http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/7292617.html

By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 12, 2010, 10:25PM

WASHINGTON – The future of a planned March sale of offshore drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico is in doubt because of the federal government’s plans to first conduct a lengthy environmental study of the region.

The environmental analysis – formally announced this week – is expected to take about six months, so it probably won’t be finished before March.

Although the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has not announced any delay in the lease sale covering offshore tracts in the central Gulf of Mexico, oil industry lobbyists and analysts said it is unlikely to go forward.

Analysts at the investment bank FBR Capital Markets said the March lease sale will probably be canceled because of the study and because of the bureau’s work vetting new drilling permits and drafting new safety rules.

“The agency faces significant workload on other offshore regulation, including permitting and public comment period requirements,” the analysts said.

Mike Olsen, a lawyer with the Houston-based Bracewell & Giuliani firm who previously spent five years working for the Interior Department, said such studies typically take several months, and it would be difficult to get one done by March.

The government’s environmental impact study is designed to assess the potential impact of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in light of the Macondo deep-water well blowout and oil spill earlier this year. The last similar study was conducted long before the April 20 blowout that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and killed 11 workers.

“This is a vehicle for BOEMRE, other government scientists and the public to gather and consider new information obtained and analyzed as a result of the Deepwater Horizon blowout and spill,” said Michael Bromwich, the bureau director.
Helps decision-makers

He said the fresh assessment will allow his agency “to make objective, science-based decisions about the activities involved in offshore energy exploration, development and production.”

Under the government’s current five-year plan for drilling on the outer continental shelf – which runs through June 30, 2012 – the ocean energy bureau was slated to conduct three more sales in the Gulf of Mexico, beginning with the one in March and followed by sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico later in 2011 and in the Central Gulf in early 2012.

Bromwich said in an interview Tuesday that an upcoming “filing” would shed light on the future of the sales. It was unclear when – or what – that would be.

But the government may have tipped its hand with its formal announcement of the environmental impact study, which lays the groundwork for the upcoming sales.

The notice published in the government’s Federal Register on Wednesday specifically named two of the remaining three sales – and omitted the one planned for March. To analysts and industry advocates in Washington, that signaled the March sale is off
.
Notice revised

The government swiftly revised that notice, and the announcement published a day later did not specifically name any lease sales.

Olsen said the revision gives the government more flexibility and preserves the appearance, at least, that the March sale is still on track.

jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com

__________________________________

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20101113/ARTICLES/101119666/1212?Title=First-new-deepwater-permit-issued

Daily Comet

First new deepwater permit issued

By Kathrine Schmidt
Staff Writer

Published: Saturday, November 13, 2010 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, November 13, 2010 at 12:01 a.m.

HOUMA – Federal officials have issued the first deepwater permit since the Deepwater Horizon spill.

It’s not quite what the industry was hoping for – it’s not an entirely new well, but a water-injection well, which pumps substances into a reservoir that has already been drilled to extract additional oil and gas. But some are saying it’s a start.

The revamped Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued the permit to BHP Billiton for a well in 4,583 feet of water on Nov. 5, according to spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz. The company will use Transocean’s Development Driller 1.

“It’s good news,” said Chett Chiasson, executive director at Port Fourchon, the Lafourche port that handles more than 90 percent of deepwater activity in the Gulf. “It’s not full-fledged new well drilling. It’s another positive step in the right direction. We’re hoping to see more of that in the coming weeks.”

That job will mean at least some additional business for Fourchon, since BHP Billiton uses a shorebase there, Chiasson said.

Still, the announcement was greeted without much enthusiasm from the industry and business advocates who have urged the federal government to speed up its issuance of permits in the aftermath of the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion, which killed 11 and caused the worst oil spill in the nation’s history.

Offshore oil-and-gas work has slowed substantially and drilling, an important economic driver in south Louisiana, has nearly stopped as officials implement new safety and environmental rules.

“Our initial concern is still valid. Up to 30,000 Louisiana jobs will be at risk if drilling activity does not reach a reasonable rate,” said Michael Hecht, President and CEO of GNO Inc, the New Orleans economic-development group.

Environmental groups have urged caution, and the administration has said the extra review time is necessary to make sure that emergency-response plans are in place and past safety problems are avoided.

Historically, the government has issued about four new deepwater permits per month, GNO said. In shallow water, the government historically has issued about seven new permits monthly, the group says. But in the seven months since the spill, the government has only issued 13 new well permits in shallow water.

Other permits have flowed more freely. The BOEMRE has approved more than 1,400 permits for shallow-water well construction or modification, known in the industry as workover, and 47 revised new wells.

In deepwater, there have been 24 deepwater workover permits and one sidetrack well, in which a new offshoot of a well is drilled from an existing one. Four new deepwater-well permits are awaiting approval.

While most of these permits provide oilfield-service work for area companies, new drilling provides the most.

Schwartz wouldn’t comment on when any of those new well plans would be approved.

“Hopefully we’ll see more permits coming in the coming weeks and get ourselves some sense of normalcy,” Chiasson said. “If that starts to happen, things are going to start looking up. We can begin to feel a little bit of relief and our businesses can continue what they were doing prior to the oil spill.”

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

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.cubastandard.com/2010/11/16/petronas-expects-to-begin-offshore-drilling-in-2011/

The oil arm of Russian gas giant Gazprom bought a 30-percent stake in four offshore blocks contracted by Malaysian state company Petronas.

In making the announcement, JSC Gazprom Neft said in a press release that Petronas expects to begin exploratory drilling next year; 2D seismic surveys have been completed. A drilling platform is expected to arrive in Cuban waters early next year, where it will first be used by a consortium led by Spain’s Repsol S.A.

Last week, President Hugo Chávez announced that Venezuelan state company PdVSA will “soon” begin exploratory drilling. PdVSA’s four blocks are contiguous with Petronas’ blocks, off the western tip of Cuba. Chávez suggested to his oil minister to use a Brazilian platform.

Petronas signed a product sharing agreement for four blocks with the Cuban government in 2007, which allows for oil production through 2037 and gas production through 2042.

The additional agreement makes JSC Gazprom Neft a junior partner of Petronas in blocks 44, 45, 50 and 51. Exploration and production costs will be financed proportionally, subject to pro-rating of Petronas’ previous expenses.

“Gazprom Neft’s partnership with Petronas will enable the company to further extend its geographic reach and strengthen its position in the global market,” said Gazprom Neft Chairman Alexander Dyukov in a press release. “The offshore experience will promote the company’s growth.”

The four Petronas blocks are shown on the map online.

___________

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 16th, 2010 at 10:14 am and is filed under Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Dispersants’ Toxic Legacy

Mother Jones: Dispersants’ Toxic Legacy

– By Kate Sheppard
| Fri Nov. 12, 2010 3:00 AM PST

In the weeks after BP’s massive oil spill in the Gulf, a number of environmental groups and scientists began raising concerns about the huge volume of chemical dispersants the company was spreading in the water. These chemicals are used to break the oil into smaller globs, which causes them to sink and supposedly biodegrade faster.

The BP disaster shed light on how little oversight there is of these chemicals, and how little is known about their long-term impacts. The Environmental Protection Agency pledged to investigate, and released its own studies in June and July that found that the dispersants were no more toxic than the oil. (By the time EPA weighed in, 1.84 million gallons of Corexit, BP’s dispersant of choice, had already been dumped in the Gulf.)

Now Peter Hodson, an aquatic toxicologist from Queen’s University in Ontario, says that the EPA’s conclusions might not be exactly true; the dispersed oil does have a more toxic effect, since toxic components like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are spread around more widely in the water. Nature reports on his presentation at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in Portland, Oregon earlier this week:

The problem, explains Hodson, is that the dispersed cloud of microscopic oil droplets allows the PAHs to contaminate a volume of water 100-1,000 times greater than if the oil were confined to a floating surface slick. This hugely increases the exposure of wildlife to the dispersed oil. “EPA was presenting only part of the risk equation,” he told the meeting. “They’re trying to sugar-coat the message. In trying to understand the risks of dispersed oil, we need to understand exposure.”

Hodson’s research suggests that fish embryos, still in their eggs, are extremely sensitive to dispersed oil. “Exposures as brief as an hour can have a negative effect on embryonic fish,” he says. That, combined with the fact that for any some species, large numbers of fish can spawn at about the same time of year, means that an entire hatch could be decimated by a plume of contaminated water: “You could have a very large portion of the fish stock affected.”

Hodson also noted that, even when dispersed, the oil takes weeks to break down. Another panelist remarked that the toxic components of the oil can also last longer than the non-toxic components, further complicating the impacts. I think it’s safe to say that the full environmental impact of both the spill and the chemicals used to disperse it will take some time to fully understand.

___________

and back in October:

Dispersant Maker Ups Lobbying Spending

Mother Jones

Dispersant Maker Ups Lobbying Spending

– By Kate Sheppard
| Thu Oct. 28, 2010 2:00 AM PDT

One thing BP’s oil spill laid bare both how little data the government has on dispersants, which were used in unprecedented volumes in the Gulf, how poorly regulated these chemicals are. Since the disaster, several bills have been floated to tighten rules on the use of the chemicals, and the Environmental Protection Agency has signaled that it plans to take a closer look at how dispersants would be used in future spills. It’s probably little surprise, then, that the company that manufactured BP’s brand of choice, Corexit, has been beefing up its lobbying presence in Washington.

Nalco, the Illinois-based chemical company that produces Corexit, spent $90,000 on federal lobbying in the third quarter of 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, bring its 2010 total so far up to $350,000. That brings the company’s total since the BP spill to $290,000-far more than the company has spent in the past decade. Nalco’s 2009 lobbying tab was just $90,000. The company spent no money on lobbying in 2008.

Of course, there’s more attention being paid this year to the dispersant products Nalco sells. A draft report from the National Oil Spill Commission found that the government’s lack of planning for dispersant use “handicapped” the response effort. I recently wrote about the much-needed overhaul of chemical policy, and both EPA and Congress have signaled that policy changes are coming. There have been multiple lawsuits over dispersants, most recently one from shrimpers and environmental groups calling for the EPA to stop further use of the chemicals until evaluation is completed.

The government’s lax oversight of dispersants facilitated BP’s unprecedented use of the chemicals in the Gulf. Over the course of the spill, 1.84 million gallons of Corexit was sprayed on the surface and injected at the spill site-despite the fact that the short-and long-term effects of the chemicals are poorly understood.

_________________

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/09/bp-ocean-dispersant-corexit

Mother Jones

BP’s Bad Breakup:
How Toxic Is Corexit?

Why BP doesn’t have to tell the EPA-or the public-what’s in its dispersants.

– By Kate Sheppard
September/October 2010 Issue

WHEN THE DEEPWATER Horizon rig exploded, BP was presented with a stark choice: Let the oil float to the surface, reach the shore, and allow the world to see the full scope of the damage; or hit as much of the oil as possible with toxic substances called dispersants to break it up into trillions of tiny droplets, keeping some of it from reaching the surface and making landfall-but also potentially killing more sea life than the oil might have destroyed by itself. The company chose the latter. By late July, it had applied a record 1.8 million gallons of dispersants, spraying them on the sea’s surface and injecting them directly at the well site, a technique never tried before.

Why, you might ask, was BP able to pump the Gulf full of chemicals that have never been tested for their human and environmental safety? The answer lies, in part, in the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 34-year-old law that governs the use of tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals. Under the act, companies don’t have to prove that substances they release into the air or water are safe-or in most cases even reveal what’s in their products.

In the case of dispersants, companies must ask the EPA for permission to use specific products-but the only basis for approval is whether those products are effective at breaking up oil. Companies are required to test the short-term toxicity of the dispersant and the oil-dispersant mixture on shrimp and fish, but those results have no bearing on approval, and there’s no requirement to assess the long-term impact. In fact, it’s the EPA that must prove an “unreasonable risk” if it wants companies to disclose what is in the dispersant-hard to do when the agency, you know, doesn’t know what’s in it.

BP’s chemical cocktails of choice were Corexit 9527A and 9500A, both made by Illinois-based Nalco. The manufacturer insists that the products are no more dangerous than common household cleaners such as dish soap-little consolation given that many of the chemicals in those cleaners haven’t been tested for safety, either. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged that the impacts of using dispersants underwater and in large volume are largely unknown-“I’m amazed by how little science there is on the issue,” she told senators in May. Two days later, Jackson directed BP to switch to less-toxic dispersants, but BP said it hadn’t found the alternatives suitable and continued to use Corexit. The EPA also asked for the company’s study of alternatives; BP turned over a set of heavily redacted documents (PDF). Under pressure, Nalco eventually coughed up a list of Corexit ingredients-one of them is 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that can cause liver and kidney damage and other health problems-but refused for some time to provide the exact formula; meanwhile, the EPA said it was barred from publishing its own studies on the ingredients because, according to a spokeswoman, that might be “confidential business information” that could lead to criminal prosecution.

One Corexit ingredient is 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that can cause liver and kidney damage.

The upshot: BP was allowed to keep dumping the chemicals. “We live in a world where we’re making tough decisions based on little science,” Jackson told reporters (PDF) on May 24. The EPA and the Coast Guard did ask BP to “scale back” use of Corexit, but as it turned out, the Coast Guard’s on-scene coordinator approved almost every single request from BP to use more dispersants.

In the end, says Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, the problem with Corexit is bound up in the larger failure of chemical oversight: “We have a chemical policy that essentially has required very little testing and very little evidence of safety for pretty much all chemicals on the market, and that covers dispersants.” Legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act-requiring mandatory ingredient disclosure and safety testing for some 84,000 chemicals whose risks have not been assessed anywhere-has been stalled in Congress for years. For now, the EPA has finally begun testing Corexit for toxicity. But that, notes Gina Solomon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, is “a little bit like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.”

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones’ Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here. Get Kate Sheppard’s RSS feed.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/activist-lab-tests-show-dangerously-toxic-substances-present-gulf-shrimp/

By Stephen C. Webster
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 — 8:09 am

Stumble This! 2798
Share 22diggs
digg
Experts operating states apart confirm toxic content in not just shrimp, but crab and fish too

The federal government is going out of its way to assure the public that seafood pulled from recently reopened Gulf of Mexico waters is safe to consume, in spite of the largest accidental release of crude oil in America’s history.

However, testing methodologies used by the government to deem areas of water safe for commercial fishing are woefully inadequate and permit high levels of toxic compounds to slip into the human food chain, according to a series of scientific and medical professionals interviewed by Raw Story.

In two separate cases, a toxicologist and a chemist independently confirmed their seafood samples contained unusually high volumes of crude oil and harmful hydrocarbons — and some of this food was allegedly being sent to market.

One test, conducted by a chemist from Mobile, Alabama, employed a rudimentary chemical analysis of shrimp pulled from waters near Louisiana and found “oil and grease” in their digestive tracts.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) tests, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have focused on the animal’s flesh, with samples shelled and cleaned before undergoing examination.

Unfortunately, many Gulf coast residents prepare shrimp whole, tossing the creatures into boiling water shells and all.

“I wouldn’t eat shrimp, fish or crab caught in the Gulf,” said Robert M. Naman, a chemist at ACT Labs in Mobile, Alabama, who conducted the test after being contacted by a New Orleans activist. “The problems people will face, health-wise, are something that people don’t understand.”

Naman also found that the oil was at an unusual high concentration: 193 parts-per-million (PPM).

Though Naman’s test did not provide a complete fingerprint of the chemical spectrum, his results are still “an important finding,” according to Dr. Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist at the Marine Environmental Research Institute in Blue Hill, Maine.

“193 parts-per-million of petroleum in a crustacean is very high,” she told Raw Story. “You have to ask, what is the meaning from a human health perspective?

“This is another signal that oil is in the food chain in the Gulf. Oil has been found in subsea plumes, in seafloor sediments, where it will degrade very slowly and can be re-released into the food chain.”

Tainted seafood allegedly headed to market

In another series of tests, Dr. William Sawyer, of the Sanibel, Florida-based Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, replicated findings of oil in shrimp digestive tracts, but he noted an even higher content of harmful hydrocarbons in the flesh of other edible creatures.

And, Dr. Sawyer said, some of his test samples came from seafood on its way to market, pulled from waters recently classified as safe for commercial fishing activities.

“They did not test the [total petroleum hydrocarbons] (TPH) in their samples,” he said, calling his testing methodologies a much more comprehensive way of examining compounds present in seafood.

“The sensory test employed by the FDA detects compounds that are volatile that have an odor; we’re detecting compounds that are low volatility and are very low odor,” he added. “We found not only petroleum in the digestive tracts [of shrimp], but also in the edible portions of fish.

“We’ve collected shrimp, oysters and finned fish on their way to marketplace — we tested a good number of seafood samples and in 100 percent we found petroleum.”

The FDA says up to 100-PPM of oil and dispersant residue is safe to consume in finned fish, and 500-PPM is allowed for shellfish.

Dr. Sawyer, who has long been a vocal critic of these rules, called the government’s tests “little more than a farce.”

“[The FDA’s safety threshold] is borderline absurd,” Naman added. “It’s geared so that shrimpers can go back to work, and that’s great — but if we’re talking about human health and the environment, you need to proceed slowly.”

The FDA ignored multiple requests for comment on this story.

Long-term health effects still unknown

Direct exposure to crude oil can cause a number of health issues for humans, but most of them are short-lived or relative and none of the potential long-term effects are guaranteed.

While the full array of effects are still being studied and debated by the medical community, crude oil does contain benzene, which can cause cancer, along with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which are toxic to the brain and nervous system.

The latter has been found in virtually all NOAA samples of Gulf seafood, but very few samples exceeded the maximum allowable levels set by federal safety regulators. Even so, according to Dr. Sawyer, PAH levels detected by the NOAA in Gulf region shrimp were almost always 10 times that of levels found in shrimp farmed inland.

The FDA recently declared that out of 1,735 samples of Gulf seafood tested from June through Sept., only 13 showed levels of residues above its allowable threshold.

It is unclear whether regular consumption of this content of oil would sicken a person, how quickly its symptoms would begin to show, or in what ways they would manifest.

The initial effects of oil toxicity from ingestion include headaches, nausea, fatigue and rapid changes in mental state, according to Dr. Cyrus Rangan, assistant director of the California Poison Control System, who spoke to The Los Angeles Times in June.

Those changes in mental state may actually be the most damaging lasting effect of the BP oil spill, according to Dr. Russell W. H. Kridel, a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Science and Public Health.

Kridel, whose specialty is actually in plastic surgery and ear-nose-and-throat disorders, spoke to Raw Story because the AMA’s council has prepared a comprehensive report on the health effects of the BP oil spill.

“Most of the problems encountered [along the Gulf coast] were more mental health problems than anything else,” he said. “There are respiratory health problems just from burning oil. You can get rashes from skin contact, headaches, vomiting or nausea, which has affected a lot of relief workers.

“There’s a lot of chronic stress and mental health disorders too, and those last longer than the acute, short-term effects. We cannot really tell you the long-term effects, just because of lack of long-term studies.”

He added that while he could not comment on evidence of oil in the digestive tracts of shrimp, some marine life have consumed oil content for centuries due to natural seepage near fault lines thought to account for over 600,000 metric tonnes of oil released across all the world’s oceans every year.

By comparison, scientists with the US Geological Survey and US Department of Energy estimate BP spilled at or near 4.9 million barrels — or approximately 666,400 metric tonnes of crude.

“[Most other oil spills] don’t show any long term effects on the local populations, but the size of previous oil spills are not this large,” he said. “This was the largest oil disaster in US history so I really can’t say what the full effect will be.”

Yet still, “no group has issued a warning or concern that it could affect human health by eating seafood,” Dr. Kridel emphasized.

The AMA has been active in coordinating efforts to track the health effects of BP’s oil spill. A report, recently passed by the group’s house of delegates, committed the AMA to continued monitoring of spill-related health effects.

Risk-factors remain

Despite declaring safety, even the NOAA’s own tests show regular consumption of Gulf seafood will dramatically heighten one’s intake of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

This, combined with a lack of testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons — and questions as to whether samples were in great enough number to declare wide swaths of water safe for fishing — should be enough to convince any skeptical eater to avoid Gulf seafood for the time being.

“I’m not eating fish. I wouldn’t advise anyone to eat fish,” chemist Robert Naman insisted. “[The government is] more worried about livelihoods and tourism, but I’m ultimately more concerned with human health.”

Dr. Sawyer agreed: “I don’t recommend eating Gulf seafood, not with the risk of liver and kidney damage,” he said. “The reason FDA has not made that advisory is because they’ve relied on this sensory test. You may as well send inspectors out to look at the fish and say they look nice. They’re sniffing for something they can’t detect.”

Because of the unknown nature of the threat posed, chemically sensitive populations like women, children, the elderly and people with depressed immune function or existing illness would be especially well advised to exercise caution when choosing seafood.

“Once oil enters, it can damage every organ, every system in the body,” Dr. Shaw concluded. “There is no safe level of exposure to this oil, because it contains carcinogens, mutagens that can damage DNA and cause cancer and other chronic health problems. Many people in the Gulf have been exposed for months — not just workers but residents. There are hundreds of health complaints from local people with symptoms that resemble symptoms of oil exposure.

“It will be years, possibly decades, before we understand the extent and nature of the health effects caused by this spill.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

From: U.S. EPA

Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 12:01 PM
Subject: Research News Release (HQ): EPA Releases Reports on Dioxin Emitted During Deepwater Horizon BP Spill

CONTACTS:

Enesta Jones

Jones.enesta@epa.gov

202-564-7873

202-564-4355

LaTisha Petteway

Petteway.latisha@epa.gov

202-564-3191

202-564-4355

EPA Releases Reports on Dioxin Emitted During Deepwater Horizon BP Spill

Reports find levels of dioxins created during controlled burns were below levels of concern

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released two peer reviewed reports concerning dioxins emitted during the controlled burns of oil during the Deepwater Horizon BP spill. Dioxins are a category that describes a group of hundreds of potentially cancer-causing chemicals that can be formed during combustion or burning. The reports found that while small amounts of dioxins were created by the burns, the levels that workers and residents would have been exposed to were below EPA’s levels of concern.

Controlled burning of oil on the surface of the ocean (also called in situ burning) was one method used by the Unified Command during the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, to reduce the spread of oil and environmental impacts at the shoreline. A total of 411 controlled burn events occurred of which 410 could be quantified, resulting in the combustion of an estimated 222,000 to 313,000 barrels of oil (or 9.3 to 13.1 million gallons).

With support from the U.S. Coast Guard, EPA conducted sampling of emissions at the source of the controlled burns in the Gulf of Mexico to determine if dioxins were present. The sampling was conducted to identify potential dioxin exposures and determine the potential risks from inhalation to workers in the vicinity of the fires, risks from inhalation to the general population and risks to the general population from consuming fish caught in the area.

The first report summarizing EPA’s sampling effort indicates that while dioxins were created from the burning of oil on ocean water, they were created at low levels – levels similar to the emissions from residential woodstoves and forest fires.

The second report, co-authored with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), presents the results of a screening risk assessment for the dioxins emitted from the controlled oil burns. The results indicate that increased cancer risk due to exposure to the dioxins released from the controlled burning of oil was small – less than a 1 in 1,000,000 increased cancer risk. Additional cancer risks for inhalation by workers and onshore residents and fish consumption by residents were lower than risk levels that typically are of concern to the agency. Typically, the agency has a concern when the risk is greater than 1 in 1,000,000.

Had the spill of oil continued, the results of these measurements would have been used by the Unified Command to determine if burning should continue. However, the well was capped on July 15, 2010 and the last in situ burn occurred on July 19, 2010. Consequently, these results are most useful to inform and improve the agency’s ability to respond to future oil spills.

EPA and other federal agencies have developed a broad set of questions and answers to provide the public with general information on dioxins, including what they are, where they can be found, and major sources of dioxins. The questions and answers explain the review process for the dioxin reassessment and discuss possible effects of dioxin exposure in humans, including advice about consumption of food that might contain dioxins.

Both reports and questions and answers about both reports: http://www.epa.gov/research/dioxin/

General information on dioxins: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/ChemicalContaminants/DioxinsPCBs/ucm077524.htm

Special thanks to Richard Charter