Obama's decision to leave BP in control of spill site seriously compounds the original disaster

[Karmadillo]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/bpsp-m13.shtml

Gulf oil spill compounded by BP’s control of “cleanup”
By Tom Eley
13 May 2010

The Obama administration’s decision to leave BP in control of its Deepwater Horizon spill site and in charge of cleanup efforts has seriously compounded the original disaster, testimony from workers, experts, and recent press accounts reveal.

Since the April 20 explosion that killed 11 workers 42 miles off the coast of Louisiana, BP has commanded all cleanup efforts and exercised total control over the spill site, blocking critical information from the public. The Obama administration, which exempted BP from producing environmental impact studies and oil spill contingency plans for its Gulf drilling operations, has no organized approach for addressing the spill, which is growing at a conservatively-estimated rate of 220,000 gallons per day.

Leaving BP to monitor its own cleanup activities is in keeping with Washington’s steady deregulation of industry and finance in the US over the past three decades. The same “free market” nostrums that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster are now providing the operating principle behind the cleanup. This approach has greatly exacerbated the disaster.

The spill has continued to spread on the surface, but the damage below may be more severe. Four-inch diameter tar balls have reached the shores of eastern Alabama, just miles from the Florida border. Six dead dolphins were found washed ashore in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and more dead turtles, fish, and soiled birds have been found.

Because of BP’s “proprietary” control of the drilling site 40 miles off Louisiana’s coast, it is impossible to even estimate the size of the spill. BP refused to make available underwater footage of the oil spill as the heavy crude spewed out near the ocean floor, according to ABC News.

BP has around-the-clock footage of the ruptured piping, film that could prove critical “in making independent assessments of the scope of the spill,” Eric Smith, a professor at the Energy Institute of Tulane University told ABC. But the video footage might well reveal that far more is being spilled than the official estimate of 5,000 barrels per day, a fact which “could do public relations damage to BP,” ABC concludes. Finally on Wednesday afternoon, BP released brief video footage of one of the leaks on You Tube.

more...

[ShortnFiery]

1. The only mystery for me ...

is why I allow myself to be disappointed.

No fool like an old fool. Yes, I'm the old fool. :(

[cliffordu]

44. Second time we've agreed this week. It's a fucking miracle.

I mean about your self description, of course...

:rofl:

[waiting for hope]

2. I don't believe BP will ever tell the whole truth

of the matter - having a non-partisan company involved in the clean up would go a long way in establishing some trust, but is there such a company out there?

[Coco2]

3. whats new or different? He left WallSt in control of the bailout! Are we blind? n/t

[leftstreet]

5. +1

[salguine]

37. When I watched Obama's inauguration, never in a million years would I have dreamed that

like Bush, Obama would pretty much start fucking up everything he touches. Wall street. Health Care. Credit card reform. Now this...

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. problem is no one could have anticipated it

I don't think anyone government or companies has the right technology to combat this.

I've always worried that terrorists could do damage like this.

[amborin]

9. which is why it's a crime that the Int Dept exempted it!

[northernlights]

13. no one could have anticipated it?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Um. let's see. Who wrote energy policy under W? Oh, that's right. The oil industry.

Who granted BP waivers and exceptions and looked the other way (at porn, as I recall reading)? Oh, that's right. MMS/the government.

IT WASN'T A MATTER OF IF THIS WOULD HAPPEN. IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF WHEN.

BP has lied, and lied, and lied, and lied. And Obama still leaves them in charge of destroying the Gulf of Mexico.

He may have inherited a mess here, but to leave the criminals in charge of cleanup is outrageous.

I wrote this the other day. I'll write it again. If a jerkoff neighbor sets my house on fire, that neighbor will NOT be charge of putting the fire out. Neighbor WILL get the bill and maybe end up in jail.

But quite frankly, WHAT KIND OF IDIOT PUTS A CRIMINAL IN CHARGE OF CLEANING UP THEIR CRIME?!?!?! oh, that's right. the idiot I helped put in the white house.

[Lorien]

28. Exactly! Putting the incompetant and corrupt in charge of a job this critical

is complete madness. BP KNOWS that all they have to do is shrug and say "Oops! Act of God!" and the paid off congress will let them off scott free. They're in no hurry to save the Gulf. Hell, they probably think that if they destroy the oceans then there will be no ecological reasons not to drill in the future! (Of course will all be dead since the ocean provides 65% of our oxygen, but that little fact doesn't concern them).

[northernlights]

36. that's EXACTLY what my fear is

that they really don't want to stop the geyser. Once they've totally destroyed the Gulf, they'll be able to drill wherever, whenever because there won't be anything left to protect anyway.

Which is why they should NOT be in charge of stopping it OR cleaning up. And it amazes me to no end that we are "unable" to take charge of this disaster.

[Lorien]

39. Indeed. We can put a man on the moon 40+ years ago

but we can't get our act together to stop an oil gusher? Insane!

[dflprincess]

41. Ignoring criminal acts seems to be a habit with this White House

unless you're a poor schmuck who smoked a joint a week or so ago and you get pulled over.

But lie the country into a war, bilk people out of billions, or destroy the environment & you have nothing to worry about.

[Bluebear]

14. OK Condi

;)

[dflprincess]

40. +1

I had a similar thought when I read that post.

[Lorien]

27. Thanks Condi, Dubya, Rumsfeld, Cheney....

"no one could have anticipated..." is the most weak, pathetic, and overused excuse of the 21st century. OF COURSE THEY COULD! That's why the half million dollar secondary valves are used EVERYWHERE ELSE ON EARTH. Until Cheney sided with Big Oil to remove THAT critical piece of regulation.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. and the fact that Cheney did this is ignored by the media

[lib2DaBone]

6. They don't seem l;ike they are in a big hurry to stop the leak....?

..we have the most sophisticated navy in the world with deep water submersibles and underwater weaponry... yet we can't plug a leak in a pipe?

Once again.. it takes "willpower" to do the right thing. (sadly lacking in Washington)

[izzybeans]

7. So which is it? this article or the one indicating that the feds were there within 40 minutes.

[amborin]

8. K&R

and only this week did he convene a team of scientists to go there....

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Texasgal]

11. Why should WE the tax payers

have to be responsible for cleaning up this mess?

[ProSense]

12. So BP is only responsible for making billions in profits and

the government is responsible for cleaning up after their disasters?

Everything the government does is going to be on the level of providing assistance.

Claiming that they should have taken control from BP is ludicrous.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Why is that ludicrous? We're to trust a for profit company to clean up our precious resources?

Do **you** trust BP to do the right thing, no matter what?

Do **you** think they have our best interests at the fore?

Do **you** think Wall Street will do right by us with OUR own money?

Do **you** espouse trusting an entity who, by law, is charge with making a profit at any and all costs?

I think we would do far better to do the cleanup and backcharge BP. But I'm just a clown, so what do I know?

[ProSense]

18. Because the same people complaining about him not taking control are complaining

that he's asking Congress for money.

The whole outrage is turning into its own catastrophe.


"Do **you** trust BP to do the right thing, no matter what?"

Do you?

"Do **you** think they have our best interests at the fore?"

Do you?

Do **you** think Wall Street will do right by us with OUR own money?

Do you?

Do **you** espouse trusting an entity who, by law, is charge with making a profit at any and all costs?

Do you?

You don't trust BP, and you don't trust the President's judgement.

Maybe you should take over?

[Stinky The Clown]

25. If you weren't predisposed to fight, you might have noticed I espoused the government (under ......

...... Obama) taking over from BP and backcharging them.

Was that not clear to you?

[ladjf]

26. Good one, especially "If you weren't predisposed to fight...".

nt

[ProSense]

30. "If you weren't predisposed to fight," Yeah, responding to your question

is picking a fight.

"I think we would do far better to do the cleanup and
backcharge BP. But I'm just a clown, so what do I know?"

I also responded to that statement.

[SpartanDem]

24. That for profit company is seeing it's profit spew out into the Gulf

they may not have an interest in doing the cleanup, but they sure as hell want to stop the leak.

[Marr]

50. They are destroying something the whole region depends upon.

You act as if we're talking about a house fire. Government has a duty to step in during a situation like this. Ideally, we should recoup the costs from the industry that decided to endanger the region to save themselves $500k, but either way, this is a problem that should not be left in the hands of a private company.

[spanone]

15. yep, Obama himself should be down there doing the manual labor along with his cabinet

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

20. "it seems that President Obama is either stupid or "on the take" in one way or the other"

Then why the hell would you want him in control?

That's pretty stupid in itself.

[ladjf]

22. I don't want him in control of the oil spill. I want the United States

Government to step in an find some engineers who can stop this blowout.

I want this problem solved. You, on the other hand, are personally irritated by my characterization of the President as either stupid or "on the take" and, therefore, insulting me personally.

I voted for him, campaigned for him and believed in him. I am disappointed by his performance. I hope that you don't mind if I have an opinion that differs from yours.

[ProSense]

23. "I want the United States Government to step in an find some engineers "

You got your wish


"I want this problem solved. You, on the other hand, are personally irritated by my characterization of the President as either stupid or "on the take" and, therefore, insulting me personally."

No, I think your characterization is ridiculous, and I know the President is doing everything he can.

[Lorien]

29. Well said. nt

[amborin]

31. Obama is only now getting around to convening a team to go there:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8314043&mesg_id=8314043

[ladjf]

32. I've heard that and have applauded same. I'll look forward to

seeing that the intention was carried out.

[Karmadillo]

33. For "extensive dialogue"!!!! Yes!!! Take that, leak!! Your years are numbered!!!

nt

[amborin]

34. a leader w/ any shred of env consiousness would put BP in trusteeship, take over

control of the disaster, and devote all resources to stopping it......

instead, BP's profits and access to the deposit trump trying to stanch this catastrophe

[Bluebear]

51. And he's really really mad!

[Karmadillo]

56. I don't think the leak knows just how mad he is. It better be very careful or it's going to be in

in

[amborin]

19. just look how BP compounds the tragedy w/ toxic dispersants:

BP and federal officials are also engaging in one of the largest and most aggressive experiments with chemical dispersants in the history of the country, and perhaps the world.
With oil continuing to gush from the deep well, they have sprayed 160,000 gallons of chemical dispersant on the water’s surface and pumped an additional 6,000 gallons directly onto the leak, a mile beneath the surface.

John Curry, director of external affairs at BP, said the company was encouraged by the results so far. But some environmental groups are deeply nervous.

“I understand it’s the only thing they can do,” said Paul Orr of the group Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper. “But I think it’s vital afterwards to really monitor what’s happening with aquatic life, with oil on the sea floor and things like oyster beds.”

Even in the best cases, dispersants are applied in what might be termed a lose-lose strategy. Scientists make the calculation that it is better to have the ocean filled with low concentrations of the dispersant chemicals — which are in themselves mild to moderate poisons — than to have dense oil on the surface or washing up onshore, places where it is most likely to harm wildlife.

And while most environmentalists support the application of dispersants as a necessary evil to limit the damage, some have assailed an industry policy that guards their chemical makeup. Keeping the exact mix secret makes it harder to evaluate the risks to marine ecosystems and to know what side effects to look for as the crisis unfolds.

What is more, the main dispersants applied so far, from a product line called Corexit, had their approval rescinded in Britain a decade ago because laboratory tests found them harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores, like limpets, said Mark Kirby, a scientific adviser to the British government on the testing, use and approval of oil spill treatment options.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/science/earth/06dispe...

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


Dispersant 'may make Deepwater Horizon oil spill more toxic'
Scientists fear chemicals used in oil clean-up can cause genetic mutations and cancer, and threaten sea turtles and tuna

By Suzanne Goldenberg

Chemicals used to break up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill before it reaches shore could do lasting damage to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, environmental scientists say.

By BP's own account, it has mobilised a third of the world's supply of dispersant, so far pouring about 140,000 gallons (637,000 litres) of the cocktail into the Gulf as of today. Some of the dispersant has been injected directly into the source of the spill on the ocean floor, a technique never deployed before, deepening concerns about further damage to the environment.

The dispersants are designed to break down crude into tiny drops, which can be eaten up by naturally occurring bacteria, to lessen the impact of a giant sea of crude washing on to oyster beds and birds' nests on shore. But environmental scientists say the dispersants, which can cause genetic mutations and cancer, add to the toxicity of the spill. That exposes sea turtles and bluefin tuna to an even greater risk than crude alone. Dolphins and whales have already been spotted in the spill.The dangers are even greater for dispersants poured into the source of the spill, where they are picked up by the current and wash through the Gulf.

The high demand for dispersant carries an additional risk. As BP runs through stocks of the chemical, called Corexit, scientists fear it will fall back on older stockpiles in the developing world that are more toxic than those approved for use in the US. "You are trying to mitigate the volume of the spill with dispersant, but the price you pay is increased toxicity," said Richard Charter, a scientific adviser to Defenders of Wildlife. "There are no good answers in a mess of this size."


http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles...


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

.....to the indignity of oil oozing into its depths at a rate of at least 5,000 barrels per day, the Gulf of Mexico is now enduring a heavy rain of mystery chemicals.

BP and the U.S. Coast Guard are dumping large amounts of "dispersants" both on the surface and underwater, in a desperate attempt to control the ongoing spill. Dispersants are surfactants, not unlike what you use on your dishes, that break oil down into small droplets that sink into the water. .

How much are they dumping? Lots. According to ProPublica, "BP has already bought up more than a third of the world's supply" of dispersants. On Thursday alone, ProPublica reports, emergency workers dropped 100,000 gallons of the stuff into the Gulf.

And what precisely are they dumping? That's where the mystery comes in. "The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws," Propublica reports.

What? Let me get this straight. A huge oil company is pumping massive amounts of oil directly into public waters, imperiling the health of some of the globe's most productive fisheries -- as well as communities around the coast. To try to minimize the effects of the ongoing spill, the company starts dumping chemicals into that same public water. And not just a little -- a third of the global supply is on hand. And we don't have the right to know what those chemicals are? That's a scandal.

Propublica did manage to identify one product currently being used, called Corexit, which includes 2-butoxyethanol, a "compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses."

snip

The dispersant strategy seeks to limit coastal damage by moving oil from the surface to the ocean's depths, where it remains stationary and can't drift to the coast. Of course, the ecological burden of the spill is pushed below the surface -- with potentially devastating consequences.

The strategy is controversial among marine biologists. In 2005, the National Academies Press published a book on the topic, available for online reading, authored by the Ocean Studies Board. The report reveals that serious questions remain about the wisdom of using dispersants to treat spills.

The report states that most research on how fish deal with chemically dispersed oil don't account for how sunlight might magnify ill effects. The report puts it like this:

he possibility of photoenhanced toxicity and particulate/oil droplet phase exposure is generally not considered. A number of laboratory studies have indicated toxicity due to PAH increases significantly (from 12 to 50,000 times) for sensitive species in exposures conducted under ultraviolet light (representative of natural sunlight), compared to those conducted under the more traditional laboratory conditions of fluorescent lights.
In other words, most tests have been done under lab conditions; but when you perform them in actual sea conditions -- ie, with the sun shining -- things look considerably worse. That's a chilling thought, given what is now happening in the Gulf.

Scandinavia has had its share of oil spills over the years, so I contacted Hans Ulrik Riisgård, professor at the Marine Biological Research Centre at the University of Southern Denmark, to get his perspective on dispersants. Putting the matter of possible toxicity of the dispersants aside, Riidgard replied via email that that dispersants remove oil from the sea surface rapidly, "making the oil concentration many times higher than it would have been due to natural dispersal (wave action etc.)."

He continued: "Therefore, use of dispersants will most often lead to a much larger exposure of marine

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-03-how-risky-is-th...

[Karmadillo]

21. This is insane. End offshore drilling.

nt

[MadHound]

35. Yep, why this isn't a government run operation I simply do not understand

You bring in all, I mean all the equipment you need, you procure any BP equipment you need, and then you send BP the bill. If that bill bankrupts BP, oh well.

Leaving the cleanup of the disaster in the hands of those who caused said disaster is inherently stupid. We all know that BP is going to do this on the cheap, killing the environment and doing harm to this country.

[amborin]

38. kick

[Greyhound]

42. It seems to be a pattern.

Wreck the global economy with rampant looting, get put in charge of "fixing" it.

Make millions stealing the pensions and retirements from millions of Americans, get get appointed as the second most powerful person on earth.

Contaminate the global food supply, your executives will be in charge of "regulating" you.

Kill the Gulf of Mexico with your negligence, who better to clean it up?

[merkins]

45. Potential Global Catastrophe Deserves A Global Response

This is seriously fucked up having the criminals be in command. Way to go Obama .. perpetual deferment to corporate interest in every issue.

[Rex]

46. My only surprise is that Obama hasn't been pwned by a corporation yet.

Looks like it will happen with BP, sad to watch. Hope Obama is ready for all the negatives for being 'naive' about Big Biz. :eyes:

[greencharlie]

47. exactly...

when this thing grows to historic clusterfuck status...

people are going to say where the hell was the administration? And why did they let the foxes retain control of the hen house after finding dead chickens?

Maybe I've been watching too many movies... but I REFUSE to believe there's not some gov't agency that could do the job better/faster.

If this thing is still flowing in June... sorry but Obama will wear it like a blackened, oily albatross.

[greencharlie]

48. and... why weren't the fires lit the first few weeks?

and I heard there were containment booms sitting in warehouses unused for weeks...

and WHO allowed them to spray toxic chemicals on the oil instead of containment and collection and cleanup?

Bottom line... BP KNOWS that if very little oil and death washes ashore... they'll miss the criticism. So they pump these toxins a few miles off shore.

[amborin]

49. palast talked about the containment booms...BP didn't want to spend the $$$

otherwise....exactly....out of sight, out of mind, BP hopes.....and f___ the environment and wildlife

[NorthCarolina]

52. Seems pretty much in line with your typical political 'conservative think', so no

big surprise there.

[amborin]

53. kick

[amborin]

54. 5 new drilling permits for Gulf issued just this week!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?pagewanted=2




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/14agency/4_APD-Query-Search-Results.pdf

[Karmadillo]

55. The greed of the criminal class is boundless.

nt