Louisiana deep oil drilling disaster

[Jan Klimkowski]

So, BP may be "taken over".

Looks like a variant on the Bhopal and Dalkon Shield scams all over again:

Shares in BP rose more than 5% in early trading today as the oil firm said the latest attempt to cap the gushing well in the Gulf of Mexico is proceeding "as planned".

In an update on the progress of work to try to cap the damaged well, which began over the weekend, BP said it removed the original cap on the failed blow-out preventer on Saturday afternoon, local time. While that means oil is now gushing unhindered into the sea, the next step is to install what BP calls a "capping stack" that should contain the whole flow.

The update, which put the cost of the clean-up at $3.5bn (£2.33bn) so far, comes amid speculation that BP could be facing a hostile takeover from a rival firm, which has also helped push BP shares higher. They were up 17.75p at 382.55p, having earlier touched 386p. The company is vulnerable, having seen its share price plunge since the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11 people on 20 April. Weekend reports suggested the Obama administration has told ExxonMobil – the world's largest oil firm – that it would not stand in the way of a takeover bid for the stricken British rival. A merger would create a group with a stock market value of $400bn .

Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, is only too aware of the precarious position of his company and has spent the past two weeks trying to sign so-called white knight investors from among some of the world's most wealthy sovereign states. He is understood to have met with the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) and the Kuwait Investment Office, a current investor.

The update also comes as a presidential commission appointed to determine the causes of the disaster, holds its first public hearing in New Orleans later today. It will review industry safety standards and government regulations. William Reilly, the commission's co-chair, who led the Environmental Protection Agency under President George Bush Sr, said he also wants to look at the response to the spill. The public hearing will hear from coast guard officials and BP executives about the progress of the clean-up effort.


Diversionary tactics

While the original cap only caught about half of the estimated 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil spewing into the gulf a day, the new cap will divert the entire oil flow into a containment system so it can be disposed of. As of Saturday, BP said the total volume of oil that has been collected or flared by the existing system was roughly 749,100 barrels. The new system that it is introducing, which includes the new cap, should be able to deal with 60,000 to 80,000 barrels a day and should be ready by the end of the month.

But capping the well and collecting the oil is not going to solve the problem in the long-term. Actually halting the flow of oil relies upon two relief wells that BP has been digging since May and are designed to join up with the original well, about 18,000ft under the sea floor.

The first relief well reached a depth of 17,810ft on 11 July, while the second well is at 16,000ft. The plan is to intercept the original well and kill the flow of oil and gas from the reservoir by pumping specialised heavy fluids down the relief well. If all goes to plan, the process will begin in the first half of August.

Meanwhile, BP has been collecting oil on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico in a process that currently involves 46,000 people, more than 6,400 vessels and dozens of aircraft.

In total, about 720,238 barrels (30.25m gallons) of oily liquid have been collected. In addition, a total of 286 controlled burns have been carried out, removing an estimated 238,095 barrels of oil from the sea's surface. The total length of containment booms currently deployed as part of efforts to prevent oil from reaching the coast is now more than 3.1m ft (587.12 miles).

BP added that as of 10 July, almost 105,000 claims for damages had been submitted and more than 52,000 payments had been made, totalling almost $165m.

The total cost of the clean-up exercise is currently $3.5bn, up from the $3.12bn announced on 5 July. That figure covers the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the gulf states, claims paid and federal costs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/...er-repairs

[Jan Klimkowski]

Here are the key corporate precedents:

Closing BP's Escape Routes

By Robert Weissman
June 15, 2010

BP generates enough cash to absorb its liabilities from the oil gusher
in the Gulf of Mexico.

But that doesn't mean it will.

One of the benefits of the corporate form is that it gives giant
corporations the ability to escape liability. BP may or may not choose
to capitalize on such escapes, but it would be foolish to presume that
it won't. That's why President Obama's call for the company to establish
a $20 billion escrow account is such a positive and needed -- if still
inadequate -- step.

Consider first the liabilities that BP may face. No one really knows
what the damage from the oil gusher or the overall costs to BP may
ultimately be. Some analysts are now throwing around numbers of $70
billion on the upper end -- but it's not hard to see how the ultimate
cost to BP could rise even higher.

The company faces civil fines of up to $3,000 per barrel of oil
polluting the ocean. If the gusher lasts for four months at 40,000
barrels a day, the fine alone could hit $14 billion. If it is found that
the actual oil flow is double that level, the fine could potentially
approach $30 billion -- more, if the gusher lasts for more than four
months.

Beyond the payments the company is making, it is going to face massive
lawsuits, with damages surely in the billions and quite possibly in the
tens of billions. On top of that, it may face a massive punitive damage
award. Exxon challenged a punitive damages award of $10 billion in the
Valdez case, and succeeded through appeals in dragging out payment for
20 years and lowering the amount to $500 million. But that was $500
million on top of compensatory damages of $500 million.

On top of all this, BP's brand -- just a couple months ago, the most
valued among oil companies -- is now ruined.

Still, as hard as it is to conceptualize, BP can afford to pay $70
billion. The company made $14 billion in profits in 2009, a bad year.
Before the Gulf disaster, it was on track to make much more in 2010.

BP may be able to pay $70 billion, but it surely doesn't want to. Even
as the company pledges again and again to cover all "legitimate" claims,
you can be sure that its attorneys are conjuring a variety of maneuvers
to avoid paying. Here are five approaches they must be considering:

1. The AH Robins/Dalkon Shield Bankruptcy Scam

A.H. Robins, the manufacturer of the defective Dalkon Shield
intrauterine device, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1985. Women who
were victims of the dangerous device received less compensation than
they otherwise would have. Meanwhile, with the company's otherwise
open-ended liability demarcated in the bankruptcy process, Robins' value
shot up. AHP (now part of Wyeth, itself now part of Pfizer) acquired the
company at a premium, with the Robins family making off with hundreds of
millions of dollars.

BP wouldn't follow the Robins' model exactly. The play for BP would not
be to declare bankruptcy for the parent company, but for BP America or
another subsidiary that could be tagged with the liability for the Gulf
of Mexico gusher.

In advance of such a move, BP might try to move assets out of the
designated subsidiary and into other subsidiaries in its vast network.
Such asset shifting is not permissible, and creditors would challenge
any such moves, if they could discover them. But using its labyrinthian
structure, BP might hope to evade the creditors.

Even without the asset shifting effort, bankruptcy for an affiliate
could prove attractive for BP.

2. The Union Carbide Disappearance

Union Carbide was the company responsible for the world's worst
industrial disaster. A gas escape from its chemical facility in Bhopal,
India killed many thousands (likely tens of thousands) and severely
injured tens of thousands more. After settling for a paltry amount with
the Indian government, Union Carbide disappeared as a standalone
company. It is now a subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

Says Dow: "Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal." Moreover, "the former
Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India, Ltd. (UCIL),
an Indian company, with shared ownership by Union Carbide Corporation,
the Indian government, and private investors. Union Carbide sold its
shares in UCIL in 1994, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India,
Ltd., which remains a significant Indian company today."

BP might conceivably be acquired by another oil major. Or, more likely,
it might just sell some or all of its U.S. subsidiaries. If the
liability cap in the Oil Pollution Act works to protect BP from legally
recoverable claims (perhaps less likely than has been reported, since
the cap does not apply to a spill caused by violation of applicable
federal rules), an acquiring company could simply state that it refuses
to make good on the liabilities that BP now says it will voluntarily
accept. A new company would also benefit from operating BP assets with a
new, uninjured brand name.

3. The Shell Company Game

A variant on the Union Carbide Disappearance gambit would involve
selling one or more subsidiaries' assets, but leaving the current
corporate structure in place. Liability would still attach to the old
subsidiaries, but it would be devoid of assets to pay -- if BP could
find a way to move the cash it received for selling assets out of the
subsidiary and out of reach of creditors.

Again, such a move should not be legal. But it would be a mistake to
assume that formal legal rules provide guarantees when billions or tens
of billions of dollars are at stake for a giant, global multinational.

4. The Exxon Hardball Approach

BP's lawyers are undoubtedly considering other, more straightforward
approaches to limit the company's liability.

Under the Exxon Hardball approach, BP would follow its oil company
brethren's approach to the Valdez spill. Drag out compensation payments.
Challenge adverse legal rulings. Rely on a corporate-friendly judiciary
to overturn or scale back any large scale jury verdicts or
government-proposed fines.

5. The Big Tobacco Global Deal

Another approach might be for BP to offer a "global settlement" of all
claims arising from the Gulf Oil gusher. This would follow the precedent
of Big Tobacco, which in 1997 offered to put hundreds of billions of
dollars on the table, and accept some regulatory restraints, to settle
lawsuits for its past misconduct and effectively preclude new
litigation. (This deal was ultimately scuttled.) For BP, the play would
be to put a "shock and awe" amount of money on the table to resolve all
claims and penalties. Its aim would be to eliminate the prospect of
getting hit with outsized punitive damages or fines, and escaping
payment for ecological damage that may not be apparent for many years
--amounts that might vastly exceed what BP pays.

Against this panoply of available maneuvers, public officials have
limited options. The Obama administration is finally doing the right
thing in first, talking about the danger of BP draining company assets
via dividend payments, and, second, demanding the establishment of an
escrow fund. Calling attention to abusive corporate stratagems not yet
underway is one of the best ways to prevent their deployment. And an
escrow fund would establish a guaranteed pool of available money for
victims -- establishing the fund apart from BP's control is at least as
important as ensuring fair and independent handling of victims' claims.

What this and future administrations also need is a way to exert
control over companies facing environmental or other liabilities of the
scale now facing BP -- a kind of receivership to prevent manipulations
of the corporate form to enable corporate goliaths to escape liability.


Forcing corporations to pay for the damage they cause is not sufficient
to prevent them from recklessly endangering people and the planet, but
it is certainly necessary. Permitting them to avoid liability and foist
costs on to others is to ensure more and worse corporate catastrophes.


Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen, <www.citizen.org>,
which is calling for a BP Boycott <www.beyondbp.org>.



This article is posted at:
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/corp-focus/2010/000336.html>.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...#post23037

[Jan Klimkowski]

:bebored:

Austin - good article, thanks for posting.

I had separately been thinking about the Dalkon Shield and Bhopal precedents where the core guilty corporation escaped with minimal financial damage.

BP's share price should potentially reach zero or near enough. However, this will not mean the end of its underlying power nexus.

BP's core power nexus, its deep political structure, will find a way of preserving its wealth and power, through a series of technical corporate moves probably based on the scenarios of AH Robins and Union Carbide.

In those cases, an empty shell was offered up whilst the monster metamorphosed into its new form.

But ordinary shareholders - crucially pension funds - will be screwed.

And the Gulf will at best be a laboratory for cutting edge techniques to restore oil and dispersant contamined shores, breeding grounds and wetlands.

At worst, a dead zone will stretch from Mexico to Cuba.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...ostcount=3

[Magda Hassan]

Video at this link: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-461896



A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured “beyond all repair” and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster “beyond comprehension” unless “extraordinary measures” are undertaken to stop the massive flow of oil into our Planet’s eleventh largest body of water.
Most important to note about Sagalevich’s warning is that he and his fellow scientists from theRussian Academy of Sciences are the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being called to the disaster scene by British oil giant BP shortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform.
BP’s calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to his being the holder of the World’s record for the deepest freshwater dive and his expertise with Russia’s two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 and MIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft).

According to Sagalevich’s report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the “fractured seafloor” with the largest being nearly 11 kilometers (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day.
Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and the other Russian scientists were required by the United States to sign documents forbidding them to report their findings to either the American public or media, and which they had to do in order to legally operate in US territorial waters.
However, Sagalevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearly hourly updates to both US government and BP officials about what they were seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their State of Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBC news service“Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.”
Though not directly stated in Sagalevich’s report, Russian scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyond doubt being leaked to his longtime friend, and former US President George W. Bush’s top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US media reports state has openly said: “Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he says he'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster is entirely BP's fault.”
As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, “let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well.”
Obama’s government, on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear option for ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings him into conflict with both Russian and American experts advocating such an extreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported by Britain’s Telegraph News Service:
“The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U.S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.
Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk."
Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil.
“Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset.”
As to the reason for Obama’s government refusing to consider nuking this oil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American’s “main concern” is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leak would have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy starved World’s remains the Planet’s only oil producing region able to increase its production.
On top of the environmental catastrophe currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico the situation may about to get even worse as new reports from the US are confirming the grim predictions of Russian scientists regarding the oil dispersement poisons being used by BP which are being swept up into the clouds and falling as toxic rain destroying every living plant it touches, and as we had detailed in our May 23rd report titled “Toxic Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America”
To what the final outcome of this catastrophe will be it is not in our knowing other than to state the obvious that the choice facing the American’s today is to either stop this disaster now, by any means, or pay dearly for it later. After all, is cheap petrol really worth the cost of destroying our own Earth? BP surely thinks so, let’s keep hoping Obama doesn’t.

[Peter Lemkin]

Gulp!....looking bad...but...hey, relax..BP just announced moments ago all is 'well' and there is NO leakage any more from their errant well.....if you believe that, can I sell you some snake oil :listen:? How many attempts have there been over how long?!/........:marchmellow:

That is the second report I've read about possible current and future fractures in the sea floor of the Gulf....how to destroy your home Planet in one greedy lesson...brought to you by the following corporate sponsors.... :driver:

....update...just went to the live webcams of the spill and still see oil gushing out...oh, well, must be my glasses....tickyman:

[Peter Lemkin]

Funny how so many Deep Political things are 'connected'..I'm sure just coincidence...read on...

(CNN) -- A group of U.S. lawmakers have called for an investigation into whether BP may have played a role in lobbying for the release of Abdel Basset al Megrahi to secure an oil contract with the Libyan government. :musicus:

Megrahi, now 58, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. [COLOR="Blue"]{my comment....although he is likely just a patsy or bit player in this matter, at best...}
[/COLOR]
He was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds in August after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

"Reports have surfaced indicating that a 2007 oil agreement may have influenced the U.K. and Scottish governments' positions concerning Mr. Megrahi's release in 2009," wrote Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey in a letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on Monday.

"The families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103 deserve to know whether justice took a back seat to commercial interests in this case," Lauternberg said.

Mark Salt, a spokesman for BP in Houston, Texas, declined to discuss the Senators' probe.

"We're not going to comment on speculation," he said.

BP, which plans to begin offshore drilling in Libya in the coming months, touted the 2007 oil agreement as "the single biggest exploration financial commitment an international energy company has ever made to Libya," according to the company's website.

The troubled oil giant stands to earn as much as $20 billion from the deal, according to Lautenberg.

Megrahi, who only served eight years of his life sentence for the bombing, was released by a Scottish court on "compassionate" grounds, citing a doctor's opinion at the time that he was dying from prostate cancer and only had three months to live.

In a letter to the British government last week, Lauternberg was joined by Democratic Senators Kristen Gillibrand and Charles Schumer of New York, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey in calling the validity of such a prognosis into question.

"Mr. Al Megrahi is still alive and reportedly living in luxury," the letter said. "The doctor responsible for the key medical opinion has told the media that not only could Mr. Al Megrahi live another 10 years, but that the Libyan government had commissioned the doctor to make his assessment."

In response, the British Embassy in Washington posted a letter on its website from the British ambassador to Gillibrand on defending Megrahi's release.

"The decision to grant Mr. Megrahi's compassionate release was made on the basis of advice from the Director of Health at the Scottish Prison Service, who drew on the advice of a number of medical experts," the ambassador said.

Brian Flynn, who lost his brother in the attack and fought vigorously to deny Megrahi's freedom, said he isn't surprised that Megrahi is still alive and believes BP was directly responsible for his release.

"You can't allow the process of justice to be corrupted by the cynical mercantilism of one company," Flynn said.

[Ed Jewett]

Dire Realities of the Methane Predictament in the Gulf of Mexico

by Dr. Tom Termotto / July 14th, 2010
There has been a spate of articles recently throughout the corporate and alternative media depicting the methane gas predicament associated with the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Many of these perspectives portray an alarming state of affairs concerning extremely high concentrations of methane that have accumulated in numerous areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The two primary issues of concern are the methane effects in the aquatic environment and the methane gas accumulations in the atmosphere above the Gulf and within contiguous land masses. In regard to the latter, the weather patterns will reign supreme. Once methane rises above the surface of the Gulf, where it goes, how it accumulates and what its toxic effects on life will be, is going to be dictated to a great extent by the weather.

“How’s the weather down there?” When we ask each other this question, aren’t we really asking, ”How are the elements (elementals) treating us?” Well, this question will never be more important to the residents rimming the Gulf of Mexico as we gear up for a long, hot, deep south summer with its likely share of hurricanes, tropical storms and depressions, which, by the way, can be a good or bad thing for “natural” oil spill remediation depending on numerous factors and circumstances.
Back to the methane issue and the volumes of gas that are currently pouring into the Gulf by way of the gushing well, as well as the many leaks and seeps, cracks and fissures, which have provided entry into the water from a growing area around the wellhead. Some who are privy to authoritative info have pointed directly to a large gash, as well as other smaller gashes, which have opened up in the sea floor throughout the area since the wellhead first blew. The current flow of oil out of the riser is approximately 35% of the total volume of outflow. Much of the remaining composition is methane, some of which may be burned off by the flames which appear on a screenshot from the live feed.

Some of the leaks and seeps that have appeared since April 20th are the result of the venting of the enormous pressures of this very deep high compression well. Various experts in the Oil & Gas Exploration and Drilling Industry have speculated this pressure to be as high as 100,000 psi which would explain much of the erratic behavior of this unprecedented gusher. It has functioned as a humongous sandblaster of sorts, which will therefore make it difficult to even keep a cap on it for any extended period of time.
When you drill through the earth’s crust and into the mantle at depths of 20,000 to 35,000 feet, the Russians have consistently encountered pressures far exceeding those that exist in more shallow prospects. They also understand that such pressures demand a proportionate upgrade in technology and equipment (which did not happen with the Deepwater Horizon, if catastrophic blowouts are to be avoided.
The more serious issue here is that the surrounding sea floor is being profoundly undermined, hence the foundation of the wellhead is progressively weakening thereby creating new exit points for methane gas. Many seasoned observers have noted that there has been a piercing of the wellhead, itself. This predicament will necessitate a unique and more thorough response if the outflow is to be completely stopped or if all the oil and gas is to be captured by a “containment and capture” solution.
Another major source of methane gas comes from frozen hydrate crystals which exist on the sea floor in vast quantities. Due to very cold temperatures and high pressure, they stay locked in place until they are awakened from their slumber by the very conditions that now predominate in the region around the wellhead. The gushing oil may be as hot as 300 to 400 F, which greatly affects the undersea dynamics, and especially the state of these hydrates. Also, it is quite noteworthy that we have no experience with the introduction of massive volumes of dispersants at the wellhead under those extraordinary conditions. What will be the ultimate effects on methane conversion and release throughout the region in terms of ramping up an already very dynamic and volatile situation on the sea floor? More significantly, what are the unforeseen consequences to the water (perhaps aquacide) and the fragile ecosystems that abound there?
There are other sources of methane, which occur under the sea floor in various types of “repositories”, that are being affected by movements of the earth, as well as by dramatic temperature fluctuations. These reservoirs are undoubtedly releasing methane gas, as are the sea floor surface beds of trapped frozen methane crystals. Almost all of the released methane gas from these sources will eventually rise to the surface of the Gulf, some of it accumulating as hovering gas bubbles which will then dissipate over time. They concentrate and disperse, come and go according to the scientific properties of methane gas behavior.

Methane does have a very deleterious effect on all aerobic marine life in that it depletes oxygen very rapidly in water. This is the biggest concern, and it can have greater impact on life than the toxicity of both the oil and the dispersants combined, dangerous interactions and all. We state the obvious when we say that all aerobic organisms needs oxygen, and that such life will die very quickly when oxygen concentrations drop below critical thresholds (How long would you live holding your breath under water?!).As the methane rises through the higher layers of the Gulf of Mexico in aquatic strata where the water is warmer, this problem becomes worse due to the fact that warmer water simply holds less oxygen than cold water.
This discussion is not to diminish in any way the extremely harmful toxicities associated with the myriad of chemicals and contaminants found in the dispersants (e.g. COREXIT) and petroleum derivatives. Clearly, the Gulf of Mexico has been relentlessly turned into a petrochemical cesspool of ”ginormous” proportions by this and other simultaneous gushers and leaks, which will take decades to remediate in any meaningful way.
Perhaps the most significant factor on top of the Gulf, however, is the weather. Low pressure weather systems, hot and humid conditions, and stagnant air conditions characterized by little wind can exacerbate the effects of methane gas accumulations around the coastlines as well as many miles inland. The coming tropical storms and depressions, as well as the hurricanes, will provide vectors of dissemination for the aforementioned chemicals and contaminants to rain down on the many coastal communities, and beyond. In this regard, the entire state of Florida is particularly vulnerable due to obvious reasons.

The upshot of this story demonstrates the need to get to know your ambient air and rainwater. This recommendation is vitally important! There are specific ways that this can be accomplished which will be covered in a future essay. In the meantime, it is wise to get to know your environment in the most intimate way, so that you may respond quickly and decisively to any situation that might arise, especially regarding methane bubbles should they migrate over coastal communities.
Dr. Tom Termotto is the National Coordinator of the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference (International Citizen’s Initiative). Read other articles by Dr. Tom.
This article was posted on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 at 7:59am and is filed under Environment, Mexico, Oceans/Seas, Oil, Gas, Pipelines. [url=javascript:void(0)]ShareThis[/url]

[Peter Lemkin]

If BP is to be believed [no reason to do that, they've not been honest up to now....] the pressure in the well with the new cap is rising and is above that that would be expected if there were a leak at some other location...but...and a big but....as the pressure continues to increase, new locations of leakage [if not already present] may well break open. This monster is far from tamed, IMO. the BBC is extolling the final solution....even Obama and BP are urging waiting a while to declare this is anything close to a solution. Many petroleum engineers think this will only prove to be a very temporary bandage on a gaping wound~:joyman:

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/07...-6700-psi/

[Helen Reyes]

Interesting the Coast Guard has been granted LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS to FINE AND IMPRISON reporters. By whom, I wonder?

Reading back over posts, I agree with Peter Lemkin there (probably, who knows really) isn't enough grease for my "soup effect," but...

Dr. Bill Deagle is claiming the Gulf Stream is now halted. His July 16, 2010 internet radio show contained an interview with an Italian particle physicist (?) who has been observing sat data of the spill, and this person believes the oil is creating eddies in the loop current which is depriving the Gulf Stream of its main circuar current.

The Italian man was careful not to make predictions not based on on observation while Deagle and his other guests speculated that the Gulf Stream has now been considerably weakened on top of a weakened condition detected in 2004, and is now halting, making an ice age in Europe inevitable in the very near term.

They also discuss the collapse of the thermosphere which NASA can't really account for and the possible input of Icelandic volcanos into the general cooling they expect.

Archive here:

http://arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/jul10/Nutrimedical/

Files here:

http://arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/jul1...716101.mp3
http://arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/jul1...716102.mp3
http://arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2010/jul1...716103.mp3

(it's not radio at its best, but it is very interesting)

[Peter Lemkin]

A leak has been detected at another location in the area of the well that is now 'capped'.....the only thing not yet known, is if it is 'only' methane hydrate or if it is that AND petroleum....in either case it looks as if yet another plan of BP has failed totally!.... :dancing: :itsme: :bandit: :five: :motz:

In a much understated article....[they don't want the Plebs to panic....] http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN1813113320100719 reads, in part, [COLOR="Purple"]

"late on Sunday, the U.S. government released a letter to BP Chief Managing Director Bob Dudley from retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen that referred to an unspecified type of seepage near the mile-deep (1.6 km-deep) well along with "undetermined anomalies at the well head.":eviltongue:

"I direct you to provide me a written procedure for opening the choke valve as quickly as possible without damaging the well should hydrocarbon seepage near the well head be confirmed," Allen wrote.

BP did not respond to requests for comment on Allen's letter."[/COLOR]

If you want to hear the real deal....that 8 miles [aprox.] away from the BP well there is a bigger/nastier leak that has little to do with the magic show of BP and USG/Media to make us not see what is REALLY going on in the Gulf...listen to the first guest on this show!!.... - based on Matt Simmons [and others'] information.