of the 4.9 million barrels accounted for by the NIC, but that same volume is 10% of the 4.1 barrels that actually entered the water.

HOW MUCH OIL CAN BE COUNTED CONFIDENTLY AS RECOVERED FROM GULF
WATERS?

The NIC report estimates that 392,000 barrels of oil have been either burned or skimmed from surface waters, which seemed to our group to be a reasonable approximation. However, to the best of our knowledge, these estimates are based on data that are not available to the general public or the scientific community and, therefore, are not independently verifiable. However, using this figure from the federal report, we calculated that 10% of the oil that actually spilled into Gulf of Mexico waters was removed at the surface through skimming and burning. Thus, 90% of the oil that entered the Gulf of Mexico has not been recovered.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE UNRECOVERED 90%?
click on full report for more info…..

Special thanks to Richard Charter

St Pete Times: USF scientists find oil spill damage to critical marine life

By Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 18, 2010

http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/usf-scientists-find-oil-spill-damage-to-critical-marine-life/1115706

OR

http://tinyurl.com/264bdhh

Far from being gone, the oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster appears to still be causing ecological damage in the Gulf of Mexico, according to new findings from University of South Florida scientists.

And scientists from the University of Georgia said the amount of oil that remains in the water could be 70-79% of the more than 4 million barrels of oil that escaped into the gulf.

Both reports again raise questions about the Obama administration’s claim, made two weeks ago, that most of the oil spewed from BP’s well is either gone or widely dispersed.

USF marine scientists conducting experiments in an area where they previously found clouds of oil have now discovered what appears to be oil in the sediment of a vital underwater canyon and evidence that the oil has become toxic to critical marine organisms, the college reported Tuesday.

In preliminary results, the scientists aboard the Weatherbird II discovered that oil droplets are scattered on sediment in the DeSoto Canyon, a critical spawning ground for commercially important fish species about 40 miles southeast of Panama City.

The oil isn’t spread across the sandy bottom like a blanket, explained David Hollander. Instead, when the scientists shined ultraviolet light on the sediment samples, it picked up lots of dots from tiny oil droplets.

“They sparkled … like a constellation of stars,” Hollander said.

USF’s scientists also found that the oil droplets were toxic to some phytoplankton, microscopic plants that form the base of the gulf’s food chain, as well as some bacteria. The oil doesn’t accumulate within the plankton, but rather kills it.

If the droplets wipe out enough phytoplankton, it could alter the food supply for larger creatures such as fish and crabs in the same way a cattle pasture that loses all its grass alters the food supply for steak fans.

The discovery of oil droplets in DeSoto Canyon spells potential bad news for the areas of Florida’s Gulf Coast that escaped the tar balls and liquid oil that tainted the Panhandle, said USF oceanographer Robert Weisberg. That’s because right now cold water from the deeper part of the gulf is “upwelling” across the continental shelf and headed for coastal areas, Weisberg said.

“As water … makes its way across the shelf, those waters will eventually be at the beach along Florida’s west coast, here and at points farther south, along with whatever is in the water,” he explained.

BP vice president Ray Dempsey said the latest USF findings “are preliminary conclusions that require some further review. But we want the answers just as much as anyone else. Our aim is to restore the environment to the way it was.”

The findings come two weeks after President Barack Obama’s top energy adviser, Carol Browner, touted a new government report that she said showed that “more than three-quarters of the oil is gone. The vast majority of the oil is gone.”

The team from Georgia analyzed the federal report in its research.

“The idea that 75% of the oil is gone and of no concern for the environment is just absolutely incorrect,” said Charles Hopkinson, a director of Georgia Sea Grant and marine science professor at the University of Georgia, who co-wrote the report.

Two calculations explain the bulk of the difference. The Georgia report tossed out 800,000-plus barrels BP managed to pipe directly from the well after it had fitted a sealing cap on the gusher — 17% of the well’s estimated flow — arguing that oil had never actually “spilled” into the gulf.

More significantly, the report also dramatically reduced the amount of oil estimated to have evaporated, to 7-12% from the federal study’s 25%.

The federal government’s evaporation estimate was based on a standard accepted by industry experts and researchers for light sweet crude in the warm gulf. But Hopkinson argued that the percentage is invalid because much of the oil remains deep beneath the surface, trapped under dense temperature and salinity layers that would dramatically limit evaporation.

One of the institutions that first found those underwater plumes of oil was USF. The area in DeSoto Canyon that the Weatherbird II explored on a 10-day cruise this month was also one of the places where USF found plumes and conclusively linked them with Deepwater Horizon.

However, Hollander and his colleague John Paul, in speaking with reporters Tuesday, stopped short of pointing a finger at Deepwater Horizon as the source of the oil they had found in the canyon. Tests are still being run, they said.

Still, they said, the findings underline the persistent concerns that spraying chemical dispersants deep beneath the water’s surface may have created a greater peril for the gulf and its marine life.

Rather than rising to the top of the gulf, where the water is warm and deterioration and evaporation are rapid, the oil spread through colder waters where it has persisted.

At this point, no one knows how long it will take for the oil to deteriorate so it’s no longer toxic. However, Hollander said, recent studies have found indications that the rate is “orders of magnitude slower” in the colder, deeper parts of the gulf.

In hindsight, Hollander said, “there’s risks that were taken that could have been avoided” by not spraying the dispersants directly at the gushing wellhead.

The amazing thing, he said, is that the disaster has been going on since April “and we’re now addressing these first-order questions.”

Information from McClatchy Newspapers was used in this report.

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz and Richard Charter

New York Times: Murky Relationships Mark Scientific Efforts to Assess Gulf Spill’s Impacts

August 18, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/18/18greenwire-murky-relationships-mark-scientific-efforts-to-31002.html

By LAURA PETERSEN of Greenwire

Lawmakers have criticized BP PLC for attempting to “muzzle” scientists researching the Gulf of Mexico oil spill with confidentiality agreements and blocking the “open exchange of scientific data and analysis.” But the government is employing similar tactics itself.

The government is hiring expert witnesses under confidentiality agreements as it builds a legal case documenting the oil spill’s environmental impact and determining how much BP and its partners should pay to restore the Gulf to pre-spill conditions, officials said.

And, while federal and state agencies are publicly sharing oil exposure data collected by BP-government scientist teams, they reserve the right to withhold information from studies the government and BP have not agreed on, said Tom Brosnan, an environmental scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“This is not standard scientific investigation,” Brosnan said. “This is a very pointed investigation into what has been injured, what has been lost and what is required to compensate the public.”

The Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program is the public’s legal process for quantifying ecological harm caused by oil spills and develop a restoration plan that must be paid for by the responsible parties. The assessment is conducted by federal and state agencies with oversight of natural resources, including theInterior and Commerce departments — collectively referred to as “trustees.”

BP was blasted for retaining scientific expert witnesses for the NRDA process who are prohibited from releasing research findings for three years or until after a restoration plan had been approved. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) last month sent a letter to BP America asking the company to explain itself and provide copies of all scientist and third-party contracts (E&E Daily, July 30).

“The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is not a private matter,” the congressmen wrote on behalf of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “Mitigating the long term impact of the oil spill will require an open exchange of scientific data and analysis. Any effort to muzzle scientists or shield their findings under doctrines of legal privileges could seriously impede the recovery.”

But scientists are also being hired by the government as expert witnesses, which typically includes a confidentiality clause, Brosnan confirmed. The terms of the contract were not disclosed.

“It’s par for the course,” said Stan Senner, the director of conservation science at the Ocean Conservancy. “Anytime you have an event like this, everyone goes out and recruits experts.”

Senner helped manage environmental restoration for seven years after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. At the time, there was no formal process to assess ecological damage and implement restoration.

“The people recruited by industry for Exxon Valdez, their mission was not to find out what the harm was from the spill; their mission was to cast doubt on any conclusions drawn about harm from the spill,” Senner said.

The NRDA process was developed based on lessons learned from that disaster and implemented by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. To try to minimize disagreements about data, the government and the responsible parties are encouraged to work together to collect data.

In the wake of the BP oil spill that began when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, teams of federal, state and BP scientists began the “pre-assessment” process of documenting how much habitat had been polluted and how many fish, birds and other animals the oil had touched or killed.

While there may be disagreements later over how that data is interpreted, at least both sides can agree the numbers are accurate if they are both there when the counts are done, Brosnan said. NOAA is also posting the information gathered on its website so the public can stay informed.

However, findings from any studies the government and BP have not agreed to do together may not be released publicly until after the assessment is complete, Brosnan said. Much like a detective collecting evidence for a criminal case, the government does not want to reveal any smoking guns before the ideal moment in the courtroom.

The result of all this legal maneuvering is a broad clamping down of information until the case is resolved.

“In the end, the public is one of the losers — they simply won’t be well informed about what’s going on,” Senner said. “We want to push [the government] for maximum transparency, consistent with protecting public interest to get an appropriate claim.”

Scientists are also concerned the government is not collecting enough robust data needed for the NRDA.

“This is a huge environment; this makes Prince William Sound look like a duck pond in comparison,” Senner said. “It’s going to need more than the trustee agencies can do in the NRDA process, and that is going to require coordination.”

Many university and research institutions have launched independent studies of the Gulf oil spill. For example, the National Aquarium is teaming up with Johns Hopkins University and Mote Marine Laboratory to study Sarasota Bay, Fla., before it is potentially polluted. They deployed semipermeable membrane devices in June that will track any long-term accumulation of oil in the bay.

Proving oil caused harm is difficult, and it is essential to have baseline data to compare pre-spill to post-spill conditions, said Erik Rifkin, interim director of the National Aquarium. Rifkin suggested other researchers use similar methods to reduce uncertainty in conclusions about the oil spill’s effects.

“We need to make sure experiment design is consistent and coordinated and gets us the information we really need to assess the damage,” Rifkin said.

The National Science Foundation has handed out close to $7 million in rapid grants for researchers studying the oil spill so far. However, there is no widespread coordination throughout the research community to ensure resources are being used efficiently, methods are consistent or no gaps exist in research coverage.

“Our primary goal is to make sure opportunity to learn from disaster is not lost,” said NSF spokesman Josh Chamot.

The government will be open to using appropriate, high-quality information gleaned from independent studies, Brosnan said.

While research funded by NSF is accepted as independent, some are skeptical of the $500 million research fund that BP established. Many are skeptical of any research funded by BP — which ultimately includes the NRDA process, paid for by the responsible party.

Reps. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) sent a letter last month urging BP to turn over management of the fund to the National Academy of Sciences to ensure the research is impartial and rigorously reviewed. BP had not responded to the congresswomen by press time.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Truthout: Regulatory Agencies’ Attempts to Sweep Oil Under the Rug Raise Questions

http://www.truth-out.org/regulatory-agencies-attempts-sweep-oil-under-rug-raise-questions62436
Photo: Cody Simms / Flickr)

Wednesday 18 August 2010

by: Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch

(Washington, DC – A recent report by the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center (a collaboration between the federal government and BP) claiming that only 25 percent of spilled oil remains in the Gulf has been refuted by researchers with the Georgia Sea Grant and University of Georgia, who released a report yesterday concluding that in fact nearly 80 percent of the oil remains in the Gulf. The report confirms the fact that the federal government should have taken a more cautious and responsible approach to testing marine life before opening the Gulf for fishing.

The report affirms what many have thought: that the oil could not have realistically vanished like ‘sugar dissolves into water’ — a ludicrous statement the federal officials used to describe what happened to the millions of gallons spilled into the Gulf.

This independent analysis of the regulators’ claims raises some important questions about the Joint Information Center’s report. Is BP’s influence at play in presenting the findings in a more positive light? Was the report an attempt at crisis communications that simply backfired?

The FDA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the two regulatory agencies charged with protecting consumer health after the spill. NOAA is one of the many federal agencies involved in BP’s Joint Information Center. Unfortunately, these agencies have been anything but forthcoming and transparent in notifying consumers and the Gulf fishing communities about safety concerns resulting from the spill.

Every day that the Gulf is closed to fishermen is a day BP must pay out additional claims to them. Is this why regulators opened the Gulf for commercial fishing, despite warnings from fishermen and documented cases of oil in marine life? Unfortunately, this hasty decision is currently jeopardizing not only consumers but the future reputation of the Gulf fishing industry.

Prematurely opening the Gulf is not the only incidence of poor decision making. Rather than employ careful microbiological testing of seafood, the federal agencies continue to predominantly use sniff tests to determine the presence of oil. And instead of immediately testing seafood for contamination by Corexit, the controversial dispersant banned in Europe but used widely in the Gulf by BP, they feed the media a vague date for future testing.

At this point, it appears that FDA and NOAA oversight is as lacking as the Minerals Management Service’s ’oversight’ that led to the initial Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.

Ultimately, it is this regulatory negligence that would be responsible for any widespread consumer illness resulting from the unprecedented effects of oil and dispersant on the Gulf and its marine life – effects that would go undetected due to poor testing regimes.

In order to restore the public’s trust, NOAA and the FDA must perform more comprehensive and timely tests and present us with reliable and unbiased findings rather than continue in their attempt to sweep millions of barrels of oil and controversial dispersants under the proverbial rug. The Gulf should not have been opened for fishing until this occurred.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Wall Street Journal: Oceanographer To Challenge US Claims On Spill Cleanup

August 18, 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100818-711960.html

By Siobhan Hughes
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–An oceanographer will tell Congress on Thursday that the Obama administration was “misleading” when it claimed that about three-quarters of the oil that gushed from a broken BP PLC (BP, BP.LN) well in the Gulf of Mexico had been broken down or cleaned up.

Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, will tell a U.S. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that only 10% of oil discharged into the ocean was “actually removed from the ocean.” In a report released earlier this month and touted by the White House, the government emphasized different numbers, saying that 17% of the oil released by the well had been collected without ever reaching the ocean and about half had dissolved or been dispersed.

The government’s report “gives the impression that the clean-up efforts were more effective than they actually were,” MacDonald will tell the subcommittee on energy and environment. He will say that the report “mixes very different categories together,” such as oil that can harm the environment in the future and oil that “posed no such threat” once it was pumped into tankers. The prepared testimony was reviewed by Dow Jones Newswires.

On Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco defended the government’s estimates, saying that “we stand by the calculations that we released recently.” She said that the government was “going forward” with “additional monitoring” and would change its estimates if “new information should come to the fore.”

Earlier this month, a team led by the U.S. Interior Department and NOAA said that of 4.9 million barrels released by the well, just over one fourth was a “residual amount” that was either on or just below the surface as a light sheen and weathered tar balls or had washed ashore.

“We really cannot check whether this number should actually be 36% of 19%,” MacDonald will say. He will say that the report does not provide any citations or formulas that would allow “an independent reviewer to determine where these numbers actually come from.”

MacDonald will also challenge the government’s statement that the oil released into the ocean is biodegrading quickly.

“Science simply does not know how quickly or slowly oil will degrade either in surface waters of in the deep waters of the Gulf,” MacDonald will say. He will say that preliminary evidence suggests “a slow rate of degradation.” That contradicts the government’s statement earlier this month that “oil from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill is biodegrading quickly.”

MacDonald will also say that oil that has resisted dispersion and evaporation “will be very persistent” and “remain potentially harmful for decades.”

MacDonald will say that the gas released by the spill “should not be ignored.” He will say that fish exposed to concentrated methane “have exhibited mortality and neurological damage.”

He will also say that he is concerned about the ability of the Gulf of Mexico to withstand the shock of the oil spill.

“My greatest concern is that portions of the ecosystem may experience “tipping point” effects that overwhelm resiliency,” MacDonald will say. While “we can hope” that the spill’s distance from shore and its depth “will mitigate the impact,” scientists “have to watch with utmost scrutiny.”

MacDonald also will say that the Gulf of Mexico must be “first in line” for payments made by BP to compensate for damage from the spill. That could set off a conflict with residents of the Gulf region, who are also seeking compensation for the damage to their livelihoods.

“Much as I sympathize with the economic hardship caused by the BP discharge and desire that restitution be paid, a big part–the biggest part–of our response must put the Gulf herself first in line for repayment,” he will say.

-By Siobhan Hughes, Dow Jones Newswires; (202) 862-6654; siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NOLA.com: Scientists wary of U.S. report that says only 26 percent of spilled Gulf oil left

NOLA.Com
August 18, 2010

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/scientists_wary_of_us_report_t.html

Published: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 9:15 PM
Updated: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 9:25 PM
The Times-Picayune
By Aimee Miles, staff writer

Some scientists are voicing doubts about the accuracy of an Aug. 4 intergovernmental agency report

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdf

asserting that just 26 percent of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil released from BP’s ruptured wellhead

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/scientists_wary_of_us_report_t.html

remains to be dealt with onshore and at sea.
The highly publicized report,

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/local_officials_environmentali.html

trumpeted on the Aug. 4 front page of the New York Times and unveiled later that day by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in a White House ceremony attended by Deepwater Horizon incident commander Thad Allen and White House energy adviser Carol Browner, was hailed as a sign of remarkable progress in the Gulf, and led many to question the severity of the spill altogether.

But the report hasn’t marinated well during the past two weeks, attracting increasing criticism from scientists for its dubious conclusiveness and lack of substantiation.

Written by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=809

in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey,

http://www.usgs.gov/

the five-page report includes a pie chart that describes the fate of the oil, broken into seven categories. According to the chart, roughly one-third of the oil that gushed from the wellhead is definitely gone: recovered directly or eliminated by burning, skimming, or chemical dispersion operations.

While that represents roughly 19 percent of the oil removed from the water by response teams, the report reads as if natural processes have eliminated more than twice that amount through evaporation, dissolution or natural dispersion.

Some scientists suspect the figure for oil remaining in the water is much higher than the report’s estimates, and complain that federal officials have refused to reveal the algorithms used to derive the calculations that relied on measurements and estimates provided by Gulf response teams in daily operational reports.

The dearth of supporting data has led to grumbling from environmental scientists, who say they’ll reserve judgment until they can verify the math.

Accusations of obfuscation

A congressional investigator, who asked not to be named, said his repeated requests to NOAA for specific formulas and calculations have gone unmet. The level of obfuscation surrounding the origins of the figures, he said, would never be accepted if the report were presented for publication in an academic journal.

Kerry St. Pe, director of the Barataria Terrebone National Estuary Program, has no confidence in the figures, despite their being reported “as gospel.” Federal scientists can’t determine exactly how much oil has even entered the Gulf, let alone calculate with accuracy what has happened to it since, St. Pe said.

A group of scientists under the Georgia Sea Grant program, part of a NOAA-sponsored university network of ocean and coastal researchers, released an alternative report

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/georgia_scientists_say_80_perc.html

on Tuesday that addresses what they see as faulty conclusions in the federal report.

Their report claims that most of the oil that leaked into the Gulf is still present. They concede that much of it is dissolved or in the form of dispersed micro-droplets, but caution that oil in that state isn’t harmless. According to the Georgia report, between 70 percent and 79 percent of the oil remains in the ecosystem.

Other scientists are also dubious of the specifics in the NOAA report.

“Some members of the scientific community are putting more credibility into what these figures mean than what was meant,” St. Pe said. “They’re just estimates … to give the public a general idea of the fate of the oil and not with any precision.”

‘A ballpark number’

Ed Overton, an LSU environmental scientist who specializes in the chemistry of oil spills, estimates the margin of error in the federal report could be as high as 30 percent. The amount of oil that remains, he said, could be anywhere between a quarter and one-half of the spill’s total volume — a volume that itself is not precisely defined.

Overton, one of 11 independent scientists that NOAA consulted for analysis, said he was contacted by the agency a couple of months ago to provide comments on “significant figures” in early versions of the report. Other scientists consulted included faculty from the University of Calgary and the University of California, San Diego, as well as the chairman of Exxon Mobil’s research and engineering department and BP’s consultant on dispersants and controlled burns, Alan Allen.

Overton said the seeming precision of the Aug. 4 report gave the illusion that federal scientists knew more than they do.

“Models will only give you a ballpark number,” he said. “If you say 24 (percent), you are implying it’s not 23 and it’s not 25.”

The problem, Overton said, is that scientists are using a finite number of variables to model an environmental system that is infinitely complex. That introduces a large margin of error.

Both Overton and St. Pe said the greatest potential for error is contained in the amount of oil said to have evaporated or dissolved. The federal report’s estimate was roughly 1.2 million barrels, or about 30 percent of the oil that entered the Gulf.

‘Your best guess’

Scientists agree that the oil in the Gulf is prone to rapid biodegradation. They believe that because the oil is buoyant, it’s likely to remain closer to the water’s surface, where it may evaporate, disperse or dissolve, or provide food for crude-eating microbes.

But the rates of those natural processes depend on water temperature, weather conditions, currents, and the depth and molecular content of the oil — all of which can be difficult to quantify. “When push coves to shove,” said Overton, “a lot of times you have to put parameters into the model, and sometimes those parameters are your best guess.”

Those best guesses draw upon existing scientific literature from previous spills and from laboratory simulations, which don’t necessarily match Gulf conditions, Overton said. He believes NOAA’s estimate for evaporative losses may actually be conservative, and that the actual amount may be as high as 50 percent.

“I know there’s questions about (the report’s) accuracy, but I think at this point in time it’s the most accurate compilation … that’s available,” said Jay Grimes, a marine microbiologist at the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

Grimes also believes the most inconclusive variable is the amount of oil that decomposed at sea.

Functional information

Bill Lehr, the lead scientist on the report, said changes in environmental conditions were taken into account. Although conditions at sea changed from day to day, Lehr said averaging the numbers would smooth out differences. He said NOAA’s figures were consistent with experiments performed in Canada and Norway.

“The unusual feature of this was the spill being a mile deep and therefore we would have some components that would normally evaporate dissolved in the water column,” Lehr said.

For that reason, the report groups evaporation and dissolution into a single category.

Lehr believes the budget’s greatest uncertainties are not in its evaporation and dissolution rates, as other scientists have claimed, but in the rates of dispersion.

Parts of the oil-gas mixture that exited the wellhead dispersed naturally, Lehr said, but the fluid dispersal rate is a calculated estimate, and not a measurement. Lehr said other sources have suggested that the dispersants may be more effective than what NOAA presumed, which could mean the report is also conservative in this aspect. But as oil emulsifies at the water’s surface, it becomes stickier, which also renders dispersants less effective, he acknowledged.

Other questions persist.

While the report said only 3 percent of the oil spilled was picked up by skimmers, that number is likely high, Lehr said, because skimmers’ measurements include both oil and water.

Lehr said the federal report, whose figures have been widely discussed by the media, was meant to provide functional information to the incident command, not to stand up to rigorous academic evaluation.

He expects a more detailed report on the oil budget will soon be released, one that contains data, assumptions, references, and comments from peer reviewers.

“It’ll be what people are used to seeing in terms of a scientific report,” Lehr promised.

Aimee Miles can be reached at amiles@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3318.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Pensacola News Journal Opinion: How do they know the oil is gone? They guessed….and Sarasota Herald Tribune Opinion: Shifting data on the Gulf spill

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100819/OPINION/8190302/Editorial-How-do-they-know-the-oil-is-gone-They-guessed

Editorial: How do they know the oil is gone? They guessed
Pensacola News Journal
August 19, 2010

Certainly, initial results from studies by university scientists in Georgia and Florida can’t be used to jump to conclusions about how big the oil problem is in the Gulf of Mexico. We just wish the federal government would have shown similar restraint in claiming that most of the oil is already gone.

We understand the desire to rebuild confidence in the health of the water along coastal communities. But painting an optimistic scenario based on scant scientific data is counterproductive, and possibly dangerous.

After federal officials blithely claimed that “at least 50 percent of the oil” leaked from the ruins of the Deepwater Horizon well “is now completely gone from the system,” scientists from the University of South Florida and the University of Georgia returned from sampling the Gulf to say it ain’t so.

So what did the federal officials base their happy scenario on?

The scientific equivalent of guessing.

The AP reported this week that according to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, the “vast majority” of the “oil is gone” evaluation came from ” ‘educated scientific guesses’ ” because “direct measurements were not possible” on the efforts aimed at removing the oil.

Oh, well, that’s reassuring!

“The oil is not gone, that’s for sure” said a USF scientist, based on actual sampling of the Gulf. And a University of Georgia scientist – again, based on actual testing – said that there’s “a tremendous amount of oil that’s in the system.”

Federal officials, meanwhile, also jauntily assured us that in addition to all the oil that was “gone from the system,” the rest of it “is degrading rapidly or is being removed from the beaches.”

Please – let’s wait until we have a sufficient amount of actual scientific evidence and analysis before adopting the cheery “out of sight, out of mind” mantra that appears to now be the official government policy on the oil spill.

________________________________________

http://www.heraldtribune.com/section/opinion

Editorial: Shifting data on the Gulf spill
Sarasota Herald Tribune
August 19, 2010 on page A8

USF research shows the need for more study and environmental review

Is the Gulf environment already recovering from the BP oil spill, or is the damage simply moving to areas that are harder to see?

The federal government touted the first scenario, but newer research may suggest the latter.

Reported on widely this week, the new data — from the University of South Florida — indicate microdroplets of oil are resting in a deep Gulf canyon that is important to many fish species. Moreover, the oil appears to be toxic to plankton — a fundamental part of the food chain.

The USF research results are preliminary, so no one should be jumping to conclusions. USF scientists say further analysis will be done in the weeks ahead.

Not the first time

Still, this is not the first time in the BP drama that government optimism has collided with independent research.

Earlier this summer, for example, USF researchers found signs of underwater oil plumes — news greeted with skepticism by federal scientists but eventually confirmed. That finding called into question BP’s use of dispersants to break up the gushing oil. The dispersant, which poses its own environmental risks, may have sent the oil deeper into the water column.

The lack of scientific consensus is yet another reminder that the BP spill, which began with the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, is not really over. The ruptured well has been capped and the oil gusher has been stopped, but the recovery challenge goes on. So does the need for fundamental research.

The lack of adequate science and environmental review is well documented in the BP case. Better regulations to prevent such accidents in the future should be a national imperative.

A step in that direction was taken this week with the federal government’s announcement that the Department of the Interior plans to conduct “a new environmental analysis in the Gulf of Mexico.” The department hopes the information gathered will help guide “future leasing and development decisions,” a press release indicated.

It also announced that for now, the use of “categorical exclusions” would be “narrowed” on an interim basis. The exclusions essentially excuse a project from certain environmental reviews that are deemed redundant; the Deepwater Horizon project had received a categorical exclusion.

Deepwater risks

Belatedly, the Interior Department and its agencies have been forced to acknowledge that deepwater oil and gas exploration presents “increasing levels of complexity and risk” — a sharp turn from contentions in the past that a devastating well blowout was unlikely.

The environmental impacts of the BP spill are profound but still emerging, as the USF study shows. Pursuit of credible, solid science will be critically important to the beleaguered seafood industry, to threatened species, and to the vast human economy that depends on the Gulf of Mexico.

It must recover — not just on the surface, but deep down below its sparkling surface.

Special thanks to Frank Jackalone and Richard Charter

National Journal Interview with Thad Allen

http://insiderinterviews.nationaljournal.com/2010/08/deepwater-horizons-enduring-le.php

Deepwater Horizon’s Enduring Lessons

By James Kitfield

At some point in the next week, BP will likely initiate the “bottom
kill” procedure that permanently plugs the Macondo well, bringing to an
end the worst maritime oil spill in American history. No more 24/7
video of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. No more weekly tutorials
on the intricacies of deepwater oil drilling. No more sludge cloud
shadowing the Obama administration’s every move in the 2010 summer of
discontent. Now only the clean-up and long-term repercussions remain to
sort out.

Perhaps no one has a better first-hand grasp of the Deepwater Horizon
disaster than retired Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander
who also coordinated the federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Recently, National Journal spoke with Allen about lessons learned from
the crisis and federal response, and how they might affect future
policy. Edited excerpts from that interview follow.

NJ: How do you respond to critics who say the federal government’s
response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster was too slow given the
magnitude of the problem?

Allen: Look at the actual timeline. The explosion on the Deepwater
Horizon occurred on April 20th. As commandant of the Coast Guard, I got
a call just before midnight that there was an uncontrolled fire on a
rig in the gulf, with an unknown number of people killed and injured.
That night the Coast Guard evacuated a lot of people from the site of
the explosion, and we launched a two-day search for the 11 workers who
were never found, even as we moved lots of equipment towards the site.
Then, early in the afternoon on April 22nd, the entire rig collapsed
and sunk. Hours after the rig sunk, I was in the Oval Office along with
[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano, briefing President
Obama on our initial response. So I don’t buy the argument that we were
slow in responding. I certainly didn’t lean back in the saddle.

NJ: Did you immediately understand the severity of the crisis?

Allen: As events unfolded, the enormity of the problem started
revealing itself. We weren’t dealing with a single, monolithic oil
slick like the 11 million gallons that spilled from the Exxon Valdez.
This was an uncontrolled discharge, with 53,000 barrels each day
spewing in different directions depending on the prevailing winds and
currents, creating hundreds of thousands of separate oil slicks. The
United States had never dealt with that situation before. Very quickly
we were forced to spread our assets from the southern Louisiana coast
to the Florida panhandle. That’s when we realized that the required
response was going to dwarf what was anticipated in BP’s response plan.

NJ: Why did response plans seem so outdated and inadequate to the
magnitude of the crisis?

Allen: Basically because oil spill response is all predicated on the
lessons of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The legislation that came
out of that disaster focused on tanker safety and phasing out single-
hull oil tankers, on making sure the party responsible for the disaster
meets its liability requirements, and on cleanup as directed by the Oil
Pollution Act. That was the regulatory scheme established for
responding to oil spills. However, in the 10 years after that accident,
while we were primarily focused on the safety of tankers and the Alaska
pipeline, oil drilling was moving offshore and going deeper underwater.
So the technology changed, and the overall response structure didn’t
keep pace with those changes and the emerging threat. You could say the
same thing about Coast Guard inspection regimes, which we are in the
process of rethinking. Right now, for instance, the Coast Guard is not
required to approve a company’s oil spill response plan, because that
goes through the Minerals Management Service. I suspect that will
change in the future.

NJ: Given that BP seemed so culpable in causing the disaster, did it
make sense that the company also had such a prominent — some would say
dominant — role in the cleanup effort?

Allen: Well, in the regulatory regime created after the Exxon Valdez,
BP was the “responsible party” in both statute and regulation, which
meant that it had to bear the costs associated with the spill. For that
to happen, however, we had to bring them into the command structure to
write the checks for everything from boom to catering. As the
“responsible party,” BP was also required to have contractors in place
to clean up the spill, while the government had oversight over that
operation. The public didn’t understand that arrangement very well. The
notion of BP having such a key role in the response after seeming to
cause the problem understandably didn’t sit well, and that relationship
was tough to manage. BP had divided loyalties, so to speak. It was
responsible to the public for the cleanup, but at the same time it had
a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.

NJ: Do you think that divided responsibility should be addressed?

Allen: Well, I think we need to take a very hard look at the role of
the “responsible party” in the command and control of a cleanup
operation after an oil spill. You need someone in the command post to
represent the oil industry, but it might be better if they didn’t have
a fiduciary connection to a specific corporation. BP might have taken
the resources needed for the cleanup and put them into a blind trust,
for instance, that was administered by a trustee who actually writes
the checks. That might mitigate the appearance of a conflict of
interest in the public’s mind. Ultimately, we need to decide what we
really mean by “responsible party” in these types of situations. It’s a
very interesting public policy question.

NJ: Do you think it’s a problem that the oil industry has a monopoly on
the technologies involved in deep-sea drilling and oil-well capping?

Allen: By law, the oil companies had to essentially create a capability
in the private sector to respond to oil spills after the Exxon Valdez.
The decision was made by government to rely on private contractors. As
you point out, that reliance was most acute at the wellhead, which was
five miles below the surface of the ocean. There is no government in
the world that owns the means to do deep-sea drilling. Neither the Navy
nor the Coast Guard had anything like that capability. The technology
was entirely in the hands of private companies, so the government’s
role at that point became one of oversight. An overarching question as
we look to the future is whether that capability should be solely in
the hands of the private sector, or do you want some measure of that
capability in the public sector so that the government can mount an
immediate response?

NJ: Doesn’t that question seem all the more important given how little
time and energy BP spent in preparing an adequate spill response?

Allen: One problem we ran into was that during normal operations, all
of the oil produced in the gulf is shipped back to shore via pipelines.
When we had to bring oil to the surface after the accident, there was
no obvious way to transport or collect it. To make that happen, BP had
to bring a floating production system from the North Sea that uses
tankers to shuttle the oil to shore. To bring the oil to the surface,
we brought in freestanding, floating pipes called “risers” that are
used off the shore of Angola. So our solution amounted to the North Sea
meets Angola in the Gulf of Mexico. Lashing all that together took 85
days, because none of it had been put together that way in the past. So
one lesson we learned is the need for a system like that on day one,
rather than on day 85. The oil companies are already thinking hard
about such a system.

NJ: How do you respond to critics who say the federal government’s
response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster was too slow given the
magnitude of the problem?

Allen: Look at the actual timeline. The explosion on the Deepwater
Horizon occurred on April 20th. As commandant of the Coast Guard, I got
a call just before midnight that there was an uncontrolled fire on a
rig in the gulf, with an unknown number of people killed and injured.
That night the Coast Guard evacuated a lot of people from the site of
the explosion, and we launched a two-day search for the 11 workers who
were never found, even as we moved lots of equipment towards the site.
Then, early in the afternoon on April 22nd, the entire rig collapsed
and sunk. Hours after the rig sunk, I was in the Oval Office along with
[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano, briefing President
Obama on our initial response. So I don’t buy the argument that we were
slow in responding. I certainly didn’t lean back in the saddle.

NJ: Did you immediately understand the severity of the crisis?

Allen: As events unfolded, the enormity of the problem started
revealing itself. We weren’t dealing with a single, monolithic oil
slick like the 11 million gallons that spilled from the Exxon Valdez.
This was an uncontrolled discharge, with 53,000 barrels each day
spewing in different directions depending on the prevailing winds and
currents, creating hundreds of thousands of separate oil slicks. The
United States had never dealt with that situation before. Very quickly
we were forced to spread our assets from the southern Louisiana coast
to the Florida panhandle. That’s when we realized that the required
response was going to dwarf what was anticipated in BP’s response plan.

NJ: Why did response plans seem so outdated and inadequate to the
magnitude of the crisis?

Allen: Basically because oil spill response is all predicated on the
lessons of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. The legislation that came
out of that disaster focused on tanker safety and phasing out single-
hull oil tankers, on making sure the party responsible for the disaster
meets its liability requirements, and on cleanup as directed by the Oil
Pollution Act. That was the regulatory scheme established for
responding to oil spills. However, in the 10 years after that accident,
while we were primarily focused on the safety of tankers and the Alaska
pipeline, oil drilling was moving offshore and going deeper underwater.
So the technology changed, and the overall response structure didn’t
keep pace with those changes and the emerging threat. You could say the
same thing about Coast Guard inspection regimes, which we are in the
process of rethinking. Right now, for instance, the Coast Guard is not
required to approve a company’s oil spill response plan, because that
goes through the Minerals Management Service. I suspect that will
change in the future.

NJ: Given that BP seemed so culpable in causing the disaster, did it
make sense that the company also had such a prominent — some would say
dominant — role in the cleanup effort?

Allen: Well, in the regulatory regime created after the Exxon Valdez,
BP was the “responsible party” in both statute and regulation, which
meant that it had to bear the costs associated with the spill. For that
to happen, however, we had to bring them into the command structure to
write the checks for everything from boom to catering. As the
“responsible party,” BP was also required to have contractors in place
to clean up the spill, while the government had oversight over that
operation. The public didn’t understand that arrangement very well. The
notion of BP having such a key role in the response after seeming to
cause the problem understandably didn’t sit well, and that relationship
was tough to manage. BP had divided loyalties, so to speak. It was
responsible to the public for the cleanup, but at the same time it had
a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders.

NJ: Do you think that divided responsibility should be addressed?

Allen: Well, I think we need to take a very hard look at the role of
the “responsible party” in the command and control of a cleanup
operation after an oil spill. You need someone in the command post to
represent the oil industry, but it might be better if they didn’t have
a fiduciary connection to a specific corporation. BP might have taken
the resources needed for the cleanup and put them into a blind trust,
for instance, that was administered by a trustee who actually writes
the checks. That might mitigate the appearance of a conflict of
interest in the public’s mind. Ultimately, we need to decide what we
really mean by “responsible party” in these types of situations. It’s a
very interesting public policy question.

NJ: Do you think it’s a problem that the oil industry has a monopoly on
the technologies involved in deep-sea drilling and oil-well capping?

Allen: By law, the oil companies had to essentially create a capability
in the private sector to respond to oil spills after the Exxon Valdez.
The decision was made by government to rely on private contractors. As
you point out, that reliance was most acute at the wellhead, which was
five miles below the surface of the ocean. There is no government in
the world that owns the means to do deep-sea drilling. Neither the Navy
nor the Coast Guard had anything like that capability. The technology
was entirely in the hands of private companies, so the government’s
role at that point became one of oversight. An overarching question as
we look to the future is whether that capability should be solely in
the hands of the private sector, or do you want some measure of that
capability in the public sector so that the government can mount an
immediate response?

NJ: Doesn’t that question seem all the more important given how little
time and energy BP spent in preparing an adequate spill response?

Allen: One problem we ran into was that during normal operations, all
of the oil produced in the gulf is shipped back to shore via pipelines.
When we had to bring oil to the surface after the accident, there was
no obvious way to transport or collect it. To make that happen, BP had
to bring a floating production system from the North Sea that uses
tankers to shuttle the oil to shore. To bring the oil to the surface,
we brought in freestanding, floating pipes called “risers” that are
used off the shore of Angola. So our solution amounted to the North Sea
meets Angola in the Gulf of Mexico. Lashing all that together took 85
days, because none of it had been put together that way in the past. So
one lesson we learned is the need for a system like that on day one,
rather than on day 85. The oil companies are already thinking hard
about such a system.

NJ: As was the case with Hurricane Katrina, there seemed to be
significant tensions, disconnects and finger-pointing between federal,
state and local authorities. Is that inevitable in trying to mount
“whole of government” responses to far-reaching disasters? Allen: I
think these efforts will always be, in some ways, unique and a work in
progress. Any time there is a gap between what local officials want and
what they see being done on the federal level, there’s going to be
pointed discussions about the best way forward. And to paraphrase Tip
O’Neill, all oil spills are local. They manifest themselves differently
in different places, depending in part on varying types of local
government and political structures. I’m there to provide unity of
effort, for instance, and the law assumes I interface with state
officials, who in turn interact with their local officials. In places
where you have more autonomous home rule, such as Louisiana’s parishes,
however, the challenge of smoothly integrating federal, state and local
responses is greater. We also ran into the problem that some of the
affected areas along Louisiana’s coast were really isolated and
difficult to get to, and that only added to the complexity of the
operation.

NJ: Would you change methods for estimating the scope of an oil spill,
especially in light of widespread suspicions that BP and the government
underestimated the amount of oil dispersed into the gulf?

Allen: I think for any future oil spills we should rely only on
official government estimates based on the findings of an independent
team of scientists. That was ultimately the solution we adopted. There
was so much angst over how much oil was spilling that I created a flow-
rate technology team of scientists led by the head of the U.S.
Geological Survey. They estimated that the well was spilling 53,000
barrels a day into the gulf, plus or minus 10 percent. That’s how we
came up with the top-line figure of 4.9 million barrels. That’s a lot
of oil.

NJ: Is it enough oil to cause you personally to question the wisdom of
deepwater drilling?

Allen: Whenever I’m asked that question, my reply is the same: That’s
way above my pay grade. I will say that in this case we had a “fail-
safe” system that turned out not to be fail-safe. So if we are going to
continue to allow drilling at 5,000 feet below the ocean’s surface, on
a seabed that only robots can reach and where operations resemble
Apollo 13 more than a standard oil drilling operation, then we had
certainly better know how to deal with another failure if it were to
occur.

NJ: You’ve had a direct hand in responding to devastating crises
ranging from the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina to the earthquake
in Haiti and the gulf oil spill. Have you drawn any overriding lessons
about the nature of government responses to such destructive incidents?

Allen: When considering future responses to big events like these, I
think we will have to decide on a social contract that spells out what
citizens can expect from their government. Because the universe of
potential interventions, and the expectations of the citizenry, are
both growing in ways that outstrip traditional funding sources and
statutory guidelines. For instance, what’s the government’s
responsibility for dealing with the long-term socioeconomic and
behavioral health impacts of these events? Nowhere in government
statute or regulations will you find guidance on how to deal with those
kinds of issues. I don’t know if a whole society can acquire post-
traumatic stress disorder, but you definitely see disaster fatigue set
in after these major events. You can see it in the gulf region right
now. So we as a nation are ultimately going to have to deal with the
public policy issues raised by these big national traumas.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Palm Beach Post: Oil spill recovery grant includes $3 million for mental health care in Florida

August 16, 2010

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/oil-spill-recovery-grant-includes-3-million-for-862689.html

By Christine Stapleton
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 7:49 p.m. Monday, Aug. 16, 2010
Posted: 7:14 p.m. Monday, Aug. 16, 2010

Florida mental health care providers will get $3 million of the $52 million that BP pledged to state and federal agencies Monday, to provide behavioral and substance abuse services to residents along the Gulf Coast.

In a proposal to BP on July 30, Florida’s Department of Children and Family Services had requested $5.6 million for mental health services. On Monday, DCF Secretary George Sheldon called the $3 million grant “a start toward helping Floridians who are beginning to feel the stress associated with this disaster.”

The grant “will not prevent the Department from seeking additional funding as needed,” Shelton said.

Other agencies receiving money include: the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Heath Services Administration, $10 million; Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals, $15 million; the Mississippi and Alabama mental health departments, $12 million each.

Among those hoping for financial support include Lutheran Services of Florida, which quickly responded to the needs of children along the Gulf with its Camp Beyond the Horizon. The program teaches coping skills and give children a place to talk about their fears.

“What we are finding is an increase in fear of everything the weather, other disasters, losing people, said Beth Deck, the northwest regional director who helped organize the camps. “Worry, worry, worry. They worry about people losing their jobs. They think all the animals have died.”

During the summer over 150 kids attended the free, week-long camps in Pensacola, Deck said.

Many of the children hide their fears, afraid to add more stress to their parents, Deck said. Some of the children, already veterans of one disaster in their young lives, attended a similar program, Camp Noah, after hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, she said.

Money will allow the camps to continue on the weekends during the school year, she said: “Every kid in the community is impacted.”

News of the funding pleasantly surprised the mental health community, which has watched BP consistently deny injury claims especially those for mental health problems.

“This is a good downpayment,” said Michael J. Fitzpatrick, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Fitzpatrick wrote a terse letter to BP in July, telling Doug Suttles, BP’s Chief Operating Officer, that BP has a “moral obligation to help finance mental health services.”

“It gets back to the stigma surrounding mental illness,” Fitzpatrick said. “This recognizes that mental health is an important variable in what happens in a disaster.”

The emotional damage caused by the spill received little attention until June 23, when an Alabama charter boat captain who had recently lost his business because of the spill — shot himself to death aboard his vessel.

Steve Picou, a sociologist at the University of South Alabama who lives along the Gulf and for 20 years has studied the communities affected by the Exxon Valdez, said his research has shown that Gulf communities are already having “severe problems.” Picou said he was “very surprised” by BP’s announcement, since similar requests were made of Exxon after the Valdez spill but Exxon “would not have any part of it.”

BP posted a two-page announcement about the funding on its web site on Monday.

“We appreciate that there is a great deal of stress and anxiety across the region and as a part of our determination to make things right for the people of the region, we are providing assistance now to help make sure individuals who need help know where to turn,” Lamar Kay, the new president of BP America said in the release.

Christine_Stapleton@pbpost.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Santa Fe, New Mexican: Opinion–Big Oil faces new rules after disaster

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Big-Oil-faces-new-rules-after-disaster

Environmentalists were aghast when, just this spring, President Barack Obama announced an energy initiative encouraging offshore oil drilling. Only a few weeks later, the president and the rest of the nation got a lesson in the risks of running roughshod over Mother Nature: We’re still holding our breath over efforts to put a final cap on the disastrous Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf was to have been the scene of a new oil rush. Our chagrined president and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quickly put the kibosh on their own plans with a half-year moratorium on deepwater drilling. Legal battles are still being waged over that moratorium, and over the comparative safety of other rigs out there – but the ban is in place for now.

Would the Deepwater Horizon have been dangerous if the federal Minerals Management Service hadn’t been lip-locked with the oil companies it was supposed to be regulating – and if corporate bosses hadn’t been sloppy about following the rig’s safety procedures? Hard to say – but our distraught nation has an idea …

It’s been clear for the past few months that Obama’s people need to rid the minerals-management agency of the bribed-up, oil-cozy officials who thrived under his predecessor before even thinking of allowing any more drilling in water deeper than 500 feet.

On Monday, the administration said there’ll be no more fast-tracking of deepwater projects. That means an end of previous exemptions from environmental review.

Yup – under a policy of leniency imposed by the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s, Big Oil has been excused from detailed environmental reviews when its work didn’t involve significant environmental impact. And who determined that? Guess. That exemption covered the central and western Gulf – including the killer rig Deepwater Horizon. Yessir – get government out of our hair; deregulate industry, and watch our smoke (or slick) …

“In light of the increasing levels of complexity and risk – and the consequent potential environmental impacts – associated with deepwater drilling, we are taking a fresh look,” Secretary Salazar mildly put it, at the environmental-protection process.

Ya era tiempo – it was about time government reined in the oil guys. This horse, obviously, was already out of the barn, and the drilling field lying a mile below the Gulf surface never underwent a site-specific review.

Future projects can expect such reviews, as well as demands for the utmost in caution.

The reaction from the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil-and-gas lobby, was predictable: Environmental reviews, it claims, are already extensive. On paper, maybe; but when the people doing those reviews are partying it up on Big Oil’s tab, how serious could they be at the business table? Presumably, their successors will give a gimlet eye to new deepwater-drilling proposals.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sea Grant/Un of Ga: Report concludes that nearly 80 percent of oil from Gulf spill remains

This new report provides evidence that we need an independent, peer reviewed examination of all the scientific data on the whereabouts and impacts of the remaining oil from the BP disaster. The discrepancy in the ways federal agencies and academic research scientists are interpreting the data is as wide as the Gulf itself.
- Frank Jackalone, Sierra Club

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/100816_Sea_Grant.shtml

Media briefing featuring Samantha Joye, Charles Hopkinson scheduled for 11 a.m., Aug. 17

Writer: Sam Fahmy, 706/542-5361, sfahmy@uga.edu
Contact: Jill Gambill, 305/542-8975, jgambill@uga.edu
Aug 16, 2010, 16:56

Athens, Ga. – A report released today by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.

The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.

“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” said Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant and professor of marine sciences in the University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. “The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade. We are still far from a complete understanding of what its impacts are.”

Co-authors on the paper include Jay Brandes, associate professor, Skidaway Institute of Oceanography; Samantha Joye, professor of marine sciences, UGA; Richard Lee, professor emeritus, Skidaway; and Ming-yi Sun, professor of marine sciences UGA.

Hopkinson and Joye will discuss the report and the fate of gas released into the Gulf of Mexico at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 17. The briefing will be held in Room 261 of the Marine Sciences building on the UGA campus. Reporters can join the briefing via teleconference by dialing toll-free 888-204-5987 and entering access code 2560397.

The group analyzed data from the Aug. 2 National Incident Command Report, which calculated an “oil budget” that was widely interpreted to suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the spill remained.

Hopkinson notes that the reports arrive at different conclusions largely because the Sea Grant and UGA scientists estimate that the vast majority of the oil classified as dispersed, dissolved or residual is still present, whereas the NIC report has been interpreted to suggest that only the “residual” form of oil is still present.

Hopkinson said that his group also estimated how much of the oil could have evaporated, degraded or weathered as of the date of the report. Using a range of reasonable evaporation and degradation estimates, the group calculated that 70-79 percent of oil spilled into the Gulf still remains. The group showed that it was impossible for all the dissolved oil to have evaporated because only oil at the surface of the ocean can evaporate into the atmosphere and large plumes of oil are trapped in deep water.

Another difference is that the NIC report estimates that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the wellhead, while the Sea Grant report uses a figure of 4.1 million barrels since .8 million barrels were piped directly from the well to surface ships and, therefore, never entered Gulf waters.

On a positive note, the group noted that natural processes continue to transform, dilute, degrade and evaporate the oil. They add that circular current known as the Franklin Eddy is preventing the Loop Current from bringing oil-contaminated water from the Gulf to the Atlantic, which bodes well for the East Coast.

Joye said that both the NIC report and the Sea Grant report are best estimates and emphasizes the need for a sustained and coordinated research effort to better understand the impacts of what has become the world’s worst maritime oil spill. She warned that neither report accounted for hydrocarbon gasses such as methane in their oil budgets.

“That’s a gaping hole,” Joye said, “because hydrocarbon gasses are a huge portion of what was ejected from the well.”
##

Note to editors:

The complete Georgia Sea Grant/University of Georgia Oil Spill report is available online at http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilSpillReport8-16.pdf.

Figures from the report are available at http://uga.edu/aboutUGA/joye_pkit/GeorgiaSeaGrant_OilChart.pdf.

Special thanks to:
Frank Jackalone
Senior Field Organizing Manager/ FL & PR
Sierra Club
111 Second Avenue, Suite 1001
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727)824-8813
frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org

JAMA: Health Effects of the Gulf Oil Spill

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/jama.2010.1254v1?etoc

by Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH; Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH
JAMA. Published online August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico poses direct threats to human health from inhalation or dermal contact with the oil and dispersant chemicals, and indirect threats to seafood safety and mental health. Physicians should be familiar with health effects from oil spills to appropriately advise, diagnose, and treat patients who live and work along the Gulf Coast or wherever a major oil spill occurs.
The main components of crude oil are aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.1 Lower-molecular-weight aromatics—such as benzene, toluene, and xylene—are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and evaporate within hours after the oil reaches the surface. Volatile organic compounds can cause respiratory irritation and central nervous system (CNS) depression. Benzene is known to cause leukemia in humans, and toluene is a recognized teratogen at high doses.1 Higher-molecular-weight chemicals such as naphthalene evaporate more slowly. Naphthalene is listed by the National Toxicology Program as “reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans” based on olfactory neuroblastomas, nasal tumors, and lung cancers in animals.2 Oil can also release hydrogen sulfide gas and contains traces of heavy metals, as well as nonvolatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can contaminate the food chain. Hydrogen sulfide gas is neurotoxic and has been linked to both acute and chronic CNS effects; PAHs include mutagens and probable carcinogens.1 Burning oil generates particulate matter, which is associated with cardiac and respiratory symptoms and premature mortality. The Gulf oil spill is unique because of the large-scale use of dispersants to break up the oil slick. By late July, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had been applied in the Gulf. Dispersants contain detergents, surfactants, and petroleum distillates, including respiratory irritants such as 2-butoxyethanol, propylene glycol, and sulfonic acid salts.
Acute Health Effects From Oil and Dispersants

In Louisiana in the early months of the oil spill, more than 300 individuals, three-fourths of whom were cleanup workers, sought medical care for constitutional symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, cough, respiratory distress, and chest pain. These symptoms are typical of acute exposure to hydrocarbons or hydrogen sulfide, but it is difficult to clinically distinguish toxic symptoms from other common illnesses.1
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up an air monitoring network to test for VOCs, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and naphthalene. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis of the EPA data concluded: “The levels of some of the pollutants that have been reported to date may cause temporary eye, nose, or throat irritation, nausea, or headaches, but are not thought to be high enough to cause long-term harm.”3 Data posted on BP’s Web site suggest that air quality for workers offshore is worse than on land. Local temperatures pose a risk of heat-related illness, which is exacerbated by wearing coveralls and respirators, implying a trade-off between protection from chemical hazards and heat.
Skin contact with oil and dispersants causes defatting, resulting in dermatitis and secondary skin infections. Some individuals may develop a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, erythema, edema, burning sensations, or a follicular rash. Some hydrocarbons are phototoxic.

Potential Long-term Health Risks

In the near term, various hydrocarbons from the oil will contaminate fish and shellfish. Although vertebrate marine life can clear PAHs from their system, these chemicals accumulate for years in invertebrates.4 The Gulf provides about two-thirds of the oysters in the United States and is a major fishery for shrimp and crab. Trace amounts of cadmium, mercury, and lead occur in crude oil and can accumulate over time in fish tissues, potentially increasing future health hazards from consumption of large fin fish such as tuna and mackerel.

Health Effects From Historic Oil Spills

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, a total of 1811 workers’ compensation claims were filed by cleanup workers; most were for acute injuries but 15% were for respiratory problems and 2% for dermatitis.5 No information is available in the peer-reviewed literature about longer-term health effects of this spill. A survey of the health status of workers 14 years after the cleanup found a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic airway disease among workers with high oil exposures, as well as self-reports of neurological impairment and multiple chemical sensitivity.6
Symptom surveys performed in the weeks or months following oil spills have reported a higher prevalence of headache, throat irritation, and sore or itchy eyes in exposed individuals compared with controls. Some studies have also reported modestly increased rates of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, rash, wheezing, cough, and chest pain.7 One study of 6780 fishermen, which included 4271 oil spill cleanup workers, found a higher prevalence of lower respiratory tract symptoms 2 years after oil spill cleanup activities. The risk of lower respiratory tract symptoms increased with the intensity of exposure.8
A study of 858 individuals involved in the cleanup of the Prestige oil spill in Spain in 2002 investigated acute genetic toxicity in volunteers and workers. Increased DNA damage, as assessed by the Comet assay, was found in volunteers, especially in those working on the beaches.7 In the same study, workers had lower levels of CD4 cells, IL-2, IL-4, IL-10, and interferon compared with their own preexposure levels.
Studies following major oil spills in Alaska, Spain, Korea, and Wales have documented elevated rates of anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological stress.9 A mental health survey of 599 local residents 1 year after the Exxon Valdez spill found that exposed individuals were 3.6 times more likely to have anxiety disorder, 2.9 times more likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder, and 2.1 times more likely to score high on a depression index.10 Adverse mental health effects were observed up to 6 years after the oil spill.

Approach to Patients

Clinicians should be aware of toxicity from exposures to oil and related chemicals. Patients presenting with constitutional symptoms should be asked about occupational exposures and location of residence. The physical examination should focus on the skin, respiratory tract, and neurological system, documenting any signs that could be associated with oil-related chemicals. Care consists primarily of documentation of signs and symptoms, evaluation to rule out or treat other potential causes of the symptoms, removal from exposure, and supportive care.
Prevention of illness from oil and related chemicals on the Gulf Coast during the cleanup period includes proper protective equipment for workers and common-sense precautions for community residents. Workers require proper training and equipment that includes boots, gloves, coveralls, and safety glasses, as well as respirators when potentially hazardous levels of airborne vapors, aerosols, or particulate matter exist. Workers should also take precautions to avoid heat-related illness (rest breaks and drinking sufficient fluids). All worker injuries and illnesses should be reported to ensure proper tracking.
Community residents should not fish in off-limit areas or where there is evidence of oil. Fish or shellfish with an oily odor should be discarded. Direct skin contact with contaminated water, oil, or tar balls should be avoided. If community residents notice a strong odor of oil or chemicals and are concerned about health effects, they should seek refuge in an air-conditioned environment. Interventions to address mental health in the local population should be incorporated into clinical and public health response efforts. Over the longer term, cohort studies of Gulf cleanup workers and local residents will greatly enhance the scientific data on the health sequelae of oil spills.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author: Gina M. Solomon, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, UCSF, and Natural Resources Defense Council, 111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 (gsolomon@nrdc.org).
Published Online: August 16, 2010. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1254
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Additional Contributions: We thank Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, MPH, Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathleen Navarro, BS, University of California-Berkeley; and Diane Bailey, MS, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, for their assistance with the literature review.
Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, and Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California.

REFERENCES

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999.

2. National Toxicology Program. Naphthalene. Report on Carcinogens. 11th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2005. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s116znph.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2010.

3. US Environmental Protection Agency. Odors from the BP Oil Spill. http://epa.gov/bpspill/odor.html. Accessed June 7, 2010.

4. Law RJ, Hellou J. Contamination of fish and shellfish following oil spill incidents. Environ Geosci. 1999;6(2):90-98. FREE FULL TEXT

5. Gorma RW, Berardinelli SP, Bender TR. HETA 89-200 and 89-273-2111, Exxon/Valdez Alaska Oil Spill. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1991.

6. O’Neill AK. Self-Reported Exposures and Health Status Among Workers From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Cleanup [master's thesis]. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2003.

7. Rodríguez-Trigo G, Zock JP, Isidro Montes I. Health effects of exposure to oil spills [in Spanish]. Arch Bronconeumol. 2007;43(11):628-635. PUBMED

8. Zock JP, Rodríguez-Trigo G, Pozo-Rodríguez F; et al, SEPAR-Prestige Study Group. Prolonged respiratory symptoms in clean-up workers of the Prestige oil spill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;176(6):610-616. FREE FULL TEXT

9. Sabucedo JM, Arce C, Senra C, Seoane G, Vázquez I. Symptomatic profile and health-related quality of life of persons affected by the Prestige catastrophe. Disasters. 2010;34(3):809-820. PUBMED

10. Palinkas LA, Petterson JS, Russell J, Downs MA. Community patterns of psychiatric disorders after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Am J Psychiatry. 1993;150(10):1517-1523. FREE FULL TEXT

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz

AP: Feds say well’s not dead yet, more drilling needed

http://www.bradenton.com/2010/08/13/2504309/decision-expected-on-plug-for.html

BP’s broken oil well is not dead yet
By TOM BREEN (AP) – 2 days ago
NEW ORLEANS -

The government’s point man on the crisis said Friday that the blown-out well is not securely plugged to his satisfaction and that the drilling of the relief well – long regarded as the only way to ensure that the hole at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico never leaks oil again – must go forward.

“The relief well will be finished,” said retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen. “We will kill the well.”

Work on the relief well was suspended earlier this week because of bad weather. Allen did not say when it would resume, but when the order comes, it could take four days to get the operation up and running again.

From there, it could be only a matter of days before the “bottom kill” is done and the blown-out well that wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast economy and environment is no longer a threat.

Last week, BP plugged up the ruptured oil well from the top with mud and cement, and for a while, it appeared that the relief well that BP has been drilling 2 1/2 miles under the sea all summer long in an effort to seal up the leak from the bottom might not be necessary after all. But Allen dashed those hopes after scientists conducted pressure tests on Thursday.

Scientists had hoped that the cement pumped in from the top had plugged the gap between the well’s inner pipe and its outer casing. The pressure tests showed some cement was in that gap, but officials don’t know enough about what’s there – or how much of it – to trust that there is a permanent seal, said Allen, who has repeatedly insisted on an “overabundance of caution” when it comes to plugging the well.
The well spilled an estimated 206 million gallons of crude into the sea before BP finally put a cap on it July 15. But that was always regarded as a temporary fix until the relief well and the bottom kill could be completed.

Bob Bea, a petroleum engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said that given the results of the pressure tests, proceeding with the relief well makes sense.
“Everything we know at this time says we need to continue the work with the relief wells,” he said. “We don’t know the details of how they plugged the well from the top. We don’t know the volume of material they put in the well bore, and without that we can’t tell how close to the bottom of the well they got.”

Drilling of the relief well began in early May, and the tunnel is now just 30 to 50 feet from the blown-out well. To intercept the well, the drillers must hit a target about the size of a dinner plate. Once they punch through, heavy drilling mud and cement will be injected into the bedrock.

Allen said scientists from BP and the government are working to ensure the bottom kill does not damage the cap and make the disaster worse. New equipment to ease the pressure inside the well might have to be installed, which would “significantly affect the timeline” for the final fix, Allen said, though he did not specify how much.

Officials from BP and the federal government have been touting the bottom kill as the final fix for weeks, and local officials said they were glad to hear it will go forward.

“If it’s a nearly redundant safety measure, that makes sense to us,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who attended a closed-door meeting with Allen, local leaders and other federal officials.

The possibility, floated earlier this week, that the well might already be plugged didn’t sit well with local officials or environmentalists, who said they were leery of optimistic forecasts from BP and the government.

“After all this effort, why would they quit before they’re done?” said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. “If you had a trustworthy company and they said it’s done, it’s done. But in this case BP has not been a trustworthy company.”

Along the Gulf Coast in Houma, La., construction worker Doug Hunt wearily wondered if the crisis would ever end upon hearing that the permanent fix was at least several more days off.

“All we’ve heard is oil, oil, oil. I guess they’ll do the job sooner or later, but it will take a long time for the people here to recover from this,” Hunt said.

The crisis began on April 20, after an explosion on the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers.

Associated Press Writers Harry R. Weber and Noaki Schwartz in New Orleans, Kevin McGill in Gray, La., and Mary Foster in Houma, La., contributed to this report.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sign the petition to stop the use of dispersants and more….

Sign the petition to stop the use of dispersants here:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/25/stop-the-use-of-dispersants-in-the-gulf/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/08/16/next-major-toxic-hazard-that-can-ruin-you-and-your-childrens-health.aspx

The above link takes you to a video of Susan Shaw, internationally recognized marine toxicologist, author and explorer, who shows evidence that the toxic Gulf of Mexico oil slick is being kept off of beaches at devastating cost to the health of the deep sea.

**************************************

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The BP oil leak has reportedly been plugged, but the devastation caused by the hundreds of millions of gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf, coupled with a reckless use of toxic dispersants to “clean it up,” is just beginning.

And the sad truth is, even highly trained toxicologists can only guess what the full extent of the damage will be. This is, by far, the worst oil spill in human history. The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled “only” 12 million gallons of oil — and even that ended up taking a much more complex environmental toll than toxicologists initially predicted.

There’s no doubt in my mind this disaster will take DECADES to clean up, if it’s at all possible, and the worst-case scenario is pointing to major devastation on all levels of marine life, from coral reefs and plankton to fish and air-breathing mammals.

Where Did the Massive Oil Slicks Go?

Since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, thousands of square miles in the Gulf were covered with immense patches of oil.

Media images showing the extent of the destruction have been scarce — draconian measures have been implemented to limit media access and reporting on the disaster, and CNN recently reported on a new rule that prevents anyone, including reporters and photographers, from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms anywhere on the water or on beaches — but the oil was there, coating expansive stretches of ocean, nonetheless.

Now, fast-forward to early August and the New York Times reported that the oil patches are “largely gone,” and “Radar images suggest that the few remaining patches are quickly breaking down in the warm surface waters of the gulf.” They went on to report, “The slick appeared to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.”

Two days earlier, a government report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey similarly implied that the oil in the Gulf was quickly disappearing and that environmental effects were well under control.

Government Report Implies Oil is Mostly Gone!

For starters, the report estimated that only 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well, when at the height of the spill estimates revealed that 4.2 million gallons of oil were likely still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico daily.

Next the report goes on to explain that:

“It is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.

The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.”

The remaining “residual” oil, along with the oil that has been chemically and naturally dispersed are “currently being degraded naturally,” according to the government report.

With a glowing report like this one, it makes you wonder if the U.S. government is in collusion with BP. Already the report is drawing criticism that it is deliberately trying to play down the real impacts of the spill.

As Samantha Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia who has conducted important research regarding the spill, told the New York Times:

“A lot of this is based on modeling and extrapolation and very generous assumptions. If an academic scientist put something like this out there, it would get torpedoed into a billion pieces.”

You can also listen to this shocking interview with top EPA official Hugh Kaufman, which reveals that the NOAA and the EPA are covering up the lethal effects of dispersants and lying about Gulf Oil Spill water samples to save BP billions of dollars in fines.

At the very least, it appears the government has completely overlooked the toxic effects of the dispersants used to “remove” much of the oil. Massive oil slicks don’t just “disappear” from the ocean. Instead, many were treated with harsh chemical solvents that simply transferred the oil from the ocean’s surface to the delicate waters below.

Toxic Dispersants: The Oil Spill Tragedy You Probably Haven’t Heard About

BP is using two dispersants: Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A.

Corexit is on the EPA’s list of approved chemical dispersants, and BP could have chosen any one from the list. Instead, they chose Corexit, which is among the most toxic and least effective options.

As it turns out, BP has financial ties with Nalco, which explains why they have now poured more than 1 million gallons of it into the Gulf. Because of these industry ties, Corexit is the only dispersant available in the massive quantities “needed” for an oil spill of this size.

In fact, they used up all exiting stockpiles of Corexit 9527A, the older and more dangerous formula, and Nalco states it will be discontinued, now that it has been used up.

Of all 18 dispersants tested, Corexit 9500 and 9527A are the LEAST effective, further confirming that BP’s preferential use of these products is motivated by profit, rather than their proclaimed intention to “clean up the mess.”

Toxic for Humans and Marine Life

Corexit products were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the UK more than a decade ago after the agents were linked with human health problems including:

· Respiratory

· Neurological

· Liver

· Kidney

· Blood disorders

Further, according to Carys Mitchelmore, a researcher at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds are known to cause a variety of health problems in animals, including:

· Death

· Reduced growth

· Reproductive problems

· Cardiac dysfunction

· Immune suppression

· Altered behavior

· Carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects

As Sayer Ji, founder of InformationToInspireChange.com, stated:

“Dispersing the oil into the water column accelerates the poisoning of all marine life, deep throughout the water column and seabed. Ultimately it results in “covering-up” the extent of the disaster on the surface, while amplifying the damage within our oceans.

Also, when the dispersants mix with the crude oil, a third far more toxic product is produced called “dispersed oil.” Dispersed oil has been shown to be more toxic than the sum of its parts.

Dispersing simply keeps the oil deeper in the water column so that it will not surface, into the light of public scrutiny.”

The chemical dispersants, by the way, are not a silver bullet to miraculously make oil disappear. Oil spill dispersants only alter the chemical and physical properties of the oil, making it more likely to mix with seawater than deposit on the shoreline.

So what the dispersants do is re-direct the oil, making its impact perhaps less so on birds and shore-dwelling animals, but more so on fish, coral reefs, oysters and other marine life that live in the deeper waters. It essentially “hides” the oil out of view, below the surface where news cameras can’t see it.

Sadly, the oil and dispersant mix is so toxic that I strongly caution you to STAY OUT of the Gulf of Mexico. In my opinion, it’s simply not safe to swim there.

Remember also that children are far more prone to experiencing health problems from this type of toxic exposure than adults. So please, keep your children safe. Do not allow your children to swim or play on the Gulf coast beaches.

Is There Any Way to Help?

Only time will tell what the true environmental and human health impacts of the 2010 BP oil spill will be, but this is for certain: we need our oceans, our coral reefs and our marine life to survive.

Coral reefs are already disappearing faster than rainforests, and dispersed oil is particularly deadly to coral reefs.

According to Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist regarded as the world’s foremost authority on coral reefs:

“The future is horrific. There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we now recognize. If, and when, they go, they will take with them about one-third of the world’s marine biodiversity. Then there is a domino effect, as reefs fail, so will other ecosystems. This is the path of a mass extinction event, when most life, especially tropical marine life, goes extinct.”

You may feel helpless right now to make a difference in the Gulf, but there are some steps you can take to help. First, you can join the movement to stop the use of dispersants by signing this petition.

I also urge you to take action now, without delay, pressing your representatives to hold BP accountable for this massive environmental tragedy.

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz

Florida Oil Spill Law: Feds CONFISCATE independent LSU scientists’ samples because project not approved by BP, others

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/feds-confiscate-independent-lsu-scientists-samples-because-project-not-approved-by-bp-others

AUGUST 11TH, 2010 AT 10:17 PM

Linda Hooper-Bui, Louisiana State University Department of Entomology Associate Professor, writes in The Scientist, “My PhD student’s ant samples were taken away by a US Fish and Wildlife officer at a publicly accessible state Wildlife Management Area because our project hadn’t been approved by Incident Command.”

What is the Incident Command? Hooper-Bui continues, “[It's] also called the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command – which is a joint program of BP and federal agencies, such as the Coast GuardŠ”

She shares another similar experience, “Where our research trip was halted after driving more than 150 miles to a study site. On the way to our sampling sites in Grand Isle, LA, [we] were turned away by a sheriff’s deputy blocking the road who said that he was told to allow no one who wasn’t associated with BP or NRDA.” The NRDA (National Resource Damage Assessment) process “is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP.”

To read the full article, you must register with TheScientist.com: http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&id=57610&o_url=news/display/57610

(see story below)

___________

The Scientist

By Linda Hooper-Bui

Opinion: The oil’s stain on science
An ecosystem biologist discusses how the effort to assess the oil spill’s damage is stifling independent research

[Published 5th August 2010 01:59 PM GMT]

Functioning as an independent researcher in and around the Gulf of Mexico these days is no simple task. I study insect and plant communities in near-shore habitats fringing the Gulf, and my work has gotten measurably harder in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

Some Gulf scientists have already been snatched up by corporate consulting companies with offers of $250/hour. Others are badgered for their data by governmental agencies. Some of us desire to conduct our work without lawyers, government officials, or corporate officers peering over our shoulders. In the end, it may be the independent, non-biased researchers who can deliver credible scientific results that perform the crucial function of assessing the damage wrought by this disaster…if we survive professionally.

Thanks to the National Science Foundation (NSF), some of us might. We don’t work for BP or the government’s National Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process, which is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP. We are independent scientists who want to honestly and independently examine the effects of the oil spill.

The ants, crickets, flies, bees, dragon flies, and spiders I study are important components of the coastal food web. They function as soil aerators, seed dispersers, pollinators, and food sources in complex ecosystems of the Gulf.

Insects were not a primary concern when oil was gushing into the Gulf, but now they may be the best indicator of stressor effects on the coastal northern Gulf of Mexico. Those stressors include oil, dispersants, and cleanup activities. If insect populations survive, then frogs, fish, and birds will survive. If frogs, fish, and birds are there, the fishermen and the birdwatchers will be there. The Gulf’s coastal communities will survive. But if the bugs suffer, so too will the people of the Gulf Coast.

This is why my continued research is important: to give us an idea of just how badly the health of the Gulf Coast ecosystems has been damaged and what, if anything, we can do to stave off a full-blown ecological collapse. But I am having trouble conducting my research without signing confidentiality agreements or agreeing to other conditions that restrict my ability to tell a robust and truthful scientific story.

I want to collect data to answer scientific questions absent a corporate or governmental agenda. I won’t collect data specifically to support the government’s lawsuit against BP nor will I collect data only to be used in BP’s defense. Whereas I think damage assessment is important, it’s my job to be independent — to tell an accurate, unbiased story. But because I choose not to work for BP’s consultants or NRDA, my job is difficult and access to study sites is limited.

In southern Alabama back in late May, my PhD student’s ant samples were taken away by a US Fish and Wildlife officer at a publicly accessible state Wildlife Management Area because our project hadn’t been approved by Incident Command (also called the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command — which is a joint program of BP and federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, assembled to respond to problems related to the April 20 blowout).

We’ve had similar experiences in south Louisiana, where our research trip was halted after driving more than 150 miles to a study site. On the way to our sampling sites in Grand Isle, LA, were turned away by a sheriff’s deputy blocking the road who said that he was told to allow no one who wasn’t associated with BP or NRDA to pass that point. We’ve also been blocked by the Wisner Trust, one of the largest private land owners of marsh habitat in Louisiana, who in the past allowed LSU researchers access to their property. The lawyer representing the trust indicated that they are coordinating over 700 different people associated with BP and NRDA and that they simply cannot approve access for anyone else.

People at the NSF think the work I conduct with my graduate students and eight collaborators on coastal food webs is important enough to fund through their Rapid Proposal Program. The truth is that we used our meager discretionary funds to hurriedly collect data in May before our study sites were oiled. Our group was lucky we weren’t turned away by BP, sheriff’s officers, or Coast Guard at that time. Now we’re seeking a source of independent funding once again.

I’ve been doggedly pursued by NRDA for data our team has and will be collecting. Three different people from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) indicated interest in our data in repeated requests. In fact, I’ll be going to a meeting with LDNR next Thursday (August 12) to further discuss my data. If I were to agree to submit my data, thus officially participating in NRDA, I would be required to sign a confidentiality agreement that lacks an officially specified end date. Exactly when my students or I would be able to publish any results from this research would be determined by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would make that decision based on the status of a civil suit brought against BP. Were I to accept research funding directly from BP or from one of their contractors, I’d have to sign a contract that includes a three-year no publication clause. If I signed either a contract to work with NRDA or to work under BP or one of their contractors, I would have virtually unlimited access to study sites and more research support.

But the price of the secrecy involved with participating in NRDA or conducting research under the auspices of BP is too high. My student and I couldn’t discuss our data, results or experiences for three years or until the litigation against BP is settled. More importantly, we couldn’t publish any of our results. I couldn’t write this essay. The data could be tied up for years in litigation just like that of the scientists who participated in NRDA after the Exxon Valdez incident.

Every day it takes resolve to continue on the path of honest and open science on the effect of stressors on the smallest creatures on the coast. If current trends continue, I fear that the independent researcher may be added to the list of species that will be endangered by this ecological disaster.

_______________________

Linda Hooper-Bui is an ecosystem biologist at Louisiana State University A&M and the LSU Agricultural Center who specializes in disturbance ecology of ants and other arthropods. She coauthored a chapter called “Consequences of Ant Invasions” in the book Ant Ecology, published this year. She loves to spend time mentoring students and has an active undergraduate and graduate student research program.

Editor’s note – Pete Tuttle, USFWS environmental contaminant specialist and Dept of Interior NRDA coordinator, told The Scientist that he was unaware of any samples being taken or access to study sites being restricted by federal, state, or tribal officials associated with NRDA. He did, however, confirm that researchers wishing to formally participate in NRDA must sign a contract that includes a confidentiality agreement. Tuttle said that the agreement prevents signees from releasing information from studies and findings until authorized by the Department of Justice at some later and unspecified date. “This is a civil lawsuit [against BP],” Tuttle said. “We are protecting our interests and our case. It’s not designed to squelch anything, but just to ensure that the integrity of the case is protected.” The Scientist contacted a BP representative to respond to Hooper-Bui’s claims, but BP declined to comment.
Read more: Opinion: The oil’s stain on science – The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&id=57610&o_url=news/display/57610#ixzz0wb0Q5UfM

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Greenwire: Seafood Inspection doesn’t pass some fishermen’s smell test

GULF SPILL: (08/13/2010)
Elana Schor, E&E reporter
BARATARIA, La. — The inlets that envelop this bayou community extend like fingers on a hand, reaching into the backyards of lifelong fishermen. But the boat behind one fishing family’s house sits idle for now, as Tracy Kuhns turns from living off the water to worrying about it.

“The elected officials and the petrochemical companies think the fishermen are just going to let this go away,” Kuhns said this week during an interview at her office. “They’re used to fishermen allowing them to do this to fishing grounds.”

For Kuhns, this time is different. The multicolored pins on her wall tell the story, each inserted into a map of the coast to detail outreach she has made to other towns since the Macondo oil field first began spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico. This time is different, she believes, because some fishermen are not willing to stay quiet and keep hauling up catch they do not trust.

“This stuff is in my canal, behind my home, where my grandchildren swim all summer long,” Kuhns said. She voted for President Obama in 2008, but now she watches in disbelief as his White House serves Gulf seafood to assure the public of its safety. “Come to my house,” Kuhns advised Obama, “and I won’t pretty it up before you show up. I won’t tell you, the seafood I pull out of [the water], that I feel comfortable feeding it to my grandbabies.”

Kuhns, who leads the local coastal protection group Louisiana Bayoukeeper, is part of an alliance of seafood industry veterans organizing an ongoing protest against what they believe is a rushed and unwarranted reopening of fishing grounds previously closed due to contamination from the oil gusher. These fishermen see an alarming disconnect between the oil they continue to encounter on the water and the assurances they receive from state and federal officials that their nets and lines can go back in the Gulf.

The use of sensory testing to check fish samples for traces of the 1.8-million-plus gallons of chemical dispersants sprayed by BP PLC during the leak is particularly frustrating to many in Kuhns’ camp.

“How can they be doing a smell test to check for toxins in such a minute amount?” asked Chris Bryant, a 15-year commercial fishing veteran from Bayou La Batre, Ala. “There is obviously a reason [dispersants] are considered toxic. Maybe in a minute amount they won’t affect us in the short term, but if you continue to ingest them in a period of time, what are going to be the long-term effects? That’s something all the commercial fishermen are concerned about.”

Those doubts resonate with Steve Wilson, chief quality officer in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s seafood testing program. His team is “just as concerned as the fishermen” about the safety of Gulf catches, Wilson said in an interview conducted by phone from the Mississippi lab where groups of trained sensory testers run through seafood samples. “We don’t want product coming into commerce that’s unsafe.”

Sensory testers take the first look at seafood samples to determine if federal areas of the Gulf — more than one-third of which were closed to fishing at the height of the oil disaster — can be reopened or contain too many “hot fish,” as testers call tainted samples. Most of the smell testers have more than a decade of experience sniffing out defective food, Wilson explained, with their natural abilities honed by courses and lengthy training.

Oil contamination at the level of 1 part per million would be equivalent to “a golf ball in an Olympic-sized swimming pool,” he added. “They’re able to smell at that level, but most people can’t.”

Windex and watermelon
Debate over its dispersant tests may be raging in the Gulf, but NOAA’s sensory panel does not use the D-word to describe the samples it examines. Because the odor of the chemical sprays can be very similar to oil — petroleum distillates are a key ingredient in the Nalco product used by BP — Wilson said other terms are being used to distinguish between the two.

“We’ve used descriptors like ‘Windex,’ ‘light chemicals,’ ‘alcohol,’” he said. Those words can be crucial triggers of befouled fish, because testers are trained using vials of potent scents that can help unite various assessments into a broad conclusion. “You might smell watermelon, you might smell ammonia,” Wilson added. “You’re trying to get to the smell that’s more important.”

Should a member of the sensory panel find a sample to contain elements of oil or dispersant, the fishing area in line for reopening must remain closed, according to the protocol developed by NOAA and the Food and Drug Administration to guide seafood testing during the spill. Only one sample his team encountered has failed sensory tests, Wilson said, though the area at issue has reopened for fishing since that May incident
.
Guidance issued by NOAA in 2001 calls for post-spill sensory tests to include control groups, in order to make sure panelists’ noses can still sense the difference between good and bad samples. Given the higher frequency of seafood sniffing this summer, Wilson said, that guidance has been modified so that individual control samples can be dropped on testers without their knowledge.

“From time to time,” he said, NOAA supervisors will put either a known “good” or “spiked” piece of fish into the mix, the latter laced “with an oil-dispersant combination.”
After sensory testing is finished, tissue samples for the fish are subjected to lab analyses for the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a chemical class that includes toxic and carcinogenic elements of oil that tend to resist evaporation.

The chemical tests are done using composite samples of several species of fish, such as tuna and grouper. Because finfish have similar abilities to metabolize oil, Wilson said, “if you compile the sample correctly, it speeds up the process so we can get fisheries open” or keep them closed without paying up to several hundred dollars for each individual test.

A community divided
Not every Gulf fisherman shares Kuhns’ and Bryant’s fears about the viability of government seafood tests. Some locals whisper that skeptics are acting out of concern for their bottom line, preferring to earn a steady paycheck from BP for cleanup work to the uncertain fate of selling fish that consumers may still view as tainted.

Before staging a press conference last week outside a listening session held by Ray Mabus, Obama’s Gulf restoration point main, Kuhns and her allies addressed that issue head-on. “Fishermen would rather work cleaning the severely damaged Gulf than selling tainted seafood,” they wrote in a release outlining their goals.

Oysterman Mike Voisin, CEO of Motivated Seafood in Houma, La., questioned the wisdom of airing such critical sentiments. “Don’t hurt the market by saying, ‘I don’t want to feed it to my kids,’” he advised. “They’re just hurting themselves.”

Voisin, who says his processing has been cut nearly in half since the oil leak began, joins NOAA outreach calls to members of the Gulf seafood industry and displays a resulting knowledge of the ins and outs of testing.

Noting that the government’s assessment of the potential risk of eating contaminated seafood assumes an annual consumption level more than 10 times higher than that of the average American, Voisin said: “We’re still meeting those requirements. If anybody’s finding anything out there, they should report it immediately. … I don’t believe the state would open areas if they weren’t confident.”

Part of the conflict on the ground appears rooted in a lack of communication between the government and members of a community that, while close-knit, is also fiercely independent and spread throughout remote corners of the coast.

“I’ve heard more than one local person say, as far as they know, that there’s not a test for dispersant” in seafood, said Rebecca Templeton, environmental outreach coordinator at Bayou Grace Community Services in Chauvin, La. “Even as someone who’s trying to gather this information, I don’t know what kind of testing is being done … if I knew those details, it would be reassuring to me.”

NOAA is working on a framework for the chemical analyses of dispersant contamination that Kuhns and her fellow fishermen are calling for, but an agency spokeswoman said it is difficult to predict the time frame for development of the tests.
Meanwhile, Louisiana shrimping season is set to start next week, and Voisin said he expects more state-level waters to reopen by that time. But Kuhns’ boat is unlikely to make another fishing journey in the near future.

Her next step is continuing to unite with like-minded fishermen to protect the waters they love from the threat of abandonment, by BP and Washington, before the fallout from the oil leak is truly contained. “They need to be honest about this,” she said. “It’s not going to go away.”
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Destin Log: Coast Guard admits dispersants still in use “over the wellhead”

[Please see also http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com for r.o.v. video and contextual analysis of continued anomalies in the official story versus what may actually be occurring in the Gulf. Official "vessels
of opportunity" operators also told the _Destin Log_ they've witnessed aircraft spraying dispersants. Surreal. ]

===============

Summary from Florida Oil Spill Law:
Coast Guard admits dispersants still in use “over the wellhead”

[FULL TEXT OF _DESTIN LOG_ ARTICLE BELOW]
August 12th, 2010 at 08:26 AM

A liaison officer with the United State Coast Guard told the Destin Log http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/residents-14872-multiple-differ.html that dispersants are currently “being used over the wellhead in Louisiana.”

Why continue to use dispersants if the flow of oil stopped July 15 and nearly all the crude is gone?

Also, this contradicts Thad Allen’s recent statements

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/09/98862/this-is-transcript-of-national.html

“We have not used dispersant since the capping stack was put on.” “There are no dispersants being used at this time.”

================

Officials deny dispersant use, residents beg to differ

http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/residents-14872-multiple-differ.html

August 10, 2010 7:00 PM
By Matt Algarin

Mayor Sam Seevers knows that BP should not be using dispersants in state waters, but after multiple reports from area residents about suspicious activity, she plans to get to the bottom of it.

“We had asked the Coast Guard and BP to find out what they can, and to let us know what was going on,” Seevers said recently.

She told The Log she had heard people talking about a “mystery dispersant” over the past few days, but it wasn’t until last week’s Vessel of Opportunity meeting at City Hall that Seevers had heard the
topic echoed over and over.

Okaloosa Island resident Joseph Yerkes, who had been employed by BP as a VOO operator, wrote in a letter that he distributed at Tuesday night’s meeting that he had “witnessed and reported” suspicious
activity over the Gulf of Mexico on July 30.

Yerkes, who was sitting on the back porch of his third floor condo about 1:30 p.m., wrote that he witnessed a military C-130 “flying from the north to the south, dropping to low levels of elevation then obviously spraying or releasing an unknown substance from the rear of the plane.”

The unknown substance, Yerkes wrote, “was not smoke, for the residue fell to the water, where smoke would have lingered.”

Austin Norwood, whose boat is contracted by Florida Fish and Wildlife, also provided a written account of a “strange incident.”

While Norwood was observing wildlife offshore, he had received a call from his site supervisor at Joe’s Bayou. After telling the supervisor that he and his crewmember were not feeling well, the supervisor had
the two men come in “to get checked out because a plane had been reported in our area spraying a substance on the water about 10- 20 minutes before.”

Norwoord complained of a bad headache, nasal congestion while his crewmember said he had a metallic taste in his mouth.

After filling out an incident report, both Norwood and his crewmember were directed to go to the hospital. The following day, the two men were once again “asked to go to the hospital for blood tests.”

When reached for comment, Lt. Cmdr. Dale Vogelsang, liaison officer with the United State Coast Guard, told The Log he had contacted Unified Command and they had “confirmed” that dispersants were not being used in Florida waters.

“Dispersants are only being used over the wellhead in Louisiana,” Vogelsang said. “We are working with Eglin and Hurlburt to confirm what the flight pattern may be. But right now, it appears to be a normal flight.”

Vogelsang also said Unified Command confirmed to him that C-130s have never been used to distribute dispersants, as they “typically use smaller aircraft.”

But according to an article by the 910 th Airlift Wing Public Affairs Office, based in Youngstown, OH., C-130H Hercules aircraft started aerial spray operations Saturday, May 1, under the direction of the president of the United States and Secretary of Defense. “The
objective of the aerial spray operation is to neutralize the oil spill with oil dispersing agents,” the article states.

A July Lockheed Martin Newsletter states that “Lockheed Martin aircraft, including C-130s and P-3s, have been deployed to the Gulf region by the Air Force, Coast Guard and other government customers to perform a variety of tasks, such as monitoring, mapping and dispersant spraying.”

Neither of the articles specify the operations have taken place in Florida.

After The Log spoke with Vogelsang Friday morning, he once again reiterated that “no dispersants were being used in Florida waters,” and no dispersants have been used anywhere since mid-July. When The
Log asked Vogelsang about the two articles, which state C-130s have been used for dispersant spraying, he said “if they were being used here locally to spray dispersants, then Unified Command didn’t know
about it.”

Yerkes said he has a friend who is sick from whatever has been sprayed, and he intends to find out what it is. He has recently been in contact with various attorneys who are interested in his case,
including the law firm that represented Erin Brockovich.

“If I have to be the Erin Brockovich of Okaloosa County, I am going to do it,” he said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Times-Picayune: Louisiana authorities report oil sightings from Gulf spill & Oil & Gas Journal: EPA, NOAA seek to expand oil-tracking for spill in gulf


Gerald Herbert, The Associated PressNew marsh grass was photographed Tuesday in an area that had been impacted by the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill near East Grand Terre Island.

Louisiana authorities report oil sightings from Gulf of Mexico spill
Published: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 5:38 PM Updated: Thursday, August 12, 2010, 5:53 PM
Times-Picayune Staff
Here is a list, released by Louisiana emergency officials, of areas where oil was sighted Thursday. The list is not a comprehensive tally of areas affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
St Bernard Parish
Dark brown substance, 50 feet by 25 feet, in an unnamed marsh island in Lake Fortuna 0.4 mile north-northeast of Point Gardner.
Plaquemines Parish
Oil sheen in Pass Abel 1 mile N of the E end of Isle Grande Terre.
Oil sheen in Lake Grand Ecaille 1.46 miles W of Rattlesnake Bayou.
Oil patch, 20 feet by 10 feet, in an unnamed marsh island in Black Bay a half mile north-northwest of Grassy Point.
Jefferson Parish
Oil sheen in Bayou Saint Denis 0.54 mile southwest of the south entrance to Bayou Cutler.
Lafourche Parish
Three very small pools of oil on the east bank of Bell Pass 0.7 mile north of the mouth.

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/1349024976/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/hse/2010/08/epa_-noaa_seek_to.html

EPA, NOAA seek to expand oil-tracking for spill in gulf
Paula Dittrick
OGJ Senior Staff Writer

HOUSTON, Aug. 12 — The US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are considering how to expand and coordinate oil tracking efforts to include Gulf of Mexico coastal state officials and others, a spill response official said.

National Incident Commander and retired US Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said questions have been raised since NOAA reported 74% of the oil spilled from BP PCL’s Macondo well has evaporated or been burned, skimmed, dispersed, and recovered. NOAA’s report also called for more research (OGJ, Aug. 9, 2010, p. 28).

“I think what we’d like to do is go out there and make sure we absolutely have a coordinated effort: federal, state, and local,” Allen told reporters during an Aug. 11 conference call. “What we’d like to do is create an integrated monitoring system…now that the well is capped.”

NOAA’s report prompted questions about the rate of the oil’s biodegradation. Pedro Alvarez, Rice University chairman of civil and environmental engineering, said the report did not include specific date on which its conclusions were based.

“The bottom line is that 26% of the estimated release remains as an oily phase,” Alvarez said. “This does not mean the remaining 74% of the spill has been solved. Most of that has not been removed as implied by the report. Most of that 74% is still in the water, migrating and spreading, and also possibly degrading.”

More than 25 government and independent scientists contributed to calculating the remaining oil. NOAA’s report was based upon an estimated 4.9 million bbl of oil total released by the well as calculated by the government’s Flow Rate Technical Group. BP captured 800,000 bbl.

Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, said, “Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn’t oil still in the water column or that our beaches and marshes aren’t still at risk. Knowing generally what happened to the oil helps us better understand areas of risk and likely impacts.”

The oil spill stemmed from a blowout of the Macondo well in 5,000 ft of water on Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Transocean Ltd.’s Deepwater Horizon semisubmersible drilled the well for BP and its partners. A fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 people.

Contact Paula Dittrick at paulad@ogjonline.com.
To access this Article, go to: http://www.ogj.com/ogj/en-us/index/article-tools-template.articles.oil-gas-journal.general-interest-2.hse.2010.08.epa_-noaa_seek_to.html

Oil spill shows difficulty the Coast Guard faces as it balances traditional tasks with post-9/11 missions

By Joe Stephens and Mary Pat Flaherty
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 13, 2010; A01

The U.S. Coast Guard in recent years has fought international terrorism, defended Iraqi pipelines and patrolled for pirates in the Arabian Sea.

Its work in such high-visibility missions accelerated after Sept. 11, 2001, when Congress swept the Coast Guard into the Homeland Security Department. More funding followed.

But the changes had the unintended consequence of lowering the profile of the Coast Guard’s vital programs related to oil. “Priorities changed,” a 2002 Coast Guard budget report said.

Internal and congressional studies highlighted the difficulty the agency faces in balancing its many added responsibilities. “Oil-spill issues were not at the top of the list,” said retired Capt. Lawson Brigham, a former strategic planner for the Coast Guard.

When Coast Guard inspectors board offshore drilling rigs such as the Deepwater Horizon, which exploded and killed 11 workers in April, they rely on regulations put in place three decades ago, when offshore drilling operations were far less sophisticated, records show. The Coast Guard acknowledged 11 years ago in a little-noticed disclosure that its regulations had “not kept pace with the changing offshore technology or the safety problems it creates.”

Since the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, investigations into oversight gaps have focused on systemic problems within the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which in recent weeks has been renamed and revamped.

But the Coast Guard, which shared oversight with MMS, has largely escaped scrutiny. While the MMS inspected drilling equipment, the Coast Guard inspected rigs for worker safety. It also set standards for companies that clean up spills, and has coordinated the joint response to the spill in the gulf.

Some analysts said the spill highlights the need to rethink Coast Guard priorities. In the past 35 years, Congress has handed the agency at least 27 new responsibilities, according to a tally by Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

“They just don’t have enough personnel to carry out all those missions,” said Oberstar, who favors severing the Coast Guard from the Homeland Security Department. “That’s just not possible.”

Coast Guard officials said they did not have budget figures to compare how much is spent on oil-related programs now and before Sept. 11, 2001. Even current budget numbers for these programs are unclear because spending falls into two categories that encompass many other activities, including fighting invasive species and oversight of recreational boating. Marine environmental protection was allotted 2 percent of this year’s operating expenses, marine safety 8 percent.

The Coast Guard said that before 2001, the agency was organized differently. A private study in 2003 by one Coast Guard officer calculated that, before the attacks, marine environmental programs accounted for 11 percent of operating funds and marine safety accounted for 14 percent.

Congressional staffers said the lack of reliable figures has complicated their efforts to ensure that vital programs are not neglected.

Juggling diverse missions is far from the only challenge the Coast Guard faces. Its maritime fleet is aging, and a long-delayed fleet- modernization plan has suffered design flaws and cost overruns; it is now under Justice Department scrutiny. The White House has recommended budget cuts. And the Coast Guard’s marine-safety programs have suffered a drain as personnel sought higher-profile assignments.

Senior Coast Guard officials said the agency’s many missions make it stronger because ships patrolling for terrorists might happen across drug smugglers or an oil slick. They said that crews develop complementary skills and that combining missions saves money.

Coast Guard officials point out that until April, oil spills had decreased dramatically. They said mission statistics do not reflect the division of labor at sea, where crews are ready for whatever comes their way.

“The Coast Guard takes its role as an environmental-response agency seriously,” said Capt. Anthony Lloyd, chief of the Office of Incident Management and Preparedness.

But even some defenders of the Coast Guard fear that it is edging toward crisis.

“It’s basically at the breaking point,” former commander Stephen Flynn said.

Community policing

Federal regulation of offshore drilling grew over the years into a patchwork. The MMS leased offshore drilling rights to private companies, approved emergency response plans and inspected drilling equipment. The Coast Guard ensured the seaworthiness of mobile drilling units.

Today, Coast Guard inspectors examine navigational equipment, lifesaving apparatus and fire protection systems, and look after day-to-day worker safety. The agency also oversees containment of oil and major spill cleanup.

The most rigorous Coast Guard inspections occur on U.S.-flagged oil rigs; they last for days. Rigs registered in other countries, such as the Marshall Islands-flagged Deepwater Horizon, get a six-hour review. A three-person Coast Guard team last visited Deepwater Horizon in July 2009, found no major deficiencies and issued a two-year compliance certificate.

When inspectors show up, they often spot-check paperwork produced by private companies, which the Coast Guard refers to as “stakeholders.”

“It’s more of a community policing kind of approach: get to know the neighbors, help an old lady cross the street,” said Flynn, the former Coast Guard commander, who heads the Center for National Policy, a Washington think tank. “You build a level of collaboration, rather than an ‘us-vs.-them’ kind of approach.”

Two months before the gulf blowout, the Obama administration proposed a 3 percent cut in Coast Guard funding and active-duty personnel. The plan would slash 1,100 military personnel and decommission the National Strike Force Coordination Center, which manages oil-spill response. “Not a good idea,” Oberstar said.

Coast Guard officials have long acknowledged strained resources, especially with ships and aircraft.

In February, Adm. Thad Allen, then Coast Guard commandant, said in a speech that the Coast Guard operates one of the world’s oldest fleets, with high-endurance cutters averaging 41 years of age, compared to 14 for the U.S. Navy.

“No amount of maintenance can outpace the ravages of age,” Allen said, describing the sputtering performance of cutters assigned to Haiti relief work. “The condition of our fleet continues to deteriorate, putting our crews at risk, jeopardizing our ability to do the job.”

During the initial gulf response, Coast Guard logs show that three aircraft and one cutter suffered mechanical problems that delayed or scuttled their missions, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.

Alarming stories

In 2007, at Allen’s request, Vice Admiral James C. Card interviewed 170 civilian mariners and Coast Guard personnel about marine safety operations. He found consensus that programs were deteriorating.

The biggest concern, Card wrote in his report, “was that the Coast Guard no longer considered Marine Safety an important mission.”

The Coast Guard had become a “fundamentally different” organization, Card was told. New editions of the official “U.S. Coast Guard Strategy,” a 54-page manual, contained a single page discussing marine safety, agency personnel said.

Many experienced inspectors have left the service or have transferred to more “career-enhancing” assignments, leaving behind a significant number who are seen as unqualified, the report said. In one service division, marine inspectors spent only about 40 percent of their time on inspections.

“Every Marine Safety professional I talked to in the Coast Guard, both at Headquarters and in the field, said they didn’t have enough people to do the job,” Card wrote. “Some stories were alarming.”

Officers feared that choosing to work in marine safety for the long term could damage their careers because senior officials were unsupportive. The report did not address environmental-response programs, but said many people interviewed expressed similar concerns about those programs losing “experience, resources, knowledge and focus.”

The report’s findings were underscored this year at a hearing on the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Lt. Commander Michael Odom, head of the team that inspected the rig in July 2009, testified that Coast Guard regulations are outdated.

“The pace of the technology has definitely outrun the current regulations,” Odom testified.

In fact, qualifications for inspectors assigned to mobile offshore drilling units, such as Deepwater, have not been updated since 2007. Although offshore inspectors are supposed to receive annual specialized training, that has occurred sporadically, officers testified in May. Even with training, they said, it takes a year for an inspector to comprehend the technologically complex rigs.

Others in the field fear that an overemphasis on homeland security could actually make the United States less safe, by drawing funding and attention away from other programs

“Spending so little on this just makes no sense,” Flynn said. “I can’t come up with any terrorism scenario, short of perhaps a nuclear weapon launched near a city, that could produce nearly as much destruction as we’re seeing with this man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

PBS Newshour: Allen: Well Not Yet Killed, BP Will Move Forward With Relief Well

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/08/bp-may-have-already-sealed-well-for-good-decision-on-plug-expected.html

OIL SPILL — August 13, 2010 at 4:06 PM EST

BY: TOM LEGRO AND LEA WINERMAN

Updated 3:34 p.m.
National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen said Friday that the blown-out oil well in the Gulf of Mexico is not yet dead, and that BP will proceed with a relief well to permanently kill it.

“Everyone agrees we need to move forward with the relief well, but the question is how to do that,” Allen told reporters.

He said that pressure tests have shown that pressure in the well has remained fairly steady since the “static kill” operation last month that pumped in mud and cement from the top of the well through the well pipe. The steady pressure readings indicate that some of that mud and cement entered the reservoir and came back up through the annulus — the area between the pipe and the outside of the well that the relief well was meant to plug.

But Allen said Friday that engineers don’t know the thickness or strength of the layer of cement currently plugging the annulus. So they can’t consider the well permanently plugged, and must move forward with the relief well.

At the same time, they have to proceed carefully with the relief well “bottom kill” — pumping in mud and cement from the bottom of the well could force up oil and mud now trapped in the annulus, and they don’t want to increase the pressure too much at the top of the well.

“That’s the essence of the discussion that’s going on right now,” Allen said.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who attended a meeting with Allen and other officials Friday, told reporters at a press conference that he was glad the work on the relief well would continue.

“If it’s a nearly redundant safety measure, that makes sense to us,” he said, according to the Associated Press.

Updated 10:06 a.m.

Officials hope to know early Friday if BP’s oil well in the Gulf of Mexico has been sealed for good. Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the federal government’s person in charge of the effort, scheduled a news conference for 1:45 p.m. EDT to give an update on the operation.

On Thursday, Allen said it was possible that a final fix, known as a “bottom kill,” will not be necessary. After a temporary cap was placed on top of the well last month, heavy drilling mud and cement were pumped in from the top in what is called a “static kill.”
“We may be the victims of our own success here,” Allen said on Thursday. “If the cement is already there it would obviate the need to do the bottom kill.”

An analysis of tests on the well done Thursday was scheduled to be completed Friday. Workers tested pressure levels in the space between the inner piping and outer casing. Rising pressure means the bottom kill still needs to be done, Allen said. Steady pressure may mean cement already has plugged the space.

Allen said there is concern that pumping more mud and cement would increase pressure inside the well, sending oil up the well column, damaging the blowout preventer and escaping into the water.

In other news ..
.
Alabama’s attorney general filed lawsuits Thursday evening against BP and several other companies over the Gulf of Mexico oil leak disaster.

In two separate suits, Attorney General Troy King seeks unspecified damages. A BP spokesman said the company had not seen the lawsuits and could not comment.

The Mobile Press-Register also reports that a spokesman for Alabama Gov. Bob Riley said that Alabama should have first presented its claim before suing and that King “was too quick in filing the lawsuit.”
*
Michael Bromwich, the Interior Department’s new offshore-drilling chief said that the agency had relied too much on the oil and gas industry it was supposed to police, reports the Wall Street Journal, setting the stage for a regulatory revamp.
*
Special thanks to Richard Charter

AP: BP fund may use drilling money as collateral

This is tantamount to giving BP credit to deliver the funds later; why isn’t it due and payable immediately? Surely they can pledge the oil receivables to someone else–say, in the financial market if they are short of cash, which I doubt given the bonus structures discussed earlier this summer. DV

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqSZ8tTTR0qV5UDr–XvWf5o3PIwD9HHJ9Q02

(AP) – 3 hours ago 8/11/10
WASHINGTON – The $20 billion victims’ compensation fund established for the Gulf oil spill may use revenue from BP’s oil and gas drilling as collateral, according to details released Wednesday by the White House.

The government watchdog group Public Citizen criticized the arrangement as a conflict of interest, arguing that it gives the government a financial incentive to encourage BP to keep drilling offshore.

BP has already made a $3 billion initial deposit, announced Monday. The company must pay $2 billion more this year and continue in installments of $1.25 billion, according to the trust documents released Wednesday.

The trust calls for a collateral fund to ensure that all the necessary money will be available if something happens to the BP subsidiary that established the trust. Details must still be negotiated, but the trust documents say that unless a different agreement is reached, BP will agree to give the trust first priority to production payments from the company’s U.S. oil and gas production as collateral.

Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, said that securing the compensation fund with drilling revenue “is wildly inappropriate, as it will make the government and BP virtual partners in Gulf oil production. … It will give the government a financial incentive to become an even bigger booster of offshore oil drilling in the Gulf.”

The trust fund was negotiated by the Justice Department. A department spokeswoman did not immediately return a call for comment.

The trust is to be administered by two independent trustees, with claims being processed by Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration’s pay czar.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Houston Chronicle: Did the feds try to squelch “oil plume” data, & St. Pete Times: USF says gov’t tried to squelch their oil plume findings

Houston Chronicle
August 11, 2010

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/08/did_the_feds_tr_1.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Fnewswatchenergy+%28NewsWatch%3A+Energy%29

Did the feds try to squelch “oil plume” data?

Early on during the Gulf oil spill, the New York Times interviewed a group of scientists aboard a research ship who were pulled off of one assignment to start studying the environmental impacts of the spill. They told the Times they thought they were finding large plumes of oil underwater

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html

many miles from the spill.

A few days later, however, NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco issued a statement saying the Times story wasn’t completely accurate and that the findings hadn’t been fully analyzed.

Now, the scientists at the center of the story say NOAA was trying to squelch the findings, according to The St. Petersburg
Times

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article1114225.ece

(even though NOAA later confirmed the plumes):

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/06/post_22.html

“I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil,” USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF’s public announcement, he said, comparing it to being “beat up” by federal officials.

The USF scientists weren’t alone. Vernon Asper, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, was part of a similar effort that met with a similar reaction. “We expected that NOAA would be pleased because we found something very, very interesting,” Asper said. “NOAA instead responded by trying to discredit us. It was just a shock to us.”

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes — as did BP’s then-CEO, Tony Hayward.

“She basically called us inept idiots,” Asper said. “We took that very personally.”

Lubchenco told the paper the her agency told the USF researchers and others involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it.

“What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding,” Lubchenco said. “We think that’s in everybody’s interest. … We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it.”

So was it scientific caution or an attempted cover-up?

Science and environmental journalists I’ve talked to think the notion of Lubchenco trying to keep the truth under wraps for the benefit of BP seems like a stretch. And lawyers might argue it’s in the government’s best interest for the damages from the spill to look particularly bad so as to make prosecution/massive settlement-related fines with BP easier.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article1114225.ece

St. Pete Times

USF says government tried to squelch their oil plume findings

By Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, August 10, 2010

A month after the Deepwater Horizon disaster began, scientists from the University of South Florida made a startling announcement. They had found signs that the oil spewing from the well had formed a 6-mile-wide plume snaking along in the deepest recesses of the gulf.

The reaction that USF announcement received from the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agencies that sponsored their research:

Shut up.

“I got lambasted by the Coast Guard and NOAA when we said there was undersea oil,” USF marine sciences dean William Hogarth said. Some officials even told him to retract USF’s public announcement, he said, comparing it to being “beat up” by federal officials.

The USF scientists weren’t alone. Vernon Asper, an oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi, was part of a similar effort that met with a similar reaction. “We expected that NOAA would be pleased because we found something very, very interesting,” Asper said. “NOAA instead responded by trying to discredit us. It was just a shock to us.”

NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, in comments she made to reporters in May, expressed strong skepticism about the existence of undersea oil plumes – as did BP’s then-CEO, Tony Hayward.

“She basically called us inept idiots,” Asper said. “We took that very personally.”

Lubchenco confirmed Monday that her agency told USF and other academic institutions involved in the study of undersea plumes that they should hold off talking so openly about it. “What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding,” Lubchenco said. “We think that’s in everybody’s interest. Š We just wanted to try to make sure that we knew something before we speculated about it.”
“We had solid evidence, rock solid,” Asper said. “We weren’t speculating.” If he had to do it over again, he said, he’d do it all exactly the same way, despite Lubchenco’s ire.

Coast Guard officials did not respond to a request for comment on Hogarth’s accusation.

The discovery of multiple undersea plumes of oil droplets was eventually verified by one of NOAA’s own research vessels. And last month USF scientists announced they at last could match the oil droplets in the undersea plumes to the millions of barrels of oil that gushed from the collapsed well until it was capped July 15.

“What we have learned completely changes the idea of what an oil spill is,” USF scientist David Hollander said then. “It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a three-dimensional catastrophe.”

Now Lubchenco is not only convinced the undersea plumes exist, but she is predicting that some of the spill’s most significant impacts will be caused by their effect on juvenile sea creatures such as bluefin tuna. Lubchenco and her staff say they are now working smoothly with USF and other academic institutions in investigating the consequences of the largest marine oil spill in history.

However, Hogarth said, not all is hunky-dory.

USF’s first NOAA-sponsored voyage to take samples after Deepwater Horizon, the one that turned up evidence of the undersea plumes, was designed to gather evidence for use in an eventual court case against BP and other oil companies involved in the disaster. At the end of the voyage, USF turned its samples over to NOAA, expecting to get either a shared analysis or the samples themselves back. So far, Hogarth said, they’ve received neither.

NOAA’s top oil spill scientist, Steve Murawski, said Monday that he was “sure we will release the data” at some point. However, he said, because NOAA has collected so many samples over the past three months, when it comes to the samples from USF’s trip in May, “I’m not sure where they are.”

Lubchenco’s agency came under fire last week for a new report that said “the vast majority” of the oil from Deepwater Horizon had been taken care of.

Scientists who read the report closely said it actually said half the oil was still unaccounted for.

Lubchenco said anyone who read the report as saying the oil was gone read it wrong.

“Out of sight and diluted does not mean benign,” she said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Mother Jones: The BP Cover-Up

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-cover-up

ENVIRONMENT

BP and the government say the spill is fast disappearing-but dramatic new science reveals that its worst effects may be yet to come.

Tue Aug. 10, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

WE’RE SWINGING ON ANCHOR this afternoon as powerful bursts of wind blow down through the Makua Valley and out to sea. The gales stop and start every 15 minutes, as abruptly as if a giant on the far side of the Hawaiian island of Oahu were switching a fan on and off. We sail at the gusts’ mercy, listing hard to starboard, then snapping hard against the anchor chain before recoiling to port. The intermittent tempests make our work harder and colder. We shiver during the microbursts, sweat during the interludes, then shiver again from our own sweat.

I’m accompanying marine ecologist Kelly Benoit-Bird of Oregon State University, physical oceanographer Margaret McManus of the University of Hawaii-Manoa, and two research assistants aboard a 32-foot former sportfishing boat named Alyce C. On the tiny aft deck, where a marlin fisher might ordinarily strap into a fighting chair, Benoit-Bird and McManus are launching packages of instruments: echo sounders tuned to five frequencies; cameras; and a host of tools designed to measure temperature, salinity, current velocity, chlorophyll fluorescence, and zooplankton abundance, all feeding into computers lashed into the tiny forward cabin.

Despite the impressive technology crammed aboard the boat, its deployment is pure 19th century. At any given time, two of us man the aft winch, launching the equipment overboard by hand, feeding out dual lines of nylon and coaxial cable, slowly wearing calluses into our gloves as we ease the instruments through the water column at roughly 33 feet per minute. Six feet shy of the bottom, 74 feet down, the rig is hauled back up, collecting data the whole way. The process is repeated around the clock for the next 24 hours, a procedure either monotonous or meditative, depending on your frame of mind. Near the bottom, McManus calls, “Making a mark.” She might as well be calling “mark twain.”

But whereas old-time riverboat captains sounding with lead-weighted ropes were gleaning information about safe shipping channels and shifting sandbars, we’re sounding for signs of life. To the untrained eye, the incoming echo soundings appear as waves of blue, green, and yellow scrolling horizontally across our computer monitors. To the trained eye, they appear as layers of life flooding in on darkness. Benoit-Bird points toward the screens, each one tuned to read the sonar signature of a different-size life form. “That layer is zooplankton,” she says. “And that layer is fish.” Suddenly, I can see a crude facsimile of the migrations of the nighttime sea.

Most of the marine life familiar to us at the surface inhabits the epipelagic zone, the sunlit realm, stretching down to about 600 feet. Yet many whales, dolphins, seals, sea turtles, sharks, manta rays, billfish, and smaller predatory fish are nocturnal hunters, dependent on the mysterious movements of a vast community of organisms known as the deep scattering layer, or DSL. This aggregation of life forms was unknown until the 1920s, when early hydrographers mapping the ocean with sound encountered a daytime “seafloor” around 3,300 feet, which rose perplexingly toward the surface at night. Named for its echo-reflecting signature, the DSL was eventually recognized by marine biologists in 1948 to be layers of living creatures hiding on the cusp between perpetual twilight and darkness.

What the echo sounders of old were actually picking up were the billions of swim bladders (buoyancy floats) of the fish inhabiting the dark realm of the DSL-primarily lantern fish, bristlemouths, and hatchetfish. These fish, generally between one and twelve inches long, are endowed with the usual fishy hardware of fins, scales, lateral lines, and tails. But their habit of hiding in the darkness by day and chasing darkness upward at night led to the development of extraordinarily large eyes and organs, known as photophores, capable of producing light-usually a weak blue, green, or yellowish light-the color and pattern of which signal the fish’s species and gender, as well as information used in shoaling and other communications we don’t understand. The photophores also create a camouflage known as counterillumination. By adjusting internal dimmer switches, these mesopelagic (“middle sea,” or twilight zone) fish match the slightest overhead ambient light level-be it the faint glow of the sun or moon-making their silhouettes less visible to predators above and below.

DSL species rise at night-some to waters as shallow as 30 feet deep-for a variety of reasons: Some are avoiding the daytime surface hunters; others are avoiding the nocturnal hunters of the DSL who don’t rise (like lancetfish); still others are saving energy by spending their days in a sleeplike state prompted by the frigid waters. (The alternative, living only at the warm surface, produces a fast metabolism requiring more food.) Krill, among the most abundant and important invertebrates of the DSL, rise at night to graze on the pastures of the sea: single-celled phytoplankton, plants that survive only in the sunlight zone.

The lantern fish, bristlemouths, hatchetfish, and crustaceans of the DSL are believed to account for 80 percent of all the biomass in the mesopelagic zone, with lantern fish alone making up some 660 million tons of living fish-perhaps the greatest distribution, population, and species diversity of all ocean fish on the planet. The mesopelagic fauna also includes many kinds of squid, krill, and siphonophores and ctenophores (jellyfish-like animals), as well as worms, sea butterflies, and larvae that comprise the DSL zooplankton. The vast life of the deep scattering layer supports the surface life above it, including the $172 billion global seafood and aquaculture industries.

It’s no wonder then that most of the predators of the sunlit sea make their living diving to meet the DSL, which rises like a great dumbwaiter from the deep bearing every manner of seafood delicacy on a platter of darkness. No wonder, too, that the DSL is being eyed by the fishing industry as the last great resource to be exploited.

Not long after dark, dolphins show up on the data stream, monopolizing the monitors with bold red and orange signatures. These are spinner dolphins who’ve spent the daytime hours resting in shallow coastal waters, hiding from sharks, sleeping with eyes wide open and their echolocation shut down. During the couple of years in the ’90s I spent filming a documentary about spinners, darkness marked the frustrating end of our workday, the time we were forced to leave the school behind, to listen wistfully to the sounds of their leaps and spins as they splashed on an ocean surface we could no longer see. They were racing offshore to begin diving into the deep scattering layer. This much we knew. But in filmmaking parlance, it was called “dip to black.” Because what the dolphins did down there in the dark was unknown, and seemingly unknowable.

JUST ABOUT THE TIME WE drop anchor off Oahu, and unbeknownst to us, a catastrophe is being unleashed 4,400 miles and five time zones away, in the Gulf of Mexico. A mile below sea level, methane is shooting up the experimental well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, exploding at the well’s head, killing 11 workers, and igniting a firestorm. After 36 hours of a raging inferno-and still unknown to any of us-the rig will sink and open a valve to the gargantuan reservoir of the Macondo oil field, estimated to contain perhaps as much as 1 billion barrels, or 42 billion gallons, of crude.

Though it won’t be understood for weeks, the Deepwater Horizon is different from any other spill in human history. The extreme technology used to drill at unprecedented depths lacks the extreme safety equipment and protocols needed to stave off disaster. BP, gambling at the border of controllable engineering, has lost spectacularly in its bid to be the deepest and cheapest driller of them all.

And no one is ready for it. Not the Minerals Management Service, catering submissively to BP’s laughable Gulf oil-spill “plan,” a document featuring wildly inaccurate wildlife assessments (including walruses and other species nonexistent in the Gulf) and an on-call expert who’s been dead for years. Not the scientists whose research is paid for by the oil cowboys. Not the environmental groups, who did not foresee the stupendous potential for cataclysm on oil’s farthest frontier. Not the media, who almost entirely ignored the sneak preview offered last year by the blowout of the West Atlas rig drilling in the Timor Sea off Australia-a disaster that required five attempts at a relief well and 74 days to stanch. Far offshore, far from sight, far beyond the typical royalty-paying boundaries, BP and its partners have transformed themselves into modern-day pirates, operating beyond law or conscience. Their reckless quest has endangered and perhaps condemned not just the Gulf Coast, but the largest, richest, most pristine, most biologically important, and last completely unprotected ecosystem left on Earth: the deep ocean.

Despite an ever-expanding estimate of the volume of the spill, relatively little oil washes ashore at first, and only a small portion ever will. Instead, trapped in the deep, the oil fouls the ocean’s twilight and dark zones: the mesopelagic and the bathypelagic (bathos: deep). After April 20, the dumbwaiter rising through the waters of the Gulf of Mexico will be ascending an ocean fouled with a toxic broth of oil, methane, chemical dispersants, and drilling mud. The relatively small amounts of oil washing ashore, and the relief felt when the surface oil began to dissipate, hardly account for the devastation being wrought in the dark world beyond our sight.

SIX WEEKS AFTER THE Deepwater Horizon explosion, I’m aboard a small inflatable Greenpeace boat, bucking the marshy waters of Barataria Bay, Louisiana. A tide change is under way. Incoming and outgoing waters are flowing in opposing directions, battling each other in current lines inked with oil. A continuous flow of vessels chug through the pass-tugboats, barges, mud boats, seiners, trawlers, pirogues, airboats, sportfishers, pleasure cruisers. Some carry crews to and from the thousands of other drilling platforms puncturing the seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico, but the majority are now laden with containment boom and BP cleanup crews.

Dolphins are swimming in the pass too, a few dozen of an estimated 138 to 238 bottlenose dolphins that call Barataria Bay home. They’re hugging the greasy waves of the tidal rip. Like bottlenose dolphins the world over, and like much marine life in general, they’re exploiting the edge where waters of different provenance (temperature, salinity, velocity) hide predators from prey and vice versa. Along these edges, the sensory systems of the sea-sight, sound, pressure wave, magnetic field-are dimmed or distorted, making it difficult to see from one side through to the other. Bottlenose dolphins use the distortions as natural hunting blinds.

These waters have been off-limits to human fishers for weeks. But nobody told the dolphins. They’re actively fishing the tidal rip and following trawlers dragging boom, because these are the same boats that sometimes give them food in the form of bycatch thrown overboard.

“Oil is toxic to most life. And Corexit is toxic to most life. But the most toxic of all is oil that’s been treated with Corexit.”

As best we know, the dolphins of Barataria Bay comprise a closed population whose members rarely if ever leave the bay. In theory, they could now exit, but in all likelihood they’re trapped here by multiple barriers: by oily waters, by seasonal tradition, by cultural habit, by territorial boundaries, and by the availability of food-including fish and other marine life that may be trying to escape the oil by swimming inshore. At the moment, the dolphins are feeding as best they can in home waters that will likely kill them.

Rick Steiner, a conservation specialist from the University of Alaska who’s studied the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill for the past 21 years, discusses these possibilities as we look on helplessly. “The dolphins aspirate oily fumes through their blowholes,” he says. “They’re eating fish exposed to oil. They’re getting oil in all their orifices. They’re bathed in a continual soup of oil. There’s nowhere to go to get away from it. We know from the Exxon Valdez that even those animals not killed outright suffer lesions in their organs, including the brain. They go blind. They experience reproductive failures, changes in their blood chemistry, and possibly multigenerational changes passed down to offspring never even exposed to the oil.”

A few hundred yards away, tucked into the marsh grass on Grand Isle State Park, we see a dead dolphin, half-skeletonized, half-mummified. In the heat and humidity of coastal Louisiana, it is hard to tell if it’d been dead a week or a month. We do know that dead dolphins are washing up along the Gulf Coast in higher-than-normal numbers. We don’t know how many more have died at sea and sunk, never to be counted. On the beach surrounding the dead dolphin are hundreds of hermit crabs coated with a chocolatey syrup of oil, their tracks up the beach splattered as they fled the foul waters. The oil washing ashore is still actively bubbling. “Even though this concoction may have exploded from the well a month ago and has been wending its way ashore ever since, it’s still full of volatile compounds like benzene,” says Steiner. “Benzene’s a known carcinogen, dangerous to human life, too.”

Barataria Bay has become a hospice wilderness, full of dying plants and animals. Nearly all the marshy islands are oiled. The oyster beds covering 10 percent of the bay are dead or dying and now closed to human harvesting. The post-larval brown shrimp migrating into the bay (the estuaries of Louisiana and Texas are home to the highest densities of brown shrimp in US waters) are running an oily gauntlet. So are the speckled trout that normally feast on brown shrimp during their own breeding season. For the first time in my bird-watching life, I’ve seen multitudes of clapper rails-notoriously secretive marsh-dwelling birds-running down levees and roads in broad daylight trying to escape the oiled wetlands.

The fate of the marshes is inextricably linked to the fate of the deep ocean-and vice versa. The deep ocean seeds the marshes with the larvae of fish and invertebrates, which then repopulate the deep in their juvenile or adult stages. These inshore-offshore migrators include ecologically and commercially important species. Fifty percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 states line the Gulf of Mexico and produce more seafood than the Chesapeake Bay, South and Mid-Atlantic, and New England fisheries combined. Endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna, scheduled to spawn right now in the waters around the Deepwater Horizon blowout, migrate here because the Gulf’s marshes-the ocean’s womb-likely shelter and feed their larvae. Adult bluefin, deep divers, are hunting the depths to 3,300 feet in search of squid and crustaceans in the deep scattering layer. BP’s oil will wallop them at all stages of their lives.

At Queen Bess Island, an important seabird rookery near the mouth of Barataria Bay, Steiner and I watch oily brown pelicans trying to preen themselves clean. I visited this same island a week ago; the downy pelican chicks who were still in the nest then are today slipping on oily rocks at the waterline. Where last week there were still a few dozen white pelicans, now there are only two, standing uncharacteristically alone, wings drooping in stress. Steiner points out the pelicans flying overhead, their bellies coated with oil. “Even those birds who are managing to avoid diving into contaminated water to feed are inadvertently floating on it,” he says.

Death by oil is a horrible way to go. Necropsies on birds reveal hypothermia resulting from oiled feathers, malnutrition resulting from the hypothermia, anemia from the shock and stress of hunger, and poisoning from the oil ingested and inhaled during preening. Although a few birds will escape the immediate lethal effects, their eggs and chicks will not. An experiment from the 1980s with nesting Leach’s storm-petrels-tiny seafaring birds breeding on islands off Newfoundland-found that birds exposed to crude oil or Corexit (the dispersant BP is using in the Gulf) lost more eggs and chicks than did control birds. This, even though the oil exposure was sublethal, and even if only one adult of the pair was oiled. Breeding success for adults generally returned to normal the following year-except in the case of birds exposed to the highest sublethal doses of oil or Corexit. Fewer of those birds returned to breed-indicating that their part in the experiment had proved lethal after all.
As bad as it is in Barataria Bay, it’s only the beginning.

FROM THE OUTSET, BP has fought to control every aspect of its uncontrollable catastrophe other than the spill itself. It has wildly spun the numbers on the quantity of hemorrhaging oil. It has continued to dispense Corexit-above and below water-when ordered to stop. It has restricted press access with Kafkaesque flair. Unable or unwilling to skim much oil, BP has poured its energies into skimming up all available resources: renting virtually every hotel room on the Louisiana shores, helping to keep the press at bay; buying the silence of scientists with lucrative pay and confidentiality clauses; chartering nearly every boat on the coast and employing virtually every fisherman and captain made jobless by the spill. I find clusters of these men in the marshes and out in the Gulf, their boats tethered together so they can watch movies on the biggest boat’s DVD player.

“They have to pay these guys to work or else they’ll riot,” says Carl Safina, marine conservationist and cofounder of the Blue Ocean Institute. “As it is, they’re angry, drinking, griping in the bars. By paying them, BP is deflecting their anger. Plus some of them feel like they’re really helping, even though BP’s two prime cleanup methods-setting out boom and using dispersant-completely undermine each other.”

The containment and absorbent boom that BP is deploying around beaches and marshes-largely ineffectively-is designed to do just that: contain and absorb oil. But the Corexit dispersant BP has flooded onto the leaking wellhead 5,000 feet down, and sprayed from the air onto the surface-some 2 million gallons in total-is designed to break up the oil. “Which one is it?” asks Safina. “Do you want to contain it or disperse it? It makes absolutely no sense to be doing both. Let’s face it, with pollution, you count your lucky stars if you have what’s called point-source pollution, that is, a single identifiable localized source of pollution, like the Deepwater Horizon. So what’s BP doing with that? They’re turning it into the worst pollution nightmare of them all: non-point-source pollution.”

That’s because untreated oil quickly rises to the surface, where it can be skimmed with relative ease. But treated with dispersant, it becomes a submerged plume, unlikely to ever float to the surface, and destined to migrate through underwater currents to the entire Gulf basin and eventually the North Atlantic. “Oil is toxic to most life,” says Steiner. “And Corexit is toxic to most life. But the most toxic of all is oil that’s been treated with Corexit. Plus, dispersants may well kill the ocean’s first line of defense against oil: the natural microbes that break oil down for other microbes to eat.” The EPA has never seriously examined Corexit’s effects on marine life (see “Bad Breakup”). Now it’ll get the biggest and baddest field experiment of all time, as the flora and fauna of the shallows and the deep scattering layer collide with the dispersed plumes.

BP’s schizophrenic approach to the cleanup becomes more insidious in light of the company’s legal liabilities: The Clean Water Act stipulates that BP must pay $1,100 for every barrel of oil proven to have been spilled-$4,300 per barrel if gross negligence is determined. But the use of dispersants clouds estimates of the spill’s size, guaranteeing that the true number will never be known-since relatively little oil will ever wash ashore-and guaranteeing that BP’s liability will be vastly underestimated.

Consider that while we’ve all been fixated on the true spill rate-is it 35,000 barrels a day? 60,000 barrels? More?-those figures are only estimates, and only of the oil. Few people realize that some 40 percent of what spews from the Deepwater Horizon well is methane, the primary component of natural gas-a dangerous greenhouse gas and a toxin to most life. Indeed, methane may hold the answer to the quantity of vented oil. David Valentine, a biogeochemist at the University of California-Santa Barbara, suggested in May in an op-ed in the journal Nature that plumes of dissolved methane could be used to calculate how much oil has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico. But BP has blurred the evidence trail-intentionally or otherwise-by treating at least some of the escaping methane with methanol, another toxin, in an effort to prevent a dangerous buildup and possibly even another explosion.

Nevertheless, around the spill site, Valentine and his colleagues found clouds of dissolved natural gas at 100,000 times the normal density and at depths of more than 2,500 feet. They also found that little of the gas seemed to be reaching the air. Which is good news for the atmosphere, but probably bad news for the ocean. That’s because the methane may also be powering up blooms of microbes that eat methane but use up the oxygen in the water as they do so-causing dead zones where most life cannot survive. The Gulf of Mexico is already home to the second-largest dead zone on Earth; the last thing it needs is another. On the surface above the methane clouds, Valentine and colleagues discovered a mass kill of pyrosomes-free-floating colonies of jellyfish look-alikes that straddle the vertebrate-invertebrate divide, and an important food for sea turtles. It’s not yet clear which of many smoking guns killed the pyrosomes. “We’ll be working up the story of the relationship between dispersant, oil, gas, and the microbial community for some time to come,” says Valentine.

Then there are the drilling fluids contaminating the seafloor near the wellhead. Euphemistically called muds, these heavy fluids are pumped into wells to keep the highly pressurized oil and gas from exploding upward. BP’s drilling muds have been pouring out of the wellhead, along with 30,000 barrels added in its failed “top kill” and other efforts to plug the leak. Along with oil, methane, methanol, and Corexit, drilling fluids add their own frightening recipe to the disaster: arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, barite, fluoride, chrome lignosulfonate, vanadium, copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, radionuclides, and other heavy metals. Relief wells require pumping thousands more barrels of drilling fluid into the reservoir, with all the same risks of explosion attending the original well. The EPA estimates these drilling fluids will pose a threat to the seafloor and surrounding waters for up to 40 years. Plus a recent study finds that oil spills create a whole new pathway for arsenic pollution in the sea. The oil prevents seafloor sediments from bonding with and burying arsenic that naturally occurs in the ocean. This shutdown of the natural filtration system allows arsenic levels to rise from the deep water to the surface, disrupting photosynthesis in phytoplankton, increasing birth defects and triggering behavioral changes in marine life, and killing animals that feed on poisoned prey.

The rules of life are different in the gassy depths, where life capitalizes on the same fossil fuels we’re drilling for.

Never before in human history has the vast food web of the ocean-rooted in the dark, and flowering at the surface-come under so many assaults from below, above, and within the water column: marine warfare masquerading as a cleanup.

“WE DOVE DOWN in clear water but came up 30 minutes later through oil,” says Nancy Rabalais, director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON), a research station tucked deep in the marshes of southern Louisiana in the village of Cocodrie. A few weeks after the spill, during her summer research surveys 10 miles offshore, Rabalais personally encountered BP’s plumes, which will probably affect her research far into the future. “It was horrible,” she says, grimacing. “We were covered. Our gear was covered. We were breathing fumes and tasting oil.”

The last time I saw Rabalais, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, LUMCON was trashed: the station evacuated, the marshes littered with drowned trees, broken boats, unroofed houses. The area is ruined in a whole new way today. Along with the oil, dispersant, benzene, and everything else creeping into the bayous, Cocodrie has become a staging point for BP-complete with Louisiana National Guard troops, workers recruited from all over the South, and fishermen hired away from their extinct jobs. These men are cashing in their lunch chits at the Coco Marina restaurant, where Rabalais, Ed Chesney-LUMCON’s fisheries biologist-and I are grabbing a meal. We watch every manner of boat known to Louisiana speed up the narrow channels to the marina, their white hulls stained BP brown, their wakes slapping the cordgrass flat. The boats offload hundreds of hungry men.

Rabalais is worried about the species already under enormous stress from a host of other environmental problems in the Gulf: dead zones, overfishing, chronic oil pollution, seismic testing for oil and natural gas, coastal erosion (see “Fate of the Ocean,” March/April 2006 issue). “Brown pelicans just came off the endangered species list,” she says, “and now some of their most important breeding rookeries are getting hit with oil.” She’s concerned about critically endangered Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles, the rarest on Earth, a species that faced mortal threat from the 140 million-gallon spill at the Ixtoc I drilling platform in the Gulf in 1979 (see a map of the world’s biggest spills here). Kemp’s Ridleys breed almost exclusively in the Gulf, with virtually every female returning to lay her eggs on a stretch of beach south of the Texas border.

In the wake of the BP spill, there’s been a spike in sea turtle deaths, the majority of them Kemp’s Ridleys. The number is certain to rise, since some sea turtles feed in the DSL, and most enjoy a meal of jellyfish. Sadly, they also eat blobs of oil they mistake for jellyfish. According to some reports, sea turtles have been roasted alive in the surface-oil patches burning offshore. Hundreds more have drowned since the disaster began. One shrimp fisherman privately admits that panicky colleagues fished hard in the weeks after the spill, knowing that the fishery would soon be closed, and some tied shut the mandatory turtle-excluder devices, which save turtles from drowning but reduce the efficiency of their nets.

Rabalais and others also worry about the Gulf’s sperm whales, which feed on squid living in the deep scattering layer. An estimated 1,665 sperm whales inhabit (and perhaps never leave) the northern waters of the Gulf. A recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) assessment calculated that even three additional deaths (by other than natural causes) could endanger the entire sperm whale population, since the whales breed infrequently and only in midlife. The whales favor the deep waters of Mississippi Canyon-the location of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead. On numerous occasions, they’ve been seen swimming through thick oil in that region. And it’s not only sperm whales. The Gulf is home to 29 species of cetaceans, many of which feed on the DSL, including spinner dolphins, spotted dolphins, pilot whales, killer whales, and many secretive deep divers such as beaked and bottlenose whales. The filter-feeding whales-including the Gulf’s tiny isolated population of Bryde’s whales, plus humpbacks, fins, minkes, and sei, many of which are DSL feeders-are vulnerable a whole different way, since oil fouls their baleen (sievelike teeth), dooming them to starvation.

And then there are the 400 Florida manatees, a species classified as vulnerable to extinction, that migrate to Louisiana waters each summer. This year they’ll be feeding in oily water on oiled algae and cordgrass. “And it’s not just the large fauna we worry about,” says Rabalais. “The entire wetland is at risk. A marsh that’s been heavily oiled becomes anaerobic at the roots. The next time a big storm comes through, those marshy islands will in all likelihood just break up and disappear.” If so, they’ll take the nursery grounds for marine life with them. Coastal Louisiana is already losing 24 square miles of wetlands a year, a football field every 30 minutes. These dwindling wetlands are crucial to the Louisiana economy, keeping people here afloat in businesses from fishing to tourism. “Now they’re all out of work,” says Rabalais. “And the revenues we were counting on to rebuild the coastal habitats to foster the birds, shrimp, fish, dolphins, turtles, whales, and people will be lost.”

Least certain of all is what’s happening to the life at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Take the life that congregates around cold methane seeps, the first of which ever discovered was found in the Gulf in 1984. Since then, 50 more sites have been located in these waters, some close to the Deepwater Horizon, with hundreds more likely out there-all home to otherworldly collections of crustaceans, snails, bacterial filaments, and tubeworms. The rules of life are different in the gassy depths, where life capitalizes on the same fossil fuels we’re drilling for. Some cold-seep tubeworms have lifespans of 250 years. Others recently found in the deepest seeps may live to 500 or 600 years.

Though some of these creatures feed on methane, that doesn’t mean they can survive the spill. “The quantity of oil and the added effects of dispersants are likely to harm these communities,” says Lisa Levin, a biological oceanographer and cold-seeps specialist from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Oil could smother the animals’ feeding apparatus or suffocate the bacteria at the base of the food chain, she adds. “The tubeworms and other seep organisms, including perhaps deepwater corals, are so slow-growing that damage will likely be long lasting.” Levin envisions a host of long-term chronic problems throughout the deep Gulf that might not even show up for decades.

Only 25 miles from the Deepwater Horizon blowout, a tremendously rich area known as the Pinnacles hosts deepwater corals 300 to 500 feet below the surface. One of the Gulf’s invisible splendors, these ancient reefs line the outer continental shelf south of Mississippi and Alabama. During the last ice age, when today’s continental shelves were dry land, the Pinnacles were living coral reefs near the shoreline. Nowadays the fossil reefs lie too deep and dark for most reef-building corals or phytoplankton to survive. Instead, they’re largely fueled by zooplankton, which power rich deepwater communities of soft corals, sponges, feather stars, black corals, solitary hard corals, and predatory fish, including reef fish not found in shallow waters. The site is also a critical spawning habitat for commercially important species like grouper and snapper.

“We lack even a good picture of life in the deep Gulf,” says Ed Chesney. “Now we may never know what’s been done to it.” It’s the classic iceberg equation: a nine-tenths submerged hazard, lurking unseen in the darkness. The big question: Will it wreck the Gulf of Mexico? “The best thing that might happen now,” says Chesney, a battle-scarred veteran of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike, “is for one, two, three, or four hurricanes to blow through and bury all this pollution under layers of sediment.”

His thinking is that the tons of silt accompanying storm surges would inter the contamination and prevent it from migrating further, while more silt stirred up offshore would provide particles for the emulsified oil droplets to adhere to and sink to the bottom. Huge offshore waves could also trigger subsurface landslides to bury some of the polluted seafloor under clean sediment: nature’s dip to black.

Yet the potential benefits of hurricanes are accompanied by obvious risks. Hurricanes will drive pollution further inland. The 33,000 miles of pipeline in the Gulf’s waters and marshes are critically vulnerable to hurricane-induced waves (see chart). Seven weeks after the Deepwater Horizon spill, naval scientists released the results of research conducted when Hurricane Ivan swept through the Gulf in 2004. It found these pipelines to be far more vulnerable than previously thought to deep storm currents, which slosh for up to a week with enough force to break pipelines 300 feet deep. Plus every hurricane in this storm-prone region threatens the cement seals on 50,000 holes punched into the floor of the Gulf: some wells in deep water, many in the shallows, 27,000 of them abandoned and unmonitored, 600 once run by BP. The passage of Katrina spilled 8 million gallons of oil from platforms, pipelines, ships, and storage tanks-three-quarters as much oil as was dumped by the Exxon Valdez.

All of which adds up to the realization that our collective “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude toward the deep ocean-mining it, drilling it, overfishing it, dumping in it (including nuclear waste), polluting it, and deafening and killing its life with lethal sounds produced by the drilling industry and the military-is a prescription for ruin. “It’s not that we were totally unprepared for the possibility of the Deepwater Horizon,” says Carl Safina, “but that we were so spectacularly unprepared for its inevitability.”

IRONICALLY, THE TOOLS Kelly Benoit-Bird and Margaret McManus are employing in Hawaii to decipher the deep scattering layer were developed by the offshore oil and gas industry and the military. “The DSL was a hot topic during the Cold War,” says Benoit-Bird, “but only its acoustic properties, not its biological properties. American and Soviet navies wanted to know how to use its sound-reflecting properties to hide their submarines.” In the 21st century, the application has shifted to the oil industry’s fight to drill deeper, a battle spurring technological innovation in echo sounding and imaging equipment-including the “spill-cam,” whose footage BP was finally pressured into releasing. “As offshore rigs proliferate and get deeper,” says Benoit-Bird, “the once-prohibitively expensive gear attending them became cheaper and more accessible, to the point where the smallest players, the research scientists like Margaret and me, can now afford some of it.”

The data streaming in from the waters off Oahu-the yellow, green, red, and blue bands scrolling across the computer monitors-are unprocessed data, designed to signal that the submerged gear is working correctly. Back in Benoit-Bird’s office at Oregon State University, I watch the information transform into geek IMAX. The animations show spinner dolphins gathering in a circle of 16 to 28 animals, always an even number, each dolphin paired with another, the pairs arranged in an echelon formation: one animal slightly above and ahead of the next, while maintaining about three feet of separation. A perimeter of roughly 300 feet is precisely maintained as the dolphins swim in an undulating circle, trapping the fish inside the net of their swimming bodies.

One after another, in fixed sequence, two dolphin pairs directly opposite each other dart into the ball of fish to feed. As they return to the circle, four more follow. And so on. The action is extremely fast, the dolphins darting in to feed at a rate of roughly 1.25 prey per minute, all while swimming and circling in their roller-coaster pattern. After five minutes below, each pair has engaged in four feeding dashes, and the dolphins simultaneously surface to breathe. They typically grab only one or two quick breaths before diving, repeating the underwater rodeo over and over throughout the night without rest. “Our research indicates that spinner dolphins are forced to fish hard and continually all night,” says Benoit-Bird, “and to catch the biggest of these tiny four-inch-long fish they possibly can in order to meet their metabolic requirements.”

In other words, they exploit a different kind of edge-the fine line between survival and starvation. This precarious balance tips back and forth across the food web of the deep scattering layer. “In order to really understand what the dolphins are doing,” says Benoit-Bird, “we had to understand what their prey are doing. And in order to do that, we had to decipher what’s behind the movements of the deep scattering layer. This investigation led us incrementally backward over time towards the smaller and smaller organisms-which, as it turns out, drive the entire system.”

Margaret McManus was part of the team that first discovered a remarkable phenomenon rewriting our understanding of ocean dynamics-the formation of thin plankton layers in the ocean. These congregations of plankton, both the plant and animal varieties, may extend for many miles horizontally but inhabit a few feet on the vertical scale-sheets of life packed far, far more densely with life than the water just above or below them. The formation of thin layers is driven by the chemistry and physics of the ocean, as well as by the organisms themselves. Off Hawaii, they tend to form where cooler waters well up from the deep during tide changes.

McManus and Benoit-Bird have found that DSL fish will swim hard against prevailing currents in order to get to these dense aggregations of life. It’s an energy-consuming choice offset by the rich feeding rewards. In Benoit-Bird’s data animations, single fish dive into a thin zooplankton layer and swim up and down, back and forth, eating a doughnut hole in the layer. The spinner dolphins do something similar: diving to find patches of lantern fish that they then corral increasing the prey density by up to 200 times. “It’s so congested in there for these nonschooling fish of the DSL,” says Benoit-Bird, “that they’re probably bumping into each other in confusion.”

The emerging picture is one of an incalculably complex, finely tuned, and delicate interaction between predators and prey, chemistry and light, currents and water column, night and day. Some semblance of this spatial ballet, played in weightless three-dimensional darkness, has likely been part of the oceans since the oceans were brought to life: layers of life gathering in extremely high densities to feed or to avoid being eaten.

So what happens if you add millions of gallons of oil, dispersant, methane, and drilling fluid into the dense mix?

“We know that the deep scattering layer in the Gulf of Mexico-like the DSL everywhere-supports huge numbers and biomass of life,” says Benoit-Bird, who has spent time studying the Gulf’s sperm whales. “We know the DSL is super important to the life of those waters. We know it’s constantly on the move, not only up and down, but inshore and offshore, back and forth, every day and every night. This greatly increases the likelihood that any given animal or layers of life will be exposed to the pollutants at some point in the course of their travels. And each of these exposures will cascade up and down through the food web.”

Some early observations of the effects of the Gulf catastrophe suggest the daily vertical migrations of the animals of the deep scattering layer may be blocked when they encounter plumes of oil and contaminants. If so, then trapped below a plume, the DSL fish and invertebrates would be unable to access their prey. Trapped above, they would be unable to escape their predators. Trapped within, they would probably die-and in their deaths, poison those who eat them. For the ocean, any loss of productivity in the deep scattering layer would be the biggest cataclysm of all-impoverishing the surface waters, depleting the coasts, cascading across the boundaries between ocean and land to denude both natural and human economies.

BEFORE BEING WAYLAID by the oil tragedy, I was investigating the emergence of a better future for the ocean-one in which we could use our scientific and technological genius to create a new, exciting, and profitable relationship with our water world, a relationship based on respect and sustainability. I spent a few weeks in Hawaii, where the larvae of many promising ideas are circulating on scholarly and entrepreneurial currents.
At the University of Hawaii-Manoa, I met Luis Vega, who drifted years ago from his natal shores of Peru and landed in American academia. His shock of white hair and his melancholic, ironic air give him the guise of a poet. He told me that when he was working on clean energy in the Jimmy Carter years, he was a popular man. Then he weathered decades of solitude. “Now I’m popular again,” he smiles self-deprecatingly.

Vega is one of the foremost modern developers of OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) technology. He managed the design, construction, and operation of an experimental OTEC plant for the production of electricity at the National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) On the Big Island from 1993 to 1998. Today Vega has a new grant, via the Department of Energy and Lockheed Martin, to essentially see if the technology is suitable for commercial investment. “Today, while we talk about wind, solar, and wave power,” says Vega, “we’re ignoring this energy inherent in the ocean, a source far more powerful, far more consistent, than any of those. The beauty of OTEC lies in its unshakable ability to provide energy 24/7, without any of the vagaries of wind, solar, or wave.”

OTEC runs on the temperature differential between the ocean’s deep dark waters and its warmer sunlit zone-the same differentials the creatures of the DSL exploit. In a closed OTEC system, warm surface waters are pumped through a heat exchanger to vaporize a low-boiling-point fluid, like ammonia. Cold deep seawater is simultaneously pumped through a second heat exchanger, creating a gradient that drives the vapor through a turbine to generate electricity. Finally, the cold seawater condenses the ammonia back into a liquid, to be recycled through the system. Both Japan and India are also experimenting with OTEC power plants.

OTEC isn’t the deep water’s only use. At NELHA, the two cold-seawater pipes built for the last OTEC experimental plant today deliver water from between 2,000 and 3,000 feet deep to dozens of surrounding businesses. The 43-degree, extremely clean water enables aquaculture farms to grow cold-water seafood like Japanese abalone, flounder, oysters, and Atlantic lobster in the tropics. The deep water is also being used to raise aquarium fish and helps grow spirulina at one of the largest algae farms on Earth. The hope is that these methods could one day offer a sustainable alternative to wild-caught fish, especially disappearing species, like tuna.

But generating scalable commercial power would clearly be the killer app. The way Vega envisions our energy future, the first generation of OTEC “plant-ships” would be stationed offshore and send electricity via subsurface power cables to shore stations. Then, in 20 or 30 years, the technology would develop to the point where “grazing” OTEC plants could decouple from the land and roam tropical waters in search of the best temperature differentials.

These second-generation plant-ships would exploit those differentials, using the energy to break down seawater and create energy-rich compounds like hydrogen or ammonia. Either could essentially serve as a battery-holding energy as it’s transferred to land. And in the case of hydrogen, there might be a robust infrastructure in place to distribute liquid hydrogen (such an infrastructure is being built in California) to be used in fuel-cell vehicles.
Figuring out how or whether OTEC or any of these other alternate energy technologies can provide us with a livable future will take serious investment. Yet until now we’ve barely acknowledged the true costs of subsidizing “cheap” oil: not only the $4 billion a year in actual subsidies, but climate change, the risks to human health, environmental degradation, and disaster. In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico tragedy, alternative energy sources-OTEC, wave, tide, wind, or solar-no longer seem utopian, merely sane.

On the Big Island of Hawaii, the NELHA deepwater pipes run up near a beach park on the shoreline. In the early morning, I see a school of spinner dolphins in the blue water just beyond the breakers. Their night’s intensive work finished, they’re leaping and spinning their way back to shore. During my years filming spinner dolphins, I sometimes joined them underwater during their morning return to land. The sight was a marvel of speed and grace, dozens of slender bodies streaming below the surface at velocities that transformed the school into a waving, blurry contrail of gray and white and black. For me, stationary in the water while the spinners streamed past, as the sun ignited the twilight water, it felt like being inside the eye of a hurricane of intensive, productive, pure energy.

On the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, as black doom wells up from the seafloor a mile down, I find oil on beaches repeatedly cleaned by hazmat crews. All I have to do is lean down and scratch an inch into the sand to find goop. It occurs to me that a new stratum is being written in the geological logbook of the Gulf of Mexico, perhaps someday to be known as the BP dark layer. Will history record it as the oily seam marking the end of an untenable energy era and the beginning of a better one?

A dip to black isn’t always the end of the story. Sometimes it’s followed by a fade up from black and a whole new scene.

If you liked this story by Julia Whitty, don’t miss her features on mass extinction, the fate of the ocean, and the planet’s 13th tipping point.

Julia Whitty is the Environmental Correspondent for Mother Jones. Her latest book DEEP BLUE HOME : An Intimate Ecology of Our Wild Ocean will be out in July. For more of her stories, click here.

REPORT, BABY, REPORT
Mother Jones deployed four crack reporters to cover the BP/Deepwater Horizon spill. Read their daily stories at MotherJones.com and follow their Twitter feeds for up-to-the-minute updates.

Julia Whitty
was researching oceanic technology when we retasked her to the Gulf. She reunited with researchers she’d met reporting on our troubled seas in 2005. Follow her: @juliawhitty.

Mac McClelland’s
stories on press restrictions, pitiful cleanup efforts, and BP workers gone wild have been noted by the likes of PBS, Newsweek, and Salon. Follow her: @macmcclelland.

Kate Sheppard
is our energy and climate reporter. She was one of the first to write on the interplay between the spill size and liability, as well as shoddy dispersant regulations. Follow her: @kate_sheppard.

Josh Harkinson
A Texas native and chronicler of MMS misdeeds, Josh dipped into his Rolodex to bring us inside stories of what happened on the day the rig exploded. Follow him: @joshharkinson.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Truthout: Gulf Coast Fishermen Challenge US Government Over Dispersants

truthout.org

Tuesday 10 August 2010

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report

Commercial fishing communities in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida have united to demand that local, state and federal agencies force BP to discontinue the use of toxic dispersants and conduct better testing before reopening fishing waters.

“We need to get our government to get a handle on this situation and shut down our fishing waters until they test for dispersants and get the use of dispersants stopped unless they can prove to us they are not harmful,” Kathy Birren, a spokesperson for commercial fishermen in Florida, told Truthout. “We are seeing fish kills. They [US Government and BP] are covering this all up.”

Since the BP oil disaster began in late April, the secretary of Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) was granted emergency powers to open and close fishing areas. The department recently announced the opening of three shrimp management zones for August 16. These areas include zones that have been severely affected by the oil disaster. Dates were also set to open fishing for sea trout and harvesting oysters.

These moves are being questioned by commercial fishermen, who are skeptical of the motives of the state and federal governments’ decision to begin reopening fishing areas that had been closed by the oil disaster.

Clint Guidry is a Louisiana fisherman and on the board of directors of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, as well as being the shrimp harvester representative on the Louisiana Shrimp Task Force created by Executive Order of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

“The government, both state and federal, is pushing to open all these fishing areas back up and say it is OK, but this is a load of shit,” Guidry, who is from Lafitte, Louisiana, told Truthout. “It’s not OK. They claim 75 percent of the oil is gone or accounted for, but there’s still oil coming in. There is more oil in many of our bays, right now, than there has ever been.”

Guidry and Birren believe it is far too early for the state or federal governments to allow fishing to resume without more testing for oil and dispersant contamination.

“The government is not testing fish for dispersant,” Birren, who is from Hernando Beach, Florida, said. She pointed out that while the west coast of Florida remains largely unaffected by the oil disaster so far, she is concerned about how the Gulf seafood market is being deleteriously affected by the oil disaster.

Her main concern is with the health of people living on the Coast. Another of her concerns is that, without better testing, if contaminated seafood is sold and makes someone sick, the entire market will collapse. “We know the only test they are doing is a smell test on fish,” Birren added, “There are lots of things you can be hurt by you can’t smell. You’re taking these fish and shrimp and putting them on the market and all of the sudden you have a very serious situation. Our fish are healthy, but if other Gulf States are putting contaminated seafood on the market, we’ll lose our market and the trust in the industry. They’ve opened up many fishing areas very recently and it’s all in the name of money and minimizing BP’s liability.”

Regarding BP, Birren said, “They are letting the person who committed the crime clean up the crime scene.”

Along with Birren and Guidry, commercial fishermen from Alabama and Mississippi met last week in Biloxi to discuss other unresolved problems associated with the BP oil disaster such as the difficulty of processing claims, unfair hiring practices of the BP Vessels of Opportunity (VOO) Program and lack of jobs.

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, more than 30,000 commercial fishermen and seafood industry related jobs have been lost. Shrimp factories and processors are refusing to buy daily catches due to the negative perceptions of health hazards regarding Gulf seafood.

This newfound alliance of Gulf Coast commercial fishermen is also concerned with the overall health of the Gulf Coast fisheries, as they feel they have been “forever altered as 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants have been sprayed. Studies have shown dispersants mixed with oil are more hazardous than oil itself due to ability for spawning fish to consume small droplets of oil.”

Fishermen in the four aforementioned states are also concerned about the BP claim process, stating that it has become “increasingly difficult as no documentation is given to claimant,” and, “individual claim amounts have decreased by 80%.”

Demands of the commercial fishing community from Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida include closing “all fisheries waters until harvests go through chemical dispersant testing,” as well as having “the EPA and Coast Guard to discontinue current chemical dispersant use and test all seafood and fisheries with updated testing protocols.” The group also wants local commercial fishermen to be hired and trained “for all hazardous testing initiatives and clean-up work in a culturally competent manner,” and for “Federal, state and local agencies to develop community based health centers to service at-risk seafood industry population, administer blood tests for those who are exposed to dispersants and oil-clean up.”

The main concern right now is that the federal government is continuing to allow BP to use the toxic dispersants.

Hugh Kaufman, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whistleblower, who has been warning about the high toxicity of the dispersants BP has been using with both Coast Guard and EPA approval, stated on “MSNBC” on August 4:

“The dispersants, mixed with the oil and the water, is extremely toxic. The only real purpose of using so many dispersants on the oil is to cover up the volume of oil that was released from that well. That and lying about how much [oil] was coming out, was a mechanism to help BP save billions of dollars in fines.”

Kaufman went on to say that dispersants should never have been used and added, “I was listening to some of the ‘experts’ at universities being paid by BP who are saying that the oil has disappeared. It hasn’t disappeared. It’s throughout thousands of square miles in the Gulf mixed with the dispersants. And because the temperatures down there are so cold, they’re going to be around for decades.”

Kaufman’s concerns mirror those of the commercial fisherman, as he concluded, “We’ve now poisoned thousands of square miles of the Gulf and we have to recognize that and take precautions so that we can minimize the damages we have done.”

Guidry is also calling for immediate testing for dispersants before any fisheries can be opened in the Gulf. “Without any clear cut scientific testing that would say it [fish/shrimp] is safe from dispersants, we can’t do this,” he explained, “The oil didn’t just go away overnight and they have huge concerns about the cleanup.”

Guidry told Truthout that all the commercial spokespeople at the meeting last week shared this concern: “It seems the feds are more concerned with limiting BP’s liability than anything else.”

Guidry feels that, so far, all of the interim National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports “are covering up health problems. There is an effort by BP and the feds to relieve BP of the responsibility of paying respiratory illness claims. We’re going to wind up with a bunch of sick people across the Gulf before this is over and they’ll have no recourse. It’s already happening. Some of the fishermen who went to West Jefferson hospital when this thing first started, they were out at the source and they were chemically exposed. That just got covered up like it was nothing and blamed on food, heat stress, but it was like it all went away and they buried it. We’re going to see health problems in the next five to 20 years and BP is relieved of the responsibility and I just don’t think that is right.”

Birren also told Truthout she is concerned that the state of Florida might be playing a role in allowing BP to continue to use dispersants in order to hide the oil from tourists in an effort to protect the state’s multi-billion dollar tourist industry. She said that supposedly BP had stopped using the dispersants, “But we have fishermen in the VOO program taking pictures of them using it and people still getting sick from exposure. They are hiring companies to come in and use dispersant at night. You see the oil in the day and then next morning it’s gone. The government isn’t pushing to have this stopped even though they know this is going on. They are doing it because of money and our economy.”

Birren also told Truthout that fishermen she knows, who are speaking out against BP dispersant practices, “are getting death threats and notes on their cars saying you better watch out, because there are people above us who want to keep this quiet. But I know entire families who are sick because of the dispersants.”

Birren does not believe the crisis is over and believes the Gulf and inland waters have been “prematurely re-opened to fishing.”

She and the coalition of commercial fishermen she and Guidry are a part of are concerned about the credibility of Gulf Coast fishermen being damaged by contaminated seafood being delivered to the market. Birren also wrote, “As fisherman, we know that the use of dispersants has made this crisis vastly worse for everyone. It is time that government step up and protect us, our Gulf and the American public from further and possibly irreversible harm.”

“It’s now down to regular people like me trying to do what the government should be doing to take care of us,” she told Truthout. “It’s awful, it’s really bad. If Obama is not going to be a strong enough president to protect us, we’ll have to do it ourselves. We’re on our own down here.”

Guidry told Truthout that fishermen he is talking with are reporting the ongoing use of dispersants as well. “They [US Government] are trying to just let BP off and this is like nothing I’ve seen before,” he explained. “People with that much money that can bury the American people with the blessing of the federal government. They [BP] can buy all the local, state and federal officials and the crisis is still happening. The feds and BP are wishing it away. I wish we could do that, but we can’t. There’s going to be a lot of hard work, suffering and misery before this is over and it’s not over by a long shot.”

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, is the author of “The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan,” (Haymarket Books, 2009), and “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq,” (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from occupied Iraq for nine months as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last five years.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Dr. Mark Whiteside: Gulf Eco Disaster

(1) HOW IS THE MACONDO OIL SPILL DIFFERENT FROM OTHER SPILLS?
The BP Deepwater Horizon oil (Macondo) spill is now the largest in history, exceeding the 1979 Ixtoc leak in Mexico. It is the deepest leak, a mile down into the Gulf of Mexico (the Ixtoc was 160 feet). Unlike an isolated event like a tanker spill, it is a continuous leak without a defined end point. It is an eruption of crude oil and methane gas (40% of total) at high pressure emanating from two miles under the ocean floor. Much of the gas and oil is trapped in layers under water. It is actually a twin disaster: an oil slick subject to winds and surface currents, and a toxic soup of chemicals under the water steered by deep ocean currents.
(2) WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE OF THE OIL SPILL?
This oil spill is not only an ecological disaster, but an economic and cultural catastrophe. The environmental and economic impacts are nearly unimaginable and will last for decades. The oil spill affects the food chain from deep water to surface currents to shoreline habitats and onto land. The devastating effect on fishing, recreational activities, tourism, and culture will expand in size and dimension. The Gulf of Mexico has been irreparably harmed and an unabated flow of oil threatens the world’s oceans. This oil spill is a grievous wound on our planet.
(3) WHAT ARE SOME OF THE BODILY THREATS TO WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE?
There is a triple threat from this disaster that includes oil, methane gas, and chemical dispersants. Oil affects animals and people in a similar manner; by direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation. Crude oil contains carcinogens like benzene, and aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons that cause respiratory and nervous system damage. Toxic substances (found in oil) like mercury, lead, and arsenic build up in the food chain and stay in the environment for years.
Methane gas is an unappreciated pollutant. Most of the gas from the Macondo spill stays in underwater plumes along with components of oil. Microbes use up oxygen when they ingest methane, and this oxygen is needed for further breakdown of oil. When oxygen in the water is depleted it creates dead zones. There is already a large dead zone around the mouth of the Mississippi River caused by agricultural run-off. Dead zones will spread to a large area in the Gulf of Mexico.
Chemical dispersants have been used in massive amounts on surface oil and (for the first time) mixed with gas and oil on the ocean floor. Dispersants keep oil out of sight but they keep toxins hidden in the environment. These chemicals are harmful to fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. They can be lethal to deep sea plankton and worms. A study in Israel showed dispersants were harmful to coral reefs, killing organisms and retarding growth.
Corexit, a dispersant used by BP, has ingredients like butoxyethanol which acts like an anesthetic agent and causes nervous system disease, blood, and kidney disease in people and animals. Propylene glycol, another component, has skin and respiratory effects. Dispersants are volatile and enter the air, posing a risk to clean-up workers. An earlier, more toxic version of Corexit was used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
(4) WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF OIL ON COASTAL MARSHES?
Coastal marshes and estuaries are vital to the ecosystem and serve as the most important nursery for marine life. They act as a barrier to storms and prevent inland pollutants from entering the ocean. Coastal marshes and estuaries are nutrient-rich feeding grounds for birds and animals. Louisiana has one-third of the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 U.S. states. The inter-tidal zone of marshes situated on the shoreline is the most productive. Oil kills these marshes, and it is almost impossible to remove.
(5) WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE SPILL ON FISH?
Coastal marshes are nurseries for many fish, so their fate is intertwined. Fish eggs and larvae are found on the surface of water and are susceptible to oil and its byproducts. Adult fish can swim away from dead zones but fish like grouper and snapper venture close to shore to spawn. Previous oil spills have seen a 40% reduction in species of prey fish that lasts several years.
Menhaden is a top commercial fish in the U.S., used for everything from fish oil to animal food. Menhaden spend the first few months of their lives nibbling marsh grass. If you lose the marsh, you lose the menhaden. The Atlantic blue-fin tuna is a critically-endangered fish that uses the northern Gulf for spawning in April and May. The endangered smalltooth sawfish and the Gulf sturgeon are both threatened by the oil disaster.
Fish and organisms living at or near the sea floor are in the cross-hairs of this oil disaster; this includes soft-bottom fish such as Atlantic croaker, sand seatrout, Atlantic bumper, and sea robin. The hard-to-detect oil/dispersant mix is likely to rain down and wreak havoc on the unique deep water coral reef of Viosca Knoll, close to the BP oil leak.
Sharks are impacted by the Gulf oil spill. A major spawning ground for several shark species resides in a seagrass area south of the Chandeleur Islands, close to the Deepwater Horizon spill. The largest fish in the world, the whale shark, which lives on plankton, congregates in this area and has been spotted swimming in oil-contaminated water.
(6) WHAT DOES OIL DO TO SEAFOOD LIKE OYSTERS, SHRIMP, AND CRAB?
Oysters, shrimp, and crab and their larvae are decimated by oil in coastal marshes and estuaries. Oysters are filter feeders and can’t get out of the way of oil. All of these animals feed on plankton which is smothered and killed by oil. Lousiana produces 50% of shrimp, 40% of oysters, and 35% of crabs in the U.S. Lousiana’s 2 billion dollar oyster industry has come to a standstill.
(7) WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF OIL ON SEA TURTLES?
In a word, devastating. Five of seven species of sea turtles are found in the Gulf of Mexico. These animals come to the surface to breathe where they can suffocate in oil. They are affected by fumes, contaminated prey items (e.g. jellyfish), and soiled beaches. Loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback turtles breed elsewhere, but the endangered Kemp’s Ridley breeds only in the Gulf.
Sargassum is a type of seaweed that floats offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a biological oasis that harbors myriad creatures including larval fish and shrimp. Baby sea turtles like to ride the sargassum mats and are carried in the same currents that accumulate oil and floating debris.
(8) HOW’S ABOUT OUR FELLOW MAMMALS, WHALES AND DOLPHINS?
Cetaceans are in trouble. 28 species of marine mammals have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. Near shore animals are more directly threatened than offshore animals. These animals face danger from oil including coating, blindness, hypothermia, disrupted communication, and contaminated food. Among endangered whales (e.g. sei, fin, blue, humpback, and Atlantic right), the Gulf sperm whale is most at risk. Near shore dolphins; bottlenose, spotted, and Risso’s, are already suffering injury and death.
(9) WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE OIL SPILL ON BIRDS?
For a birder, the Gulf oil spill is beyond heartbreaking. Everyone is sickened by pictures of pelicans and other birds covered with oil. Birds are affected by direct contact with oil (swimming, diving), ingesting (by preening and eating contaminated prey) and sometimes fumes. Oil on birds causes problems with buoyancy and temperature regulation. Ingestion of oil produces kidney and liver damage and metabolic disturbances. Oil destroys birds’ habitat for foraging and breeding.
George Fenwick, president of American Bird Conservancy (ABC), says, “The oil spill spells disaster for bird in the Gulf region and beyond – the impacts could last for decades.” The ABC website shows the oil spill in relationship to over a dozen Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) and National Wildlife Refuges (NWR’s) in the region. Already impacted are Delta NWR, Gulf Coast Least Tern Colony, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Bon Secour NWR, and Breton NWR (Chandeleur Islands). The system of NWR’s down the east coast Texas (to Laguna Atacosa) and the west coast of Florida (to Dry Tortugas) are considered at risk.
Birds adapted to coastal marsh habitat are directly threatened by oil. These include herons, egrets, spoonbills, rails, and sparrows (e.g. seaside). Wintering shorebirds and waterfowl use these same marshes and near shore waters. Birds that require clean beaches or rocky shores for breeding or foraging include plovers (snowy, Wilson’s, and piping), skimmers, and American oystercatcher. Birds that dive into the water for food include the brown pelican, terns, and wintering gannets. Scavenging birds (gulls and crows), fish-eating raptors (bald eagle and osprey), and diving birds (cormorants, ducks, grebes, and loons) are likely to die in significant numbers.
(10) WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO BIRDS DURING MIGRATION?
That remains to be seen, but it can’t be good. Greg Butcher (National Audubon Society) says, “A lot of birds that were safe in their spring migration won’t be in their autumn passage.” Shorebirds that breed in the Arctic begin arriving on the Gulf coast in July. Some 500 million birds use the Mississippi Flyway during migration, and the oil mess is smack in the middle of this flyway on the Gulf coast.
Countless birds use barrier islands and coastal marshes as stopover and refueling points during migration. Passerine (perching) birds will suffer negative impacts of air (smoke), lack of fresh water, and loss of critical coastal habitat where they congregate, especially in inclement weather. A USDA plan to flood farmlands along the migration route may lure some birds, but most species will instinctively return to their coastal haunts.
(11) WHAT IS THE SURVIVAL RATE OF OILED BIRDS?
Poor, although this varies by site and species. Survival of oiled pelicans is low compared to unaffected birds. Some (e.g. German biologist Silvia Gaus) argue that since only 1 in 100 oiled birds is likely to survive, it is more humane to “kill, not clean” and concentrate on habitat protection. The International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC) reports about 10% of oiled birds in the Gulf makes it to a rehab center, where mortality is high during captivity or following release.
Here in the Florida Keys, hundreds of miles away from the oil spill, it makes more sense to rehabilitate oiled or injured birds (Florida Keys Audubon Society will support those efforts). We should do everything we can to save our “special birds,” so more effort should go into cleaning a reddish egret or pelagic (ocean-going) bird than say, a cormorant. People should understand that cleaning oiled birds is just a beginning; the real challenge is protecting and restoring habitat.
(12) WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP?
Educate yourself about this crisis. You need to read and study, and not just listen to the evening news. Begin observing the natural world around you. You can report impacted wildlife in Florida to (866) 557-1401 and oiled shoreline to (877)-2-SAVE-Fl. Cornell Ornithology Lab has a website for observations and comments (www.ebird.org).
Contribute to nonprofit environmental groups and/or become a member. You can make sure your neighborhood is clean and free of debris (especially if you live on the water). You can volunteer and receive training for clean-up operations. You can register at www.volunteerflorida.org (Florida) or at www.volunteermonroe.info (Monroe County).
You can contact your congressman (Senator Bill Nelson is very outspoken on this issue). You can reduce your own oil consumption. You can support a rational national energy policy. You can tell folks how you feel. You can get angry, and try and funnel that energy into something useful.
Sources: Center for Biological Diversity, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund (Doug Radar), Cornell Lab of Ornithology (Ken Rosenberg), World Wildlife Fund, Ocean Conservancy (Philippe Cousteau), American Bird Conservancy, Audubon, the Miami Herald, and on-line media including Time, Newsweek, and CNN.

Mark Whiteside
Vice-president/Special Projects
Florida Keys Audubon Society

Huffington Post: The Crime of the Century: What BP and the US Government Don’t Want You to Know, Part I

Whale disposal

White truck hauling away dead marinelife. Photo by Robyn Hill

Magnolia landfill during initial cleanup, courtesy of Press-Register, Connie Baggett

The ocean covered in Corexit is green, and a line of crude being dispersed


Corexit and a thin line of orangish crude dispersing on the surface

Wake of vessel near the Source through the toxic dispersant Corexit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/the-crime-of-the-century_b_662971.html

This is really really horrible. The reality of so loss of marinelife and the awful truth that our gov’t is in cahoots with the perpertrator. DV

by Jerry Cope and Charles Hambleton.Posted: August 4, 2010 11:46 AM

The unprecedented disaster caused by the BP oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon 252 site continues to expand even as National Incident Commander Thad Allen and BP assert that the situation is improving, the blown-out source capped and holding steady, the situation well in hand and cleanup operations are being scaled back. The New York Times declared on the front page this past week that the oil was disolving more rapidly than anticipated. Time magazine reported that environmental anti-advocate Rush Limbaugh had a point when he said the spill was a “leak”. Thad Allen pointed out in a press conference that boats are still skimming on the surface, a futile gesture when the dispersant Corexit is being used to break down oil on the surface. As the oil is broken down, it mixes with the dispersant and flows under or over any booming operations.

To judge from most media coverage, the beaches are open, the fishing restrictions being lifted and the Gulf resorts open for business in a healthy, safe environment. We, along with Pierre LeBlanc, spent the last few weeks along the Gulf coast from Louisiana to Florida, and the reality is distinctly different. The coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida have been inundated by the oil and toxic dispersant Corexit 9500, and the entire region is contaminated. The once pristine white beaches that have been subject to intense cleaning operations now contain the oil/dispersant contamination to an unknown depth. The economic impacts potentially exceed even the devastation of a major hurricane like Katrina, the adverse impacts on health and welfare of human populations are increasing every minute of every day and the long-term effects are potentially life threatening.

Over the Gulf from the Source (official term for the Deepwater Horizon spill site) in to shore there is virtually no sign of life anywhere in the vast areas covered by the dispersed oil and Corexit. This in a region previously abundant with life above and below the ocean’s surface in all its diversity. For months now, scientists and environmental organizations have been asking where all the animals are. The reported numbers of marine animals lost from BP fall far short of the observed loss. The water has a heavy appearance and the slightly iridescent greenish yellow color that extends as far as the eye can see.

On two, unrestricted day-long flights, on July 22nd and 23rd, we were fortunate enough to be on with official clearance. We saw a total of four distressed dolphins and three schools of rays on the surface. As the bottom of the ocean is covered with crude and only the oil on the surface broken up by dispersant, the rays are forced up to the surface in a futile attempt to find food and oxygen. Birds are scarce where one would usually find thousands upon thousands. The Gulf of Mexico from the Source into the shore is a giant kill zone.

Rays near the Source

In May, Mother Nature Network blogger Karl Burkart received a tip from an anonymous fisherman-turned-BP contractor in the form of a distressed text message, describing a near-apocalyptic sight near the location of the sunken Deepwater Horizon — fish, dolphins, rays, squid, whales, and thousands of birds — “as far as the eye can see,” dead and dying. According to his statement, which was later confirmed by another report from an individual working in the Gulf, whale carcasses were being shipped to a highly guarded location where they were processed for disposal.

CitizenGlobal Gulf News Desk received photos that matched the report and are being published on Karl’s blog today. Local fisherman in Alabama report sighting tremendous numbers of dolphins, sharks, and fish moving in towards shore as the initial waves of oil and dispersant approached in June. Many third- and fourth-generation fisherman declared emphatically that they had never seen or heard of any similar event in the past. Scores of animals were fleeing the leading edge of toxic dispersant mixed with oil. Those not either caught in the toxic mixture and killed out at sea, or fortunate enough to be out in safe water beyond the Source, died as the water closed in, and they were left no safe harbor. The numbers of birds, fish, turtles, and mammals killed by the use of Corexit will never be known as the evidence strongly suggests that BP worked with the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, private security contractors, and local law enforcement, all of which cooperated to conceal the operations disposing of the animals from the media and the public.

The majority of the disposal operations were carried out under cover of darkness. The areas along the beaches and coastal Islands where the dead animals were collected were closed off by the U.S. Coast Guard. On shore, private contractors and local law enforcement officials kept off limits the areas where the remains of the dead animals were dumped, mainly at the Magnolia Springs landfill by Waste Management where armed guards controlled access. The nearby weigh station where the Waste Management trucks passed through with their cargoes was also restricted by at least one sheriff’s deputies in a patrol car, 24/7.

Robyn Hill, who was Beach Ambassador for the City of Gulf Shores until she became so ill she collapsed on the job one morning, was at a residential condominium property adjacent to the Gulf Shores beach when she smelled an overwhelming stench. She went to see where the odor was coming from and witnessed two contract workers dumping plastic bags full of dead birds and fish in a residential Waste Management dumpster, which was then protected by a security guard. Within five minutes, a Waste Management collection truck emptied the contents and the guard departed.

The oceans are empty, the skies tinged yellow by evaporating oil and toxic dispersant devoid of birds, dogs mysteriously have no fleas, and in an area usually besieged by mosquitoes, there is little need for repellent, and the usual trucks spraying are nowhere to be seen.

Shell Beach, in Hopedale, Louisiana, was one of the sites where carcasses of sperm whales were suspected of being destroyed. The operational end of the island was closed to unauthorized personnel and the airspace closed. The U.S. Coast Guard closed off all access from the Gulf. This picture shows the area as it was prepped to receive what were suspected to be whale carcasses for disposal.

Riki Ott, PhD, has been in the region for the past three months. A veteran of the Exxon Valdez spill and renowned marine toxicologist, Ott has documented numerous accounts of the devastating results from BP and the government’s use of Corexit in the gulf. We spoke at length last week:

JC: There has been a great deal of discussion about the disappearance of the animals and the life in the ocean which seem to have vanished since this incident has occurred. What do you know about this?

RO: Well I have been down in the Gulf since May 3rd. It’s pretty consistent what I have heard. First I heard from the offshore workers and the boat captains that were coming in and they would see windrows of dead things piled up on the barrier islands; turtles and birds and dolphins… whales…
JC: Whales?

RO: And whales. There would be stories from boat captains of offshore, we started calling death gyres, where the rips all the different currents sweep the oceans surface, that would be the collection points for hundreds of dolphins and sea turtles and birds and even whales floating. So we got four different times latitudes/longitude coordinates where (this was happening) but by the time we got to these lat/longs which is always a couple of days later there was nothing there. There was boom put around these areas to collect the animals and we know this happened at Exxon Valdez too. The rips are where the dead things collect. We also know from Exxon Valdez that only 1% in our case of the carcasses that floated off to sea actually made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska. I don’t believe there have been any carcass drift studies down here that would give us some indication that when something does wash up on the beach what percentage it is of the whole. But we know that offshore there was an attempt by BP and the government to keep the animals from coming onshore in great numbers. The excuse was this was a health problem — we don’t want to create a health hazard. That would only be a good excuse if they kept tallies of all the numbers because all the numbers – all the animals – are evidence for federal court. We the people own these animals and they become evidence for damages to charge for BP. In Exxon Valdez the carcasses were kept under triple lock and key security until the natural resource damage assessment study was completed and that was 2 1/2 years after the spill. Then all the animals were burned but not until then.
So people offshore were reporting this first and then carcasses started making it onshore. Then I started hearing from people in Alabama a lot and the western half of Florida – a little bit in Mississippi – but mostly what was going on then there was an attempt to keep people off the beaches, cameras off the beaches. I was literally flying in a plane and the FAA boundary changed. It was offshore first with the barrier islands and all of a sudden it just hopped right to shore to Alabama that’s where we were flying over and the pilot was just like – he couldn’t believe it – he was like look at that and I didn’t know what he was looking but then he points at the little red line which had all of sudden grown and he just looked at me and said the only reason that they have done this is so people can’t see what is going on. And what that little red line meant was no cameras on shore and three days later the oil came onshore and the carcasses came onshore into Alabama.

WATCH Jerry’s interview with Ott:

JC: That immediately preceded the first wave coming onshore?

RO: Pretty much. That preceded the first wave. It was June 2nd when the line changed and the FAA boundaries increased. Then people would — I mean you walk beaches here at night it’s hot so people walk beaches — and they would see carcasses like sea turtles, a bird, a little baby dolphin, and immediately they would go over to it and immediately people would approach them, don’t touch that if you touch it you will be arrested and within fifteen minutes there would be a white unmarked van that would just come out of nowhere and in would go the carcass and off it would go.
They were white unmarked vans at first. We’ve since heard many other stories from truckers who are trucking carcasses in refrigerated vans to Mexico. Carcasses are just not showing up where they need to which is as body counts for essentially this war on the gulf.

JC: It sounds like the federal government and agencies that have been involved in this one way or another are working on behalf of BP and not the American people.

RO: What’s going on on the beaches where people can at least get glimpses of what’s happening — I mean I’ve talked to people who have seen boats coming in towing dolphin carcasses and the boats have jockeyed to try to prevent the person with the camera from getting a picture. I’ve had people tell me they were walking the beach actually trying to deploy boom but along comes a BP rep and the Coast Guard in a boat, and the Coast Guard guy yells at the people to stop deploying — particularly if it was alternative boom — and then he goes away and comes back a few minutes later without the BP person and apologizes for behaving that way but he had to because there was a BP person on board.
JC: A Coast Guard official?

RO: A Coast Guard official apologized for his behavior because he had to a since BP person was on board. So it’s pretty clear to the American, the people in the Gulf, that somehow it’s turned not into our country anymore. That’s the question. People are just stunned. We thought this was America. We didn’t think we had to know exactly what our rights were, we just though we all lived them. Suddenly they’re finding that unless they can site chapter and verse they are getting intimidated and backing down from these encounters with BP and/or the Coast Guard.
Drew Wheelan, with the American Birding Association, was on Grand Isle on the first of June. Drew said:

There were definitely dead birds washing up on the beach at that point. General contractors, not Fish and Wildlife officials, I contacted them and they said they were not conducting operations at that time. These contractors were cruising the high tide. On at least three occasions I saw these gators, 4-seat ATVs, going along the beach with hand-held spotlights looking for dead animals in the middle of the night. When I spoke with Felix Lopez at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, he told me they knew they were disappearing birds.

Dead Northern Gannet, reported but uncollected. Photo by Drew Wheelan

Karen Harvey is a local who regularly walks the beaches along the Alabama Gulf shore.

JC: In the course of walking the beaches since this incident happened, how many dead animals, birds did you find?

KH: Before they got the hazmat crews trained and before official people showed up with their vans I was finding — within a seven-mile stretch — and that’s not a very long beach area, I was finding at least two turtles a day, mostly Ridleys. There was one logger head that was very large. My daughter’s friends would call me and say, Miss Karen there’s a turtle on the beach, you should come down and take a picture. People were aware they were dying, but we were being told that they were possibly hit by a fishing boat or pulled up with fish from the fishing boats but after the fishing boats were completely stopped the turtles were still on the beach. Now the beach is immaculate, no crabs, no birds — nothing.
JC: Why do you think that is?

KH: Dispersant. It’s the dispersant. And also when you clean a beach the way they clean our beach with — I mean our beach never looked this pristine as far as junk and so forth — when you clean a beach like that, you take away all the things that birds eat, and we did have some big fish kill areas where bunches of little tiny fish and so forth would wash up. And it makes you wonder.
JC: When was that?

KH: The last one as probably about a month ago.
JC: When you say a lot, quantify that.

KH: Thousands of little tiny fish, but they were cleaning the beach so they just cleaned the beach up, the hazmat workers.
WATCH Jerry’s interview with Harvey:

The reason BP has gone to such great lengths to hide the devastation caused by the irresponsible drilling operations and blow out at Mississippi Canyon 252 is financial. Every death that results from the oil spill has a cash value, whether animal or human. Images of dead animals are difficult to spin in the media, and they resonate across all demographics. BP also has a strong interest in maintaining a business-as-usual model for the beach resort communities along the Gulf Coast that have been economically devastated and lost the majority of their annual revenue during the summer season of 2010. The only sharks circling the Gulf waters now are based on land.

Coming Soon; Part II. Corexit and Human Health.

Follow Jerry Cope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jercope

Keysnet.com: Marine experts at a Key West forum on the Deepwater Horizon spill cautioned against “declaring victory far too soon.”

http://www.keysnet.com/2010/08/07/245964/scientists-caution-against-over.html

By Kevin Wadlow kwadlow@keynoter.com
posted Sat. Aug 7th, 2010

“A lot of people in Key West and the Keys seem to believe the problems are over,” said Paul Johnson, a former Reef Relief president working with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We know that’s not the case,” Johnson said.

“There is much we do not know about the path and fate of the submerged oil plumes and what the future will hold,” said NRDC analyst Ali Chase in a written report after the session at the Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center.

Conservation groups Oceana and the NRDC hosted the forum, with included remarks by National Marine Sanctuaries Program regional director Billy Causey, and Capt. Pat DeQuattro of the Coast Guard’s Group Key West.

Recent reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration highlighted the fact that as much as half the oil spilled in the northern Gulf of Mexico seems to have disappeared from the gulf surface, through natural breakdown or recovery efforts. In a nationally published column, NRDC Ocean Initiative Director Sarah Chasis said that means about 100 million gallons of leaked oil remain.

“Clearly, a lot of this oil is still in the Gulf environment,” Chasis said. “If you do the math, that means as much as 50 percent of the oil could still be affecting the environment, both offshore and along the coastline. That’s nine Exxon Valdez spills.”

The chances of any Deepwater Horizon oil reaching the Keys or South Florida in visibly noticeable quantities seem slight, federal officials said last week.

The effects of dispersed oil in the water column are still uncertain.

Florida International University biology professor Jim Fourqurean said at the Key West session that the gulf’s expansive seagrass beds should prove relatively resistant to oil impacts. But the sea life living in the grass could be impacted.

“The seagrass community of crabs, shrimp, small juvenile fish and other marine life of great biological and economic importance, are very susceptible,” Fourqurean said.

DeQuattro said preparing for a possible spill impact in the Keys helped local responders find new ways to work together and spotlighted unforeseen issues.

But he cautioned forum members, “Don’t wait for the next emergency to get involved and prepared.”

With reports from the NRDC

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/achase/scientists_discuss_potential_i.html

Ali Chase’s Blog
Scientists Discuss Potential Impacts of Oil Exposure on Florida Keys
Print this page
Posted August 5, 2010

Tags:florida, floridakeys, gulfofmexico, gulfspill, oil
Share | | In the Florida Keys – a place defined by its ocean environment and where the economy’s health is directly reliant on a healthy ecosystem – the community is anxious to know whether or not oil will reach their shores, what the impact will be on their unique and precious corals, seagrasses and mangroves, how the oil could affect the abundant wildlife, and how they can help prevent this ecological treasure from harm.

Last night, NRDC and Oceana hosted a conference for the Florida Keys’ community – called “The Gulf Disaster & the Florida Keys: What Are the Environmental Impacts & How to Help” – that was designed to answer these questions.

At the conference, Florida scientists discussed the current understanding about the Gulf oil spill’s potential impacts, should it reach the Florida Keys’ coastline and national marine sanctuary, and local volunteer and response effort officials described their work to prepare for the disaster and offered ways for the public to engage in monitoring and spill response.

Coming on the heels of the Administration’s questionable reassurances yesterday that the worst of the Gulf disaster may well be over, the audience and panelists instead expressed concern about declaring victory far too soon and reiterated that we need to remain vigilant for impacts from this spill and proactively plan to improve our response capacity for future spills.

A few take-away lessons from the event follow:

Thankfully, to date, the Florida Keys has been spared from oil on its shores. However, it’s important to be vigilant because we’re not out of the water yet. There is much we do not know about the path and fate of the submerged oil plumes and what the future will hold. While we hope that this oil will not reach the area, we remain alert for impacts.

Seagrass beds – which cover nearly 95 percent of the Keys’ shallow water ocean floor – are more resilient to oil impacts than, for example, the area’s mangroves, however, “The seagrass community of crabs, shrimp, small juvenile fish and other marine life of great biological and economic importance, are very susceptible and would be killed [by oil].” – Jim Fourqurean, Professor of Biology, Florida International University
“The real threat to [the area’s marine mammals, like manatees and dolphins] are respiratory problems due to the inhalation of the [oil] fumes concentrated at the ocean surface where they are forced to breathe.” – Robert Lingenfelser, President, Marine Mammal Conservancy
We are just beginning to tally the huge costs that the BP spill has had on the Gulf region’s marine life. We know that what happens elsewhere to the marine life in the Gulf will affect the Keys’ marine life and we are only starting to learn about the fate of fish and other species from the months of oil exposure. The environmental legacy of an oil spill can last decades, if not lifetimes, and incur significant economic losses for coastal communities, whether directly affected by the oil or not.

“Fish-eating ocean birds, like frigates, pelicans and terns, don’t have to be physically oiled to be harmed. By eating contaminated bait fish over time, they can bio-concentrate pollutants, [like heavy metals and polycyclic hydrocarbons] that can cause long-term health problems and death.” – Michelle Anderson, Director, Key West Wildlife Center
“Bluefin tuna … not commonly found [in the Keys] actively spawn in the central Gulf … where the major effect of this Gulf oil spill disaster is being felt. Because their eggs float and the young fish larvae are very dependent on clean, open ocean water, oil is a killer to them.” – Patrick Rice, Dean of Marine Science and Technology, Florida Keys Community College
The partnerships and relationships with individuals and organizations as a result of the BP spill is one of the silver linings to this disaster. We need to continue to plan and work together to protect our unique resources.

“The take home of this event [the Gulf disaster] in the Keys is – we had a plan, and we assembled a great team of federal, state and local government partners experienced and use to working together in emergency situations. What we didn’t have was the connections to the wildlife rehab groups, citizens and community that wanted to help and be better prepared to address the environmental impacts that would surely occur from the spill if it reached the Keys. … Don’t wait for the next emergency to get involved and prepared.” – Captain Pat DeQuattro, Commander, United States Coast Guard, Sector Key West
In the coming weeks, NRDC will be posting segments from the conference so that those outside of the Keys’ community can hear about the impacts that oil can bear on marine habitats and wildlife.

Mother Jones: Feds Giving Spill Data to BP-But Public Stays in Dark

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/08/feds-giving-spill-data-to-bp-not-public

- Flickr/IBRRC
Why is the government telling BP how much damage oil has caused in the Gulf, but keeping it secret from the rest of us?
- By Kate Sheppard

26 Comments | Post Comment
Thu Aug. 5, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
The federal government is now painting a rosy picture of the Gulf spill, reporting Wednesday that much of the oil has miraculously disappeared. The folks at the New York Times bought in, proclaiming, “US Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk.”

But the oil isn’t gone. More than 100 million gallons of it-at least nine and a half times more oil than the Exxon Valdez dumped-remain at the surface or dispersed undersea. And the government is still keeping crucial information about the extent of the damage a carefully guarded secret-from everyone except BP.

Under the federal code governing the damage assessment protocol, as the responsible party, BP is guaranteed a role in the process, and therefore has access to data that the government isn’t required to show the public. This privileged information, of course, gives BP an advantage, since the company now knows what it’s up against in court. In fact, BP has already hired a fleet of scientists to conduct its own assessment of the damage, which the company could use to challenge the government’s analysis. BP’s scientists have signed three-year confidentiality agreements, meaning they can’t disclose their data to the public.

Nine prominent scientists and marine researchers from groups and research institutions including the National Wildlife Federation, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Florida State University sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and BP CEO Robert Dudley on Tuesday calling for “full and timely transparency of all scientific information” related to the disaster. If the government released the damage data, local and regional conservation and environmental groups could provide valuable insight, said David Pettit, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. But there’s no formal public input period until the government issues its draft restoration plan, which could take years.

While the government is releasing some data on wildlife deaths, it has not been forthcoming with more specific information, such as the species of birds, reptiles, and mammals that have been found coated in oil or dead. For example, the most recent tally from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, released Wednesday, states that 1,739 visibly oiled birds have been collected alive since the spill began April 20. FWS has also collected 3,478 dead birds, 1,504 of them visibly oiled. We have no idea, however, how many of those are species of birds that have been threatened or endangered, like the brown pelican, which was just taken off the endangered species list last year, or the piping plover, which is curently listed as endangered.

Reports from NOAA, which deals with collection of sea turtles and other reptiles, as well as dolphins and other mammals, are similarly vague. The latest tally shows 506 sea turtles found dead, though it doesn’t list how many of those are of the Kemp’s Ridley species, the most endangered species of sea turtle in the world. Of the 66 dead mammals listed, we don’t know how many are dolphins.

The federal government says more specific data will be made available-eventually. “We are working to ensure the quality of the data and we intend to make it publicly available as soon as we can,” said Kyla Hastie, public information officer at Fish and Wildlife. “We want to be right.”

The US Fish and Wildlife Serivce, a divison of the Department of the Interior, and NOAA are currently assessing the impacts of the spill through what is known as the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) process for oil spills. Part of the Oil Pollution Act, which was passed in 1990 in response to the Exxon Valdez disaster, the NRDA requires the responsible party to pay for the restoration of damaged resources, including animals, land, air, and water supplies.

The Exxon case offers a good example of how arming only BP with crucial information might ultimately backfire. In 1991, Exxon struck a deal with the government to pay just $900 million in damages over 10 years. The deal also allowed the government to reopen the case, if it could prove that there were remaining problems that had not been adequately addressed. But the burden of proof was on the state and federal government to show that the loss or decline of habitat or species was directly related to the spill and could not have been forseen in the initial assessment. In 2006, when government and independent studies showed that Prince William Sound was still polluted, the Department of Justice and the State of Alaska filed a claim against Exxon, asking for an additional $92 million payment. But Exxon presented hundreds of its own studies that claimed that there was no ongoing environmental impact. Exxon prevailed, and never had to pay one cent more for the damage to the Prince William Sound, despite the fact that independent studies have found it has never fully recovered.

“Exxon cut themselves a good deal,” said Pettit. He warned that the public should expect the same from BP. “Everyone knows what the Exxon playbook was, and it worked.”

“Buying scientists indicates that [BP is] clearly going to fight an NRDA assessment,” said Aaron Viles, campaign director with the Gulf Restoration Network. The group’s president has been up in Alaska this week gathering insight from Alaskans on how to prepare. “We need to be able to fight back.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Yesmagazine.org: Pete Seeger song on oil: Don’t Give Up, Don’t Give In

As Willie Nelson taught us, you just can’t play a sad song on a banjo. Folk legend Pete Seeger unveils his newest protest song.

Document Actions
*
posted Aug 04, 2010

Pete Seeger, activist and one of the greatest singer/songwriters of the last century, has spoken out through song against the BP oil spill.

He performed his new protest song, “God’s Countin’ On Me, God’s Countin’ On You” with musician James Maddock in a concert benefiting the Gulf Restoration Network.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

MSNBC: Crude still coats marshes and wetlands along Gulf (video)

video at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38587494/ns/us_news-environment

Kerry Maloney / AP
Oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster is visible in Barataria Bay, Thursday Aug. 5, 2010. BP finished pumping fresh cement into its blown-out oil well as aimed to seal for good the ruptured pipe that for months spewed crude into Gulf of Mexico in one of the world’s worst spills. (AP Photo/Kerry Maloney)
By GREG BLUESTEIN, JASON DEAREN
-

ON THE GULF OF MEXICO – Much of the crude still in the Gulf and coastal areas more than three months after BP’s blowout has permeated deep into marshes and wetlands, complicating cleanup.

Crews are still finding plenty of crude in those interior areas, even as government officials say spotting oil from the air on the Gulf’s surface is taking longer on each trip.

“The good news is people are seeing less oil, but the bad news is the oil trapped in the marshes is moving out with the tides and sticking on the marsh cane,” said Maura Wood, an oceanographer with the National Wildlife Foundation, on a boat trip to the marshes of Pass-A-Loutre, La. “And that could kill it.”

The sometimes frustrating search for oil underscores the difficulties facing the small army of federal officials and cleanup crews tasked with purging what remains. Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft, the government’s on-scene coordinator, said he’s had to spend a growing amount of his time taking flights over the Gulf to search for the remaining crude.

“There is very little observable oil out there,” he said, saying that Coast Guard responders are not seeing much on the surface. But he added: “We can’t turn a blind eye … If we don’t see oil, I’m not assuming it doesn’t exist.”

Engineers, meanwhile, were working to make sure no new oil would seep from the busted well. They scored another victory Thursday by finishing the pumping of a steady stream of fresh cement down the throat of the well, and crews planned to wait at least a day for it to dry.

The cement was one of the last steps in the so-called “static kill.” The effort started Tuesday with engineers pumping enough mud down the top of the well to push the crude back to its underground source for the first time since an oil rig exploded 50 miles off the Louisiana coast on April 20, killing 11 workers and triggering the spill.

Crews followed it up Thursday by sealing the well with a torrent of cement. After it dries, the last step begins: Finishing the drilling of the last 100 feet of the relief well, which government officials said will be used to seal the underground reservoir from the bottom with mud and cement.

“This is not the end, but it will virtually assure us that there will be no chance of oil leaking into the environment,” retired Adm. Thad Allen, who oversees the spill response for the government, said in Washington.

The progress was another bright spot as the tide appeared to be turning in the monthslong battle to contain the oil, with a federal report this week indicating that only about a quarter of the spilled crude remains in the Gulf and is degrading quickly.
Despite the progress on the static kill, BP executives and federal officials won’t declare the threat dashed until they use the relief well – though lately they haven’t been able to publicly agree on its role.

Federal officials including Allen have insisted that crews will shove mud and cement through the 18,000-foot relief well, which should be completed within weeks. Crews can’t be sure the area between the inner piping and outer casing has been plugged until the relief well is complete, he said.

But for reasons unclear, BP officials have in recent days refused to commit to pumping cement down the relief well, saying only that it will be used in some fashion. BP officials have not elaborated on other options, but those could include using the well simply to test whether the reservoir is plugged.

The vast oil reservoir beneath the well could still be worth billions of dollars even after it spewed crude into the Gulf of Mexico for more than three months, but BP isn’t saying whether it plans to cash in on this potential windfall.

BP insisted Thursday it had no plans to use it or its two relief wells to produce oil. But the company won’t comment on the possibility of drilling in the same block of sea floor someday or selling the rights to the entire tract to another oil company.

Whether the well is considered sealed yet or not, there’s still oil in the Gulf or on its shores – nearly 53 million gallons of it, according to the report released Wednesday by the Interior Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That’s still nearly five times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, which wreaked environmental havoc in Alaska in 1989.

But almost three-quarters of the nearly 207 million gallons of oil that leaked overall has been collected at the well by a temporary containment cap, been cleaned up or chemically dispersed, or naturally deteriorated, evaporated or dissolved, the report said.

Some residents are worried that now that the well has flatlined, the nation’s attention will shift from the coast.

“I’m losing trust in the whole system,” said Willie Davis, a 41-year-old harbormaster in Pass Christian, Miss. “If they don’t get up off their behinds and do something now, it’s gonna be years before we’re back whole again.”

In Pass-A-Loutre, where oil still clung stubbornly to marsh cane, each day’s high tide picks up the goo and leaks it back into the ocean. But Jeremy Ingram, the Coast Guard official who oversees cleanup crews here, said it’s cleaner than it was when he arrived 60 days ago. Back then, he said, he couldn’t even see water through the thick ooze.

“I’d say it’s a lot less than what was here, but if you see on the canes it’s still heavily saturated with oil. So the job’s not done yet, there’s still a lot more work to get done,” he said. “As the tide comes up and washes oil off that cane, somebody and some thing has to be here to catch it.”

___
Bluestein reported from New Orleans. Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Jennifer Kay in Pensacola Beach, Fla., Brian Skoloff in Pass Christian, Miss., Harry R. Weber and Jeff McMillan in New Orleans and Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Ala.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

CNN: Mississippi county fights BP over oil spill waste being dumped in landfill

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/27/bp.landfill.dispute/index.html?hpt=T2

By the CNN Wire Staff
July 28, 2010 5:16 a.m. EDT

(CNN) — What happens to all the tar balls, oily sand and vegetation, and soiled gloves and suits from the thousands of temporary BP workers who’ve been working to clean up beaches along the Gulf of Mexico?

It’s being dumped in nine landfills along the Gulf coast, under agreements involving BP, landfill operators and the Unified Command, the federal agencies overseeing the cleanup efforts.

But some communities are not happy about it, amid fears of soil and water contamination, and one local government is fighting back.

Supervisors in Harrison County, Mississippi, where the Pecan Grove Landfill is based, have been fuming over what the county estimates is 1,200 tons of oil-tainted byproduct dumped there.

The board of supervisors passed a resolution this summer not to accept BP waste.
That effort didn’t go far, because the landfill is owned and operated by a Mississippi company, Waste Management, which answers to the state.

But now, Waste Management has agreed not to dump more waste there, instead keeping it in huge bins in a nearby “staging area” pending further talks with local officials.

The company, BP representatives and federal and local officials are holding more talks Thursday, according to Tim Holleman, an attorney for the board of supervisors.

And the board has instructed Holleman to prepare an injunction to stop the dumping if the negotiations don’t end in an agreement.

Holleman said he couldn’t tip his hand on all the legal arguments that might be employed in an injunction.

But one argument is that dumping the waste in landfills is the “least preferred” option under a series of disposal methods outlined under the Unified Command’s waste management plan. It’s also one of the easiest.

“It’s sort of like throwing a can of trash in your front yard, then picking it up and throwing it in your backyard and saying you’re sorry,” Holleman said.

He said a far more effective method would be to incinerate the waste. And in fact, another company in Mississippi specializes in just that.

Waste Oil Collectors Inc. of Gautier, Mississippi, wrote Holleman several weeks ago, describing a process in which the waste is shredded into uniform bits and then incinerated at 2,500 degrees in a kiln.

That recovers energy from the waste and breaks it down into mineral components, some of which can be used in asphalt.

Waste Management says that all the oil waste that has been stored at the landfill is classified as “non-hazardous,” after being tested by the EPA and the Mississippi Bureau of Environmental Quality. It adds that there is a liner underneath the landfill, and groundwater there is monitored.

“You don’t bring anything to a landfill unless it’s been tested,” said Ken Haldin, director of communications for Waste Management. “We would not be bringing anything to a landfill unless it hadn’t been profiled.”

Waste Management also operates landfills that have been receiving oil waste in Mobile County in Alabama and Jackson County in Florida.

Haldin said he’s unaware of any local controversies at those other two landfills.
“All of our processes have been running smoothly,” he said.

But local officials in Harrison County aren’t easily assured. They point out that 250 homes are within a half-mile of the landfill.

And a supervisors meeting Monday didn’t go all that smoothly.

“That landfill is in Harrison County for our waste,” Supervisor William Martin said. “That’s why it was built there. And now to allow BP to put all this waste in it, it’s wrong.”
It didn’t help that a BP representative at the meeting did not have the authority to commit to anything. The representative was sent home.

“We have that landfill space available for municipal use and not for a company that’s been negligent,” said Connie Rocko, president of the board of supervisors.
Rocko dryly notes that although the waste is classified as not hazardous, the workers who collect it wear protective suits.

“We know that there are alternatives available, and we want BP and Waste Management to use those alternatives,” she said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sourcewatch.org: News Release–Questions to EPA on Gulf and Dispersants, from Expert at EPA

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/49-49/2590-questions-to-epa-on-gulf-and-dispersants-from-expert-at-epa

August 4, 2010

HUGH KAUFMAN

A noted expert at the Environmental Protection Agency, Kaufman today produced a list of questions for EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Paul Anastas, whose testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee is currently on C-SPAN:

1) Do you believe EPA had enough technical and scientific information, in April, to make a correct decision as to whether or not to use dispersants in this situation?

2) Did EPA authorize the use of dispersants by BP when the oil spill began in April of this year? If EPA did not, who did? Please give the name of the person who authorized this action. If you don’t know who did, who does know?

3) In your press conference on Monday, you said that EPA has not found dispersants in the water except at the well head where the oil was escaping. NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] has documented plumes of dispersed oil throughout thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. Has EPA — or anybody — tested these plumes of dispersed oil for the ingredients in the dispersants? If so, who and what are the results?

4) At your press conference Monday, you said NOAA and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] found that the food chain in the Gulf was not affected by the oil and/or the dispersants. Have NOAA and the FDA done testing of food chain marine life for the presence of the ingredients of dispersants?

5) Has the air been tested for dispersant ingredients in the areas where workers, including personnel from the Coast Guard, are conducting cleanup of the oil and dispersant mixture on the surface of the water? If so, who tested it, what instruments were used? What were the results?

6) At your press conference Monday, you stated that the temperatures of the water used in doing your toxicity tests on living shrimp were not the same temperatures as those to which the oil/dispersant mixtures are being exposed in the Gulf. Why did you not do this testing at the actual temperatures that the oil/dispersant mixture is in, in the Gulf of Mexico?

7) Congressman Edward Markey provided documentation over the weekend that two to three times the amount of the dispersant Corexit was spread over the floating oil than was reported to have been spread by EPA and the Government. Do you agree or disagree with Congressman Markey’s documented allegation? If you agree, what actions will you take to correct the record?

8) At your press conference Monday, you stated that biodegradation of the oil spilled in the Gulf was 50 percent faster when dispersants were used. This assertion is in direct conflict with evidence of a report describing the Amoco Cadiz oil spill in France in 1978, in which dispersed oil is still not biodegraded. What scientific basis do you have for your conflicting assertion?

9) Did EPA do any ambient air pollution testing for the ingredients of the dispersant Corexit in the communities adjacent to the Gulf? If the answer is yes, which ingredients were tested for and what were the results?

10) Did EPA use wet chemistry in analyzing the ambient air pollution in the communities adjacent to the Gulf?

11) Did EPA use gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers in analyzing the ambient air pollution in the communities adjacent to the Gulf?

12) Does anyone at EPA, to your knowledge, disagree with the use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster? Who? Do you know why?

Background: Kaufman “led the investigation for the EPA’s Ombudsman that uncovered Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration cover-up[s] of the environmental effects of the 9/11 World Trade Center attack at the behest of the Bush White House.”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hugh_Kaufman

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020

Special thanks to Richard Charter

From the Coral-list August 9, 2010
Dr Goreau wrote: They’re saying it’s disappeared, gone, evaporated, bugs ate it
up, “nobody” knows “where” it is! But of course the “missing” oil is just
floating dispersed in the water column (killing the larval fish and plankton)
and on the bottom, killing the shrimp and the benthos. 40 years after the
Buzzard’s Bay oil spill every strong storm mixes up oil buried in sediments and
causes new invertebrate mass mortalities.

*************************************
Dr. James M. Cervino
Visiting Scientist
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Contact Information:
NYC Address: 9-22 119st
College Point New York, 11356
Cell: 917-620*5287
************************************

AOLnews.com: BP May go back to ruptures Gulf well for more oil

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/article/bp-may-go-back-to-ruptured-gulf-well-for-more-oil/19584376

This is the height of arrogance; BP should just walk away from this one. Their greed is showing when they should be showing their green. DV

Updated: 11 minutes ago

(Aug. 6) — BP may eventually try to tap the oil in its Macondo well, which spewed 4.1 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico in the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

“There’s lots of oil and gas here,” Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles told reporters today. “We’ll have to think about what to do with that at some point.”

Suttles made the comments as BP waited for tons of cement it pumped into the blown-out well to dry. Assuming it holds, there is little chance of future leaks.

The reservoir of oil thousands of feet below the surface could contain almost $4 billion worth of crude, Bloomberg News reported.

That’s a huge asset for any company to just sit on, especially one that is facing a cleanup bill of tens of billions of dollars. BP is in the process of selling assets in Colombia, the U.S., Canada and Egypt to raise funds.

The national incident commander, retired Adm. Thad Allen, skirted the topic of any future drilling, saying BP had not discussed any such plans with him

“I’d assume that’s a policy issue,” Allen told reporters.

BP plans to test the cement on the well with a burst of pressure today. The company has resumed drilling a relief well that should represent the ultimate solution to the busted well.

Once completed, the relief well will pump mud and cement into the bottom of the 13,000-foot-long bore. This so-called bottom kill technique will seal the reservoir from the bottom.

BP had left it ambiguous as to how the two relief wells it has been drilling would be used. If the bottom kill wasn’t carried out, the relief wells could theoretically have been used to extract oil and gas.

Federal authorities have been adamant that the bottom kill was the solution to the spill and that the “static kill” — filling the well from the top with mud and cement — was merely a step on the way.

Still, BP does not discount drilling elsewhere on the oil field.

“What we’ve stated is, the original well that had the blowout and the relief wells will be abandoned,” Suttles said, according to Agence-France Presse.

The disaster began back on April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 workers. The ruptured oil well then began to spew out enormous quantities of crude, defying several attempts by BP to seal it. It took BP nearly three months to halt the flow of oil, which was accomplished when the company was finally able to cap the well on July 15.

Nearly three-quarters of the oil that was released has been removed, dispersed or naturally broken down.

Suttles declined to comment when asked if BP would consider donating the proceeds from the sale of oil from the well to compensate victims of the disaster.

“We just haven’t thought about that,” Suttles said. “”What we’ve been focused on is the response right now.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

OceanLeadership.org: Much Gulf Oil Remains, Deeply Hidden and Under Beaches, New U.S. Gulf oil spill report called “ludicrous.”

http://www.oceanleadership.org/2010/much-gulf-oil-remains-deeply-hidden-and-under-beaches/

Oil in a core sample taken from Pensacola Beach, Florida, in early July. (Photograph by Chris Combs, National Geographic)

Posted by Will Ramos on Friday, August 6th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Filed under: Discovery,Gulf Oil Spill,News & Resources

(Click to enlarge) Oil in a core sample taken from Pensacola Beach, Florida, in early July. (Photograph by Chris Combs, National Geographic)

(From National Geographic / by Christine Dell’Amore) — As BP finishes pumping cement into the damaged Deepwater Horizon wellhead Thursday, some scientists are taking issue with a new U.S. government report that says the “vast majority” of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been taken care of by nature and “robust” cleanup efforts.

In addition, experts warn, much of the toxic oil from the worst spill in U.S. history may be trapped under Gulf beaches-where it could linger for years-or still migrating into the ocean depths, where it’s a “3-D catastrophe,” one scientist said.

The U.S. government estimated Monday that the Deepwater Horizon spill had yielded about 4.9 million barrels’ worth of crude.

On Wednesday a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report said that about 33 percent of the spilled oil in the water has been burned, skimmed, dispersed, or directly recovered by cleanup operations. (See “Gulf Oil Cleanup Crews Trample Nesting Birds.”)

Another 25 percent has evaporated into the atmosphere or dissolved in the ocean, and 16 percent has been dispersed via natural breakup of the oil into microscopic droplets, the study says. (Read more about how nature is fighting the oil spill.)

The remaining 26 percent, the report says, is still either on or just below the surface, has washed ashore or been collected from shores, or is buried along the coasts.

Oil Spill Report “Almost Comical”?

For all their specificity, such figures are “notorious” for being uncertain, said Robert Carney, a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University (LSU) in Baton Rouge.

That’s in part because the fluid nature of the ocean means that it’s “exceedingly hard” to track oil.

“Water is always moving-if I go out to the spill site tomorrow and look for hydrocarbons, I might not find much, because the oiled water is already gone.”

But to accurately figure out how much oil is left, you need to know how much went into the Gulf to begin with, he said.

“Once you start off with that fundamental measure”-the total amount of oil spilled-”being an educated guess, then things aren’t that great.”

To University of South Florida chemical oceanographer David Hollander, the NOAA estimates are “ludicrous.”
“It’s almost comical.”

According to Hollander, the government can account for only about 25 percent of the spilled Gulf oil-the portion that’s been skimmed, burned off, directly collected, and so on.
The remaining 75 percent is still unaccounted for, he said.

For instance, the report considers all submerged oil to be dispersed and therefore not harmful, Hollander said. But, given the unknown effects of oil and dispersants at great depths, that’s not necessarily the case, he added.
“There are enormous blanket assumptions.”

Oil Trapped Deep in Gulf Beaches

The new report comes after days of speculation about where the Gulf oil has gone. After the damaged well had been capped July 19, U.S. Coast Guard flyovers didn’t spot any big patches of crude on the water.

But oil cleanup is mostly getting rid of what’s on the surface, Carney said. There’s a common perception that “as long as you keep it off the beach, everything’s hunky dory,” he added.

In fact, scientists are still finding plenty of spilled Gulf oil-whether it’s bubbling up from under Louisiana’s islands, trapped underneath Florida’s sugar-white beaches, or in the ocean’s unseen reaches. (See pictures of spilled Gulf oil found just under Florida beaches.)

This week, biological oceanographer Markus Huettel and colleague Joel Kostka dug trenches on a cleaned Pensacola beach and discovered large swaths of oil up to two feet (nearly a meter) deep.

Oil gets trapped underground when tiny oil droplets penetrate porous sand or when waves deposit tarballs and then cover them with sand, said Huettel, of Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Whether microbes munch the oil-the most common way oil breaks down-depends on how much oxygen is available for the tiny organisms to do their work. (See marine-microbe pictures.)

“So far, we haven’t seen any rapid degradation in these deep layers,” Huettel said, though he noted oil at the top of the sand has been disappearing within days.

With little oxygen, the buried oil may stay for years, until a storm or hurricane wipes away the upper sand layers.

Previous oil spills suggest that the buried beach oil may continuously migrate not only out to sea but also into groundwater, where it can harm wildlife, Huettel said.

Oil-laden groundwater in Alaska following the Exxon Valdez spill, for instance, led to “significantly elevated” death in pink salmon embryos between 1989 and 1993, he said. (Related: “Exxon Valdez Pictures: 20 Years on, Spilled Oil Remains.”)

Gulf Oil Microbe Cleanup “Total Bull”

Microbes are not an oil-cleanup panacea either, LSU’s Carney cautioned.
For instance, oil-eating bacteria can’t stomach asphalt, the heaviest part of an oil molecule and the same material used to pave roads, he said.

The leftover asphalt falls to the seafloor, where another kind of microbe may chew on it-making the molecule shorter and thus more toxic, according to Carney.

“The sentimentality that bacteria turn everything into fish food and CO2 is total bull,” he said.

What’s more, microbes cherry-pick whatever piece of oil is easiest to process-and on their own time, said Christopher Reddy, a marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Counting on microbes to quickly clean up an oil spill is “like asking a teenager to do a chore. You tell them to do it on a Friday, to do it when it’s most advantageous, and they do it on a Saturday,” Reddy said.

“It can be frustrating that you can’t constrain the role of microbes and overall natural cleanup.”

Deep-Sea Oil Spills are “Unchartered Territory”

Another “open question” remains, FSU’s Huettel noted: What is happening to the oil deep in the Gulf?

For the first time during an oil-spill response, officials used chemical dispersants to break up oil at ocean depths between 4,000 and 5,000 feet (1,200 and 1,500 meters). The dispersant-treated oil bits may have sunk to the seafloor, Huettel said.

In the cold, dark ocean, this mixture of oil and chemical dispersants may be suspended and preserved, causing long-term problems for deep-sea animals, Texas Tech University ecotoxicologist Ron Kendall said during August 4 testimony before the U.S. Congress.
“We have very limited information on the environmental fate and transport of the mixture of dispersant and oil, particularly in the deep ocean,” Kendall said.

Some oil fragments are so tiny they can’t be seen with the human eye, said the University of South Florida’s Hollander. Others are big enough to be gobbled up by baby fish that mistake the oil for food. (See pictures of ten animals at risk from the Gulf oil spill.)

Predicting what will happen to the deep-sea ecosystem is “uncharted territory,” said Hollander, who’s studying what the oil is doing to deep-sea creatures during a series of research cruises this summer and fall.

“Could be a bottom-up collapse, could be nothing happens,” he said. But he suspects a “real large chunk of food chain is being disrupted.”

“We’re getting into something different than the 2-D petroleum spill” on the Gulf’s surface, he added. “All of the sudden you’ve taken this 2-D disaster and turned it into a 3-D catastrophe.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Politico.com: Greens defend climate tactics

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40680.html

By: Darren Samuelsohn

August 5, 2010 04:30 AM EDT

Environmentalists went with an all-or-nothing strategy for the 111th
Congress. Nothing won.

Now, green groups licking their wounds after spending tens of millions of dollars to pass a cap-and-trade bill must answer serious questions about whether they are capable of playing another round of hardball.

But D.C. environmental groups aren’t looking to clean house. Activists at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists and Clean Energy Works said leading officials won’t be fired because Obama isn’t signing a climate bill into law.

Steve Cochran, who ran EDF’s national climate campaign, actually got a promotion to run the entire global warming team, including state and international efforts.

“The reason why I’m not looking around, hearing a lot of people scared for their jobs, I think the general view within the environmental community is consistent with mine: We ran a very effective, well-coordinated effort,” said Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s climate center.

“We fell victim to much broader politics that were beyond our control that really didn’t have to do with the specifics of either the issue or the campaign,” Lashof added.

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last month scrapped
plans for a vote, the White House made clear it wasn’t impressed with the environmentalists’ effort.

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” an administration official told POLITICO just hours after Reid pulled the plug on the climate bill. “They spent like $100 million, and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

How much money was spent is difficult to pin down. NRDC, the Sierra Club and Clean Energy Works declined to open up their books to show how much they spent on the climate campaign. EDF had spent $20 million on
climate legislation since October 2008. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate
Protection pledged in 2006 to spend $300 million, but it’s unclear how much it ended up using.

Enraged environmentalists flooded the White House with phone calls
after the quotation appeared in publication. Publicly, they decried the finger-pointing and insisted they aren’t alone in deserving fault, saying President Barack Obama failed to use his bully pulpit and moderate Senate Republicans weren’t allowed by their leaders to fully negotiate.

“The Washington environmental community did absolutely everything they possibly could,” said Bill McKibben, a Vermont-based environmental author and co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org.

“All the rest of us owe them a great debt of gratitude,” he added. “But
they demonstrated you can make every possible compromise, and it’s still not enough to get you anywhere with these guys.”

Some activists acknowledge missteps that undercut their pro-climate spending during the past two years.

“My sense is we did fail,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I think there’s no sugarcoating it.”

At the beginning of 2009, everything seemed lined up: a Democratic president with large majorities in Congress, leaders committed to bringing a bill to the floor and seemingly no shortage of money and staff.

But after the House passed cap-and-trade legislation last summer, the subsequent anti-Obama, anti-Big Government protests – led by the tea party movement and several industry-funded groups – caught the environmentalists off-guard by attacking “yes” votes in the House.

Opponents led an effective bumper-sticker-style campaign denouncing the Democrats’ “national energy tax.” The environmentalists’ response was
too wordy, too complicated and too late.

“We tapped out a lot of donors getting to that point,” said one
official from a major group. “We didn’t have a bigger war chest waiting to support their vote.”

“We really got our ass kicked in August during the town halls,” EDF
spokesman Tony Kreindler said.

The response to the tea party attacks was to create Clean Energy Works, a coalition staffed by environmental, labor, national security and religious interest groups that numbered about 45 people at its peak. Paul Tewes, Obama’s 2008 Iowa field chief, led the campaign.

“Anywhere there was a senator who was not squarely on the side of passing a climate bill, we were there,” said David Di Martino, a Clean Energy Works spokesman.

Once they began talking to senators, however, activists said, they got their wires crossed with Reid’s office over who was in charge of counting votes.

“We were stuck in a Catch-22,” Kreindler said. “There was an
expectation by the environmental community to deliver a certain amount of votes. There was an expectation in the environmental community that leadership would deliver a certain amount of votes. But there never was a clear understanding of how those two efforts would work together.”

Reid’s office would not comment for this story but pointed to past
statements from the majority leader that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were tasked with collecting 60 votes on the carbon cap measure. A White House spokesman declined comment on its climate bill whip operations.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) defended the greens’ efforts. “This became a very hot political issue,” he said. “They’re trying hard to help us. And we’re working with them. We’re going to have our day. I wish we’d have it sooner, rather than later. But we’re going to have our day.”

Durbin insisted that environmental groups also still garner plenty of
sway in the Senate. “A lot of us pay attention,” he said.

But there’s a difference between paying attention and action.

GOP senators targeted as possible swing votes said the
environmentalists offered little incentive for them to change their
minds during an economic recession and with little threat of political payback if they didn’t go along.

“They don’t have much infrastructure on the Republican side,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “So when you hear the environmental community
is mad at you, everyone says, ‘Tell me something new.’ It’s not like a
support group you’ve lost.”

The environmental movement needs a radical overhaul if Congress is ever going to pass a climate bill, McKibben said. That means lawmakers need
to be aware of the political consequences if they don’t side with the greens.

“We weren’t able to credibly promise political reward or punishment,” McKibben said. “The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that’s insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That’s going to take a few years.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), whom environmentalists once considered as a possible vote on climate, never got the message. “I hate to tell you, I just don’t wake up thinking about it,” said Corker, who questions the complexity of cap-and-trade systems. “I’m aware and all that. But I think it’s the wrong message.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Keys. net: Resource Managers give oil spill Overview

http://www.keysnet.com/2010/08/04/244520/resource-managers-give-oil-spill.html

By KEVIN WADLOW
kwadlow@keynoter.com
Posted – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:00 AM EDT

Surface oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster may never reach the Florida Keys, but effects of the estimated remaining 172 million gallons of crude oil that flowed into the northern Gulf of Mexico remain unknown.

“No one knows with any level of confidence what’s going to happen in the Gulf,” said Paul Johnson, a former Reef Relief president now working as a marine consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Just because [BP] has capped the leak does not necessarily make all that oil go away.”

At 6 p.m. Aug, 4 in Key West, several marine experts will talk about possible ramifications to the Keys from the spill, apparently the largest in U.S. history.

“The Gulf Disaster and the Florida Keys: What Are the Environmental Impacts and How to Help” is the topic of the open seminar at the Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center, at the Truman Waterfront at the end of Southard Street in Key West.

Conservation groups Oceana and the Natural Resources Defense Council host the event, intended to discuss “potential impacts on Keys habitats and wildlife.” Billy Causey, southeast regional director of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, will make opening remarks.

Other experts scheduled to speak include David Vaughan, director of the Mote Center for Tropical Coral Reef Research; Jim Fourqurean, a marine biologist at Florida International University; and marine scientist Patrick Rice of Florida Keys Community College.

On Friday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the latest analysis of the spill extent indicates “Southern Florida, the Florida Keys and the East Coast are unlikely to experience any effects from the remaining oil on the surface of the Gulf as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.”

A current eddy in the Gulf of Mexico appears to have contained most of the oil and kept it from reaching the Loop Current that many experts feared would bring the oil to the Florida Straits and the Keys.

For the foreseeable future, NOAA said, “There is no clear way for oil to be transported to southern Florida or beyond. At that point, it is expected that the majority of remaining surface oil will have dissipated.”

The nearest point of the visible oil spill remains an estimated 425 miles from the Keys. However, the biological effects of dissipated oil in the water column, along with chemical dispersants, remain unclear.

“All we can do is continue to monitor it, look at what kinds of impacts we might expect, and what we can do about it,” Johnson said.

Lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster may prove useful if Cuba expands oil exploration and drilling in its territorial waters, he said.

“It’s an example for our community on how vulnerable we are to drilling off our shores,” Johnson said. A federal panel reported Monday that the Deepwater Horizon spill off Louisiana may have dumped more than 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. BP managed to recover an estimated 33 million gallons, but the balance remains in gulf waters.

In other recent oil-spill developments:

•Monroe County businesses may be eligible for emergency loans from the U.S. Small Business Administration, under a July 24 declaration. Proof of economic loss will be required. Loan applications can be downloaded from www.sba.gov/services/disasterassistance.

•Singer Jimmy Buffett, a former Key West resident, in July donated a specially designed boat to the Friends of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, in Alabama. The shallow-draft boat allows rescuers to reach marshy areas affected by the spill to perform bird and wildlife rescues.

Working Waterfront Maine: Fathoming: Oil in the Gulf of Mexico: Not as far away as you think

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Fathoming-Oil-in-the-Gulf-of-Mexico-Not-as-far-away-as-you-think/13980/

The final line in this report is the bomb. DV

by Dr. Heather Deese and Catherine Schmitt

Filaments of warm Gulf Stream water are visible approaching the continental shelf south of Georges Bank and Cape Cod. Source: Dr. Andy Thomas, Satellite Oceanography Data Laboratory, University of Maine. http://wavy.umeoce.maine.edu/

Hundreds of sea turtles, more than sixty porpoises and a sperm whale have been found dead in the Gulf of Mexico region since the BP oil disaster began. As of mid-July, an area of almost 84,000 square miles, over one-third of the Gulf of Mexico, was closed to fishing.

While the impacts of the spill are most visible and devastating in the immediate area, the highly fluid nature of the ocean environment and highly migratory nature of some birds and marine species could transport effects of the oil over large distances.

Oil affects animals in several ways. The most obvious are the immediate, direct physical smothering and coating that impedes movement, vision and temperature control, and poisoning from ingestion of oil. Slower, less obvious. but no less harmful effects result from contamination of the environment, otherwise known as food and habitat. Less food is available as smaller prey organisms die, or else food is polluted. Oil on beaches, marshes, and flats poses a threat to eggs and juveniles. As eggs are contaminated, breeding success rates-which for protected species have been the subject of decades of time, money, and effort-decline.

Will oil from the Gulf of Mexico travel to the Gulf of Maine?

Susan Lozier, an oceanographer at Duke University and an expert on circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, said it is not likely that substantial amounts of oil will reach Cape Cod, Georges Bank or the Gulf of Maine. She noted that initial reports that highlighted the potential for oil to move through the Florida Straits, along the Atlantic seaboard and across the North Atlantic in the Gulf Stream were based on the physics of how ocean currents would carry something that didn’t move or change over time.

Once the effects of oil evaporation, stirring, mixing and degradation are included, the projected concentrations of oil at significant distances from the source drop dramatically. Lozier predicts “oil will likely be seen only in trace quantities in the area north of Cape Hatteras, with a highly patchy distribution.”

Aside from breakdown of the oil en route, the Gulf Stream itself poses a major barrier to northward transport. Amy Bower, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution emphasized that surface water in the Gulf Stream moves northeastward and eastward so rapidly that cross-stream movement is difficult. According to Bower, “long, thin filaments of water can be pinched off from Gulf Stream meanders or rings”, which do deliver warm, southern water onto the New England shelf. However, Bower echoed Lozier’s assessment that any oil in Gulf Stream filaments is likely to be highly diluted.

What will be the impacts on animals that move between the two Gulfs?

The most prominent animal that spends time in both the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Maine is the bluefin tuna. This species, which fuels a highly valued recreational and commercial fishery in New England, spawns in the Gulf of Mexico from April to June and then migrates north for the summer, mixing with eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stocks.

NOAA Fisheries has intensified their regular larval surveys and satellite tracking in the Gulf of Mexico to monitor the impact on bluefin. “We are very concerned,” said Guillermo Diaz, a research fisheries biologist with the NOAA Fisheries in Silver Spring, Maryland, “We are not taking this lightly. It’s a dynamic situation changing on a daily basis.”

Molly Lutcavage, an expert on bluefin tuna who runs the Large Pelagics Research Laboratory, formerly of University of New Hampshire and now of University of Massachusetts, said that only two bluefin spawning areas have been documented in the western Atlantic ocean. Both are in the Gulf of Mexico and one is directly in line with the oil spill impact zone. “If bluefin eggs and larvae come in direct contact with surface oil, it will kill them,” according to Lutcavage, “while slightly older larvae and juvenile tuna could die from indirect effects through ingesting copepods or other prey.” Diaz confirms the potential for damage, “It is very difficult to predict the impact on bluefin tuna at this point, but it could be significant.” Lutcavage does emphasize that over half of the bluefin tagged in the Gulf of Maine and Atlantic Canada each summer don’t visit the Gulf of Mexico in their annual migrations, which may provide an ‘escape hatch’ for the species to survive the spill.

Other species, including sharks, rays, swordfish, molas, black sea bass, tilefish, triggerfish, sea turtles and whales occasionally visit both gulfs. Researchers have been working for years to understand the annual migrations of right whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, leatherback turtles, loggerhead turtles and Kemp’s ridley turtles that are seasonal Gulf of Maine residents, but at this point the extent of migration to the Gulf of Mexico remains uncertain for all of these highly protected species.

Gordon Waring, of NOAA Fisheries Protected Species Branch in Woods Hole, Mass., notes that “Right whales migrate between winter calving grounds off the Florida and Georgia coasts and the greater Gulf of Maine. They are infrequently sighted in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is possible that those animals are among the group that feeds in the greater Gulf of Maine region in spring and summer”.

As with right whales, south-migrating humpback whales have been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico occassionally, said Keith Mullin from NOAA’s Southeast Fishery Science Center. Mullin also noted that male sperm whales leave the Gulf of Mexico and travel to northern latitudes and are occasionally seen in the Gulf of Maine region.

Sea turtles, including leatherback, loggerhead, and Kemp’s Ridley spend summer months in the Gulf of Maine feasting on jellyfish and salps. Tagging studies and DNA typing continue to shed light on whether these seasonal visitors spend their winters in the Gulf of Mexico, or in other nesting areas along the southeast U.S. and throughout the Carribean, but at this point the answer is not well known. Lutcavage, from UMass, notes that unlike bluefin tuna, which are highly attuned to chemical signals in the water, turtles may be less able to sense and avoid oiled areas, and may thus be more heavily impacted. In what’s being called an “unprecedented intervention,” the US Fish & Wildlife service and state wildlife officials are moving sea turtle eggs from Gulf of Mexico beaches to the Atlantic side of the Florida coast.

Above the sea, many Gulf of Maine birds are migratory, stopping on their seasonal migrations between nesting grounds in Boreal and Arctic Canada and the Southeastern US, Central and South America.

“This spill happened in one of the worst places possible from a bird-centric view,” said Jeff Wells of the Boreal Songbird Initiative. In a blog post in June, Wells outlined the impacts of the oil on bird species.

Wells anticipates that as summer progresses into fall, birds migrating south will intersect with the oil slick. Species that breed in the Northern Forest but migrate to the Gulf of Mexico for the winter, including mallard, Northern pintail, green-winged teal, American wigeon, ring-necked duck and greater and lesser scaup, face a “ticking time bomb,” according to Wells.

Wells said shorebirds that pepper Maine’s beaches in spring and fall, such as black-bellied and semipalmated plover, yellowlegs, solitary and least sandpipers, dunlin, short-billed dowitcher and Wilson’s snipe, will stop in the Gulf of Mexico to rest and feed before continuing down to their winter homes in the Caribbean and South America.

While the transport of oil to Maine shores appears unlikely, the effects of the oil on species that spend time in the Gulf of Maine may be substantial.

This article is made possible, in part, by funds from Maine Sea Grant and the Oak Foundation. Heather Deese holds a doctorate in oceanography and is the Island Institute’s director of marine programs. Catherine Schmitt is communications coordinator for Maine Sea Grant.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Washington Independent: Administration Defends Use of Dispersants After Oil Spill

http://washingtonindependent.com/93666/administration-defends-use-of-dispersants-after-oil-spill

By ANDREW RESTUCCIA 8/4/10 11:19 AM

At a Senate hearing today, Obama administration officials defended BP’s use of dispersants to break up oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Paul Anastas, assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, said that the agency allowed dispersants in the Gulf only after much consideration. “The decision to use dispersants was a decision not taken lightly,” Anastas said, adding later, “That said, when you look at all of the tools to combat this tragedyŠdispersants have been shown to be one important tool in that toolbox.”

David Westerholm, director of the Office of Response and Restoration at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, compared using dispersants to treating a fast moving, potentially fatal disease like cancer. Long-term research might give doctors more information about the disease and better, less risky ways to fight it, but “at the moment in time, you have to make that decision.”

The administration’s comments come as Rep. Edward Markey and others have raised serious concerns about the use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico to respond to the oil spill, arguing that the chemicals used are toxic and could have negative impacts on human health and the environment. At the same time, EPA this week released the results of an analysis of dispersants that found oil mixed with dispersants has a similar toxicity to oil alone.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Government Estimates of Oil From Spill Raise New Doubts Among Researchers

http://chronicle.com/article/Government-Estimates-of-Oil/123766/

August 4, 2010

In the early days of the oil spill that followed the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, university researchers helped disprove corporate and governmental assurances about the size and spread of the oil slick. Could that be happening again?

The rig, which was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased to BP, was destroyed in the explosion on April 20, causing oil to spew from a ruptured well a mile below the surface.
The federal government on Wednesday issued a report saying that 4.9 million barrels of oil, plus or minus 10 percent, had leaked from the well from the time of the explosion until it was capped on July 15. The report also says that most of that oil has been captured, dispersed, or evaporated, leaving only 26 percent of it remaining in a form that could cause damage to the waters or coastlines.

But the report contains few details of how the government arrived at those figures, and it’s already producing some skepticism about whether the numbers will hold up.

Robert G. Bea, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, said the government’s report leaves open a lot of basic questions about what measurements it used and what calculations it applied.

“There are not sufficient details provided to be able to evaluate the accuracies of the estimates,” said Mr. Bea, who has more than 55 years of engineering experience with offshore platforms, mostly in private industry.

And the 10-percent margin of error “seems to be incredibly small” given all the variables involved, said Mr. Bea, who has asked the Deepwater Horizon Study Group at Berkeley to make a careful review of the figures.

-Paul Basken

Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times: U.S. Finds Most Oil From Spill Poses Little Additional Risk

The 64 million dollar question is can we trust this expert report? Who contributed the evidence to support the findings in this report? Same goes for the expected “earlier lifting” of ban on offshore oil exploration. This is 2010, but it makes me think of “1984″, where “doublespeak” and “doublethink’ ruled supreme. Are there any reports from scientists or coral reef or marine research organizations, institutes or networks which corroborate or refute these findings?
Milton Ponson, President
Rainbow Warriors Core Foundation
(Rainbow Warriors International) Tel. +297 568 5908
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Email: southern_caribbean@yahoo.com http://www.rainbowwarriors.net

A second comment from the Coral-list today, Aug. 5:
Just a little remainder that the Gulf of Mexico is the 9th largest body of water in the planet, and the only way to know exactly how much oil remains from the BP oil spill is to obtain data on site, both on the surface and throughout the water column at a systematic number of stations throughout the Gulf, and through time. So that means, extensive space and time coverage.
There have been a few brave oceanographers working on shoestring budgets that have managed to divert their research vessels to survey “ground zero” and have detected subsurface plumes (and we know how much denial they encountered at first). But the spatial and temporal coverage, with hard data in hand, is not there yet.
So after reading the findings of the new report, we must demand: Show me the data. I mean, the raw data, the data that apparently, without anyone knowing, and perhaps with a flotilla of ghost oceanographic ships, and an army of oceanographers and marine biologists working 24/7 have been collected during the last 106 days. Then, once we have the data freely available to all researchers, and after we analyze those data, perhaps we can have a better idea of where the oil is, and what the impact has been and will be to the marine ecosystem.
Until then, it will be hard to believe a word of that report.
Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/science/earth/04oil.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

published August 4, 2010

by Justin Gillis

WASHINGTON — The government is expected to announce on Wednesday that three-quarters of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon leak has already evaporated, dispersed, been captured or otherwise eliminated — and that much of the rest is so diluted that it does not seem to pose much additional risk of harm.

A government report finds that about 26 percent of the oil released from BP’s runaway well is still in the water or onshore in a form that could, in principle, cause new problems. But most is light sheen at the ocean surface or in a dispersed form below the surface, and federal scientists believe that it is breaking down rapidly in both places.

On Tuesday, BP began pumping drilling mud into the well in an attempt to seal it for good. Since the flow of oil was stopped with a cap on July 15, people on the Gulf Coast have been wondering if another shoe was going to drop — a huge underwater glob of oil emerging to damage more shorelines, for instance.

Assuming that the government’s calculations stand scrutiny, that looks increasingly unlikely. “There’s absolutely no evidence that there’s any significant concentration of oil that’s out there that we haven’t accounted for,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lead agency in producing the new report.

She emphasized, however, that the government remained concerned about the ecological damage that has already occurred and the potential for more, and said it would continue monitoring the gulf.

“I think we don’t know yet the full impact of this spill on the ecosystem or the people of the gulf,” Dr. Lubchenco said.

Among the biggest unanswered questions, she said, is how much damage the oil has done to the eggs and larvae of organisms like fish, crabs and shrimp. That may not become clear for a year or longer, as new generations of those creatures come to maturity.

Thousands of birds and other animals are known to have been damaged or killed by the spill, a relatively modest toll given the scale of some other oil disasters that killed millions of animals. Efforts are still under way in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to clean up more than 600 miles of oiled shoreline. The government and BP collected 35,818 tons of oily debris from shorelines through Sunday.

It remains to be seen whether subtle, long-lasting environmental damage from the spill will be found, as has been the case after other large oil spills.

The report, which is to be unveiled on Wednesday morning, is a result of an extensive effort by federal scientists, with outside help, to add up the total volume of oil released and to figure out where it went.

The lead agency behind the report, the oceanic and atmospheric administration, played down the size of the spill in the early days, and the Obama administration was ultimately forced to appoint a scientific panel that came up with far higher estimates of the flow rate from the well. Whether the new report will withstand critical scrutiny is uncertain; advocacy groups and most outside scientists had not learned of it on Tuesday.

The government announced early this week that the total oil release, from the time the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20 until the well was effectively capped, was 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus 10 percent. That estimate makes the Deepwater Horizon disaster the largest marine spill in history. It is surpassed on land by a 1910 spill in the California desert.

As the scientists did their calculations, they were able to rely on direct measurements of the fate of some of the oil that spewed from the broken well. For example, BP and its contractors succeeded in capturing about 17 percent of it with various containment mechanisms, the report says.

The outcome for much of the oil could not be directly measured, but had to be estimated using protocols that were scrutinized by scientists inside and outside the government, Dr. Lubchenco said.

The report calculates, for example, that about 25 percent of the chemicals in the oil evaporated at the surface or dissolved into seawater in the same way that sugar dissolves in tea. (The government appears to have settled on a conservative number for that estimate, with the scientific literature saying that as much as 40 percent of the oil from a spill can disappear in this way.)

The aggressive response mounted by BP and the government — the largest in history, ultimately involving more than 5,000 vessels — also played a role in getting rid of the oil, the report says. Fully 5 percent of the oil was burned at the surface, it estimates, while 3 percent was skimmed and 8 percent was broken up into tiny droplets using chemical dispersants. Another 16 percent dispersed naturally as the oil shot out of the well at high speed.

All told, the report calculates that about 74 percent of the oil has been effectively dealt with by capture, burning, skimming, evaporation, dissolution or dispersion. Much of the dissolved and dispersed oil can be expected to break down in the environment, though federal scientists are still working to establish the precise rate at which that is happening.

“I think we are fortunate in this situation that the rates of degradation in the gulf ecosystem are quite high,” Dr. Lubchenco said.

The remaining 26 percent of the oil “is on or just below the surface as light sheen or weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments,” the report says.

Some fishermen in Louisiana are worried about the buried oil, fearing that storms could stir it up and coat vital shrimp or oyster grounds, a possibility the government has not ruled out.

Testing of fish has shown little cause for worry so far, and fishing grounds in the gulf are being reopened at a brisk clip. At one point the government had closed 36 percent of federal gulf waters to fishing, but that figure is now down to 24 percent and is expected to drop further in coming weeks.

States are also reopening fishing grounds near their coasts. The big economic question now is whether the American public is ready to buy gulf seafood again.

The new government report comes as BP engineers began pumping heavy drilling mud into the stricken well on Tuesday, with the hope of achieving a permanent seal or at least revealing critical clues about how to kill the well before the end of the month.

Through the afternoon, in what is known as a static kill, engineers pumped mud weighing about 13.2 pounds per gallon at slow speeds from a surface vessel through a pipe into the blowout preventer on top of the well. If all goes well, cement may be applied over the next few days. But officials said they could be confident the well was plugged only when one of two relief wells now being drilled was completed, allowing the well to be completely sealed with cement.

“The static kill will increase the probability that the relief well will work,” Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is leading the federal spill response effort, told reporters on Tuesday. “But the whole thing will not be done until the relief well is completed.”

The static kill operation could last for close to three days. After it is completed, work can resume on the final 100 feet of the first relief well, which officials say should be completed by Aug. 15 unless bad weather intervenes.

Special thanks to Coral-list.

Washington Post: BP begins pumping mud into Gulf oil well to plug it for good

http://www.washingtonpost.com/?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

The Washington Post
4:26 PM (7 minutes ago)

——————–
News Alert
04:18 PM EDT Tuesday, August 3, 2010
——————–

BP says its engineers have begun pumping heavy drilling mud into the blown-out Gulf of Mexico oil well in hopes of choking it for good.

BP spokesman John Barnes says crews launched the so-called “static kill” process Tuesday at 3 p.m. Central time to plug up the well and then possibly seal it with cement.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com:

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/VP6EHT/2689BV/SLUJ0Z/P044AB/LHQTY/CM/t

Special thanks to Richard Charter

IPS News: Scientists Deeply Concerned About BP Disaster’s Long-Term Impact

Ed Cake, quoted here, is a veteran of fighting offshore oil; I met him at an OCS coalition meeting in DC in the late 80′s; good to see he is still working to protect his coast. DV
IPS News
August 3, 2010

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52352

By Dahr Jamail

GULFPORT, Louisiana, Aug 2, 2010 (IPS) – Contrary to recent media reports of a quick recovery in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists and biologists are “deeply concerned” about impacts that will likely span “several decades”.

“My prediction is that we will be dealing with the impacts of this spill for several decades to come and it will outlive me,” Dr. Ed Cake, a biological oceanographer, as well as a marine and oyster biologist, told IPS, “I won’t be here to see the recovery.”

Cake’s grim assessment stems partially from a comparison he made to the Exxon Valdez oil disaster and the second largest oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (BP’s being the largest), that of the Ixtoc-1 blowout well in the Bay of Campeche in 1979.

“The impacts of the Exxon Valdez are still being felt 21 years later,” Cake said, “The impacts of the Ixtoc-1 are still being felt and known, 31 years later. I know folks who study oysters in bays in the Yucatan Peninsula, and oysters there have still not returned, 31 years later. So as an oyster biologist I’m concerned about that. Those things are still affected 31 years later, and that was a smaller spill by comparison.”

He is also concerned about deepwater habitats. Given that BP has used at least 1.9 million gallons of chemically toxic dispersants, the vast majority of the oil has remained beneath the surface, and much of that has sunk to the sea floor.

As an example, he cited “a new coral colony ecosystem” within 10 miles of BP’s blowout Macondo Well, which was found by a pipeline company whilst it was producing an environmental impact assessment statement of the route of the pipeline.

“They found some amazing coral communities that no one knew about, and now they will be covered in oil,” Cake said, “Those will not recover.”

Dr. Stephen Cofer-Shabica, an oceanographer in South Carolina, focuses on the biology of barrier islands. He monitored the affects of the Ixtoc-1 oil disaster on Padre Island National Seashore in south Texas.

“You can go back now, 31 years later, and there’s still oil in the sand there [Padre Island],” he told IPS. But his main concern is now about what the state of Louisiana is doing in response to BP’s oil disaster.

Louisiana’s Governor Bobby Jindal has authorised the dredging and building of sand berms near Louisiana’s barrier islands in an effort to keep oil away from the shore. One area where the dredging project is still underway is the Chandeleur Islands.

“The Chandeleur project is totally futile and a waste of resources, and I can’t believe they are still doing it,” Dr. Cofer-Shabica said, “That’s what I find totally unfathomable. There’s oil floating around underwater, that has been dispersed and these barrier islands, as constructs, will not have any effect on that oil at all.”

According to Dr. Cofer-Shabica, the so-called fix is actually a hugely destructive problem. “From an oceanographic perspective, this was biologically destructive, especially when you start digging up the bottom in shallow water, and building these barrier islands.”

He added, “Louisiana is in a precarious position anyway because of the subsiding that is happening in the delta, and on top of that you have worldwide sea-level rise, so it has two physical factors that are working against its marshes. So building barrier islands to presumably keep oil out, amidst rising sea levels, makes no sense.”

In addition to this, he said that the biological impacts of building islands “are larger than the physical impacts,” and said this of dredging sediment from those areas: “You’re in shallow water that is biologically rich with clams, worms, and bacteria, that will all be dug up and destroyed.”

Dr. Cake is also worried about oil contaminating the oysters. He has seen much oil in Louisiana’s marshes. “One of the experts with us worked for NOAA on the Exxon Valdez spill, and he told me if the oil is on the marsh grass, it’s in the oysters.”

BP and the Coast Guard are currently under scrutiny for having used so much oil dispersant, an industrial solvent that breaks up the oil so that it will sink below the surface.

For example, a 1979 report, “Effects of Corexit 9527 on the Hatchability of Mallard Eggs” in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, showed that even though dispersants are applied to minimise oil impacts to visible and charismatic species, Corexit actually enhances the lethal effects of crude oil on birds that are exposed.

Corexit 9527 penetrates eggshells and shell membranes as readily as crude oil. When applied to an eggshell near the embryo, the embryo would fuse to the shell membrane and die within 24 hours.

“Corexit breaks the oil up into micro-globules,” Dr. Cake said, “That’s the harmful part for oysters. Oysters are filter feeders, and they feed on a range of three to 12 millionths of a meter as particles. You can grind up graphite from a pencil in fine enough particles and they’ll run it through their system. It’s the same with the micro- globules of oil. They’ll be taken in, but in going through the system, and in absorbing some of that oil, it’ll cause lesions. So it’s actually what the Corexit does to the oil that’ll affect the oysters in the end.”

According to Dr. Cake, his study teams have people watching and monitoring affected areas.

“In the past month, in Bretton and Chandeleur Sounds, oil was there during the day, it was sprayed with Corexit at night, and the next day it was gone. Where did it go? It went to the bottom, and that’s adjacent to where these oyster farms are. So at that point, there’s a lot less water for that Corexit to disperse into, and there may be an impact from that on the oysters.”

Cake said that while scientists have found very large plumes of dispersed oil at depth, “I’m not sure that oil will ever get here as dispersed clouds. It’s getting here as sunken clouds, because that’s what they [BP] wanted it to do. Sink it, get it out of sight out of mind.”

Chasidy Hobbs with Emerald Coastkeeper in Pensacola, Florida, is on the City of Pensacola Environmental Advisory Board and Escambia County Citizens Environmental Committee. Hobbs also directs the environmental litigation research firm, Geography and Environment.

“We’re poisoning the entire Gulf of Mexico food web,” Hobbs, who is also an instructor and advisor in the Environmental Studies Department at University of West Florida, told IPS. “It’s crazy, and it’s criminal. I’m deeply concerned with the long-term ecological and human impact.”

Dr. Cake is among a large and growing group of scientists who are discussing a grim future for much of the Gulf of Mexico as a result of BP’s disaster.

“The oil itself on the bottom is being eaten by bacteria. This has always been the case in naturally occurring seeps across the Gulf. But now we’ve introduced much more oil, and as the bacteria grow they are consuming the oxygen that is in that area. And that oxygen loss will result in dead/hypoxic zones, like the one off the West side of the Mississippi over towards Galveston where there’s one that is 3,000 square mile area of dead bottom. Now we’re looking at that along the eastern part because of the presence of so much more bacteria.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Southern Political Report: South Carolina: Offshore drilling politics in a Red state

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_81_1533.aspx

Bill Davis
Editor, StateHouse Report (SC)
August 1, 2010 -

State Sen. Jake Knotts may believe that he “ain’t no tree-hugger,” but he’s beginning to sound more and more like one.

“We got to do what we can to protect our state’s beaches. They’re the most valuable things we got in South Carolina,” said Knotts, who helped kill a proposed bill in committee earlier this year that would have asked the state Department of Health and Environmental Concerns to expedite permits for offshore drilling.

Knotts, better known for his love of guns and West Columbia, said this week that the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has brought into sharp focus the need for the legislature to make sure “all the I’s are dotted and all the T’s crossed” before the state clears the way for any offshore exploration, whether it’s for natural gas or oil.

The moratorium against offshore exploration along the Atlantic coast was lifted late during the Bush administration, and while the Obama administration has yet to reinstate the moratorium, exploratory efforts have been put on hold.

Bill could be up again

But with gas prices always poised to rise again, interest in offshore drilling could force a bill back onto the South Carolina legislative agenda when the General Assembly returns in January.

Knotts said this week that he is not against drilling, per se. But he just wants to make sure the oil industry and the federal government have their collective acts together and that before any drilling ever starts here, they have learned valuable lessons from the Gulf spill that threatened everything from jobs to the entire ecosystems along the coasts of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

“A, what, seven-inch crack in a pipe took nearly 90 days to close?” Knotts said, making a home-spun argument for alternative energy. “All I know is a windmill falls over, and oyster beds aren’t ruined; fish and shrimp loads aren’t impacted. You just put up another windmill and keep on.”

Music to someone’s ears

Knotts’ words are music to the ears of environmentalists like Dana Beach, the executive director of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, who said drilling profitably off the S.C. coast is at best a “fiction.”

Beach, who is waiting before he nails Knotts’ picture to his trophy wall, was referring to the belief held by many of the state’s scientists that there are not enough oil deposits off the coast here to warrant interest from the oil industry, and natural gas about 50 to70 miles offshore.

“Well, then he’s got nothing to worry about,” said state Sen. Paul Campbell (R-Berkeley), who served with Knotts on the same committee.

Campbell supports drilling

I won’t mince words. I’m for offshore drilling,” said Campbell, a former regional president of aluminum maker Alcoa. “If we don’t go after [drilling], we’re being irresponsible, especially in terms of the number of jobs and opportunities it could bring the state.”

Like Knotts, Campbell said he would support efforts to search for fuel sources off the coast, but only if there were a comprehensive management and safety-response plan in place.

Planning pounded by cuts

But who would run the plan? DHEC, often criticized for being under-manned, under-funded, and overly-friendly with testing subjects, has been hit hard by recent budget cuts.

In this year’s state budget, DHEC has seen nearly 50 percent of its operating budget from state general funds cut, according to a department memo. The agency’s overall budget has been affected because the state general funds are matched by federal contributions.

“DHEC does a great job,” said Knotts. “But they’re already overloaded. They do a good job with the money they’re given.” Given the hamstrung nature of the department, Knotts said now would be the worst time to call for expedited permits.

That topic will be the main discussion point next Friday at Coastal Carolina University, where its 13th annual economic growth summit, put on by the business school ,will tackle the issue “Consequences of Offshore Drilling on the Carolina Coast, positive and negative.”

The event will bring together an academic panel of experts on issues ranging from tourism to ecology. Ralph Byington, the college’s business dean who worked on an oil rig in a former life, said these are crucial issues to coastal areas like Conway, where the school is located, as well as the rest of the state.

Crystal ball: Like abortion, offshore drilling looks like an issue that will be reintroduced and fought over for years to come. And that would be a monumental waste of time, according to the SCCCL’s Beach, because there are bigger issues to deal with. For example, because of limited drilling opportunities off our coast and expanded ones off mid-Atlantic states like Virginia, Beach said the legislature – and the federal government — needed to focus on not preparing for a mess of the state’s own making, but a potential fiasco floating south from neighboring states.

http://www.statehousereport.com/

Special thanks to Richard Charter

McClatchy Washington Bureau: Gulf oil flow was 12 times more than feds’ original estimate

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/02/98512/government-revises-gulf-oil-flow.html

Posted on Mon, Aug. 02, 2010

Erika Bolstad and Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: August 02, 2010 09:19:01 PM
WASHINGTON – As BP neared a fix that’s expected to kill for good the runaway well that’s wreaked economic and environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the government Monday said that 10 to 12 times the amount of oil had been flowing from the well than it originally thought.

New estimates released Monday by a government-led team of scientists found that as much as 62,000 barrels of oil were leaking from the well each day at its peak – far beyond the initial estimate of 5,000 barrels a day and more in line with what scientists told McClatchy it was.

The new estimates raise questions about whether the early response ever anticipated the disaster’s actual size and scope. The well gushed an estimated 4.9 million barrels for nearly three months before BP put in place a temporary cap 18 days ago.

The government now estimates that 53,000 barrels were leaking each day before BP installed the cap. Only 800,000 barrels – about 16 percent of the total – was captured before flowing into the ocean.

Now, BP is finalizing plans to begin what’s called a “static kill,” a process that would force down any remaining oil and gas in the well by pumping heavy drilling mud into it.
“We’ll just be slowly pumping the mud in initially and it will gradually build up pressure,” BP’s Kent Wells said Monday during a technical briefing. “We’ll be carefully monitoring the pressures and the volumes. The team will be looking and making sure we do everything to get this well killed, if at all possible.”

That procedure is expected to begin Tuesday and could stretch into Wednesday. If it works – and the White House said it is “watching cautiously” – BP will move quickly this week to begin cementing the well closed permanently.

The company still must decide how best to cement the well closed: from the top, or through one of the relief wells currently being drilled. There’s still some uncertainty about the conditions deep inside the well, and until they pump mud into it, company officials won’t know the safest way to proceed, said Thad Allen, the top federal official in charge of the spill response. It would make him most comfortable to close the well in from the bottom using the relief wells they’ve drilled, Allen said.

“I think everybody would like to have this thing ended as soon possible,” Allen said, “but my duty as the National Incident Commander is to give you my best view. It may be a little conservative, but I think we need to understand: We don’t know the condition of the well until we start to put mud in it.”

Meanwhile, both Allen and the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday defended the safety of chemicals credited with breaking up the oil into tiny droplets and dispersing it into the Gulf. The EPA said Monday those dispersants hastened the decomposition of the oil, a process that may also have kept vast quantities of oil from fouling the shoreline. BP, which used more than 1.84 million gallons of dispersants, stopped applying them shortly after it put the cap in place.

The EPA said Monday its new study found the dispersants used to break up oil in the Gulf are no more toxic when mixed with oil than the oil is on its own.
Dispersants were used as a “last resort and necessary tool, when all other measures were not adequate” against the oil, said Paul Anastas, the EPA’s assistant administrator for research and development. Oil, Anastas said, was “enemy No. 1.”

So far, the government’s monitoring data shows no accumulation of dispersant in marine life that was tested, including on juvenile shrimp and small fish that are found in the Gulf and are commonly used in toxicity testing.

All eight dispersants were found to be less toxic than the dispersant-oil mixture to both species. Oil was more toxic to shrimp than the eight dispersants when tested alone. Oil alone had similar toxicity to shrimp as the dispersant-oil mixtures, with exception of one other dispersant, which was found to be more toxic than oil.

However, Anastas also said there’s “ongoing monitoring” by a number of federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, to ensure the food chain is not affected. The EPA hasn’t found any dispersant “away from the wellhead,” Anastas said, including in sediment or near coastal wetlands.

He called it “interesting to see that the dispersant/oil mixture was about the same toxicity as oil alone. That shows us that the effect of oil plus dispersant seemed to be a wise decision and that oil itself is the hazard we’re concerned about.”

Often, Allen said, the government was making decisions “without complete information, and sometimes under conditions of uncertainty because we have never used dispersants at this level before.”

“That was done, and to the extent there’s an issue about it, I’m the National Incident Commander and I’m accountable,” he said.

Yet scientists say many questions remain about the use of the chemicals, and congressional investigators still plan a hearing Wednesday to examine why the U.S. Coast Guard allowed BP to continue using dispersants in the face of multiple warnings from the EPA.

“The Coast Guard proceeded to approve use of surface dispersants 74 times over a period of 48 days,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. “That is not ‘rare’ by anyone’s understanding of the word, and it raises questions regarding whether an excessive amount of surface dispersant may have been used.”

Jerald Ault, a professor at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, said he’s worried about the potential cascading effects of the dispersant in marine life and how it could effect physical growth, reproduction and mortality. Some of the effects on the environment may not play out for some time, he said.
“It’s good to say it’s in the same ballpark as oil, but from where I sit, that’s one plus one,” he said. “I buy that it’s a tradeoff, but the question is: ‘What are the consequences of the tradeoff?’ I’m not sure we have the ability to determine that at this point.”

Other scientists have linked subsea plumes of oil to the well, and fear that the tiny droplets 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf will be more readily absorbed and ingested by marine animals.

“These particles of dispersed oil are small enough to be easily absorbed by filter feeding animals such as oysters, and also absorbed into the bodies of crabs and shrimp,” said Gina Solomon, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Big globs of oil wouldn’t get into these creatures as easily. That may mean a higher likelihood of contamination in the food chain, which would be bad news for predators in the ocean and also maybe for humans if seafood becomes more contaminated with oil residues.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

OpEdNews.com: Over 60 Percent of BP Waste Dumped in Minority Communities

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Over-60-Percent-of-BP-Wast-by-Robert-Bullard-100730-66.html

For OpEdNews: Robert Bullard – Writer

As of July 15, more than 39,448 tons of BP oil spill waste was disposed in nine approved landfills in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Five of the nine the landfills receiving BP oil-spill solid waste are located in communities where people of color comprise a majority of residents living within a one-mile radius of the waste facilities.

A significantly large share of the BP oil-spill waste, 24,071 tons out of 39,448 tons (61 percent),was dumped in people of color communities. This is not a small point since African Americans make up just 22 percent of the coastal counties in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, while people of color comprise about 26 percent of the population in coastal counties.These numbers present significant environmental justice implications that have not been addressed by government, including the U.S. EPA.

It is clear that theflow of BP oil-spill waste to Gulf Coast communities is not random. A disproportionately large share of the oil waste is headed to African American and other people of color communities. Dumping BP disaster waste on communities of color is not “green” nor is it a pathway to recovery and long-term sustainability,

Allowing BP, Gulf Coast states, and the private disposal industry to select where the oil-spill waste is dumped only adds to the legacy of environmental racism and unequal protection. Environmental justice communities and their allies are demanding that BP end the unfair waste dumping practice. They also want to see EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard engage in a more rigorous oversight of BP’s waste plan to ensure that no single community or population in the Gulf Coast states becomes the oil-spill waste dumping grounds.

_________________________

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/bp’s-waste-management-plan-raises-environmental-justice-concerns/

BP’s Waste Management Plan Raises Environmental Justice Concerns
by Robert D. Bullard / July 29th, 2010

Much attention the past three months has been focused on the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill disaster and clean up efforts. Government officials estimate that the ruptured well leaked between 94 million and 184 million gallons of oil into the Gulf. However, not much attention has been given to which communities were selected as the final resting place for BP’s oil-spill garbage.

A large segment of the African American community was skeptical of BP, the oil and gas industry, and the government long before the disastrous Gulf oil disaster, since black communities too often have been on the receiving end of polluting industries without the benefit of jobs and have been used as a repository for other people’s rubbish.

Given the sad history of waste disposal in the southern United States, it should be no surprise to anyone that the BP waste disposal plan looks a lot like “Dumping in Dixie,” and has become a core environmental justice concern, especially among low-income and people of color communities in the Gulf Coast – communities whose residents have historically borne more than their fair share of solid waste landfills and hazardous waste facilities before and after natural and man-made disasters.

For decades, African American and Latino communities in the South became the dumping grounds for all kind of wastes – making them “sacrifice zones.” Nowhere is this scenario more apparent than in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” the 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi from Baton Rough to New Orleans. Gulf Coast residents, who have for decades lived on the fenceline with landfills and waste sites, are asking why their communities are being asked again to shoulder the waste disposal burden for the giant BP oil spill. They are demanding answers from BP and the EPA in Washington, DC and the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta and EPA Region 6 office in Dallas – two EPA regions that have a legacy of unequal protection, racial discrimination, and bad decisions that have exacerbated environmental and health disparities.
Today we are seeing a disturbing pattern re-emerge in the disposal of the BP oil-spill waste. Because of the haphazard handling and disposal of the wastes from the busted well, the U.S Coast Guard and the U.S. EPA leaned on BP and increased their oversight of the company’s waste management plan. BP’s waste plan, “Recovered Oil/Waste Management Plan Houma Incident Command,” was approved on June 13, 2010.

BP hired private contractors to cart away and dispose of thousands of tons of polluted sand, crude-coated boom and refuse that washed ashore. The nine approved Gulf Coast solid waste landfills, amount of waste disposed, and the percent minority residents living within a one-mile radius of the facilities are listed below:

Alabama
Chastang Landfill, Mount Vernon, AL, 6008 tons (56.2%) Magnolia Landfill, Summerdale, AL, 5,966 tons (11.5%)

Florida
Springhill Regional Landfill, Campbellton, FL, 14,228 ton (76.0%)

Louisiana
Colonial Landfill, Ascension Parish, LA, 7,729 (34.7%) Jefferson Parish Sanitary Landfill, Avondale, LA, 225 tons (51.7%) Jefferson Davis Parish Landfill, Welsh, LA, 182 tons (19.2%) River Birch Landfill, Avondale, LA, 1,406 (53.2%) Tide Water Landfill, Venice, LA, 2,204 tons (93.6%)

Mississippi
Pecan Grove Landfill, Harrison, MS, 1,509 tons (12.5%)

According to BP’s Oil Spill Waste Summary, as of of July 15, more than 39,448 tons of oil garbage had been disposed at nine approved landfills in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. More than half (five out of nine) of the landfills receiving BP oil-spill solid waste are located in communities where people of color comprise a majority of residents living within near the waste facilities.

In addition, a significantly large share of the BP oil-spill waste, 24,071 tons out of 39,448 tons (61 percent), is dumped in people of color communities. This is not a small point since African Americans make up just 22 percent of the coastal counties in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana, while people of color comprise about 26 percent of the population in coastal counties.

Clearly, the flow of BP oil-spill waste to Gulf Coast communities is not random. The mix of waste and race was the impetus behind the Environmental Justice Movement in Warren County, North Carolina more than twenty-five years ago. In 1982, toxic PCBs were cleaned up from North Carolina roadways and later dumped in a landfill in mostly black and poor Warren County. We also saw the pattern in 2009 when 3.9 million tons of toxic coal ash from the massive Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plant spill in East Tennessee was cleaned up and shipped more than 300 miles south by train and disposed in a landfill in rural and mostly black Perry County, Alabama.

The largest amount of BP oil-spill solid waste (14,228 tons) was sent to a landfill in a Florida community where three-fourths of the nearby residents are people of color. Although African Americans make up about 32 percent of Louisiana’s population, three of the five approved landfills (60 percent) in the state that received BP oil-spill waste are located in mostly black communities. African American communities in Louisiana’s Gulf Coast were hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina and have experienced the toughest challenge to rebuild and recover after five years. Dumping more disaster waste on them is not a pathway to recovery and long-term sustainability.

Clearly, Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” signed by President William J. Clinton in 1994, requires the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard to do a better job monitoring where BP oil-spill waste ends up to ensure that minority and low-income populations do not bear an adverse and disproportionate share of the burdens and negative impacts associated with the disastrous BP oil spill. Allowing BP, Gulf Coast states, and the private disposal industry to select where the oil-spill waste is dumped only adds to the legacy of environmental racism and unequal protection.

Robert D. Bullard is director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center (EJRC) at Clark Atlanta University and author of Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast (Westview 2009). He can be reached at: rbullard4ej@worldnet.att.net. Read other articles by Robert D., or visit Robert D.’s website.

This article was posted on Thursday, July 29th, 2010 at 7:59am and is filed under Discrimination, Environment, Oceans/Seas, Oil, Gas, Pipelines. SPecial thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times: Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind, Scientists Say

August 2, 2010,

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

NEW ORLEANS — The BP spill is by far the world’s largest accidental release of oil into marine waters, according to the most precise estimates yet of the well’s flow rate, announced by federal scientists on Monday.

Nearly five million barrels of oil have gushed from BP’s well since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, according to the latest data. That amount outstrips the estimated 3.3 million barrels spilled into the Bay of Campeche by the Mexican rig Ixtoc I in 1979, previously believed to be the world’s largest accidental release.

The BP spill was already thought to be the largest spill in American waters, but it was unclear whether it had eclipsed Ixtoc.

‘We’ve never had a spill of this magnitude in the deep ocean,” said Ian R. MacDonald, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University.

“These things reverberate through the ecosystem,” he said. “It is an ecological echo chamber, and I think we’ll be hearing the echoes of this, ecologically, for the rest of my life.”

Federal science and engineering teams, citing data that are “the most accurate to date,” estimated that 53,000 barrels of oil a day were pouring from the well just before BP was able to cap it on July 15. They also estimated that the daily flow rate had diminished over time, starting at about 62,000 barrels a day and decreasing as the reservoir of hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted. Before Monday’s announcement, federal scientific teams had estimated the spill in a range from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day.

The teams believe that the current estimates are accurate to within 10 percent. They also reported that of the roughly 4.9 million barrels that had been released from the well, about 800,000 had been captured by BP’s containment efforts. That leaves over four million barrels that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from April 20 to July 15.

As the estimates of the number of barrels spilled increases, so, too, do the penalties under the Clean Water Act, which calls for fines of $1,100 per barrel, or $4,300 per barrel if the government finds that gross negligence led to the spill.

At 4.9 million barrels, that means that the total fine could be $5.4 billion — and, if gross negligence led to the spill, $21 billion. If BP successfully argues that the 800,000 barrels it has recovered should mitigate the penalty, then the figure drops to $4.5 billion and $17.6 billion, respectively.

The amount of oil estimated to be pouring from the well has been a matter of dispute from the earliest days of the spill. Federal and BP officials initially announced that no oil appeared to be leaking, then 1,000 barrels a day, then 5,000 a day, frequently repeating that spill estimates are rough at best and that the main goal was to stop the well. But criticism mounted that no effort was being made to measure the leak with more certainty.

The Obama administration announced the creation of a scientific group dedicated to analyzing the flow rate, which came up with a new estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day in late May, a figure that was met with skepticism. That, too, was later revised upward several times before Monday’s announcement. Previous estimates came from analysis of videos from remote-controlled vehicles at the wellhead, modeling of the reservoir and measurements of the oil that was collected by surface ships in the response effort.

After BP capped the well, these measurements could be reinforced by pressure readings within the well. Those pressure readings were compared with pressure estimates when the well was first drilled to determine whether the rate had changed over time, which it apparently had.

The government is continuing to study the data and may refine the estimate.

Meanwhile, BP continued efforts Monday to permanently seal the well. It said it was preparing to conduct final testing on Tuesday to determine whether to go ahead with a plan to pump heavy drilling mud into the runaway Macondo well, in hopes of permanently sealing it by the end of the week.

During the tests, a surface ship will slowly inject small amounts of mud into the well to make sure the mud will reach the oil reservoir from the column of pipes and valves that sit atop it. If that is accomplished, BP will pump higher volumes of mud, and possibly cement, into the well, in an operation known as a static kill or bullheading.

BP executives said Monday that they expected positive results from the tests, which will also check the pressure of the well to ensure that it is safe to pump the mud.

The efforts come 18 days after BP placed a tight-fitting cap on the well that put a temporary end to months of leaking. Engineers had planned to begin the tests on Monday but had to delay when they found a small hydraulic leak in the capping control system above the well.

Kent Wells, senior vice president for exploration and production at BP, said on Monday that a day or two after the pumping of mud began, engineers would consider pumping cement into the well, which could permanently plug it. Engineers might also decide to wait for a relief well to be completed before pumping cement in. There is also a chance that they will pump cement during the static kill and later through the relief well, to make sure the runaway well is sealed.

“We want to end up with cement in the bottom of the hole, completely filling the entire Macondo well,” Mr. Wells said Monday. “Whether that comes from the top or whether it comes from the relief well, those will be decisions made along the way.”

An estimated 2,000 pounds of mud is to be flooded into the well this week.

Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is leading the federal response to the spill, cautioned against rushing to declare the static kill a final victory over the well. “I don’t think we can see this as the end-all, be-all, until we actually get the relief wells done,” he said.

Mr. Wells said the last 100 feet of the first of two relief wells should be completed by Aug. 15. A final killing of the well by pouring mud and cement just above the reservoir could take a few days or as much as a few weeks. If the first relief well somehow misses its target, a second one is being drilled for insurance.

Campbell Robertson reported from New Orleans, and Clifford Krauss from Houston. Catrin Einhorn and John Schwartz contributed reporting from New York. Special thanks to Richard Charter

Las Vegas Sun: Preventing more spills: Senate should follow House by tightening offshore oil drilling regulations

I just sent emails to my Florida senators urging them to pass this bill now, before the recess, and before the November elections, when it may become even harder to move energy legislation forward. This is a good first step, not comprehensive by any means, but at least SOMETHING. DV

Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/03/preventing-more-spills/

It is unfortunate that it often takes a tragedy before Congress acts on needed legislation, whether the subject is Wall Street reform, product safety or homeland security. The debacle of the past four months caused by the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a mishap caused by an oil rig explosion in April that killed 11 workers, is the latest example of a tragedy that cries for a legislative response.

The Democratic-controlled House, in a vote split mostly along party lines, took the common- sense route last week when it approved legislation that would eliminate the $75 million liability cap for oil companies responsible for spills. This cap has to go because taxpayers and businesses affected by a spill should not be forced to pay for any economic harm that exceeds $75 million. That onus should fall on the oil companies responsible.

The House bill also calls for needed offshore safety and environmental measures, such as regulations on the installation of safety devices intended to prevent oil well blowouts. There is also a ban on additional offshore drilling leases for companies that have shown a disregard for worker safety and the environment.

Had such measures been in place before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, they likely would have spared 11 lives and prevented as much as 184 million gallons of oil from gushing into the Gulf. Wildlife would have been saved, beaches would have remained clean and the Gulf’s fishing industry would have been free from disruption.

We encourage the Senate to swiftly approve similar legislation sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid. In addition to the tougher offshore drilling regulations, Reid’s bill would create jobs by subsidizing the production and sale of vehicles that use electricity or natural gas. And homeowners would be rewarded with subsidies to make their homes more energy efficient.

Reid said his bill would prevent BP from repeating what it has done to the American people. Who would want to argue with that? The Nevada Democrat doesn’t stop there, though. He also recognizes the need for this country to forge a broader energy strategy that helps both the economy and the environment.

“We also want to lessen our dependence on foreign oil,” he said. “So we’re going to move to converting our truck fleets to natural gas.”

It should not come as a shock that Senate Republicans, who are beholden to Big Oil, will do everything in their power to make sure BP and fellow offshore oil drillers continue to go about their business without regard for worker safety or environmental protection. It was bad enough that BP acted irresponsibly. But the fact that Republicans refuse to join Democrats in passing such crucial legislation compounds the tragedy.
Special thanks to Richard Charter

Keysnews.com: Forum focuses on spill impact Today, Wed. Aug. 4

http://keysnews.com/node/25304

Experts to air views on threats past and future
BY TIMOTHY O’HARA Citizen Staff
tohara@keysnews.com
The Deepwater Horizon oil rig may be capped, but the possibility the massive spill will have some type of impact on the Florida Keys is still very real, and the pollution threat is not just from the northern Gulf of Mexico, some experts are saying.

Marine biologists and research scientists with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Mote Marine Laboratory and other research institutions will present their findings and views on the Deepwater Horizon spill on Wednesday in Key West.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Oceana are hosting the forum at the Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center to help answer the question: What likely are to be the chief impacts of the Gulf spill on the Keys’ marine and coastal habitats, fish and wildlife.

The forum comes after the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a press release Friday stating the threat of oil reaching the Keys “is not likely.” That is, if the cap continues to hold.

“The likelihood is minimal at this point,” said Billy Causey, regional administrator for the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. “What we don’t want to do at this point is put out misinformation. I think our economy has suffered enough. It’s time to move forward and start with the recovery and restoration of the Gulf of Mexico. … We need to focus on the fact that we are oil free and we will continue to be oil free in the future.”

Keeping the Keys oil free in the future may be a challenge, as a Spanish oil company has entered into negotiations with Cuba to drill just 60 miles south of Key West.

The plans sparked talks between Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and President Barack Obama. Nelson told the president he was “greatly concerned by reports that Spanish oil giant Repsol has contracted with a unit of Italian oil company Eni SpA to operate an exploratory rig off of Cuba’s northwest shores.”

Cuba’s state-run oil company, Cubapetroleo, also continues to lease individual exploration areas to foreign oil companies in both the Florida Straits and Gulf of Mexico, said Nelson, D-Fla. To date, Cuba has leased 17 of 59 areas to oil and gas companies based in Spain, Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Brazil, Nelson said.

There also are reports that Cuba is negotiating a lease with China National Petroleum to jointly explore as many as five offshore areas in the Gulf.

“It does not matter where it is coming from, we need to be protected,” said Paul Johnson, a marine policy consultant with the Key West-based Reef Relief. “It’s all connected.”

Johnson, who will speak at Wednesday’s meeting, also has concerns about underwater oil plumes from the Deepwater Horizon oil well reaching the Keys.

“There are still a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions that we will not have answers to for quite a while,” said Johnson, who is also a marine policy consultant with National Resource Defense Council.

The forum starts at 6 p.m. at the Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center, 35 E. Quay Road, Key West. Scheduled speakers include Causey, Mote coral expert and researcher Dave Vaughan, Florida Institute of Technology marine biologist James Fourqurean, Florida Keys Community College Marine Science Director Patrick Rice and Monroe County Commissioner Mario Di Gennaro, who serves on the governor’s Gulf Oil Spill Economic Recovery Task Force.

tohara@keysnews.com

Huffington Post: Scientists Find Evidence that Oil and Dispersant Mix Is Making It’s Way Into The Food Chain & MSNBC:Scientists: BP dispersants have made spill more toxic & Oil dispersants an environmental “crapshoot”

The Huffington Post,
July 29, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/scientists-find-evidence_n_664298.htm l

The Huffington Post, July 29, 2010-07-29

Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the foodchain.

Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them “in almost all” of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. — more than 300 miles of coastline — said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely in the Deepwater Horizon

“It does appear that there is a Corexit sort of fingerprint in the blob samples that we ran,” Erin Gray, a Tulane biologist, told the Huffington Post Thursday. Two independent tests are being run to confirm those findings, “so don’t say that we’re 100 percent sure yet,” Gray said.

“The chemistry test is still not completely conclusive,” said Tulane biology professor Caz Taylor, the team’s leader. “But that seems the most likely thing.”

With BP’s well possibly capped for good, and the surface slick shrinking, some observers of the Gulf disaster are starting to let down their guard, with some journalists even asking: Where is the oil?

But the answer is clear: In part due to the1.8 million gallons of dispersant that BP used, a lot of the estimated 200 million or more gallons of oil that spewed out of the blown well remains under the surface of the Gulf in plumes of tiny toxic droplets. And it’s short- and long-term effects could be profound.

BP sprayed dispersant onto the surface of the slick and into the jet of oil and gas as it erupted out of the wellhead a mile beneath the surface. As a result, less oil reached the surface and the Gulf’s fragile coastline. But more remained under the surface.

Fish, shrimp and crab larvae, which float around in the open seas, are considered the most likely to die on account of exposure to the subsea oil plumes. There are fears, for instance, that an entire year’s worth of bluefin tuna larvae may have perished.

But this latest discovery suggests that it’s not just larvae at risk from the subsurface droplets. It’s also the animals that feed on them.

“There are so many animals that eat those little larvae,” said Robert J. Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary.

Oil itself is of course toxic, especially over long exposure. But some scientists worry that the mixture of oil with dispersants will actually prove more toxic, in part because of the still not entirely understood ingredients of Corexit, and in part because of the reduction in droplet size.

“Corexit is in the water column, just as we thought, and it is entering the bodies of animals. And it’s probably having a lethal impact there,” said Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute. The dispersant, she said, is like ” a delivery system” for the oil.

Although a large group of marine scientists meeting in late May reached a consensus that the application of dispersants was a legitimate element of the spill response, another group, organized by Shaw, more recently concluded “that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover.”

One particular concern: “The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it easier for them to move through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other structures.”

Perry told the Huffington Post that the small size of the droplets was clearly a factor in how the oil made its way under the crab larvae shells. Perry said the oil droplets in the water “are just the right size that probably in the process of swimming or respiring, they’re brought into that cavity.”

That would not happen if the droplets were larger, she said.

The oil droplet washes off when the larvae molt, she said — but that’s assuming they live that long. Larvae are a major food source for fish and other blue crabs — “their siblings are their favorite meal,” Perry explained. Fish are generally able to excrete ingested oil, but inverterbrates such as crabs don’t have that ability.

Perry said the discovery of the oil and dispersant blobs is very troubling — but not, she made clear, because it has any impact on the safety of seafood in the short run. “Unlike heavy metals that biomagnify as they go up the foodchain, oil doesn’t seem to do that,” she said. Rather, she said, “we’re looking at long-term ecological effects of having this oil in contact with marine organisms.”

Diaz, the marine scientist from William and Mary, spoke at a lunchtime briefing about dispersants on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Dispersant, he explained, “doesn’t make the oil go away, it just puts it from one part of the ecosystem into another.”

In this case, he said, “the decision was to keep as much of the oil subsurface as possible.” As a result, the immediate impact on coastal wildlife was mitigated. But the effects on ocean life, he said, are less clear — in part because there’s less known about ocean ecosystems than coastal ones.

“As we go further offshore, as the oil industry has gone offshore, we find that we know less,” he said. “We haven’t really been using oceanic species to assess the risks, and this is a key issue.”

(Similar concerns have been expressed about the lack of important data that would allow scientists to accurately assess the effects of the spill on the Gulf’s sea turtles, whose plight is emerging as particularly poignant.)

Diaz warned of the danger posed to bluefin tuna — and also to “the signature resident species in the Gulf, the shrimp.” He noted that all three species of Gulf shrimp spawn offshore before moving back into shallow estuaries.

Diaz also expressed concern that dispersed oil droplets could end up doing great damage to the Gulf’s many undersea coral reefs. “If the droplets agglomerate with sediment,” he said, “they could even settle to the bottom.”

Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Center at the University of New Hampshire, said the use of dispersants in this spill raises many issues that scientists need to explore, starting with the effects of long-term exposure. She also noted that scientists have never studied the effects of dispersants when they’re injected directly into the turbulence of the plume, as they were here, or at such depth, or at such low temperatures, or under such pressure.

She also said it will be essential for the federal government to accurately determine how much oil made it out of the blown well. A key data point for scientists is the ratio of dispersant to oil, she said, and “if you don’t know the flow rate of the oil, you don’t know what you dispersant to oil ratio is.”

After a series of ludicrous estimates, the federal government settled last month on an official estimate of about 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day, but BP is widely expected to contest that figure and some scientists think it is still a low-ball estimate.

There seems to be no doubt that history will record that the use of dispersants was good for BP, making it harder to tell how much oil was spilled, and reducing the short-term visible impact. But what’s less clear is whether it will turn out to have been good for the Gulf.
*************************

Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

__________________________________________________________

MSNBC.Com
July 30, 2010

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38415786/ns/nightly_news-nbc_news_investigates/

Scientists: BP dispersants have made spill more toxic
Group working for law firms suing BP cites ‘compelling evidence”
by Amna Nawaz, Rich Gardella and Lisa Myers, NBC News
NBC News Investigative Unit

-Editor’s note: Lisa Myers’ report on oil dispersants will air Friday on NBC Nightly News..

Amid growing concern about the use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, a group of scientists working for law firms suing BP says their testing indicates that the dispersants being used to break up the oil are making this spill even more toxic to marine life.

Dr. William Sawyer, a toxicologist, is part of a team of scientists hired by law firms led by Smith Stag of New Orleans that are representing Louisiana fishermen and environmentalists.

The scientists collected and analyzed globs of oil, sand, and water from more than a dozen sites in four states along the Gulf.

Sawyer told NBC News that the findings are troubling. “We now have compelling evidence that the dispersant has enhanced and increased the toxicity from the spill,” he said.

Last week, a group of independent scientists called for an “immediate halt” to the use of dispersants. In what was called a “consensus statement,”

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/Sections/aNEWS/2010/07-July%2010/ScientistsConsensusStatement.pdf

they warned that dispersants pose “grave risks to marine life and human health.”

Spreading the damage?

So far, the federal government has approved use of more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant in the Gulf. Most of it is Corexit 9500.

One reason relatively little oil is now on the surface of the Gulf’s waters is the use of such a vast quantity of dispersants. The dispersant spreads the oil over a much larger area, which some scientists worry makes it hard for marine life to avoid it.

Studies also have shown that when the dispersant breaks up the oil, it can free the most toxic components certain hydrocarbons and spread them throughout the water, exposing marine animals to more toxic components than if the oil hadn’t been dispersed.

Sawyer said their tests show that is now happening in parts of the Gulf. “What we found is a pattern of highly toxic hydrocarbon components that are not normally soluble in seawater, and at levels that are toxic to the marine environment,” he said.

Sawyer said these toxic hydrocarbons can be especially harmful to early stages of marine life.

NBC News shared Sawyer’s findings with Dr. Moby Solangi, a biologist at the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies, who has studied how oil spills impact marine life.

Solangi called the findings “very concerning.” “The way he [Sawyer] has theorized that the toxicity of the combination of both [oil and dispersant] is of some concern that needs to be looked at very carefully,” Solangi said.

Other scientists told NBC that Sawyer’s theory appears valid, but can’t be proven conclusively without testing the mixture of oil and dispersant on marine life.

Story: Oil dispersants an environmental ‘crapshoot’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37282611/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf

A toxic brew

Most recent scientific research has found that combining dispersants with oil makes the oil even more toxic. A review of more than 400 studies since 1997 showed that 75 percent of them found that the combination of oil and dispersant actually increased the toxic effects of the oil.

“I think we all agree that the dispersed oil is more likely to be toxic than the crude oil by itself,” says Dr. Joe Griffitt, a toxicologist at the University of Southern Mississippi.

However, so far, the scientific community has not reached any conclusion on whether oil mixed with dispersant is increasing the danger to marine creatures in the case of this particular spill. Part of the problem is that so little is known about use of dispersants in such great amounts or at this depth 5,000 feet.

BP points out that the federal government has approved its use of dispersants, and that they’ve been “very effective in keeping oil from reaching shore.” BP says it’s working closely with the government to monitor the environmental impact, and has committed to spend $500 million over 10 years to study the impact on the Gulf environment.

Nalco, which makes Corexit, says the EPA has concluded that use of Nalco’s dispersants “has not significantly affected the marine environment” and that federal officials have said they resulted in “no harm to aquatic life.”

.The EPA says “no federal agency has said these products cause no harm to aquatic life”,” but that its testing so far shows no “significant impact.”

Because of potential litigation, the EPA hasn’t seen all of Sawyer’s data. But the agency says it’s now conducting its own tests to determine just how toxic dispersants mixed with oil are to life in the Gulf.

To read statements to NBC News about the use of dispersants from BP, EPA and Nalco, as well as link to a statement from independent scientists opposed to the use of dispersants, click here .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417141/ns/today

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417141

Statements from BP, EPA, Nalco
and scientists on dispersants
.TODAY
updated 7/30/2010 12:58:12 PM ET

Below are statements to NBC News from BP, EPA and Nalco regarding BP’s use of dispersants on oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as a link to a recent statement on the subject from a group of independent scientists:

BP statement to NBC News:
With regard to the use of dispersants,

- We are working closely with EPA and the Coast Guard to monitor the effect of dispersants on the environment. Dispersants have never been used underwater in this way and we have been working with the agencies to gather as much data as possible to understand the current situation and for the future.

- They have been very effective in keeping oil from reaching the shore.

- Scientists say that given the light quality of the oil, the uses of dispersant, and the natural bioremediation effect of 5,000 feet of water, the oil is extremely weathered when it gets to shore, and the toxic components have greatly if not completely been reduced.

- BP has committed to spend $500 million over 10 years to study the impact of the oil spill on the Gulf environment and will be here for the long run.

EPA statement to NBC News:

There have been no “conclusions” reached about any of this EPA’s monitoring and research into dispersant is ongoing specifically because we want more information about this chemical’s impact on the environment. No federal agency has said these products cause no harm to aquatic life what our ongoing sampling tells us, is that to date they have not had a significant impact on aquatic life. And the issue is not the dispersant’s ingredients or constituents which Nalco only released after considerable prodding from EPA but the way those ingredients are mixed together to form dispersants.

Throughout this crisis, EPA scientists have consulted with all groups, including representatives from academia, non-governmental organizations, industry and other federal and state agencies to ensure we have access to the best available science. These independent scientists have been open and very willing to share their research and data, and it is very unfortunate that this scientist is unwilling to share his full report with EPA.

Still, we hope to have an opportunity to review his full study and discuss the results. EPA continues to conduct its own independent testing into dispersants, and the Agency released data from the first round of testing on June 30 to ensure outside scientists and the public have access to the same data EPA has. The next phase of EPA’s testing is focused on the acute toxicity of multiple concentrations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil alone and combinations of Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil with each of the eight dispersants for two test species.

Nalco statment to NBC News:

1. As the EPA said last week, it’s important to remember that oil is enemy number one in this crisis.

2. The EPA has concluded that the use of Nalco’s dispersants to break apart the oil has been effective and has not significantly affected the marine environment.

3. Federal officials have repeatedly stated, based on continual air and water sampling and other tests:

a. No harm to aquatic life

b. No indication of any impact in the atmosphere

c. No evidence of worker illness due to dispersant use

4. All of the ingredients contained in the Nalco dispersants are found in common household products, such as food, packaging, cosmetics, and household cleaners. It has been compared to dishwashing detergent by Federal officials.

5. Soon after oil began leaking on April 20, the government requested dispersants from the approved NCP list to help minimize the effects of the accident. Not a drop of Corexit dispersant has been used without the express approval of the federal government.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

AP EXCLUSIVE: Salazar tours rigs, keeps drill ban

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV64upZTXqPz9oNOH0ftwIl3RdgwD9HA26GO1

By MATTHEW DALY (AP) – 5 hours ago July 31, 2010
ON THE GULF OF MEXICO – The helicopter passes over the blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico – with surprisingly little oil visible on its surface – when out of the sea rises a skyscraper-like structure nearly 350 feet above the waves. The $600 million rig, nearly 100 miles off Louisiana’s coast, has a hull larger than a football field and can drill more than 5 miles beneath the ocean floor.

But the gleaming new rig sits idle, shut down by the government’s freeze on drilling at 33 ocean wells.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar visited the colossal structure this past week while on a tour of three offshore oil rigs. It was his most extensive tour since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig led to one of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history and the unprecedented shutdown of offshore drilling.

Salazar told The Associated Press, which accompanied him on the trip, that he’s gathering information to decide whether to revise or even lift the ban, which is scheduled to last until Nov. 30.

Business groups and Gulf Coast political leaders say the shutdown is crippling the oil and gas industry and costing thousands of jobs, even aboard rigs not operated by BP PLC, which is responsible for the Gulf disaster. The freeze “is like punishing the whole class” when a student does something wrong, oil executive John Breed told Salazar during a tour of the Noble Danny Adkins, one of the rigs Salazar visited Wednesday.

Salazar told the AP he believes the industry-wide moratorium imposed after BP’s Gulf oil spill was the correct call.

“I think we’re in the right direction,” he said, adding that the ultimate goal is to allow deepwater operations to resume safely. “We’re not there yet,” he said.

“I’ve got a lot of questions about drilling safety,” Salazar said. “I learned a lot about the different kinds of rigs out there – the different limitations in terms of (water) depth and equipment and the different zones of risk. It’s a complex question.”

Texas-based Noble Drilling Services Inc., which owns the idle rig, said the company and rig operator Shell have top-notch safety records, unlike BP. Congressional investigators revealed last month that BP had 760 safety violations in the past five years, while no other major oil company had more than eight.

Salazar acknowledged that the freeze was causing hardship, but he said his job was to protect the public and the environment even as he supports domestic energy production.
“We’re here because we take what you’re doing very seriously, and we will do the right thing” he told oil executives at his first stop, a deepwater production rig run by Arkansas-based Murphy Exploration & Production Co.

The Front Runner rig, owned by Houston-based Nabors Offshore Corp., operates in 3,300 feet of water 92 miles off the Louisiana coast.

At a briefing with Salazar, executives made an impassioned plea, citing the rig’s safety record. The Front Runner has been producing oil since December 2004 with no major incidents, said Nabors president Jerry Shanklin and David Harris, Murphy’s general manager of worldwide drilling.

One reason: The rig’s blowout preventer – the device that failed spectacularly in the Deepwater Horizon explosion – is above the surface, accessible to workers and easier to inspect and repair. The blowout preventer on the Deepwater Horizon_ the safety device of last-resort – was on the sea-floor, a mile below the surface, a common practice on exploratory wells.

While production continues on the Front Runner, two wells the company had been digging have been suspended because of the moratorium. Resuming operations on the wells could double the rig’s production with little safety risk because the wells are being drilled into producing reservoirs where important geological information is already known, Harris said.

Harris asked Salazar to lift the moratorium for rigs such as his, which have blowout preventers on the surface.

“So you can guarantee me there will be no blowouts?” Salazar countered. “We are not going to have another oil spill like the one we are still dealing with out here at the Macondo well” operated by BP.

Harris and other officials stressed the redundancies built into the rig’s design – a series of backup systems meant to ensure the blowout preventer works in case of disaster. Yet pressed by Salazar, James Hunter, Murphy’s general manager for field development and facilities engineering, finally conceded that, no, he could not make such a guarantee. Salazar beamed.

At the next site, the Noble Danny Adkins, Salazar was more like a talk-show host, asking rig officials dozens of questions.

“Tell us a story,” he said at one point.

A flat-screen TV in the rig’s galley shows a continuous loop of family photos submitted by the crew – a reminder of why safety is so important, said Breed, the Noble spokesman. A crew of 156 remains on the rig, although their work is limited to maintenance and preparations, since the moratorium prevents them from drilling.

David Loeb, Shell’s top manager of floating operations in the Gulf, told Salazar his commitment to safety is personal. “I’ve got a family. I like the beach. I like to fish,” he said. “I’ll be danged if I do anything to mess that up.”

___
Online:
Salazar’s memo on freeze: http://tinyurl.com/2et448d
Noble Drilling Services Inc.: http://tinyurl.com/2eouhjx
Murphy Exploration & Production Co.: http://tinyurl.com/22ke66o
Nabors Offshore Corp.: http://www.nabors.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter