New York Times: Drilling Plans Off Cuba Stir Fears of Impact on Gulf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/americas/30cuba.html?_r=1

Desmond Boylan/Reuters
Cuba’s nascent oil industry has pumps near Havana but lacks some of the equipment needed to handle a major deepwater spill.
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: September 29, 2010

HOUSTON – Five months after the BP oil spill, a federal moratorium still prohibits new deepwater drilling in the American waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And under longstanding federal law, drilling is also banned near the coast of Florida.

Yet next year, a Spanish company will begin drilling new wells 50 miles from the Florida Keys – in Cuba’s sovereign waters.

Cuba currently produces little oil. But oil experts say the country might have reserves along its north coast as plentiful as that of the international oil middleweights, Ecuador and Colombia – enough to bolster its faltering economy and cut its dependence on Venezuela for its energy needs.

The advent of drilling in Cuban waters poses risks both to the island nation and the United States.

Ocean scientists warn that a well blowout similar to the BP disaster could send oil spewing onto Cuban beaches and then the Florida Keys in as little as three days. If the oil reached the Gulf Stream, a powerful ocean current that passes through the region, oil could flow up the coast to Miami and beyond.

The nascent oil industry in Cuba is far less prepared to handle a major spill than even the American industry was at the time of the BP spill. Cuba has neither the submarine robots needed to fix deepwater rig equipment nor the platforms available to begin drilling relief wells on short notice.

And marshaling help from American oil companies to fight a Cuban spill would be greatly complicated by the trade embargo on Cuba imposed by the United States government 48 years ago, according to industry officials. Under that embargo, American companies face severe restrictions on the business they can conduct with Cuba.

The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry, even if only to protect against an accident.

“This isn’t about ideology. It’s about oil spills,” said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. “Political attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf.”

Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials.

Right now, Cuba’s oil industry is served almost exclusively by non-American companies. Repsol, a Spanish oil company, has contracted with an Italian operator to build a rig in China that is scheduled to begin drilling several deepwater test wells next year. Other companies, from Norway, India, Malaysia, Venezuela, Vietnam and Brazil, have taken exploration leases.

New Mexico’s governor, Bill Richardson, a Democrat who regularly visits Cuba, said Cuba’s offshore drilling plans are a “potential inroad” for loosening the embargo. During a recent humanitarian trip to Cuba, he said, he bumped into a number of American drilling contractors – “all Republicans who could eventually convince the Congress to make the embargo flexible in this area of oil spills.”

“I think you will see the administration be more forward-moving after the election,” Mr. Richardson said.

Despite several requests in the last week, Cuban officials declined to make anyone available for an interview.

Currently, the United States, Mexico and Cuba are signatories to several international protocols in which they agreed to cooperate to contain any oil spill. In practice, there is little cooperation between Washington and Havana on oil matters, although American officials did hold low-level meetings with Cuban officials after the BP blowout.

“What is needed is for international oil companies in Cuba to have full access to U.S. technology and personnel in order to prevent and/or manage a blowout,” said Jorge Piñón, a former executive of BP and Amoco. Mr. Piñón, who fled Cuba as a child and now briefs American companies on Cuban oil prospects, said the two governments must create a plan for managing a spill.

Several American oil and oil service companies are eager to do business in Cuba, Mr. Piñón said, but they are careful not to identify themselves publicly because they want to “protect their brand image in South Florida,” where Cuban-Americans who support the embargo could boycott their gasoline stations and other products.

There are signs the Obama administration is aware of the safety issues. Shortly after the BP accident, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the agency that regulates the embargo, said it would make licenses available to American service companies to provide oil spill prevention and containment support.

Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State Department spokesman, said licenses would be granted on a “application-by-application basis,” but he would not comment on the criteria.

Mr. Piñón said it appeared that an American company could apply for a license before an emergency but that a license would be issued only after an accident had occurred. “We’re jumping up and down for clarification,” he said.

One group – Clean Caribbean & Americas, a Fort Lauderdale cooperative of several oil companies – has received licenses to send technical advisers, dispersants, containment booms and skimmers to Cuba since 2003. But it can only serve the member companies Repsol and Petrobras, not Cuba’s government.

Economic sanctions on Cuba have been in effect in one form or another since 1960, although the embargo has been loosened to allow the sale of agricultural goods and medicines and travel by Cuban-Americans to the island.

Mr. Hunt of the drillers’ group said that the association had sent a delegation to Cuba in late August and had held talks with government officials and Cupet, the Cuban national oil company.

He said that Cuban officials, including Tomás Benítez Hernández, the vice minister of basic industry, asked him to take a message back to the United States. “Senior officials told us they are going ahead with their deepwater drilling program, that they are utilizing every reliable non-U.S. source that they can for technology and information, but they would prefer to work directly with the United States in matters of safe drilling practices,” Mr. Hunt said.

Mr. Benítez became the acting minister last week when the minister of basic industry, the agency that oversees the oil industry, was fired for reasons still unclear.

Donald Van Nieuwenhuise, director of petroleum geoscience programs at the University of Houston, said that if an accident occurred in Cuban waters, Repsol or other companies could mobilize equipment from the North Sea, Brazil, Japan or China. But “a one-week delay could be disastrous,” he said, and it would be better for Havana, Washington and major oil companies to coordinate in advance.

Opponents of the Cuban regime warn that assisting the Cubans with their oil industry could help prop up Communist rule. Instead of making the drilling safer, some want to stop it altogether.

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, is urging President Obama to recall a diplomatic note to Havana reinforcing a 1977 boundary agreement that gives Cuba jurisdiction up to 45 miles from Florida. “I am sure you agree that we cannot allow Cuba to put at risk Florida’s major business and irreplaceable environment,” he wrote the president shortly after the BP accident.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Environmental Defense Fund: Gulf Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators who support Gulf Restoration Funding

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/29/3065576/c-o-r-r-e-c-t-i-o-n-environmental.html

C O R R E C T I O N — Environmental Defense Fund/
Share

By Environmental Defense Fund

Published: Wednesday, Sep. 29, 2010 – 8:58 am
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — In the news release, Gulf Region Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators Who Support Gulf Restoration Funding, issued 29-Sep-2010 by Environmental Defense Fund over PR Newswire, we are advised by the organization that the poll was conducted between September 7 and September 13, 2010 rather than 2007, as originally issued inadvertently. The complete, corrected release follows:

Gulf Region Voters Far More Likely to Vote for Legislators Who Support Gulf Restoration Funding

Poll is timely day after Mabus report recommends BP fines be dedicated to Gulf restoration fund

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Nearly three out of four voters (72%) in Gulf region states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) say they’d be more likely to vote for federal legislators if they support funding to restore the environmental health of the Gulf, according to a new poll released today. The poll was funded by the Walton Family Foundation on behalf of a coalition of environmental, business, fishing, and anti-poverty groups dedicated to restoring the Gulf Coast.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100202/EDFLOGO)

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100202/EDFLOGO)

The poll is timely because yesterday a working group named by President Obama to create a long-term Gulf recovery plan — headed by Navy Secretary and former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus — recommended that a “significant amount” of the penalties collected from BP for this summer’s oil spill should be dedicated to repairing the region’s ecological, economic, public health and psychological damage. While the U.S. House of Representatives has passed an oil spill response bill that directs funding to Gulf Coast restoration, the Senate, even with the elections fast approaching, has yet to act on oil spill response legislation.

The poll by Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners and GOP polling firm Bellwether Research and Consulting found that — regardless of political affiliation — voters across the Gulf region have a deep commitment to restoration and see it as key to the economic health of the region. In fact, majorities of Independents (67%), Democrats (82%) and Republicans (67%) said they are more likely to support federal legislators who will make new investments in restoration.

“This new polling confirms what common sense already told us. Voters overwhelmingly believe restoring the Gulf environment will also strengthen the region’s economy, and make it more resilient when facing future storms or manmade disasters,” said Scott Burns, director of the Walton Family Foundation’s Environment and Conservation Program. “This is a clear message that restoration in the Gulf region is a high priority.”

Across the Gulf region, more than two out of three voters (68%) recognize that degradation of the Gulf Coast as a result of man-made activities had occurred even before the recent oil spill, and more than three out of four voters (77%) believe it is important for the federal government to take steps to restore the health of the Gulf region, making this a strong voting issue in the upcoming elections.

“This poll shows Gulf Coast senators that restoring the environmental health of the Gulf’s wetlands, marine and coastal areas is both good public policy and good politics,” said Paul Harrison, senior director for the Mississippi River at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Gulf Coast voters recognize that it is critical to their economic future, especially for the region’s huge fishing and tourism industries.”

“The people of the Gulf want and deserve a comprehensive plan that creates new job opportunities as part of environmental restoration,” said Minor Sinclair, Oxfam America’s U.S. Regional Director. “The Federal Government needs to invest in the Gulf, for the good of the people who live there and for the nation as a whole.”

Additional key findings of the survey include:

•More than three out of five voters (62%) in Gulf Coast states say they are less likely to vote for federal legislators who do not support funding Gulf restoration.
•Nearly nine out of 10 poll respondents (87%) across the five Gulf states agree that the environmental health of the Gulf Coast region affects their state’s economy very much or somewhat.
•Nearly eight out of 10 poll respondents (78%) favor creation of a separate fund for the Gulf region and the Mississippi River Delta that includes penalty payments from BP for violating the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act.

The full polling information is available at the Walton Foundation website: http://www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org/gulf-region-poll-results/

The telephone survey of 2,061 voters from all five Gulf region states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) was conducted between September 7 and September 13, 2010. The polling margin of error is +/-2.2%.

About the Walton Family Foundation

The Walton Family Foundation’s environmental giving focuses on achieving lasting conservation in some of the world’s most important ocean and river systems. Desired outcomes are designed to benefit both people and wildlife by aligning economic and conservation interests. Accordingly, the Foundation invests in projects that create new economic incentives for sustainability and biodiversity protection, and in projects utilizing other conservation tools where needed.

The Walton Family Foundation supports projects and organizations that are making a positive difference for individuals, communities and the environment in the areas in which we concentrate our efforts. During 2009, the Foundation invested more than $378 million in charitable initiatives, including those within our core Focus Areas: Systemic K-12 Education Reform; Freshwater and Marine Conservation; Quality of Life Initiatives in our Home Region. For more information, visit www.waltonfamilyfoundation.org.

About the coalition

A coalition of environmental, business, fishing, and anti-poverty groups dedicated to restoring the Gulf Coast has formed to jointly present this poll. The groups include: The Walton Family Foundation; Oxfam; Alabama Coastal Foundation; America’s WETLAND Foundation; Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Environmental Defense Fund; The Fishermen’s Alliance; Florida Wildlife Federation; Franklin County Seafood Dealers Association; Galveston Bay Foundation; Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance; The Gulf Restoration Network; Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation; Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Mobile Baykeeper; National Audubon Society; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy; The Ocean Conservancy; Organized Fishermen of Florida; Reef Relief; Save our Gulf; and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

CONTACTS:

Sean Crowley, Environmental Defense Fund, 202.572.3331, scrowley@edf.org

David J. Ringer, National Audubon Society, 601.642.7058, dringer@audubon.org

Emily Guidry Schatzel, National Wildlife Federation, 225.253.9781, guidrye@nwf.org

Matt Tinning, Ocean Conservancy, 202.286.6498, mtinning@oceanconservancy.org

Daphne Davis Moore, Walton Family Foundation, 479.464.1578, dmoore@wffmail.com

SOURCE Environmental Defense Fund

Interior News: Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Dept. Decision-making

Well, we can always dream…..dv

From: Interior News [mailto:interior_news@ios.doi.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Departmental Decision-Making

Date: September 29, 2010
Contact: Kendra Barkoff (202) 208-6416

Salazar Issues Secretarial Order to Ensure Integrity of Scientific Process in Departmental Decision-Making

WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today issued a Secretarial Order establishing a policy to ensure the integrity of the science and scientific products used in the Department’s decision-making and policy development.

“The American people must have confidence that the Department of the Interior is basing its decisions on the best available science and that the scientific process is free of misconduct or improper influence,” Salazar said. “This policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of all department employees, including career staff and political appointees, in upholding principles of scientific integrity and conduct.”

The new policy, which will be codified in the Departmental Manual to ensure compliance by all employees, clearly affirms that Interior employees, political and career, will never suppress scientific or technological findings or conclusions. Further, it ensures scientists will not be coerced to alter or censure scientific findings, and employees will be protected if they uncover and report scientific misconduct by career or political staff.

The new policy is consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, dated March, 9, 2009, and will conform with the expected 2010 guidance and recommendations of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Department has been working on a policy on scientific integrity for a number of years. The Department put out a draft for public comment in 2010, and many commenters noted that it did not sufficiently address scientific conduct by political appointees or use of scientific information in decision-making. The policy directive issued by Secretary Salazar today clearly applies the same standards of conduct to both political appointees and career appointees and forbids the alteration of scientific findings in policy-making activities.

The policy covers all departmental employees when they engage in, supervise or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate information resulting from scientific activities, or use this information or analyses in making agency policy, management or regulatory decisions. It also covers all contractors, cooperators, partners, volunteers, and permitees who assist with scientific activities.

The secretarial order, whose implementation will be overseen by Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes, incorporates the following principles:

The Interior Department values science and science plays a vital role in helping us meet the department’s mission. As such, when scientific or technological information is considered in decision making, the information will be as robust, of the highest quality, and the result of rigorous scientific processes as can be achieved within the available decision time-frame.

Interior Bureaus and Offices will document and make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in decision making, except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum.

The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions and positions that are decision making in nature where those decisions rely on scientific information to inform the process, shall be based on the candidate’s knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

Clear and unambiguous codes of conduct for scientific activities and use of science in decision making will establish expectations of employees with regard to scientific integrity. Misconduct will not be tolerated. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated and disciplinary action will be taken as appropriate.

Interior will identify, address, track, and resolve instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised.

Interior will establish procedures and as appropriate, clarify whistleblower protections to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision making or otherwise uses or prepares.

Interior scientists have rights as citizens and responsibilities as government employees. These rights and responsibilities with regard to communication with the public will be clearly delineated.

Interior encourages the enhancement of scientific integrity through engagement with the communities of practice represented by professional societies. Interior scientists, scholars and other professionals are encouraged to engage in scientific, scholarly and other activities with these professional networks. These Interior employees will recuse themselves when appropriate and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Here’s the link to the actual order: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=45590

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The Working Waterfront: Canada calls for permanent drilling ban on Georges Bank

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Canada-calls-for-permanent-drilling-ban-on-Georges-Bank/14056/

September 28, 2010 | Incorporating the Inter-Island News

OCTOBER 2010 | ENVIRONMENT, MARINE

by Bob Gustafson
An Atlantic Canada coalition of fishermen, processors, First Nations and environmental organizations is calling for a permanent oil and gas-drilling ban on Georges Bank. And on September 9 the organization, known as NoRig 3, was joined by Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter.

Coalition Chair Denny Morrow, who serves as executive director of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers, said that the push for a permanent ban has been in large part due to “environmental disasters around the world,” citing the blowout in the Timor Sea off the Australian coast, as well as the two incidents in the Gulf of Mexico.

Another major reason for a permanent ban is the fishery itself, according to Morrow.

“It is the only area in the North Atlantic where we’ve had a major recovery of the groundfish stock. It’s rich in biodiversity, it’s very productive in scallops,” he said and added, “Whales are out there, sea birds. It’s just the richest area in the Canadian North Atlantic, and it should be protected.”

Premier Dexter agrees. “We have a resource on the continental shelf, which has provided a livelihood for centuries. We want to make sure that that is adequately protected,” he said.

In announcing that he would seek to extend the current drilling moratorium (due to expire in 2012), he added that he would include a call for an “indefinite” ban within the enabling legislation.

On the issue of jurisdiction Morrow explained, “Offshore decisions in Atlantic Canada are made co-operatively by the federal government and the provincial government. In the case of Georges Bank, Nova Scotia is the province that shares decision-making (and royalties if there are ever any) with the national government. In practice, the provincial government has been given the lead in making decisions about the moratorium on Georges and the Canadian government follows the provincial advice.”

However, Morrow and Dexter both noted that only 20 percent of the Georges Bank fishery is within Canadian jurisdiction, with the remaining 80 percent belonging to the United States.

Dexter added, “One of the things that we’re mindful of is the fact that there is an Offshore Continental Shelf Committee, there are committee hearings taking place in the United States right now and they’re looking at these issues.

By far the vast majority of Georges Bank is actually in American waters. What they will do or might do in the future will have an impact. What we want to do, of course, is to provide some leadership and say ‘This is how we view Georges Bank,’ and see what happens on the U.S. side.”

On the U.S. side, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has in fact called for a permanent Georges Bank drilling ban.

“BP’s oil spill is threatening marine life and marine livelihoods all along the Gulf coast,” Markey said. “And while this spill is unfolding more than 1,000 miles away, scientists are increasingly worried about how this spill may affect bird and sea life from the Bayous all the way up to Boston.”

He added, “That’s why I will be seeking to add provisions to the oil spill legislation that will soon be moving through the House that would keep Georges Bank safe from ever being the site of a future oil spill disaster.

Legislation that I authored to protect Georges Bank has previously passed the House in 2008. The environmental disaster occurring in the Gulf is a stark reminder of why we can never allow Georges Bank to become BP’s Bank. And why we must ensure that it is a home to shellfish, not Shell Oil.”

On the Canadian side Morrow explained that the 3 in NoRigs 3 represents “our third moratorium campaign.”

Noting that coalition members have not always seen eye-to-eye on many issues. Morrow said, “We do have an impressive coalition. We would prefer not to have to assemble our resources every few years to protect such an important fishing area and sensitive ecosystem.”

He concluded, “The recovery of the haddock stock on Georges Bank through joint Canadian/U.S. management of trans-boundary groundfish stocks is a real success story. Both countries should cooperate by implementing a permanent ban on oil and gas development on Georges Bank.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

E & E News: CHEMICALS: House Dems want GAO probe of dispersant use

Finally….this is long overdue. DV

09/29/2010

Elana Schor, E&E reporter

Two House Democrats have requested a broad Government Accountability Office investigation of dispersant use during BP PLC’s Gulf of Mexico oil gusher, including the government’s evaluation of the chemical products’ environmental impacts.

Reps. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a Monday letter to GAO outlined eight areas of inquiry for an audit of dispersant use. Their request touched on several controversial facets of the still-unfolding dispersant debate, including the effectiveness of U.S. EPA’s dispersant toxicity tests and the agency’s role in evaluating requests by the Coast Guard-led Gulf incident command for exemptions from a May federal order that sought limits on the use of the chemicals.

“The amount of dispersants used was stunning, and we don’t have a clue as to what the effect will be on the environment,” Miller, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee’s oversight subpanel, said in a statement. “God forbid we ever have another spill like that one, but we need to figure out the effect of massive use of dispersants before that happens.”

Miller and Markey, who leads the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subpanel, described the “massive use of dispersants” during the 87-day oil leak as “a massive and unprecedented environmental experiment.” Government and independent scientists alike have warned that the chemicals’ role in expediting the biodegradation of oil, while it prevents crude from reaching sensitive shorelines, can heighten the risk to marine life by leaving droplets of dispersed oil suspended in the water column (Greenwire , July 30).

A May 26 edict issued by EPA and the Coast Guard asked BP to limit its spraying of the Corexit 9500 dispersant on the surface of the Gulf save for “rare cases” when other means of containment proved unworkable. The Coast Guard ultimately gave the oil company frequent exemptions from that order, however, and EPA has indicated that it did not always agree with those decisions. Miller and Markey asked GAO to evaluate the circumstances behind the exemptions.

The duo’s request also touched on an Aug. 4 report released by the White House that set off a political scrum by depicting a large majority of the leaked oil as already dispersed or contained. “How accurate is the statement in the Oil Spill Budget Report that stated that 8 percent of the oil released from the wellhead was chemically dispersed?” they asked.

EPA chief Lisa Jackson this week told members of the presidential commission probing the oil disaster that she was “committed to revisiting” policy that governs the approval of dispersants for use during future spills (Greenwire , Sept. 28).

Click here to read Markey and Miller’s request to GAO.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times Editorial: The Senate and the Spill

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/opinion/27mon1.html?hp

I just wonder how many other bills are languishing in the Senate right now, at a time when people are demanding meaningful action on so many important issues???? This should be passed immediately. It bad enough that deep water drilling will continue to be permitted AT ALL. DV

Published: September 26, 2010
The Coast Guard’s announcement a week ago that BP’s runaway Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico was “effectively dead” brought a collective sigh of relief from the company, the citizens of the Gulf Coast and President Obama – indeed from anyone who for nearly five harrowing months had been transfixed by one of the worst environmental disasters in American history.

Unfortunately, it may also have given the politically paralyzed United States Senate one more excuse not to move forward on a controversial but necessary bill that would build on the lessons of the gulf and make offshore drilling safer in the future.

The House has already passed such a bill. It would be irresponsible of the Senate not to do likewise. The Senate has not distinguished itself on environmental issues over the last two years, failing even to vote on comprehensive energy and climate legislation that the House had passed. The least it can do is muster a meaningful response to the spill.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has in hand an honorable bill that is the product of endless hearings by several committees and could be quickly brought to the floor. Like the House bill, it would tighten environmental safeguards and reorganize the agency at the Interior Department that oversees drilling in order to eliminate the conflicts of interest that allowed BP to manipulate the system and short-circuit regulatory reviews.

Like the House bill, it would also require companies to furnish more detailed response plans before receiving permits to drill, and would eliminate the $75 million liability cap for companies responsible for a spill. That cap is moot in BP’s case, since the company has already agreed to pay $20 billion in damage claims. But lifting the cap would provide a powerful incentive to other companies to behave responsibly.

As an added fillip, both bills would provide long-term financing (from oil company fees) for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the government’s main program for acquiring open space.

With so much to like, what’s the holdup? Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, complains that lifting the liability cap would discourage smaller drillers without deep pockets that could be bankrupted by a single accident. Surely this can be resolved with compromise language providing for a sliding scale.

The real reason – no surprise here – is intense opposition from the oil companies and their allies in both parties who claim, without persuasive evidence, that the new rules, fees and penalties would raise costs, inhibit domestic production and increase American dependence on foreign oil. The Senate should ignore these complaints, pass a bill and then move forward to a conference with the House.

If it doesn’t, voters should hold it accountable. Congress cannot undo the effects of the spill. But it can ensure a safer future.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

The White House has released America’s Gulf Coast: A Long Term Recovery Plan After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

The 130 page report is available at
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/gulf-reconstruction-sep-2010.pdf

The section on ecosystem restoration is found on pp. 26-50.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson did a conference call briefing on the report. Here are the highlights:

· The report recommends Congress dedicate a “significant amount” of the Clean Water Act penalties that will be paid by BP and others to the Gulf region. Normally, these penalties would be paid into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for use in future disasters.

· The report recommends the establishment of a Gulf Coast Recovery Council to administer the restoration funds. The Council would have a federal and state chair and consist of federal, state, tribal, and local representatives. The Council would coordinate its activities with the Natural Resources Damage Trustee Council.

· The report recommends dedicating a portion of the Clean Water Act penalties directly to the states.

· The President is signing an Executive Order establishing a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, chaired by Jackson. The Task Force will have federal agency representatives and a representative from each Gulf Coast state. If Congress establishes a Gulf Coast Recovery Council, the Task Force will be replaced by the Council.

· The focus of Gulf Coast recovery will be on long-term ecosystem restoration, health and human services recovery, economic recovery, and nonprofit sector recovery (because nonprofits have been hard hit by the multiple disasters in the Gulf).

· The report recommends removing the liability cap for offshore oil drilling damages.
· The report calls for the development of a Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy by the Task Force within one year.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

McClatchy Newspapers: Lawsuit asks if science was manipulated in oil spill estimates

Finally, we may get to the truth…..THANK YOU PEER! You’re my heroes! DV

September 22, 2010

http://www.adn.com/2010/09/17/1459467/lawsuit-asks-if-science-was-manipulated.html

Renee Schoof / McClatchy Newspapers
Published: September 17th, 2010 02:58 PM
Last Modified: September 22nd, 2010 03:26 PM

WASHINGTON An environmental whistleblower group charges in a lawsuit that the Obama administration is withholding documents that would reveal why it issued an estimate on the gravity of the Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout that later was proved to be far too low.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
http://www.peer.org/ sued Thursday in federal court, claiming that federal officials are withholding hundreds of pages of reports and communications between scientists on the Flow Rate Technical Group, who were tasked with making the estimates, and Marcia McNutt, the head of the U.S. Geological Survey, who chaired the technical group and released a summary of its findings.

The controversy over the oil flow estimates is part of a broader question about whether political appointees at the top of the Obama administration have manipulated and publicized incorrect or incomplete scientific information in an attempt to tamp down anxiety and anger over the world’s worst oil accident.

The failure to assess the damage from BP’s spill also is seen as hampering the government’s continued efforts to clean up the Gulf.

“This lawsuit will produce Exhibit A for the case that science is still being manipulated under the current administration,” Jeff Ruch, the executive director of the environmental organization, said in a statement.

“Our concern is that the administration took, and is still taking, steps to falsely minimize public perception about the extent and severity of the BP spill, a concern that the administration could start to dispel by releasing these documents,” Ruch said.
Ruch said that some of the missing information was thought to show that the USGS knew in May, when it released an estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, that there was a completed estimate that was much higher.

In August, after the well had been capped, the government produced a new estimate as much as five times higher, based on better information from pressure readings and other analysis. It said that the oil flowed at a rate of 62,000 barrels of oil per day at first and later slowed to 53,000 barrels a day, with a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percent. Based on that finding, the official estimate is that 4.1 million barrels of oil poured into the Gulf from April to July.

Questions also have been raised about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s report in August that said that 74 percent of the oil had been captured, dispersed, skimmed or burned, or had evaporated or dissolved. NOAA hasn’t released scientific findings to back up that assessment.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s lawsuit doesn’t target NOAA, however. The nonprofit environmental protection group acts on behalf of concerned government insiders.

The advocacy group sought the documents on estimates of the oil flow under the Freedom of Information Act. The USGS posted some of the requested materials on its website, but the group said in its lawsuit that it had sought hundreds more that the agency didn’t release.

Those include communications between McNutt and her staff and members of the flow-rate technical team, including e-mails and minutes of conferences, and all reports by the team that contain estimates of the maximum oil leak rate.

The technical group was supposed to look at the worst-case scenario, and it isn’t known whether it gave a higher estimate to the government’s oil-spill response center, Ruch said.

USGS spokeswoman Anne-Betty Wade referred questions to the Department of Interior, whose spokeswoman, Kendra Barkoff, said she couldn’t comment on pending litigation.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility claims that McNutt originally didn’t reveal that the May figures were a minimum estimate. The agency updated the news release in June.

Early on, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig in April, officials put the flow at 1,000 barrels a day. They raised that to 5,000 barrels based on overhead visual estimates and stuck to that figure for weeks, even after it became apparent that much of the oil was remaining below the surface and out of sight.

The oil spill data isn’t the only issue that’s worrying the group.

In March 2009, not long after he was sworn in, Obama issued an executive memorandum that said his administration would adopt policies to protect scientific integrity. He directed the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop those policies by July 9, 2009.

The policies still haven’t been issued.

“We pointed out the reason the Bush administration could manipulate science was because there were no rules against it, and there still aren’t,” Ruch said.

ON THE WEB

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s complaint filed in court

http://bit.ly/cCiA3Q

NOAA oil spill science missions

http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/bpoilspill.html

Special thanks to Richard Charter and PEER for their good work on this issue.

NOLA.com: Feds establish downtown bunker to build criminal, civil cases against BP in Gulf oil spill

September 26, 2010

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/09/feds_establish_downtown_bunker.html

Published: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 7:29 AM
Updated: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 8:21 AM
David Hammer, The Times-Picayune

A team of federal prosecutors from around the country has taken over a floor of the Texaco Building on Poydras Street, just across from the federal courthouse, as they begin quietly building what is expected to be a complex series of criminal and civil cases stemming from the BP oil spill.

Their effort launched with rare fanfare June 1, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder came to New Orleans to announce that FBI agents, along with prosecutors from Justice Department’s Civil Division, its Environmental and Natural Resources Division and from several U.S. attorneys’ offices along the Gulf Coast, had already been investigating possible criminal charges for weeks.

But apart from that unusual public announcement — which came at a time when the Obama administration was facing harsh criticism for its response to the runaway spill — the criminal inquiry has thus far been a cloak-and-dagger affair. A visitor to the building can’t even get off the elevator on the 10th floor, where the federal bunker is, without getting a pass from a security guard in the lobby. A newspaper reporter requesting such a pass was turned down.

The space is large enough for at least 60 people, according to a source familiar with the building.

There’s been no need to empanel a grand jury — at least not yet. The evidence has been pouring in — in the form of internal corporate e-mail messages and sworn testimony by witnesses,disclosed for the world to see and hear at hearings held by a Coast Guard and Interior Department investigative panel or by various congressional committees probing the April 20 explosions on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

In New Orleans, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s office has recently closed out a couple of old environmental cases to clear the decks for what could be the mother of all environmental cases. The federal government has hired an Ohio company, DNV Columbus Inc., to perform a forensic investigation of the massive blowout preventer that was recovered from a mile under the sea to try to determine why it failed to shut off the well when it blew.

Howard Stewart is down to lead the investigation from Justice Department headquarters in Washington, where his hard-edged ambition is well-known. When he was twice passed over to be chief of the Environmental Crimes Section in the late 1990s, he sued the U.S. attorney general, claiming racial discrimination, although he eventually lost his civil rights case on appeal.

Defense attorneys hired by various parties involved in the Gulf oil disaster are on edge, expecting Stewart to go for a big score and charge individuals, not just a company, with a crime — possibly with involuntary manslaughter.

That would make the case unusual in the annals of industrial or maritime accidents, observers say.

Valdez and Pinto

Dane Ciolino, a law professor at Loyola University, said that even though injuries and death are not infrequent on the high seas or in industrial accidents, they usually end with civil claims and rarely result in criminal charges. He sees two cases as particularly instructive as the feds continue their BP probe — the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska and the 1980 case against Ford for a rash of exploding Pintos. In both, the government ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

In the Valdez case, the vessel’s pilot, Joseph Hazlewood, was accused of being drunk when the tanker ran aground and set off what was, until it was dwarfed by BP’s well blowout this year, the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Richard Stewart, who was assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the time, said the Justice Department considered whether to pursue charges against Exxon officials who may have known about Hazlewood’s drinking problem.

“We looked at it,” said Stewart, who is not related to Howard Stewart. “Alaska prosecuted Hazlewood, but we couldn’t find enough evidence of higher-ups’ involvement. That’s always a side thing, and I don’t think it’s going to be major issue in (the BP) case. I don’t think the department will go against very low-level people (at BP or rig company Transocean) unless they have evidence that someone did something really egregious.”

In the Pinto case, a deadly explosion in 1978 helped expose more than 500 burn deaths caused by a design flaw in the car’s fuel tank. It emerged that Ford officials had known about the defect, but determined it would cost far more to change it than it would to pay any resulting wrongful-death claims. An Indiana court rejected Ford’s argument that it was not a person and couldn’t be charged criminally, but a jury found the company not guilty anyway. Still, the public was angry that the government didn’t go after any individuals at Ford.

“People back then found that resolution unsatisfactory,” Ciolino said. “They felt culpable individuals were getting off the hook. That’s a criticism people generally have of a situation where only a corporation pleads guilty.”

That’s also what happened when 15 workers at BP’s Texas City refinery were killed in a 2005 explosion. The company pleaded guilty two years later to a felony for a lack of written procedures and for its failure to notify contractors of the danger of being in a trailer where people died in the blast. BP negotiated with the feds and agreed to pay a $50 million fine for that incident, and another $20 million in fines for failing to take precautions against a 2006 pipeline spill in Alaska.

Plenty of claims to BP’s coffers

The Deepwater Horizon case involves a staggering amount of money, and Justice Department prosecutors are going to have several avenues available to them to try to make BP or other responsible parties pay. But they may also have to keep an eye on BP’s bottom line, to make sure the company, or its subsidiary BP America, remains solvent enough to make victims of the rig explosion and spill whole.

First, the law is clear that BP must pay for ongoing cleanup of spilled oil, either by doing the work themselves or by paying for others to skim and collect the oil. The company has spent about $7.7 billion so far on cleanup, containment, relief wells and certain government spill response payments.

That’s completely separate from damage claims by businesses and individuals. BP has agreed to pay “all legitimate claims” of economic or personal injury or lost wages or profits from the spill or rig explosion, committing $20 billion for spill claims and $100 million for those who work on or in direct support of deepwater drilling rigs. So far, it has paid $1.8 billion to affected people, businesses or governments, either directly or through independent claims administrator Kenneth Feinberg.

In the interest of its own financial survival, BP was allowed to spread out the cost of the Feinberg fund over four years. It put $3 billion into escrow this quarter, will add another $2 billion in the last quarter of 2010 and then $1.25 billion each quarter through 2013.

Whether or not that $20 billion covers all of the claims handled by Feinberg, BP and others may also have to pay court settlements to people or entities that sued or will sue for damages.

Thirdly, under the Oil Pollution Act, the public trustees — federal and state governments and American Indian tribes — also have the right to bill the companies for the cost of projects to mitigate damages to natural resources. That is also expected to total in the billions of dollars.

A fourth source of potential civil costs is from various environmental laws that require responsible parties to pay fines for every barrel of oil spilled and every bird, dolphin or endangered species injured or killed. Primarily, a federal court may order BP or others to pay penalties under the Clean Water Act for the nearly 5 million barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf. Robert Force, a professor of maritime law at Tulane University, said it’s not necessary for the government to prove negligence to impose these types of penalties. The mere discharge of that much oil could yield about $5 billion in fines.

If the Justice Department and other investigating agencies can show gross negligence or willful misconduct led to the spill, the fines could reach $18 billion.

Then, there are the criminal charges

These civil penalties, cleanup and containment costs and damage claims, which could total more than $50 billion, don’t include the consequences of any criminal charges, which could produce more fines. If individuals are found guilty of negligence leading to the spilling of oil, they could face more than $2 million in fines and up to two years in prison. BP, a third-party contractor or any of the firm’s employees could be charged with environmental crimes under several statutes if the Justice Department feels negligence led to the illegal discharge of oil into the Gulf. Force said several courts have found that the standard for negligence does not require the government to prove that someone knew their conduct would lead to a spill. Rather, he said, it’s only necessary to show that actions were taken that “could have led to a discharge,” and if they took “reasonable care” to avoid a spill.

“When you look at all the shortcuts they took (on the rig), there’s a good chance they might fall under negligence based on the standards of reasonable care,” Force said.

But with a traumatized public perhaps seeking a measure of retribution for a disaster that killed 11 rig workers and fouled the Gulf of Mexico, guilty verdicts for environmental crimes may not be enough. Lawyers representing individuals and corporate parties of interest in the case say they are worried the feds might pursue involuntary manslaughter charges against one or more of the people who made key decisions that increased risk of the well blowout that eventually occurred.

Three BP employees — on-rig supervisor Robert Kaluza and Houston-based engineers Mark Hafle and Brian Morel — have already invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination to avoid testifying to federal investigators. Kaluza’s fellow rig boss, Donald Vidrine, also hasn’t testified when summoned, citing illness.

Each has a criminal defense lawyer representing him. Attorneys for Kaluza, Morel and Vidrine declined comment for this story. Hafle’s lawyer, Mitchell Lansden of Houston, said his client, who testified in May and then refused to face the same Marine Board panel in August, has nothing to hide, but didn’t want to testify again because he felt the climate at the hearings had gotten too hostile.

“My client is a decent and honorable man, he’s a fine engineer and all his actions in this matter were done as a prudent engineer,” Lansden said of Hafle. “But there’s been a change in climate from the first time he testified.”

Pleading the Fifth is no indication of guilt, and other rig workers, engineers and executives could have exposure in the case. Lansden said he was definitely concerned about Hafle testifying again when he learned that the Justice Department had a staffed investigation in New Orleans “and I don’t know what direction it will go.”

David Hammer can be reached at dhammer@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3322.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Montgomery Advertiser: Gulf Coast wildlife recovery scaled back

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20100924/NEWS02/9240311/Gulf-Coast-wildlife-recovery-scaled-back

September 24, 2010

MOBILE — Federal officials are scaling back wildlife
recovery and rescue operations on the Alabama
coast, but signs of the BP oil spill are still being
reported in shoreline waters.

Steve Gray, a federal wildlife official assigned to
Alabama, said they reduced recovery and rescue
work because they were no longer getting calls as
frequently as before.

But the Press-Register reported Thursday that
shoreline assessment workers on the Gulf Coast are
still finding tarballs washing ashore and bands of
oil beneath sand.

Coast Guard officials said teams are keeping a
record of where oil is located underwater and they
recommend a cleanup method.

– AP

Special thanks to RIchard Charter

Daily Comet: Despite fears following spill, local jobless rate holds steady

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20100925/ARTICLES/100929464/1212?Title=Despite-fears-following-spill-local-jobless-rate-holds-steady

By Kathrine Schmidt
Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, September 25, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.

HOUMA – Despite fears about the economic impact of the Gulf oil spill and deepwater-drilling ban, employment remained steady in the Houma-Thibodaux area in August, state figures show.

The metro-area unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is still the state’s lowest, the Louisiana Workforce Commission reported Friday. It’s up from 5.2 percent in July, but that’s a typical seasonal change as summer workers are released from jobs, state officials said. That compares to 5.5 percent in August 2009.

“The state and other areas are pretty much holding their own,” said Patty Granier, a statistician with the state agency. “We don’t see any big trend down. (Businesses) are trying to maintain and keep as many workers as they can.”

The local numbers are well below the state rate of 8.2 percent and the national rate of 9.5 percent.

Terrebonne posted 6 percent and Lafourche 5.7 percent. Those numbers aren’t adjusted for seasonal variations such as summer employees looking for new jobs and teachers returning to work.

Louisiana showed a gain of 13,700 jobs over the year.

“We continue to see over-the-year gains in the number of jobs and people in the labor force,” Workforce Commission Executive Director Curt Eysink said in a news release. “The fact that private sector jobs are fueling the yearly growth is a positive sign.”

The state numbers also show the Houma-Thibodaux area gaining an estimated 300 jobs since July, thanks to school teachers employed by local government getting back to the classroom.

But the metro area still has about 200 fewer jobs than it did a year ago. Oil-and-gas jobs and construction jobs maintained their employment levels, as did positions in leisure and hospitality.

In neighboring parishes, Assumption posted a 10.7 percent jobless rate in August, St. Mary 9.7 percent and St. James 12.4 percent.

While the official numbers haven’t budged much, the state’s count of workers does not track the cuts to hours and benefits that oilfield workers said they have been experiencing as a result of the deepwater-drilling ban.

Some of that pain has been reflected in an increased demand for assistance, including requests from many families who haven’t had to use them before.

Jennifer Gaudet, a case worker with Catholic Charities of Houma-Thibodaux, said that since mid-July the organization has seen a significant increase in cases for families asking about programs that provide help with food, utility bills and rent or mortgage payments.

Staff Writer Kathrine Schmidt can be reached at 857-2204 or Kathrine.schmidt@houmatoday.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

National Geographic: Whale Sharks Killed, Displaced by Gulf Oil?


A whale shark filters prey amid a school of cleaner fish (file photo).
Photograph by Colin Parker, My Shot

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100924-whale-sharks-gulf-oil-spill-science-environment/

The Gulf oil spill occurred in crucial habitat for the world’s largest fish.
Main Content
Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News

Published September 24, 2010

SPECIAL SERIES | DEEP IMPACT
Deciphering the unseen, underwater effects of the Gulf oil spill.

The Gulf oil spill fouled a vital stretch of feeding habitat for whale sharks, possibly killing some of the world’s largest fish, new research suggests.

An estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil (one barrel equals 42 gallons, or 159 liters) flowed into an area south of the Mississippi River Delta, where of one-third of all northern Gulf of Mexico (map) whale shark sightings have occurred in recent years, scientists say.

The 45-foot-long (14-meter-long) fish, still largely a mystery to scientists, is considered a vulnerable species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

(See “World’s Largest Shark Species at Risk, Expert Says.”)

“This spill’s impact came at the worst possible time and in the worst possible location for whale sharks,” said biologist Eric Hoffmayer, who studies whale sharks at the University of Southern Mississippi’s Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

Sightings confirmed that the animals were unable to avoid the slick at the surface, where the giant fish may feed for seven to eight hours a day. The oil may have clogged the fish’s gills, suffocating them, or it might have contaminated their prey-though no dead whale sharks have been found, Hoffmayer noted.

“We’ve seen aerial photos with animals within a few miles of the wellhead and swimming in thick oil,” said Hoffmayer, a National Geographic Society Waitt grantee. (National Geographic News is owned by the National Geographic Society.)

“At the end of the day, if these animals were feeding in an area where there was surface oil, and if they ingested oil, there is a good possibility that they died and sank to the bottom. At this point we have no idea how many animals have been impacted.”

Oil Toxic to Filter-Feeding Sharks?

Though much of the Gulf oil has disappeared from the surface, the spill isn’t going away-and scientists are still trying to uncover the extent of its invisible effects on Gulf wildlife.

(Read about the Gulf oil spill in the October issue of National Geographic magazine.)

For instance, certain toxic ingredients of oil-and even the chemical dispersants used during the cleanup-could potentially cause long-term problems for whale sharks and many other species. Those may include compromised endocrine or immune response systems, scientists note. (See related blog: “Gulf Seafood With a Side of Oil Dispersant?”)

Whale sharks filter a lot of water through their mouths and gills-almost 160,000 gallons (605,000 liters) of water an hour-as they feed on tiny plankton and fish.

These sharks swim with their wide mouths open to suck in plankton-rich waters, which they then force back out their gills, retaining only tiny morsels of food.

“They would no doubt absorb contaminants even in dispersed form. Does that build up in their tissues and affect their health?” said biologist Bob Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida.

To answer that question, many scientists are now searching for the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and other oil contaminants in the blood and tissues of Gulf whale sharks.

“It will probably take years to see what the signature of this oil does to the health and physiology of these animals,” Hueter said.

Oil Driving Sharks to New Territories

Scientists hope that tagging animals can help them learn if the spill impacts whale shark behavior in the years ahead.

But some observations have already suggested the whale sharks have changed some of their habits.

Sightings of sharks near Florida’s Gulf coast have led to speculation that the sharks and other large marine species may have been displaced by the oil and moved on to a more pristine neighborhood.

During the summer months following the oil spill, Mote scientists began chronicling repeated near-shore observations of large marine animals, such as whale sharks, that are typically found in far deeper waters out near the eastern Gulf’s continental shelf.

(See pictures of ten animals at risk from the Gulf oil spill.)

“This summer unusually high numbers and species of sharks were here on the West Florida Shelf, and that includes whale sharks in much larger numbers than we are accustomed to seeing,” Hueter said.

Those animals may have headed east to escape the oil, though no one can say for sure.

The team tagged several fish to track their future movements in oiled waters and see whether the disaster causes lifestyle changes in the whales.

(Learn more about Mote’s shark tracking project.)

Oil Still Unknown Threat

One problem is that no one is exactly sure where the bulk of dispersed oil has gone, or in what form it exists. For example, preliminary results suggest it’s settled on the seafloor or is still suspended in remnant undersea plumes.

(Related: “Much Gulf Oil Remains, Deeply Hidden and Under Beaches.”)

What’s more, whale sharks can be found everywhere in the water column, from the surface to the depths, so pinpointing their possible exposure to oil can be difficult.

“In some form or fashion, 60 to a hundred million gallons of oil are still out there, and all we know is it’s not at the surface,” the University of Southern Mississippi’s Hoffmayer said. “With this idea of submerged oil out there, we don’t know what threats exist to the animals.”

For instance, no one knows if the sharks will start to avoid the rich feeding grounds to which the migratory animals have returned regularly so far.

“In coming years we’ll hopefully be able to say something about the sightings, either that whale sharks appear to be impacted heavily, or, we were lucky here and they haven’t missed a beat,” University of Southern Mississippi’s Hoffmayer said.

Whale Sharks Undertake Great Migrations

As scientists learn more about the elusive whale shark, they’ve already discovered that the impacts of the oil spill disaster could stretch farther than anyone would have suspected just a few years ago. (Read about whale shark migrations on National Geographic Channel’s website.)

That’s because seemingly disparate whale shark populations ranging from the Caribbean and Central America to the Gulf of Mexico are actually deeply connected, according to Rachel Graham, lead shark scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Ocean Giants Program.

Graham, who has been tracking whale sharks for 13 years, snapped a picture of a shark in Belize that later turned up near Tampa, Florida. Another animal acoustically tagged in Mexico was recorded by an underwater receiver on Bright Bank in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Sixteen sharks that Graham recently fitted with satellite-location tags are dispersing into the Gulf from Mexico-and could move into the spill zone.

(Related picture: “Smallest Whale Shark Discovered-On a Leash.”)

“One of the concerns that I have is that anything that happens to animals in the northern Gulf, where the spill occurred, will have an impact on the larger population in the entire region,” she said.

“It’s one large population. And it’s at risk because we’re only talking about hundreds or perhaps a few thousands of animals in the region-not hundreds of thousands of animals. Due to their size, whale sharks require a lot of food to survive, and preferred food such as fish eggs is seasonal and concentrated in a small area-the seas certainly can’t sustain millions of these huge animals.”

Even so, there’s one bright spot: Multiple sightings of whale sharks suggest there are greater numbers of the animals than were once thought possible in the northern Gulf of Mexico, according to the University of Southern Mississippi’s Hoffmayer.

“Up to this point it’s been a real success,” Hoffmayer said. “But as for the impacts of this oil spill, we just don’t know yet.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

3rd Oil Spill Commission Meeting Sept. 27-28; live streaming video here

http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/meeting-3/meeting-details

Purpose: Inform the Commission members about the relevant facts and circumstances concerning the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. The meeting will provide the Commission with the opportunity to hear presentations and statements from various experts and provide additional information for the Commission’s consideration.

When: Mon. & Tues., Sept. 27th & 28th, 2010
9am-4:30pm.

Where: Washington Marriott Wardman Park
2660 Woodley Park Rd. N.W., Washington D.C.

Topics: Response following the BP spill, impacts on the Gulf and approaches to long-term restoration.

MEETING AGENDA

http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/document/osc-meeting-3-agenda-september-27-28

This meeting will be streamed live on this page on the day of the meeting
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/meeting-3/meeting-details

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Oil and Gas Journal: Landrieu blocks OMB nomination to protest drilling moratorium

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/3677133685/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/government/2010/09/landrieu-blocks_omb/QP129867/cmpid=EnlDailySeptember242010.html

Shameful politics as usual at work. DV

Sep 24, 2010
Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor
WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 24 — US Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) said on Sept. 23 that she would block Jack Lew’s nomination as White House Office and Management and Budget Director until the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium is lifted or significantly modified.

“Although Mr. Lew clearly possesses the expertise necessary to serve as one of the president’s most important economic advisors, I found that he lacked sufficient concern for the host of economic challenges confronting the Gulf Coast,” Landrieu wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “The fact that the most acute of these economic challenges, the moratorium, results from a direct (and reversible) federal action only serves to harden my stance on Mr. Lew’s nomination.”

She said some economists have estimated that more than 46,000 jobs could be lost as a result of a 6-month stoppage of offshore drilling. The Obama Administration itself has estimated that as many as 12,000 workers could be laid off as a result of a ban on oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, she added.
“In repeated meetings and correspondence with Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Regulation, and Enforcement] Director Michael R. Bromwich, I have underscored how damaging this moratorium is to Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, and the nation. Unfortunately, I have seen no measurable progress,” she said.

“I cannot support further action on Mr. Lew’s nomination to be a key economic advisor to the president until I am convinced that the president and his administration understand the detrimental impacts that the actual and de facto moratoria continue to have on the Gulf Coast,” Landrieu told Reid.

Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Associated Press: European nations reject ban on deep-sea drilling

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOmWoJ1o6Ep458M02OSfRuzdOFAgD9IDN6C00

(AP) – 1 day ago

OSLO, Norway – Oil-producing countries on Thursday rejected a German proposal for a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Northeast Atlantic that reflected environmental concerns after the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

At a meeting of environment ministers and officials from 15 European countries and the European Union, Germany suggested that offshore nations consider a temporary halt to the “drilling of new complex deep-water oil exploration wells.”

Greenpeace activists said offshore oil nations including Norway, Denmark and Britain opposed the draft at the two-day meeting in Norway’s west coast city of Bergen. Stefan Krug, a spokesman for Greenpeace Germany, called it “a shame” that host Norway was “not able to agree to adequate and urgent measures.”

Norwegian Environment Ministry spokesman Gard Nybro-Nielsen confirmed the German proposal was off the table.

Oil and gas resources in the North Sea have made Norway one of the richest countries in the world, but those resources are running out. Feeling the pressure, Norway is also exploring in the Barents Sea in the Arctic.

Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim told The Associated Press that Norway will not authorize new deep-water drilling until the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf has been evaluated, but doesn’t support an international moratorium.

President Barack Obama imposed a U.S. deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico following the April 20 oil well blowout that killed 11 workers and spewed more than 200 million gallons of crude into the Gulf before it was capped in July.

The German proposal also called for making sure that offshore operations meet the highest safety standards and demanded an analysis of whether the circumstances that led to the Deepwater Horizon accident could also occur in the Northeast Atlantic.

“It was important to us that this issue was on the agenda,” said Thomas Hagbeck, a spokesman for Germany’s environmental agency.

EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik attended the meeting along with envoys from Norway, Germany, Denmark, Britain, Belgium, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland.

Associated Press Writer Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed to this report.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Seacoastonline.com: UNH oil specialist talks Gulf future

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100924/NEWS/9240391/-1/NEWSMAP

Long-term effects unknown
By Charles McMahon
cmcmahon@seacoastonline.com
September 24, 2010 2:00 AM
PORTSMOUTH — It could take years — possibly even decades — for environmental and biological effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to come to light, University of New Hampshire oil specialist Dr. Nancy Kinner told local Rotarians on Thursday.
As the co-director of the Coastal Response Research Centre at UNH, Kinner was the featured speaker during a Portsmouth Rotary luncheon held at the Redhook Ale Brewery on Thursday afternoon.
Having been part of the national discussion that took place during efforts to stop the oil spill, and an expert contacted by the media, Kinner said the response and outlook for recovery in the Gulf of Mexico has been the focus of her group’s work for quite a while.
The tragedy began on April 20, when an explosion on the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11 workers, sank a drilling rig and led to what Kinner called the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The spill is estimated to have spewed close to 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, Kinner said.
Kinner first educated Rotarians on the amount of oil drilling activity that takes place in the Gulf.
If someone were to take all of the pipelines that connect the thousands of oil platforms in the Gulf and connect them the end result would be close to 63,000 miles of pipeline, said Kinner.
“That’s enough to wrap around the equator of Earth two-times-plus,” she said.
Kinner also spoke about the type of oil involved in the spill.
Called “Louisiana sweet crude,” the oil that spread across the Gulf was lighter and less dense but able to rise to the surface quickly and should be considered highly volatile, said Kinner.
“If I opened up a container of it, within a matter of minutes you’d be smelling it in the back of the room,” she said.

When the oil traveled to the surface it mimicked that of a smokestack and spread out, Kinner said. What resulted was the process of emulsion, which Kinner said created thick oil plumes and tar balls that washed ashore.
What makes the recent oil spill so unique and separates it from the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill in 1989 is the fact that it involved a much larger release of highly concentrated oil over a prolonged period of time.
Despite the fact the spill ended up killing fewer organisms, such as birds, than the Exxon Valdez, Kinner said what researchers are most concerned about are the long-term effects the spill could have on Gulf wildlife.
“We don’t know the long-term impacts on some of the species, and we will have to wait and see,” she said.
Kinner said scientists are beginning to look at the genetic material of organisms affected by the spill to determine whether they have any markers that indicate changes or increased potential for impaired growth or reproduction.
In addition to the effects, Kinner also gave an analysis on response efforts.
Kinner said the concern for people’s lives and the need to determine what resources to protect should be first and foremost in spill response
In the case of the Gulf spill, Kinner said a decision was made at the national level to protect near-shore resources such as the shrimp, crab and lobster industries.
The trade-off, according to Kinner, was deepwater resources and species.
“It’s what do you want to protect more, that’s the only choice you have to make,” Kinner said. “Until you get it stopped, you have to make a trade-off.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Everything Alabama.com: Oil lingering in waters off Alabama, Mississippi and Florida beaches


(Press-Register/Ben Raines)Todd Farrar, a BP contractor with the Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team working its way along the Gulf Coast, examines a layer of oil buried a few inches below the seafloor at the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. He estimated the sample contained about 15 percent oil, with the rest composed of sand and seashells.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/09/oil_lingering_in_waters_off_al.html

Published: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 5:00 AM Updated: Thursday, September 23, 2010, 4:01 PM
Ben Raines, Press-Register

A good deal of oil remains in the shallow waters closest to the beaches in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, according to a federal team using shovels and snorkeling gear to survey the coastline for submerged oil.

The team found tarballs washing ashore with every wave Wednesday morning in the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. And just off the beach, in about 3 feet of water, the team found bands of oil buried under 4 or 5 inches of clean sand.

That’s proving to be a common problem, said Todd Farrar, who works for Polaris Applied Sciences, a company hired by BP to do the shoreline assessments with federal officials.

The Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Team, working its way along the Alabama coast this week, also included Aaron Boutin from the U.S. Coast Guard and Stephanie Hill from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The buried oil was broken into small pieces, some as small as BBs, others the size of marbles. Farrar said they were finding similar patches of oil scattered along the Gulf coast, primarily in the areas that saw the most oil come ashore.

The team works from the shoreline out to about 180 feet offshore, unless the water gets deeper than 10 feet.

“We’re basically digging potholes approximately 18 inches deep,” Farrar said. “We do transects in the areas that were hit harder with oil. We’re finding plenty of it.”

For oil close to the beach, the fix is simple: dig it out with heavy equipment sitting on shore.

Farther out, oil removal is more complicated. Farrar said most of it would be vacuumed up with heavy-duty pumps or dug out by track hoes on barges.

“For the greater depths, we haven’t worked out a method yet for doing the assessment,” Farrar said. “If they find oil at those greater depths, we might have to get more inventive about how to clean it up.”

Lauren Jorgensen, with the Coast Guard, said the so-called SCAT survey was the first step in the cleanup process.

“The SCAT teams go out and find evidence of oil underwater. They record the precise location where they find it and then recommend a cleanup method,” Jorgensen said. “Then we resurvey to make sure the cleanup was effective. We’re definitely trying to ensure that the oil is cleaned up.”

Farrar said the oil close to the shore tended to become buried in the layer of loose sand that gets moved around by waves.

Beneath that 5- or 6-inch layer, he said, the sand becomes more compact and resistant to wave action, meaning the oil doesn’t get any deeper.

In the potholes he dug Wednesday morning, Farrar reported that from 10 to 25 percent of the material in his shovel was oil, with the rest composed of sand and seashells. In some areas, the team has documented large mats of tar.

“The tar mats vary greatly. The biggest mat we found was about (150 feet by 210 feet). That was in Pensacola Bay. Some of them are much smaller,” Farrar said. “Usually, they are an inch to an inch-and-a-half thick, though we’ve seen 2 or 3 inches in different spots.”

In Pensacola, more than 3,000 pounds of an oil-sand mix was dredged up in a single day in some areas where Farrar’s team documented oil, according to BP officials.

Back in late June and early July, a large amount of oil was scooped from the Bon Secour beach Farrar snorkeled Wednesday.

Tarballs were still spread liberally around the wildlife refuge’s beaches Wednesday, from the water’s edge up to the first line of sand dunes.

While there was less oil on the sand than was present in July, tarballs remained as easy to find as seashells.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Maritime Executive: The US Drilling Moratorium –The Economic Impact

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/2010-9-23-us-drilling-moratorium-economic-impact/

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010
(Crude Awaking -3)

OPED by Tony Munoz, Editor-in-Chief of the Maritime Executive Magazine and MarEx Newsletter

The September 16, 2010 US Inter-Agency report on the economic effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium on the Gulf Coast economy begins by stating there has been little impact. This is based on conversations with rig companies and review of unemployment insurance claims (UI) that show only about 2,000 rigworkers have lost their jobs.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) estimates there were a total of 80,000 offshore oil production, construction and drilling workers in the GOM, and fewer than 10,000 of these workers were employed on rigs affected by the moratorium. Additionally, the report goes on to say the six-month moratorium may temporarily result in about 8,000 to 12,000 fewer jobs in the Gulf Coast and that rig operators have reduced spending by $1.8 billion.

Needless to say Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal flew off the handle saying his state alone could lose about 20,000 existing and potential new jobs because of the moratorium He went on to point out that the workers still employed in the GOM have had their hours severely cut, which has had an impact on state revenues and has reduced economic activity, which has had a rippling effect throughout the state.

Meanwhile, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) said the administration was aware that their actions might eliminate nearly 23,000 jobs, but proceeded anyway. She attacked the report saying the “the heavy hand of the federal government” has placed thousands of jobs in the GOM at risk. Additionally, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) challenged the accuracy of the report saying “its upbeat analysis was at odds with reality in the gulf.”

Furthermore, a number of regional economists have calculated the GOM region has already loss at least 8,169 jobs, $2.2 billion in economic activity and $98 million in revenue from the lost of state and local taxes. While the report claims to have focused on the direct impact of the moratorium, officials from the Gulf States have called the administration’s drilling moratorium an unnecessary job-killer, which has failed to recognize the wider economic impacts on fishing and tourism and local economies of Gulf Coast cities.

However, DOI’s rebuttal is to point out that federal regulation 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(1) allows it to “suspend or temporary prohibition any operation or activity, including production, pursuant to any lease or permit….if there is a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to life including fish or other aquatic life, to property …or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.”

Even though the initial moratorium was struck down by a federal judge and DOI’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit was denied, what the court did say is that the administration could seek emergency relief against offshore drilling. Consequently, on July 12th, Secretary Salazar imposed a second suspension based on “equipment configuration used in conduction deepwater operations.” Meaning all operations using subsea blowout preventers (BOPs) or surface BOPs on a floating facility must have certified inspections before continuing its activities.

Essentially, while the administration cannot get the courts to support its moratorium, it is doing an end run by imposing a “moratorium via technicalities.” Prior to the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20th, which killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, the MMS agency granted 14 permits a month for the previous 11 months. Since the explosion, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has granted only four permits in the 500-foot “shallow GOM.”

Government versus BP

BP has suspended all dividends to its stockholders and is in the process of selling $30 billion of assets around the world. Additionally, it has set up a $20 billion escrow fund over the next four years to pay damage claims and government penalties and has agreed to contribute $100 million to a foundation to support rig workers who have lost their jobs due to the moratorium. Furthermore, the company has donated $32 million to Florida’s tourism marketing fund as well as providing $15 million each to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to assist in their tourism efforts.

However, on July 30th, the House passed a bill to bar any company from receiving drill permits on the OCS if it has had more than 10 deaths occur at an offshore or onshore facility and bans permits to any company with fines of $10 million or more under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts in a seven-year period. While BP was not mentioned specifically, it doesn’t take a fourth-grader to figure out whom Representative George Miller (D-CA) was targeting when he wrote the provision. And, while the senate version does not specifically have the same language, it does allow regulators to deny leases to companies with safety or environmental problems.

BP operates 89 production wells and shares in a stake in 60 other wells in the GOM. It produces 400,000 barrels per day, which accounts for about 20 percent of total production in the deepwater GOM. The GOM to BP is worth around $5 -$7 billion annually in profits, which is about 25 percent of the company’s total. So, if BP is not allowed to operate in the GOM, it will not be able to meet its financial obligations and the US tax payer will be on the hook. Considering the massive US deficits already impeding the American recovery, the administration should do everything within its power to ensure BP gets back on its feet.

Higher Costs in the GOM

As US lawmakers impose stringent regulations on the industry to ensure another catastrophe won’t happen again, they would be wise to recognize the long term economic ramifications. Drilling and production costs are projected to skyrocket in the near-term with legislative proposals such as raising the financial responsibility for an oil spill to $10 billion or possibly removing the cap altogether.

Future insurance cost will surely be off-the-charts for operators meaning only companies with the financial wherewithal will be able to do business in the GOM. From here on out corporate boards will be reassessing the financial opportunities against the onerous liabilities.

The Department of Energy (DOE) statistics show more than 36,000 wells have been drilled sine the 1950s. Other than the Macondo blowout, the only other accident took place in Mexico when the Ixtoc well blew in 1979. Small companies and independents will have to form consortiums and merge in order to do business in the offshore GOM because it is estimated that BP has spent $6 billion on the spill cost as well as its overall liability being $32.2 billion, and who knows what costs compliance will bring.

DOI Convenes Town Hall Meeting and Webcast

On September 21st, the DOI held a meeting of scientists, government and industry stakeholders at its headquarters in DC. And, while there weren’t any surprises about lifting the ‘technical moratorium’ or getting oil production back to work in the GOM. Secretaries Salazar and Chu made it clear that the DOI and DOE would continue its investigation of the causes for the explosion, and that more science and oversight was required before haphazardly allowing drilling in the deepwater to continue.

The science they are speaking of will come from DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, NOAA, and the EPA, because the old approach of depending on information from the oil industry is passé and unreliable. Remember, the US government is to blame for the lack scientific data provided by the old MMS, because during the 80s and 90s and throughout the 96’ to 06’ moratorium scientific budgets were cut to the bone. The DOI is considering appointing an independent science director to work with federal agencies to analyze deepwater drilling data. Also, the meeting made it clear that more government oversight is required, along with more inspectors and bureaucrats, but the obvious question is where will the money come from? Well, we all know where it’s coming from, the oil companies and, ultimately, you and I.

Zero Failures, No Accidents, No Fatalities, and No Spills

During testimony before Congressional hearings about the Macondo spill, oil company executives made it clear the BP operation was an aberration of normal well management operations. In response to DOI’s moratorium, which is impacting industry revenues, coastal communities and employment, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Shell have announced a rapid response company.

The oil majors have formed the Marine Well Containment Company in the event of future underwater well blowouts in the GOM. The new company will be capable of mobilizing within 24 hours and can capture and contain oil rapidly. The company will engineer equipment that can be used in 10,000 feet of water and have the initial capability of handing 100,000 barrels per day. More importantly, the companies have committed $1 billion in funding for the organization.

With less than five weeks before the moratorium (that doesn’t’ exist) comes to an end, the administration should deal with the reality that the Gulf Coast economy is truly in distress. It is being propped up by the cleanup and artificially being infused by BP’s dwindling assets. When BP is broke and the boats and men come home, Gulf Coast economies and its way of life will be in absolute shambles and an American asset and paradise will resemble the unemployed and decaying industrial north.

Tony Munoz can be contacted at tonymunoz@maritime-executive.com with comments, input and quetions on this editorial.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Miami Herald: Efforts to clean up Gulf oil continue in Louisiana

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/21/v-print/1835106/oil-spill-response-head-tours.html#ixzz10FkRSWeU

Posted on Tue, Sep. 21, 2010

By KEVIN McGILL
Associated Press Writer

Crews on fishing boats with giant vacuums sucked up pools of oil near a small Louisiana barrier island Tuesday as officials sought to reassure residents that the cleanup continues even though no crude has leaked in two months.

Coast Guard Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft, who is overseeing the cleanup, said about 23,000 workers are still employed in the effort, about 80 percent of them in Louisiana.

No oil has leaked from the BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico since July 15. The well was declared dead Sunday after engineers pumped in cement from to stop up the bottom.

While oil has not been gushing into the Gulf, it continues to come ashore on coastal islands and wetlands in Louisiana. Local officials are worried cleanup efforts won’t be maintained to catch as much of it as possible.

Last week, BP said it was ending a program that employed boat captains as scouts for oil in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi.

The company called the vessels of opportunity program a success, although it was criticized for hiring recreational boats and out-of-state craft while some local commercial boats sat idle.

The boats looked for oil on the coast and helped in the cleanup by skimming for oil and deploying oil barriers.

Later Tuesday, Zukunft told reporters during a conference call that crews continue to respond to pockets of oil washing up along 600 miles of coastline. Besides oil in marshes and on beaches, officials also are focused on monitoring what is below the surface of the water, he said.

While acknowledging oil continues to come ashore in some areas, Zukunft and other Coast Guard officials said that marsh grasses appeared to be recovering. Oil making its way to shore is lighter and sparser.

The BP-leased rig Deepwater Horizon exploded off the Louisiana coast on the night of April 20, killing 11 workers and setting off a massive spill that ultimately led to more than 200 million gallons of oil spewing from BP’s undersea well.

Crude first washed ashore near the mouth of the Mississippi River on April 29. It fouled marshes, caused the closing of fishing grounds and sparked an intense environmental debate over long-term impact of oil in the water and at the bottom of the Gulf.

So far, BP said the effort to shut down the well and clean up the spill has cost $9.5 billion, not including a $20 billion fund the London-based company established to handle claims from individuals and businesses claiming damage from the spill.

On Tuesday, Zukunft reflected on the massive cleanup effort.

“If you were here in June or July you’d have been in thick black oil,” Zukunft said as the fishing boat he was aboard floated on oil free water.

Zukunft estimated that about 900 Vessels of Opportunity are still operating in Louisiana waters, deploying boom where needed or hauling in boom that is damaged or contaminated with oil. He said it was too early to estimate when or how quickly that number would be reduced, saying it will depend on weather and the condition and amount of oil that comes in. Vessels of Opportunity is a BP program that pays boat operators knocked out of work by the spill to assist with response activities.

A few feet away the oil spill effect was still evident. Strands of absorbent boom washed inland by rough weather littered the edge of the island, laying amid dead brown grass lining the perimeter of the lining the island.

Zukunft’s tour came a day after the Unified Area Command that was formed in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill announced that it was consolidating command Posts in Houma, La., and Mobile, Ala., into a single Gulf Coast Incident Management Team in New Orleans. Zukunft said that would result in a staff reduction of about 1,800 people.

© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. http://www.miamiherald.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

UK Financial Times: BP leak just a bump in road for oil industry

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a10d9c1e-c428-11df-b827-00144feab49a.html

By Ed Crooks in New York
Published: September 19 2010 22:13 | Last updated: September 19 2010 22:13

Workers vacuum up oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill. Heavy oiling remains in Louisiana

For the people of the Gulf of Mexico region, the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been a nightmare of polluted coastlines and threatened livelihoods.

For BP, the crisis has been shattering, putting the future of the company in jeopardy.
For the global oil industry, it looks like being no more than a bump in the road towards further exploitation of deepwater oil reserves, even in the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil companies worldwide have reviewed their practices following the spill, but have generally insisted that their systems remain safe and robust, and that no fundamental changes are needed.

After the big flaws in the US offshore regulatory system exposed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the regulation of the Gulf of Mexico will inevitably become tighter, but industry executives believe the US will not be willing to shut off such an important source of future domestic oil production.

Christophe de Margerie, the chief executive of Total of France, one of the ?western world’s five biggest oil groups, said last week that oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico was likely to take 20 per cent longer and cost 20 per cent more as a result of new US regulations, but that the development of the deepwater reserves of the region would continue.

Globally, countries such as Libya, Greenland, Ghana and the UK have all said that they plan to press ahead with the exploitation of their own deepwater resources.

A typical view was set out last week by Khalid al-Falih, the chief executive of Saudi Aramco, in an interview with the Financial Times.

The company, the world’s biggest oil producer, has looked at the lessons it can learn from BP, but concluded that there is no reason to delay or modify its plans to drill for gas and oil in the deep waters of the Red Sea in 2012.

At last week’s World Energy Congress in Montreal, some executives called for new global safety standards for the industry in order to restore public confidence.

Miguel Martínez, chief operating officer of Repsol YPF, the Spanish oil group that is an important player in the development of Brazil’s deepwater reserves, suggested the leading companies might be able to agree such new standards between themselves.

One area in which companies have already begun to make progress is in developing systems for responding to a spill, which were shown to be manifestly inadequate for BP and the industry as a whole in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, admitted in June that the company did not have all the tools available to stop a blow-out on the seabed in 5,000 feet of water.

Four of the world’s biggest oil companies, pointedly excluding BP, in July announced a plan to set up a new $1bn joint venture to develop a new oil spill response and containment system for the Gulf of Mexico, and the industry is likely to be asked to put similar arrangements in place in other countries as well. Again, however, these new precautions are unlikely to hold back deepwater old production for long.

The greatest test of the longer-term impact of the spill may be in the US Congress, where it will become clear whether or not the disaster has assisted the passage of new legislation aimed at supporting renewable energy.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Livescience: Environment: Degraded Oil From BP Spill Coats Gulf Seafloor

http://www.livescience.com/environment/gulf-oil-spill-underwater-plumes-100921.html

By Brett Israel
posted: 21 September 2010 05:45 pm ET
NEW YORK – Now that BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil well has been sealed, the long, hard work of assessing the damage begins even as the oil is dispersing throughout the Gulf.
A research team from Columbia University in New York returned this past weekend (Sept. 17 to 19) from a tour of duty in the Gulf of Mexico with new data to attempt to measure the location and magnitude of subsurface oil plumes, and their effects on the marine ecosystem, which have recently been the focus of much debate.
They found oil on the seafloor, evidence that it may be in the food chain, and signs that it may be hidden in large marine mammals. In spots, the “oily snow” — degraded oil and other organic material that clings to it — was up to 6 inches (15 centimeters) deep on the seafloor, said Columbia oceanographer Ajit Subramaniam.
“The idea that the oil is degraded and therefore doesn’t matter is something we have to think about differently,” Subramaniam said at a talk here today. “This is one of the first findings that showed degraded oil material collected on the seafloor.”
When this gunk starts to pile up on the sea floor, the entire food web is at risk, the researchers said. The oceanographers also discovered discolored zooplankton, which eat the food chain’s primary producers °©– phytoplankton – near oily clouds, Subramaniam said. The full analysis of the effects to the food chain, however, will take several months.
While the deep-ocean effects are largely out of sight, the Gulf’s large mammals — including whales and dolphins — were also hit hard by the oil spill. Yet the true impact may take years to uncover.
“We really don’t know much about the effect of the oil spill in cetaceans, because the effects are likely to be long term,” said marine mammal expert Martin Mendez of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Scientists have found 89 dead dolphins and one dead whale in the Gulf since the oil began pouring into the Gulf, Mendez said.
Of the dolphins, one-quarter will undergo necropsies so scientists can say for sure whether or not they died because of the oil. The whale was found floating far from the wellhead and was degraded to the point that a necropsy could not be performed. Something has clearly gone wrong however, because 89 dead dolphins is about 10 times the amount typically found in the Gulf over a similar time period.
The Columbia oceanographers’ data will help researchers track the physical and ecological impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. When BP’s oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana on April 22, the ruptured oil well began emptying an estimated 136.4 tons of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
After a relief well was drilled to intercept the well, the gusher was finally sealed on Sept. 18 with a blast of cement to cap the busted pipe.
An estimated 4.4 million barrels of oil (205 million gallons) have leaked into the Gulf since the spill began, but little oil has squirted out since July 15, when a cap was installed and sealed on the wellhead.

Brett Israel is a staff writer for OurAmazingPlanet, a sister site of LiveScience.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

American Institute of Biological Sciences: Joint Society Statement on Public Access to Independent Scientific Research Assessments of the Gulf of Mexico

http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/20100915_september_2010.html

September 15, 2010

*AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES * AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY * AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY * COASTAL & ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION * COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEANS AND DIRECTORS * CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA * ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA * NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT * NATURAL SCIENCE COLLECTIONS ALLIANCE * NORTH AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY * ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL * SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY * SOCIETY OF WETLAND SCIENTISTS * SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA

——————————————————————————–

Re: Public access to independent scientific research assessments of the Gulf

Dear Senator:

As scientific organizations, we are concerned with the issue of intellectual property rights and ownership of research results that arise in the aftermath of incidents caused by industry, most recently, the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The public needs access to results and conclusions not affected by legal wrangling or private ownership. We are writing specifically to request that a source of independent funding for research on actual or potential industry impacts be available and dispersed from an independent source.

After the Alaska oil spill in 1989, researchers studying its effects on natural systems were prevented from publishing or reporting on their findings, because the responsible company (Exxon) owned the research. Some steps towards a solution were taken since the Valdez spill. One is the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) fund, administered by trustees in state and federal government agencies, usually resource agencies. Another is the Oil Pollution Trust Fund, established by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act and administered by the Coast Guard.

While these two funds do not directly place an embargo on scientists’ data, there are cases where government attorneys may want to sequester data, for example, while court cases are being litigated. In addition, provisions in both funds can be overridden if court settlements between the responsible parties (the companies) and the government agencies allow restrictions on release of the data. All the legal maneuvering leads to a stringent cap on what information is released to the public until such time as the case is resolved. This should be avoided. While confidentiality agreements play an important role in a fair legal process, researchers are equally deserving of the right to an open exchange of scientific data and analysis.

Letting the research community have access to external funding through a competitive research program will help the nation develop new understanding and approaches. The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Rapid Response Research grants program (RAPID) is one such program that provides researchers with funds to study the impacts of the Gulf oil disaster on coastal and marine life in the Gulf of Mexico with quick turnaround. NSF, which has a peer-review system in place and encourages dissemination of results, has made more than 153 awards totaling $17.8 million to track the effects of the oil and oil dispersants.

S. 3663, the Clean Energy Jobs Oil Accountability Act, would help fund research to better understand and manage the nation’s waters and marine and aquatic resources, including the Gulf of Mexico. The bill proposes an independent panel composed of a mix of federal agency representatives, academics and others to review grant proposals to gain greater understanding of ocean and coastal ecosystems and marine resources.

We encourage you to support the preservation of the Senate bill provisions as well as additional statutes as needed to ensure that scientists retain their right to independent peer-reviewed study. Maintaining public access to candid, comprehensive and qualitative impact assessments will ultimately encourage better management, restoration and stewardship of all our nation’s ecosystems and natural resources.

Thank you for considering these points.

Sincerely,

American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation
Council of Environmental Deans and Directors
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
National Council for Science and the Environment
Natural Science Collections Alliance
North American Benthological Society
Ornithological Council
Society for Conservation Biology Society of Wetland Scientists Soil Science Society of America

Special thanks to Erika Biddle and Tina Johnson

Greenpeace: Going Beyond Oil Blogpost 9/21/10


© Will Rose / Greenpeace

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/going-beyond-oil/blog/26454

Blogpost by Philip_Radford – September 21, 2010 at 19:32 PM 2 comments

Despite the overwhelming evidence that Big Oil’s reckless pursuit of the last remaining oil reserves (and ever-more exorbitant profits) is disastrous for the planet, governments of the world are still greenlighting dangerous deepwater drilling projects.

That’s why this morning two Greenpeace activists locked down the anchor chain of Chevron’s drill ship the Stena Carron, which was scheduled to depart for a deepwater drilling site north of Scotland’s Shetland Islands. While our activists physically prevent one more irresponsible drilling project from getting underway, we’re calling on all governments to ban deepwater drilling once and for all.

The action was launched from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, which was also the base of operations for the activists who staged a 40-hour occupation of Cairn Energy’s Stena Don oil rig off the coast of Greenland earlier this month. There is real danger that the Stena Don could spark an Arctic oil rush, which would pose a huge threat to the climate and put the fragile Arctic environment at risk. So, for nearly two days, Greenpeace activists prevented this dangerous drilling operation from proceeding to threaten any more marine life and coastal ecosystems with catastrophic oil spills.

© Greenpeace

This is as much a moral issue as an environmental issue. We don’t fully understand the long-term effects of oil spills like the BP Deepwater Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We need independent science to find out what those will be. All we do know for certain is that the oil and its impacts will persist for decades. Surely we can all agree that we owe our children a healthy planet to live on? And unfortunately, as is now all-too clear, expanding offshore drilling operations is incompatible with keeping our planet healthy enough to support future generations.

That’s why we’re not only working to stop more dangerous drilling, we’re also seeking to get to the truth about the impacts of oil spills. Our ship, the Arctic Sunrise, is now halfway through its three-month expedition in the Gulf and has hosted several teams of independent scientists who are working to understand where all of BP’s oil has gone and what it’s doing to marine wildlife and ecosystems in the Gulf. You can stay up do date with the crew’s findings via our Google Earth map, which is tracking blog posts, pictures, and videos coming from the crew onboard the ship.

If you want to know even more about the long-term effects of oil spills and how we can prevent future oil spills from happening, tune in this Friday to the blogger briefing Greenpeace is hosting as part of UN Week. Greenpeace USA’s Kert Davies is onboard the Arctic Sunrise in the Gulf right now and will be participating in the briefing as well as answering your questions live via video Skype.

We’re not just against oil, we’re for clean, sustainable energy. Sven Teske, the author of our Energy [R]evolution report, will be taking part in the briefing to discuss how expanding our offshore drilling operations is not only dangerous, but unnecessary. We can get to 80 percent renewable energy globally by 2050, and we’d be creating 12 million jobs by 2030 in the process.

A clean energy revolution would not only help stop global warming and get our ailing economy back on track, but it is also the only 100 percent fail-safe method for preventing oil spills. That’s because the only way to stop oil spills is to leave the oil in the ground (or hundreds of feet under the sea, as the case may be). We can’t do that until we move beyond oil and other fossil fuels as our primary energy sources.

Greenpeace will continue to confront reckless new oil drilling operations and bring attention to the issue, but we need to build a widespread movement that demands we go beyond oil as soon as possible. Join us on the blogger briefing this Friday to find out how you can help get us there.

CBS: NEW ORLEANS TV STATION FINDS OIL SPILL COVERUP; CONGRESSMAN CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/NEW_ORLEANS_TV_STATION_FINDS_OIL_SPILL_COVERUP_CONGRESSMAN_CALLS_FOR_INVESTIGATION/33602

The video report is more descriptive so go to the link:

Published 09/17/2010 – 9:22 a.m. CST

Local CBS affiliate WWL TV of New Orleans uncovered an attempt by the Presidential Commission on the oil spill to “chill” independent research which is finding extremely dangerous levels of toxic material in gulf waters and seafood, including shrimp and oysters. These researchers are presenting their findings today in New Orleans at the Loyola University Symposium on the status of the oil catastrophe, and their findings contradict the government’s official announcement that there is no contamination. Congressman Anh Cao who sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has called for an investigation into the matter.

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law presents “The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill-A Billion Pound Dossier,” a legal and environmental examination of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The symposium will be held on Friday, Sept. 17, from 1:15 – 5:30 p.m., in Loyola’s College of Law, 526 Pine Street, Room 405. It is free and open to the public. A reception will follow.

Panelists include Stuart H. Smith, J.D. ’86, a longtime Loyola supporter and environmental advocate (Smith Stag, L.L.C.), Joel Waltzer (Waltzer & Wiygul) and Mitch Crusto, an expert on disaster and environmental management (College of Law, Loyola University New Orleans).

Public health, as well as coastal ecosystems, marine life, plant and wildlife will be the focus of the second panel (approximately 3 pm). Particular emphasis will be placed on documenting environmental contamination and natural resources damages. Panelists include William R. Sawyer, Ph.D. (Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, L.L.C.), Marco Kaltofen (Boston Chemical Data Corp.), Anthony Ladd, Ph.D. (Department of Sociology, Loyola University New Orleans), LuAnn E. White, Ph.D. (Tulane Center for Applied Environmental Public Health) and Paul Barnes, Ph.D. (Department of Biological Sciences, Loyola University New Orleans).

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Vanity Fair: Letter from the Gulf — The Oil and the Turtles


Ridley-turtle hatchlings head into the Gulf in Tamaulipas, Mexico.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/ridley-turtles-201009

Letter from the Gulf
The Oil and the Turtles

Every year, Rancho Nuevo, 900 miles southwest of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, sees a spectacular phenomenon: the arribada-mass nesting-of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, which has already neared extinction. This year, thousands of baby ridleys swam off toward a deadly new enemy.

By Alex Shoumatoff*
Photograph by Gary Braasch

WEB EXCLUSIVE September 21, 2010

Of all the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the Deepwater Horizon blowout, no one single species is being directly affected as much as the critically endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Only 8,000 adult females nested in 2009, and the adult males are thought to be even fewer. Those that remain have been hit hard. Most of the surviving juveniles inhabit the waters 20 to 30 miles from shore, feeding and growing in the same currents and gyres that collected the bulk of the four million barrels spewed by the now capped well. There were confirmed reports of ridleys being burned alive in the pools of corralled, concentrated oil that BP had been burning off during the spill.

Almost every gravid female ridley lays her eggs on a single beach in Tamaulipas, Mexico, coming ashore in a unique mass-nesting event known as the arribada-the arrival. Kemp’s cousins in the Pacific, the Olive ridleys, also do this, but the other five sea-turtle species (and a small percentage of ridleys) are solitary nesters and don’t always return to the same place. The arribadas happen at Rancho Nuevo-a beach 900 miles southwest from the blowout. It’s only 200 miles south of Brownsville, Texas. Not a bad drive, only I’m told it’s too dangerous because three warring factions of narcotrafficantes-the Gulf cartel, the Zetas (former hit men of the cartel), and a local mafia called La Maña-have been having shoot-outs along it. Instead, I fly to Tampico, the sleepy port where the opening scene of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was filmed, which is 60 miles south of Rancho Nuevo. (Not that Tampico is immune to the violence; the week before I arrive, the naked bodies of five policemen were found hanging from one of its bridges, I am told by a fellow gringo who narrowly escaped being shaken down at one of the narcos’ impromptu roadblocks right in the city.) I’m met at the airport by two people from the federal agency that manages Mexico’s protected areas, and they whisk me to the nearby Hampton Inn for the night.

In the morning we are driven to the Rancho Nuevo beach reserve by its director Dr. Gloria Tavera. Its 20 miles of wild white sand are patrolled three times a day by guards on A.T.V.’s, and 20 times a day or more during nesting season. Dr. Tavera tells me that the arribadas are over, but that the white ping-pong-ball-size eggs, having incubated for 45 days, are starting to hatch.

Sure enough, at five a.m. on the second morning, we jump onto four-wheelers and bomb down to the South Corral, four miles from the camp, where dozens of the 800 nests from the June 3 arribada are erupting with hatchlings, about 90 per nest. The babies are three inches long and look like black rubber-toy turtles. They crawl down to the surf and, as soon as they hit the water, their angled forelimbs begin to flap wildly. Then they’re pulled into the breaking waves by the undertow and are off, on their own, into the great unknown. Guided by pure instinct, fueled by the remaining yoke in their waterproof belly sacs, they will swim straight out for five days or so until they hit the mats of sargassum, a golden-brown, free-floating marine algae (these lines of sargassum are often only 20 or 30 feet wide, but can extend for miles, and offer cover and food for the hatchlings). We don’t know how many hatchlings will survive to adulthood, but the most common ballpark estimate is only one in a thousand. Many will be picked off by sharks, many other species of fish, dolphins, and sea birds. Everything wants to eat them. But many more than usual will die when the clockwise currents of the Gulf carry the turtles directly up into the area contaminated by the Deepwater Horizon spill. “The internal damage from the hydrocarbons to the organs of the ridleys could make them unable to reproduce,” Dr. Tavera tells me. “That would mean extinction. But nobody knows.”
Her fears could be well founded. A new study of shorebirds finds that the ingestion of only a small amount of oil can cause lasting changes in brain function and behavior. The males’ pheromones are inhibited so they stop doing their mating behavior.

Conservationists rallied round the ridley in 1978, when human predation left them hanging by a thread. Poaching of the eggs-rich and delicious, they had long been part of the local diet-was stopped, and in l986, when only 600 females came back to nest at Rancho Nuevo, an American law was passed requiring shrimp fishermen meeting certain criteria to equip their nets with escape holes for turtles known as TEDs (turtle excluder devices). For a time, it was working. In 2009 there were 21,000 nests. Six thousand females came ashore over a two-day period that May, the biggest arribada in the 40-year history of the conservation program at Rancho Nuevo. But this year there were only 13,115 nests, the result of a record cold winter followed by three months of red tide, a toxic algae bloom that prevented the females from being able to access the beach. Then, on June 30, the beach was slammed by Hurricane Alex, and a thousand more nests were lost.
Barbara Schroeder, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in Silver Spring, Maryland, thinks the spill is unlikely to spell the end of the ridley but it “is definitely a setback to the turtle’s recovery. We are going to have to enhance our efforts to get the species back on the trajectory it was on, and we will need to re-look at the most significant human threats-bycatch from shrimp and other trawlers and gill nets, hook and line-fishing, and boat strikes.”

That the four million barrels of oil seem to be dissipating more quickly than expected does not mean the turtles will no longer be affected. The oil below the surface concerns many experts. Kemp’s ridleys in nearshore areas feed on the bottom, which means they have to dive through the oil. What’s more, this relatively quick disappearance of the large oil pools was achieved because BP dumped nearly two million gallons of the highly toxic chemical dispersant Corexit into the Gulf-in some cases, without the necessary approval of the Environmental Protection Agency. Corexit, used to break up large pools of oil in water, is an alarmingly unknown entity. Scientists in Louisiana are just beginning to study its effects on marine life in the Gulf. They’ve discovered high levels of it in blue-crab larvae, which suggests the poison may have already entered the food chain, just in time for the start of Louisiana’s shrimp season. Blue crabs are the ridley’s favorite food.

Ed Clark, the president of the Wildlife Center of Virginia, who has been treating oiled wildlife for 28 years, tells me that the dispersant is like “putting a coat of new paint on a junk car.” The official marine-life casualty numbers, Clark maintains, are grossly underestimated. “If they’re saying 400 turtles were killed, I’d bet my house it’s more like 4,000,” he says.

“BP is responsible for the damages”-up to $50,000 per turtle, as per the Endangered Species Act-”but it is incumbent on the government to prove what [the damages] are,” says Clark. He has heard rumors that the cleanup crews on Grand Isle, Louisiana, which are mainly made up of prisoners, were bagging dead turtles and birds in plastic bags marked for incineration because no one from Fish and Wildlife responded to their calls. The F.W.S. agents were mainly focused on federally owned coastline. It may go beyond unresponsive government agencies. Clark also heard rumors that BP was deliberately burning oiled sargassum, even though living sea turtles were known to be still in the floating mats.

So the crisis isn’t over, as BP and the government would have you believe. It’s only beginning. The biological consequences of this disaster will be felt for years, over generations, like Chernobyl. And we may never know how bad it was.

Alex Shoumatoff is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

National Science Foundation: Hidden Oil and Gas Plumes in the Gulf

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/hiddenoilplumes.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_196

September 20, 2010

Below the surface, thousands of marine creatures are still in danger from Gulf oil disaster

University of Georgia oceanographer Samantha Joye, like most scientists, always has a plan. Especially when it involves complex, expensive research cruises.

But the Deepwater Horizon oil well blowout, and the enormous environmental destruction it is causing, forced her to change the way she works.

“As an oceanographer, you are trained to make these detailed cruise plans,” notes Joye. “Everything is just so, ‘I’m going to be here on day one and here on day ten’.”

Days after the BP oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 people, Joye got the wheels in motion to submit a proposal for a “Grant for Rapid Response Research” from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Her goal was to investigate underwater oil and gas plumes, and determine how this disaster was impacting deepwater organisms.

Within a week, NSF approved the grant. Joye and her team from the University of Georgia, along with researchers from several other universities, spent May 24 through June 6, 2010 aboard the University of Miami research vessel, Walton Smith, departing from Gulfport, Miss.

“I don’t think I’ve ever flown by the seat of my pants the way we were flying there. But these are dynamic features, changing every single day,” says Joye.
One complication of this trip: the smells of the huge amount of hydrocarbons that started spewing on April 20th. It could sometimes be overpowering.

“It was nauseating,” says Joye. She described the intense smell as something like a cross between diesel fuel, creosote, and gasoline.

“Just wretched, wretched, dense air and it’s hot, it’s humid, and the air is just saturated with these very uncomfortable smells,” she explains.

The scientists and the ship’s crew had to wear respirators and protective suits at times, especially near “ground zero” where the blowout occurred.

Joye is a biogeochemist, who studies the natural seepage of oil and gas from the floor of the Gulf. At the time, the natural seepage rate in the Gulf of Mexico was on the order of 1,000 barrels a day, over the entire Gulf. But in a 20-mile-long, 3-mile-wide oil and gas plume Joye tracked, the amount of oil and gas was off the charts.

“The gas concentrations are outrageously high. We have measured concentrations up to 100,000 times what we typically see in the Gulf of Mexico,” says Joye.

Some deepwater creatures in the Gulf process tiny amounts of oil and gas that occur normally in the water.

“There is a whole slew of organisms that depend on these natural seeps, and in these ecosystems, the one thing that these organisms need that can be taken away by this oil spill is oxygen,” explains Joye. “That’s because they eat oil and gas but the bacteria that sustain them are oxygen-requiring bacteria. So without oxygen, they can’t survive.”

Joye says that methane gas could create more zones of low oxygen in the Gulf, possibly choking off these deep water ecosystems.

To give a human equivalent, Joye says, “It would be like having your Thanksgiving dinner, but suddenly the living room is filled with argon or CO2 instead of oxygen. There’s all this food around you, but you can’t eat it because you are suffocating.”

Joye says this prolonged environmental tragedy has had a profound impact on those who study life in the Gulf.

“I would characterize it as a transformative event because it changed the way I approached what I was doing. It was a disaster response instead of just a research cruise. There was this sense of urgency that I can’t describe in words,” says Joye.

Two of her students also were motivated to work as hard, and for as long as they possibly could, each day on the ship.

Microbiologist Melitza Crespo-Medina is a University of Georgia postdoctoral student.

“We started working at 9 a.m. until 1 or 2 in the morning. It was really intensive,” says Crespo-Medina. “And I really remember this water looked clear, absolutely clear, but I remember the smell of it, I can’t believe this water that looks clear smells so much like gas, like diesel. And that sticks in my mind.”

The research cruise was the first-ever for undergraduate ecology student Chassidy Mann.

“So the experience wasn’t just collecting the data, the experience wasn’t just being amidst other people, it was science exploration, and for me, it was unparalleled to anything I have ever experienced,” says Chassidy.
One night, the rescue of a single, oil-soaked bird had an impact on everyone on the ship.

“He was exhausted. His wings were covered in oil, his eyes, [and] his mouth. It was just gut-wrenching and everyone was in tears, myself included. You see this innocent animal, doing the same thing that it had done for all of its life. And instantly, he is coated in this stuff that weighs down his wings. And there’s just this look of desperation and fear in his eyes,” says Joye. “Animals like that bird, whales, and sea turtles, and fish, and every organism that inhabits the Gulf of Mexico are being exposed to an atrocity.”

What has frustrated Joye and many other scientists since this disaster began is the lack of information about the precise amount of oil and gas that has spewed from the well site.

“It took two months to nail down the magnitude of this spill. I’m still not convinced that it’s an accurate number; 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day, that doesn’t even include gas flux. The gas flux is probably another 30 percent on top of that,” she says.

Shortly after she returned from this research cruise, Joye testified before Congress about some of her initial findings, and the very long road ahead for the recovery of the Gulf.

“In my congressional testimony, one of the biggest things I hammered again and again was the need to document the size of this spill,” she says. “You can’t even begin to fathom the environmental implications if you don’t know how much gas and oil have come out of this wellhead.”

Since this NSF cruise, the Deepwater Horizon well has been capped. But Joye wants to make sure the public knows that just because the oil is no longer gushing out, the problems are far from over. She is especially concerned about the dispersants used to break up the oil and gas, to try to keep it from reaching shore.

The dispersant has not been widely tested on marine organisms, according to Joye. And it makes locating plumes of oil and gas much more difficult, even impossible, with satellite imagery.

“The volume, the sheer magnitude of dispersant application is mind-boggling. The fact is that we have no idea what this could do to the system. The dispersant is a complex chemical milieu of who knows what,” explains Joye. “It [the use of dispersants] does one thing really well. It masks the magnitude of the spill, and it potentially does many, many things badly.”

Joye wants a closer look at safety issues in offshore drilling. She also sees this horrible incident as a wakeup call for everyone when it comes to energy use.
“The impact of this is big, and it’s wide, and it’s bad, and it’s ugly. The global appetite for oil and gas is driven by each one of us,” says Joye. “And until each one of us changes our attitude, it’s not going to get any better.”

Miles O’Brien, Science Nation Correspondent
Marsha Walton, Science Nation Producer

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Truthout: University Group Raises Concerns About BP Oil Spill Contaminants in Livestock Feed

http://www.truth-out.org/university-groups-raises-bp-oil-spill-contaminants-entering-food-supply63367

This kind of information–about our U.S. C.G. being complicit in covering up oil spill problems–makes me angry and disappointed. How does it come to this? Why? DV

Sunday 19 September 2010
by: Chris Rodda, t r u t h o u t | Report

(Photo: Kean University/Be The Change)

Over the Labor Day weekend, the Perdido Bay Mullet Festival in Lillian, Alabama had to do something it’s never had to do before — substitute catfish for mullet. Why? Because, according to event organizer Bill Cornell, the company that supplies the mullet for the annual festival “didn’t feel good about the fish” and “won’t sell them for human consumption.” The seafood supplier, Wallace Seafood, had found unusual white spots on some of the mullet being caught, and won’t sell the fish until testing is completed to see if they’re safe to eat. According to the company’s Brent Wallace, “Mullet feed off the bottom and we don’t know what’s been down there.”

Another fisherman raised the same concern as Wallace Seafood — that mullet are bottom feeders so you don’t know what they’ve been eating — and added that because of their migratory nature, you also don’t know where they’ve been eating. This fisherman, nicknamed “Red,” who talked about the oil not being visible on the surface because the dispersants have made it sink down into the water, explained how mullet eat, sucking just about anything into what he called their “gizzard,” the black spot seen on the fish in the video below.

With the very unsurprising revelation reported by NPR last Monday that the oil from the BP oil spill isn’t gone, but has merely sunk to the sea floor, it’s no big leap to assume that the diet of these bottom-feeding, migratory fish is likely to include just about anything in that “fluffy and porous” layer of oil and “recently dead” things reported by Samantha Joye from the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia. As David Hollander of the University of South Florida is quoted as saying in the same NPR report, “A lot of fish go down to the bottom and eat and then come back up. And if all their food sources are derived from the bottom, then indeed you could have this impact.”

Bottom-feeding fish used as hog feed

Meanwhile, despite these concerns, bottom-feeding fish like mullet are currently being caught and eaten all over the Gulf, with the potential risk not being limited to direct human consumption of the fish, but indirectly by mullet being fed to hogs, as Dr. Norma Bowe of Kean University in New Jersey observed a few weeks ago. Striking up a conversation with some fishermen who were hauling in nets full of mullet from a pier in Long Beach, Mississippi, Dr. Bowe found out that one of the men was also a hog farmer who was catching the mullet to feed to his hogs. The hog farmer, who said he fishes from this pier every day, proudly told Bowe to just ask anybody and they’d tell her that his bacon, pork chops, ham hocks, and ribs are the best around, attributing the high quality of the meat from his hogs to their high protein fish diet. And, according to the fishermen that Bowe spoke to, these fish are also used in a variety of other products for both human and pet consumption — from Omega-3 fish oil supplements to cat food. Part of this conversation was caught on video by one of Bowe’s students.

Photos taken by Bowe and her students while this hog farmer was pulling in his catch show cleanup workers nearby in the background, obviously indicating that there was something very close to this pier in need of cleaning up. And, according to Bowe, the rocks under the pier were visibly coated with oil, which can clearly be seen in additional photos. Yet this pier is open for fishing. Was what Dr. Bowe and her students observed at this pier in Long Beach an isolated incident? Not according to “Red,” who has kept in touch with Bowe since her trip. “Red” reported finding crabs filled with oil just over a week ago at another pier in nearby Gulfport, which is also open for fishing.

Is the use of mullet as livestock feed an unusual practice? Not at all. Besides local hog farmers catching their own mullet to feed their own hogs, fish meal made from this type of fish is a common ingredient in commercially produced feed for both livestock and poultry, as well as feed for farm-raised seafood.

The initial concern of Dr. Bowe, who holds a Ph.D. in Community Health Policy, was the same as most other health professionals — the long term health effects of exposure to the oil and chemicals that people are coming in contact with: “My concern is for the public’s health. We know that short term exposure to the chemicals found in crude oil can cause skin rashes and lesions, headaches, fatigue, dizziness, and upper respiratory issues such as infections. Less is known about long term exposure, however benzene — a chemical contained in crude oil — is considered a carcinogen.” But, after the discovery that these same chemicals may be entering the food supply indirectly through livestock, Bowe added that studies of chemicals entering the food supply are also necessary: “Long term exposure studies are needed, as well as determining the effects if the chemicals reach the food supply.”

Is the FDA doing any special testing of this animal feed in the wake of the oil spill? Apparently not. In fact, Shannon Cameron, an FDA Health Communications Specialist, denied that Gulf fish are even being fed to livestock. In a message left in response to my question about whether or not testing was being done on the fish used in livestock feed, Cameron said, “I was forwarded your inquiry about Gulf fish being fed to livestock. It is not being fed to livestock.”

If Gulf fish are not being used for livestock feed, as Cameron asserts, then why would companies such as Omega Protein Corporation, which describes itself as “the nation’s largest manufacturer of heart-healthy fish oils containing Omega-3 fatty acids for human consumption, as well as specialty fish meals and fish oil used as value-added ingredients in aquaculture, swine and other livestock feeds,” be putting out press releases to its shareholders about the effects of the oil spill on its Gulf fishing operations? A June press release stated that “the Company’s Gulf of Mexico fish catch was 17 percent behind its Gulf of Mexico 2010 fish catch plan,” so the other 83 percent of its planned Gulf catch was obviously being caught.

The fish used by Omega Protein Corporation is menhaden, a forage fish which, like the mullet, has a filtering system. Prior to the BP oil spill, the biggest concern about menhaden was that their numbers were becoming so depleted because of their use in Omega-3 fish oil and livestock feed. In short, menhaden are a natural water filter, with each adult fish capable of filtering several gallons of water per minute, clearing the water of excess algae to allow the sunlight to get to oxygen producing undersea plant life. One can only guess what the menhaden in the Gulf are now filtering out of the water there.

Numerous samples now at Kean University for independent testing

Backing up a bit to explain how Kean University became involved in collecting samples from the Gulf, it all started in July, when Dr. Bowe and a group of students from the university’s Be the Change group took a trip to New Orleans to help an elderly woman whose home had been in need of repairs and painting since Hurricane Katrina. Months earlier, while planning this trip, the oil spill happened, so the students decided that after completing their volunteer project in New Orleans, they would spend a few days in the the area affected by the spill, volunteering to help with the cleanup. By July, however, the Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Command had seized control of volunteer efforts from the organizations that had been recruiting volunteers, so the group’s plan to volunteer through an organization they had contacted back in May was off. Undeterred, the students simply asked around and found the nearest beach where a cleanup effort was underway, still hoping to find a way to help. The beach they ended up on was in Pass Christian, Mississippi.

The disparities between what the group observed on this beach in July and what they were hearing from official sources made Bowe decide that she had to go back to find out what was really going on. So, on August 26, she returned, accompanied by two of the students from the first trip, Kayla Duncan and Nicolette Maggio. This time, Bowe was on a mission to collect samples for testing. And collect samples she did — over sixty of them — evading the obstacles reported by others, such as the confiscation of samples collected on public beaches, run-ins with local law enforcement, and the blocking of access to research sites to prevent non-BP or non-government scientists from doing independent testing.

While some of Bowe’s success in collecting such a large number of samples, many from areas that few have been able to access, can be chalked up to sheer resourcefulness, much more must be attributed to her people skills. By simply spending a little time with local workers and fishermen, and showing them that she was in this for the long haul, Bowe and her students quickly found themselves on a boat with “Red,” being taken to areas where the fishermen — probably the best judges of what doesn’t look right — thought that testing should be done, and what in particular they want to see tested.

The wide variety of samples collected on this trip are now in a lab at Kean, with the testing being performed by a group of scientists made up of Dr. Jeffrey Toney, the university’s Dean of Natural, Applied, and Health Sciences, (who is already covering the effects of the spill at NJ Voices), and other members of the science faculty. While all handling of the samples has been restricted to faculty members, one student, Mario DaCosta, will be permitted to observe and assist. As one of the students on Be The Change’s first Gulf trip in July, DaCosta, a chemistry major, has earned the opportunity to see the project through by being in on the sample testing.
In addition to the scores of water, sand, soil, plant, and biological samples collected by Bowe and her students, the samples now at Kean for testing include a few from other sources. One of these came from a tackle shop owner who, while cleaning up the mess that was washing up behind his shop, was told that he wasn’t allowed to be handling what was behind his shop because he didn’t have the proper training to be handling hazardous materials. The shop owner kept a sample of what he had been cleaning up, holding onto it until he could put it into good hands, and those hands were Dr. Bowe’s.

What’s up with the Coast Guard?

On the first trip in July, the Kean University group was told by an employee from the company doing the cleanup of the Pass Christian beach that he had been alarmed by the hundreds (if not thousands) of dead jellyfish that were covering the beach. The employee had reported his concerns to the Coast Guard, but was told by a Coast Guard scientist that the oily substance being left on the beach by the dead jellyfish was just the natural organic matter left when jellyfish decompose. Not buying this explanation, one of the students, Benito Nieves, snuck a sample of the decomposing jellyfish mess into a water bottle, and, although anyone with a properly functioning nose could tell that the substance in this water bottle was full of oil, the sample was delivered to Dr. Toney.

But this wasn’t the only thing that raised questions about the Coast Guard among the Kean students. On July 31, while the group was on the Pass Christian beach, a Coast Guard photographer arrived to shoot photos of the workers. The students took numerous photos of this Coast Guard photographer during the ten minutes that he was posing and shooting his photos of two workers. The students photos, a few of which are below, show exactly where the Coast Guard photographer and workers were positioned throughout the photo shoot.

But, in the final photo posted on the Coast Guard website, the workers, one of whom appears to be hard at work stirring the crystal clear water with his shovel, are not standing where the students’ photos show them being posed and photographed. According to the date and time listed on the Coast Guard website for this photo, there is no question that this was the photo that the students witnessed and photographed the Coast Guard photographer taking. (The second student photo above shows where the photographer and workers were positioned at 1:04 p.m. The time on this Coast Guard photo is 1:05 p.m.)

According to Bowe and her students, who had walked this entire stretch of beach, there was no place on this beach that looked anything like what appears in the Coast Guard photo. Here are some of the photos taken by the students, who, in addition to those already mentioned in this article, included Elissa Hyer, Alexandra Bastos, and Rebecca Bowe. This is what was on the beach right where the Coast Guard photographer was shooting his photo of the workers. (The video clip at the end pans around to show where the students took these photos in relation to the yellow boom where the Coast Guard photographer was positioned.)

Here’s another photo taken by the same Coast Guard photographer, on the same beach in Pass Christian a little earlier that same day, again showing crystal clear water and not a tar ball in sight.

But look at this video, released by the Coast Guard itself. The video, of the same two workers, in the same spot, shot by the same photographer, on the same day, shows water and sand not nearly as clean as in the photo, with the workers finding numerous tar balls. As they say on Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other.”

That many Mississippians can’t be wrong

The towns mentioned in this article — Pass Christian, Long Beach, and Gulfport — are three towns right in a row within a few miles of each other. This is the same stretch of Mississippi’s coast reported on by Truthout in Monday 13 September 2010′s article “Evidence Mounts of BP Spraying Toxic Dispersants.” It would be almost redundant to report any more of what the fishermen who talked to the Kean University group said they’ve seen, because it would essentially just confirm much of what Truthout’s Dahr Jamail was told by Pass Christian residents Shirley and Don Tillman, and what many other Mississipians have been saying. Unless one of the effects of the oil spill has been collective hallucinations, what these people are reporting is what’s really happening.

One thing should be added, however, about those suspicious out of state boats in BP’s Vessels Of Opportunity (VOO) program, described by the Tillman’s, which seem to be a subject of particular opprobrium to the local residents. These boats might not just have been brought in from other states, but from another country. Photos taken by the Kean students of one of these boats, on which little care was taken to completely cover up the boat’s prior information, show that this boat’s name was changed from the “Aarluk” to the “Sea Launch,” and “Biloxi” was slapped over “Upernavik.” Where is Upernavik? Well, that’s in Greenland.

Editor’s note: Rodda works for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, whose president and founder, Mikey Weinstein, is a member of Truthout’s Board of Advisers.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Associated Press: The well is dead, but Gulf challenges live on

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPnREe-2-wsDF7Unlu7HJZNLEOZQD9IB4ACG0

Now that the well is capped, hopefully attention will turn to the viability and health of the Gulf which is now at risk. The months to come will challenge us all as no easy solutions are at hand to deal with the monumental volumes of oil still left behind. DV

By ALLEN G. BREED (AP) – 3 hours ago

The “nightmare well” is dead. But the Gulf coast’s bad dream is far from over.
Federal officials declared Sunday that the well where the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded had finally been killed. Workers drilled a relief well into the damaged one and drove a cement stake deep into its oily, black heart.

Its official end came 11 years after Texaco first sank an exploratory well near that same spot 50 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, then moved on after finding it unprofitable. When BP PLC purchased the rights to explore for oil there in 2008, it held an in-house well-naming contest. The winning team chose the name Macondo, after the mythical town from Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel “One Hundred Years of Solitude.”

Carved out of a “paradise of dampness and silence,” the Macondo of the story is a cursed place, a metaphor for the fate awaiting those too arrogant to heed warning signs.
BP’s name choice came to seem prescient last April 20.

That day, an explosion on the rig – which had drilled the well and was in the process of capping it – killed 11 men instantly and started a slow-motion disaster that has jeopardized the livelihoods of legions of fishermen, hotel and restaurant workers, drilling employees and others.

In the three months before a temporary cap stemmed the flow from the blown-out well, as much as 172 million gallons of oil and millions of cubic feet of natural gas spewed into Gulf waters.

For those most directly affected by the spill – the ones who still await BP checks for lost wages and revenues, who live on beaches where oil mats are just now coming ashore – the feeling of helplessness remains raw, like a freshly stitched wound.

“If you had to live with all the uncertainty, for all those months,” says Mike Helmer, a fishing guide out of Lafitte, La. “I can promise you it’s not easy. And it’s not over.”

At the well’s death, Associated Press reporters who covered the disaster checked in with scientists awaiting test results, with business and legal analysts seeking answers and resolutions, and with Gulf residents looking to an uncertain future and struggling against the “quicksand of forgetfulness” that consumed the fictional Macondo. Here are their reports.
___

DRILLING FOR ANSWERS

Before the smoke even cleared, fingers of blame were pointing in many directions.
BP’s internal investigation, released earlier this month, accused subcontractor Halliburton of improperly cementing the well. It blamed rig owner Transocean Ltd. for problems with the blowout preventer on the seafloor a mile down. It even pointed at itself, acknowledging that if the results of a critical pressure test had been correctly interpreted, workers would have known something was horribly wrong in time to do something about it. (It was a BP engineer who once described Macondo as a “nightmare well.”)

While the company’s report went a long way toward previewing its legal strategy and explaining how a bubble of explosive gas made a 3-mile-plus journey from the bottom of the well to the drilling rig, it left many questions unanswered.

Those questions will be addressed by government investigators, other companies’ investigations, congressional committees and by examinations of key pieces of evidence plucked from the seafloor.

Some of those probes are looking specifically at factors BP downplayed – including the company’s well design.

The conclusions will help determine who is liable for the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, and what share of the blame – and of the bill – the various companies with ties to the rig and its equipment will be responsible for. Based on an upper estimate of the oil spilled, BP and others could be fined up to $5.4 billion for violating water pollution laws, or up to $21 billion if gross negligence is found.

The blowout preventer, perhaps the most critical piece of evidence, now sits under guard at a NASA facility in New Orleans, awaiting forensic analysis.

“The whole matter of the BOP, whether it worked or didn’t work … could change the whole outcome of the whole investigation,” says Daniel Becnel, an attorney representing a host of plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court case.

The examination, however, is not set to begin until at least Oct. 1, according to internal e-mails and court documents obtained by AP. Meanwhile, scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey are analyzing pieces of debris that rained down on an adjacent cargo ship, the Damon Bankston, during the blast.

This rocklike debris, which could be cement or chunks from the sea floor, will also help piece together what went wrong inside the well.

_ By DINA CAPPIELLO, Washington, D.C.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Los Angeles Times: Gulf Oil Spill: Bacteria mainly ate the gas, not the oil

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/gulf-oil-spill-bacteria-mainly-ate-the-gas-not-the-oil.html

Greenspace
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS FROM CALIFORNIA AND BEYOND

September 16, 2010 | 9:33 pm
Bacteria that attacked the plumes of oil and gas from the Deepwater Horizon gusher in the Gulf of Mexico mainly digested natural gas spewing from the wellhead – propane, ethane and butane – rather than oil, according to a study published in the journal Science.

The paper doesn’t rule out the possibility that bacteria also are consuming oil from the spill, the authors said. Instead, it suggests that natural gas primed the growth of bacteria that may have gone on to digest “more complex hydrocarbons” – oil – as the spill aged and propane and ethane were depleted.

Still, lead author David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said the findings temper hopes that microorganisms detected by scientists in the gulf have eaten up most of the oil there, as other scientists had recently suggested. “It’s hard to imagine these bacteria are capable of taking down all components of oil,” he said. “These stories about superbugs taking down all the oil – it’s more complex than that.”

Valentine and his team conducted their research in the gulf during 10 days in June. Lowering an array of sensors over the side of their ship, they analyzed ocean water to determine the presence of oil, then collected water samples at 31 locations 0.6 to 7.7 miles from what was then the active spill site.

Comparing samples collected close to the leak’s origin with older samples collected farther away, the researchers detected declining proportions of propane and ethane the older the sample. As levels of propane and ethane declined, the number of bacteria believed to be capable of digesting those chemicals – Cycloclasticus, Colwellia and Oceanospirillaceae – grew.

The team observed other chemical changes that suggested the bacteria were at work digesting gas. They saw that types of propane and ethane that bacteria prefer to digest – ones containing carbon-12, a lighter isotope of carbon – were depleted in samples.

And they found that the levels of oxygen (which bacterial populations consume as they grow) in the water fell in step with the falling levels of propane and ethane. They concluded that 70% of oxygen depletion was the result of microbial digestion of these natural gas chemicals, suggesting that most of the bacterial action was against gas, not oil.

Richard Camilli, an associate scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, said that these findings are the first to establish that the observed biodegradation in the deep plumes was limited mostly to natural gas.

“This paper is opening the door to other questions,” said Camilli, who was not involved with this research but published a paper in an August edition of Science on the size of the gulf spill’s oil plume. “If it’s disproportionately natural gas that’s being degraded, what’s going on with the crude oil components?”

But Terry Hazen, head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s ecology department and lead author of another August paper in Science that documented growth of hydrocarbon-eating bacteria in the deep-sea plume and suggested microbes could consume much of the oil, said that “the three papers are complementary. All show different pieces of the puzzle.”

Valentine said he will now investigate whether the bacteria began eating the spilled oil, or some component of it, as time passed. “We know there’s gas consumption; we know these organisms are here. How did that transition over time?” he said. “Did they move to oil over time, or did they bias which components of the oil [were consumed] next? We don’t know yet.”
He noted that many organisms that consume propane and butane can also consume other components of oil. But, he said, these longer, more complex hydrocarbons can be harder to digest.

– Eryn Brown

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Los Angeles Times: Scientists allege oil commission attempted to stifle research

http://www.theind.com/news/6946-scientists-allege-oil-commission-trying-to-stifle-research

This is really troubling, together with the older info that Obama and the Defense Dept are secretly still spraying coastal areas with dispersant under cover of darkness. This is not the transparency we expected of our president and his oil commission. DV

The Independent, Written by Nathan Stubbs
Friday, 17 September 2010

Two scientists, hired by a New Orleans law firm to conduct independent research in the Gulf, say they recently received some intimidating phone calls from attorneys representing the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. WWL-TV in New Orleans reports that Dr. William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist, and Marco Kaltofen, a scientist and head of Boston Chemical Data in Massachusetts, began receiving calls from the commission after posting data online that showed alarming levels of toxic hydrocarbons in water column. The researchers were both hired to conduct their studies by the New Orleans-based Smith Stag law firm, which specializes in environmental and personal injury law and has been assisting landowners and commercial fishermen in filing claims against BP. Sawyer and Kaltofen claim the commission attorneys asked if there research was meant to disprove findings by the federal government or impugn the commission and then began questioning whether the scientists had all the necessary permits to continue their work.

The oil spill commission was established by President Obama in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy to study the cause and impact of the spill, and make policy recommendations based on their findings. In response to the accusations, Commission Press Secretary Dave Cohen released a statement to WWL noting that Sawyer was “…One of many experts with whom we were having discussions to gain insights and possibly serve as expert panelists before the commission…. We deeply regret if any question we may have asked created a misunderstanding.”

The incident has already prompted Congressman Joseph Cao of New Orleans to call for a Congressional investigation into the matter. Cao released the following statement in a press release last night:
Today, I was informed that attorneys from the President’s oil spill commission were contacting independent researchers who are studying the Gulf’s toxicity and possibly attempting to suppress their findings by questioning the researchers’ permit status. I also found out WWL-TV has uncovered information which appears to contradict statements made just yesterday by federal representatives that there is no contamination in Gulf seafood. The public has a right to know whether or not the water and our seafood are safe based on the best data available. I’m concerned the Administration is not taking this issue as seriously as it should be. So I have decided to call for an investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I sit.

_____________________

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/gulf-oil-spill-bacteria-mainly-ate-the-gas-not-the-oil.html

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Washington Post: BP Macondo Well Successfully Capped

Two offshore oil platforms near Port Fourchon, La. under construction in June, 2010. photo by Saul Loeb

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091706725.html

By David A. Fahrenthold and Steven Mufson
Saturday, September 18, 2010; 1:48 AM

At last, the well is dead.

BP’s Macondo oil well is physically incapable of leaking another drop, according to the head of the U.S. government’s response effort. Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad W. Allen said Friday that this discovery was made after a “relief well” finally broke through into the Macondo well more than 17,000 feet below the Gulf of Mexico floor.

This Story
BP Macondo oil well successfully capped
Steps that killed the well
Officials had worried that they would find oil between the pipe and the shaft’s rock wall. But they found none – a discovery that shows that the well is capped and also could provide new clues to what made it blow up in the first place.

“The well presents no further threat of discharge,” Allen said.

But just to be sure, BP plugged it a little bit more. About 4 p.m. Friday, authorities began the long-awaited – and now, rather anti-climactic – “bottom kill,” filling in that empty space with cement. The cement should be set by Saturday afternoon, Allen said, and a final pressure test will allow the declaration of death.

After the American people spent the summer watching the fearsome oil well spill, Allen said this last step was as much for our benefit as it was for the gulf’s.

He said the intent was “psychologically, for people in the gulf to understand that there is a stake in the heart of this beast.”

BP’s well spent about three months repelling all attempts to kill it – eventually spilling 4.9 million barrels, or 205.8 million gallons, into the gulf. Then, it spent the next two months dying: The well was sealed off July 15, and cement was forced down its central pipe in a so-called “static kill” in early August.

Through it all, a rig in the gulf was slowly drilling down to provide the final nail in its coffin. The relief well’s progress was slowed by passing storms – which made the gulf too choppy – but also by the depth of its target. Drilling began on the gulf floor a mile down and continued for another 2.4 miles into the earth.

Finally, on Thursday afternoon, the drill hit its target, a seven-inch shaft. It opened a hole into the space between the shaft’s wall and the outer layer of pipe.

There was no camera recording it, but engineers could learn about the outer space around the Macondo well pipe by studying fluid that rose from the other well’s drill pipe. When no oil came up, they knew that the Macondo well was plugged at its source.

That was a good thing for the gulf. But it could also be a good thing for BP’s legal case, because it could be a signal that the blowout was not caused by a problem with BP’s design for the well’s pipes.

Instead, BP’s lawyers could argue that part of the blame lies in the cementing job done by contractor Halliburton, which was supposed to plug those pipes at the bottom.

This Story
BP Macondo oil well successfully capped
Steps that killed the well
“All the information we have gathered to date . . .leads us to believe conclusively that the well design did not contribute to this accident and the well has complete integrity,” Daren Beaudo, a BP spokesman, said in a statement Friday.

This denouement about four miles down will not do much to alter the way the spill is still affecting life in the gulf, in the oil-smeared states on its shore and in oil-company boardrooms from Houston to London.

In the Louisiana marshes, fishermen have reported patches of peanut-butter-thick oil rising to the surface as the water warms. In Pass a Loutre, La., near the Mississippi River mouth, state officials were grappling with a patch of submerged oil several acres wide.

And even in areas where the oil has disappeared, the spill is still hurting Louisiana’s shrimp business by scaring off its customers.

“Can’t find nobody to take it. Can’t find nobody that wants to eat it,” said David Chauvin, a seafood dealer in Chauvin, La. He said that three-quarters of his boats haven’t returned from helping with BP’s cleanup. “My fear is that, if we have 100 percent of these boats come back, we’d flat out have to tell the boats ‘Look, you have to quit fishing.’ Because we could not sell it at any price.”

For BP, the spill has forced the resignation of its chief executive, Tony Hayward, who steps down Oct. 1. The company is waiting to see if the Justice Department – which is examining equipment such as the “blowout preventer” – will file criminal charges. If not, the financial burden will be immense but more easily within the company’s means.

Already, the spill has washed away more than $70 billion of BP’s market share. The stock is up about 50 percent from its post-spill low point but is down 37 percent from its April 20 close, hours before the Macondo blowout. BP’s stock closed down slightly Friday at $38.03 a share.

And, for those on the Gulf Coast who lost money during the spill, the next step is to wait for Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator of BP’s $20 billion compensation fund. The difficulty of his job, sorting out claims from fishermen, beach resorts and the far-flung businesses that support them, was made clear this week in a series of meetings along the coast.

Feinberg said that 3,000 claims had no documentation and an additional 12,000 had “documentation so inadequate that no one would pay those claims.” After facing angry claimants in Louisiana on Monday and Florida on Tuesday, Feinberg said he felt like “a moving pinata.”

“I must say I underestimated the problems in processing these claims,” Feinberg said. He added: “I never thought it would be easy. But there’s a serious proof problem with some of these claims.”

fahrenthold@washpost.com mufsons@washpost.com

Oil and Gas Journal: Relief well intercepts BP Macondo well in gulf

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/8639520373/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/hse/2010/09/relief-well_intercepts/QP129867/cmpid=EnlDailySeptember172010.html

Sep 17, 2010
Paula Dittrick
OGJ Senior Staff Writer
HOUSTON, Sept. 17 — A relief well drilled by crews on Transocean Ltd.’s Development Driller III semisubmersible intercepted the annulus of the deepwater Macondo well on Sept. 16, and BP PLC expects crews will completely seal the Macondo well on Sept. 18.

Engineers and scientists from across the oil industry have worked with government scientists for months to reach this point. An Apr. 20 blowout of the Macondo well in 5,000 ft of water and subsequent oil spill prompted the development of new technology and equipment to handle a seabed spill.

An estimated 4.9 million bbl leaked from the well, of which BP estimates it captured 800,000 bbl. No oil has leaked into the gulf since a capping stack was installed on July 15. BP operates the well on Mississippi Canyon Block 252 off Louisiana.

The Macondo well blowout triggered an explosion and fire on Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon semi, which killed 11 people. The Deepwater Horizon sank on Apr. 22. Cause of the accident remains under investigation by a number of government agencies and others.

After replacing the Deepwater Horizon’s failed blowout preventer earlier this month, relief well drilling resumed at 7:15 a.m. CDT on Sept. 15, and crews completed drilling the final 45 ft of hole. Interception of the annulus was confirmed at 4:30 p.m. on Sept. 16. Total measured depth on the DDIII for the annulus intercept point was 17,977 ft.

“Operations conducted bottoms up circulation, which returned the contents of the well’s annulus to the rig for evaluation,” BP said. “Testing of the drilling mud recovered from the well indicated that no hydrocarbons or cement were present at the intersect point. Therefore, no annulus kill is necessary, and the annulus cementing will proceed as planned.”

Once cementing operations are complete, the DDIII will begin standard plugging and abandonment procedures for the relief well.

The Development Driller II semi continues gathering additional data from the Macondo well in efforts to determine the location of the drill pipe in the well during the Apr. 20 accident. DDII’s BOP is latched onto the wellhead.

Subsequently plug and abandonment activities will commence in accordance with the approved procedure, BP said.

National Incident Commander and retired US Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen issued a news release late Sept. 16 saying he received extensive briefings over the last 24 hr as BP engineers and federal scientists confirmed the relief well intersected the Macondo well.

“The aggregate data available supports the conclusion that the two wells are joined,” Allen said. “It is also important to note that none of the measurements supported a scenario where the annulus of the well is in communication with the reservoir. Accordingly, we intend to proceed with preparation to cement the annulus and complete the bottom kill of the well.”

Contact Paula Dittrick at paulad@ogjonline.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Sept 27-28 Next Oil Spill Commission Hearings in D.C.

SAVE THE DATE
NATIONAL OIL SPILL COMMISSION HOLDS
THIRD PUBLIC HEARING IN WASHINGTON, DC
SEPTEMBER 27 – 28, 2010
FOCUS ON OIL SPILL RESPONSE & RESTORATION ISSUES

The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling (“Oil Spill Commission”) is holding a public hearing regarding response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, environmental impacts, and approaches to restoration.

Among the panelists:

· The Honorable Ken Salazar, US Secretary of the Interior
· The Honorable Lisa Jackson, US-EPA Administrator
· The Honorable Mary Landrieu, US Senator, Louisiana
· The Honorable Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi
· Retired Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the Unified Command
· Doug Suttles, Chief Operating Officer for Exploration & Production, BP
· Pete Slaiby, Vice President for Exploration & Production, Shell Alaska
· Mayor Edward Itta, North Slope Borough, Alaska

WHERE: Marriott Wardman Park
2660 Woodley Park Road, NW
Washington, DC 20008

WHEN: Monday & Tuesday, September 27th & 28th, 2010
9:00 am – 5:30 pm Public hearing

Registration begins 8:00 am on both days
Public comment period: 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm for both days

The meeting is open to the public, with a 30 minute public comment period held during both days. Public comment participants are chosen on a first-come, first-serve basis. Time allotted per public comment will be 3 minutes. Registration for those wishing to participate in the public comment period opens on-site at 8:00 am.

For further information: www.oilspillcommission.gov

Andrea Yank
Special Assistant
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
One Thomas Circle, 4th floor
Washington, DC 20005
202-254-2662

Special thanks to Richard Charter

USF: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Conference Feb. 9-11 in St Pete Fl.

Subject: FW: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Conference

Planned for February 9-11, 2011, in St. Petersburg, the meeting will address a broad spectrum of questions relating to the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon event of earlier this year. Topics will include: Geotechnical Engineering, Regional Oceanography, Chemical Weathering – Biological Consumption, Dispersants, Ecological Consequences and Toxicity, Economic and Social Impacts, Human Health Issues, and Stakeholders, Science and Policy.

October 1, 2010 is the deadline for receipt of abstracts for presentation consideration at the upcoming Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Conference. I ask that you please share this Call for Abstracts with interested colleagues and students.

More information can be found at: http://www.oilspill.usf.edu/

Special thanks to Richard Charter

AP/Washington Times: Allen: Blown-out Gulf well to be sealed by Sunday & New York Times: BP Well May Be Sealed Soon & more…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/

By Harry R. Weber

Associated Press

Updated: 2:56 p.m. on Wednesday, September 15, 2010

KENNER, La. (AP) – The U.S. government’s point man on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill said Wednesday that BP’s blown-out well is expected to be sealed permanently and declared dead by Sunday, nearly five months after a rig explosion set off the disaster.
Retired U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander, told reporters gathered at a seafood distributor in Kenner that a relief well is expected to intersect the blown-out well within 24 hours. He said workers then will pump in mud and cement, which is expected to seal the well within four days.

“We are within a 96-hour window of killing the well,” Adm. Allen said.

The April 20 explosion killed 11 workers and led to 206 million gallons of oil spewing from the deepwater well.

No fresh oil has spewed into the Gulf since a temporary cap was successfully fitted to the top of the well in mid-July. Mud and cement later were pushed down through the top of the well, allowing the cap to be removed. The relief well is being drilled so the well that blew out also can be sealed from the bottom, ensuring that it never causes a problem again.

Appearing with Adm. Allen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said that monitoring continues of oil that remains in the Gulf. Ms. Lubchenco stood by earlier government estimates that 50 percent of the oil that spilled is gone from the water system.

Scientists said earlier this week that they had found thick patches of oil coating the sea floor, raising questions about government conclusions that much of the oil from the spill was gone. Testing is under way this week for chemical fingerprints that would conclusively link that oil to the BP spill.

Still, Adm. Allen and Ms. Lubchenco sought to reassure hesitant diners from outside the region that Gulf seafood is safe to eat during their appearance outside the Louisiana Fish House. Adm. Allen noted that he has eaten Gulf seafood every day for the past several days.

“In short, folks want to know if it is safe to eat, swim and fish, and that is the kind of information we are committed to identifying answers to those questions,” Ms. Lubchenco said.

Gulf shrimpers currently are producing only 20 percent of their normal production for this time of year – because demand is down sharply and because supply is not where it should be in part because of the fact that some shrimpers are wary of taking on the expense of fishing if they can’t sell their catch, according to Ewell Smith, executive director of the Louisiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board.

Adm. Allen also said he plans to step down as incident commander on Oct. 1 – the same day BP PLC installs American Bob Dudley as its new chief executive to replace Tony Hayward. Adm. Allen will be replaced by Coast Guard Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft. The move is not a surprise: Adm. Allen said previously that he would transition out of his current rule by late September or early October.

Adm. Allen said in an interview after the news conference that the timing of the transition is not connected to BP’s leadership change.

“I worked well with Tony Hayward, and I work well with Bob Dudley,” Adm. Allen said. “I like to think I work well with anybody.”

BP is the majority owner of the well that blew out, and it was leasing the rig that exploded from owner Transocean Ltd.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.

September 15, 2010

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
With BP close to intercepting its stricken Gulf of Mexico well with a relief well, the government said Wednesday that the final sealing of the once-gushing well might occur this weekend.

Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is leading the federal response effort, said in a briefing in Kenner, La., that the relief well was within 25 feet of the interception point, nearly 13,000 feet below the seabed. Drilling resumed on Monday after being suspended for several weeks while the company replaced pressure-control equipment atop the well.

Once the interception occurs, engineers will assess the condition of the stricken well’s annulus, the space between the casing pipe and the surrounding rock. Admiral Allen said it was expected that a decision would then be made to pump cement into the annulus to create a final seal.

“Four days from now, it could be all done,” he said.

The well leaked an estimated 4.9 million barrels, or about 205 million gallons, of oil into the gulf after the Deepwater Horizon drill rig exploded and sank in late April. No appreciable amount of oil or gas has leaked since July 15, when valves on a newly installed cap at the wellhead were closed.

Joint Investigation – RMI letter re DWH documentation

The Joint Investigation of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) marine casualty posted a copy of the letter received from the Maritime Administrator of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) relating to documentation of the DWH. The letter states that, while the erroneous document issued to the DWH might have allowed it to not have a master on board when the unit was “on location”, the evidence shows that the DWH had both a master and an offshore installation manager (OIM) on board at all times relevant to the investigation. (9/14/10).

National Commission – meeting

The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, sponsored by the Department of Energy, will conduct an opening meeting in Washington, DC on September 27 and 28. Topics on the agenda include the response following the oil spill, impacts on the Gulf, and approaches to long-term restoration. 75 Fed. Reg. 56526 (September 16, 2010).

House – bill introduced to restore Gulf coastal areas

Representative Scalise (R-LA) introduced the Gulf Coast Restoration Act (H.R. 6112) to provide for restoration of the coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and for other purposes. (9/14/10).

House – bill introduced re use of dispersants in oil spills

Representative Pallone (D-NJ) introduced a bill (H.R. 6119) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure the safe and proper use of dispersants in the event of an oil spill or release of hazardous substances, and for other purposes. Official text of this bill is not yet available. (9/14/10).

House – bill introduced re export and import of natural gas

Representative Wu (D-OR) introduced a bill (H.R. 6124) to amend certain provisions of the Natural Gas Act relating to exportation or importation of natural gas, and for other purposes. Official text of this bill is not yet available. (9/14/10).

Courtesy: Bryant’s Maritime Blog – 16 September 2010

http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/

BP ending oil-spotting program in 3 Gulf states
Posted on Thursday, September 16th, 2010 at 12:00 am.

By Associated Press

MOBILE (AP) – BP is ending the program that hired coastal boats to scout for oil in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi during the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Administrators in Mobile said Wednesday they were shutting down the vessel of opportunity program in the three states. It continues operating in coastal Louisiana, where officials say oil is still hitting the shore.

BP calls the program highly successful, although it was widely criticized during the summer for hiring recreational boats and out-of-state craft while some local commercial boats sat idle.

The company says almost 3,500 boats worked in the program, which cost some $500 million across the Gulf region. Boat operators both looked for oil on the coast and helped in the cleanup by skimming for oil and deploying oil barriers.

Houston Business Journal – September 16, 2010
/houston/stories/2010/09/13/daily35.html

Thursday, September 16, 2010, 7:45am CDT | Modified: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 7:45am

Transocean sued by Louisiana over Gulf oil spill
Houston Business Journal
Transocean Ltd. and subsidiary Triton Asset Leasing GmbH are being sued by the state of Louisiana, according to news reports.

The state is asking a federal judge out of New Orleans to rule that Transocean (NYSE: RIG) be liable for damages resulting from the Gulf oil spill.

In the filing, the state said: “The state has incurred and will continue to incur costs and certain damages including cleanup and removal costs, costs of increased public services, loss of state revenue, property damages and natural resource damages.”

For now, the state is only seeking for Transocean to be deemed liable. It is not yet seeking to recover any costs or damages.

Transocean has maintained responsibility only for oil that may have leaked from its Deepwater Horizon rig, which was leased by BP Plc when it exploded on April 20, killing 11 people and resulting in the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

But the state of Louisiana argues that the company violated state and federal environmental laws, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Transocean’s denial of liabilityŠis also at odds with the State of Louisiana as it affects Louisiana’s ability to seek recovery of costs and damages related to this oil spill from the responsible parties,” it said in the filing.

Switzerland-based Transocean has a significant presence in Houston.

On Wednesday, the company pulled a second rig out of the Gulf of Mexico due to the federal moratorium on deepwater drilling.

The Houston Business Journal is providing continuous coverage of the Gulf oil spill.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Houston Chronicle:Government gives notice on abandoned platforms: Rule tells industry to dismantle ‘idle iron’ and plug old oil, gas wells & Don’t Blame BP Alone for spill, Hayward tells UK lawmakers

September 16, 2010

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7203039.html

DISASTER IN THE GULF

By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
Sept. 15, 2010, 11:08PM

WASHINGTON The Obama administration on Wednesday launched plans to clean up “idle iron” in the Gulf of Mexico, requiring companies to dismantle deserted platforms and permanently plug thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells – including some that are decades old.

The mandate will affect nearly 3,500 nonproducing wells and require the decommissioning of about 650 unused oil and gas production platforms.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the move is part of a broader push to boost environmental protections and the safety of offshore energy production.

“We have placed the industry on notice that they will be held to the highest standards of planning and operations in developing leases,” Salazar added.
For years, environmentalists and industry analysts have been highlighting the problem of “idle iron” – the glut of abandoned rigs, platforms and wells in the Gulf that are no longer in use. And the new rule was in the works long before the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

But the disaster inspired fresh scrutiny of the problem and spurred concerns that the aging infrastructure poses environmental risks, especially during hurricanes.

Michael Bromwich, the director of the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, said the rule responds to that threat.

“This initiative is the product of careful thought and analysis,” he said, “and requires that these wells, platforms and pipelines are plugged and dismantled correctly and in a timely manner to substantially reduce such hazards.”

The mandate – set to go into effect Oct. 15 – represents a change in the government’s handling of abandoned platforms and wells.

Until now, federal decommissioning requirements forced companies to remove infrastructure and plug wells within a year after their individual offshore oil and gas leases expire.

Historically, that policy gave companies plenty of time and freedom to use once-abandoned platforms and other infrastructure to support future wells and other projects.

But the “notice to lessees” issued by the Interior Department Wednesday would require the decommissioning of any well that has been idle for the past five years, along with any associated platforms and pipelines – even if they are part of an active offshore lease.

Under the rule, current offshore lease owners will have four months to outline their plans for breaking down and securing the facilities.

Most operators will have no problem complying with the mandate, American Petroleum Institute spokesman Cathy Landry said.

But industry officials said the speed of the cleanup depends on the pace of environmental reviews and the approval of necessary permits.

Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, stressed the importance of the government swiftly reviewing and approving permits to take down some of the structures.

So-called “rigs to reefs” programs that would allow decommissioned structures to find new life as marine habitats also hang in the balance.

“Industry is ready to meet its obligations with respect to offshore structures,” Luthi said. “We ask only that the federal government meet us halfway by approving the actual work.”

To ensure the cleanup is done quickly, “the administration must also assist in clearing the path,” Luthi said.

The administration’s move could create more business for some offshore contractors that do decommissioning work in the Gulf.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., who had pushed for such a cleanup of offshore drilling debris, said the rule will benefit the environment and the economy.

“These structures are not producing resources or creating jobs by just sitting there,” and the risk of leaking, abandoned facilities “is something we’ve overlooked long enough,” Grijalva said. “This announcement should put thousands of laborers back to work in short order cleaning up the Gulf.”

jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7203042.html

Don’t blame BP alone for spill, Hayward
tells U.K. lawmakers
‘I understand why people feel the way they do’
By DAVID STRINGER Associated Press
Sept. 15, 2010, 11:02PM

LONDON Outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward said Wednesday that he understood anger directed at the energy giant in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill but insisted his company had a strong safety record and was not solely to blame for the disaster.

Testifying before a British parliamentary committee, Hayward acknowledged BP had failed both to stop the spill and to plan adequately to respond to an accident of that scale.

“I understand why people feel the way they do, and there is little doubt that the inability of BP, and the industry, to intervene to seal the leak … was unacceptable,” Hayward told the hearing at London’s Parliament.

Hayward appeared relaxed and confident addressing lawmakers in his native Britain, unlike at a testy hearing before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, when he faced angry accusations that he was stonewalling.

‘Devastating to me’

He said the explosion at the Macondo well on April 20, which killed 11 workers and triggered the massive spill, was “devastating to me personally,” and insisted that standards on safety and training would improve industrywide.

But he said it would be wrong to attach blame only to BP.

“No single factor caused the accident, and multiple parties including BP, Halliburton and Transocean were involved,” he said.

Hayward, who will be replaced Oct. 1 by Bob Dudley, an American, told Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Committee that the extent of the spill’s environmental impact is also unclear.

“No one knows today the environmental impact of this,” he said.

The British committee’s chairman, Tim Yeo, a Conservative and former environment minister, challenged Hayward about his claim on taking his post in 2007 that he would focus “laserlike on safety.”

“On your watch as chief executive, in that three years, now we’ve had the biggest-ever oil spill in U.S. waters,” Yeo said.

Unfair U.S. response?

Though the British panel largely eschewed the combative style of the U.S. committee, Hayward was repeatedly pressed on whether he believed the response in the U.S. toward BP had been unfair.

“There was an enormous amount of emotion and anger, and it was very understandable,” Hayward said, declining to criticize the reaction from the White House or American public.

Hayward said BP had an “entirely constructive relationship” with the White House during the crisis and insisted the U.S. had not influenced BP’s decision to suspend dividend payments after the spill.

Oil and Gas Journal–Bromwich: Industry to determine when deepwater drilling resumes

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/5698220450/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/government/2010/09/bromwich_-industry/QP129867/cmpid=EnlDailySeptember152010.html

Sep 14, 2010
Nick Snow
OGJ Washington Editor
WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 14 — US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Director Michael R. Bromwich said he had received no suggestions in public forums that the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium should go beyond its scheduled Nov. 30 expiration date. But the oil and gas industry will determine when deepwater drilling actually resumes, he added.

Permits won’t be issued until applicants have satisfied the requirements, not all of which have been formulated, he told reporters during a Sept. 14 teleconference. “This is a dynamic ongoing process,” he said. “We have not only BP’s internal investigation, but also those by the National Academy of Engineering, the president’s commission, and the joint BOE-Coast Guard effort. I’m sure they’ll make recommendations which will require us to tweak our regulations.

“Our actions won’t be complete overnight. It will take some significant period of time to figure out what needs to be done,” Bromwich said. “These are not a set of regulatory standards that are frozen in time. There are a lot of changes being made now, and more will be made in the future. I think the industry will need to get ready for them.”

Bromwich said most of the initial questions have centered on two notices to deepwater lessees that BOE issued on June 8, which implemented seven safety requirements US Interior Sec. Ken Salazar recommended in his May 27 report to President Barack Obama following the Apr. 20 Macondo blowout and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “There has been some confusion and uncertainty particularly with NTL-6 and its worst-case discharge estimates. We found shallow-water drillers were uncertain and confused, as were several people in our agency,” he said.

“I don’t want to extend the point where drilling can resume,” Bromwich said. “We’ll try and be as clear as we possibly can about what the requirements are, and communicate that to people in the industry. We’ll continue to have open discussions to clear questions up as they arise, although we won’t always be able to supply answers or answer individual questions immediately.”

Report by Sept. 30
He said that while he has been given until the end of October, he hopes to have his report on recommendations from the eight public forums BOE held about the moratorium to Salazar around Sept. 30. “I think we’ll be ironing out details of the report over the next couple of weeks,” he said. “An enormous volume of information was presented at the forums, with about 100 presenters. We want to do justice to it.” Bromwich said that he also hopes to make the Safety and Environmental Management Systems rule, which has been in the formulation process for a longer period, final at the same time.

He held his teleconference a day after Obama sent recommendations for amendments to Interior’s fiscal 2011 budget to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) which would add $66.4 million to BOE’s budget to hire more inspectors and facilitate reorganization of what formerly was the US Minerals Management Service.

“The majority of the additional resources would be used to strengthen core programs within [BOE] to address safety and environmental concerns highlighted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” Jeffrey D. Zients, acting director of the White House’s Office of Management Budget, said in materials which accompanies Obama’s letter. “The additional resources would also be used to address known deficiencies in federal mineral collection activities, including those raised in a recent Government Accountability Office review, and establish an investigation and review unit within the agency.”

The amendment also would provide another $25 million in revenue in conjunction with another amendment which would more than double offshore oil and gas inspection fees collected in fiscal 2011 to $45 million from $20 million. “As a result, [BOE] would have available an additional $91 million in total resources,” Zients said. The White House also proposed raising BOE’s oil spill research budget request by $8.6 million to $14.9 million, and permanently canceling $25 million of unobligated balances in the Royalty and Offshore Minerals Management to partially fund BOE’s reorganization.
Bromwich said he had not been directly involved in developing the proposed budget amendments, but would welcome the additional money because the agency hasn’t had enough resources. “We are developing plans to hire new inspectors. Ads have been placed and active recruitment is ongoing,” he said. “Clearly, we need to step up our efforts to get at pools of qualified people to bolster our ranks we haven’t reached before to bolster our ranks. We’re going to be involved in a full-court press.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Truthout: Evidence Mounts of BP Spraying Toxic Dispersants


Dispersant remnant, June 26, 2010. (Photo: Shirley Tillman)


Corner of Canal Road and I-10, in Gulfport, at the Gulfport site used as a BP staging area. (Photo: Shirley Tillman)


Corexit tanks, September 1, 2010. (Photo: Shirley Tillman)

Private contractor in Carolina Skiff with tank of Corexit dispersant, August 10, south of Pass Christian Harbor, 9:30 AM. (Photo: Don Tillman)

http://www.truth-out.org/evidence-mounts-bp-spraying-toxic-dispersants63219

Monday 13 September 2010
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report

Shirley and Don Tillman, residents of Pass Christian, Mississippi, have owned shrimp boats, an oyster boat and many pleasure boats. They spent much time on the Gulf of Mexico before working in BP’s Vessels Of Opportunity (VOO) program looking for and trying to clean up oil.
Don decided to work in the VOO program in order to assist his brother, who was unable to do so due to health problems. Thus, Don worked on the boat and Shirley decided to join him as a deckhand most of the days.

“We love the Gulf, our life is here and so when this oil disaster happened, we wanted to do what we could to help clean it up,” Shirley explained to Truthout.

However, not long after they began working in BP’s response effort in June, what they saw disturbed them. “It didn’t take long for us to understand that something was very, very wrong about this whole thing,” Shirley told Truthout. “So that’s when I started keeping a diary of what we experienced and began taking a lot of pictures. We had to speak up about what we know is being done to our Gulf.”

Shirley logged what they saw and took hundreds of photos. The Tillmans confirm, both with what they logged in writing as well as in photos, what Truthout has reported before: BP has hired out-of-state contractors to use unregistered boats, usually of the Carolina Skiff variety, to spray toxic Corexit dispersants on oil located by VOO workers.

Shirley provided Truthout with key excerpts from the diary she kept of her experiences out on the water with her husband while they worked in the VOO program before they, like most of the other VOO workers in Mississippi, were laid off because the state of Mississippi, along with the US Coast Guard, has declared there is no more “recoverable oil” in their area.

“The first day I went, I noticed a lot of foam on the water,” reads her entry from June 26. “My husband said he had been seeing a lot of it. At that time, we were just looking for ‘Oil.’ We would go out in groups of normally, five boats. The Coast Guard was over the VOO operation. There was always a Coast Guard on at least one of the boats. They would tell us when to leave the harbor, where to go and how fast to go. They had flags on each of the VOO boats and also a transponder. Sometimes we would have one or more National Guardsmen in our group too, as well as an occasional safety man to monitor the air quality and procedures on the boat. If we found anything, the Coast Guard in our group would call it in to ‘Seahorse’ and they would determine what action would be taken.”

Along with giving a clear description of how the Coast Guard was thus always aware of the findings of the VOO workers, her diary provides, at times, heart-wrenching descriptions of what is happening to the marine life and wildlife of the Gulf of Mexico.

“Before we went to work, I went down by the beach,” reads her entry from July 4. “There were dead jellyfish everywhere. Some of them were surrounded by foam. A seagull was by the waters edge, as the foamy stuff continued to wash up. There was also a crane that appeared to be sick. It didn’t look like it had any oil on it, but it just stood there, no matter how close I got.”

On the morning of August 5, Shirley describes spotting a dead young dolphin floating in the water. “As we waited for the VOO Wildlife boat to come pick it up, we noticed a pod of dolphins close by,” she writes. “Even with all the boats around, they did not leave until the dead one was removed from the water. It was very emotional, for all of us.”

The next day, August 6, found her logging more death. “Last night on the news, they reported a fish kill. Before we went to work, I went to the beach by the harbor. The seagulls were everywhere. As for the dead fish, the only ones on the beach, were ones that the tide had left when it went back out. The rest of the ‘Fish Kill,’ was laying underwater, on the bottom. It was mainly flounder and crab. We only spotted two dead flounder floating that day. I can only imagine how many were on the bottom … I went back to the beach after work. The tide had gone out and the seagulls were eating all the dead fish that had been exposed. You could still see dead fish underwater, still on the bottom. Dead fish don’t float anymore?”

The Tillman’s primary concern is the rampant use of toxic dispersants by what they described as private contractors working in unregistered boats, that regularly were going out into the Gulf as they and other VOO teams were coming in from their days’ work. There was, oftentimes, so much dispersant on top of the water, their boat left a trail.

“The first thing I noticed, was the ‘trail’ the boat was leaving in the water,” her log from July 10 reads. “You could see exactly where we had been, as far back as you could see. Around 11:00, we were in oil sheen and brownish clumps. We were North of Cat and Ship Island when the Coast Guard told us to drop the boom over. When you pick the boom up, you have to wear ‘protective gear.’”

Her log from August 1 describes, in detail, an incident of the Coast Guard not allowing them to collect oil and his proceeding to deny what they found was even oil:
“Around 2:00 p.m., we started noticing a lot of oil sheen. We were North of the East end of Cat Island, but South of the Inter Coastal channel. There was, as usual, a Coast Guard on one of the boats in our team. He called in to report it, but we were told not to drop the boom, it was just ‘Fish Oil.’ In the beginning of the clean-up operation, if something was floating on the water and it looked like oil, it was oil or oil sheen. Later they would sometimes say it was just ‘Fish Oil.’ Also, if it was heavy foam with a brown or rust color, originally it was ‘Oil Mousse.’ Later it was called ‘Algae.’ We were then told to head Northwest. The further we went, the worse the ‘Fish Oil’ got.

Then, the foam was mixed in with the oil. It was at least the size of a football field, around our boat alone. My husband got on the radio and asked if they could put the boom over.” The Coast Guard, again, told them no. “We were then headed West, back towards Pass Christian. A pleasure boat flagged one of the boats in our group down and told him that there was oil all over. The Coast Guard said to tell him that they were aware of the situation … On the way back to the Pass Harbor, I asked my husband, ‘Just exactly what are we even doing out here?’ He told me that he was beginning to think that it was all just for show. I can only imagine what the people on the pleasure boat had to say when they got back home that day. Probably, that they had seen a lot of oil on the water and the VOO boats were out there just riding around in it and not doing anything to clean it up. That is exactly what happened. We decided then to start documenting as much as we could. I believe it was the very next day, Thad Allen was on TV saying that they were scaling operations back due to the fact that, ‘No oil has been seen in the Gulf in almost two weeks.’ Now, if we had pulled boom on Sunday and unloaded a bunch of dirty boom in the Pass harbor, it might have been a problem for him later.”

On August 5, she describes a rare instance of their being allowed to drop boom in order to collect oil. “We had a Coast Guard and two Safety Men on our boat. We went to the West of the Pass Harbor. The water looked black in places. Lots of bubbles, not foam, just bubbles. Around 8:30, we were in oil sheen and mousse and were told to drop the boom. The more we pulled the boom, it appeared the more was coming up. The Pass [Christian] Harbor was closed because the oil was coming in so bad. We pulled boom back and forth the rest of the afternoon.”
By early August, the total number of VOO boats operating out of Pass Christian Harbor, where Shirley and Don worked, was down to 26.

On August 8, Shirley wrote, “talk at the harbor was that airplanes were spraying dispersants on the water at night, out by the islands. There was also talk of skiffs, from Louisiana, with white tanks on them, that were spraying [dispersants] too. We had seen the skiffs before. They would pass us up in the mornings and head towards the Bay St. Louis Bridge. We were told that they were working out of an area at Henderson Point. Henderson Point has a county-owned area with a boat launch & piers. It was closed to the public after the oil spill and a BP sub-contractor staging area was set up. It always appeared that these boats were finishing up their work day, just as we were going to start ours. Most of these skiffs were Carolina Skiffs.”

Later that same morning, Shirley and her husband headed out of the harbor with a member of the National Guard on their boat, heading west, while a member of the Coast Guard and another member of the National Guard were on another boat in their VOO team. After boating for an hour, they turned back to the east, at which point Don spotted five of the Carolina Skiffs.
“I got my camera and started taking pictures of them,” Shirley writes. “As I was zooming in as close as I could, I saw one of them spraying something onto the water. I did not get a picture of it, I was too busy telling my husband to tell the Coast Guard on the other boat. The skiffs had turned North and were scattered out, zigzagging South of the train bridge. The Coast Guard called the incident in and sent one of our boats to follow the skiffs. The skiffs immediately left. When I saw the boat spraying, it was upwind from our boat. Within a few minutes, my nose started drying out. Later my throat and eyes did the same thing. A Coast Guard helicopter was dispatched along with a Coast Guard boat. We saw the helicopter about twenty minutes later, but I never saw the Coast Guard boat.”

Back at Pass Christian Harbor, her team reported the Carolina Skiffs actively spraying dispersants. She was told by the contracting company, Parson’s, that managed their VOO team, to bring in her photographs.

Her entry from the next day, August 9, reads:

“I took the pictures, 8×10′s to Parson’s. A short time later, my husband called and said the Coast Guard wanted me to make a disc of the pictures. I took the disc and turned it over to the Coast Guard. I was told, in the presence of others, that the incident had been investigated and the boats in question had been located at the Henderson Point site. He said that these boats were in the VOO program as skimmer boats, but it had not yet been verified. He said that he had questioned them about spraying something on the water. They told him that if I had seen them spraying anything, they were probably just rinsing out their tanks. He also asked me, ‘Don’t you think if they were spraying dispersants, they would be wearing respirators?’ I told him, ‘You would think so, but nothing surprises me around here anymore.’ We basically left after that. I knew all they had really wanted was to see exactly what I had gotten pictures of. There is of course the question, ‘Why would a skimmer boat need to rinse out his tanks?’ If he had been skimming oil, why dump it back over? If he hadn’t been skimming oil, what was he rinsing out? I know what I saw and I know how I felt afterwards. I also know that in one of the pictures I took, you can see a helicopter over those boats. BP has spotters looking for oil. Could it be he was telling them where to ‘Touch Up’ before they called it a day? One thing I did learn from Coast Guard guy that day, evidently these so-called skimmer boats, also have the ability to spray!”
The Tillman’s curiosity drove them to investigate further, given the inconsistencies they were seeing in the Coast Guard’s actions regarding the dispersant being sprayed from contractors in the Carolina Skiffs.

“My husband came home and said that they had seen the ‘Skiffs’ again today,” reads Shirley’s entry from August 10. “He took pictures of them and a jack-up-rig. The rig moves around in the sound and is suppose to be a de-contamination station. However, some Captains have said when they went there, they were told it wasn’t in operation at the time. After thinking about the tank skiffs and the Coast Guard for two days, I could not make any sense of this whole situation. The Coast Guard is supposedly over the VOO Program, but it knows nothing about the skiffs at the site, so close to the Pass Harbor. They not only tell us every move to make, but they are always with us when we make the moves. Our boats are flagged and have transponders on them. Those boats have no flags, we have not seen a transponder, nor a Coast Guard member on one of them telling them what to do.”

That afternoon, the Tillmans visited the Henderson Point staging area. Though it was guarded, what they found shocked them:

“There were probably more boats there than in the entire Pass [Christian] VOO program at the time,” reads her entry. “There were only a couple of regular skimmer boats. All appeared to have Louisiana registrations. Almost all of the skiffs had the white tanks on them. A few of the tanks looked like they could have had something in them at one time, but nothing like the oily, sticky mess we had been dealing with. If we got something on our boat, it was almost impossible to get it off. I don’t see how they could have gotten it out of the tanks and still looked like they did. Also, there was a Harrison County Sheriffs Department car, right by the boats and some large, plastic, white containers with yellow bases.”

On August 13, the VOO boat that Shirley and Don were running was deactivated. Still very concerned, the next day they visited the BP staging area in Hancock County.

“They had evacuated this site,” she writes. “Same setup though, a guard and a Sheriff’s car. We then went to a site in Gulfport. Evidently, this is a main BP storage site. There were all kinds of boats, including the tank skiffs. The Sheriffs Department was there also and so was those large, plastic tanks with the yellow bases.”

Other reports, of a very similar nature, have been reported about other BP staging areas along the Gulf of Mexico. The tanks are clearly used to store and transport Corexit dispersant. The Carolina Skiffs are clearly used to spray it atop oil.
Her August 16 entry details her discovery:

“Over the next few days, I continued to go by the Henderson Point site and the Gulfport site. The Henderson Point site brought back a few boats, but none of the tank skiffs or the large plastic tanks. The Gulfport site stayed the same, full of everything. On August 25, I received an email with a link to an article about dispersants. It had a picture of the tanks that dispersants come in, with the label ‘Nalco Corexit EC9005A.’ They were 330 gallon, large, plastic, white tanks with a yellow base. These were the same tanks that I had been seeing at the Henderson Point site and the Gulfport site. I was able to get the name of the manufacturer of the tanks, off a picture I took and compared it to the picture in the article. It was the same manufacturer. I researched this company on the internet and found the 330 gal tanks. They are marketed as: ‘The only manufacturer in the industry to offer portable tanks certified for hazardous goods transport by the United Nations and the U.S. Department of Transportation.’”

Shirley and Don are, like tens of thousands of other VOO workers and Gulf residents, left with more questions than answers.

“While working on the boats, if you pull boom back onto the boat, you not only had to wear Tyvek suits, protective glasses and gloves, you also had to put tape around the gloves and suit sleeves, as well as around your boots and the suit.” Shirley asks, “Why would it be safe for people to get into the same water that all of this hazardous stuff was coming out of?”

For the Coast Guard, she aks:

“How can you not know there are boats in the VOO program if you are in charge of the VOO program? The Coast Guard was supposedly over the VOO program, but they acted like they don’t know anything about the Carolina Skiffs. The boats were in either a task force or strike force. Every VOO boat has a flag. We all had transponders. This was VOO and Coast Guard regulations. But these skiffs didn’t have flags and we never saw transponders on them, nor did they have Coast Guard with them and supposedly every group had at least one Coast Guard in each group. Sometimes we would have two. But the Skiffs didn’t have any.”

Local media in Pass Christian and Gulfport, Mississippi, are now reporting that BP hopes to have the VOO program in that area completed by September 19.

Shirley is incredulous. “Why would anyone bring their children here and put them in water that has had millions of gallons of toxic chemicals dumped into it, not counting the oil itself?” she asks. “Why would you want to eat seafood that has been living and dying in the water, with all those contaminates?”

Truthout has earlier reported on other fisherman in the area, James “Catfish” Miller and Mark Stewart, who have reported being eyewitnesses to the contractors in the Carolina Skiffs spraying dispersant as well.

Meanwhile, local, state and federal authorities continue to claim that dispersant was only used south of Mississippi’s barrier islands and that the Carolina Skiffs and the large tanks they carry are only used to “skim” oil.

“If dispersants were only being sprayed South of the islands, why would these 330 gallon hazardous goods tanks be located at two different work sites, right by the tank skiffs?” Shirley asks. “Why would the skiffs tanks be so clean if they were really skimming oil?”

The Tillmans and thousands of other fishermen and residents along the Gulf of Mexico are deeply concerned about local, state and federal government complicity in what they see as a massive cover-up of the oil disaster by using toxic dispersants to sink any and all oil that is located.

Dr. Riki Ott, a toxicologist and marine biologist, is a survivor of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska. She recently submitted an open letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency expressing many of these same concerns.

Ongoing government denials of this problem neither fool nor dissuade Shirley. “I know what I have seen,” she told Truthout. “I know what I have been told. I know what I have experienced. I know what I have documented. I also know that I have taken hundreds of pictures to verify what I am saying.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Facing South–The Online Magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies: The great Gulf offshore drilling jobs hoax

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/09/the-gulf-offshore-drilling-jobs-hoax.html

When the Interior Department announced a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the wake of the BP disaster, the energy industry and conservatives rushed to declare that the Obama administration was bent on destroying the Gulf Coast economy.

For example, in a July report for the American Energy Alliance — which the media innocently described as a “non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.,” but in reality is an oil company-funded front group — Prof. Joe Mason of Louisiana State University warned that 8,000 jobs and $500 million in wages would be lost, with total economic damages amounting to some $2.1 billion.

The warnings of impending doom had their desired affect: Louisiana lawmakers and the public rose to denounce the moratorium. Judge Martin Feldman from the Eastern District of New Orleans — a Reagan appointee with his own heavy investments in energy — based his June opinion [pdf] batting down the moratorium on fears that “an estimated 150,000 jobs are directly related to offshore operations” and even a short-term ban would cause “irreparable harm” to the economy.

In the highly-charged partisan debate, everyone was forced to get on board. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, in his amicus brief [pdf] opposing the moratorium, even got the Louisiana Workforce Commission — the agency in charge of administering unemployment claims — to go on record saying that:
Because of the moratorium, many thousands of Louisiana workers have lost their employment and many more are at risk of losing it in the near future. All of the programs administered by LWC have been and will be heavily impacted by its effects.
But there was one problem: The claims weren’t true. The economic disaster never materialized. The evidence is clear:

* Despite early reports that 33 rigs would likely pull up stakes from the Gulf after the moratorium, a New Orleans Times Picayune report on August 11 found that “only two of 33 deepwater rigs in the Gulf have left for foreign oilfields.”

* The Times Picayune also found that “the predictions of tens of thousands of lost jobs across the region have yet to materialize.” In fact:
[W]eekly unemployment claims data in the mining industry sector, which comprises primarily oil- and gas-related jobs, have shown no noticeable spike since the moratorium was declared May 28. Overall employment data in coastal parishes also show little change since the drilling ban.

* In fact, on the oil rigs affected by the moratorium, the paper found “there have been no reported layoffs.”

The Louisiana Workforce Commission’s politicized claims have proved to be especially egregious. In reality, their weekly press release since the moratorium have gone into effect have shown a steady decrease in unemployment claims across the state. The latest report, from September 10, showed a decline in initial claims from 4,120 to 4,083. Claims similarly declined in June, July and August.

Indeed, in the Commissions’ eagerness to show the wisdom of the governor’s economic agenda, they couldn’t help but contradict their claims of moratorium-induced calamity with this sunny dispatch on August 20, titled “Louisiana Labor Force Hits Record High for July:”

The state’s July unemployment rate was tied for 14th lowest in the nation and was the fourth lowest in the Southern region. The Southern region rate for July was 9.2 percent.
As in the case of Prof. Mason’s research-for-hire, the original source of the bogus claims of economic collapse are easy enough to trace: The energy industry itself, and by extension the Louisiana politicians they fund.

As Louisiana Democratic blogger Mike Stagg points out, one of the first warnings of gloom and doom came from Edison Chouest Offshore, a Port Fourchon-based company which threatened “mass layoffs” of “as many as 1,000 workers” in the wake of the moratorium. Edison Chouest hosted the first anti-moratorium rally in Louisiana on June 10, which Gov. Jindal himself attended. The second rally on June 24 was at Gulf Island Fabricators offices in Houma, La. — the same company which is building an Edison Chouest facility (with the help of state funds).

Edison Chouest also happens to be one of the biggest power players in Louisiana politics. For example:

* Edison Chouest is the second-largest contributor to Sen. David Vitter (R), according to OpenSecrets.org. And that doesn’t include Gary Chouest’s personal $100,000 investment in Vitter’s Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority in 2006.

* Edison Chouest is also ranks among the top four contributors to Sen. Mary Landrieu (D).

* Edison Chouest is the top contributor to the campaigns of Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-6th) and Rep. Joseph Cao (R-2nd), and among the top five contributors to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-1st) and Rep. Charles Boustany (R-7th).

Perhaps this has something to do with why nearly all of Louisiana’s politicians came out forcefully opposing the drilling moratorium, believing the energy industry executives as opposed to the real facts on the ground of the Gulf oil jobs hoax.

By Chris Kromm on September 14, 2010 11:00 AM

Special thanks to Richard Charter, as always!

Oil and Gas Journal: BP resumes drilling Macondo relief well

http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display/7054225889/articles/oil-gas-journal/general-interest-2/hse/2010/09/bp-resumes_drilling/QP129867/cmpid=EnlDailySeptember142010.html

Sep 13, 2010
By OGJ editors

HOUSTON, Sept. 13 — BP PLC resumed drilling a relief well to intercept the deepwater Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico using Transocean Ltd.’s semisubmersible Development Driller III at 1:40 p.m. CDT on Sept. 13 following installation of a lockdown sleeve.

The crew drilling the relief well has about 50 ft left to go before the relief well reaches the intercept target with the Macondo well on Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Macondo is in 5,000 ft of water.

Relief well operations will consist of alternating drilling with ranging runs. Following the intercept, heavy drilling mud and cement will be pumped into the annulus at the bottom of the Macondo well, BP said.

An Apr. 20 blowout of the Macondo well resulted in an explosion and fire on Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon, killing 11 crew members. The semi sank on Apr. 22, and a massive oil spill resulted in the gulf.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

MSNBC.com: ‘Slime highway’ of BP oil suspected on Gulf floor

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39150640/ns/us_news-environment


Arney Diercks / University of Georgia
A chunk of “oil aggregate snow” is seen in this close-up photograph of fluffy oil residue found on the Gulf’s seafloor.

Fluffy residue found at sites both far off and near wellhead

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Samantha Boye / University of Georgia
A layer of fluffy oil residue sits atop a sediment core taken from a site northeast of the blown-out BP wellhead.
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 9/13/2010 5:44:16 PM ET

Samples taken from the seafloor near BP’s blown-out wellhead indicate miles of murky, oily residue sitting atop hard sediment. Moreover, inside that residue are dead shrimp, zooplankton, worms and other invertebrates.

“I expected to find oil on the sea floor,” Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia marine sciences professor, said Monday morning in a ship-to-shore telephone interview. “I did not expect to find this much. I didn’t expect to find layers two inches thick.”

The scientists aboard the research vessel Oceanus suspect it’s all from the BP spill, but will have to wait until they return to shore this week to confirm it’s the same oil source.

“It has to be a recent event,” Joye said. “There’s still pieces of warm bodies there.”

If it is BP oil, it could undermine the federal government’s estimate that 75 percent of the spill either evaporated, was cleaned up or was consumed by natural microbes.

What the scientists do already know is that the oil is not coming naturally from below the surface.
“What we found today is not a natural seep,” Joye wrote in her blog on Sept. 5 when the first surprise sediment was found.

“The near shore sediments contained grayish muddy clay and a thin layer of orange-brown oil at the surface,” she added. Oil seeping naturally would create an oily stain throughout the sediment cores, but these samples only had oil at the top.

“The oil obviously came from the top (down from the water column) not the bottom (up from a deep reservoir),” Joye wrote.

‘Slime highway’

The researchers also have a name for it: a slime highway.

That’s because they’re confident much of the oil was trapped by mucus coming from microbes that feast on oil in a natural process that helps break up the contaminant. Those microbes are well documented, but not that their mucus was sinking along with oil to the seafloor.

“The organisms that break down oil excrete mucus – copious amounts of mucus,” Joye told National Public Radio. “So it’s kind of like a slime highway from the surface to the bottom. Because eventually the slime gets heavy and it sinks.”

Another factor that could be trapping the oil was the earlier use of chemical dispersants, which might have made the oil so small that it wasn’t buoyant enough to rise.

Joye wrote that the scientists call the substance “‘oil aggregate snow’ – because it settled down the water column to the seafloor just like snow falls from the sky to the ground.”

“If you take a close look at the snow layer, oil aggregates are clearly visible,” she added. “Also visible are pteropod shells (which must have been recently deposited because the shells dissolve rapidly) and remnants of zooplankton (skeletons) and benthic infauna (dead worms and their tubes).”
The researchers took new samples on Monday and Sunday, and hope to take several more, especially closer to the wellhead, before they return.

“It’s weird the stuff we found last night,” Joye said. “Some of it was really dense and thick.”

The samples have come from seafloors at depths ranging from 300 to 4,000 feet deep.
Since the well was capped on July 15, and after some 200 million gallons flowed into the Gulf, there have been signs of resilience on the surface and the shore. Sheens have disappeared, while some marshlands have shoots of green. This seeming recovery is likely a result of massive amounts of chemical dispersants, warm waters and a Gulf that is used to degrading massive amounts of oil, scientists say.

Times-Picayune: Louisiana authorities report oil sightings from Gulf of Mexico spill

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/09/louisiana_authorities_report_o_30.html

nola.com

Published: Monday, September 13, 2010, 7:25 PM Updated: Monday, September 13, 2010, 8:56 PM
Times-Picayune Staff

Here is a list, released by Louisiana emergency officials, of areas where oil was sighted recently. The list is not a comprehensive tally of areas affected by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
View full sizeU.S. Army photo, Louisiana National Guard Public Affairs OfficeOil-soaked boom washed up on the marsh in Bay Jimmy near Venice on Wednesday.
Plaquemines Parish

Wednesday
* Submerged oil stirred up by boat 4.6 miles northwest of the Grand Gosier Islands.
* Submerged oil stirred up by boat 7.6 miles east of the Breton Islands.
* Oil sheen 1.75 miles northeast of the mouth of the Kimbel Pass.
* Oil sheen 2.4 miles east of the southern mouth of Pass a Loutre.
* Oil, tar balls, and sheen in water and cane grass on the east jetty of the Southeast Pass.
* Oil, tar balls, and sheen in water and cane grass on the west jetty of the Southeast Pass.
Thursday
* Heavy tar found 6 to 8 inches under the sand 0.95 mile west of the entrance to Chaland Pass.
* Heavy tar 30 yards long by 6 feet found 4 inches under the sand 3.2 miles east of the entrance to Chaland Pass.
View full sizeU.S. Army photo, Louisiana National Guard Public Affairs OfficeA barrel of oil and water collected with a Shaffer vacuum from the marsh in Bay Jimmy near Venice on Wednesday.
Friday
* Half mile of oil on an unnamed marsh island on the southwest side of Bay Jimmy.
* Tar balls on the beach on the east side of the Scofield Bayou south entrance.
* Tar patties in an area 1 mile long by 20 yards wide in West Bay 2.15 miles northwest of Outlet W-2.
* Tar balls, 6 feet to 12 feet in diameter, in a large area of Scott Bay, 08 mile north-northwest of Double Bayou.
* Oil droplets, 3 inches in diameter, with some slightly submerged oil 1 mile west-southwest of the Southwest Pass Lighthouse.
* Heavy oil sheen with surface oil droplets and submerged oil in an area 2,500 feet long and 300 feet wide, 0.85 mile west of the Southwest Pass East Jetty.
* Dark oil and tar balls by the South Pass West Jetty.
Monday
* Oil with the consistency of peanut butter, 10 feet long and 2 feet wide, 1.46 miles east of Bay La Mer.
* Oil on the beach, in an area 2 feet wide and 25 feet long, 1.76 miles east of Bay La Mer.
* Oil patty, 4 feet in diameter and 4 inches thick, 0.95 miles west of Chaland Pass.

St Bernard Parish
Friday

* Small, light brown tar balls, in an area 2 yards wide and 200 yards long, in Drum Bay 1.25 miles east of Anderson Point.
Lafourche Parish
Friday
* Emulsified oil with sheen and brown and red particulates 9 miles south-southeast of the east end of Timbalier Island.
* Fresh tar balls on the northwest side of East Timbalier Island.

_________________________________

Comments Feed

View: Oldest first | Newest first

outthebox2 September 13, 2010 at 8:05PM
Follow

Seems like their not reporting all the sightings. I personally reported Sunday sighting oil sheen throughout Bakers canal on Saturday. From what I understand individuals went out Sunday and spotted more but yet BP is scaling back it’s response down in Hopedale, La. We are just beginning to reap the repercusions of this spill on our wetlands.

Inappropriate? Alert us.
Reply Post new

keysfish September 13, 2010 at 8:12PM
Follow

Even the New York Times is saying it’s over and wasn’t so bad, especially in Louisiana. “Gulf May Avoid Direst Predictions After Oil Spill– Preliminary scientific reports suggest the damage may be significantly less than was feared.”
But was it really the shrimpers who killed the sea turtles?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/earth/14spill.html?ref=us

Inappropriate? Alert us.
Reply Post new

0000000000 September 13, 2010 at 8:57PM
Follow

BP and the Government thought they had this thing well covered up. Looks like they even screwed that up. Let’s play some soft music and talk about how BP will do everything in it’s power to make things right. They even have people working for them that have lived here all their lives, and will see that things are done right. Brings a tear to my eye, and indigestion to the belly.

Inappropriate? Alert us.
Reply Post new

nowino59 September 13, 2010 at 9:24PM
Follow
I’m on a beach east of Destin this week and have a collection of tarballs already after 1 day. And there are NO remediation crews patrolling the beaches anymore.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

ABC News: Oil From the BP Spill Found at Bottom of Gulf (video)

see video at:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/oil-bp-spill-found-bottom-gulf/story?id=11618039

University of Georgia Researcher Says Samples Are Showing Oil From the Spill

By MATT GUTMAN and KEVIN DOLAK
Sept. 12, 2010

Oil from the BP spill has not been completely cleared, but miles of it is sitting at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, according to a study currently under way.

Professor Samantha Joye of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, who is conducting a study on a research vessel just two miles from the spill zone, said the oil has not disappeared, but is on the sea floor in a layer of scum.

“We’re finding it everywhere that we’ve looked. The oil is not gone,” Joye said. “It’s in places where nobody has looked for it.”

All 13 of the core samples Joye and her UGA team have collected from the bottom of the gulf are showing oil from the spill, she said.

In an interview with ABC News from her vessel, Joye said the oil cannot be natural seepage into the gulf, because the cores they’ve tested are showing oil only at the top. With natural seepage, the oil would spread from the top to the bottom of the core, she said.

“It looks like you just took a strip of very sticky material and just passed it through the water column and all the stuff from the water column got stuck to it, and got transported to the bottom,” Joye said. “I know what a natural seep looks like — this is not natural seepage.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Oceana hosts Key West meeting Thursday Sept 16th

I encourage Keys residents to get involved with Oceana–an effective organization! DV

RSVP to: http://oceanakeys.eventbrite.com/

What: Oceana Florida Keys Orientation & Meet Up
When: Thursday Sept 16th 6–7pm
Where: Sippin Cafe, 424 Eaton Street, Key West, FL 33040

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, September 16th, we’ll be hosting an Oceana volunteer orientation and meet-up. Come meet one another 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.

We will be meeting Thursday, September 16th 6-7 pm, at Sippin Cafe, 424 Eaton Street downtown Key West.

This is a great opportunity to connect with other folks interested in making a difference! Hope to see you there.

Special thanks to: Amanda Gambill, Climate and Energy Campaign, Oceana
www.oceana.org

New York Times: The Oil Spill’s Money Squeeze


Lee Celano for The New York Times
Harriet M. Perry of the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in Ocean Springs, Miss., has found oil in larvae samplings, but her testing money has run out.


Lee Celano for The New York Times
The image of a larval blue tuna that scientists tested for evidence of oil from the gulf spill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/science/earth/13funds.html

In May, Harriet M. Perry, the director of the fisheries program at the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, was asked to examine some mysterious droplets found on blue crab larvae by scientists at Tulane University. An early test indicated that the droplets were oil, and she has continued to find similar droplets on fresh larvae samples taken all along the northern Gulf of Mexico.

Despite the potential significance of the discovery, Dr. Perry does not have research money to cover further tests. And like other scientists across the Gulf Coast who are racing to sketch out the contours of the BP oil spill’s effects, she has few places to turn for help.

The only federal agency to distribute any significant grant money for oil spill research, the National Science Foundation, is out of money until the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The Environmental Protection Agency, which has only $2 million to give out, is still gearing up its program. A $500 million initiative for independent research promised by BP, which was to be awarded by an international panel of scientists, has become mired in a political fight over control. State agencies, too, are stymied.

“We have met with every possible person we can regarding this issue, built the templates, sent in the requests, and we are waiting to see,” said Hank M. Bounds, the Mississippi commissioner of higher education, speaking of the needs of Ms. Perry and other scientists.

There is plenty of science being done on the spill, but most of it is in the service of either the response effort, the federal Natural Damage Resource Assessment that will determine BP’s liability, or BP’s legal defense. Scientists who participate in those efforts may face restrictions on how they can use or publish their data. More important, they do not have a free hand in determining the scope of their studies.

“Independent research is being squeezed by federal agencies on one side and BP on the other,” said Dr. Perry, whose only offer of help has come from BP (she declined). “It’s difficult for the fishing community and the environmentalists to understand why we are not receiving the money that we need.”

Scientists view the situation as urgent because the environmental picture in the gulf region changes daily, as the plume of undersea oil disperses and degrades, fish eggs hatch and crabs molt.

“Time is of the essence,” said Lisa Suatoni, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “Knowing the answers to basic questions like how much oil is below the surface, where is it going and what is its fate – those are answers that are slipping through our fingers.”

John H. Paul, a biological oceanographer at the University of South Florida, has found evidence of stress and even genetic damage in plankton exposed to the spill. “Everything that I’ve done, I’ve not had funding for,” he said. “I’ve had to pull people off my other projects and say, ‘Here, let’s do this for two weeks.’ ”

Ralph Portier, an environmental scientist at Louisiana State University, said earlier grants would have meant earlier answers to key questions like how long it will take for the oil in the marshes to break down. “We could have had a much better answer to that by now if we had started in the summer,” he said.

But, Dr. Portier said, there was no mechanism set up to provide research money in the event of an oil spill. “We always seem to be reacting and reacting and reacting, rather than being proactive,” he said.

Dr. Suatoni said the federal agencies that scientists normally looked to might not get significant allotments from Congress for spill research. “The government is afraid it’s going to look like we’re asking taxpayers to pay to study a spill that was a result of BP’s actions,” she said.

Right after the spill, gulf research institutions exhausted their budgets, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for sea voyages and sampling. Scientists used their personal credit cards to begin research projects.

After complaints about the scarcity of research dollars, BP announced that it would spend $500 million over 10 years in a program it called the Gulf Research Initiative. The original structure of the initiative, with an international panel of scientists appointed to review proposals, was applauded by many scientists, who were persuaded that BP genuinely intended to distance itself from the choice of projects and would set no limits on the publication of results.

But gulf scientists and state officials expressed fears that the process would take too long and that the money would go to large, well-financed research institutions outside the gulf region.

So BP wrote checks for $30 million to research centers in the region for “high-priority studies” – $10 million to the Florida Institute of Oceanography, $10 million to the Northern Gulf Institute, and $5 million to the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama, all university consortiums, and another $5 million to Louisiana State University. Last week, BP announced that $10 million of the initiative money had been awarded to the National Institutes of Health.

The money was in high demand – the Florida Institute of Oceanography, for example, received 233 proposals and gave awards to only 27.

BP promised that guidelines for disbursing the rest of the money were imminent, but politics intervened. Governors of the Gulf States still wanted more local control of the money, and in mid-June the White House backed them up, announcing, “As a part of this initiative, BP will work with governors, and state and local environmental and health authorities to design the long-term monitoring program to assure the environmental and public health of the gulf region.”

A White House spokesman said that statement was never intended to delay the financing process, but the announcement forced BP to rethink its plans and caused anxiety among scientists. Some feared that the delay would extend indefinitely, and that as the spill receded from the public eye, the money would never materialize. Others divined a money grab by governors for their own cash-starved environmental departments. BP has said little, other than that it is following the “White House directive” to consult with the states.

At least three of the governors have signed on to a proposal that a group called the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, a partnership led by state natural resource and environmental agencies, administer the money. Under the plan now being worked out, BP would appoint 10 members of the peer review board and each governor would appoint two members, said William W. Walker, the director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources and the co-chairman of the alliance. In Mississippi’s case, he said, there would most likely be one appointee from a state agency and one from a research institution.

But scientists are skeptical of the gulf alliance, in part because it is controlled by agencies rather than universities, and the public silence surrounding the negotiations has raised suspicions.

“It looks like maybe BP caved,” said Gary M. King, a microbial ecologist at Louisiana State University. “There’s no sense of trust that a group of governors are actually going to do the right thing and ensure that there will be good science.”

New York Times: Panel Urges Tougher Offshore Regulation & US Interior Dept: Salazar: OCS Safety Board Report a “Blueprint” for Next Steps on Internal Reforms of Offshore Energy Oversight

New York Times
September 8, 2010

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/panel-urges-tougher-offshore-regulation/?scp=1&sq=%20Interior%20Secretary%20Ken%20Salazar%20said%20of%20the%20report%20in%20&st=cse

September 8, 2010, 4:37 pm

By JOHN M. BRODER

Regulators who are supposed to police offshore oil and gas drilling are spread too thinly, poorly trained and hampered by outdated technology, according to a study

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-OCS-Safety-Board-Report-a-Blueprint-for-Next-Steps-on-Internal-Reforms-of-Offshore-Energy-Oversight.cfm

by an Interior Department review board appointed after the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Outer Continental Shelf Safety Oversight Board noted in a
report http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=43677
on Wednesday that oil and gas leasing off the nation’s coastlines had nearly tripled since 1982, while the size of the regulatory staff had declined by a third. Off the West Coast, there are five inspectors for 23 offshore production platforms. In the Gulf of Mexico, there are 55 inspectors for 3,000 facilities, the report states.

The study also found that overworked inspectors came under constant pressure from operators not to cite them for violations of rules, complaining that they could lead to fines or costly work stoppages. Inspectors said that they were unable to perform unannounced inspections because of the difficulty of reaching offshore platforms and because of Coast Guard security rules.
The report recommended hiring dozens of new inspectors and giving additional training to those already on the job. It also urged a more robust system of enforcement, including greater authority to cite violations and impose fines.

“I tasked the O.C.S. Safety Board with taking a hard, thorough look top to bottom at how this department regulates and oversees offshore oil and gas operation and provide me their honest and unvarnished recommendations for reform,” said Ken Salazar, the interior secretary. “The report is what I was looking for: it is honest; it doesn’t sugarcoat challenges we know are there; it provides a blueprint for solving them; and it shows that we are on precisely the right track with our reform agenda.”

Many of the panel’s recommendations, including an overhaul of the enforcement of the Minerals Management Service (the agency now reconstituted as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement),

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=43676

are already being put in place. Under its new leader, Michael R. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, the agency has already issued a new conflict-of-interest policy and set up an internal investigations unit.

“To a substantial degree, we fully concur with the recommendations,” Mr. Bromwich said in a telephone briefing for reporters. “Without knowing them in advance, we’re moving to implement the bulk of them.”

Mr. Salazar and Mr. Bromwich said that the revamping of offshore regulation was proceeding independently of the moratorium on deepwater drilling that was imposed in July. That suspension is scheduled to end on Nov. 30, whether or not all of the policies and practices recommended by the safety board are in place, they said.

“They don’t all need to be met for the moratorium to be lifted,” Mr. Bromwich said. “There are a cascading series of reforms under way to raise the bar to be met by industry to make deepwater drilling ever more safe. This is simply a recognition it will take time for all of this to be in place.”

__________________

News Release
September 8, 2010

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-OCS-Safety-Board-Report-a-Blueprint-for-Next-Steps-on-Internal-Reforms-of-Offshore-Energy-Oversight.cfm?renderforprint=1 &

US Dept of Interior

——————————————————————————–

Bromwich Develops Implementation Plan for Recommendations
09/08/2010
Contact: Kate Kelly, DOI (202) 208-6416

WASHINGTON Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced that a team led by senior officials in the Department of the Interior, including Interior’s Inspector General, have completed a review of offshore oil and gas oversight and regulation and have delivered a set of recommendations that reinforce and expand on ongoing reforms being carried out by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) Director Michael R. Bromwich.

The report of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Safety Oversight Board, which Secretary Salazar established immediately following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, provides recommendations to strengthen permitting, inspections, enforcement and environmental stewardship. Director Bromwich announced today that BOEMRE has developed an implementation plan for the recommendations, many of which are already underway or planned.

“I tasked the OCS Safety Board with taking a hard, thorough look top to bottom – at how this department regulates and oversees offshore oil and gas operations and provide me their honest and unvarnished recommendations for reform,” said Secretary Salazar. “The report is what I was looking for: it is honest; it doesn’t sugarcoat challenges we know are there; it provides a blueprint for solving them; and it shows that we are on precisely the right track with our reform agenda. We are absolutely committed to building a regulatory agency that has the authorities, resources, and support to provide strong and effective regulation and oversight and we are on our way to accomplishing that goal.”

“The goal of our efforts is a culture of safety, in which protecting human life and preventing environmental disasters are the highest priorities, while making leasing and production safer and more sustainable,” said Assistant Secretary Wilma Lewis, who chaired the Safety Oversight Board. Mary L. Kendall, Acting Inspector General of Interior and Rhea S. Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, also served as members of the Board.

“My mandate from the President and Secretary was explicit reform the way the agency does business in managing and regulating offshore energy development on the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf,” said BOEMRE Director Bromwich, who noted that the initiatives are consistent with the reform agenda he has been developing and implementing. “Many of the Board’s recommendations will be addressed through initiatives and programs that are already in process and are central to our reform agenda.”

The Safety Oversight Board’s findings and recommendations provide a framework to build upon reforms to create more accountability, efficiency and effectiveness in the Interior agencies that carry out the Department’s offshore energy management responsibilities. The recommendations address both short- and long-term efforts that complement other ongoing reports and reviews, such as the Secretary’s May 27 report to the President, the Presidential inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the U.S. Coast Guard-Interior investigation into the causes of the incident.

The recommendations range from improved consistency and communication of BOEMRE’s operational policies to technology improvements and day-to-day management in the field. Strengthening inspections and enforcement from personnel training to the deterrent effect of fines and civil penalties is a major focus of the recommendations.

BOEMRE’s implementation plan outlines the initiatives and programs that the Bureau is undertaking which address the report’s recommendations, including: reorganizing MMS to address real and perceived conflicts between resource management, safety and environmental oversight and enforcement, and revenue collection responsibilities; seeking additional resources in the form of funding, personnel, equipment and information systems; ethics reforms that include the establishment of an Investigations and Review Unit and a new recusal policy to address potential conflicts of interests within BOEMRE and industry; and Inter-Agency coordination with federal agencies related to oil spill response and the mitigation of environmental effects of offshore energy development.

The OCS Safety Oversight Board Report is online at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=43677

The BOEM Implementation Plan is online at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=43676 (signed) and http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=43879 (text-PDF)

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Times-Picayune: New Wave of oil comes ashore west of Mississippi River

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/09/new_wave_of_oil_comes_ashore_w.html

By Bob Marshall, The Times-Picayune
September 12, 2010

A new wave of black oil suddenly came ashore west of the Mississippi River on Friday and Saturday, coating beaches and fouling interior marshes, according to anglers’ reports. Ryan Lambert, owner of Buras-based Cajun Fishing Adventures, said about 16 miles of coastal beaches in Plaquemines Parish from Sandy Point to Chalon Pass were lined with black oil and tar balls. Meanwhile anglers returning to Lafitte told Sidney Bourgeois, of Joe’s Landing, that new oil was surfacing on the eastern side of Barataria Bay in the Bay Jimmie, Bay Wilkerson, and in Bay Baptiste areas.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries confirmed the following oil sightings in Plaquemines Parish on Friday:

– Half mile of oil located in the marsh of an unnamed marsh island on the southwest side of Bay Jimmy.

– One-mile-long by 20-yard-wide area of tar patties located in West Bay 2.15 miles northwest of Outlet W-2.

– Large area of 6-foot to 12-foot-diameter tar balls locate in Scott Bay 0.8 mile north-northwest of Double Bayou.

– A 2,500-foot-long by 300-foot-wide area of heavy oil sheen with surface oil droplets and submerged oil located offshore 0.85 mile west of the Southwest Pass East Jetty.

“It’s just suddenly came up Friday and it’s along the beach for mile and miles, and drifting inside in some spots,” Lambert said. “There were quite a few dead red fish on the beach, and just thousands of dead pogies (menhaden) inside the bays. And there a really big areas of sheen right off the beach.
“Everyone thinks this is over, but it’s not — not if we can still get soakings like this.”

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

Keep In Mind What Happened and Do Not Let It Go By Joel Biddle

Joel is the former Educational Director for Reef Relief and a dear friend. His perspective is right on. DV

While government agencies and BP congratulate themselves on their “success,” we should not overlook
what happened. Even if most of us didn’t want to recognize it, during the Gulf Oil catastrophe we saw exposed the extent of corporate power over our government and our government agencies— agencies that were originally intended to protect us and our environment.

Throughout the unfolding of the drama, this was all too painfully apparent: How unprotected we the people are against corporate money. All of you, NOAA, the EPA, the DEP, The National Marine Park Program* the United States Coast Guard and all you other agencies directly or indirectly involved in this catastrophe, you have let us down. You did it when you looked the other way during the permitting process that allowed drilling in the first place, when what was then the Minerals and Management Service waived the required geological, ecological and economic surveys required by law. You did it by not monitoring BP, a company with an outrageous history of cost-cutting, infractions and disasters.

Incredibly, none of you were prepared for a worst-case scenario. You also let us down when you refused foreign vessels and help. One example of many was the three Swedish Coast Guard Skimmers that were refused, which could have removed 350 barrels of oil per hour. Instead of your constant underestimation, just think what those Swedish vessels could have meant to the Panhandle. Instead of removing oil at the source of the spill, using tankers and barges and reusing recovered oil to recover costs, you allowed unprecedented amounts of poisonous chemical dispersants to be poured into the Mexican Gulf to hide the oil, making it impossible to retrieve and causing oil plumes and unknowable damage for years to come.

Additionally, in hiding the extent of oil wasted, you aided and abetted BP by imposing media and public blackouts. According to many reports, you helped them dispose of uncounted numbers of murdered wildlife and wasted oil. In so doing, you robbed us of the true knowledge of the extent of what was done. You also robbed us of literally billions of dollars in fines that could have restituted families, businesses and the environment into the future.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in a preliminary hearing, said it allowed dispersants because there weren’t enough vessels to retrieve the oil. Yet many available vessels were refused by BP, the Coast Guard and the EPA.

One reason given by the EPA was its regulation that every vessel removing oily water from the ocean must meet EPA standards when the water is put back in. But EPA regulations are often overlooked in emergency situations such as when a hurricane hits and massive amounts of untreated farm runoff enters Shark River Slew and other outlets into Florida Bay and onto our reefs. Why weren’t these regulations eased in this case?

The EPA was protecting BP and not us. Now the Unified Command has declared the Gulf oil disaster virtually over, claiming that about 75 percent of the oil has been cleaned up or has disappeared. Independent scientists not on BP or the government’s payroll have a different opinion on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Researchers at the University of South Florida conclude that oil has settled at the bottom of the Gulf farther east than previously suspected and at levels toxic to marine life. A team from Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia has released a report estimating 70 to 79 percent of the oil that gushed from the well “has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.” Researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute report a plume of hydrocarbons at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume of trapped hydrocarbons provides a clue to where the oil has gone as oil slicks on the surface disappear.

All of us living here want to find solutions, we all want to help if tar balls and other threats come to our shores. But the sad fact is that we’ll have no real solutions if, in the end, it’s business as usual. Business as usual is not good enough. It’s up to each and every government agency to rid itself of the corporate influence that keeps it from doing its sworn duty. Only then will it be able to perform its true mission, to protect the environment and to protect us, the people of the United States of America. Otherwise, why trust anything any agency says?

Sources for this article include The Atlantic Monthly, Huffington Post,, CNN, Science and The New York Times.

* Joel may be referring to the National Park Service at Interior

Special thanks to Joel Biddle.

Houston Chronicle: BP spreads blame for deadly blowout, & BP report sets inquiry agenda for now, & Oil Giant’s critics not impressed.

September 9, 2010

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7192813.html

By BRETT CLANTON and JENNIFER DLOUHY
Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
Sept. 9, 2010, 7:03AM

BP on Wednesday laid out its most detailed analysis yet on possible causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident in April, taking particular aim at mistakes by contractors on the doomed rig while claiming only a limited role in the disaster.

In a much-anticipated report on its internal investigation, BP reiterated that a “complex and interlinked series” of equipment failures and human error led to the deadly incident and subsequent oil spill but also offered new explanations about what went wrong.

Key contractors quickly dismissed BP’s report as inaccurate and one-sided.

One key finding seemed to debunk the prevailing theory on where the original leak occurred deep within the Macondo well that set the disaster in motion. Rather than traveling up a narrow channel outside the well’s interior pipe casing, volatile gas likely entered the casing itself through a series of barriers at the bottom of the well called a shoe track, the company said.

That is one of eight problems BP cited as possible causes of the April 20 accident, which killed 11 workers and spilled 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The BP team also said crew members missed clear warning signs that gas had seeped into the well, that worker errors and defects in the rig’s design let gas ignite at the rig’s surface, and that problems with a massive blowout preventer on the seafloor may have kept it from sealing the well after the blast.

Though BP personnel are directly implicated in just one of the eight factors, company investigators stressed the report was not intended to be the final word on the subject, nor an accounting of legal responsibility.

First of several reports

“Our purpose was not to apportion blame or liability but rather to learn, recommend areas for improvement and share lessons with others,” said Mark Bly, the BP safety chief who led the investigation.

Compiled over a four-month period, the 234-page report drew upon interviews with BP and non-BP employees on the Deepwater Horizon and BP well engineers in Houston, company documents, real-time well data transmitted from the rig to shore and testimony in public hearings about the accident.

While about 10 other independent and government investigations continue, BP’s is the first report on a start-to-finish examination of the tragedy.

In it, investigators repeatedly homed in on the failure of cement barriers in the well, a focus that shifts attention to the work done by the cement contractor Halliburton Co. In particular, the team alleged that the oil field services giant failed to conduct adequate testing of the specific cement slurry used at the well.

The nitrogen-injected foam cement that was used at the site is susceptible to breaking down over time, especially if it is contaminated, BP’s Kent Corser said at a briefing with reporters in Washington. This is what the team believes happened to cement in the thin area called the annulus between the pipelike casing at the well’s center and the surrounding rock.

Once in the annulus, hydrocarbons likely entered the casing through the shoe track, a final section of casing at the bottom of the well where two mechanical valves and cement are installed to seal off the reservoir. BP speculates that both the valves and cement failed, allowing hydrocarbons to pass through the valves and up the casing.

Could deflect blame

The theory, if true, could deflect blame from BP’s Macondo well design criticized by some experts as risky and shift it to contractors including Halliburton and Transocean, which owned and operated the rig under contract with BP.

It also could take heat off BP engineers for a much-scrutinized decision to install fewer devices called centralizers than Halliburton had recommended for a section of well casing, despite risks that the smaller number could cause an uneven cement job and gas flow in the well.

“Based on the report, it would appear unlikely that the well design contributed to the incident, as the investigation found that the hydrocarbons flowed up the production casing through the bottom of the well,” BP’s outgoing CEO, Tony Hayward, said in a statement.

Contractors don’t agree

Halliburton said Wednesday it remains confident in the work it did on the Macondo well, noting it was done according to BP specifications, and criticized the report for “substantial omissions and inaccuracies.”

Transocean called the document a “self-serving report that attempts to conceal the critical factor that set the stage for the Macondo incident: BP’s fatally flawed well design.”

While the shoe track explanation is plausible, BP still had responsibility for verifying the cement job was sound, said Darryl Bourgoyne, director of the Petroleum Engineering Research Lab at Louisiana State University.

“From my view, they were the operators of the well,” he said. “If somebody working on their behalf wasn’t doing something right, then it’s the same as them not.”

BP investigators said a bad cement job, in and of itself, shouldn’t have caused the lethal escape of gas from the well. They also faulted workers on the rig for not going through a formal risk assessment after the cementing.

That kind of on-the-spot analysis might have prompted workers to run a cement bond log, considered the gold standard for well-cement testing, which might have detected problems sooner. BP had planned to run the test and even had a crew from Schlumberger on board to perform it, but sent them home the day of the blast after deciding the test was unnecessary.

Pressure test ignored

The Bly Report is also critical of two BP well site leaders and Transocean crew on the rig who “incorrectly accepted” the results of a crucial test of the well’s integrity on the day of the accident. Though the negative pressure test showed pressure on a drill pipe when it should have been zero, the crew went forward with a procedure to replace heavy drilling mud in the well with much lighter seawater.

Investigators said rig data shows a 40-minute gap from the first indication of a gas influx to the first attempt by the crew to bring the well back under control. But by then, it was too late. Minutes later, the first of two explosions occurred.

The BP team insisted that had the flow of hydrocarbons been caught before it got into the riser pipe and gas started flowing onto the Deepwater Horizon, rig workers might may have been able to avert disaster.

But, at the end of the day, BP can only blame others so much for the accident, said Nansen G. Saleri, CEO of Houston-based Quantum Reservoir Impact, an oil and gas industry consultant.

“The elephant in the room,” he said, “is that collectively and ultimately the responsibility lies with BP.”

brett.clanton@chron.com

jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7192390.html

DISASTER IN THE GULF
BP report sets inquiry agenda – for now
Company gets out in front on the debate over causes of rig blowout
By MONICA HATCHER
Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
Sept. 8, 2010, 10:32PM

In releasing the first detailed report on the causes of the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP laid down a battleground for years of legal and political skirmishes, and may have provided itself some cover against the most severe civil and criminal penalties.

In the highly anticipated report released Wednesday, the British oil giant acknowledged limited responsibility for the myriad missteps that led to the April 20 blowout at its Macondo well, shifting most of the blame to contractors who analysts say will now be forced to respond on BP’s terms.

The report outlines in 234 pages the results of a four-month investigation that identified and analyzed eight key factors in the disaster and includes recommendations for preventing future accidents.

“BP has set the battleground, now Transocean, Halliburton and Cameron are going to have to respond initially on the turf that BP has selected,” said Kent Moors, a professor at the Graduate Center for Social and Public Policy at Duquesne University and president of ASIDA, an international oil and gas consulting firm.

Three more companies

Transocean owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon under contract with BP. Halliburton performed well cementing that BP identifies as a trigger to the chain of events that destroyed the rig, killed 11 men and set off a 4.9-million-barrel oil spill in the Gulf. Cameron built the blowout preventer that failed as the last line of defense against disaster.

By getting out in front of the debate, Moors said, BP framed the discussion going forward, at least until others reply with findings from their own investigations.

Role of others

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the influential House Committee on Energy and Commerce, acknowledged as much in saying the report “raises many questions” about the role of others in the accident.

But he also accused BP of glossing over its own role.

Yet BP also may benefit from demonstrating to the federal government that the company is acting in good faith by investigating the accident and helping regulators and industry find ways to prevent recurrences, said Tracy Hester, assistant professor and the director of the Environment, Energy & Natural Resource Center at the University of Houston Law Center.

“That is important in dealing with government agencies, because responding in good faith could play an important role in assessing civil penalties and in the government’s decision to ultimately charge anyone,” Hester said. A similar internal investigation into BP’s 2005 Texas City refinery explosion was important in shaping enforcement decisions after that event as well, he said.

While the findings brought few surprises to analysts, academics and attorneys closely following the case, BP was nonetheless clobbered by critics for failing to take more responsibility.

Nancy Leveson, a specialists in systems safety at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has investigated hundreds of major accidents, including ones on spacecraft and oil refineries, said expecting anything else from BP would have been naive. She likened the findings to an incident report written by someone in a car crash who was told he, not his insurance company, would be on the hook for damages.

‘Astounding liability’

“BP faces astounding liability. Everyone in the world is suing them, including other oil companies. It’s just impossible for a company to investigate itself under these circumstances,” Leveson said.

The report doesn’t address accusations leveled against the company and doesn’t discuss any role BP management may have played in the decision-making. Rather than a defense, the report should be seen an explanation of the mechanical and physical failures that caused the accident, Leveson said.

“The lawsuits are going to be about the things that are left out of this report, who did what,” Leveson said.

Halliburton said BP’s findings had a number of “substantial omissions and inaccuracies.” And a spokesman for Transocean called the report “self-serving” and an attempt “to conceal the critical factor that set the stage for the Macondo incident: BP’s fatally flawed well design.”

During a three-hour technical briefing Wednesday in Washington, BP safety and operations chief Mark Bly, who headed the investigation, denied the report was written to diffuse blame. “We wanted to understand what happened and why,” he said.

Fall on their own sword?

But Steve Gordon, a veteran maritime lawyer in Houston who represents the family of rig worker Karl Kleppinger Jr., who died on the Deepwater Horizon, and eight survivors, said BP missed an opportunity to speed litigation for those it said it would make whole.

“Is it naive to think BP would have accepted some blame when you’ve been told for more than 140 days, ‘Do not worry, America, we will get to the bottom of what happened and admit fault where we were at fault and make recompense?’? ” Gordon said. “I don’t expect them to fall on their own sword, but truly analyze how BP messed up.”

No special weight

A joint Coast Guard- Interior Department board investigating the accident will take into consideration the Bly Report as it looks for root causes but won’t give it special weight, Coast Guard Lt. Sue Kerver said.

“They would use that as they would any other piece of evidence and see if there’s any information they needed to glean or any other folks they need to bring in and talk to as a result of that,” she said.

Eban Burnham-Snyder, a spokesman for Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chairs a congressional panel investigating the oil spill, said the congressman is reviewing the report and checking it against information the committee has already received from BP and elsewhere.

“If we find cause to ask additional questions relevant to the investigation, we will do so,” he said.

Brett Clanton and Tom Fowler contributed from Houston and Jennifer A. Dlouhy from Washington.

monica.hatcher@chron.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7192389.html

Oil giant’s critics are not impressed
They wanted it to accept more blame for blast
By PURVA PATEL
Sept. 8, 2010, 10:33PM

Lawmakers and environmental groups blasted BP’s report on its disastrous well blowout as self-serving, saying the British company pointed fingers at others rather than accept responsibility.

Particularly critical was Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and environment.

“This report is not BP’s mea culpa,” Markey said. “Of their own eight key findings, they only explicitly take responsibility for half of one. BP is happy to slice up blame, as long as they get the smallest piece.”

In a briefing with reporters in Washington Wednesday, BP’s Mark Bly, who headed the investigation, dismissed allegations that the report was intended to diffuse blame.

“We were not about proportioning or apportioning fault or blame,” Bly said. “I know there may be people who may want to understand that from us. We understand our work may be used for those reasons, but that’s not what we’ve done. We wanted to understand what happened and why.”

More objective?

Markey and others said they expect that investigations by Congress and federal agencies will be more objective and carry more weight.

P&J Oyster Co. owner Sal Sunseri, whose New Orleans-based business suffered after he was forced to stop shucking oysters in June, said he wasn’t sure how objective BP’s self-reporting could be but added that there’s enough blame to go around.

“Everyone involved in the production and operation of that rig is responsible,” he said. “Is BP’s report accurate? I don’t know. All I know is my business is directly affected, and I’m not able to do what I regularly do.”

Environmental groups also gave little quarter.

“This report is more concerned with calming BP’s shareholders than taking responsibility for its actions,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.

One group cared less about the finger-pointing and more about future incidents.

“We need to make sure BP, the federal government and the entire oil and gas industry have far better plans and practices in place to respond to their mistakes,” said Aaron Viles, campaign director for the Gulf Restoration Network, a New Orleans-based environmental group.

No comment by API

Spokesmen for two major trade groups, the American Petroleum Institute in Washington and the International Association of Drilling Contractors in Houston, declined to comment on BP’s report.

Mihael Ivic, owner of Misho’s Oyster Co. in San Leon, saw his oyster inventory drop to the lowest level in 10 years after the spill. But he doesn’t think BP deserves all the blame.

“There is probably guilt on each side,” said Ivic, who says compensation payments from BP have helped keep his business afloat. “I really don’t think we should bad-mouth BP because the same thing could happen to any other company. Now that everything is over, they are willing to cover all consequences.”

Reporters Matthew Tresaugue and Jennifer A. Dlouhy contributed to this report.

purva.patel@chron.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NIH to Launch Gulf Oil Spill health study

Press Release: NIH to launch Gulf oil spill health study

The National Institutes of Health will launch a multi-year study this fall to look at the potential health effects from the oil spill in the Gulf region. The Gulf Worker Study, announced by NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in June, is in response to the largest oil spill in U.S. history, caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Dr. Collins pledged $10 million in NIH funding for the study’s initial phases.

That’s fine to study it, but what about the people that are currently EXPERIENCING the health impacts; how about $10 Mill to help them and by the way, stop spraying the dispersants in coastal areas (which is still happening under cover of darkness using Defense Dept. airplanes). DV

To read the entire press release, please see http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/2010/gulf-study.cfm.

______________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin Mackar, NIH/NIEHS
(919) 541-0073

07 Sep 2010: NIH to Launch Gulf Oil Spill Health Study
BP will provide additional funds for research
The National Institutes of Health will launch a multi-year study this fall to look at the potential health effects from the oil spill in the Gulf region. The Gulf Worker Study, announced by NIH Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., in June, is in response to the largest oil spill in U.S. history, caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Dr. Collins pledged $10 million in NIH funding for the study’s initial phases.

To help expedite the launch of the study, BP will contribute an additional $10 million to NIH for this and other important health research. The BP funding will come through the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GRI). The GRI is a ten-year, $500 million independent research program established by BP to better understand and mitigate the environmental and potential health effects of the Gulf spill. The NIH will have full autonomy regarding the distribution of the $10 million, with input from external scientific experts in environmental health and who are familiar with the Gulf region.

“It was clear to us that we need to begin immediately studying the health of the workers most directly involved in responding to this crisis,” said Collins. “The donation from BP will help speed our work with CDC, EPA, and other federal agencies, academia, as well as state and local partners to carry out this important study.” Collins asked the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), part of the NIH, to lead the research project.

The study will focus on workers’ exposure to oil and dispersant products, and potential health consequences such as respiratory, neurobehavioral, carcinogenic, and immunological conditions. The study is also expected to evaluate mental health concerns and other oil spill-related stressors such as job loss, family disruption, and financial uncertainties.

“Clean-up workers are likely to be the most heavily exposed of all population groups in the Gulf Coast region,” said Dale Sandler, Ph.D., chief of the Epidemiology Branch at NIEHS and lead researcher on the study. “We plan to enroll workers with varying levels of exposure. For example, we hope to recruit workers involved in oil burning, skimming and booming, equipment decontamination, wildlife cleanup, and also those with lower exposure such as shoreline clean-up workers. We’ll also recruit some people who completed the worker safety training, but did not have the opportunity to do any clean-up work. They will be our study controls.”

Sandler added, “What we learn from this study may help us prepare for future incidents that put clean-up workers at risk.”

The current focus of NIEHS is to ensure that the Gulf communities most affected by the oil spill have a say in the study’s design and implementation, as well as input into future research directions. The NIEHS is hosting webinars and other community engagement activities to obtain input.

“Community involvement and participation is critical to the success of this study,” said Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., director of NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program.
NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services have had a continuous presence in the Gulf since the explosion occurred. The NIEHS Worker Education and Training Program (WETP) used its 24 years of experience preparing people for hazardous conditions to contribute to training more than 100,000 workers in the Gulf so they could safely clean up the oil spill. The WETP also distributed thousands of pocket-sized training booklets in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, so workers have the information they need to protect themselves. The WETP materials are available at http://niehs.nih.gov/wetp/index.cfm?id=2495.

The NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit our Web site at http://www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/releases/newslist/index.cfm) to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The Nation’s Medical Research Agency – includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov .

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Times-Picayune: 5 key human errors, colossal mechanical failure led to fatal Gulf oil rig blowout

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/09/5_key_human_errors_colossal_me.html

New Orleans, LA

Published: Sunday, September 05, 2010, 6:00 AM Updated: Sunday, September 05, 2010, 3:08 PM
David Hammer, The Times-Picayune

A string of mistakes, first by people, then by a supposedly fail-safe machine, sealed the fates of 11 rig workers and led to the fouling of the Gulf of Mexico and hundreds of miles of its coastline.

More than 100 hours of testimony before a federal investigative panel, two dozen congressional hearings and several internal company reports have brought the genesis of the spill into sharp focus. The record shows there was no single fatal mistake or cut corner. Rather, five key human errors and a colossal mechanical failure combined to form a recipe for unprecedented disaster.
e rig’s malfunctioning blowout preventer ultimately failed, but it was needed only because of human errors. Those errors originated with a team of BP engineers in Houston who knew they had an especially tough well, one rig workers called “the well from hell.” Despite the well’s orneriness, the engineers repeatedly chose to take quicker, cheaper and ultimately more dangerous actions, compared with available options. Even when they acknowledged limited risks, they seemed to consider each danger in a vacuum, never thinking the combination of bad choices would add up to a total well blowout.

Tens of thousands of offshore wells have been drilled without incident. Drill teams often face difficult conditions miles down in a hole, but they use a battery of tests and equipment to proceed safely. That’s why the first time BP went with the less-than-safest option — choosing a well structure with fewer barriers against kicks of gas — nobody batted an eye.

Plenty of wells had used a similar structure of metal tube linings. Halliburton, the cementing contractor, simply recommended more devices called centralizers to make that design safer. But the second misstep came when BP’s engineering team ignored Halliburton.

Again, that shouldn’t have caused a panic: The British oil giant had another contractor on board the rig to definitively test the well’s integrity once the cement was in place. But then a third money-saving and time-saving corner was cut: BP decided to send that contractor home 11 hours before the accident, without running the test.

Rig officials might have been able to do without that test if they had correctly interpreted the readings from a subsequent pressure test. But expert testimony and documents suggest key error No. 4 occurred when rig officials erroneously viewed that test as a success.

Maybe none of that would have led to a blowout, if BP hadn’t made questionable decision No. 5: replacing heavy drilling mud with light seawater in the mile-long riser connecting rig to well, and in the top third of the hole itself, before setting a final plug.

And lastly, removing that mud barrier, the principal defense against gas kicking to the surface, might not have been fatal if the rig’s blowout preventer, the massive metal stack that shuts off the well in an emergency, had functioned properly. It did not.

As money pressures mount, caution cast aside

The Macondo well, in the Mississippi Canyon 50 miles southeast of Venice, vexed both the men who designed it and the ones who drilled it. The Transocean rig Marianas drilled a shallow portion of the well, but had to go back to a shipyard for hurricane repairs last November. In February, Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon moved in to take its place.

The troubles continued. Daily drilling reports show that on March 10, hydrocarbons flowed into the well in a sand layer several thousand feet above the oil reservoir, and a piece of drill pipe got stuck. The pipe was never retrieved.

Rig workers and engineers say they lost thousands of barrels of drilling mud during the process and don’t know why. The heavy mud is a principal barrier against gas kicks, and also helps keep drills lubricated and carries earthen shavings out of the way.

The constant problems caused huge delays and extra expense, creating additional pressure on the workers and managers to finish the project quickly and cheaply. Documents show that the Deepwater Horizon had been scheduled to drill a different well 43 days before the accident. The Macondo well, budgeted by BP to cost $96 million, had cost at least $40 million more than that when it blew, records show.

BP’s Gulf drilling manager, David Sims, acknowledged in testimony that “every conversation, every decision has a cost factor.” E-mail messages and reports by BP engineers in the weeks before the accident make reference to money or time savings as they debated methods for closing the well. In each case, they went the cheaper way.

No. 1: Fewer barriers to gas flow

Five days before the accident, BP asked for government permission to change its well design three times in a span of 24 hours. Each request was immediately approved by the U.S. Interior Department, some within minutes.

Independent engineers who have reviewed the design changes say they were baffling. They were questioned at BP, too. An internal company document from mid-April acknowledged a single, long tube running through the center of the 13,000-foot well would leave a side space for hydrocarbons to shoot up, with only one seal to stop a blowout. Computer models raised questions about whether the design would result in a weak seal on the well’s walls.

Typical industry practice for exploration wells, according to numerous engineers, would be to run a short tube to line the bottom 1,500 feet of the hole. That liner would hook onto a bigger tube above it, which would tie back to the top of the well, creating an additional barrier blocking natural gas from flowing into the side space between the tubes. It also involved setting an extra plug in the center of the well.

The gas that eventually blew out of the Macondo well either went up the center of the hole or up through a side space. Either way, the industry-endorsed method would have given the drillers one more barrier to slow or halt the gas’s attack. A BP document shows that was also once the company’s preferred method, though it would have cost as much as $10 million more.

In the operation’s final weeks, those cost concerns took over. On March 30, BP engineer Brian Morel, whose name is on the well design documents, wrote that “not running the tie-back saves a good deal of time/money.”

Then BP got a measure of safety affirmation. Halliburton ran a computer model April 15 that showed a good cement seal on the walls would be possible with the long central tube, as long as BP used 21 devices called centralizers to help the cement set. An internal BP document called it the “best economic case and well integrity case.”

It appears BP was determined to use a long tube in the middle because it would make future oil production operations easier. Often, oil companies drill exploratory wells, strike oil, fill the well with cement and then drill a new well to extract the oil. In this case, BP wanted to be able to plug the exploratory well without filling it in, abandoning it only temporarily so a production crew could tap into the hole Deepwater Horizon had already drilled.

It’s not uncommon to convert an exploration well to a production well, but it wasn’t something workers on this rig were used to. That left many crew members in uncharted territory.

No. 2: Fewer centralizers to keep cement even

Although BP engineers got confirmation from Halliburton that a long center tube could be safe, they weren’t initially keen on spending the extra time and money to install more than six centralizers. The devices help keep the tubes centered in the hole as they telescope downward. If one tube isn’t on center, cement poured there will go to the wider side, leaving a weaker barrier on the other side.

Jesse Gagliano, a Halliburton employee who worked in the same office with the BP engineers, warned his clients April 15 of the possibility. BP’s Morel responded: “Hopefully the pipe stays centralized due to gravity.”

A worried Gagliano caught up to several members of BP’s engineering team at their shared Houston offices. He persuaded Gregg Walz, the engineering team’s new leader, that 21 centralizers were needed based on Halliburton computer models. Walz told John Guide, his counterpart in operations, “We need to honor the modeling.”

Sims, the new manager for several of BP’s Gulf wells, agreed with Walz. The company had 15 additional centralizers sent to the rig the next morning. But then Guide found out the centralizers didn’t have the right collars to keep them in place. Also, he complained in an e-mail message that it would “take 10 hrs to install them.” In the end, the 15 centralizers were not used.

On April 18, Halliburton ran a new model of a cement job using fewer than seven centralizers. It showed a “severe risk of gas flow.” But Gagliano didn’t make a scene this time. He attached the report to an e-mail message to his clients. Three different BP engineers later testified they never saw the warning, which was buried on page 18 of the report. Guide said he didn’t read the report until after the accident.

Even Gagliano never dreamed that two days later, the rig would go up in smoke and flames.

He said he didn’t try to stop the job because uneven cement “doesn’t equal a blowout. My concern was … having to do a remedial cement job.”

But that assumed BP would find out if there was a problem to remedy. After Guide went with the riskier cementing method, engineers Morel and Brett Cocales, who had seen Halliburton’s models, shrugged it off.

“Who cares, it’s done, end of story, will probably be fine,” Cocales wrote Morel. Morel responded that they could see if Halliburton’s models were right once they checked data on the actual cement barriers.
That check was never done.

No. 3: No bond log to check cement integrity

BP sent a crew from oil-field services firm Schlumberger to the rig two days before the accident to run various tests on the well. The company was paid about $10,000 to wait until the cement was set. It would get another $100,000 or so if the crew ran a cement bond log, the gold standard for testing cement integrity.

Initially, when engineers decided to use the long central tube, they acknowledged a cement bond log would probably be needed.

But because cement didn’t escape when it was poured, BP sent Schlumberger home on April 20 at 11:15 a.m., without having run the test.

Had it been run, the bond log might have found problems with the cement barriers, requiring a new cementing procedure that would have take at least a month, said Tom McFarland, a cementing consultant. Additional cost to BP: at least another $30 million.

Again, by itself the decision was explainable. Cement bond logs aren’t always necessary. But the skipped steps on a troublesome project were adding up.

No. 4: Pressure test misinterpreted

When BP executives toured the rig the afternoon of April 20, they found the drill team gathered in a shack, debating the results of the negative pressure test, which measures upward pressure from the shut-in well. A good test would mean the well was nearly complete.
But 15 barrels of mud had leaked through a valve in the blowout preventer. That was odd. A few weeks earlier, a mechanic, Mike Williams, had reported that chunks of rubber from the valve came up in mud from the hole. He saw computer readings showing the drill pipe was moved while the valve was closed around it, and he believed that had damaged the rubber closure. But a supervisor dismissed it as normal wear and tear.

Three hours before the accident, the drill team tried the pressure test again, this time instructing the worker in charge of the blowout preventer, Chris Pleasant, to mash the rubber valve against the pipe with more force. Little or no fluid escaped.

Better. But still, the drill team observed high pressure readings. That was abnormal. BP executive Sims said the team members sounded “confused” after the second negative test, and he suggested that Transocean’s top rig officer, Jimmy Harrell, help resolve the issue.

Later, at dinner, one of the visitors, BP Vice President Patrick O’Bryan asked Harrell if everything was OK. He gave the thumbs-up. Guide talked to BP’s well site leader, Robert Kaluza, and recalled that Kaluza, too, was “confused” by the pressure.

Rig officials eventually ruled the test a success. But John Smith, an associate professor of petroleum engineering at LSU who was hired by federal investigators as an expert, testified that the rig officials misinterpreted the results.

Smith also said the test itself may have been faulty. BP had paid for two doses of a viscous fluid for the test, and ordered contractors to use both at once. Smith said the abnormal quantity may have distorted the pressure readings.

The mixing may have been yet another cost-cutting move. If the extra dose had gone unused, BP would have had to pay to transport it to shore and dump it as hazardous waste. Once poured in the hole, however, federal rules allowed it to simply be dumped overboard for free.

No. 5: Mud barrier removed early

According to investigators’ notes, Kaluza was confused by his bosses’ directions in the hours before the accident. “They decided we should do displacement (of protective drilling mud with seawater) and the negative test together; I don’t know why,” Kaluza told investigators. “Maybe they were trying to save time. At the end of the well sometimes they think about speeding up.”

Smith, the LSU engineer, said rig workers thought they were all set after the negative test, which may explain why they missed signs of gas kicks starting 50 minutes before the first explosion.

The crew was confident enough to take one more risky step before setting a final cement plug: replacing heavy drilling mud with seawater, which is 40 percent lighter and far less capable of holding down gas.

No. 6: Blowout preventer failed

In spite of all the shortcuts BP took, much of the disaster, particularly the leaking oil, could have been avoided if the blowout preventer had activated when power was lost.

When Harrell, the top Transocean man on the rig, was concerned about the plans for April 20, he grumbled that the BOP’s shear rams might have to save the day: “Well, I guess that’s what we have those pinchers for.”

When two explosions rang out, at about 9:56 p.m., it was time for the pinchers. Pleasant hit a button on a control panel. Lights indicated he had sent a message a mile below the rig and sea, through optics and hydraulic lines, to disconnect the rig from the well. That would cause the blowout preventer to activate its shear rams, cut the drill pipe and seal the well.

None of that happened. The well wasn’t shut and the rig wasn’t able to escape the fuel source for a fire that would rage for two days.

Investigators wonder if two pipes, found side by side just above the blowout preventer, fouled up the works. There is only supposed to be one pipe, and the blowout preventer’s slicing rams are designed to cut only one.

But none of that explains why other parts of the blowout preventer never seemed to function, or why the emergency disconnect never activated. Pleasant testified that when he tried to intervene manually, he “had no hydraulics.” The loss of three things — power, hydraulics and communications — is supposed to trip a “dead-man” switch and close in the well. It didn’t.

Rig officials knew all along the blowout preventer had some leaks, notably in the yellow control pod that receives messages from the rig. But they didn’t think it mattered. BP and Transocean officials said they were familiar with a federal regulation stating that if “a BOP control station or pod … does not function properly” the rig must “suspend further drilling operations” until it’s fixed, but they didn’t think the regulation applied in this case.

BP’s man in charge on the rig until April 16, Ronnie Sepulvado, said he reported the pod’s problems to Guide and assumed Guide would tell the feds.

He didn’t. And another federal regulation requiring the blowout preventer to be recertified every five years was ignored. Deepwater Horizon’s BOP had been in use for nearly 10 years and was never recertified. Getting it recertified would have required Transocean to take the rig out of use for months while the four-story stack was disassembled.

It was one more corporate cost avoided. And a final precaution that could have erased a string of other missteps and spared an infinitely larger cost later.

David Hammer can be reached at dhammer@timespicayune.com or 504.826.3322.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Mother Jones: Is BP Blackmailing the Feds?

September 6, 2010

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/09/bp-spill-fund-threat

By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Sep. 3, 2010 7:35 AM PDT.

When the details on the deal between the federal government and BP to set up a $20 billion fund to compensate spill victims were released last month, I reported on concerns that the design of the fund might compromise its long-term viability and create a conflict of interest in cracking down on BP’s misdeeds. The fund was designed in such a way that it basically hinges on keeping BP’s Gulf-drilling subsidiary in production and turning a profit.

In an interview with New York Times published today, BP executives confirmed as muchif the government cracks down on the company by cutting it off from obtaining new leases or permits, the fund could go belly-up:

But as state and federal officials, individuals and businesses continue to seek additional funds beyond the minimum fines and compensation that BP must pay under the law, the company has signaled its reluctance to cooperate unless it can continue to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf accounts for 11 percent of its global production.

“If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow,” said David Nagle, BP’s executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, “makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs.”
This, of course, is the problem with making the fund contingent upon keeping BP Exploration & Production Inc., a subsidiary of BP America Production that deals primarily with Gulf of Mexico production, profitable. The House-passed spill bill includes a provision that would bar companies with bad safety and environmental records from obtaining new leases in US waters; while the provision doesn’t specifically name BP, it’s clear that’s who the measure is gunning for. But now BP is using the spill fund to pressure the federal government into backing off actual penalties for their transgressions in the Gulf.

BP is also pointing to other actions they’ve taken, like providing $89.5 million to states for the promotion of tourism, as reasons why the government shouldn’t crack down on them:

Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman, said that BP had shown good will by going beyond its legal obligations to clean up the spill and compensate those affected.

“We have committed to do a number of things that are not part of the formal agreement with the White House,” he said. “We are not making a direct statement about anything we are committed to do. We are just expressing frustration that our commitments of good will have at least in some quarters been met with this kind of response.”
I can imagine the threats will only get worse when (or perhaps, if) the federal government starts announcing the fines for legal violations and costs for damage to natural resources that BP will be expected to pay. The company could owe up to $17.6 billion for Clean Water Act violations alone. But if the price of making sure BP pays up is keeping the company drilling in the Gulf, the government has certainly cut a bad deal here.

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones’ Washington bureau.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Los Angeles Times: Oil dispersant effects remain a mystery: BP sprayed chemicals massively in confronting the gulf spill,

September 4, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-dispersants-20100905,0,6506539.story

By Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times
September 5, 2010

In the wake of the BP oil spill, gaping questions remain about a key tool used during cleanup: the nearly 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants sprayed over the water or onto the gushing wellhead on the seafloor. Do the chemicals help recovery, hinder it or neither?

Just as dishwashing detergent breaks grease on dirty plates into bits, dispersants help turn a slick of oil into droplets a hair’s breadth in size. In droplet form, oil is more easily pulled under by currents, away from birds, otters, seaweed and other marine life near the surface. And because droplets present a greater surface area of oil to water, dispersants should, in theory, permit microbes to chew up oil far faster.

Yet despite more than half a century of dispersant use in oil spill cleanups, the long-term effects that dispersants or dispersant-treated oil have on marine life remain as opaque as a layer of crude.

Scientists say they still don’t know whether dispersants truly enable bacteria to digest spilled oil more quickly or whether dispersed oil is safer for marine life than untreated slicks.

They can’t say whether it was a help or hindrance that BP decided to spray much of the dispersant not onto the water surface, as is more common, but over oil pouring out of the leaking wellhead 5,000 feet under the sea. Both the high pressure (151 times greater than at the surface) and the oil’s temperature (100 degrees Celsius, or 212 degrees Fahrenheit) could have affected dispersant action, either for better or worse.

The size of this spill also made it a standout. An estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil were released, about 19 times the amount in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster off Alaska and significantly more than the 1979 Ixtoc spill off the Mexican coast, in which about 3.5 million barrels of crude spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.

“On a scale of the Deepwater Horizon blowout, we don’t know for a whole variety of reasons how well dispersants have worked,” said Neal Langerman, founder of consulting firm Advanced Chemical Safety.

Bacteria do seem to be digesting the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, according to an Aug. 25 report, but data are mixed on whether dispersants help bacteria along. Mervin Fingas, a retired scientist with the Canadian government, said that of roughly 40 biodegradability studies he surveyed between 1997 and 2008, about 60% said dispersant retarded growth of oil-eating microbes and 15% reported no effect. The remaining 25% noted a positive effect.

But positive findings are open to interpretation. At a 1999 oil spill conference, researchers reported that microbial populations dining on oil treated with the dispersant Corexit 9500 (used by BP in the gulf) grew more than seven times as large as those eating oil dispersed physically, suggesting the bacteria were helping.

Yet a comprehensive 2005 review of dispersants by the National Research Council concluded that the healthy bacterial growth in such studies could easily be due to microbes feeding on dispersant, not oil. “There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating either the enhancement or the inhibition of microbial biodegradation when dispersants are used,” the 12 authors wrote.

Some confusion comes from the diversity of dispersant formulas, Fingas said. Some contain chemicals that bacteria prefer to digest. Others block the ability of some microbes to attach to oil droplets and start feeding on the hydrocarbons.

The primary purpose of dispersants is to move oil away from surface-dwelling marine life. In the case of the BP well blowout, because the application was deep under the sea, much of the oil never rose to the surface which means it went somewhere else, said Robert Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Va.

“The dispersants definitely don’t make oil disappear. They take it from one area in an ecosystem and put it in another,” Diaz said.

The types of dispersants used today are far less noxious than the industrial-strength degreasers used in the past, said Beth McGee, a senior water quality scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a nonprofit conservation group in Annapolis, Md., and a coauthor of the 2005 review. Most studies find them nowhere near as harmful as oil, she said.

But the concern is that dispersed oil may do more harm to marine life than oil left alone. And on this point, findings vary widely, in part because lab tests have limitations, said Andrew Nyman, a Louisiana State University professor. In small containers, dispersed oil can’t dilute. Studies look at large, quick effects, such as death or deformity. Results depend on the oil type, whether it’s fresh, the dispersant, the animal being studied and its life stage.

Studies show that zooplankton, oysters and crustaceans may eat dispersed oil droplets, which can match the size of their food. Dispersed oil can cause premature hatching in Pacific herring, block barnacles’ ability to react to light and worsen oil’s harmful effects under sunlight. Larval stages are particularly sensitive, as are gills of fish, squid, crabs and oysters, said environmental biochemist Arne Jernelov of the Swedish Institute for Future Studies in Stockholm, who led a United Nations team examining the 1979 Ixtoc spill.

Yet many studies find dispersed oil is no worse, or worse only under certain conditions. A 2001 study by researchers at ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences found that oil dispersed with Corexit 9527, also used on the BP spill, was twice as toxic to the inland silverside, an estuarine fish but not if that crude had been exposed to the elements. Such weathered oil, when dispersed, was 10 times less harmful than undispersed oil.

And on Aug. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that its lab tests had uncovered relatively little difference in toxicity to the inland silverside and crustaceans called mysid shrimp of several different oil-dispersant mixtures compared with oil alone. EPA scientist Paul Anastas said dispersant use “seems to be a wise decision” and that “the oil itself Š is enemy No. 1.”

This jumble of findings has led to disagreement among experts that might be resolved by careful analysis of real-life cleanups, which hardly ever happens, said Larry McKinney, executive director of Texas A&M University’s Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Funding for such studies “waxes and wanes with oil spills, but never seems to follow through,” McKinney said. Many investigations were launched after the Ixtoc spill to explore the effects of dispersed oil, he added.

But funding, and science, dried up when the well did.

amina.khan@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times
September 4, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-dispersants-20100905,0,6506539.story

Special thanks to Richard Charter

CBS Evening News: Fracking–A Burning Debate Over Natural Gas Drilling–story & video

Video at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6836255n

Print version below and at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/04/eveningnews/main6835996.shtml

It’s come to close the Halliburton loophole and allow federal regulators to stem the watershed pollution that is now occurring as a result of increased gas exploration in America. I support the legislation sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act. DV

Sept. 4, 2010.
A Burning Debate Over Natural Gas Drilling
Chemicals That Energy Companies Secretly Use in a Process Dubbed “Fracking” Are Fueling Concerns About Our Water Supplies

By Armen Keteyian
Play CBS Video
(CBS) The natural gas-producing shale that lies under 34 states is now being seen as a game-changer in helping meet the nation’s energy needs for decades to come. But the process of extracting that natural gas, dubbed “fracking,” is fueling environmental fears.

CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian has more:

“You can’t live like this – it’s so stressful every single day.”

Homeowner Stephanie Hallowich is like many in western Pennsylvania who have watched their once-pristine neighborhood become an industrial site. Sprawling plants with flares that reach high into the night, noxious smells, trucks, and containment ponds with unknown chemicals are among the complaints of people who live in areas where natural gas companies have descended.

Hallowich believes three natural gas-drilling operations bordering her property turned her well-water black, forcing her to purchase a tank of fresh water every month.

The air? Uncertain.

“I’m very afraid, health-wise, for the kids, just because of the exposure to the water and the constant not-knowing what we’re breathing in outside,” she said.

The Hallowich home sits near the center of the Marcellus Shale, an energy-rich geological formation stretching from New York to Tennessee.

Three-quarters of Pennsylvania contain vast energy riches buried deep underground in shale formations, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in untold wealth locked up in rock – a potential goldmine for natural gas companies.

“The development of shale gas in the Marcellus and across the country is a very important part of the nation’s energy strategy,” said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a natural gas industry group

Big players are rushing in. Exxon has invested $30 billion in the Marcellus in recent months. Foreign investors are also swooping in. India’s largest company, Reliance, has purchased a large stake. China, Korea, and Britain are investing in gas drilling in the Marcellus shale.

As gas companies rush in to make deals with landowners for the right to drill, the money on the table – signing fees and royalties – is substantial, and hard to argue with in a recession . . . hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases.

In Pennsylvania, 60 gas companies hold 4,504 permits to drill, almost half (1,195) granted this year alone.

What’s driving the drilling rush here, and across the country, are advances in hydraulic fracturing, or “hydro-fracking,” a process whereby millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are blasted deep underground – about 5,000 feet – forcing cracks in the shale and freeing natural gas for collection.

It is at the surface where problems have been reported, like blowouts and spills into ground water . . .

. . . And – as depicted in the HBO documentary “Gasland” – ignition at the kitchen sink.

“Gasland”: Is “Fracking” Polluting America?

At public meetings, environmental groups and pro-drilling landowners who receive royalties (“It’s my house, it’s my land, my property, I deserve to be able to frack if that’s what I want to do,” says one) have squared off over potential health risks and safety.

“There’s no such thing as zero-impact drilling,” says John Hanger, head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. Since 2008 he’s doubled the number of state regulators (100 to 205) and inspectors (21 to 45) to oversee the gas industry.

Hanger told Keteyian that there is evidence of chemical contaminants in water. “Spills and surface leaks have, in fact, contaminated people’s drinking water,” he said.

Yet nationwide the industry is not required to disclose what potentially toxic chemicals – like hydrochloric acid – are used in the drilling process.

A provision of a law proposed by the Bush administration and passed by Congress in 2005 (dubbed by opponents the “Halliburton loophole”) stripped the EPA of its ability to regulate “fracking” – leaving the job of regulatory enforcement in the hands of cash-strapped, undermanned state agencies.

Since then, drilling companies have been allowed to put millions of gallons of unknown chemicals into the ground without reporting it, making it difficult to link pollution claims to drilling.

What environmentalists fear most is widespread contamination to the watershed, on which millions of people depend.

“I think the industry’s way out of bounds for not disclosing the list of chemicals,” Hanger said. “I think the industry is close to insane to allow that issue to become a source of suspicion.”

Much like the quality of air and water now surrounding thousands of home sites like Stephanie Hallowich’s.
Legislation is being proposed in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act.

Washington Examiner: Quite a contrast in reactions to latest oil platform accident

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Institute-for-Energy-Research-statement-on-latest-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-platform-accident-102183849.html

By: MARK TAPSCOTT
Editorial Page Editor
09/04/10 11:25 AM EDT

A second Gulf of Mexico oil platform accident has produced some interesting reactions. Compare, for example, the respective statements issued by the Institute for Energy Research, an industry backed think tank, and Sierra Club, one of the most vocal and aggressive advocates of radical environmentalism.
First, the IER statement:
“IER congratulates the U.S. Coast Guard, the employees of Mariner Energy and all those involved in the successful response to the fire and evacuation on the Vermilion Production Platform in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday.

“Their training and quick response resulted in no loss of life and very little release of hydrocarbons into the water. At IER, we recognize the outcome of this industrial accident is the norm, rather than the exception that marked the Macondo well in April.

“Although the opponents of domestic energy production were quick to try to use this accident as an indictment of all offshore energy production, the heroic actions of all concerned proved what all the experts and reports from the National Academy of Science have been telling us for decades – producing oil in our own waters is safer than importing it on tankers from foreign nations.

“Less domestic oil production means increased foreign imports, more job and dollar exports and the higher probability of a spill. The government’s self-imposed ban on production at home is even more reprehensible when you consider that the resulting need to increase our imports also increases the chances that the blood of young American soldiers will be spilled in areas where the flow of oil, so vital to the world’s economy, emanates.

“It is instructive that the same leaders in Washington, so quick to indict an industrial accident like that which occurred yesterday, refuse to investigate industrial accidents in their own districts, whether it be New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona or Hollywood. If it is fatalities they are focused upon, we at IER suggest these salons investigate why more people died this week due to environmental extremism than from domestic offshore energy production.

“With that in mind, and with an eye towards the celebration of Labor Day, IER calls upon President Obama to overrule his Energy Czar Carol Browner and lift the moratoria on offshore drilling. Not only the official and illegal moratorium on the deepwater, but also the unofficial one being imposed by bureaucratic inaction which has led to less than ten percent of the normal permits being issued for new wells in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

“With 9.6% unemployment and a cratering economy, it is time to celebrate the Labor of those men and women who would otherwise be working hard to provide the secure energy our economy demands were it not for the Obama administration’s ongoing war on the production of the plentiful domestic oil, coal, and natural gas resources that power our lives and run our businesses.”

Now, compare the above with this statement from the Sierra Club:
“Our hearts go out to the workers involved in this disaster and their families. This is the second incident in recent months that has sent oil workers into the water, and some of them have never returned.

“The oil industry continues to rail against regulation but it’s become all too clear that the current approach to offshore drilling is simply too dangerous. We don’t need to put American workers and waters in harm’s way just so multinational oil companies can break more profit records.

“Instead of pursuing more dangerous, dirty, outdated offshore drilling, we could be investing in clean energy and a 21st century transportation system that would create good, safe jobs and infuse new life into our economy.
“How many disasters will it take until our leaders decide to act? We don’t want to see one more oil disaster. The BP disaster was supposed to be the wake up call, but we hit the snooze button. Today the alarm went off again.

“Oil is just too dangerous and dirty. It’s time to move America off of oil and onto clean, safe energy.”

Aside from the obvious differences in terms of emphasis, detail and tone, take particular note of the profound gulf between these two advocacy groups regarding the practical realities of America’s energy needs and future.

The IER statement focuses on the immediate need to restore domestic energy production and the reality that producing more oil and natural gas at home is ultimately safer and environmentally more sensitive than increasing America’s dependence upon foreign sources.

Then there is the Sierra Club vision of “investing in clean energy and a 21st century transportation system.” Sounds nice, but here’s what Sierra doesn’t say:
First, even the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama estimates that it will be 2030 before those “clean energy” sources – wind, solar, biomass – will be able to produce anywhere near the amount of power, especially electricity, required by the American economy.

Second, do you ever wonder what that “21st century transportation system” might look like? Well, just take a look at the inside of a bus or subway car because urban mass transit is what Sierra Clubbers have in mind for all Americans. Of course, for mass transit to work even minimally well for the public, we all have to move back into the city. It will also be decades before anybody will be able to afford electric or fuel cell powered passenger cars able to serve the needs of a typical family of four.

In other words, IER is dealing with and has practical solutions for the real world. The Sierra Club has an abstract vision that has about as much chance of becoming reality as the Jamaican bobsled team has of winning a gold medal.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: Senator Barbara Boxer — Her Reelection — Our New Climate Movement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/subhankar-banerjee/senator-barbara-boxer-her_b_703079.html

Subhankar Banerjee
Photographer, writer, activist, founder ClimateStoryTellers.org
Posted: September 3, 2010 02:31 PM

Wednesday evening was the first (and perhaps the only) debate between Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) and her Republican challenger Carly Fiorina.

I’m not a guru of politics. I’m not a pundit of policy debates. I’m not a Beltway lobbyist. My knowledge of politics does not go beyond 101, those classes we take during our freshman college year. I live in New Mexico — not California.

Yet, I care passionately about Senator Barbara Boxer’s reelection. Why? Because I care deeply about life on Earth and I’m very concerned about climate crimes that are killing animals, birds, trees, and also humans in the U.S. as well as all over the world.

Soon I’ll tell you about why we must help Senator Boxer’s reelection campaign, no matter where in the U.S. we live, but first I’ll share a story of how I came to know Senator Boxer.

March 19, 2003: I was living in Seattle. It must have been midday, when I got a call from Cindy Shogan, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League, a Washington-DC based non-profit organization. “Turn on your TV”, said Cindy, “Senator Boxer is showing your polar bear photo on the Senate floor”. She hung up, and I was nowhere near a TV. Later someone emailed me a screenshot from CSPAN — Senator Boxer showing a poster-size image of one of my polar bear photos from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

That day Senator Boxer passionately argued to prevent oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. President George W. Bush was pushing very hard to sell the Arctic Refuge to the oil companies. Cindy had brought some of my photos and a copy of my just published book, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land to Senator Boxer’s attention. Cindy’s hope was that it could help counter the arguments made by then Republican Senators Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, who had portrayed the Arctic Refuge as a “white nothingness” or “barren, frozen wasteland”. Vice President Dick Cheney sat at his Senate office most of the day, expecting that the Senate would split the votes 50-50, he will break the tie, win the vote, and let the oilers move forward. To their dismay, Senator Boxer’s passionate plea resulted in a 51-49 votes that day. Her use of my book and photos during the Senate debate, however, resulted in my soon to open exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution to turn into a political football. But that’s another story. I slowly began to learn about American politics.

Later that year, the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco opened my Arctic Refuge exhibition. Senator Boxer attended the opening reception. She told us a story. On March 19, when she returned home later that evening, her granddaughter said, “I’m very proud of you grandma for protecting the polar bear.” That day she indeed did. And she continues to be a champion of the Arctic Refuge, which is a crown jewel of America, and it is also the most biologically diverse conservation area in the entire Arctic. Later this year, on December 6, we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must never sell the Arctic Refuge to the oil companies.

In 2007, Senator Barbara Boxer became the first woman ever to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Fast forward to 2010. We had BP’s unforgiveable oil-and-methane spill in the gulf, a disaster Jerry Cope and Charles Hambleton have called the crime of the century. Then on June 10, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski launched an attack to block Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act. Senator Barbara Boxer made a passionate counter-attack. She showed poster-sized images of blackened birds killed by BP’s spill. While showing the dead-bird photos, Senator Boxer said, “They’re almost too painful. But for someone (Senator Lisa Murkowski) to come to this floor to say too much carbon is not dangerous, then I’m sorry, we’ll have to look.” Her passion prevailed and the Republican attempt was defeated by 53-47 votes.

Wednesday evening during the debate at Saint Mary’s College, Senator Boxer talked about protecting the California coast from offshore oil-and-gas development (Carly Fiorina favors offshore development in California). On May 13, Senator Boxer and five senators from California, Oregon, and Washington introduced legislation to ban all future drilling along the Pacific shoreline.

Offshore oil development is a dirty and dangerous business. When something goes wrong it kills a helluva lot of marine life and also destroys people’s way of life. Some Californians may remember very well the 1969 oil spill off of Santa Barbara coast that spewed 200,000 gallons of crude, and killed seals, dolphins, fish, birds, and other marine life.

I’ve been extremely concerned about offshore drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of arctic Alaska. To prevent a BP like catastrophe in the Arctic Ocean that Shell was just about to embark on this summer, I wrote a piece BPing the Arctic? on May 25. Two days later President Obama reversed his earlier decision and suspended Shell’s drilling for 2010. We must put a permanent ban on offshore drilling in America’s Arctic Ocean, the way Senator Boxer and her colleagues have proposed for the Pacific coast.

Resource expert Michael Klare has pointed out that most of the easy oil in North America has already been extracted. We’re now going after what he calls extreme-energy with potentially devastating consequences — offshore drilling in deepwater, offshore drilling in extremely harsh environment like the Arctic Ocean, or the Tar Sands of Alberta in Canada.

Senator Boxer is doing the right thing by protecting the coast of her home state from offshore drilling. It’s time that we move away from the death grip of oil-and-coal and start a clean energy revolution in the U.S. During Wednesday evening’s debate Senator Boxer also pointed out that her aim is to make California “a hub of clean energy industry”. This is what all Americans need to hear. Clean energy is no longer an idea that has the promise to create new jobs. Elizabeth Lynch wrote recently in The Huffington Post that China has already beat the U.S. to become the new green tech giant. We need the same direction for U.S. — it’ll create new jobs, actually lot of new jobs, and help control global warming at the same time. For that we need Senator Barbara Barbara Boxer and not Carly Fiorina (whose sympathy is with the oil-and-coal companies).

After the U.S. Senate killed the climate bill in late July, many of us were disappointed (but not surprised). We pointed our fingers to what went wrong and why our climate movement failed, but then we got to work to figure out how to move forward. Just a few days ago I founded ClimateStoryTellers.org that you can check out. And for action you can check out great activist movements — 350.org and the Climate Justice Network. Last year with a puny budget and a lot of passion, Bill McKibben and his compatriots at 350.org organized 5200 climate rallies in 181 countries. And this coming October they’re planning Global Work Party — 1400 events already planned in more than 135 countries. Our climate movement is moving forward with many new ideas, renewed energy, and enthusiasm.

And we need Senator Boxer with us on our new climate movement train. She is a champion of our environment and clean energy economy, and we must do everything to help her win reelection.

I’m with her.

Are you?

Subhankar Banerjee is a photographer, writer, activist, and founder of ClimateStoryTellers.org
[
Special thanks to Richard Charter

New York Times: Blowout Preventer is Removed & Spotlight Shifts to Shallow Water Wells

Boats spray water to extinguise the fire aboard the Mariner/NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/us/04brfs-BLOWOUTPREVE_BRF.html

New York Times
September 4, 2010

Blowout Preventer Is Removed
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
BP on Friday removed the damaged blowout preventer from atop the company’s stricken oil well in the Gulf of Mexico in preparation for the final plugging of the well, the government said. Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who leads the federal response to the spill, said in a statement that the preventer — the roughly 500-ton safety device that failed in the Deepwater Horizon blowout in April — would be brought to the surface on Saturday. It will be replaced by a blowout preventer better able to handle any pressure increases that might result when a relief will is used to pump mud and cement into the well after Labor Day. The damaged blowout preventer will eventually be taken to shore and will be in the custody of investigators looking into the cause of the accident.

_________________________________________

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/business/04oil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Spotlight%20Shifts%20to%20Shallow%20Wells&st=cse

New York Times
September 3, 2010

Spotlight Shifts to Shallow-Water Wells
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JOHN M. BRODER
For decades, thousands of oil and gas platforms have operated quietly in the shallower waters of the Gulf of Mexico, largely forgotten by the public and government regulators.

But just as the BP disaster in April brought new scrutiny to the dangers of drilling in the deepest waters of the gulf, Thursday’s fire aboard a platform owned by Mariner Energy could well drag the shallow-water drillers into the spotlight’s glare.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the new agency responsible for overseeing offshore oil and gas development, said Friday that it was investigating the cause of the Mariner fire, which forced the 13 crew members to jump overboard and rattled nerves in a region that was still coping with the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Members of Congress expressed alarm about the accident, with some saying it was proof that drilling laws needed to be tightened. And even industry executives said it was likely the fire would toughen the already difficult regulatory climate for gulf drilling after the Deepwater Horizon explosion killed 11 people and caused the largest maritime oil spill in American history.

“We will use all available resources to find out what happened, how it happened and what enforcement action should be taken if any laws or regulations were violated,” said Michael R. Bromwich, head of the bureau, which replaced the discredited Minerals Management Service after the BP disaster.

Mr. Bromwich has been carefully reviewing shallow-water drilling as he draws up new regulations governing the industry. The agency, which imposed a six-month moratorium on all deepwater projects after the BP accident, has approved only four of 21 new shallow-water drilling applications since it issued new safety and environmental guidelines in late May.

Representative Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he was “alarmed” by the latest mishap in the gulf and demanded documentation on the Mariner platform from the Interior Department for a committee investigation.

He said the Mariner platform, working in only 340 feet of water, “highlights all too clearly that the risks of offshore drilling are not limited to deep water.”

Although more than 70 percent of all offshore oil production now comes from jumbo oil platforms plumbing the gulf’s deeper waters, thousands of small-scale outfits pump oil from the shallower waters. Currently, 3,333 platforms are drilling in depths of less than 500 feet, compared with just 74 in deeper waters, according to B.O.E.M. data.

The kind of accident that set the Mariner platform ablaze is not unusual. Although the cause is still under investigation, it appears to have started in the crew’s quarters and did not lead to any significant oil leakage.

Under normal circumstances, such an event would have received little attention. There are more than 100 fires a year on oil and gas facilities in the gulf, mostly minor incidents involving welding sparks, grease fires and other mishaps that occur during routine maintenance.

“People need to remember that the environment that people work in offshore is really no different from other industrial plants located onshore,” said Thomas E. Marsh, vice president of operations for ODS-Petrodata, which tracks the offshore industry. “And industrial accidents happen regularly, but not commonly.”

But industry experts say that most accidents happen aboard older platforms that tend to be concentrated in shallow waters.

Mariner operations alone have reported several dozen incidents, including 18 fires, from 2006 to 2009, according to federal records. Although no one died, there were at least three dozen injuries, including one that paralyzed a worker. Several others suffered severe injuries, and some received burns and broken bones. In May 2008, a Mariner rig briefly lost well control and partly evacuated the crew while workers frantically worked to shore up operations.

In addition, since 2006, Mariner Energy has been involved in at least four spills, in which at least 1,357 barrels of chemicals and petroleum flowed into the gulf, according to federal records.

Patrick Cassidy, Mariner’s director of investor relations, said that the company only seriously got into the offshore drilling business in 2006 with its acquisition of properties of the Forest Oil Corporation. “Since Mariner has been operating there, we have steadily improved our performance,” he said. “The performance yesterday is indicative of the improvement. There were no injuries, no spill, and the fire was extinguished.”

Early reports of Thursday’s accident suggested another spill had occurred. But Coast Guard officials said on Friday that only a patch of light rainbow sheen, measuring about 100 yards by 10 yards, had been spotted in morning flights over the area around the platform. The sheen appeared to be residual from the firefighting efforts, the Coast Guard said.

Nevertheless, the Mariner accident has already stoked the intense policy debate over stiffening regulations on shallow-water drillers.

“It will likely provide sufficient political cover for the Obama administration to pursue its current strategy toward stricter offshore regulation,” Robert Johnston of the Eurasia Group, a research and consulting firm, said in a note to clients on Friday. “Even after the formal moratorium is lifted, the pending oil-spill legislation and proposed changes by the Interior Department will translate to higher costs and extended uncertainty for offshore drilling.”

Oil production in the deep slopes and canyons of the Gulf of Mexico surpassed production from shallow waters roughly a decade ago. But for half a century before that, scores of oil and gas companies, big and small, made their fortunes from platforms propped up in waters less than 1,000 feet deep on the inner continental shelf, which can extend for 100 miles or more off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.

According to data published in July by the Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington, more than 50,000 wells have been drilled in the gulf’s federally regulated waters since oil production in the area first began in 1947. Only 4,000 of those have been drilled in depths beyond 1,000 feet, and just 700 wells have gone beyond 5,000 feet.

Independent oil and gas companies — far smaller than the majors like Exxon Mobil and BP — represent the dominant shareholders in two-thirds of the 7,521 leases in the gulf, including the vast majority of the production leases in shallow waters.

According to a recent study by IHS Global Insight, the independents produced nearly 500,000 barrels a day of oil last year in shallow gulf waters, while the majors produced just over 20,000 barrels a day there.

But the new accident came at an inopportune time for the oil industry. After BP capped its runaway well and the spill faded from news media coverage, political pressure had grown in the gulf and around Washington to lift the drilling moratorium.

Now, the momentum is likely to shift again.

“This explosion is further proof that offshore drilling is an inherently dangerous practice,” said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, an opponent of offshore oil and gas development.

James W. Noe, senior vice president of Hercules Offshore, the largest shallow-water drilling company in the gulf, said he thought the administration and regulators would use the incident to further slow drilling.

“People that have an agenda that is hostile to offshore drilling will use this incident, there’s no doubt about that,” he said, “But once the facts are understood fully, this will be treated as an industrial accident that could have occurred at a gas station around the corner. It’s just bad timing.”

Andrew W. Lehren and Tom Zeller Jr. contributed reporting.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Grist: BACK IN BLACK–Latest Gulf oil well explosion was no disaster, but what does it say about offshore drilling?

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-03-Gulf-oil-well-explosion-off-shore-drilling/

BY Randy Rieland
3 SEP 2010 10:25 AM

If we hadn’t spent the summer watching crude gush into the Gulf, no one outside the industry would have noticed or cared much about Thursday’s explosion on a Mariner Energy oil platform. No serious injuries, no spreading slick.

But everyone did notice, and it reminded us that no matter how much BP and the rest of Big Oil say they’ve learned from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, offshore drilling remains a high-risk business, even in shallow water.

Plus, Tony Hayward had nothing to say: The fossil-fuel folks were quick to point out that yesterday’s accident had little in common with the BP debacle. But as David A. Fahrenthold and David S. Hilzenrath point out in The Washington Post, that made it even more noteworthy to offshore drilling critics. This wasn’t some cutting-edge venture where machinery was drilling a mile under the ocean; it was in relatively shallow water, and while the well was still in production, the drilling was finished. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune cut to the chase:
The oil industry continues to rail against regulation, but it’s become all too clear that the current approach to offshore drilling is simply too dangerous. We don’t need to put American workers and waters in harm’s way just so multinational oil companies can break more profit records.

Timing is everything: Wouldn’t you know it that just a day before the explosion, at a “Rally for Jobs” event in Houston sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute, Barbara Hagood, a Mariner Energy exec, moaned about the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf:
I have been in the oil and gas industry for 40 years, and this administration is trying to break us. The moratorium they imposed is going to be a financial disaster for the Gulf Coast, Gulf Coast employees, and Gulf Coast residents.

While not in the same league as BP as a safety ne’er-do-well, Mariner has been more Homer Simpson than Ned Flanders. According to The Houston Chronicle, the company has been involved in at least 13 offshore accidents since 2006 in the Gulf — including a blowout and four fires.

Language barrier: BP, meanwhile, is sharing its concern that it may not be able to spend as much money on restoring the Gulf and its economy as it previously said it would. The reason? Language in a drilling overhaul bill passed by the House this summer that it contends would hamper its business. Clifford Krauss and John M. Broder of The New York Times explain:
The bill includes an amendment that would bar any company from receiving permits to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf if more than 10 fatalities had occurred at its offshore or onshore facilities. It would also bar permits if the company had been penalized with fines of $10 million or more under the Clean Air or Clean Water Acts within a seven-year period. While BP is not mentioned by name in the legislation, it is the only company that currently meets that description.
BP also announced that it has now spent $8 billion in dealing with the Deepwater Horizon explosion and its consequences. About $93 million of that went toward ads on TV, radio, and in newspapers from April through July. All those images of BP employees vowing to “make things right” appear to be working. An Associated Press poll found that 33 percent of the people surveyed in August approved of the job BP was doing — more than double the number who felt that way in June.

You’re not the boss of me: If the comments of one of China’s top climate spokespeople is any indication, don’t expect that country to take the lead in slashing energy consumption. Yu Qingtai, who represented China in climate talks from 2007 to 2009 and is now his country’s ambassador to the Czech Republic, had this to say in a recent speech:
As a Chinese person, I cannot accept someone from a developed nation having more right than me to consume energy. We are all created equal — this is no empty slogan. The Americans have no right to tell the Chinese that they can only consume 20 percent as much energy. We do not want to pollute as they did, but we have the right to pursue a better life. The public relations efforts of developed nations on climate change are always more effective than ours, but it is more important to look at their actual actions. Overall, when you look at the facts, there is a huge difference between what is said and what is done.

Andrew Revkin has more in his Dot Earth blog.
The road to madness: Remember that hideous traffic jam in China that lasted nine days? Well, it’s back. The replay’s only a few days old, but it’s already stretching 75 miles again. And also again, the cause is road construction and the huge number trucks hauling coal to Beijing from mines in Inner Mongolia.

California reamin’: The race for California senator between incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer and her Republican challengers Carly Fiorina is heating up. But when it comes to green issues, Fiorina is bobbing and weaving like a flyweight boxer. During a recent debate, she refused to say if she believed global warming is real. Instead, she offered up the lame comment, “We should always have the courage to examine the science.” When she also declined to take a stand on Prop. 23, which would suspend California’s landmark climate law, Boxer pounced:
If you can’t take a stand on Prop. 23, I don’t know what you will take a stand on. If we overturn California’s clean energy policies, that’s going to mean that China takes the lead away from us with solar, that Germany takes the lead away from us with wind, but I guess my opponent is kind of used to creating jobs in China and other places. I want those jobs created here in America.

Well, that didn’t take long: The more rabid of climate-change deniers have seized upon the revelation that James Lee, the madman shot by police after he grabbed three hostages in Discovery’s headquarters, was moved to environmental fanaticism in part by watching Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Matt Drudge has piled on, as have others in the right-wing blogosphere, laying blame on Gore himself. Under the headline “Stop the Hysteria,” here’s Thomas Fuller on the climate-change-denial site wattsupwiththat:
At what point will we call to account those who have preached ‘the end of the earth as we know it’ to countless people? How many people will be driven to desperation by those who distort the science?

Blizzard of lies: OK, one last run at all the woofin’ last winter by Foxcateers Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity when they mocked global warming during the double dose of blizzards in Washington. New research suggests that the intense snowfalls were caused by a rare, once-in-a-century collision of two weather systems. You could explain what happened — that a climatic phenomenon called a North Atlantic Oscillation entered a “strongly negative phase” and that brought cold air down from the Arctic to the East Coast where it rammed into air full of moisture from El Niño.
Or you could just say Al Gore is crazy.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Huffington Post: No Safe Harbor on Gulf Coast; Human Blood Tests Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure–Shocking story of human impacts and BP’s active efforts to prevent doctors & hospitals from providing needed treatment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/no-safe-harbor-on-gulf-co_b_698338.html

I find this shocking and can’t believe it’s happening in the United States; this sounds like some kind of horror movie. Sick people can’t find doctors to treat them? DV

Jerry Cope
Designer, Filmmaker, Environmental Writer, Eco Activist
Posted: September 2, 2010 03:04 PM

Even as BP and US government officials continue to declare the oil spill over at Mississippi Canyon 252 and the cleanup operation an unqualified success, for the first time blood tests on sickened humans have shown signs of exposure to high levels of toxic chemicals related to crude oil and dispersants. Some of the individuals tested have not been on the beaches, were not involved in any cleanup operations or in the Gulf water — they simply live along the Gulf Coast. Several of them are now leaving the area due to a combination of illness and economic hardship. As the media’s attention has moved on and the public interest wanes, the suffering and hardship for people along the entire Gulf Coast of the United States from Louisiana to Florida continues to worsen. While BP and the government are scaling back cleanup operations and distancing themselves from legal liability for the environmental destruction, economic hardship, sickness and death resulting from the largest environmental disaster in our nation’s history, the situation continues to deteriorate.

The use of the Corexit dispersant 9500 and the highly toxic 9527 by BP, with the approval and assistance of the US Coast Guard and EPA, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism. Never before has such a huge quantity of the toxic compound been used anywhere on the planet. Most countries including NATO allies ban it’s use and will only grant approval as a last resort after other methods have failed. Britain has banned its use altogether. The NOAA provided extensive information summarizing other nation’s policies in regards to Corexit after Senator Barbara Mikulski demanded the information from EPA administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional hearings in July. While the dispersant serves to break down crude oil on the surface and thus makes the oil invisible from the air, it is highly toxic and bioaccumulates in the marine food chain. In humans it is a known carcinogen and its use was widely condemned after Exxon/Valdez and the horrifying health effects on the populations exposed to it there. As it evaporates and becomes airborne, the toxic compounds have moved on shore, creating health impacts that, although apparently large from the numbers of people affected, the full extent is unknown. BP and the US government have effectively been performing the largest chemical experiment in history on a civilian population without their knowledge or consent.
Dispersant and crude in Gulf

Within two days after arriving in the region in mid-July, everyone on our team began getting sick. After our first day out on the water with Captain Lori of Dolphin Queen Cruises touring the lagoons around Orange Beach, Alabama, we all had extreme headaches. During our boat tour, dispersant was visible covering the water everywhere. That evening I developed a gagging, coughing reflex that was so intense and persistent it was impossible to speak to my daughter on the phone. The symptoms typical for high levels of chemical exposure such as burning, itching eyes, constantly runny nose, chronic coughing, burning sore throat, chest congestion, and lethargy progressively intensified.

Over the next several weeks these symptoms continued to worsen until I developed chemically-induced pneumonitis. Before leaving the area I had blood tests initiated to determine if the levels of exposure were high enough to be be detected. The musical activists Sassafrass and the tireless efforts of Michelle Nix allowed myself and several local residents to have blood drawn and tested by Metametrix for chemical exposure. Project Gulf Impact and the Coastal Heritage Society have also contributed greatly to air and water testing in the Gulf region affected by the spill. Project Gulf Impact has set up a dedicated medical help phone line at 504-814-0283. It has proven extremely difficult to find medical care providers who are willing to see patients who have been impacted by the oil spill due to the tremendous pressure exerted against hospitals, clinics, and physicians by BP. In numerous cases BP has provided financial payments to institutions and individuals in exchange for them agreeing not to allow their physicians or staff to see, advise, or treat anyone sickened as a result of the well blowout.

I spoke at length with Michael R. Harbut, MD, MPH, who is clinical professor of Internal Medicine and director of the Environmental Cancer Program at Wayne State University’s Karmanos Cancer Institute. Board Certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Harbut was Chair of the Occupational and Environmental Health Section of the American College of Chest Physicians, was Medical Coordinator of the Kibumbe Refugee Camp during the 1994 Civil War in Rwanda, where the death rate for patients under his care was 1/3 that of the remainder of the camp and was Chief US Medical Advisor to Poland’s Solidarity during the Cold War. His research has been published or presented in venues ranging from the New England Journal of Medicine to the White House.

JC: I wanted to speak with you and see what you thought of the test results we got back. As you know, some of the locals actually came back even higher than mine.

MH: First you have to remember the setting — this is New Orleans and the Gulf Coast; there is a history and a context in which things need to be placed. In my specialty, which is occupational and environmental medicine, there are not many of us who are board certified who actually take care of patients. The bulk of the physicians in our specialty are medical advisors or medical directors to large corporations, and many have never met a chemical they didn’t like. Sort of like Will Rogers. Part of the context is there is a physician whose name is Victor Alexander who was a specialist in my field. He worked in New Orleans at the Oxnar clinic and was seeing a lot of patients who worked for the petroleum companies and was reportedly fired for all of the work he did for his patients as opposed to the petroleum companies — what a doctor is supposed to do. So Victor Alexander then goes into private practice and the New Orleans police came and arrested him for robbing a bank.

JC: Seriously?

MH: Yea, it gets way crazier. This is a guy who was doing very well personally, economically — it came out in trial that he had a half a million dollars in the bank and was making plenty of money. It is unlikely in terms of motive that he would rob a bank for 2,500 dollars. The video from the bank was analyzed by the retired chief of criminal identification for the FBI; he said there was no way it could have been Dr. Alexander robbing this bank. He went to trial twice, the judge threw out a lot of evidence that would have exonerated him and he was sent to prison for robbing a bank. The Louisiana State Medical Society refused to take away his license. Many physicians who do work or potentially could do work or have knowledge of the area in New Orleans know the story about Victor Alexander. The message is quite clear: Don’t mess around with the petroleum industry.

JC: I have been working mainly in the Orange Beach/Gulf Shores area of Alabama, and that’s where I got sick.

MH: Have you had a CAT scan?

JC: Not yet, although they want to do one at the National Jewish Respiratory Center in Denver.

MH: You have to do that. I was chairman of the Occupational and Environmental medicine section of the American College of Chest Physicians so I have a lot of experience in this. You really need to be seen by a physician who understands this is serious.
JC: It’s on the schedule when I get back to Colorado. What do you see when you look at the test results from myself and the other people down here? What do they tell you?
MH: Let me tell you one more thing before I forget. I think that the only way to come close to getting the ultimate answer down there is to — there has to be a federal task force if you will. A federal effort where there would be half a dozen or a dozen specialists in this field who would have the protection of the government either temporary commissions from the U. S. public health service or something like that. Who would be responsible for organizing all the science and all the medicine and trying to get people to deliver care down there. I just don’t think you are going to get many volunteers unless they know they have the protection of the government. The annals of environmental diseases are strewn with stories about physicians who have had their lives ruined.

JC: The impacts of what is happening down here is are so big it’s very hard to wrap your head around it.

MH: I will give you one other example while we are talking about it. In the early 1990s I had called a bunch of cases, I saw patients who were sick from their environment who worked for Dow and DOW Chemical and a couple of the steel mills. In an eighteen month period I had one Blue Cross Blue Shield audit, two Medicare audits, a Michigan Employment Security Commission audit, a USAID Inspector General’s audit, and I was the target of a federal grand jury investigation. After two years and tens of thousands of dollars Medicare thanked me for teaching them how to catch a crook, apologized for bothering me — I told them how they could catch crooks and they thanked me. The US government, the local FBI office actually called my attorney and said they really weren’t able to find anything and my attorney who is a former US Attorney said that the government never calls when they have investigated somebody they just leave them dangling for the rest of their lives. The degree of harassment towards physicians is enormous, which I think is part of the reason — because of the conflicting forces at work in the Gulf, because of the probably less than half truths that are floating around that there needs to be a federal task force of independent physicians and scientists who have the protection and full faith of the United States. The way the system works, I think it would mean temporary commissions in the public health service. I don’t think even the oil companies that work down there would try and bump off a guy who works with the public health service.

JC: A number of people I have spoken to in Washington share that same opinion. Does it help to have test results in hand that show high levels of exposure from this event?

MH: I remember you had no Benzene but a lot of Hexane and a couple of Hexane metabolites. I am not sure what that means because where you see Hexane, Hexane causes what is called a dying back neuropathy, meaning the nerve cells in the arms and legs die back from the distal tips to the proximal end. You can end up with numbness, pain, all sorts of things. Hexane is a direct petroleum product so where you see Hexane you would expect to see Benzene. Now, that having been said I personally don’t even do actual solvent levels anymore because they are fraught with error. Rubbing alcohol is the prototypical solvent, and if you put a cap of rubbing alcohol on a flat surface like marble or something it’s usually gone before you would have a chance to get a paper towel it evaporates so quickly. So what happens with the organic solvents in general is that unless there is absolutely perfect control when they are drawn, there is a fair amount that will evaporate, if in fact not all of it. One of the dangers of people going to this lab (Metametrix), which I think is a good lab, is if they get the test drawn at a facility that lets it sit out for a little bit you are going to get a false negative result. In a case like yours, if you believe the sample is valid and it shows that you have Hexane and Hexane metabolites and also Octane in your blood, then it’s a pretty good clinical indication of how to go about treating you, which is usually just drinking a lot of water and then treating the end organ damage. End organ damage meaning we know if you inhale this stuff, if you have it in your system, it will damage your nerves. so we take a look at the nerves. The nerves will not show up abnormal on a test until there has been 30% damage. So what I do here and what I teach my residents is that for most people who come in to see the doctor in this field with a problem you will get more yield in terms of finding pathology and being able to help them if you look for end organ damage rather than the presence of a solvent because the solvent could have evaporated after it has already whacked the brain or whacked the liver.

JC: I spoke to the founder of Metametrix and he said that the tests were designed to pick up these compounds in the body after part of it, particularly Benzene, has been flushed. He indicated that the Benzene would not show up for very long once you were exposed but that the other compounds, the Ethylbenzene, m. p.-Xylene, the Hexane, which was way high, the Methylpentanes and the Isooctane, all of those things indicated to him that we were exposed to significant amounts of Benzene.

MH: That’s what I would think, too.

JC: When you look at these results is there reason to believe we might have sustained serious damage to our organs?

MH: In order to be scientific about this you have to have baseline data on a large population. What the oil company doctors, the professional experts that will ultimately be hired in these cases will argue is that you don’t know what background is in the area. I have seen them do this. They will go out and check 90 people and they will find people with results less than yours or more than yours and they will say this is background so with this particular patient you can not rely on the validity of the testing. On a scientific basis that’s true, I would prefer background. What happened to you right now is you have an indication that you breathed in harmful agents — you have a marker. They are called bio-markers. A bio-marker is the Hexane, N-Hexane and the Octane. You have evidence that you inhaled it because it’s in your blood. Nobody has correlated how much N-Hexane in your blood by PPM or PPB correlates with actual nerve damage. You need to have pulmonary tests, high resolution cat scans of your chest, liver function and cardiac function tests. What should happen with people with these exposures is at an absolute minimum, and I do not believe this is adequate, but at an absolute minimum the NIOSH recommended health monitoring tests should be done. Be certain to ask the doctor examining you if they have ever been paid or retained by a petroleum company or a chemical manufacturing company.

JC: I can do that.

Test Results for Jerry Cope
Additional Information on the the Health Impacts of the Gulf Oil Spill can be found at Sciencecorps and Dr. Riki Ott.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Environmental News Service: Greenland Police Arrest Greenpeace Oil Rig Demonstrators

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2010/2010-09-02-01.html

BAFFIN BAY, Greenland, September 2, 2010 (ENS) – Four Greenpeace activists who climbed a Cairn Energy oil rig in Greenland waters were arrested this morning and are now being held in police custody in Greenland.

The activists first scaled the oil rig Stena Don on Tuesday. They attached hanging platforms to the underside of the rig where they camped out in tents with self-heating meals until last night.

Freezing gale-force winds forced the climbers and Greenpeace campaigners on the ship Esperanza anchored one kilometer from the rig to decide to end the occupation.

It took the Greenpeacers four hours of climbing in bitter winds to scale the rig from their hanging platforms up onto the platform gantry, where police were waiting for them. They were taken into custody and flown off the oil rig by helicopter at 2 am.

Before ending the occupation, climber Sim McKenna of the United States, said on his satellite phone, “We stopped this rig drilling for oil for two days, but in the end the Arctic weather beat us. Last night was freezing and now the sea below us is churning and the wind is roaring. It’s time to come down, but we’re proud we slowed the mad rush for Arctic oil, if only for a couple of days.”

The protesters occupied the oil rig Stena Don, operated by Cairn Energy, to draw attention to their “Beyond Oil” campaign. They say deepwater oil drilling in the Arctic is too risky for the environment and the world needs to switch to cleaner sources of energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

McKenna said, “This beautiful fragile environment would be decimated by an oil spill, while the melting Arctic ice is a grim reminder that we need to stop burning oil and invest instead in clean energy solutions.”

“I’m not sure what will happen to us now,” he said, “but as soon as we can we’ll be back to call for the world to finally go beyond oil.”

Ben Stewart, communications officer onboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza said, Looking out of my porthole at the massive waves, and feeling the movements of the Esperanza, there is no doubt in my mind that they took the right decision.”

“I hope and believe that this action will be remembered as the first step against our blind and reckless hunt for the last drops of oil on the planet,” Stewart said.

In London this morning, Greenpeace lawyers threatened legal action against the UK government over its decision to continue issuing licenses for deep sea oil drilling even before the causes of BP’s Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are ascertained.

Lawyers for the environmental group wrote to Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne asking the government to do as U.S. President Barack Obama has done and introduce a moratorium on deepwater drilling for oil and gas.

“We’re asking the government to stop giving out these licenses for new offshore drilling and to carry out a comprehensive new environmental assessment into offshore oil,” said Stewart. “It’s not just irrational to give out licenses without this new environmental assessment; we believe it’s also a breach of European and UK law.”

“This is just the first step in the legal process,” Stewart said. “If the government does not give us an undertaking within 14 days that it will stop the licensing and do a new environmental assessment, we plan to go to court.”

While the UK has not imposed a moratorium on new licensing of deepwater drilling projects, in June, Huhne announced that environmental inspections of rigs in UK waters would be stepped up.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

FSU NEWS: FSU RESEARCHERS ANALYZING CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GULF OIL

Visit www.fsu.com/Blogs/Gulf-Oil-Crisis-FSU-Takes-Action
for more news on Florida State University experts who are helping with the Gulf oil spill.

From: Florida State University News
ReplyTo: news-office@unicomm.fsu.edu
CONTACT: Amy M. McKenna (850) 644-4809; mckenna@magnet.fsu.edu
or Alan G. Marshall (850) 644-0529; amarshall@fsu.edu

By Barry Ray

September 2010

Database Could Help in Identifying Source of Petroleum Spills

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – With nearly $200,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation, researchers at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at The Florida State University are using incredibly precise analytical tools housed at the lab to analyze petroleum samples collected from the Gulf of Mexico. Results of those analyses will help determine whether or not the samples originated from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill – critical information in predicting where the oil is going.

Amy M. McKenna is an assistant scholar/scientist in the laboratory of Professor Alan G. Marshall, the director of the magnet lab’s Fourier Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometry facility. McKenna is the principal investigator for an NSF Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grant titled “Molecular Level Characterization and Archive for the 2010 BP Oil Spill,” which will provide $198,790 in funding for one year.

McKenna and her colleagues, including co-principal investigators Marshall and associate scholar/scientist Ryan P. Rodgers, have already begun analyzing samples of raw crude oil, ocean surface samples and tar balls collected by researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution at various distances from the Deepwater Horizon site. Also joining the Magnet Lab team is visiting scientist Chang Samuel Hsu, a veteran petroleum researcher who was the key scientist involved in developing analytical methodologies for the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.

The collaboration with Woods Hole makes for a powerful analytical combination. McKenna said collaborators at Woods Hole are the best at they do, which is analyzing oil collected from the well head using a technique called chromatography. But once that oil gets spewed out into the open world, it’s exposed to the environment, which changes the oil’s composition.

“An oil spill changes its chemical composition due to evaporation and dissolution over time,” McKenna said. “The incorporation of oxygen into the components makes it difficult for other analytical techniques to characterize the molecules of spilled oil. FT-ICR mass spectrometry is the only technique that can look at these changes at the molecular level without prior, tedious sample preparation.”

The team’s ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive compositional archive for all future chemical characterizations of the spill, because the magnet lab’s high-powered magnets and custom-built spectrometers are the only tools capable of analyzing the oil on such a precise molecular level.

“We will have a library of what is in there. Then everyone else will know what they’re dealing with,” said Marshall, FSU’s Robert O. Lawton Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry. “The more you know about what it is, the better you can decide what to do about it.”

Marshall is widely recognized as having revolutionized the field of chemical analysis. He co-invented and continues to develop FT-ICR mass spectrometry, a powerful analytical procedure capable of resolving and identifying thousands of different chemical components in complex mixtures ranging from petroleum to biological fluids.

In recent years, Marshall’s research group has received a great deal of attention for its development of “petroleomics,” an entirely new branch of chemistry that seeks to predict the properties and behavior of petroleum and its products.

###

Special thanks to Richard Charter

EMII: Bahamas Suspends Offshore Drilling

http://www.emii.com/Articles/2660589/Energy/Top-Stories/Bahamas-Suspends-Offshore-Drilling.aspx

09-02-2010 | Source: World Oil

Following the United States’ six-month ban on deepwater drilling, the Ministry of the Environment in the Bahamas has suspended consideration of all applications for oil exploration and drilling in the waters of the Bahamas. Though a well has not been drilled in the area for 20 years, the Ministry announced that a stringent set of environmental rules would need to be put in place before it considered applications.

Additionally, all existing licenses will be reviewed by the Ministry to determine any legal entitlement for renewal.

The deepwater drilling moratorium immediately affected several Bahamas-focused E&P companies. Shares in oil exploration company BPC, which owns five exploration licences in Bahamian waters to the east of Florida and Cuba, tumbled as much as 50% after the company noted the announcement by the government. BPC said it would continue to analyze seismic data on its existing licenses as it has not yet established a definitive drilling program, according to a Reuters report.

Drilling on BPC’s Bahamian acreage does not face the same geological risks as those found in the Gulf of Mexico, said the company, which called the situation “short term.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

NBC: Another oil rig explosion reported in Gulf

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=13089511

Posted: Sep 02, 2010 11:38 AM EDT
Updated: Sep 02, 2010 1:48 PM EDT

GRAND ISLE, La.: The Coast Guard says no one was killed when an offshore petroleum platform exploded and began burning in the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 miles off the Louisiana coast.

The explosion is about 200 miles west of the site where BP’s undersea well spilled after a rig explosion.

The Coast Guard says the blast was spotted by a commercial helicopter flying over the area this morning.

All 13 people aboard the rig have been accounted for, with one injury.

A Coast Guard spokeswoman says some of those from the rig were spotted in emergency flotation devices.

The Department of Homeland Security says the platform was owned by Mariner Energy of Houston. DHS said it was not producing oil and gas.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Aolnews.com: Lab Results Raise New Concerns Over Gulf Seafood

What bothers me the most about all this is that our government continues to lie saying no dispersants are being sprayed in nearshore waters even as I have posted three stories from Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi each documenting the continued application of dispersants under cover of darkness. One story reports that the planes are hired directly by the White House and that Unified Command is not part of this nightly scenario. DV

Sept. 1, 2010

Laura Parker Contributor
AOL News

(Aug. 31) — A Boston lab hired by the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association to analyze coastal fishing waters says findings suggest the government’s claim that Gulf of Mexico seafood is safe to eat may be premature.

The lab, Boston Chemical Data Corp., said it found dispersant in a sample taken near Biloxi, Miss., almost a month after BP said it had stopped using the toxic chemical to break up the record amounts of crude spewed by the Gulf oil spill. The leak was finally capped on July 15.

The lab posted its data today on the website of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network in a move that could fuel the debate over the status of the cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico.

Parts of the gulf have been reopened to fishing and shrimping after the federal government declared the waters safe.

In the wake of the massive oil spill, is seafood from the Gulf of Mexico safe to eat? The government says yes, but a Boston lab says its findings cast doubt on that assertion.

The lab’s findings “again point to evidence that the ‘all clear’ is being sounded way too early,” said Stuart Smith, attorney for both the fishermen’s union and LEAN, which is suing BP on their behalf. “I do not believe a robust statistical sampling has occurred to prove that it’s safe.”

Water samples analyzed by Boston Chemical show oil and toxins in crab. But the key finding, according to Marco Kaltofen, the lab’s president, is the presence of the Corexit dispersant used to break up the oil in coastal water near Horn Island, off Biloxi.

BP has said repeatedly the last day it used any dispersant was July 19. Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Alicia Johnson confirmed the agency believes that to be the case.

But Kaltofen said the time frame raises a question.

“Why on Aug. 9 did we find on a relatively concentrated pool of dispersant on the surface, well outside where the dispersant was going to be sprayed? It shouldn’t have been there,” Kaltofen told AOL News. He added that the high concentration in the sample suggested the dispersant was not carried inland from open water.

“What person or process got this dispersant with such a high concentration into inshore waters?” Kaltofen said.

Fishermen working the gulf say flatly they don’t believe that BP actually stopped using the dispersant. But Kaltofen said he has talked to scientists who are searching for a more scientifically sound reason. One possibility: Could the dispersant have reconstituted itself on the surface?

“We just don’t know enough about this yet,” he said.

In all, Boston Chem has taken 250 samples from western Louisiana to the Florida Keys. The EPA has taken 300 water samples near shore, and found one “indication of a possible dispersant constituent near Louisiana,” according to an e-mail from the agency.

“The location was sampled several other times with no other detection,” the agency said, adding that it is continuing to monitor the region for “any possible safety and health threats.”

Between June 27 and July 20, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sampled 153 fish in the area reopened to fishing and is continuing to test samples of fish caught throughout the gulf. NOAA scientists have found no oil in the area reopened for fishing since early July, according to a report by the agency.

The Food and Drug Administration said in a statement that seafood samples from reopened fishing waters have passed sensory testing for contamination with oil and dispersant.

Scientific data gathered by the government “indicate that the dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon response are unlikely to build up in the flesh of the fish,” the FDA said. “This is primarily based on the assessment of their physical properties, which indicate that these compounds do not penetrate the gills or bodies of fish, and will not be concentrated in edible tissues of seafood.”

The credibility of an analysis by a firm hired by attorneys suing BP will inevitably be challenged in court by the oil giant. Yet there is so much suspicion about the government’s conclusion that much of the oil had disappeared that any report justifying those fears carries added weight.

Anecdotally, fishermen recount episodes where fishermen and cleanup crews have worked the same waters.

“My cousin was working in Grand Isle. He told me they had people who were shrimping alongside people who were skimming oil,” said Louis Molero, a Louisiana oysterman.

“Everybody believes the government is sugar-coating this,” he said. “If we get one person sick due to oil, our business is really going to be in a mess.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Counterpunch: The Gulf Crisis is Not over: Slow Violence and the BP Coverups

August 23 / 24, 2010

http://counterpunch.org/mcclintock08232010.html

A CounterPunch Special Report

By ANNE McCLINTOCK

Three vanishing acts are being played out in the Gulf: the disappearing of the oil from the ocean surface by Corexit, the disappearing of the story by the media blockade, and the disappearing from view of the shadowy private contractors who are making a mint helping BP and the Coast Guard keep a cover on the clean-up. This triple vanishing trick, collectively choreographed by BP and sundry federal agencies, culminated on August 4th in a report released by NOAA that claimed 75% of the oil spill had been captured, burned, evaporated or broken down. The White House hailed the report as something to celebrate. Energy advisor Carol Browne announced: “the vast majority of the oil is gone.”

A clamor of outrage immediately rose from the Gulf, as residents refused to dance the crisis-is-over, happy-feet dance. Hundreds of locals furiously insisted that they were still seeing masses of oil on ocean, beaches and marshes, and dead fish, dolphins, sharks, birds and other marine life washing ashore. Then on August 18th scientists from the Universities of Georgia and South Florida produced an open challenge to the White House report, asserting that 70% to 79% of the oil in the Gulf still remained in the water. Charles Hopkinson, a professor of marine science at the University of Georgia declared: “The idea that 75% of the oil is gone and of no concern to the environment is just absolutely incorrect.”

Spike Lee, filming in the Gulf, scoffed at what he called the BP/White House “abracabra kawabanga” trick and called on journalists to stay with the story. A few weeks earlier, the triple vanishing act had come together personally for me in a story that Steve, a private contractor, told in the shadows of a southern Louisiana bar. I call the contractor Steve, though that is not his real name. I cannot tell you his real name because he has assured me that he will kill me if I do. I had been in the Gulf for three days with Karin Hayes, a film-maker, documenting the oil-spill when Steve approached us in the bar, urgently wanting to tell us something.

“It’s as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf,” he said. “The media is not telling the truth. No one is telling the truth. Let me tell you something. Yesterday on the beach where we work, my crew cleaned up seven hundred bags of oil. Today we went back and the beach was completely covered in oil, as if we had never been there. Today we carried away another seven hundred and fifty bags. Every day we clean up, then the tide brings it in again. The oil is everywhere, deep under the sand. Today I wanted to measure the oil, so I stuck my shovel into the sand and the oil was down there eight inches deep.”

Steve leaned in close, “Do you want to know how long my contract is to work down here?” he asked. “Three years.” His jaw muscles tightened as if he wanted to suck his words back into his mouth, but could not. “They are telling everyone it is not so bad, but clean-up will take many years. I am going to be here a long time.” Steve wiped a hand heavily over his eyes as if they were burning. “Let me tell you something. Today we saw three sharks washed up dead on the beach. The insides of their noses were black with oil. The membranes of their mouths were black with oil. Their eyes were black with oil.”

Steve is a war veteran who has seen a great deal of horror, but he seems to find this memory inordinately upsetting. “I am telling you this for the sake of our grandchildren,” he said. “We have an apocalypse going on and no one is paying enough attention.”

The CTEH Cover Up

A few days later, Steve and I were talking in the chemical-laced dusk of a car park. The Louisiana night was a strange brew of oily vapors and ginger blossom. Steve was slumped against his car, exhausted by his fifteen-hour day. The red tip of his cigarette burned on-off in the dark like a warning signal. As we talked, the nightly, muffled thrup-thrup of distant helicopters began. A number of people had told me about these strange, night flights, as helicopters and planes headed out on mysterious missions. I asked Steve where they were going.

“They are looking for oil,” he said. “The helicopters go out first at dusk. When they spot oil, they radio the gps locations back to the Coast Guard. Then between one and three in the morning, the planes go out and spray the oil with dispersants.”

“Why do they go out at night?” I ask. “They are hiding the oil with dispersants, Steve said. “They don’t want people to know how much oil there is out there. And they don’t want people to know how much dispersants they are spraying. It’s one of the big secrets down here.”

As it happens, Steve knows a good deal about dispersants. Before coming to work on the oil spill, he worked as a contractor for Halliburton; he now works in the Gulf for a company dealing with environmental toxicity and health hazards. It took a couple of hours talking and half a bottle of Southern Comfort before Steve revealed the name of his company. “I work for CTEH,” he said. Then he dragged his hand hard over his eyes. “I can’t believe I just told you that,” he said, but it was clear he wanted to.

Founded in 1997 in Arkansas, CTEH (Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health) specializes in toxicology and risk assessment. According to its website, CTEH “specializes in the specific expertise of toxicology, risk assessment, industrial hygiene, occupational health, and response to emergencies or other events involving release or threat of release of chemicals.” As it happens, CTEH is the company down in the Gulf that is quietly monitoring the levels of chemical toxicity of the oil-spill and its possible impact on the health of offshore workers involved in the clean-up.

CTEH is part of the Joint Unified Command based in Houma, Louisiana, where BP shares its office with the Coast Guard. The CTEH website is frank: CTEH is “proud” of its role in the Unified Command response. The website is less frank, however, about one stunningly important omission. CTEH is being paid by BP.

CTEH, in other word, is monitoring the possible toxic effects on workers of the chemicals BP has unleashed, and it is doing this at BP’s expense. In short, CTEH is being paid by BP to check up on BP. This is a conflict of interest so flagrant it is like a murder suspect hiring the forensic experts who will examine the murder scene.

CTEH has, to boot, an impressively consistent record of unsavory conflict of interest cases, where they have ruled favorably every time on behalf of their corporate clients. CTEH was hired by a coal company after it unleashed a massive coal-ash spill in the Tennessee Valley. CTEH declared everything hunky-dory. CTEH was hired by a paper mill sued by an employee for asbestos exposure. CTEH blamed the employee’s health problems on his lifestyle. Murphy Oil Refinery hired CTEH after spilling one million gallons into a community in St Bernard’s parish, LA. CTEH found nothing there for anyone to worry about.

Now, down in the Gulf, BP is paying CTEH to monitor the toxic levels of the air and water. As Nicholas Cheremisinoff, a former Exxon chemical engineer and expert on pollution prevention says, this means there is “a huge incentive for them to under-report.”

This also means that if anyone sues BP for health problems caused by toxic exposure to oil or chemicals, CTEH will be the expert witness called in on BP’s behalf. Indeed, two Gulf Coast residents, Glynis Wright and Janille Turner, are now filing a class action suit against BP in Alabama, for alleged health problems caused by clean-up chemicals, claiming that Corexit is four times more toxic than the crude oil. Cheremisinoff has said he is “100 per cent certain” CTEH will be called in as expert witness for BP.

Not surprisingly, down in the Gulf CTEH is flying very low under the radar. According to a report filed by the Louisian Bucket Brigade, at a community meeting in New Orleans, CTEH was present, but without any insignia or identifying credentials, repeatedly reassuring residents that the area was safe and that heat was the main hazard facing workers. When the LBB reporter asked the EPA rep why they were working for CTEH, the rep responded: “CTEH?…don’t know them.” When the reporter pulled out a copy of the CTEH website, the EPA rep backtracked: “Oh, yeah, we look at their data.” Asked if that didn’t amount to a conflict of interest, the rep admitted, “Yeah, that is a danger.” Shortly afterwards, he backtracked again: “No, we don’t really do anything with them. Who are they again?”

This crazy, conflict-of-interest carousel–where BP pays CTEH, and the EPA relies on CTEH data to monitor BP–is so flagrant that Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) has formally requested that President Obama relieve BP of responsibility for protecting the health of workers and local residents.

CTEH and the EPA underplay the hazards, but down in the Gulf people are getting sick. Some men working on the oil spill have become ill and some hospitalized, though we don’t know the full extent because sick workers are contracted by BP not to talk to the media. BP could well stand, not for Beyond Petroleum, but for Beyond Principle. In a particularly nefarious act of cost-cutting and labor control, BP has hired prison inmates to do the clean-up, refusing to let them wear respirators, as this makes it visible that conditions are hazardous. Nor can they carry cell-phones lest they document the damage. Forced labor: slavery déjà vu. And there’s an extra perk for BP. Private companies like BP who use people on work-release get tax rebates of $2,400 for every worker they employ.

I heard many stories of people getting sick. I talked to the wife of a Vietnamese fisherman: “My husband has had chest problems ever since he went to work for BP,” she told me. “A lot of people are getting sick. And when the south wind blows, my asthma gets bad,” she said. In an internet café, I overheard a young man talking loudly into his cell about a blistering rash on his chest. “The doctor thinks it’s over-exposure to the chemicals,” he said.

The Corexit Cover-up

You have to hand it to them: BP’s image makers do a heck of a job looking on the bright side of life. Consider the multi-million dollar ads they regularly place in the New York Times (any one of which would go a long way towards putting an out-of-work fisherman on his feet). Not a drop of oil to be seen from sea to shining sea. Even the skimmers seem to be skimming up stardust. The beach are pristine. Not a dollop of oil to be seen. As Marci, a private contractor with an energy company, sardonically said to me one evening: “Clean. Clean as a baby’s butt clean. You know why? Dispersants.” Marci asked me: “Why do you think the oil stopped fifteen miles from the Florida coast? All along the Gulf, there is a fifteen-mile wide line where the oil stopped. How did it stop at that magical line?” She told me the same story others had told: “At night they go out with planes and spray it with dispersants. So the beaches look clean. But the oil is still there. Wait until the fall,” she said, “Wait until the weather cools, and the Mississippi drops. Then the oil will rise to the surface. Then the oil will come back.”

Marci was bristling with suppressed anger. ““You have to understand the tides,” she said. “Why do you think the oil is inside the booms, not outside them? It’s because of the dispersants. The dispersants sink the oil under the water. It looks like the oil is gone. But then the tides go in, taking the oil with them, and the oil goes in under the booms. Then the water cools, the oil rises, the tide goes out, and the oil is caught on the inside of the boom. Close to the marshes, close to the birds.” Travelling round Barataria Bay by boat and air, I have seen this for myself and have photos to show for it: islands surrounded by boom, with the oil trapped on the inside.

From the beginning, the use of dispersants has been clouded with controversy and cover-ups. The cutely named Corexit is made by the American company Nalco, and is famously banned in the UK and Europe on the grounds of its lethal toxicity. In April, shortly after the Deep Horizon blowout, Lisa Jackson of the EPA ruled that Corexit should only be used in “extremely rare” cases. Down in Louisiana, for decades there’s been a tightly-knit culture of mutual cronyism where local politicians and oilmen have their hands deep in each others pockets. On August 1st, the US House of Representatives Committee confirmed that for over three months, in violation of EPA’s official guidelines, the US Coast Guard had fast-tracked 74 permits giving BP the green light to “carpet-bomb” the Gulf. All told, at least 2 million gallons have been dumped into the Gulf, sprayed over the seas, islands and marshes.

The main ingredient in Corexit is 2-Butoxyethenol, which is toxic to blood, kidneys, liver and the central nervous system, also causing cancer, birth defects. Corexit is mutagenic for bacteria, huge amounts of which live in the Gulf of Mexico. Corexit ruptures red blood cells and accumulates as it moves up the food chain. The EPA, reluctant at first to release data, eventually conceded that Corexit is lethal for 50% of any group of test animals that comes in contact with it. Even the Department of Transportation classifies Corexit as Class 6.1: Poisonous Material” for transportation purposes.

The risks of Corexit to humans, the fragile marsh ecosystems and marine life are potentially staggering. Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist and tireless community activist, has testified meeting people all over the Gulf who are showing symptoms: “headaches, dizziness, sorethroats, burning eyes, rashes and blisters that go so deep, they are leaving scars.”

Dispersants have never been used in such quantities before, or at such depths in the ocean, or on open marshland. Dispersants are so dangerous because they accumulate up the food chain. Fiddler crabs absorb the toxins in their muscles and are then eaten by birds. Coyotes and feral pigs eat the bird corpses. Pelicans absorb the toxins from fish and even lightly oiled pelicans ingest the oil through their constant preening. Larger marine life like tuna, dolphins and whales carry the greatest lethal loads. Stories have been told by fishermen finding vast, floating graveyards of birds, dolphins and whale corpses near the Macondo well site, which, they say, are secretly disposed of at night.

Oil on the surface is easier to see, easier to retrieve, easier to burn. One study shows that oil mixed with Corexit is 11 times as lethal as the oil alone.

So why use such lethal toxins in the first place?

Dispersants are called dispersants because that’s what they do. They disperse the oil; they don’t destroy it. Dispersants sink the oil below the surface, make it harder to see, and therefore harder to sue BP for liability. On August 20th scientists produced new evidence of vast undersea plumes of oil drifting for miles. This week, another team of scientists in the journal Science confirmed the discovery of a massive 22 mile subsea oil plume the size of Manhattan and, most dismayingly, very little evidence that the oil was being broken down by microbes.

Chris Pinetich, a marine biologist and campaigner with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, confirmed what Steve and others had told me: that Coast Guard planes were flying out at night spraying Corexit on the water and land. “People need to realize that their water, their air, the sand they are walking on, they things they are touching when they wake in the morning are coated with this stuff,” he said. “We are producing an experiment in the Gulf the likes of which no one has ever seen. Top scientists admit that. We are all part of the experiment.”

Death by dispersants is slow and invisible. Death by dispersants wreaks its havoc over generations. Dispersants are what Rob Nixon has called “slow violence.” We often think of violence as immediate and spectacular, bounded by space and time. Nixon recalls us to violence of a different kind: the “attritional devastation” that takes place gradually over time and space. Slow violence may be less visible, less media-sensational but enacts a toll no less lethal and lasting for being slow and out of sight.

Corexit is a form of slow violence: a conjurer’s trick, an alchemy of deceit, a sorcerer’s bargain with life and death.

And down in Barataria Bay, people cough the BP cough. Workers have rashes and burning eyes. Their ears get infected; their hands get blisters. When the southwind blows, lungs tighten and close. Some fishermen vomit, some struggle to breathe. Some get dizzy, some get diarhorrea. Some have ashthma, some fast-beating hearts. Their chests burn fire; their throats are sore. And their children cough the BP cough.

Slow Violence in the Gulf

Dispersants are not the only form of slow violence wreaked on the Gulf. The Deepwater Horizon blowout was by any standard spectacular violence: a volcanic crimson and grey apocalypse, an ocean in flames, a doomed, industrial colossus slowly pitching and sinking, taking with it nine men dead. But everyone I spoke to in the Gulf, echoed the same refrain: the Deepwater blowout was only the most recent, fast-forward, telegenic calamity on top of the permanent slow-motion catastrophe in the Gulf.

The slow violence of the oil spill comes on top of decades of slo-mo slaughter of the Gulf’s marshes and ocean waters by three forces: industrial dumping, chemical contamination and agricultural run-off; the forced engineering of the marshes by dredging and levees; and the tearing up of the vulnerable marshes by storms and hurricanes.

On July 18th, Karin and I flew in a Coast Guard plane to the Mocondo site. Two days before, BP partially capped the well. But flying over the five great passes where the Mississippi empties into the sea, I could still see great streaks of rust-red oil along the islands, and long white ribbons of dispersants in the foam-line of the currents. I already knew that beneath the Mocondo “ground zero” site lay a vast zone that had been dead for years, dead long before the Deepwater explosion: the Gulf “dead zone,” a stretch of water utterly inhospitable to life as vast as Lake Ontario.

The Gulf is one of the richest and most diverse eco-systems in the hemisphere, our largest wetlands and 40% of our fishing grounds. But since the 1950s, decades of greed and deregulation have turned the Gulf into the United States’ largest industrial wasteland. The Gulf is an immense, watery mausoleum to the hedonistic high-times of the military-industrial petro-era. If a gigantic hand emptied the Gulf like a basin of water, we would see a drowned version of industrial New Jersey: seeping oil-rigs, dumped military ordinance, unexploded bombs, thousands of miles of pipelines, a giant watery wrecking-yard, cluttered with the debris of a century of industrial waste. Miles from anywhere, the spires of an oil rig rise from the marshes, like a church to a demonic god.

Ninety per cent of all drilling for oil and gas in the United States takes place in the Gulf. This statistic hit home for me only when I opened a Hook ‘n Line fishing map. On the map, the Gulf’s waters are marked with thousands of small, red blocks so thickly clustered the map looks like a map with the measles, a map of malady. Each red square marks one of the 4,000 platforms littering the Gulf, many of them abandoned and many leaking.

The Gulf also bears the brunt of agricultural pollution from the heartland: runoff and waste from Midwest cornfields, sewage plants, golf courses, factories, nitrogen from fertilizer drain down the Mississippi into the Gulf every year. And through these damaged and vanishing marshes, massive watery superhighways have been cut, canals and passageways for the barges and huge ships on their way to the Gulf. Every straight line in the marshes is man made and a road to destruction. Every straight line has been forcibly dredged for flood control and shipping, the river and marshes forcibly reengineered by levees and canals to stop flooding, thereby fatally closing off the silt and fresh water that the marshes needs to sustain themselves, and rendering them vulnerable to the yearly slow violence of the hurricanes.

For many people I spoke to, the violence of Katrina was as great as the violence of the oil spill. Southern Louisiana is a half-drowned, shape-shifting, upside-down world, where boats float out of the treetops, and houses tilt out of the water. Everywhere we went, people still lived among the debris of Katrina. Boats flung by Katrina left to rot on the grassy verge of roads, half-wrecked houses, trees stripped bare and leaning arthritic against the evening sky.

Every day, Karin and I would drive past the huge coal and oil refineries, the Port Sulphur toxic dump, rotting boats, sunken cars, abandoned roads lined with methane barrels. Down near Venice, we found a toxic lake so rank with chemicals we can barely breathe. Not for nothing is the Deep Delta where we travelled every day, called “cancer alley,” with highest rates of cancer in the US.

One evening, Karin and I pulled into an unprepossessing marina near a town called Empire, driving carefully past the sleeping BP security guard. A few oyster-boats were festooned with yellow boom, but the rest of the marina wore a forlorn and dilapidated air. From every boat, the useless fishing nets hung like shrouds, dark relics of better times. One man moved slowly about his small houseboat. We got talking and Lloyd Boudreau invited me into his houseboat and unrolled a huge photo of the disaster Katrina had wrought: the picture of his life turned upside down by Katrina. Stubbing fingers blackened by a life on the oil rigs, he pointed to his houseboat, upturned like a toy. Katrina is the ghost he lives with, as if he has no room in his heart to begin to think about the oil spill.

Battered by the accumulated slow violence of decades of corporate greed and mismanagement, dredging, levees, and hurricanes, the Louisiana delta is vanishing before our eyes, slipping into the sea at the rate of one football field every half hour. Since the 1930s, land the size of Delaware has vanished under water.

From Blowout to Blowback

Then BP partially capped the well and the media began to cap the story. NOAA issued its report on August 5th with some implausibly neat arithmetic, declaring 75% of the oil gone. I speak to Steve on the phone. “All the media has left,” he says. “But the oil hasn’t.”

Then blowback starts. Saying 75% of the oil is “gone” sounds cheering (less cheering, of course, if one remembers that 25% of the Deepwater spill is still four times as much as the total Exxon Valdez spill), but down in the Gulf, no one is buying even the 75%-gone story.

“The oil has not gone,” Tony, an out-of-work shrimp fisherman told me, “It’s just below the surface.” “They’re just covering their butts,” says woman at a gas-station. “They want everyone to think it’s over,” Charlotte Randolph, Lafourche Parish president said of the NOAA report: “This week in Lafourche parish we had hundreds of barrels a day washing in.

I call PJ Hahn, Director of Coast Zone Management in Plaquemines Parish. “I know there is plenty of oil out there,” Hahn insisted. “They say they have captured 75%, but they don’t even know how much there was to begin with. Figures lie, and liars figure,” he says.

“From the very beginning,” PJ told me, “the Coast Guard went to bed with BP. There was no oversight. They tried to cover for themselves. Now they’re trying to declare a quick ending. If they can get the President to convince everyone that it is over, then that reduces BP’s liability. There are two things working right now: there’s an election coming up and we have a President dying in the polls. They want to tell everyone it’s all ok. Now,” PJ says, “the media has left. They want to kill the story.”

“Last weekend, he continued, “we got stuck on a sandbar. When we gunned the engines, there was nothing but oil behind the boat. Then we dove with the Cousteau group again and there was plenty of oil on the bottom of the ground. The sand just covers it up. On Sunday night, we stopped at a barrier island, and as we were walking back to the boat, black oil spurted out of the hermit-crab holes. We pushed a stick down into the ground, and when we pulled the stick out, the oil began bubbling up. Fresh oil, not weathered oil. Wait till the shrimp boats start going out again. When those trawlers hit bottom, that’s when we will see a lot of things.”

A New Orleans radio poll showed 80% of respondents did not believe the NOAA report. Others offered similar testimony. Steve told me he saw a huge slick about five miles long and one mile wide on his way to work. Bob Marshall, writing for the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported seeing a great deal of oil at South Pass. Fishermen reported oil both inside Barataria Bay and out near the great Mississippi Passes and barrier islands. Riki Ott, flew out over Barataria Bay and afterwards wrote: “Bay Jimmy on the northeast side of Barataria Bay was full of oil. So was Bay Baptiste, Lake Grande Ecaille, and Billet Bay….We followed thick streamers of black oil and ribbons of rainbow sheen….The ocean’s smooth surface glinted like molten lead in the late afternoon sun. Oil. As far as we could see: oil.”

On my last evening down in the delta, fishing guide Dave Iverson took me by boat through Barataria Bay to the pelican rookeries at Queen Bess and Cat Islands near Grand Isle. As we passed through the he hauntingly lovely, lacey-green filigree marshland, flocks of snowy egrets and ibis lifted gracefully into the air ahead of us, an explosion of white confetti, an exuberant celebration of life. But returning through the marshes in the twilight through the oil-damaged parts, I saw miles of tangled boom filthy with oil, and inside the boom the black marshes, blackened as if a fire from hell had roared through. And everywhere a great stillness. Not a bird to be seen. I thought of John Keats’s great line: “The sedge is wither’d from the lake and no birds sing.” I thought of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring that launched the modern environmental movement. Will this silence do the same?

On what abacus can we count the slowly dying, the invisibly hurt, the already poisoned but not yet dead? In this, our summer of magical counting. All summer we’ve been counting: numbers of gallons spilled, numbers of toxins released, numbers of birds dying, numbers of fishermen out of work. We are like children counting on our fingers in the dark, trying to ward off the shapeless face of something dreadful that has been unleashed and that we cannot fully understand.

And down in Barataria Bay, the crabs climb out of the burning water and hold their claws to the sky. The creels stand empty; the boats lie still. Nets hang like shrouds. And children cough the BP cough.

All photos by Anne McClintock, copyright 2010.

Anne McClintock is the Simone de Beauvoir Professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies at UW-Madison. She is the author of Imperial Leather: Race, Gender and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest, which was republished online by the ACLS E-Humanities Book Project. McClintock has written short biographies of Olive Schreiner and Simone de Beauvoir and a monograph on madness, sexuality and colonialism called Double Crossings. She has co-edited Dangerous Liaisons with Ella Shohat and Aamir Mufti. She can be reached at: amcclintock@wisc.edu

Special thanks to Richard Charter