Deep Politics Forum

"U.S. State Department spokeswoman Virginia Staab said U.S. diplomats in Havana delivered a note to communist-ruled Cuba's foreign ministry on Wednesday informing it about the oil spill and what was known about the slick's projected movement."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1921...arketsNews

At What Cost? BP Spill Responders Told to Forgo Precautionary Health Measures in Cleanup

Submitted by Chip on Wed, 2010-05-19 17:10

• Corporatism and Fascism
  
• Energy
  
• Environment
  
• Healthcare
  
• Human Rights
  

At What Cost? BP Spill Responders Told to Forgo Precautionary Health Measures in Cleanup
By Riki Ott | Huffington Post
Local fishermen hired to work on BP's uncontrolled oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico are scared and confused. Fishermen here and in other small communities dotting the southern marshes and swamplands of Barataria Bay are getting sick from the working on the cleanup, yet BP is assuring them they don't need respirators or other special protection from the crude oil, strong hydrocarbon vapors, or chemical dispersants being sprayed in massive quantities on the oil slick.
Fishermen have never seen the results from the air-quality monitoring patches some of them wear on their rain gear when they are out booming and skimming the giant oil slick. However, more and more fishermen are suffering from bad headaches, burning eyes, persistent coughs, sore throats, stuffy sinuses, nausea, and dizziness. They are starting to suspect that BP is not telling them the truth.
And based on air monitoring conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Louisiana coastal community, those workers seem to be correct. The EPA findings show that airborne levels of toxic chemicals like hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds like benzene, for instance, now far exceed safety standards for human exposure.
For two weeks, I've been in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama sharing stories from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which devastated the community I lived and commercially fished in, with everyone from fishermen and women to local mayors to state governors and the crush of international media.
During the 1989 cleanup in Alaska, thousands of workers had what Exxon medical doctors called, "the Valdez Crud," and dismissed as simple colds and flu. Fourteen years later, I followed the trail of sick workers through the maze of court records, congressional records, obituaries, and media stories, and made hundreds of phone calls. I found a different story. As one former cleanup worker put it, "I thought I had the Valdez Crud in 1989. I didn't think I'd have it for fourteen years." Read more.
0

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/ has excellent coverage and discussion. Rather than re-posting, just go there and scroll down.

Heavy oil hits Louisiana shore



(Reuters) - The first heavy oil from a giant Gulf of Mexico spill sloshed ashore in fragile Louisiana marshlands on Wednesday and part of the mess entered a powerful current that could carry it to Florida and beyond.
Green Business
The developments underscored the gravity of the situation as British energy giant BP Plc raced to capture more crude gushing from a ruptured well a mile beneath the surface. The spill is threatening an ecological and economic disaster along the U.S. Gulf Coast and beyond.
"The day that we have all been fearing is upon us today," Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said after a boat tour to the southernmost point of the Mississippi River estuary.
"This wasn't tar balls. This wasn't sheen. This is heavy oil in our wetlands," he told a news conference. "It's already here but we know more is coming."
Officials had previously reported debris in the form of tar balls, or light surface "sheen" coming ashore in outlying parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
The marshes are the nurseries for shrimp, oysters, crabs and fish that make Louisiana the leading producer of commercial seafood in the continental United States and a top destination for recreational anglers. The United States has already imposed a large no-fishing zone in waters in the Gulf seen affected by the spill.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government's top weather forecaster said a small portion of light sheen from the giant oil slick had entered the Loop Current, which could carry the oil down to the Florida Keys, Cuba and even up the U.S. East Coast.
BP, its reputation on the line in an environmental disaster that could eclipse the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, has marked some progress at siphoning some of the oil from the well, which ruptured after an April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 workers.
BP said it is now siphoning about 3,000 barrels (126,000 gallons/477,000 liters) a day of oil, out of what the company estimated was a 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons/795,000 liters) a day gusher. The company could begin injecting mud into the well as early as Sunday in a bid to permanently plug the leak.
'NOT ROCKET SCIENCE'
A U.S. congressional panel heard testimony from experts who said the spill rate could be many-fold larger.
"This is not rocket science," said Steve Wereley, associate mechanical engineering professor at Purdue University, who pegged the spill's volume at about 70,000 barrels per day. "All outside estimates are considerably higher than BP's."
BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said on Wednesday its 5,000-barrels-a-day estimate was "highly" uncertain.
BP shares closed down nearly 2 percent in London on Wednesday, extending recent steep losses.
Political fall-out also continues. The U.S. Interior Department said on Wednesday its embattled Minerals Management Service will be broken up into three separate divisions, as part of an effort to restructure the way the department handles offshore energy production.
Top Democrats in the U.S. Senate urged President Barack Obama to order immediate, enhanced inspections of all offshore oil rigs and production platforms.
And another company entered the fray. Schlumberger Ltd, the world's largest oilfield services company, said it had a crew on the Deepwater Horizon that departed only hours before the explosion and fire that engulfed the rig.
The company, which had not previously revealed its work on the Horizon, said in an e-mailed statement it performed wireline services for BP on the rig in March and April, completing the last services on April 15 and leaving a crew on standby in case any more were needed.
Florida's tourism gained a respite when tar balls found on Keys beaches were shown not to come from the Gulf of Mexico oil leak, but officials said the $60 billion-a-year industry was already taking a beating from the month-old spill.
The Coast Guard said laboratory tests had shown that 50 tar balls found this week on the Lower Keys -- a mecca for divers, fishermen and beach goers -- were not from the Gulf spill.
'NOT OUT OF THE WOODS'
Local tourism authorities said damage had already been inflicted by the negative publicity linked to the spill.
"Even if we don't get even a gumball-sized tar ball down here in the next month, there has already been significant perception damage to Florida Keys and Florida tourism," said Andy Newman of the Monroe Tourism Development Council.
"We understand we are not out of the woods yet, that there's more oil out there," he said.
Tar balls have also been found on the Texas coast and were being tested, but a Coast Guard official said it was "highly unlikely those tar balls in Texas are related to this spill."
A Louisiana agency said a Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, an endangered species in the state, had been brought in and cleaned of oil after biologists discovered it off the coast.
The spill has also prompted rare talks between U.S. and Cuban officials in Havana, with forecasters predicting that oil could reach Cuban shores.
Wildlife and environmental groups accused BP of holding back information on the real size and impact of the growing slick, and urged Obama to order a more direct federal government role in the spill response.
In prepared testimony for a congressional committee, National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger said BP had failed to disclose results from its tests of chemical dispersants used on the spill. He also said it had tried to withhold video showing the true magnitude of the leak.
"The federal government should immediately take over all environmental monitoring, testing and public safety protection from BP," he said. "The Gulf of Mexico is a crime scene and the perpetrator cannot be left in charge of assessing the damage."
The spill has forced Obama to put a hold on plans to expand offshore oil drilling and has raised concerns about planned oil operations in other areas like the Arctic.


There is also a slide show of 25 photos at the link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6430AR20100520

Ed Jewett Wrote:At What Cost? BP Spill Responders Told to Forgo Precautionary Health Measures in Cleanup

Submitted by Chip on Wed, 2010-05-19 17:10

• Corporatism and Fascism
  
• Energy
  
• Environment
  
• Healthcare
  
• Human Rights
  

At What Cost? BP Spill Responders Told to Forgo Precautionary Health Measures in Cleanup
By Riki Ott | Huffington Post
Local fishermen hired to work on BP's uncontrolled oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico are scared and confused. Fishermen here and in other small communities dotting the southern marshes and swamplands of Barataria Bay are getting sick from the working on the cleanup, yet BP is assuring them they don't need respirators or other special protection from the crude oil, strong hydrocarbon vapors, or chemical dispersants being sprayed in massive quantities on the oil slick.
Fishermen have never seen the results from the air-quality monitoring patches some of them wear on their rain gear when they are out booming and skimming the giant oil slick. However, more and more fishermen are suffering from bad headaches, burning eyes, persistent coughs, sore throats, stuffy sinuses, nausea, and dizziness. They are starting to suspect that BP is not telling them the truth.
And based on air monitoring conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a Louisiana coastal community, those workers seem to be correct. The EPA findings show that airborne levels of toxic chemicals like hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds like benzene, for instance, now far exceed safety standards for human exposure.
For two weeks, I've been in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama sharing stories from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which devastated the community I lived and commercially fished in, with everyone from fishermen and women to local mayors to state governors and the crush of international media.
During the 1989 cleanup in Alaska, thousands of workers had what Exxon medical doctors called, "the Valdez Crud," and dismissed as simple colds and flu. Fourteen years later, I followed the trail of sick workers through the maze of court records, congressional records, obituaries, and media stories, and made hundreds of phone calls. I found a different story. As one former cleanup worker put it, "I thought I had the Valdez Crud in 1989. I didn't think I'd have it for fourteen years." Read more.
0

Many of the chemicals that make up crude oil are toxic - some are carcinogenic. Who are 'they' kidding.....! Short-term exposure to humans is probably not a problem, but any extended expose will increase the risks of harm in a non-linear way. Sadly, it is marine life and organisms that live in the intertidal zones that will suffer most and first. The plankton [both plant and animal varieties] - the bottom of the food chain will certainly be the first to effected in a big way....which will cause either a die-off and/or bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxics up the food-chain. Thanks to BP, Halliburton and the rest of the gang...... If a corporation can be a person, why can't the rape of Mother Earth be a crime?

Watch: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...#post21727

Latest Key Developments


Independent Oil & Gas Producers Sue Subsidiaries Of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and British Petroleum For Conspiring With SemGroup To Defraud Them
Monday, 17 May 2010 12:45pm EDT

More than 80 independent Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas oil and gas producers announced that they have filed lawsuits alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. subsidiary J. Aron & Co. and British Petroleum subsidiary BP Oil Supply Company conspired with SemGroup to defraud them and convert millions of dollars worth of the producers' crude oil and gas that was delivered to SemGroup prior to the company's 2008 bankruptcy. In addition to BP and J. Aron, ConocoPhillips, Plains Marketing and numerous other oil and gas companies are named as defendants in lawsuits that were filed in Kansas and Oklahoma state courts. The lawsuits for the independent producer plaintiffs say they are owed millions of dollars for the crude oil and gas that the defendants took from SemGroup just as margin calls were rapidly driving the energy company toward its Chapter 11 filing in July 2008. The complaints allege that Goldman Sachs and J. Aron exploited their multilayered relationship with SemGroup in which they were the company's investment banker, offering agent, lender, and trading partner to take possession of the independent producers' oil and gas in violation of numerous state laws of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.



http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/ke...ymbol=GS.N


####


May 19, 2010

Media ignores Goldman Sachs' ties to Corexit dispersant

In a recent New York Times’ article “Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup”, journalist Paula Quinlan questions why BP is using the 100 % toxic, 54 percent effective dispersant Corexit to clean up the oil when twelve other dispersants proved more effective in EPA testing.
Quinlan only looks at part of the picture. She associates BP’s investment in Nalco and oil industry representation on the board as the main reasons that Corexit was used instead of Dispirsit, which EPA testing shows to be twice as effective and a third less toxic. Yes, BP is hedging its losses with the profit it will make with its investment in Nalco, but who else benefits?
Follow the money...and the money goes to Goldman Sachs and friends. Instead, Quinlan (or her editor) goes after Exxon.
In defense of the oil industry, it makes financial sense that Exxon and BP were the initial investors in this type of dispersant. It’s not surprising that oil executives sit on the board. I am not defending the toxicity of their product, the integrity of their board members or the likely Halliburton-stye billing process that will kick in when BP decides it is no longer responsible for the impact of the “very, very modest” oil blowout that is already twice as large as Exxon-Valdez and is far more devastating economically and let the bankrupt US Treasury cover the bills. (To be fair, BP has accepted full responsibility and within days of the accident and without a court order, BP gave the states of Louisiana, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi each $25 million to help with the immediate damage.)
But BP’s investment in Nalco is the token diversion. The real players are Goldman Sachs and their fellow Sexually Inadequate Masters of the Universe, the Blackstone Group and Apollo Management.
From Nalco’s website:
2003
USFilter and Ondeo Nalco enter into a strategic partnership providing equipment, chemicals and service to industrial customers.

The Blackstone Group, Apollo Management L. P. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners buy Ondeo Nalco.

Nalco Company, a recognized symbol of strength around the world, unveils new logo.

Never mind item three, the logo change executives consider one of the three most important events in Nalco’s 2003 history, hence its prominence on the Nalco corporate history webpage. Look at item number two.

If for no other reason that Goldman Sachs is newsworthy, I think that their $4.3 billion purchase of Nalco in 2003 would be worth mentioning, especially in light of their short trade on TransOcean. The shorts are another missing item in the business section of The Times, as is any information on Goldman’s role in the 9-11 put options on American and United for that matter. “All the lies that are fit to print...” on their banner would be more apropos. Seems someone is treating the demon children at GS with kid gloves.

While the article has some weaknesses, the publicity should help ebb the use of the more toxic dispersants as BP succumbs to more public pressure as more and more people become informed as to the dangers of dispersants.

My guess is that within days of the New York Times article appearing in print, BP will order Dispirsit from U.S. Polychemical Corp., if only to limit further negative publicity on the use of dispersants. Possibly the information on the health risks associated with dispersants will cause employees at the contamination site to demand a safer alternative.

As for Goldman Sachs, I find it interesting that they have such a large stake in Nalco. It might be just another coincidence, like their short on TransOcean. I also question why the article singles out Exxon, which helped found the company that was bought out by Goldman Sachs, Apollo and the Blackstone Group. Why are the profits that Goldman Sachs is receiving from the sale of these toxic dispersants not part of the article? How much will GS lose if BP stops using Corexit? Is this not more relevant than Exxon?


Video of the underwater oil plume. The blowout continues despite the insertion of the tube. The force is incredible.


Video at link:
http://www.picassodreams.com/picasso_dre...rsant.html

Nice video...."this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends...not with a bang,.....but a whimper" :captain:

Quote:She associates BP’s investment in Nalco and oil industry representation on the board as the main reasons that Corexit was used instead of Dispirsit, which EPA testing shows to be twice as effective and a third less toxic. Yes, BP is hedging its losses with the profit it will make with its investment in Nalco, but who else benefits?
Follow the money...and the money goes to Goldman Sachs and friends.

Vampyre - definition: (folklore) a corpse that rises at night to drink the blood of the living.

:mad: