Study: BP Dispersants killed plankton and disrupted food chain

A study on possible effects of the 2010 BP oil spill indicates dispersants may have killed plankton - some of the ocean's tiniest plants and creatures - and disrupted the food chain in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the nation's richest seafood grounds.

Scientists who read the study said it points toward major future effects of the spill. One called its findings scary. For the study, Alabama researchers pumped water from Mobile Bay into 53-gallon drums, then added oil, dispersant or both in proportions found during the oil spill to simulate the spill's effects on microscopic water-life in the bay.

Over more than 12 weeks in 2010, BP's well spewed nearly 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The company used more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersants - more than 770,000 gallons of it at the oil's source on the ocean floor - to break up the oil into tiny droplets.

The researchers found that, within days, the numbers of plant-like phytoplankton and ciliates - plankton that use hairlike cilia to move - increased under an oil slick. But they dropped significantly in the drums with dispersant or dispersed oil, while the numbers of bacteria increased. The study was published Tuesday in PLoS ONE, one of the peer-reviewed journals in the online Public Library of Science. Read more >>

Deepwater Spill Causing Gulf Damage 2 Years Later, Scientists Find

Platform supply vessels battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Biologists are finding signs of lingering — and perhaps growing — damage throughout the gulf, from the bottom of the food chain to the top:

Scientists have confirmed that tiny creatures called zooplankton accumulated toxic compounds from coming in contact with the Deepwater Horizon oil. Because small fish and crustaceans eat the zooplankton and are then eaten by larger fish, that means those compounds could now be working their way up the food chain, they said.

Three months after BP shut off the flow of oil, scientists searching the floor of the gulf found a colony of deep sea corals that were covered in what they described as “frothy gunk.” They were in the area where undersea plumes of oil had been spotted. Nearly half were dead. Extensive tests resulted in a finding, released just last month, that the culprit was in fact oil from Deepwater Horizon. More...

What's Going On In The Gulf?

Image by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center via Flickr

BP and the government decided that millions of gallons of dispersants should be dumped into the Gulf to sink and hide the oil.

They succeeded in sinking it. As ABC, CBS and NPR note, huge quantities of oil are blanketing the ocean floor, killing virtually all of the sealife which lives there.

And giant new underwater plumes have been found in the water column itself.

But officials don't want to hear about them. As one member of the oil spill recovery team said:

“My biggest concern is there’s [a plume of oil] five miles by 30 miles out there that was reported and no one responded. The Coast Guard said for days that they wanted to run tests, and if they don’t test it when it’s called in, they’ll never find it.” More...

Oil found in crab larvae plucked from Gulf coast

Image via Wikipedia

To assess how heavy a blow the BP oil spill has dealt the Gulf of Mexico, researchers are closely watching a staple of the seafood industry and primary indicator of the ecosystem's health: the blue crab.

Weeks ago, before engineers pumped in mud and cement to plug the gusher, scientists began finding specks of oil in crab larvae plucked from waters across the Gulf coast.

The government said last week that three-quarters of the spilled oil has been removed or naturally dissipated from the water. But the crab larvae discovery was an ominous sign that crude had already infiltrated the Gulf's vast food web — and could affect it for years to come.

"It would suggest the oil has reached a position where it can start moving up the food chain instead of just hanging in the water," said Bob Thomas, a biologist at Loyola University in New Orleans. "Something likely will eat those oiled larvae ... and then that animal will be eaten by something bigger and so on."

Tiny creatures might take in such low amounts of oil that they could survive, Thomas said. But those at the top of the chain, such as dolphins and tuna, could get fatal "megadoses."

Marine biologists routinely gather shellfish for study. Since the spill began, many of the crab larvae collected have had the distinctive orange oil droplets, said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

"In my 42 years of studying crabs I've never seen this," Perry said. More...

"Watching the video feed BP provides just reeks of smoke and mirrors"

Image via Wikipedia

An astute observer exercising independent thought at the "Life After the Oil Crash Forum" writes:

"I tend to think that Matt Simmons, the scientist and experts that "feed" him his information, and other un-related scientists are correct when they say that there are other leaks than the one shown by BP (and watched on this thread). Leaks found miles/kilometers away, in the broken sea floor. This spewing oil well is NOT the only source of the leak, and I think everyone's attention is being diverted in some way, or for some reason.

Even if it may be the only leak source, I just get this FEELING that this darn well-head that everyone seems to be focusing on is a distraction, much like...

Watching the DOW go up and down each day, talking about the stock market fluctuations, all as if THAT was the economy itself while Ignoring actual corporate profit reports, unemployment levels, values of steel and copper, credit default rates, etc...

Watching the price of a barrel of oil when worried about Peak Oil, instead of looking at oil production numbers, supply, demand, where the oil is coming from (countries unfriendly to the USA), or the quality of the oil (light, heavy?).

I feel like LATOCers (Life After the Oil Crash Forum) here are being duped, in a way.

Watching the video feed BP provides just reeks of... smoke and mirrors. It's a distraction from SOMETHING, don't you feel that way? Maybe from the true impact of oil hitting the beaches, or suffocating whale sharks... does this make sense?

But SOMETHING.

In an ambush, some members of your team should be trained to cover the rear, or look the opposite direction of the incoming fire to protect the flank. If everyone reacts toward the initial burst of incoming fire, those who are ambushing you wipe you out from the sides and rear.

So, while everyone here stares at this big gushing oil leak and watches it for days at a time, I'm trying to check our rear and flanks for the enemy we don't see."

Another poster replies:

Here is proof of what you are saying....

Go to this link..http://oilspill.skytruth.org/main

You will see a map with red dots. To your lower right there is a box for SPILL EXTENT with dates. Click on the box for May 22 and look up at the map. You will see a small oil patch forming above Cuba. Now continue up to the last top box.

Report yesterday..http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/more-evidence-of-oil-in-south-florida-photos

If you simply go to the site and hit the top box, the 2 spills are not there. Pure deception.

Whistle blower: BP is deliberately sinking oil with Corexit to hide it for financial gain

"They're here! They've formed a corporation called BP." (Image by tnarik via Flickr)

Hell, anyone following the gusher knows why BP has used well over one millions gallons of Corexit: to hide the oil. This is spite of an EPA request to restrict the use of this highly toxic dispersant. And we all know Thad Allen is BP's pathetic straw man in uniform. Only those who live for Nascar and Xanax believe Obama's in charge.

From the Examiner:

Testimony before a Senate investigative panel this week is expected to reveal what many have suspected about BP all along; they don’t care about the environment, the animals that are dying, and the lives that are being destroyed by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

In a shocking interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on June 29th, Allegiance Capitol Corporation V.P. Fred McCallister said that BP is deliberately sinking oil with the toxic chemical disbursant Corexit, to hide the size of the oil spill. By sinking the oil before it can be collected, BP won’t have to pay fines on it.

McCallister said, “Everybody in Europe, where the standard practice is to raise the oil and collect it, is scratching their heads, and quite honestly laughing at what’s happening in the Gulf.” He added, “Everyone is looking at us and wondering why we’re allowing this to happen.”

McCallister is set to appear before a Senate investigative panel on Thursday and testify that BP’s only interests regarding the Deepwater Horizon spill is protectimg their own financial interests. His statements explained why BP has been refusing offers of help from additional foreign skimmers. More...

BP oil spill Corexit dispersants suspected in widespread crop damage

Just when you thought the damages BP could cause was limited to beaches, marshes, oceans, people's livelihoods, birds and marine life, there's more.

BP's favorite dispersant Corexit 9500 is being sprayed at the oil gusher on the ocean floor. Corexit is also being air sprayed across hundreds of miles of oil slicks all across the gulf. There have been widespread reports of oil cleanup crews reporting various injuries including respiratory distress, dizziness and headaches.

Corexit 9500 is a solvent originally developed by Exxon and now manufactured by the Nalco of Naperville, Illinois. Corexit is is four times more toxic than oil (oil is toxic at 11 ppm (parts per million), Corexit 9500 at only 2.61ppm).

In a report written by Anita George-Ares and James R. Clark for Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. titled "Acute Aquatic Toxicity of Three Corexit Products: An Overview" Corexit 9500 was found to be one of the most toxic dispersal agents ever developed.

According to the Clark and George-Ares report, Corexit mixed with the higher gulf coast water temperatures becomes even more toxic. The UK's Marine Management Organization has banned Corexit so if there was a spill in the UK's North Sea, BP is banned from using Corexit.

The danger to humans can be expected. The warnings on the Corexit packaging is straightforward. Breathing in Corexit is not recommended. More...

Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster U.S.A 2010

A video detailing the issues surrounding the 2010 Horizon deepwater oil rig explosion, oil spill, evacuations, illness, news blackouts, FEMA and government corruption.

"Good information, but the music on this video SUCKS!"

Aerial footage: tar extends far as you can see on Pensacola Beach

"Aerial video footage taken by personnel aboard an Escambia County Sheriff's Office helicopter helps to illustrate the extent of the oil and tar that blanketed Pensacola Beach on Wednesday."

One million times the normal level of methane found in Gulf

Methane in Gulf "astonishingly high": U.S. scientist

(Reuters) - As much as 1 million times the normal level of methane gas has been found in some regions near the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, enough to potentially deplete oxygen and create a dead zone, U.S. scientists said on Tuesday.

Texas A&M University oceanography professor John Kessler, just back from a 10-day research expedition near the BP Plc oil spill in the gulf, says methane gas levels in some areas are "astonishingly high."

Kessler's crew took measurements of both surface and deep water within a 5-mile (8 kilometer) radius of BP's broken wellhead. "There is an incredible amount of methane in there," Kessler told reporters in a telephone briefing.

In some areas, the crew of 12 scientists found concentrations that were 100,000 times higher than normal. "We saw them approach a million times above background concentrations" in some areas, Kessler said.

The scientists were looking for signs that the methane gas had depleted levels of oxygen dissolved in the water needed to sustain marine life. "At some locations, we saw depletions of up to 30 percent of oxygen based on its natural concentration in the waters. At other places, we saw no depletion of oxygen in the waters. We need to determine why that is," he told the briefing. More...

Tony Hayward, Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, UBS, all dumped BP stock before well blowout

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Excerpted from Darren Weeks, newswithviews
We now know from John Byrne at Raw Story that prior to the Gulf oil mess, not only did Goldman Sachs short shares of TransOcean, the owner of the failed Deepwater Horizon rig, they also ditched 4,680,822 shares of BP stock, worth $250 million and representing 44% of their holdings. “Goldman’s sales were the largest of any firm during that time,” writes Byrne. “Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP’s stock during the quarter.”

Byrne also noted other financial institutions that also dumped BP holdings.

“Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter — but their sales were a fraction of Goldman’s. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.”

If that weren’t enough of a “coincidence,” we also had The Telegraph out of London reporting that the chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward, also sold 223,288 shares, worth £1.4 million of stock in his own company (over $2 million) on March 17th — only weeks before the BP Gulf mess. The paper noted that by doing so he “avoided losing more than £423,000 ($614,449) when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.”[13] He took the money and paid off the mortgage on his family mansion in Kent.

At this point, a question should be coming to mind: What did these people know that the rest of us didn’t? How is it that stock in BP and Transocean suddenly seemed so unattractive to those closest to the disaster? Ah, the coincidences! But it gets even better.

On April 10th, The Houston Chronicle reported that Halliburton — the company of which former Vice-President Dick Cheney was CEO — was in the process of acquiring Boots & Coots. Reuters reported that the deal was announced on Friday, April 9th — just eleven days prior to the explosion.[14] The Chronicle noted that “Boots & Coots has become well known for putting out some of the world’s largest oil and gas fires.”[15] The company’s website lists services they provide, including “deepwater application and well inspections, as well as blowout prevention and control counsel or assistance…”[16] According to the Orlando Sentinel, their expertise is already being put to use in the Gulf, as they are “one of two primary companies designing relief-well strategies for the BP blowout.”

So when the acquisition deal is formerly approved by the government, Halliburton — the company famous for profiting from no-bid government contracts in war zones — will have collected for themselves yet another “slick” profit.

This is especially intriguing in light of the fact that, according to NPR, Halliburton’s cementing work — completed only hours prior to the explosion — has become a “central focus” of the Congressional investigation.[18] The Wall Street Journal quotes unnamed “experts” as saying the timing of the cementing in relation to the blast “points to it as a possible culprit.”

But Halliburton isn’t the only company that stands to make a killing off the crisis. The Times Online out of the UK reported that TransOcean itself took out a $560 million insurance policy on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The dollar amount was well above the rig’s value. According to the paper, insurance payouts amounted to a $270 million profit from the disaster.

“The windfall, revealed in a conference call with analysts, will more than cover the $200m that Transocean expects to pay to survivors and their families and for higher insurance costs.”

A number of people have questioned why Corexit — a chemical banned in the UK[21] and is much more toxic than the oil itself — was used as a dispersant in the Gulf. Assuming for the moment that chemical dispersants had to be used, the New York Times reported on May 13th:

“Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.”

Yet, despite the EPA data ranking it “far above dispersants made by competitors” for toxicity, BP chose to dump more than 400,000 gallons of Corexit into the Gulf, order 805,000 more gallons with plans of hundreds of thousands of additional gallons should the spewing continue. Why? More...

Subsea landslide could cause massive eruptions of explosive methane gas

History Channel "Mega Disasters" series. This explores the controversial paper published by Northwestern University's Gregory Ryskin. His thesis: the oceans periodically produce massive eruptions of explosive methane gas... enough to cause global catastrophe on a regular basis!

Also See: How the ultimate BP Gulf disaster could kill millions

Chemotherapy in the Gulf of Mexico

Image via Wikipedia

Excerpted from ritholtz.com

The United States has approved and is supervising the administration of chemotherapy to the Gulf of Mexico. I have personally watched chemo too many times. It attempts to restrain the fast-growing cells by doing more damage to them than it does to the healthy cells, in a desperate attempt to keep the patient alive. There are many warnings in chemotherapy about longer-term damage and about unknowns. They are accepted because chemo for a cancer victim is viewed as a life or death option.

Dispersants in the GOM are similarly problematic. Think of them as chemotherapy to a 2000 mile coastline and to hundreds of square miles of sea.

Use them sparingly and on the surface and we have a pretty good idea what will happen – they seem to accelerate evaporation and natural processes that get rid of the oil.

Use them below the surface, however, and we have little experience and simply do not know what the longer-term effects will be. Oil on the sea floor is a naturally occurring phenomenon. There are natural processes that Mother Earth has to deal with it. Microbes eat it. And when it rises to the surface it is then broken down and evaporates. Yes, it’s toxic, and, yes, it does do damage.

Dispersants are manmade; no Mother Nature involved in this one. They are toxic chemicals that can do damage themselves.

When they are used in very cold water and a mile below the surface, we simply do not know what the outcome will be. And we do not know if the small droplets they create become an emulsion that travels for hundreds or thousands of miles. There is initial, but inconclusive, evidence that this is happening in the GOM. We will soon find out. I fear it will be the hard way.

The rest of this commentary consists of quotes from the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and other sources. They were extracted from public documents.

During the GIC meetings in Europe last week there were several discussions on the impacts of the GOM events. We owe great thanks to Jim Lucier for sharing his insight. His database on this subject is enormous.

The quotes follow. They are sequenced and lead to the issue of the use of Corexit. Remember, about 5 million liters of dispersants, mostly Corexit, have been used in the GOM in the last two months. About one-third of that has been at the wellhead, 5000 feet below the surface, in very cold, very high-pressure water. There are numerous reports of deeper-water oil plumes that are sufficiently subsurface to avoid easy measurement and detection. We will leave the rest of this to each reader to consider for her/himself.

As you read these extracts, please note that the UK has now banned Corexit. British oil comes from the cold and deep water off its coast.

First quote: “The EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard have authorized BP to use dispersants underwater, at the source of the Deepwater Horizon leak. Preliminary testing results indicate that subsurface use of the dispersant is effective at reducing the amount of oil from reaching the surface – and can do so with the use of less dispersant than is needed when the oil does reach the surface. While BP pursues the use of subsurface dispersants, the federal government will require regular analysis of its effectiveness and impact on the environment, water and air quality, and human health through a rigorous monitoring program.” Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website: www.epa.gov

Second quote: “On May 26th, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive to BP requiring them to decrease overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. EPA continues to allow BP to use undersea dispersant but only at a maximum of 15,000 gallons per day.”

Third quote: “BP’s scientific analysis of alternative dispersants, in response to EPA’s May 20th Directive, was found insufficient by both EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Therefore, EPA and other government scientists are independently verifying the alternative dispersant data presented by BP and will be performing independent scientific verification of the data BP presented. EPA is conducting its own tests to determine the least toxic, most effective dispersant available in the volumes necessary for a crisis of this magnitude and to understand if Corexit remains the most appropriate dispersant, as supported by the science for this situation.”

Fourth quote: “EPA listed the components of Corexit 9500 and 9527 — the two brands that BP has deployed to prevent oil from reaching shore. More than 1 million gallons of the chemicals have been used so far in response to the ongoing Gulf spill, including 317,000 gallons injected directly into the leaking well nearly a mile below the water’s surface — a first-time application EPA authorized last month. Among the chemicals in the Corexit brands are 1,2-Propanediol; Ethanol, 2-butoxy-; Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1); Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate; Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.; Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs; 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-; and Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light.” Source: INSIDEEPA.COM, June 19, 2010

Fifth quote: “People working with dispersants are strongly advised to use a half face filter mask or an air-supplied breathing apparatus to protect their noses, throats, and lungs, and they should wear nitrile or PVC gloves, coveralls, boots, and chemical splash goggles to keep dispersants off skin and out of their eyes.” Source: EPA

Sixth quote: “The harm or toxicity of dispersed oil in the environment is generally associated with the oil rather than with the dispersant alone. However, use of dispersants breaks up a slick of oil on the surface into smaller droplets that can go beneath the surface. When applied on the surface before spills reach the coastline, dispersants will potentially decrease exposure for surface-dwelling organisms (such as sea birds) and intertidal species (such as mangroves and salt marshes), while increasing exposure to a smaller population of aquatic life found deeper in the water. It is unknown if dispersed oil has toxic implications to the human population because bioaccumulation through the food chain has not been evaluated.” Source: EPA

Seventh quote: “We are currently unaware of published scientific information in the peer reviewed literature about the biodegradation of the dispersant itself. We do have information about the individual components (ingredients) of the dispersant, provided by the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).” Source: EPA

Eighth quote: “While dispersants have been used in previous oil spills, this is the largest application of dispersants at an oil spill response in the United States.” Source: EPA

Lastly, NOAA says that this spill seems to remain confined in the GOM for the time being. Here is the latest report (June 18):

“Recent satellite imagery analysis no longer shows the persistent patches of sheen to the S-SE of the main slick. However, non-recoverable sheens and tar balls previously observed in these regions may have been entrained into the large clockwise eddy (Eddy Franklin) that has pinched off the main Loop Current (LC). Trajectories indicate that most of these sheens will continue to move clockwise in Eddy Franklin. The connection between the spill source and Eddy Franklin has been cut off due to a change in the currents. The oil will biodegrade and photo-oxidize over the time frame of weeks to months. No recoverable oil is expected to enter the Florida current over the next 72 hours. The Loop Current is an area of warm water that comes up from the Caribbean, flowing past the Yucatan Peninsula and into the Gulf of Mexico. It generally curves east across the Gulf and then flows south parallel to the west Florida coast. An eddy is water that rotates.”

Remember: this NOAA analysis is derived from surface observations. There is no mention of subsurface movements or plumes. NOAA is now continually researching this issue of subsurface toxicity.

~~~
David R. Kotok, Chairman & Chief Investment Officer, Cumberland Advisors, www.cumber.com

Restriction to the Gulf: The New Area 51

Image via Wikipedia

alternet.org
Tara Lohan
4 Ways BP and Officials Are Working to Suppress the Outrageous Facts About the Gulf Disaster

From intimidating reporters to trying to enforce no-fly zones, there seems to be a concerted effort to block public access to information.

With BP's oil gusher in the gulf approaching two months, public anger is approaching the boiling point. When will the oil spilling into the gulf be stopped and what remediation can be done for the ecosystem and the local economy? Those of us who aren't at ground zero have to rely on what the media is reporting -- which is turning into an outrageous scandal of its own.

"Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials," wrote Jeremy W. Peters for the New York Times. "To some critics of the response effort by BP and the government, instances of news media being kept at bay are just another example of a broader problem of officials' filtering what images of the spill the public sees. Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP."

So what's really going on? Is there is concerted effort to block information from reaching the public? Here are four examples that point to a widespread effort to suppress public access to information about an environmental disaster -- we may still not yet know exactly how bad this thing is, or how bad it's going to get.

1. Restricting Access

One of the most common complaints so far from journalists is that they are having problems getting the access they need to do their jobs -- like CBS, which reported its news team was threatened with arrest while attempting to get footage of an oil-soaked public beach. Weeks of similar complaints resulted in a memo issued by Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer, claiming that the company is not interfering with press access.

The memo states: "Recent media reports have suggested that individuals involved in the cleanup operation have been prohibited from speaking to the media, and this is simply untrue. BP fully supports and defends all individuals' rights to share their personal thoughts and experiences with journalists if they so choose."

But when WDSU news anchor Scott Walker tried to interview cleanup workers on a public beach on Grand Isle, LA, private security guards tried to prevent him. The news agency reports: "He told the guards he intended to ask contracted cleanup crews about their efforts while workers were on their breaks. The guards told Walker he could not question the workers and was not allowed on the public beach."

And Walker hasn't been alone. The New York Times reported a similar incident on Grand Isle by media from the New York Daily News. "The contractor summoned a local sheriff, who then told the reporter, Matthew Lysiak, that news media had to fill out paperwork and then be escorted by a BP official to get access to the beach," the article said. "'For the police to tell me I needed to sign paperwork with BP to go to a public beach?' Mr. Lysiak said. 'It's just irrational.'"

And it's not just Grand Isle; many journalists have been stymied trying to get in the air to get a glimpse of the scope and damage of the disaster. Flight restriction over the water have prevented many from doing so. "Each time they fly in the area, they have to be granted permission from the F.A.A.," reported the New York Times.

Can't get into the air or interview subjects on the beach -- how about taking a boat ride? Well, that's pretty tough, too. Reporting for Earth Island Journal, Jason Marks writes that at Grande Isle, "The beaches are no-go zones even for homeowners with beachfront property, and the press can hit the sand only by going through a complicated credentialing process. The Coast Guard is arranging media tours by boat, but the waiting list is close to a week long. Charter boats are either hard to find (most of the captains are working for BP), or else relatively expensive ($300 for an afternoon on the water)."

Clearly this is problematic, if you're trying to let the public know what's going on. As Peters concedes, "Media access in disaster situations is always an issue. But the situation in the gulf is especially nettlesome because journalists have to depend on the government and BP to gain access to so much of the affected area."

And if you're BP or the U.S government, there's a really good chance you don't want people to know just how bad things really are.

2. Hiding Evidence

"It looks as if someone is destroying evidence at the scene of the crime," Keith Olbermann reported days ago. Marine biologist Dr. Riki Ott told Olbermann of reports from wildlife volunteers who are walking the beaches that oiled wildlife keeps disappearing in the night. "In my opinion there is a strong attempt, not only to minimize how much oil was spilling, but now to control the evidence of the damage," Ott told Olbermann.

In a recent article, she explained:

In Orange Beach, people told me BP wouldn't let them collect carcasses. Instead, the company was raking up carcasses of oiled seabirds. "The heads separate from the bodies," one upset resident told me. "There's no way those birds are going to be autopsied. BP is destroying evidence!"

The body count of affected wildlife is crucial to prove the harm caused by the spill, and also serves as an invaluable tool to evaluate damages to public property -- the dolphins, sea turtles, whales, sea birds, fish, and more, that are owned by the American public. Disappeared body counts means disappeared damages -- and disappeared liability for BP. BP should not be collecting carcasses. The job should be given to NOAA, a federal agency, and volunteers, as was done during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

A BP contractor, fed up with attempts by the company to cover up the effects of the spill and deny media access, decided to give journalists his own tour of Queen Bess barrier island. Think Progress reports:

"There is a lot of coverup for BP. They specifically informed us that they don't want these pictures of the dead animals. They know the ocean will wipe away most of the evidence. It's important to me that people know the truth about what's going on here," the contractor said.

"The things I've seen: They just aren't right. All the life out here is just full of oil. I'm going to show you what BP never showed the President." [...]

"BP is going to say the deaths of these animals wasn't oil-related," the contractor added. "We know the truth. I hope these pictures get to the right people -- to someone who can do something."

3. Withholding Information

Things have gotten so bad that the group OpenTheGovernment.org sent a letter to President Obama that was signed by the Society of Professional Journalists and dozens of other organizations expressing their concern over the public's ability to access data related to the Gulf disaster. "Access to all monitoring data is crucial for scientists and the public to understand the extent of the problem, and plan for how to help the area recover and thrive," they wrote.

And there is ample reason to be concerned. Here's what they expressed:

Based on a brief clip of BP's feed that has been made available, independent scientists have assessed that the spill may differ from estimates larger than BP and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have calculated. Access to all monitoring data is crucial for resolving these conflicting estimates and improving public trust.

Monitoring data, including how much oil is spilling out of the leak, the effects of the oil on the surrounding area, what is being done to stop the leak, and the results of tests on the extent of workers' exposure are matters of great national interest and concern to the public. The livelihoods of families that are reliant on the Gulf Coast's fishing and tourism industries -- and others -- are at risk. Further, it is too early to tell what the final cost of the disaster will be to public health. Given that the leak is within US Exclusive Economic Zone waters (and therefore within US territory) and operated according to a lease granted by the US government, the US public should have the right to access to the video feed, both past and current, as well as other information about the oil spill and its impact.

BP did not release video feed of the leak for a month and did so only after pressure from the public and the government. But as Timothy B. Hurst reports last week, they basically gave us crap to look at. "It turns out that those grainy videos that were so hard to get from BP in the first place are nowhere near the best they have," he explains. "That's right, there is high resolution video of the oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead and only now, 50 days after the initial explosion, are we learning that such video even exists."

This of course has direct implication in figuring out how much oil is leaking and is the reason why estimates of the damage keep going up the more we are actually able to learn. More...

Gulf of Mexico: "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history"

Matthew Brown

It is an overlooked danger in oil spill crisis: The crude gushing from the well contains vast amounts of natural gas that could pose a serious threat to the Gulf of Mexico's fragile ecosystem.

The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill.

That means huge quantities of methane have entered the Gulf, scientists say, potentially suffocating marine life and creating "dead zones" where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives.

"This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said.

Methane is a colorless, odorless and flammable substance that is a major component in the natural gas used to heat people's homes. Petroleum engineers typically burn off excess gas attached to crude before the oil is shipped off to the refinery. That's exactly what BP has done as it has captured more than 7.5 million gallons of crude from the breached well.

A BP spokesman said the company was burning about 30 million cubic feet of natural gas daily from the source of the leak, adding up to about 450 million cubic feet since the containment effort started 15 days ago. That's enough gas to heat about 450,000 homes for four days.

But that figure does not account for gas that eluded containment efforts and wound up in the water, leaving behind huge amounts of methane.

BP PLC said a containment cap sitting over the leaking well funneled about 619,500 gallons of oil to a drillship waiting on the ocean surface on Wednesday. Meanwhile, a specialized flare siphoning oil and gas from a stack of pipes on the seafloor burned roughly 161,700 gallons.

Thursday was focused on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers chastised BP CEO Tony Hayward.

Testifying as oil still surged into the Gulf at between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons a day, coating more coastal land and marshes, Hayward declared "I am so devastated with this accident," "deeply sorry" and "so distraught."

But he also said he was out of the loop on decisions at the well and disclaimed knowledge of any of the myriad problems on and under the Deepwater Horizon rig before the deadly explosion. BP was leasing the rig the Deepwater Horizon that exploded April 20, killing 11 workers and triggering the environmental disaster.

"BP blew it," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the House investigations panel that held the hearing. "You cut corners to save money and time."

As for the methane, scientists are still trying to measure how much has escaped into the water and how it may damage the Gulf and it creatures.

The dangerous gas has played an important role throughout the disaster and response. A bubble of methane is believed to have burst up from the seafloor and ignited the rig explosion. Methane crystals also clogged a four-story containment box that engineers earlier tried to place on top of the breached well.

Now it is being looked at as an environmental concern. More...

Dead sperm whale found in Gulf

Image via Wikipedia

MyFoxTampaBay.com staff report

GULF OF MEXICO - Scientists have spotted a dead sperm whale in the Gulf of Mexico, and are doing tests to see if the oil spill had anything to do with its death.

The whale was found floating 77 miles due south of the Deepwater Horizon spill site.

It is the first dead whale spotted since BP's rig exploded on April 20.

The whale was not found in oiled waters, but scientists can't yet say where or how it died.

They say its condition suggests it has been dead for several days to more than a week, and they are taking samples from it to glean information on how and where it died.

It's estimated that between 1,400 and 1,660 sperm whales live year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA, they spend most of their time in the upper Gulf offshore area.

They live at depth in areas where subsurface dispersants and oil are present, and feed on deepwater squid, which may also be impacted by the oil and dispersants.

The sperm whales are an endangered species, and some scientists say that just a few sperm whale deaths could endanger the long-term survival of the Gulf's entire native sperm whale population.

The NOAA ship that spotted the whale is due back in port July 2. After that, they say full analysis of the samples will take several weeks.

Scientists fear mass die-offs as fish run out of oxygen

Image via Wikipedia

winonadailynews.com

Dolphins and sharks are showing up in surprisingly shallow water just off the Florida coast. Mullets, crabs, rays and small fish congregate by the thousands off an Alabama pier. Birds covered in oil are crawling deep into marshes, never to be seen again.

Marine scientists studying the effects of the BP disaster are seeing some strange _ and troubling _ phenomena.

Fish and other wildlife are fleeing the oil out in the Gulf and clustering in cleaner waters along the coast. But that is not the hopeful sign it might appear to be, researchers say.

The animals' presence close to shore means their usual habitat is badly polluted, and the crowding could result in mass die-offs as fish run out of oxygen. Also, the animals could easily get devoured by predators.

"A parallel would be: Why are the wildlife running to the edge of a forest on fire? There will be a lot of fish, sharks, turtles trying to get out of this water they detect is not suitable," said Larry Crowder, a Duke University marine biologist.

The nearly two-month-old oil spill has created an environmental catastrophe unparalleled in U.S. history as tens of millions of gallons of have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Scientists are seeing some unusual things as they try to understand the effects on thousands of species of marine life.

Day by day, scientists in boats tally up dead birds, sea turtles and other animals, but the toll is surprisingly small given the size of the disaster. The latest figures show that 783 birds, 353 turtles and 41 mammals have died _ numbers that pale in comparison to what happened after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989, when 250,000 birds and 2,800 otters are believed to have died. More...

Anger on the bayou is palpable

Image via Wikipedia

winonadailynews
"The whole place is full of oil."
Barataria estuary now ground zero in oil spill
The meandering sand dunes and bird islands of Barataria Bay have become the epicenter of the environmental disaster spewing from BP's offshore well. And fishermen are bitter.

Oil-caked birds, stranded sea turtles, globs of gooey brown crude on beaches, coated crabs and mats of tar have been found throughout the inlets and mangroves that dot the bay. The oil has smothered this watery otherworld with a rainbow sheen and is threatening the complex web of wetlands, marshes and bayous that make up this national treasure.

Everything from crabbing to bait fishing is shutting down, and the anger on the bayou is palpable.

"It's scary, you know, man," marine mechanic Jimmy Howard said from his ramshackle and hurricane-battered fishing shack, a cigar stub stuffed in his mouth. "I see them doing what they can, you know. All the boats going out, all the boom. I'm hoping they can contain it."

Barataria teems with wildlife, including alligators, bullfrogs, bald eagles and migratory birds from the Caribbean and South America. There are even Louisiana black bears in the upper basin's hardwood forests.

Before the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, oyster and shrimp boats plowed through these productive bays as fishermen snapped up speckled trout and redfish within minutes of casting their lines.

Now it resembles an environmental war zone. Many of the bay's nesting islands for birds are girded by oil containment boom, and crews in white disposable protective suits change out coils of absorbents to soak up the sticky mess.

"The whole place is full of oil," said fishing guide Dave Marino. "This is some of the best fishing in the whole region, and the oil's coming in just wave after wave. It's hard to stomach, it really is."

At the entrance to Barataria, dredges and bulldozers are building sand berms on barrier islands to intercept the advancing oil. National Guard helicopters drop sandbags into breaches smashed through the islands by hurricanes, and local officials are moving in barges to use as makeshift barriers.

Shrimp boats have been enlisted in the skimming effort _ the Coast Guard says about 2,450 barrels of oily water have been picked up. But it's bittersweet work for the shrimpers, whose fishing grounds have been shut down. More...

Radar shows no decrease in Gulf oil flow

Image by SkyTruth via Flickr

miamiherald.com
A university professor says satellite images show no evidence that the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico decreased after a containment cap was placed over the undersea wellhead.

University of Miami professor Hans Graber said Thursday that the spill's footprint on the Gulf's surface would have shrunk by now if the cap had significantly decreased the flow. It has not.

The Coast Guard says the containment cap is capturing 630,000 gallons a day and pumping it to a ship at the surface. That amount could nearly double by next week to roughly 1.17 million gallons.

Graber could not explain the discrepancy.

One possiblity is that the amount of oil escaping the well increased when a pipe was cut to place the containment cap.

BP, law enforcement, Coast Guard, government officials, censoring Gulf media coverage

Image by .mw via Flickr

Efforts in Gulf to Limit Flow of Spill News
New York Times
JEREMY W. PETERS
When the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request.

A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied.

“We were questioned extensively. Who was on the aircraft? Who did they work for?” recalled Rhonda Panepinto, who owns Southern Seaplane with her husband, Lyle. “The minute we mentioned media, the answer was: ‘Not allowed.’ ”

Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials.

To some critics of the response effort by BP and the government, instances of news media being kept at bay are just another example of a broader problem of officials’ filtering what images of the spill the public sees.

Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources. Three weeks passed, for instance, from the time the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20 and the first images of oil gushing from an underwater pipe were released by BP.

“I think they’ve been trying to limit access,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts who fought BP to release more video from the underwater rovers that have been filming the oil-spewing pipe. “It is a company that was not used to transparency. It was not used to having public scrutiny of what it did.”

Officials at BP and the government entities coordinating the response said instances of denying news media access have been anomalies, and they pointed out that the company and the government have gone to great lengths to accommodate the hundreds of journalists who have traveled to the gulf to cover the story. The F.A.A., responding to criticism following the incident with Southern Seaplane, has revised its flight restrictions over the gulf to allow for news media flights on a case-by-case basis.

“Our general approach throughout this response, which is controlled by the Unified Command and is the largest ever to an oil spill,” said David H. Nicholas, a BP spokesman, “has been to allow as much access as possible to media and other parties without compromising the work we are engaged on or the safety of those to whom we give access.”

Anomalies or not, cases continue in which reporters and photographers are blocked from covering aspects of the spill.

Last week, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, tried to bring a small group of journalists with him on a trip he was taking through the gulf on a Coast Guard vessel. Mr. Nelson’s office said the Coast Guard had agreed to accommodate the reporters and camera operators. But at about 10 on the evening before the trip, someone from the Department of Homeland Security’s legislative affairs office called the senator’s office to tell them that no journalists would be allowed.

“They said it was the Department of Homeland Security’s response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same ‘federal asset,’ ” said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. “No further elaboration” was given, Mr. Gulley added.

Mr. Nelson has asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for an official explanation, the senator’s office said.

Capt. Ron LaBrec, a Coast Guard spokesman, said that about a week into the cleanup response, the Coast Guard started enforcing a policy that prohibits members of the news media to accompany candidates for public office on visits to government facilities, “to help manage the large number of requests for media embeds and visits by elected officials.”

In a separate incident last week, a reporter and photographer from The Daily News of New York were told by a BP contractor they could not get access to a public beach on Grand Isle, La., one of the areas most heavily affected by the oil spill. The contractor summoned a local sheriff, who then told the reporter, Matthew Lysiak, that members of the news media had to fill out paperwork and then be escorted to the beach by a BP official.

BP did not respond to requests for comment about the incident.

“For the police to tell me I needed to sign paperwork with BP to go to a public beach?” Mr. Lysiak said. “It’s just irrational.”

In the first few weeks after the oil rig explosion, BP kept a tight lid on images of the oil leaking into the gulf. Even when it released the first video of the spewing oil on May 12, it provided only a 30-second clip. The most-detailed images did not become public until two weeks ago when BP gave members of Congress access to internal video feeds from its underwater rovers. Without BP’s permission, some members of Congress displayed the video for news networks like CNN, which carried them live. More...