Topic: Deepwater Horizon

[Nichi]

(Jahn, the problem is not the crude oil - the problem is the corexit, and the synergistic effects of the oil + corexit. Also, definitive answers have not been obtainable per the natural gas and hydrocarbons released. The Valdez, furthermore, was a finite amount of oil... the Gulf spill was much greater, and keeps showing up. The Loop Current stalled ... for how long no one is saying. The toll on the birds and other animals is astronomical - and that's just the stats that we know about. BP and the US Gov't cut into rescue operations anywhere but onshore. The FDA lowered its acceptability standards for the seafood-toxins which continue to be found .. some say that some of the shrimp- and oyster-species there have been wiped out. Vultures are dropping dead in the waters near Florida - swans are showing up paralyzed. The people are sick, and time will tell if the same carcinogenic results show up as did around the Valdez. BP kept such tight controls on the whole business that their clean-up workers weren't allowed to know what was going on 100 feet away - They actively courted the media away from true reporting, and attempted to indoctrinate school children in Louisianna to 'not blame BP'. The seafloor of the Gulf is a graveyard... and much much more...  I don't see at all how the whole thing, which continues daily, is not deemed a catastrophe.)

Fortunately, in the some what longer run a crude oil catastrophe is not much of a catastrophe. I could hold a lecture on this but the main message is that crude oil is natural and that it has quite little impact on the ecosystem. Especially in the South hemisphere. Exxon Valdez in Alaska was in that sense a greater ecological problem, and required more clean up efforts.

I do not marginalize the ecologic effects of the Mexican Gulf event but in the long run it will have no especially devastating effect. The warming of the water and that the water release carbonoxide is a greater problem right now. Species die for good because of the heating, but species die only temporarily beacuse of crude oill.

[Jahn]

(Jahn, the problem is not the crude oil - the problem is the corexit, and the synergistic effects of the oil + corexit. Also, definitive answers have not been obtainable per the natural gas and hydrocarbons released. The Valdez, furthermore, was a finite amount of oil... the Gulf spill was much greater, and keeps showing up. The Loop Current stalled ... for how long no one is saying. The toll on the birds and other animals is astronomical - and that's just the stats that we know about. BP and the US Gov't cut into rescue operations anywhere but onshore. The FDA lowered its acceptability standards for the seafood-toxins which continue to be found .. some say that some of the shrimp- and oyster-species there have been wiped out. Vultures are dropping dead in the waters near Florida - swans are showing up paralyzed. The people are sick, and time will tell if the same carcinogenic results show up as did around the Valdez. BP kept such tight controls on the whole business that their clean-up workers weren't allowed to know what was going on 100 feet away - They actively courted the media away from true reporting, and attempted to indoctrinate school children in Louisianna to 'not blame BP'. The seafloor of the Gulf is a graveyard... and much much more...  I don't see at all how the whole thing, which continues daily, is not deemed a catastrophe.)

Ok Ok Dear, I hear you!
I will have my lecture later. Not trying to simplify your worries or concern, these concernss of youra are of course must appropriate.
But as for a releif to you today. Crude oil is a natural ingredient in the ecological system and there are many micro organisms that eat this kind of oil. By time crude oil turn into asphalt and that state do not affect the system, it is like stones.

[Nichi]

It always happens, that when I think I've become too jaded or too dark, that I find I'm not quite jaded enough. It should have been a no-brainer, that besides the massive lawsuits and bad press BP is trying to redirect (with the help of the US Gov't), that also at the heart of all the false polish is their pressure on the residents to accept the settlements offered. "Everything is ok now - take this small pittance."

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/editorial-board-ignore-feds-latest-report-florida-listen-outsiders

[Nichi]

Finally it comes out about the manatees. 767 found dead in 2010 - they're attributing "279" of those deaths to cold temperatures.

[Nichi]

BP angers America again – this time over deal with Russians

By Stephen Foley in New York
Monday, 17 January 2011

BP still has to pay for the environmental disaster from the Gulf oil spill

 
BP's frantic efforts to repair its devastated reputation in the US have been set back by a major new alliance with the Russian government, prompting outraged comments from all sides of the political spectrum.


Amid continuing anger from the American public over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, politicians are calling for an investigation into BP's deal to sell a 5 per cent stake in the company to the Russian state-controlled oil giant Rosneft.

That deal, which gives BP access to vast untapped oil reserves in the Arctic, was signed with fanfare in London on Friday night, but across the Atlantic, one Congressman renamed BP "Bolshoi Petroleum". US critics also suggested BP has now become a national security threat, as well as environmental one.

"The national security implications of BP America being involved with the Russian company – that does require scrutiny by the Committee of Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS)," Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, said in a television interview hours after the deal was signed.

Mr Burgess is a member of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, making him a potential thorn in the side of BP, which has major operations across the US. "BP unfortunately has not been a great player either in the oil pipeline in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico," Mr Burgess said. "We have had serious problems there."

Earlier, Ed Markey, a prominent Democrat, had highlighted that BP was in 2009 the top supplier of petroleum to the US military. And he promised to push for intense scrutiny of the deal. He said: "Even following the largest oil spill in US history, and potentially billions of dollars in fines still outstanding, the Russian Bear is apparently bullish about BP. This acquisition will almost certainly complicate the politics of levying and collecting damages from BP following their Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"BP once stood for British Petroleum. With this deal, it now stands for Bolshoi Petroleum. The details of this deal and its impacts on the operations of BP America need to be thoroughly examined," Mr Markey added.

CFIUS is the US Treasury body with the power to block mergers and takeover deals if they are found to hurt US national security. Natural resources deals have always been among the most politically sensitive, and appear to be even more so since the emergence of China and other emerging nations on the world stage. US political pressure thwarted a Chinese takeover of an American oil company, Unocal, in 2005.

A BP spokesman said yesterday that the company was "very happy and pleased with the deal we have done, and we will deal with groups that have things to say as and when necessary".

Privately, the company believes there are no grounds for the US to intervene in the deal. Wall Street analysts say BP's business prospects are more heavily dependent on other issues, including the long-term costs of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and BP's reputation with US safety regulators. It remains unclear if, or how soon, BP might once again become a contender for future drilling licences in the Gulf.

BP's chief executive, Bob Dudley, and Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, called it "an alliance based on mutual advantage". Rosneft will take a 5 per cent stake in the British company, worth £4.9bn, in return for 9.5 per cent of Rosneft. It is the first time that one of the international oil giants has entered into this kind of cross-shareholding arrangement with a state-controlled oil company.

Under the deal, BP will help exploit new oil and gas exploration licences awarded to Rosneft last year, which cover approximately 125,000 square kilometres in the shallow waters of the South Kara Sea. The deal was immediately attacked by environmental campaigners, including Greenpeace, for extending drilling to the fragile Arctic.

And yesterday, Ed Miliband, the Labour party leader, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I'd be pretty worried about this... I think that the lesson of the Gulf oil spill should be that the task for all of us – private companies, government and so on – is not to just keep digging and digging deeper and deeper for oil. It is actually to find those alternative forms of energy that can help us move forward in a clean way."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bp-angers-america-again-ndash-this-time-over-deal-with-russians-2186244.html

[Nichi]

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/

[Nichi]

Corexit Letter from Louisiana Senator to Obama

State of Louisiana Senate
District I
Senator A.G. Crowe


1/16/2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
The President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Re: The environmental impact of dispersing Corexit during and after the oil spill

Dear Mr. President;

The BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico has now been acknowledged as the greatest manmade disaster in history but there is yet another manmade disaster that must not be overlooked and has not been adequately addressed in the recently released report of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster.

That second major disaster has been caused by the unnecessary use of the toxin Corexit dispersant. In early May of 2010 just after the crisis began, I requested that our Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell use whatever legal means were necessary to stop the use of this toxin. Shortly thereafter, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal requested that the use of this toxic dispersant be discontinued because of the long-term environmental damage. And still later, it was reported in the media that you also ordered BP to stop using Corexit. Surprisingly, I also read in the media that they even refused your request.

Mr. President, my concern is that this toxic and damaging chemical is still being used and it will compound the long-term damage to our state, our citizens, our eco-system, our economy, our seafood industry, our wildlife and our culture.
I am well aware that our emphasis, resources and energy is currently engaged working through the administrative and legal proceedings of the oil disaster but we must also recognize and begin the same process to address the damage Corexit has done and will continue to do as we go forward.

As the State Senator for District 1 in the southeastern corner of the State of Louisiana representing the parishes of St. Tammany, St. Bernard, Orleans and Plaquemines, I respectfully request that you have your administrative officials provide the information requested in this letter. I need to make that information available to my constituents who are seeing their lives and lands threatened and their way of life hanging in the balance. Due to the threats to public safety and ecological realities, I am compelled to write this letter requesting answers to my questions regarding the role of the United States Government in administering the response to the crises in the Gulf. It is apparent that the response directed by our government was inadequate because it allowed the use of Corexit dispersants which increased the toxicity level of the spilled oil and delivered no substantial benefit.

Corexit dispersants increased the toxicity of the oil itself when the two were mixed together. Its use caused the cross contamination of the Gulf water column by forcing the transfer of the surface oil downward through the water column, causing the oil to sink to the Gulf floor. The result was an unnecessary elevated negative impact as this same oil moved ashore later to the tidal zones delivering toxic weathered oil to coastal residents, tourists and businesses and workers in the Gulf region.

Government officials stated over and over that the use of the dispersants was designed to break up the oil into smaller digestible parts to be consumed by the sub-sea living micro-organisms. This strategy is unsubstantiated. In fact, the Corexit dispersant created the opposite results since Corexit contains toxic ingredients which act as biocides to prevent microbial digestion of the oil. Physical evidence supports that the entire response administered by government agencies have been inadequate.

Independent scientists have reported the waters and our shores of the Gulf are toxic. It has been reported that the toxins in the Gulf waters are directly linked to the distribution of dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527A) introduced this summer (and since then) during the BP disaster. It has not all evaporated (gassed off) or digested by the microbes and the remaining contamination needs to be cleaned up and not hidden so that the toxins can be removed quickly from our Gulf for the safety of our citizens and to allow what remaining species of sea and wild life to recover; if at all possible.

Immediately following the accident, I spent a great deal of time researching this issue and met with numerous eminently qualified scientists and professionals with the hope of being able to save our coastal zone with the use of “bio-friendly” oil dispersants which I learned was available, safer, non-toxic and proven to be effective.

Today, 9 months after the accident, there is still no plan by the United States Government to clean up the toxin Corexit. Many are concerned that the oil laced with this toxic dispersant is still in the Gulf being moved constantly by currents throughout the ecosystem spreading contamination.

It is well known by many reputable scientists and environmental watchdog groups that non-toxic bio-remediation products, such as “OSE-II” was and is available. It has been used all over the world by many countries, contractors, private industry and the United States military and has been proven to be a safe solution in the past. Moreover, these types of products possess unique properties such as hydraulic lift (causes oil to float) so that the sunken oil can be raised from the sediments and detoxified.

I believe that the officials at the BP science labs have been disingenuous about their supposed desire to protect the aquiculture of the Gulf and the livelihood of the families who harvest the fisheries of the Gulf, in that they have intentionally excluded safe, non-toxic and proven bio-remediation technology to clean up the oil and toxins. BP’s refusal to use bio-remediation products to restore Gulf waters to pre-spill conditions is very disturbing to me since the EPA and USCG has approved bio-remediation for the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska years ago. BP has also used non-toxic bio-remediation technology in the Caribbean and in Africa. RPT 6 of the EPA has used OSE-II in U.S. waters as well.

Was the toxin Corexit used because it dropped the oil from the surface so it would appear that the problem was solved? Was it ever discussed that the dropping of the oil would render the huge undertaking of placing booms useless? The earthen berms called for by Plaquemines Parish President Nungesser and Governor Jindal was our only defense after the use of Corexit was employed as we witnessed in disbelief oil coming to our shores under the booms.

Please have your administration provide answers to the following questions.

1. Have acutely toxic chemical compounds been formed by the mixing of Gulf crude with toxic dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527A) applied individually or in a mixed ratio? If such chemicals have been mixed, please provide the ratios and provide the names of the other chemicals with which Corexit was mixed.

2. Other acutely toxic compounds have been found in the air, water, and sediments in the Gulf. Have they evaporated off with the aid of dispersants? Have your scientist reported that these compounds have come ashore, contaminating our coastal communities?

3. Is the oil spilled truly cleaned up, or has it been transformed through the evaporation and loss of lighter-chain hydrocarbons, leaving the heavier, longer-chain hydrocarbons in the water and sediments to continue delivering toxins to those exposed to them through time, which includes all the aquatic life within the Gulf waters?

4. What levels of toxins can humans safely tolerate if these toxins are taken in either by ingestion or by direct exposure from the air or water?

5. Are the Gulf waters safe? If so, define “safe.” Please define the test methods used to determine water quality and safety to assist independent scientists to verify these results.

6. Is Gulf seafood safe? If so, define “safe.” Please define the test methods used to determine safety to assist independent scientists to verify these results. The independent smell test by the USDA has on occasion proven to be inaccurate. What test equipment is being employed? USDA Director Steve Wilson will not declare verbally.

7. Were our Gulf waters safe prior to the recent 4,200 square mile ban by NOAA? If so, when? Please describe the testing methods and proof that it was safe. Where are the test data and a description of test methods that proved it was safe? What tests or methods were used to prove it was unsafe?

8. Have our Gulf onshore breezes been safe, specifically from May/June and from 2010 to present? Environmental monitoring by the federal government has surely occurred since the accident and test results as well as a description of test methods and findings should be available by now. Much is still missing in this area of data on numerous agency web sites. Please provide them. Independent scientists have reported the presence of PAH’s, 2-butoxy-ethanol and other toxic compounds in the air and in onshore rainfall. Please provide any data available on this issue, including their effects on humans, and confirm if the public should be concerned about bio-accumulation in commercial seafood or not. If indeed there is any risk of bio-accumulation, then know that it is possible to detoxify the soil and ground water, if necessary. Both NOAA and the EPA data together with some of BP’s data are contradictory within their own summations. We just need transparency regarding these issues.

9. What is the impact of prolonged exposure to these chemicals on humans in terms of toxicity and illness? What are the symptoms associated with various exposures? I ask this because in the Exxon-Valdez accident, it has been reported that all who participated in the clean up activity died within 20+ years of the accident. Understanding the chemical characteristics of the toxins used and mixed with the oil is important.

10. With respect to water samples taken by EPA and NOAA, please provide the test data and a description of test methods regarding poly-propanol, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylene glycol, total hydrocarbons and PAH’s in the water column, not just the surface waters. Reports of chemicals in the water melting the plastics or rubber products such as diving suits and gasket seals have been reported and documented. Also, fishermen have discovered the bottoms of their crab traps dissolved or were heavily coated with rubbery tar-type oil.

11. Does the toxic effects of the dispersant Corexit 9500/9527A mixed with light sweet crude confirm that the toxicity level is increased for living organisms?

Understanding that bacteria are living organisms, I have yet to discover any definitive proof that natural bio-remediation of the weathered oil is possible by using Corexit. The claims by EPA officials and Coast Guard personnel have been confirmed to be false since 1992 (EPA/NETAC Test 1992). This is critical because it is apparent that the toxin Corexit administered did nothing but drop and hide the oil allowing for vast amounts of oil and toxins to be released well below the surface in to the water columns and the food chain. Further, it has been suggested that the toxicity level may increase with time after a spill. There is definitive proof that natural bio-remediation was a viable alternative for use at the time of the disaster and that it can still be used after the natural crude has been dispersed. It is still possible to clean up the water, the coastal lands, the marsh grass areas, the sandy beaches, the water column and the oil on the Gulf floor. EPA has approved bio-remediation products on the NCP list such as OSE-II that can raise the sunken oil to the surface for a safe natural conversion to CO2 and water which will detoxify the water column and restore the Gulf waters to pre-spill conditions. It was recommended for use in the clean up effort by the USCG Testing lab on July 10, 2010 to the FOSC (Federal on Scene Coordinator), however no action was taken. For unknown reasons, the EPA has blocked its use and continues to deny requests for use by both BP and the Louisiana DEQ.

Today in Louisiana and the other affected Gulf states, the health and welfare of our citizens, public safety, economic pain and environmental unknowns exist and the time to address this critical issue is now.

We will not be fooled in to believing that the oil and the toxins are gone. Because the toxic dispersants have been, and are still being used today, the oil is being forced downward in to the water columns and then carried endlessly around and about by the Gulf currents adversely affecting our environment.

On behalf of the citizens of all of the states on the Gulf coast, I strongly urge you to employ all of the resources you have available to guarantee a safe and healthy future for those of us in the Gulf coast states by joining with us to make sure safe non-toxic bio-remediation technology is put in to use immediately.

It is my sincere hope that this request is answered in a timely fashion so that I can advise my constituents.

I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter.

Respectfully,

A.G. Crowe
State Senator
District 1
State of Louisiana

cc: Vice President Biden: Vice President of the United States of America
Dept of Environmental Protection Agency: (Secretary Lisa. P. Jackson, Dana Tullis, Sam Coleman, Craig Carroll, Gregory J Wilson
Dept. of Defense: (Robert Gates)
Members of the Joint Chiefs: Secretary of the Navy / Secretary of the Army
(US Coast Guard) Incident Commander Ret. Admiral Thad Allen,
Adm. James A Watson, Adm. Mary E Landry, Adm. Paul Zunkunft)
Dept of Justice: (Attorney General-Eric H. Holder, Jr.)
Dept of Interior: (Kenneth Salazar)
Dept. of Agriculture: (Thomas J. Villach)
Dept. of Commerce: (Gary F. Locke)
Dept of Health and Human Services: (Kathleen Sebelius)
Dept of Energy: (Steven Chu)
Dept of Homeland Security: (Janet Napolitano, Thad Allen)
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley
Florida Governor Rick Scott
Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour
Texas Governor Rick Perry
Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell
Alabama Attorney General Troy King
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
Louisiana Secretary of Wildlife & Fisheries Robert Barham
Louisiana Secretary of Dept. of Environmental Quality Peggy Hatch
Garret Graves, Louisiana Governor’s Office of Coastal Protection
Louisiana Secretary of Department of Health & Hospitals Bruce Greenstien
Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Senator David Vitter
Congressman Steve Scalise
Congressman Cedric L. Richmond
Congressman Jeff Landry
Congressman John Fleming
Congressman Rodney Alexander
Congressman Bill Cassidy
Congressman Charles Boustany
Louisiana Senate President Joel T. Chaisson, III
Louisiana Speaker of the House Tucker
Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard
Florida Speaker of the House Dean Cannon
Mississippi Speaker of the House William J. McCoy
Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus
Alabama Senate President, Lt. Governor, Jim Folsom, Jr.
Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos
Mississippi Senate President, Lt. Governor, Phil Bryant
Texas Senate President, Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst
Mr. Sean Hannity
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser
St. Bernard Parish President Craig P. Taffaro, Jr.
Acadia Parish President A. J. Credeur
Ascension Parish President Tommy Martinez
Assumption Parish President Martin S. Triche
Calcasieu Parish President Guy Brame
Cameron Parish President Charles Precht, III
Iberia Parish President Ernest Freyou
Iberville Parish President J. Mitchell Ourso, Jr.
Jefferson Parish President John F. Young, Jr.
Jefferson Davis Parish President Donald Woods
Lafayette Parish President Joey Durel
Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph
St. Charles Parish President V. J. St. Pierre, Jr.
St. James Parish President Dale Hymel, Jr.
St. John the Baptist Parish President Natalie Robottom
St. Martin Parish President Guy Cormier
St. Mary Parish President Paul P. Naquin, Jr.
St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis
Terrebonne Parish President Michel Claudet
Vermilion Parish President Wayne Touchet


Finally, and probably too late, someone lays it on the line.


http://www.protecttheocean.com/corexit-letter/

[Nichi]

Another senator (a Democrat) from Arizona came out in criticism of the Obama Administration's handling of the BP spill, the day after Senator Crowe's piece, quoted above. But all for naught, apparently.

I couldn't stomach listening to the State of the Union address last night, but from scanning the "reviews" and responses, I surmise the Gulf was not mentioned at all. So, whether one believes or not the painstaking reporting of this site, and others like it, in which new discoveries of the consequences surface every day, it becomes easier and easier to understand why Louisiana and some other Gulf states feel like the unwanted step-children of the country. The condition is a long-standing ailment, for which Katrina was the refresher-course, and there is talk now of diaspora from the region.  By an underground-ish few.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich gave an interview to the AP this week, in which he proposed that the Environmental Protection Agency be done away with, in favor of a similar agency who would consider the "needs of the economy", or something like that. Who knows the extent of Gingrich's influence at this point, but the message is still clear. While I despair a bit that the whole business be turned so blatantly and unabashedly around - that is, now we should not even pretend we are caring for the environment - I say that the EPA had little to no power in putting a stop to Corexit being used, so what good are they? Really. Believe it now or not, but the consequences of the poisoning of the Gulf will become more and more known over time.  The EPA was useless.

Obama gave an excellent eulogy for the assassinated in Arizona, but my take on him - healthplan and all - is that he is a paper president. And indeed, perhaps a paper puppet, per his swim in Pensacola this summer to "show" that "everything is ok".  Having said this, however, I don't have a suggestion for a good successor.

So, in the words of Michael Maher, we ARE stuffed. 

Thanks for allowing me to process these events.

[Nichi]

Jan. 30, 2011, 1:56 p.m. EST

U.S. likely to cut estimate of BP oil spill size
By James Herron
Wall Street Journal

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. Government is likely to bow to pressure from BP PLC /quotes/comstock/13*!bp/quotes/nls/bp (BP 46.74, +0.53, +1.14%) and cut its estimate of the size of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer, U.K. newspaper The Observer reports Sunday.

The official U.S. Government estimate says currently that 4.9 million barrels of oil leaked from the Macondo well, 800,000 barrels of which was captured from the well head. BP has been arguing behind the scenes that this figure is too high and a source at the Environmental Protection Agency told the Observer the government has agreed to reduce the estimate.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-likely-to-cut-estimate-of-bp-oil-spill-size-2011-01-30

[Michael]

It won't work - the US IS oil. The link is too deep for any Administration to buck.

The problem is that the US has fallen in economic power internationally. The situation is extremely serious for the US, with the rise of China like a vicious dog at it's heels. The US will sacrifice much more than sea creatures and a few million of its citizens to claw back its economic power.

This is realpolitik. Forget about the environment and democracy - it all about power. And without power the US is powerless to do anything. That is why the Admin is sitting on the fence with Egypt, when it should be in there pumping for the new era of Arab reality.

[Nichi]

NPR reporter says he tried to ask right questions about Gulf spill
By JUSTIN L. MACK • jmack@jconline.com • February 4, 2011

There was standing room only Thursday as more than 100 people packed a lecture room in Purdue (University)'s Pfendler Hall to hear award-winning NPR correspondent Richard Harris discuss last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Harris, who won a Kavli Science Journal Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in November for his coverage of the BP oil spill, became the go-to news source for updates on the spill.
Harris' talk was part of Purdue University's Discovery Lecture series.
His body of work included a story in which Purdue mechanical engineering professor Steven Wereley and other experts said BP was vastly underestimating the size of the spill.
The veteran journalist said he never set out to earn national praise when he began digging for the truth.
"I didn't go out and say 'I'm going to get the best oil spill story in the world.' I was just trying to do my job and be a good science reporter and ask the right question.
"It just turned out that the answer was spectacular."
Harris, an NPR reporter since 1986, used his speech, "How Big Was the BP Spill? Getting to the Truth?" to recount how he first got involved with the coverage of the spill as well as what inspired him to challenge early spill estimates.
According to a Purdue release, more than 4 million barrels of oil spewed into the gulf off the coast of Louisiana following the April 20 explosion at the Macondo well, which killed 11 workers.
The BP oil spill, leaking an estimated 50,000 to 66,000 barrels per day, was roughly 20 times greater than the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989.
On May 12, Harris was the first to report that figures released by the U.S. government and BP underestimated the size of the spill.
Harris had contacted Wereley to see if the professor could use a research tool he'd developed to analyze the initial 30-second video clip of oil gushing from the 21.5-inch pipe.
He said he reached out to Wereley after getting a call from Florida State oceanographer Ian MacDonald, who said the early video released by BP showed the leak easily exceeded the 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day originally estimated.
Wereley then spent the afternoon of May 11 creating freeze-frame shots from the video and analyzing data to compute how fast oil was flowing from the pipe.

"The response was curious at first. Someone from the White House Press Office called and said, 'You can't say that. People will get scared,' " Harris said.

After nearly a year of tracking the spill, Harris said he is still thinking about what new stories and topics will emerge from the incident.

Purdue sophomore Megan Kendall said Harris' speech allowed her to see the spill from a new perspective.
"I don't listen to NPR every day or anything like that, but I remember his story from last year," she said.
"I thought (the speech) was very interesting and I liked hearing it again firsthand.
"It was interesting to learn about all of the different players involved, from the scientists to the reporters to those in academia."
http://www.jconline.com/article/20110204/NEWS0501/102040339

[Michael]

It's only people like him who keep the thing alive - he and some noteworthy others are still pressing for the truth. If there is no pressure for the truth, then the Oil companies will win this one.

[Nichi]

There's an embarrassing spelling error in this piece which could conceivably undermine it ... can you see it? (I don't mean something nit-picking and typo-esque: it's a biggie.)

Monday, February 14, 2011
LA STATE SENATOR DEMANDS STOPPAGE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GULF OIL CLEAN UP
 
February 10, 2011

TO:       SENATOR HARRY REID, Senate Majority Leader
CONGRESSMAN JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives
CONGRESSMAN FRED UPTON, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
            SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works
            CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN, Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
            CONGRESSMAN JOHN MICA, Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
            CONGRESSMAN BOB GIBBS, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment


CC:      GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL
SENATOR DAVID VITTER, SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE SCALISE, REPRESENTATIVE CEDRIC RICHMOND, REPRESENTATIVE JEFFREY LANDRY, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FLEMING, REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ALEXANDER, REPRESENTATIVE BILL CASSIDY, REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES BOUSTANY
           
Dear Honorable Congressmen:

     As of February 1st, 2011, it is estimated that between 800,000 and 4 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants have been sprayed or poured into the Gulf of Mexico in an on-going operation.  The broad-scale distribution of these poisonous substances has been justified by statements such as “trade-offs have to be made”.

    The “tradeoffs” have been made and, because toxic dispersants were used, we now have millions of gallons of oil laced with toxic dispersants still suspended throughout the water column and on the sea floor, shifting constantly with the currents.  This is causing severe, long-term harm to the public’s health, marine life, the environment, the economy and the Gulf’s way of life.

     The EPA authorized the use of toxic chemical dispersants to sink the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil accident violating the Clean Water Act, and the EPA (specifically Lisa Jackson, Dana Tulis, and Sam Coleman) with the help of NOAA, (specifically Jane Lubchenco, Ed Levine, and Charlie Henry) have blocked the efforts of the Coast Guard and the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama to protect their natural resources and the health, safety and welfare of their citizens as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

     On January 16, 2011, I wrote a letter to President Obama (copy attached) requesting answers to a number of specific questions and serious concerns brought to my attention by my constituents.  It’s been over three weeks since that letter arrived at the White House and, at this point, it appears that I will not get a response from the President or his administration.

     Consequently, my constituents and I have decided to start a petition (viewable at www.agcrowe.com) which will be directed to you and launched within the next few days.  Our goal is simple.  We need your help to stop this destructive activity immediately and begin implementing proven, safe, non-toxic solutions which are already available and ready to be deployed.


Sincerely,
 A.G. CROWE
District 1   
        State Senator
State of Louisiana


Attachments:  Letter to President Barack Obama
                       Preview of Petition
Senator A.G. Crowe “Clean the Gulf” Petition

Please join Louisiana State Senator A.G. Crowe in demanding that proven, non-toxic solutions are immediately implemented to restore the Gulf of Mexico to its condition prior to BP’s oil rig blow out disaster.

TO:
SENATOR HARRY REID, Senate Majority Leader
CONGRESSMAN JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives
CONGRESSMAN FRED UPTON, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform SENATOR JAMES INHOFE, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN, Chairman of the Committee on the Budget                       CONGRESSMAN JOHN MICA, Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure CONGRESSMAN BOB GIBBS, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

FROM:     
CONCERNED U.S. CITIZENS
PETITION
PREAMBLE

As of February 1st, 2011, it is estimated that between 800,000 and 4 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants have been sprayed or poured into the Gulf of Mexico in an on-going operation. The broad-scale distribution of these poisonous substances has been justified by statements such as “trade-offs have to be made.”

The “tradeoffs” have been made and, because toxic dispersants were used, we now have millions of gallons of oil laced with toxic dispersants still suspended throughout the water column and on the sea floor, shifting constantly with the currents. This is causing severe, long-term harm to the public’s health, marine life, the environment, the economy and the Gulf’s way of life.

Therefore, we respectfully submit the following petition:
Whereas, the U.S. Presidential oath of office calls for the preservation of the nation’s natural resources, and that responsibility is delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
 
Whereas, the EPA (specifically Lisa Jackson, Dana Tulis, and Sam Coleman) with the help of NOAA, (specifically Jane Lubchenco, Ed Levine, and Charlie Henry) have blocked the efforts of the Coast Guard and the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to protect their natural resources and the health, safety and welfare of their citizens as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;

Whereas, the EPA authorized the use of toxic chemical dispersants to sink the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil accident violating the Clean Water Act;

Whereas, those chemical dispersants, and particularly all versions of the product called Coexist, have been proven, by scientific studies, to have made the BP Horizon accidental discharge worse than if the oil had been allowed to float to the surface, where it could have been collected;

Whereas, per scientific studies, the toxic chemical dispersants have polluted large and indefinable areas of the Gulf waters, making them unpredictable and unsafe for all living organisms;

Whereas, per scientific studies, the toxic chemical dispersants have contaminated much of our Gulf’s seafood, endangered the public’s health, shaken the public’s confidence in the quality of our seafood, and prolonged the recovery of the seafood and tourism industries;

Whereas, the public’s health has been put at great risk, as can be seen by the alarming rise in health problems which can be directly linked to exposure to the toxic chemical dispersants and dispersed oil;

Whereas, per scientific studies, Coexist is a biocide which kills the natural microorganisms that break down oil, retarding the degradation of the oil itself, and is, thus, a continuing threat to all life in the Gulf;

Whereas, there are on-going reports of the illegal continued spraying of Coexist on the Gulf’s waters and its shorelines;

Whereas, toxic chemical dispersants are destroying the Gulf’s economy and its way of life;

Whereas, there are EPA-known, non-toxic, bioremediation solutions which could have been used in the first few weeks of the BP Horizon accidental discharge which would have prevented the majority of the damage to the marine life, the environment, and the public’s health which resulted from the oil well blow out;

Whereas, these same non-toxic bioremediation solutions can still be used to thoroughly and quickly clean up the oil and the toxic chemical dispersant, and reverse the damage to the Gulf;

Whereas, the implementation of bioremediation technology is a fraction of the cost of other cleanup methods currently being used and would save the U.S. government untold wasted funds;

Whereas, there are non-toxic, first-response, bioremediation products that are already on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Contingency Plan (NCP) list of approved products for use in cleaning up oil spills;

Whereas, the EPA has provided no valid scientific reason for withholding permits for the full and immediate implementation of thoroughly vetted and demonstrably workable, non-toxic, bioremediation remedies designed to fully detoxify and remediate both the oil and the toxic dispersant within two to four weeks;

Whereas, non-toxic bioremediation methods create clean, healthy waters which would allow the restoration of jobs in the fishing, tourism and oil/gas industries, as well as all other related commerce,

We, the people, do hereby formally request that:
Our federal oversight trustees acknowledge and adhere to the formal demands of the Gulf Coast States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Florida) requesting that proven, first-response, EPA-certified, NCP-classified, non-toxic, bioremediation products be immediately implemented to clean up the contamination from the oil and toxic dispersants present in our gulf waters, tidal zones and marshes, so that our natural resources can be returned to pre blow-out conditions, and

That the use of toxic chemical dispersants, such as Coexist or any other scientifically-identified, toxic dispersant, be banned immediately in U.S. navigable waters.

[Builder]

The sequel of DH is in the making

[Nichi]

The sequel of DH is in the making

I just wonder ... if they have a disaster, how will that oil commingle with the water from the melting of the caps? Furthermore, won't that activity accelerate the melting of the caps? ~We'll all be underwater soon enough: black, sludgy water.