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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.gobeyondoil.org

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

August 30, 2010

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘We don’t want BP out’

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Messed up for a while’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anchor was dropped in 20 feet of water.

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

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

Fuqua said Piggott’s statement “sounds typical.”

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

Frustration Grows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s a terrible situation,” he said.

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

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

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

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

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

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

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

Special thanks to Ashley Hotz