Deep Politics Forum

Some time ago, I visited I went looking on the Internet for an old article in Harvard Business Review entitled "Planning as Learning" by Arne de Geus.

It's a powerful article, one which others would call seminal, because it spawned a significant movement in organizational development, and notably the work of Peter Senge and friends in "the fifth discipline" and beyond, some of which was touched upon in my blog a long time ago. These are works I've learned much from and cited in my papers and proposals over the years for the use of simulation gaming as a tool for improving disaster response.

Arne de Geus worked for a long time with Royal Dutch Shell, a major oil drilling outfit. I guess in my Internet search I brushed up against or left behind a trail of "cookie" crumbs because this morning, in my e-mailbox, or perhaps because of my guest blog entry at Manageable Ants entitled "Shrimp Linguini Lagniappe", up pops a press release. RDS is the company whose activity has spawned actions studied by people like John Robb in the Nigerian Delta, where the people indigenous to the area being exploited sometimes take things into their own hands. What has happened in the Nigerian Delta could and probably has spawned whole threads, books, even movies. At any rate, this showed up on my desktop this morning; make of it what you will.



Shell halts Nigerian offshore drilling in visionary new remediation plan
17/05/2010

The Hague - In advance of the 18 May Shell Annual General Meeting (AGM), Royal Dutch Shell and its joint-venture Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) are announcing sweeping plans to clean up all areas of the Niger Delta where they operate, compensate local communities for past injuries, and institute a local stakeholders program that will contribute to lifting the region out of poverty.

The Comprehensive Shell Remediation Plan for the Niger Delta (CSR-ND) has been steadily developing behind closed doors since Shell CEO Peter Voser took the helm last year, but was fast-tracked in response to public pressure to include an immediate cessation of deep-water drilling in the Niger Delta.

"Shell is proud to be the first international petrochemical company to embark on a rehabilitation and compensation program of any significant scale," said Shell spokesperson Bernadette Hopma. "The Gulf of Mexico gush has made CSR-ND especially timely."

"By anticipating and proactively sidestepping the inevitable storm of company-unfriendly rule-changes that follow on major environmental and human calamities of a certain variety, we are building our company's ongoing resilience well into the future," said CEO Voser in yesterday's lunchtime pre-AGM address to top management of Royal Dutch Shell.

After noting that Shell is the largest oil producer in the Niger Delta, which is Africa's equivalent of the Mississippi River Delta—the largest wetland in Africa, and the third-largest drainage area on the continent—Voser outlined the company's rationale for the move.

"Despite our company's measured ongoing efforts to operate within a potential international rule-book as we deliver shareholder value, we have not always done very well. Every year since 1969, oil operations in the Niger Delta have spilled as much oil as the 1989 Exxon Valdez. Neither the Delta itself, nor the prospective legal environment, can tolerate that sort of stress. To avoid serious consequences for Shell's viability, we must react proactively to past, present and potential future threats to people, the environment, and the future of the global community."

Last year, Nigeria had 2,000 active spills. These were certainly not all due to Shell's operations, but the amount of oil released into the wetlands has been steadily on the rise with production increases by a number of companies.

"Recent events in the Gulf of Mexico demand change," said Shell spokesperson Bernadette Hopma. "The expected hurricane of regulation and policy change across industry, resulting from the negligent practices by one pair of companies especially, means that all of us need to try to push harder in the interests of long-term survival. Shell will therefore distinguish ourselves by being the first oil company in history to cease taking risks with important delta ecosystems. The unique geology underlying these deltas have sustained our shareholders very well, but we must not let that kind of sustainability come at the the expense of the biodiversity, carbon absorption and O2 production that are their true worth."
Highlights of the Shell and SPDC CSR-ND Plan include:

* The immediate cessation of deepwater drilling off the coast of Nigeria until the conclusion of a full independent safety review by our local government partners with international oversight.
* The immediate cessation of gas flaring, with all open flares converted by 2012 into energy sources for tariffless local consumption.
* An investment of $8 billion by 2012 followed by $1 billion per annum for 10 years to attempt partial environmental restoration of the Niger Delta. The work force carrying out this mission will be 97% locally sourced and trained.
* A $45 million "truth and reconciliation process" fund to assess and award reparations for perceived injustices since 1958, when Shell first started commercially exporting oil from the region.
* The est ablishment of a $4 billion fund earmarked for compensation for perceived injustices.
* The establishment of a local stakeholder program that gives decision-making and veto capacity over new and ongoing projects to communities affected by Shell and SPDC projects worldwide, pending more formal control at the level of local government.
* A commitment to cap oil production at current levels until 2015, and then to gradually reduce production to 10 percent of current levels by 2050, while compensating for this reduction through the development of renewable energy sources.

"At long last the words 'stakeholder' and 'sustainable' will actually mean something," said CEO Voser. "CSR-ND means planning not just for short-term profits, but for what actually matters, including the viability of the planet itself."
Enquiries

Shell Media Relations
International, UK, European Press - Bernadette Hopma / Christopher Aganju (The Hague): +31 (0)70-3465963, media@shellcsr.com
US Press - Rita Rogoeveen / Francis Moira (Houston): +1 832-493-0508, +1 281-573-0987, usmedia@shellcsr.com
Notes

Royal Dutch Shell plc is incorporated in England and Wales, has its headquarters in The Hague and is listed on the London, Amsterdam, and New York stock exchanges. Shell companies have operations in more than 100 countries and territories with businesses including oil and gas exploration and production; production and marketing of Liquefied Natural Gas and Gas to Liquids; manufacturing, marketing and shipping of oil products and chemicals and renewable energy projects. For further information, visit http://www.shell.com
Cautionary note

The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this document "Shell", "Shell group" and "Royal Dutch Shell" are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words "we", "us" and "our" are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. ''Subsidiaries'', "Shell subsidiaries" and "Shell companies" as used in this document refer to companies in which Royal Dutch Shell either directly or indirectly has control, by having either a majority of the voting rights or the right to exercise a controlling influence. The companies in which Shell has significant influence but not control are referred to as "associated companies" or "associates" and companies in which Shell has joint control are referred to as "jointly controlled entities". In this document, associates and jointly controlled entities are also referred to as "equity-accounted investments". The term "Shell interest" is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect (for example, through our 34% shareholding in Woodside Petroleum Ltd.) ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.

This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management's current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management's expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ''anticipate'', ''believe'', ''could'', ''estimate'', ''expect'', ''in tend'', ''may'', ''plan'', ''objectives'', ''outlook'', ''probably'', ''project'', ''will'', ''seek'', ''target'', ''risks'', ''goals'', ''should'' and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this document, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; ( changes in demand for the Group's products; © currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserve estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) l egislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory effects arising from recategorisation of reserves; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this document are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell's Annual Report and Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (available at http://www.shell.com/investor and http://www.sec.gov - opens in new window). These factors also should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this press release, 17 May, 2010. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this document.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms in this document that SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website http://www.sec.gov - opens in new window. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.

CBS - 60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout part 1

CBS - 60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout part 2

Ed Jewett Wrote:CBS - 60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout part 1

CBS - 60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout part 2

Thank you, Wundermaus. Thank you, Sixty Minutes.

As I watched that report, five things came to mind.

The first is the book “Deep Survival”. See http://www.deepsurvival.com/ . I highly recommend it. It is in the bibliography for “Summon The Magic” and probably contributed to my own survival.

The second is the book “Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies” by systems-behavior expert Charles Perrow, also previously referenced in my work in disaster management; think Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Bhopal. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691004129

The third is the work done by Tim Gallwey in “The Inner Game of Work”, excerpted in my compendium called “Summon The Magic”,

“Sometimes we find ourselves functioning mindlessly, without focus, in a series of routines and unconscious reactions; things get done in default mode, a performance momentum that prevails automatically when conscious choice or remembrance of purpose is missing. It is Self 1's unconscious, mechanistic way of doing things, like a billiard ball's momentum that has movement but not the freedom and purpose that creates successful outcomes. There is a simple 4-step technique we can use to disconnect from our tunnel vision to restore mobility and
purpose, to disengage from the demands of the immediate situation and step back for a momentary change in perspective. It's called STOP.”

For a short excerpt on the aspects of “step back, think, organize your thoughts, and proceed”, drop me a note.

The fourth is the work of Leonard Marcus, Ph.D.

““One of the major sources for conflict in any system, but especially those preparing to or actually responding to an emergency, is the conflict between power and expertise.”

“If people are not paying attention to one another in the planning and preparation phase, they are less likely to do so during an actual emergency."

See pages 9-11 in “Coalescing Effective Community Disaster Response: Simulation and Virtual Communities of Practice”. December 2005 www.iaem.com/documents/SimsandVCOPs1.pdf

Air Tests from the Louisiana Coast Reveal Human Health Threats from the Oil Disaster

May 17th, 2010 Via: Institute for Southern Studies:
The media coverage of the BP oil disaster to date has focused largely on the threats to wildlife, but the latest evaluation of air monitoring data shows a serious threat to human health from airborne chemicals emitted by the ongoing deepwater gusher.
Today the Louisiana Environmental Action Network released its analysis of air monitoring test results by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s air testing data comes from Venice, a coastal community 75 miles south of New Orleans in Louisiana’s Plaquemines Parish.
The findings show that levels of airborne chemicals have far exceeded state standards and what’s considered safe for human exposure.
For instance, hydrogen sulfide has been detected at concentrations more than 100 times greater than the level known to cause physical reactions in people. Among the health effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure are eye and respiratory irritation as well as nausea, dizziness, confusion and headache.
The concentration threshold for people to experience physical symptoms from hydrogen sulfide is about 5 to 10 parts per billion. But as recently as last Thursday, the EPA measured levels at 1,000 ppb. The highest levels of airborne hydrogen sulfide measured so far were on May 3, at 1,192 ppb.
Testing data also shows levels of volatile organic chemicals that far exceed Louisiana’s own ambient air standards. VOCs cause acute physical health symptoms including eye, skin and respiratory irritation as well as headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea and confusion.
Louisiana’s ambient air standard for the VOC benzene, for example, is 3.76 ppb, while its standard for methylene chloride is 61.25 ppb. Long-term exposure to airborne benzene has been linked to cancer, while the EPA considers methylene chloride a probable carcinogen.
Air testing results show VOC concentrations far above these state standards. On May 6, for example, the EPA measured VOCs at levels of 483 ppb. The highest levels detected to date were on April 30, at 3,084 ppb, following by May 2, at 3,416 ppb.

http://oilspill.labucketbrigade.org/

Interactive Incident Tracking Map


If you are experiencing health effects related to the oil spill, contact the Louisiana Poison Center: 1-800-222-1222. The Poison Center is staffed 24-hours a day and can provide medical management advice.

Gulf Oil Spill May Reach North Carolina Islands, Miami Beach

By Tom Brown
May 14, 2010
Crude from the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill could eventually slosh ashore on Miami Beach or North Carolina's barrier islands, if it connects with a powerful sea current, an oceanographer said Tuesday. Robert Weisberg, a physical oceanographer at the University of South Florida, told a conference call the so-called Loop Current that sweeps around the Gulf was poised to connect with the spreading oil slick.
Once "entrainment'' occurs, he said, the oil would be pulled quickly south along Florida's Gulf coast and out into the Florida Straits, between the United States and Cuba.
"Exactly when the oil will enter the Loop Current at the surface is unknown but it appears to be imminent,'' Weisberg said, referring to the prevailing current in the Gulf.
Advertisement



"It could be days or it could be longer but it looks like it's going to happen, and it looks like it's going to happen now sooner than later,'' he said.
However, depending on local winds, Florida's southwest beaches and the Florida Keys, along with coral reefs and the fragile ecosystem of the Everglades, could be spared from the oil slick, Weisberg said.
That is because ocean circulation models show it heading out to sea, past the Dry Tortugas islands, before it is caught up in the Gulf Stream and makes its way up the U.S. East Coast, he said.
"Once it's at the entrance to the Florida Straits it's only another week or so before it could be in the vicinity of Miami or Palm Beach and one more week or so until it could be as far north as Cape Hatteras,'' Weisberg said.
Asked about the possibility of the oil entering the Loop Current, a spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the agency had no immediate forecast of this.
"As far as the Florida Loop Current (goes), our predictions go to 72 hours out and right now the predictions are not (for) an effect on Florida at this moment,'' she said.
Weisberg said whether or not the oil got into shallow water on its possible ocean journey would be totally dependent on winds.
"Whether or not the oil makes landfall anywhere will depend on what the winds are doing at that particular point in time ... It's likely that there could be oil on the beaches in Miami but we really can't say for sure right now.''
(Editing by Pascal Fletcher)
Copyright 2010 Reuters.

Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/sou...z0oDLeAlgO

Socialist Party USA: BP Oil Spill a Crime not a Disaster

May 16th, 2010 · 7 Comments

by the Socialist Party USA National Action Committee- May 9, 2010
Language matters, especially at times of crisis. The explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig that released hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico has been called a “disaster” by many. It isn’t a disaster. It is a crime. Early estimates are that the spill will cost more than $14 billion to clean, will devastate local fisheries for generations and will result in untold damage to all parts of the ecology in the Gulf region. Corporations are the criminals here – British Petroleum (BP) and, a company that is no stranger to corporate crime, Halliburton. This massive spill highlights both the need for an immediate transition to clean energy sources and the need to apply democratic controls to inherently criminal multinational corporations.
The clean up of the area must begin immediately, it must be conducted with the consultation and best interest of local fishermen and environmentalists and it must be entirely paid for by BP. In addition, BP should be made to pay into a public fund that would be used for the continued clean up and preservation of the local ecology. Any failure to meet these demands should result in the seizure of the US holdings of BP and its banning from conducting business in this country. Anything less than this should be considered as a betrayal to the best interests of residents of region and the broader international community.
This massive oil spill demonstrates the urgent need to transition to clean renewable energy forms. Such a transition will not likely take place inside of a capitalist system where short-term profiteering dominates the allocation of capital funds. BP has fought the federal government on safety procedures that might have minimized the impact of the most recent spill for more than a decade. CEOs do not get bonuses based upon ensuring future generation’s access to resources, clean air, or a hospitable climate. The purpose of corporations is not to oversee the welfare of the people of the world, but to make money. Environmental damage is not factored into the corporate calculations of costs and profits. Instead, environmental damage is viewed as the collateral damage of the free market in operation.
Not surprisingly, BP had a partner in this crime – Halliburton. Fresh off their stint bilking US taxpayers during the war in Iraq, the company was contracted by BP to cement the drill, oil well and pipe into the ocean floor. The Los Angeles Times reports that this task was completed a mere 20 hours before the well exploded. Not surprisingly, Halliburton has also been accused of being responsible for another oil spill in the Timor Sea last August after completing a similar cementing job. Here was see the logic of capitalism in full display. BP wants to take the cheapest bid for the job and Halliburton wants to pocket the most money with the least costs. All with no mind paid to the environment, local fishermen, or the future of the planet.
Meanwhile, politicians from the Democratic and Republican parties serve as willing accomplices to the corporations. In 2008, the McCain/Palin ticket was run on the suicidal slogan of “Drill Baby Drill!” The campaign of now President Barack Obama softly dismissed these claims, but once in office, designed a plan to allow oil exploration off the coastline of North America. The current spill exposes the bankruptcy of Obama’s drilling plan and the futility of his cap-and-trade market based proposals to address carbon emissions. Corporations will continue to pollute the environment as long as they have political partners who will allow them to evade the desires of the vast majority of people in this country for clean energy and a safe environment.
The Socialist Party USA offers a clear eco-socialist alternative to the proposals of the two parties. By establishing a system of public ownership and democratic control over our natural resources, we will ensure that corporations are prevented from exploiting and spoiling our environment. By creating strong enforceable laws regarding endangered species that focus on habitat-centered protection, we propose to begin repairing the damage done by capitalist production. Finally, we intend to bring the United States back into line with the world by signing on to international environmental treaties and participating and supporting grassroots environmental justice efforts. In short, our goal is to create a cleaner, more democratic future where environmental preservation, instead of profit motive, becomes a primary part of economic decision-making.
Capitalist profit-motive will be the death of our planet. Democratic socialism, operating on an international basis, can save our fragile ecosystem and our health by defending the rights of future generations to clean water, clean air and a democratically run society.


http://www.independentpoliticalreport.co...-disaster/

It is true. It is a crime and this event need to be described in these words. It is after all only the truth. And as stated in your earlier post it is not a spill. I spill my drink sometimes and I clean it with a quick wipe down of the table/floor etc. It is a hemorrhage, a disaster, a catastrophe and a crime.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Gulf Oil Being Pulled into Loop Current



The oil is now being pulled into the loop current.
As AP notes:
University of Florida's Ocean Circulation Group provides the following projections:









For background on the loop current and the oil spill, see this.

Washington-Industry Complicity in the Gulf Disaster

by Stephen Lendman / May 18th, 2010
It’s common practice in America. A government-Wall Street cabal caused the financial crisis and subsequent fallout. Now debated financial reform is a stealth scheme to let bankers self-regulate. Rogue Democrats rammed through health reform to ration care and enrich corporate providers. Defense, technology, and related firms profit hugely from permanent wars, and a regulatory-free Washington — energy industry alliance lies at the root of the Gulf disaster, by far America’s greatest ever environmental calamity, worsening daily with no fail-safe, or perhaps any, way to stop it.
It’s too big even for the major media to ignore; to wit, on May 15, New York Times writer Justin Gillis headlined, “Giant Plumes of Oil Found Forming Under the Gulf of Mexico,” saying:
Alarming reports show “Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots. The discovery” shows that BP and the Obama administration lied about the incident’s severity, and they’re still lying.
According to University of Georgia researcher Samantha Joye, “There’s a shocking amount of oil in the deep water, relative to” what’s visible on the surface, the tip of a big and growing iceberg, this one containing oil. “There’s a tremendous amount of oil in multiple layers, three or four or five layers deep in the water column.”
Worse still, it’s depleting Gulf oxygen, prompting fears about killing sea life in the effected areas and permanently destroying the livelihood of area fisherman who supply 20% of the nation’s supply.
Already since April 20, oxygen levels are down 30%, a pace that if maintained “could draw (it) down to very low levels that are dangerous to animals in a couple of months. This is alarming.”
Even the Times admits the daily flow may be as high as 80,000 barrels (3.4 million gallons or the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill around every three days). Yet the Obama administration and BP still claim only 5,000 barrels a day, and company officials won’t let scientists use sophisticated instruments to measure the output more accurately on the ocean floor. Clearly they have something to hide, but there’s no way to suppress the growing ecological devastation once clear evidence substantiates it.
The National Institute for Undersea Science head, Ray Highsmith, worries that rapid oxygen depletion may create huge dead zones, especially on the seafloor. He called this:Despite industry and administration denials, these type events are foreseeable, often preventable, or at least their severity under proper regulatory scrutiny, what’s not in place nor in prospect with enough teeth to matter. The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service (MMS) long ago left industry giants free to pollute and spill, at most assessing occasional pocket change fines.
In the weeks preceding the Gulf incident, numerous red flags were apparent but ignored. On May 10, Science Insider writer Richard Kerr headlined, “Gulf Spill: Did Pesky Hydrates Trigger the Blowout? saying:
“Methane-trapping ice of the kind that has frustrated the first attempt to contain (the spill) may have been the root cause of the blowout… according to University of California Berkeley Professor Robert Bea (head of the school’s Center for Catastrophic Risk Management), who has extensive access to BP plc documents on the incident. (If so), the US oil and gas industry would have to tread even more lightly” in its offshore search for energy.
With 55 years experience assessing risks, Bea said “there was concern at this location for gas hydrates. We’re out to the (water depth) where it ought to be there.” The deeper the water, the greater the pressure, and according to Bea, gas hydrates likely contaminated the cement encasing the well.
Halliburton knew the risk that let natural gas shoot up a riser pipe and explode, but claimed a new chemical cement would be resistant to methane hydrate-caused damage. Bea, however, believes it was tainted with the same slushy gas hydrate that scuttled BP’s plan to contain the spill with a giant dome and may frustrate other attempted solutions, no matter what company officials claim.
He explained the chemicals used likely emitted enough heat to thaw gases from their methane hydrate form that shot them up the bore and riser. Concrete well plugs should have blocked them, but the final one wasn’t installed.
The explosion followed a seawater geyser shooting 240 feet in the air, then a second eruption of mud, gas and water. Its gas component ignited, and afterwards a firestorm, uncontainable because the blowout preventer failed.
On May 14, John Byrne’s Raw Story article titled, “Oil spill could go on for years, experts say” cites a worst case scenario from two of them. According to Matthew Simmons, retired investment bank Simmons & Company chairman, specializing in “the entire spectrum of the energy industry,” BP and US military engineers have no idea how to stop the flow, calling efforts to plug it a “joke.”
Incoming American Association of Petroleum Geologists head David Resink addressed the enormity of the spill, saying:
“You’re talking about a reservoir that could have tens of millions of barrels in it.” At the current spill rate, it “would take years to deplete,” and already appears ten times or more greater than earlier reports, now compounded by the administration leaving BP in charge of cleanup efforts with no oversight of its work.
Earlier the company was exempted from an environmental impact study and spill contingency plan, both of which contributed to the growing disaster. Now with a real emergency, untested blowout preventers are still used, and no new regulations are expected or enforcement of existing ones, despite hundreds of operating Gulf rigs (some in deeper waters than Deepwater Horizon), any of which might leak, perhaps explode, and release more contamination.
In addition, none have remote-control shut-off switches, an acoustic device that operates automatically to prevent small problems from becoming greater, and the administration keeps granting “categorical exclusions” (27 in total), exempting Big Oil from environmental impact studies.
The Center for Biological Diversity’s Kieran Suckling called it “inconceivable that MMS (regulators, aware of the worst environmental disaster in US history, could) then rubber stamp new BP drilling permits based on (its) patently false statements that an oil spill cannot occur and would not be dangerous if it did.”
On May 15, Skytruth.org reported that the “COSMO-SkyMed radar image taken yesterday is somewhat ominous,” showing a 4,922 square mile slick, much larger than two days earlier, and that’s only what’s visible on the surface. “And we think we’ve discovered an unrelated leak from a nearby platform that was installed back in 1984. A small, dark slick appears next to this platform on radar satellite images from April 26, May 8, and May 13″ plus the latest one. It’s not major but shows a chronic unaddressed problem. In this case, one that needs to be checked to assure it doesn’t worsen.
On May 11, Public Citizen’s Tyson Slocum, Director of its Energy Program, called on Congress to enact reforms, specifically HR 5214: Big Oil Prevention Act of 2010 “To require oil polluters to pay the full cost of oil spills, and for other purposes.” It would increase their liability from a meaningless $75 million to $10 billion, but, in fact, should legislate no limit — in other words, “Your Spill, Your Bill,” the entire cost with no government bailouts.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R. Alaska), introduced S. 3309, making consumers liable for a like amount through an 8-cent per barrel tax on domestic oil and 9 cents for imported.
New regulations are vitally needed to require tested blowout preventers, shut-off switches, MMS enforcement instead of rubber-stamping industry demands, or perhaps shifting its responsibility to the EPA, OCHA, or a new body, independent of industry officials and their dominance — a tall order, but anything less assures new disasters compounding old ones.
More still in the way of huge fines, denials of new leases, making misconduct this grave a criminal offense, banning new drilling until all new measures are in place and enforced, and prohibiting all new offshore drilling, leasing, and permitting, especially in deep water because of the unacceptable risks, now apparent.
Slocum adds that “we should be aggressively developing forms of renewable energy,” the obvious solution not taken, but it’s “the only way to reduce the chances of a repeat of this nightmarish disaster that gets worse by the day,” with no end of it in sight no matter what BP claims or does. It’s an inveterate liar and can’t be believed.
As for its claiming a successful tube insertion drawing oil to a surface ship, some healthy skepticism is in order. Most likely, it’s a PR stunt, not a solution to halt most oil from spilling, spreading, and contaminating because no one’s sure how to stop it.
Slocum also urges car owners to boycott BP for at least three months.
It says, “Send a clear message to BP by boycotting its gas and retail store products. Don’t spend a cent of your hard-earned money to feed the bottom line of a corporation that has a sordid history of negligence, willfully violates environment regulations, and is spewing thousands and thousands of barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico,” that may cause permanent widespread contamination and an end to the way of life for thousands area residents.
Chemical Dispersants: Solving or Compounding the Disaster?
Environment scientists fear using them poses more risks than solutions, and according to the EPA:It’s why Defenders of Wildlife Richard Charter (a marine biology expert) says using them is “a giant experiment (because their) chemical toxicity (in) many ways is worse than oil.”
BP is using two Corexit dispersants, not rated effective or safe for marine life, yet EPA approved them, risking far greater ecological damage.
For competitive reasons, Corexit won’t disclose what’s in them, but a worker safety sheet for one says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.
Mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other additives, they work by breaking up an oil slick’s surface tension to make it more water soluble, according to the National Academy of Sciences. But once dispersed, they generally sink or stay suspended in deep water, while treated oil can collect on the seafloor where shellfish and other organisms feed, in turn become food for other sea life, then humans.
What fish and animals eat, we do, including all toxins they ingest. It’s why the National Academy of Sciences warns about “insufficient understanding of the fate (and effects) of dispersed oil in aquatic ecosystems,” whatever the benefits like preventing less of it contaminating coastlines.
Because of the spill’s size over a vast area, BP has available around one-third of the world’s dispersant supply, so imagine the amount toxicity to be unleashed, with its clear risks to sea life and humans. Former University of Alaska marine conservation professor Richard Steiner and other experts wonder how much the public is being deceived by coverup and denial. The combination of oil and dispersant toxins will kill millions of organisms they contaminate, what Richard Charter explains saying:
“You are trying to mitigate the volume of the spill with dispersant, but the price you pay is increased toxicity,” or, in fact, making a horrific disaster worse.
Dispersants also endanger coral reefs, several within reach of the spill, including Flower Bank Gardens 75-115 miles off Louisiana and Texas, and Florida Middle Grounds off the Florida panhandle with their rich diversity of marine life.
As for BP and the Obama administration, dispersant use is all gain and little pain, the idea being to break up as much oil as possible, let it sink, be out of sight and declare success, when, in fact, we may end up with a far greater catastrophe that’s our problem, not theirs. That’s how a business-government cabal works, stealing our wealth, civil liberties, and health for profit and dominance while claiming they’re on our side.
A Final Comment
On April 30, Defenders of Wildlife Richard Charter issued the following statement, along with DW’s executive VP Jamie Rappaport Clark, hoping the Gulf disaster is a wake up call to halt dangerous drilling and protect the environment.
“In a catastrophe that imperils the entire Gulf Coast (and perhaps beyond), offshore oil drilling has again proven to be unreliable and unsafe. As officials gamble with untested means to stop the flow, oil continues to gush into the Gulf and move towards our beaches, coastal communities, wildlife habitat and fisheries. Wildlife refuges and estuaries in Louisiana, Mississippi, (Alabama), and possibly the coast of Florida, along with thousands of migrating birds, sea turtles, whales and dolphins, river otters and many other species lie potentially in the path of the spill. The extent of the environmental and economic impacts of the spill have yet to be seen, but clearly raise grave concerns for any expansion of drilling off of our coasts in the future.”
DW also said since 2006, Gulf rigs have experienced 509 fires, including nine major ones that killed at least two people and seriously injured another dozen, according to the Minerals Management Services. With this type record and the current disaster, tolerating operations this hazardous endanger the environment, humanity, and all planetary life. If that’s not reason enough to stop them, what is?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening. Read other articles by Stephen.
This article was posted on Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 at 8:00am and is filed under Boycott, Environment, Obituary, Oil, Gas, Pipelines.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/washin...more-17260