BP Oil Spill: Effects on us, and perhaps the future?

[iceaura]

As to research, BP is funding $500 million over 10 years towards independent studies on the impact on the Gulf.

Peanuts.

Years late, a billion or more short. These studies should have been done before approval of deepwater drilling, and in the language of the law may even have been required before the large scale use of dispersants.

The DOJ has subpoena power and far better investigators than Congress and is headed by an Obama appointed AJ, so there is no reason to believe they can't handle this investigation.

And no reason, given their history and current state of disarray, to depend exclusively on them for investigation into such a wide-ranging, internationally significant, inherently political disaster. For example: The DOJ investigations mentioned so far are arcane, easily manipulated (through influence on "experts" involved, relatively small bribes or threats, say), narrow of scope, and probably without serious personal criminal implication for the upper management of BP. And the evidences as well as all findings are secret, barring actual public indictment and trial.

As much of this should be public as possible. Secrecy benefits BP, and also covers ass for the non-performing government agencies such as the EPA, DOJ, FEMA, etc.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee has 12 Democrats, including the Chairman, Leahy, and only need 9 votes to send it back to the Senate for consideration.

Presuming all the Republicans are in pocket, BP need only corral four of twelve Democrats on this already heavily lobbied (in the membership, even) committee, with no public attention or records.

Blocked.

The EPA knew exactly what was in Corexit and approved its subsea use from day one.

Didn't even read my link, apparently.

The EPA cannot possibly have had the info necessary to make such an approval an informed one - they hadn't done the research. No one has. And exactly what they knew about these dispersants, and the circumstances of their being "approved", and the purposes for which BP intended to employ them (as a substitute for more expensive and politically damaging surface collection, as concealment of the volume of the leak, etc) are matters requiring hearings, public testimony subpoenaed from unwilling people, and thorough investigation with findings released into the public record.

We, the general public with access to a range of experts not employed by the EPA or contracted by BP, need to know what is in Corexit and why it was used in preference to apparently (as far as we know) better stuff, for example. If the EPA really "approved" the early and large volume injection of Corexit into the wellhead stream, which seems unlikely based on the documents we have, on what grounds and by what argument?

 

[adoucette]

That's pretty funny, $500 million for research is peanuts? That's just silly.

You have shown no proof that the DOJ can't do it's job better than the Congress, but more to the point, THEN you slam members of the congress as being in BP's pocket.

Seems there is no one you trust in the Gov. Not the DOJ, not the EPA and not the Dems in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

LOL

Trouble is, Obama created this Commission and in doing so he left the Criminal Investigation in the DOJ's hands.

(c) In carrying out its mission, the Commission shall be informed by, and shall strive to avoid duplicating, the analyses and investigations undertaken by other governmental, nongovernmental, and independent entities.

(d) The Commission shall ensure that it does not interfere with or disrupt any ongoing or anticipated civil or criminal investigation or law enforcement activities or any effort to recover response costs or damages arising out of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire, and oil spill. The Commission shall consult with the Department of Justice concerning the Commission’s activities to avoid any risk of such interference or disruption.

http://citizensagainstproobamamedia...ve-order-national-commission-on-bp-oil-spill/

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

The EPA cannot possibly have had the info necessary to make such an approval an informed one.

Doesn't matter if you think their decision was uninformed.

They were the Agency which had the regulatory power to approve the use of the Dispersants and they did so.

Are you now calling on an investigation into the EPA?

LOL

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

That's pretty funny, $500 million for research is peanuts? That's just silly.

It's a drop in the bucket of what would be necessary to accomplish the declared task.

Not only peanuts, but deceptive PR.

They were the Agency which had the regulatory power to approve the use of the Dispersants and they did so.

Are you now calling on an investigation into the EPA?

This is a disaster, and the EPA is at the center of it. Investigation should be routine.

If their failures of oversight led to the poisoning of the midlevel ecological zones of a good share of the Gulf of Mexico, if they are incapable of exercising their oversight powers and fulfilling their governance responsibilities in crisis situations, we should know about that.

And if they are so incapacitated because they have been corrupted, the officials involved ( as well as the corrupting influences) should be prosecuted.

Seems there is no one you trust in the Gov.

It's easier to trust when hearings are held, and obviously suspect behaviors at the center of major disasters are described and justified in public. In fact, unless that is routine mistrust is immediately justified.

Trust everybody, and cut the deck. If the guy starts making excuses for not cutting the deck, quit trusting.

 

[adoucette]

Your opinion, so what. Try offering some evidence that $500 million is not sufficient to do the studies needed. Oh, and these studies are NOT about the safety of Deep Water Drilling as you suggested, they are about the environmental impacts of the oil spill, and attempts to mitigate those impacts, on the Gulf.

The objectives of the research will be to address the following five themes:

•The physical distribution and ultimate fate of contaminants associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident.
•The chemical evolution and biological degradation of the contaminants.
•The environmental effects of the contaminants on Gulf of Mexico ecosystems, and the science of ecosystem recovery.
•Technology developments for improved detection, characterization, mitigation, and remediation of offshore oil spills.
•Integration of the previous four themes in the context of human health.

No, Investigation of the EPA shouldn't be routine.
Show SOME evidence that they did something wrong before calling for an investigation, or we would have an investigation after every major thing they do.

That's the point that you don't seem to get, hearings ARE being held and Criminal Investigations ARE being made, and if charges are filed that would be public.

Obama, creating this Commission wanted them to study things that weren't CRIMINAL in nature since the DOJ is doing that, hence the sections C and D above.

He DID give them the authority to get any data they needed from the EPA though.

(b) The heads of executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their ongoing activities in response to the oil spill, shall provide the Commission such information and cooperation as it may require for purposes of carrying out its mission.

And the Commission will be PUBLIC.

(a) The Commission shall hold public hearings

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

Your opinion, so what. Try offering some evidence that $500 million is not sufficient to do the studies needed.

I've seen no evidence that it is, and it certainly isn't very much money compared with the scope of the task.

Oh, and these studies are NOT about the safety of Deep Water Drilling as you suggested,

? Quote, please.

they are about the environmental impacts of the oil spill, and attempts to mitigate those impacts, on the Gulf.

Then they are, as I pointed out, several years too late. Thorough studies on the effects of a large spill were to be completed before drilling permits were issued.

No, Investigation of the EPA shouldn't be routine.
Show SOME evidence that they did something wrong before calling for an investigation,

They signed off on this deepwater drilling project without adequate safeguards in place, without adequate monitoring of procedures, without information about spill effects and mitigation, and with apparently (visibly) fraudulent forms filed with them and accepted by them. They issued inaccurate and apparently industry biased information during the leak and since (the spill rate, the recovery percentage, etc), and have consistently hidden the range of possibilities and potential scope of misfortunes since. And they are liable, both agency officials and the agency itself, for at least some of their flagrantly poor performance in the events leading up to disaster - they have a motive for concealing evidence of their ineffectuality, incompetence, gullibility, or possibly even collusion with BP and other drillers, and it appears (by the circumstances) they have at least attempted to do so.

Yes, investigation of whoever permitted BP to drill like this, with so little protection for the environment that is the EPA's direct charge, should be routine in the wake of exactly the kind of disaster the EPA is supposed to prevent or mitigate or at least - at a bare minimum - be able to evaluate and monitor.

He DID give them the authority to get any data they needed from the EPA though.

More comedy. The EPA is under investigation, or should be - it's at the center of the governmental malfunctions involved.

Without subpoena power they can't get a damn thing from BP, the EPA, any other malfunctioning federal agency, or any scientist, outside expert, etc that has been coopted by BP (BP's been "hiring" every major local expert in the relevant fields they can. Without a subpoena, it would be breach of contract for them to give evidence detrimental to BP).

(b) The heads of executive departments and agencies, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their ongoing activities in response to the oil spill, shall provide the Commission such information and cooperation as it may require for purposes of carrying out its mission.

And with subpoena power, that fine sounding directive would be enforceable - more than just PR.

 

[adoucette]

I've seen no evidence that it is, and it certainly isn't very much money compared with the scope of the task.

It's considered an Academic GOLD RUSH.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_sc/us_sci_gulf_oil_spill_research

? Quote, please.

It's in previous post.

Then they are, as I pointed out, several years too late. Thorough studies on the effects of a large spill were to be completed before drilling permits were issued.

Says who?
Please show evidence that there is any Governmental Statute that says specific studies on the effects of a large spill had to be completed before drilling permits were issued. Keep in mind there are 3,700 oil wells operating in the Gulf of Mexico today.

They signed off on this deepwater drilling project without adequate safeguards in place, without adequate monitoring of procedures, without information about spill effects and mitigation, and with apparently (visibly) fraudulent forms filed with them and accepted by them.

Just BS you are making up.
First of all this is all about the MMC, not the EPA.
No proof that adequate safeguards, based on what we knew at the time, weren't in place. Indeed, the crucial piece of equipment, the BOP met the required standards and yet it failed.
No proof that the monitoring of procedures wasn't according to government requirements. The MMC inspectors were on the rig every month or more and the auto-logging of critical data was being done and all the permits were valid.
No fraudulent forms have been shown. The fact that a Wildlife expert had died since the AREA plan was submitted is not sufficient to call a 600 page response plan fraudulent.

They issued inaccurate and apparently industry biased information during the leak and since (the spill rate, the recovery percentage, etc), and have consistently hidden the range of possibilities and potential scope of misfortunes since.

Again, more BS. The EPA issued NO estimates of the spill rate. The initial rates came from NOAA and subsequent rates came from an academic based Technical Flow Committtee that had NOTHING to do with either BP or the EPA.

Please show where the EPA has hidden ANYTHING.
Just making these charges means NOTHING if you have no evidence to back them up.

And they are liable, both agency officials and the agency itself, for at least some of their flagrantly poor performance in the events leading up to disaster - they have a motive for concealing evidence of their ineffectuality, incompetence, gullibility, or possibly even collusion with BP and other drillers, and it appears (by the circumstances) they have at least attempted to do so.

What flagrantly poor performance are you talking about?
Again a bunch of BS and made up charges with nothing at all to support it.

Yes, investigation of whoever permitted BP to drill like this, with so little protection for the environment that is the EPA's direct charge, should be routine in the wake of exactly the kind of disaster the EPA is supposed to prevent or mitigate or at least - at a bare minimum - be able to evaluate and monitor.
More comedy. The EPA is under investigation, or should be - it's at the center of the governmental malfunctions involved.

Without subpoena power they can't get a damn thing from BP, the EPA, any other malfunctioning federal agency, or any scientist, outside expert, etc that has been coopted by BP (BP's been "hiring" every major local expert in the relevant fields they can. Without a subpoena, it would be breach of contract for them to give evidence detrimental to BP).
And with subpoena power, that fine sounding directive would be enforceable - more than just PR.

Not true.
The Justice Dept has Subpoena power to get data from outside the Gov and would share any data needed by this Commission.
The Commission does NOT need Subpoena power to get data from other Federal agencies.


Arthur

 

[iceaura]

No proof that adequate safeguards, based on what we knew at the time, weren't in place. Indeed, the crucial piece of equipment, the BOP met the required standards and yet it failed.
No proof that the monitoring of procedures wasn't according to government requirements. The MMC inspectors were on the rig every month or more and the auto-logging of critical data was being done and all the permits were valid.
No fraudulent forms have been shown. The fact that a Wildlife expert had died since the AREA plan was submitted is not sufficient to call a 600 page response plan fraudulent

Of course I agree that what would be the results, the findings, of a thorough investigation have not been presented to us. So?

We know this: after all of that oversight you claim - on no grounds whatsoever that I can see, and in the face of every bit of evidence we do have - to have been proper and adequate, when the pipe blew no one had any idea how to handle it. It was not, in fact, handled according to any procedure laid out in advance and provided for. And no one has any idea at all what's going to happen next, with that oil and dispersant.

No proof that adequate safeguards, based on what we knew at the time, weren't in place. Indeed, the crucial piece of equipment, the BOP met the required standards and yet it failed.

There's five million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that says there was something wrong with the standards or the meeting of them. That's not proof, of course - but an investigation of everyone concerned, including the DOJ with its long history regarding BP, and the EPA likewise, and every other federal agency and private concern with any connection to this disaster, is in order.

A serious investigation, with subpoenas of course.

Surely that is obvious?

 

[adoucette]

Of course I agree that what would be the results, the findings, of a thorough investigation have not been presented to us. So?

We know this: after all of that oversight you claim - on no grounds whatsoever that I can see, and in the face of every bit of evidence we do have - to have been proper and adequate, when the pipe blew no one had any idea how to handle it. It was not, in fact, handled according to any procedure laid out in advance and provided for. And no one has any idea at all what's going to happen next, with that oil and dispersant.
There's five million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that says there was something wrong with the standards or the meeting of them. That's not proof, of course - but an investigation of everyone concerned, including the DOJ with its long history regarding BP, and the EPA likewise, and every other federal agency and private concern with any connection to this disaster, is in order.

A serious investigation, with subpoenas of course.

Surely that is obvious?

And several SERIOUS investigations are underway, including the Justice dept which has subpoena power.

The Justice depts investigation is serious because they are looking to see if anyone broke ANY law in this event and they can compell testimony and anyone giving X to the Justice dept is NOT going to give something different to the other agencies.

The Congressional Committee's investigation is serious because they are trying to figure out what new laws or regulations need to be put into place to prevent a similar occurance of this ever happening again. Other Gov agencies can't hide from them.

Similarly very serious investigations are underway by the key industry players

BP's investigation was serious because the spill cost them 20 billion dollars or more and they are the biggest owner of Gulf deep water tracts, so they want to be able to convince the Gov that they know what happened and why and can prevent it from happening in the future. About 15% of their revenue depends on them making their case to a hostile Obama administration. They litterally have billions of dollars on the line.

TransOcean's investigation is serious because they lost those men and their Billion dollar rig and severely damaged their reputation as a quality provider of Drilling services. They also have billions of dollars on the line.

Cameron's investigation is serious, because they make their money selling Blow Out PREVENTERS and theirs failed to prevent a blowout.

Halliburton's investigation is serious because they make good income as being specialists in Cementing of wells and their Cement job failed.

Since the issue of liabilty is not yet determined, these will all likely end up in court, and the results of their internal investigations provided for review (called Disclosure)

The EPA, NOAA, Dept of Interior and USCG are also very interested players and will work to insure they know the extent of the damage and how to contain spills and will change regulations as appropriate.

Not sure what you are complaining about because by the time this is over we are likely to know more about what happened and why than almost any event I can think of.

As to the plan, surely you are joking?

BP was going through scripted plans to stop the leak by using ROVs to manually operate the BOP before the rig even sank.
When the rig sank (not BP's fault) and took the riser and the LMRP with it and then all attempts to activate the BOP failed to stop the leak, then they indeed went to the STANDARD plan, which is to drill relief wells to plug the well and this was KNOWN to take 2+ months from the time the other drilling rigs were moved into place.

KNOWN

PART OF THE PLAN.

In fact it's the standard part of the plan for any well.

If the BOP fails, the only solution is to contain the oil on the surface using skimmers, controlled burns and protect the shoreline with oil booms (barriers and absorbant) and drill a relief well to plug the leaking well.

Boots and Coots, the company that drilled the relief well has already done it over FORTY times before.

Like this well, every time they have drilled a relief well it has stopped the leak.

As far as this response:

BP brought to the scene two other drilling rigs and proceeded to drill TWO PRECISION intercepts.
The one that sealed the well was a mile deep in the ocean and 3 miles under ground and intercepted a pipe that was less than a foot wide.

Within a week of the accident, besides moving two drilling rigs to the site and half a dozen key support vessels, they had 2,000 people working on the spill and 75 ships had deployed half a million feet of boom

By the second week, the new drill rigs were on site with the support ships, they had 10,000 people working on containing the spill, they had 270 ships that had were skimming or deploying 1 million ft of boom and ROVs working round the clock to provide data about the spill.

By the third week, the drilling of the relief wells was well undreway, 6 different ROVs were now surveying the site and providing data, 17,000 people were working to contain the spill, 600 ships were deploying over 1.3 million ft of boom or skimming or burning oil at the surface, and multiple different temporary containment operations, based on the damaged BOP and LRMP/Riser debris were being completed.

By the end of just one month, they had 24,000 people, more than worked for BP at the start of this, working on the clean up, they had 1,100 ships involved in the clean up/containment, they had deployed over 1,7 million ft of boom. Within the next week, the number of ships would rise to 1,700 and the boom laid to over 2.2 million ft.

One month later, near the peak, BP would have a modern armada of almost 7,000 ships and over 45,000 people at work on the clean up.

This not only dwarfed, but is in fact the most ships that have ever been assembled in one place since the invasion of Normandy.

Now, about 2 months after the well was plugged, there are 18,000 people working on the clean up, including 1,500 boats, but they have but 20,000 ft of boom left deployed. BP is currently estimating that clean up activities will be completed by next spring.

And finally, the numbers of dead animals is a small fraction of those killed by the much smaller event at Prince William Sound.

http://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites...ts/pdf/Consolidated Wildlife Table 100710.pdf

Just because you are ignorant of the actual event and the world of oil drilling doesn't mean your pontification about that which you obviously know nothing about has any meaning what so ever.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

And several SERIOUS investigations are underway, including the Justice dept which has subpoena power

The investigation of the DOJ also needs subpoena power.

The public hearings into the all the major actors need subpoena power.

And of course the public hearings into the government agencies involved require subpoena power.

And I see no reason to wait for twenty years on whatever carefully edited subset of the criminal and corporate investigations are admitted into whatever court records are not sealed, to find out what happened. For one thing, there are a lot of drilling rigs getting ready right now - and we need to know what the issues are, with them and their plans.

 

[adoucette]

The investigation of the DOJ also needs subpoena power

The DOJ has subpoena power, or are you saying the DOJ needs to be investigated?



Just because you are ignorant of the actual event and the world of oil drilling doesn't mean your pontification about that which you obviously know nothing about has any meaning what so ever.

See previous edits.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

And I see no reason to wait for twenty years on whatever carefully edited subset of the criminal and corporate investigations are admitted into whatever court records are not sealed, to find out what happened. For one thing, there are a lot of drilling rigs getting ready right now - and we need to know what the issues are, with them and their plans.

There is not going to be a 20 year delay in finding out what happened, this will ALL be wrapped up within a year of the event.

Give it a rest.

You clearly just like to bitch and make yourself sound important even though you apparently know almost nothing about the actual event or the response to it.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

There is not going to be a 20 year delay in finding out what happened, this will ALL be wrapped up within a year of the event.

I've got a thousand dollars that says: without public subpoenaed testimony, a year from the event of dumping a million gallons of Corexit into the midwater production layer of the most important fishery and ocean ecosystem America has, we - meaning independent researchers able to publish whatever they find without BP's permission - won't know what that stuff is or where it went, will not be able to describe the actual circumstances of its being dumped other than quoting BP's own description (possibly secondhand from somebody), and will not be able to read the actual documentation of the decision to dump it - from the viewpoint of either BP or one of the various government agencies fundamentally involved.

That would be a very early and completely necessary step in the "wrapping things up" journey - farther down the line, we have the results of the long term studies no one is actually doing yet coming in - maybe ten years from whenever they begin? - to establish that aspect of BP's total liability.

One year? That kind of bizarre assertion is just puzzling. Do you really believe that?

The DOJ has subpoena power, or are you saying the DOJ needs to be investigated?

Let's try this again:

for the fourth or fifth time

the DOJ is narrowly focused on certain specific crimes, for some reason with an obvious avoidance of personal criminal implication for BP management - public hearings cover a much wider range of issues, including the discovery of these other areas of criminal interest.

The DOJ is heavily implicated in suspiciously inadequate investigations or prosecutions of BP mishaps of the past. They are thusly, and for other reasons, under the gun here - they might be themselves liable, civil and criminal, for some of the aspects of this disaster. They have potential motive for covering up the facts, and potential areas of collusion with BP management.

The DOJ was severely damaged by the political manipulations of its staffing and leadership under W&Co - famously so, if you recall. This vandalism of its proper functioning can be assumed (given the background and interests of its perpetrators) to be especially serious in any area involving a major oil company or related contractor.

The DOJ findings are not public - unless released into public court, not sealed etc, they are not available for independent evaluation.

And so forth and so on.

Of course the role of the DOJ should be included in the investigation of this disaster - in public, with hearings featuring compelled testimony and well-funded independent investigation. Routine. Without question. No excuses.

When the rig sank (not BP's fault)

More comedy.

 

[adoucette]

Nope, that comment was in response to yours about an investigation into what happened to cause the leak and during the response. That investigation will be wrapped up within a year.

We already discussed the fact that BP is funding independent public studies of the environment at $50 million a year for 10 years to make sure we know what happened to the Gulf and if the use of Corexit in those amounts is safe. (BP's liability is capped by law, so it doesn't matter what these studies find).

BUT the EPA knows today exactly what is in Corexit, and the release of any of it was always under the control of the Unified Area Command with the EPA's input. No subpoenas needed at all. http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/dispersants-qanda.html#list

The EPA conducted independet Peer Reviewed tests on the Dispersents used:

On August 2, 2010, EPA released peer reviewed results from the second phase of its independent toxicity testing on mixtures of eight oil dispersants with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. EPA’s results indicate that the eight dispersants tested have similar toxicities to one another when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.

Also see:

http://www.deepwaterjointinvestigation.com/go/site/3043/




More BS about the DOJ.

They are fully capable of doing an investigation.

Get over it.

Again, with the Rig comment you just show your ignorance of the actual event.

Although it doesn't appear that you care about the actual event since you know so little about it.

For instance how many times did you erroneously claim that BP had put out bad data on the spill rate.

The Pres Commission has come out with something on that:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/..._many_white_house_missteps_on_gulf_oil_spill/

Notice that BP is NEVER mentioned in reference to the spill rate.

Why?

Because the Spill rates were released by NOAA, the USCG and the Tech Flow Committee of which BP was not a member.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

The EPA conducted independet Peer Reviewed tests on the Dispersents used:

No, they didn't.

They only compared short term toxicities of different commercial compounds in a limited number of species and small area.

Just for starters: Not in the open ocean, and not released into the midwater regions or with any of the species etc found there, and not in million gallon quantities, and not for years.

Nothing that would even inform, let alone justify, BP's use of them in this spill, which appeared to be motivated by a desire to conceal the extent of the spill and the damage. And such information was necessary prior to approval or use.

BUT the EPA knows today exactly what is in Corexit, and the release of any of it was always under the control of the Unified Area Command with the EPA's input. No subpoenas needed at all. http://www.epa.gov/BPSpill/dispersants-qanda.html#list

The EPA conducted independent Peer Reviewed tests on the Dispersents used:

If you read that link, you will find that the EPA had completed essentially no relevant tests (anything like the circumstances or quantities involved) on any of the dispersants available until after BP had dumped millions of gallons of them, and the statements made about the scale of ecological damage etc are therefore without substance - ass covering assertions.

The ingredient list is without proportions, apparently without "inactive" or solvent ingredients, and with catchall categories ( "distillates").

We need subpoenas to find out how and why the decision was made to inject millions of gallons of that stuff into such deep waters. Neither BP nor the EPA nor anyone else involved is going to make such info public without coercion.

We already discussed the fact that BP is funding independent public studies of the environment at $50 million a year for 10 years to make sure we know what happened to the Gulf and if the use of Corexit in those amounts is safe

Uh, hello? The spill already happened, the Corexit is already dumped, etc. And a few tens of millions a year is not enough to do that anyway.

More BS about the DOJ.

They are fully capable of doing an investigation.

And they are fully liable to be investigated themselves, in such dubious circumstances. Any government agency is, on half the supply of suspicious events or documented problems the DOJ has piled up.

(BP's liability is capped by law, so it doesn't matter what these studies find).

It's executives' criminal liability is not so capped, neither is its civil liability in suit.

For instance how many times did you erroneously claim that BP had put out bad data on the spill rate.

It's one of the advantages of being able to remember from one week to the next - all the original estimates were from BP, lying to the Coast Guard and other government agencies while readying the dispersant injection.

I mean, c'mon, all you have to do - if your amnesia is that complete - is run a two minute search. Here's the wiki page with a time line of released rate estimates (all the Coast Guard and related stuff, before the camera and for a while afterwards from officials, came from BP.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

The Pres Commission has come out with something on that:

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...ulf_oil_spill/

Notice that BP is NEVER mentioned in reference to the spill rate.

Which means we are reading an article about something other than BP's lies. Such as government agency gullibility, or collusion, perhaps? That's one explanation, anyway.

 

[adoucette]

It's one of the advantages of being able to remember from one week to the next - all the original estimates were from BP, lying to the Coast Guard and other government agencies while readying the dispersant injection.

I mean, c'mon, all you have to do - if your amnesia is that complete - is run a two minute search. Here's the wiki page with a time line of released rate estimates (all the Coast Guard and related stuff, before the camera and for a while afterwards from officials, came from BP.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

So then READ it.

On April 24, Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking.[38][39] She stated that "the leak was a new discovery but could have begun when the offshore platform sank ... two days after the initial explosion."[38] Initial estimates by Coast Guard and BP officials, based on remotely operated vehicles as well as the oil slick size, indicated the leak was as much as 1,000 barrels per day (160 m3/d).[38]

These are all very preliminary estimates, made just two days after the rig sank, that they said were based on incomplete data.

What did BP say in those early days:

Doug Suttles, welcomed the US military's offer of help.
He said the company was using remote operative vehicles (ROVs) to try to find out how much oil was leaking into the sea.
"This is very, very difficult to estimate," Mr Suttles told reporters.
"Down below the surface we actually can't meter this oil so we can just observe it... what our ROV pictures show to us on the sea floor hasn't changed since we first saw the leak... but what we can say based on what we're picking up on the surface it looks like it is more."

So right off, BP is saying the leak looks to be more, but the data is still too little at that point to come up with a decent estimate.

The first OFFICIAL ESTIMATE based on SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS was from NOAA and it was 5,000 barrels per day. This was on the 28th of April, and only 6 days after the rig sank, so up until then there were only PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES, and all estimates from then on were the Gov estimates. So clearly, the estimates of the leak, from the 28th of April till the well was capped was government estimates, not BP estimates.

Indeed to come up with better estimates took the Flow Rate Technical Group over a week of intense effort and more importantly, they could do so because by then BP had HD cameras installed on the RV monitoring the spill rate and was bringing some of the oil to the surface via the RITT thus for the FIRST time the scientists could do advanced flow rate calculations because they now knew the ratio of gas to oil in the outflow as well as pressure readiings and other data that was NOT available to those making the initial estimates:

“The team will work to obtain data that is available on the reservoir, wellbore, blowout preventer, subsea flowing pressures, leak points, discharge plumes and surface discharge observations. With this information, the team will identify and run state-of-the-art models to calculate flow rates and compare results.”

None of which was possible to those giving those INITIAL ESTIMATES.

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleas...-Estimate-Of-Oil-Flowing-from-BP-Oil-Well.cfm

And indeed the FRTC went back and using this much better data, calculated flows from the beginning of the spill, so the net was NO OFFICIAL ESTIMATES were based on anything BP said or did.

You are confusing people making educated guesses early on with the ACTUAL Scientifically based estimates of the Flow produced by the Gov teams, beginning on the 28th of April till the end of the Spill.

Indeed, one of the things confusing the initial estimates was the huge quantity of gas mixed with the oil. Consider that using the RITT, one day 14,800 barrels of oil were collected but over 30 million cubic feet of natural gas was flared. That's a LOT of gas. The equiv of a cube 310 ft on a side filled with gas. The reason is that the gas was under tremendous pressure and expanded greatly as it came up and thus helped to emulsify the oil and cause a great deal of it to form plumes underwater that took much longer to make it to the surface (and a lot didn't make it at all) so the standard technique of surface slick measurements that NOAA was using under-estimated the flow. Indeed, the reason the USGS thought it wasn't leaking is it took over a day for the oil to make it to the surface from a mile underwater. This lag of the oil making it to the surface confused everybody, but when it finally did make it to the surface and the slick size started to expand by huge amounts from day to day, is when the scientists realized that their initial estimates were way off. Though the Gov had reason to suspect that their 5,000 barrel estimate was likely way low, they stuck with it until they had the actual scientific results of the FRTC, before releasing a new figure.

Which means we are reading an article about something other than BP's lies. Such as government agency gullibility, or collusion, perhaps? That's one explanation, anyway.

No, it just means that, like usual, you are wrong about the Event and the Congressional Committee studying it knows that BP wasn't the source of the initial low estimates, and that indeed the Gov knew much earlier that it was likely higher.

agencies differed over how much to tell the public. One of the commission papers said that the Office of Management and Budget denied a request by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to release “worst-case discharge figures’’ in late April or early May, weeks before the dire dimensions of the spill were publicly known.

Instead, while outside scientists were saying that the flow rate was very high, the government stood by its April 28 estimate that 5,000 barrels of oil a day were leaking from the well, about one-tenth of the final figure. The commission report says this number was an extremely rough estimate, taken from research by a federal scientist who does not appear to have expertise in estimating deep-sea oil flows.

“The government appears to have taken an overly casual approach to the calculation and release of the 5,000 [barrels per day] estimate — which, as the only official estimate for most of May, took on great importance,’’

http://www.boston.com/news/science/..._many_white_house_missteps_on_gulf_oil_spill/

Indeed, in late April BP had given the USCG and NOAA an updated estimate of 2.7 million to 4.6 million gallons per day.

While those figures were used as the basis for the government’s response to the spill — they appeared on an internal Coast Guard Situation report and on a dry-erase board in NOAA’s Seattle war room — the public was never told.

In the meantime, government officials were telling the public that the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day — a figure that would be later adjusted to be much closer to the worst-case estimates

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1287032

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

No, they didn't.

They only compared short term toxicities of different commercial compounds in a limited number of species and small area.

Just for starters: Not in the open ocean, and not released into the midwater regions or with any of the species etc found there, and not in million gallon quantities, and not for years.

Nothing that would even inform, let alone justify, BP's use of them in this spill, which appeared to be motivated by a desire to conceal the extent of the spill and the damage. And such information was necessary prior to approval or use.

BS, no one dumps huge quantities in the open ocean just to do tests on. Are you that clueless? In order to do the kind of tests YOU think need to be done, one would have to dump vast quantities, else the results would be meaning less.
That's simply not how it's done.
And YES they do studies on multiple species and FROM those tests they have found they can use one of the most sensitive creatures in the ocean to determine how toxic it is. Rotifers.

If you read that link, you will find that the EPA had completed essentially no relevant tests (anything like the circumstances or quantities involved) on any of the dispersants available until after BP had dumped millions of gallons of them, and the statements made about the scale of ecological damage etc are therefore without substance - ass covering assertions.

The ingredient list is without proportions, apparently without "inactive" or solvent ingredients, and with catchall categories ( "distillates").

Again, just baseless assertions, they DO know the proportions, doesn't mean they are going to publish them, but that's irrelevant anyway, the tests are done on the Compound and thus the ratio of the ingrediants is not relevant to the toxicity tests.

We need subpoenas to find out how and why the decision was made to inject millions of gallons of that stuff into such deep waters. Neither BP nor the EPA nor anyone else involved is going to make such info public without coercion.

They already said why.
You think they are going to say something different?

Dispersants are generally less harmful than the highly toxic oil leaking from the source and biodegrade in a much shorter time span. This is an important step to reduce the potential for damage from oil reaching fragile wetlands and coastal areas.

EPA advised continuing to allow BP to apply dispersant undersea because it appeared to be having a positive effect on the oil at the source of the leak and thus far has had no significant ecological impact.. On August 2, 2010, EPA released peer reviewed results from the second phase of its independent toxicity testing on mixtures of eight oil dispersants with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil as part of an effort to ensure that EPA decisions remain grounded in the best available science and data. EPA’s results indicate that the eight dispersants tested have similar toxicities to one another when mixed with Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil. These results confirm that the dispersant used in response to the oil spill in the gulf, Corexit 9500A, when mixed with oil, is generally no more or less toxic than mixtures with the other available alternatives. The results also indicate that dispersant-oil mixtures are generally no more toxic to the aquatic test species than oil alone.

So again, your claim that we don't know why dispersants were used, or the tests that were run to verify that they weren't harmful is simply not true.

Uh, hello? The spill already happened, the Corexit is already dumped, etc. And a few tens of millions a year is not enough to do that anyway.

Yup, and the best scientific evidence at the time was that using Corexit was beneficial, and this included lack of any known long term negative effects from the use in the Gulf on the IXTOC-I Well Blowout near Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1979 where between 1 million and 2.5 million gallons of mostly Corexit dispersant products were applied over a five-month period on the oil discharge.

the use of dispersants is an environmental trade-off. We know dispersants are generally less toxic than the oils they breakdown. We know that surface use of dispersants decreases the environmental risks to shorelines and organisms at the surface and when used this way, dispersants breakdown over several days. However the long term effects on aquatic life are unknown, which is why EPA and the Coast Guard are requiring BP to implement a robust sampling and monitoring plan.

The federal response is intended to ensure that these operations are constantly monitored for any short or long term adverse effects that may outweigh the benefit of using dispersants

I'm not really at all interested in your opinion of the DOJ.
So, do you have any actual EVIDENCE to support your allegations about the DOJ?

And they are fully liable to be investigated themselves, in such dubious circumstances. Any government agency is, on half the supply of suspicious events or documented problems the DOJ has piled up.

For instance, are their ANY legislators calling for the investigation of the DOJ's handling of this matter?
Is there?
Any?

It's executives' criminal liability is not so capped, neither is its civil liability in suit.

And again the DOJ is looking into criminal liability and so too bad if that isn't good enough for you. Civil liability is diluted by the Fund which is disbursing money. Take the money, no suits, but in any case, the role of the Commission is not to further civil suits.

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

So again, your claim that we don't know why dispersants were used, or the tests that were run to verify that they weren't harmful is simply not true.

Beg to differ. Your links clearly establish that prior to their use no testing had been done of their effects under such use, and display by omission the fact that we haven't seen any evidence of BP's actual motive in using them - barring the fact that they seem to have used them in larger quantities and for different purposes than officially approved, which your links partly document.

But of course, without subpoenaed testimony and evidence in public hearings we have no way of knowing why BP far exceeded its quantity approvals, and used them clandestinely in ways not specifically or publicly considered by the EPA etc, or even used them at all - considering how much more difficult (even impossible) they made the primary task of collecting the loose crude.

Again, just baseless assertions, they DO know the proportions, doesn't mean they are going to publish them, but that's irrelevant anyway, the tests are done on the Compound and thus the ratio of the ingrediants is not relevant to the toxicity tests.

The ratio of the ingredients is key to the estimates of the total amount of each toxin dumped, which I believe even you have to admit is significant.

We don't know whether anyone in the EPA knows the composition of Corexit. The published category of "distillates", just for starters, covers many thousands of possible ingredients, and without the proportions we do not know whether the ingredient list is even complete - does it omit, for example, the "inactive" or "inert"ingredients used as carriers and stabilizers etc, as pesticide ingredient lists normally do (and which frequently have been omitted from the testing programs for toxicity) ?

And no tests were done on effects of the compound itself, in the use to which it was put. Deep water injections of mass quantities of that stuff are an ecological experiment, done for motives we cannot establish without subpoenaed testimony, and no one knows what effects they will have over the coming years.

BS, no one dumps huge quantities in the open ocean just to do tests on. Are you that clueless? In order to do the kind of tests YOU think need to be done

No relevant tests, even of small quantities under controlled circumstances, of deep water and scattering layer injection of those toxins, have ever been done. Agreed?

So this:

Yup, and the best scientific evidence at the time was that using Corexit was beneficial,

is empty. There is no "scientific evidence" to be the "best".

And YES they do studies on multiple species and FROM those tests they have found they can use one of the most sensitive creatures in the ocean to determine how toxic it is. Rotifers.

I hope to Christ the actual researchers are not focusing their research on the short term toxicity of dispersants to rotifers, if a million gallons of the stuff has been injected into oil plumes in the scattering layer of the Gulf of Mexico. http://books.google.ca/books?id=-Q9...EwAA#v=onepage&q=rotifers ocean depth&f=false

 

[adoucette]

Don't know what to tell you.

You're upset that BP used an EPA approved dispersant.

The EPA did the studies on it's toxicity and approved its use and though you apparently want the EPA to be investigated, apparently you've got no one in Congress singing form your Hymn book.

Absolutely no one.

So what's your point?

Arthur

 

[iceaura]

- - apparently you've got no one in Congress singing form your Hymn book.

Absolutely no one

If you recall, we are discussing the granting of subpoena powers to a Congressional investigation. That investigation would potentially (almost certainly, unless prevented) include the DOJ, the EPA, and everyone else, among its subjects.

At least some people in Congress - enough to make it an issue - are singing my tune in that matter (they started the chorus, I joined in). A few, and apparently almost entirely from one Party, are blocking it - stuffing their fingers in their ears, to continue the metaphor, and attempting to shove earplugs in everybody else's.