Julia Whitty writes for Mother Jones on the environment and she's written about the dramatic decline in microscopic life on Gulf beaches and also about how using dispersant allowed oil to penetrate much more deeply into beaches, possibly extending lifespan of its toxicity. Now she highlights a new study that finds the addition of Corexit to the Gulf oil explosion made the whole mess much more toxic:

A new study finds that adding Corexit 9500A to Macondo oil—as BP did in the course of trying to disperse its 2010 oilspill disaster—made the mixture 52 times more toxic than oil alone. The results are from toxicology tests in the lab and appear in the scientific journal Environmental Pollution.

Using oil from the Deepwater Horizon blowout and Corexit the researchers tested the toxicity of oil, dispersant, and a mixture of oil and dispersant on five strains of rotifers—the lab rats of marine toxicology testing. Among the results:

• The oil-dispersant mixture killed adult rotifers

• As little as 2.6 percent of the mixture inhibited egg hatching by 50 percent

The inhibition of egg hatching in bottom sediments is particularly ominous because rotifer eggs hatch each spring to live as adults in the water column where they are important food sources for larval and juvenile fish, for shrimp, crabs and other marine life in estuarine and shoreline ecosystems—including fisheries humans depend on.

"Dispersants are preapproved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters," said lead author Roberto-Rico Martinez currently at the Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes, Mexico. "But we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion."

You can understand why the U.S. government was so unhappy with Bradley Manning when we get to connect the dots on information like this:

Days after the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, a message came in to our offices in New York from an industry insider floating on a ship in the Caspian Sea. He stated there had been a blow-out, just like the one in the Gulf, and BP had covered it up.To confirm this shocking accusation, I flew with my team to the Islamic republic of Azerbaijan.

Outside the capital, Baku, near the giant BP terminal, we found workers, though too frightened to give their names, who did confirm that they were evacuated from the BP offshore platform as it filled with explosive methane gas.

Before we could get them on camera, my crew and I were arrested and the witnesses disappeared.

Expelled from Azerbaijan, we still obtained the ultimate corroboration: a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department in Washington laying out the whole story of the 2008 Caspian blow-out.

The source of the cable, classified “SECRET,” was a disaffected U.S. soldier, Private Bradley Manning who, throughWikiLeaks.org, provided hot smoking guns to The Guardian.The information found in the U.S. embassy cables is a block-buster. The cables confirmed what BP will not admit to this day: there was a serious blow-out and its cause was the same as in the Gulf disaster two years later—the cement (“mud”) used to cap the well had failed.

Bill Schrader, President of BP-Azerbaijan, revealed the truth to our embassy about the Caspian disaster:

“Schrader said that the September 17shutdown of the Central Azeri (CA) platform…was the largest such emergency evacuation in BP’s history. Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition. … Due to the blowout of a gas-injection well there was ‘a lot of mud’ on the platform.”

From other sources, we discovered the cement which failed had been mixed with nitrogen as a way to speed up drying, a risky process that was repeated on the Deepwater Horizon.

Continue reading »

I guess this isn't so strange. After all, it's not as if anyone will ever make the oil companies do anything they don't want to do, anyway:

NEW ORLEANS — BP is arguing that victims of last year’s Gulf oil spill should not be paid any more claims for future losses because the areas affected by the spill have recovered and the economy is improving.

The British oil company makes its case in a 29-page document filed with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, which administers the $20 billion fund for victims.

It criticizes several aspects of the fund’s policies and claims that at some times it has paid victims more than is allowed under the federal Oil Pollution Act.

“Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that, to the extent that portions of the Gulf economy were impacted by the spill, recovery had occurred by the end of 2010, and that positive economic performance continues into 2011, with 2011 economic metrics exceeding pre-spill performance,” the BP document said.

To back up its argument, the document notes that all commercial fisheries have re-opened, hotel industry statistics indicate strong occupancy rates and news reports on tourism venues reporting strong business.

The company is not arguing against paying out claims for documented losses. And those who feel more damages for future losses are warranted, or who are otherwise unsatisfied, can reject the final compensation offer and pursue litigation.

“Any claimant who is of the view that, notwithstanding the economic data, there is too much risk of future loss to enter a final settlement has the right to file an interim claim and seek the payment of past loss without signing a release of liability,” the BP document said.

The fund’s administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, said BP’s arguments would be considered, but he declined further comment.

DOWNLOADS: (937)

PLAYS: (1989)

Embed

It was only a year ago today that the Deepwater Horizon oil well ruptured in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet it seems as if the horrendous damage it inflicted on people and wildlife in the region has all been forgotten.

Sure, for a little while, the "drill baby drill" chants subsided for a little while -- but not for very long. Now Republicans are trying to use the spill anniversary to attack President Obama for not opening up MORE drilling.

The public strongly supports efforts to make BP accountable for restoring the Gulf's ecosystem and the damaged communities, while Republicans have been apologizing to BP for those efforts.

But just because the media haven't been paying attention, it doesn't mean that dead wildlife haven't been washing ashore in droves, or that the ecological catastrophe is only starting to become manifest.

Of course, BP has been trying hard to suppress research into the spill's effects, despite increasing evidence that they will be catastrophic.

And at the same time, the government has opened the door for more such catastrophes:

With everything Big Oil and the government have learned in the year since the Gulf of Mexico disaster, could it happen again? Absolutely, according to an Associated Press examination of the industry and interviews with experts on the perils of deep-sea drilling.

The government has given the OK for oil exploration in treacherously deep waters to resume, saying it is confident such drilling can be done safely. The industry has given similar assurances. But there are still serious questions in some quarters about whether the lessons of the BP oil spill have been applied.

The industry "is ill-prepared at the least," said Charles Perrow, a Yale University professor specializing in accidents involving high-risk technologies. "I have seen no evidence that they have marshaled containment efforts that are sufficient to deal with another major spill. I don't think they have found ways to change the corporate culture sufficiently to prevent future accidents."

Mike Conathan at the Center for American Progress has a good summary on the government's abdication of its responsibilities:

Continue reading »

Even though the owner of my favorite local bistro assures me the seafood they serve is safe, she's not sure where it's from. I know she's only repeating what her seafood purveyor tells her -- and he's only repeating what the fishermen are telling him. All I know is, I'm still not ready to eat anything from the Gulf:

A New Orleans law firm is challenging government assurances that Gulf Coast seafood is safe to eat in the wake of the BP oil spill, saying it poses “a significant danger to public health.”

It’s a high-stakes tug-of-war that will almost certainly end up in the courts, with two armies of scientists arguing over technical findings that could have real-world impact for seafood consumers and producers.

Citing what the law firm calls a state-of-the-art laboratory analysis, toxicologists, chemists and marine biologists retained by the firm of environmental attorney Stuart Smith contend that the government seafood testing program, which has focused on ensuring the seafood was free of the cancer-causing components of crude oil, has overlooked other harmful elements. And they say that their own testing — examining fewer samples but more comprehensively — shows high levels of hydrocarbons from the BP spill that are associated with liver damage.

“What we have found is that FDA simply overlooked an important aspect of safety in their protocol,” contends William Sawyer, a Florida-based toxicologist on Smith’s team. “We now have a sufficient number of samples to provide FDA with probable cause to include such testing, really. They need to go back and test some of their archived samples as well.”

In today's WikiLeaks installment, everyone's favorite oil company (BP) has a blowout on a drilling platform in Azerbaijan, and later blames a "bad cement job" for the problem.

Via The Guardian, this little nugget in a series of cables concerning conflicts between the government of Azerbaijan and BP management over the blowout in September, 2008:

It has closed off a "few suspect wells" from which they think a bad cement job caused the leaking gas (which is actually good news, since had it been a reservoir leak the damage would have been potentially non-repairable, whereas now all BP has to do is fix the cement job around a few wells, a hard and expensive job to be sure, but preferable to losing the platform).

The blowout put workers in immediate danger, and sounds strikingly similar to the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico:

(C) Schrader said that the September 17th shutdown of the Central Azeri (CA) platform, in which the "red button" was pressed after detection of a gas leak on the Central Azeri Platform that led to the evacuation of 211 platform workers off the platform, was the largest such emergency evacuation in BP's history. Given the explosive potential, BP was quite fortunate to have been able to evacuate everyone safely and to prevent any gas ignition. Gas bubbles on the water's surface were no longer observed from the air by September 19th.

Other notable cables include an ongoing conflict between the Azerbaijan government and BP, including one interesting exchange where the government accuses BP of stealing "billions" from their country.

BP, in its usual bludgeoning style, limited information related to the explosion, even when dealing with the Azerbaijan government.

Oil is a huge subject in these cables. From South America to East Asia, many of the cables deal with oil companies either doing deals with governments in these countries or trying to do deals. Including Iran. In a report of a March, 2009 meeting with Iraq's Prime Minister, the following conversation is noted:

The PM said he is currently in negotiations with Chevron to develop various oil fields, to include a cross-border oil field with Iran (NFI). The PM claimed that Chevron had told him that it had already raised the issue of a cross-border development with Tehran as well. (Note: We have no independent confirmation of this; end note.) The PM asked the CDA about the political feasibility of such a deal involving a U.S. firm working both sides of a cross-border field, given current USG policies toward Iran. The CDA noted that U.S. law on sanctions would apply, but added that the Administration was reviewing its policies on Iran. PM al-Maliki said that he prefers to go with Chevron on the deal; however, he remarked that if U.S. rules prevent Chevron from doing this project, he would approach a non-American firm.

More than anything else, this last blurb makes me want to yank every single military and civilian person in Iraq out. Right now. If al-Maliki is going to do deals in partnership with Tehran and Chevron, why the heck should we finance his country's security with our blood. He's a double-dealing, two-timing shyster who should do his deals and suffer the consequences. To hell with them.

Here's another "I knew that but couldn't prove it" moment. At least, I couldn't prove it before now. If there was any doubt about the ill intentions of foreign oil companies, it should be laid to rest now. Via the Guardian, a new report just released by Climate Action Network Europe which links up donations by foreign oil companies with climate-change deniers like Jim Inhofe and oil company handmaiden Jim DeMint.

From the report (PDF):

Big European emitters1 Lafarge, GDF-SUEZ, EON, BP , BASF, BAYER, Solvay and Arcelor-Mittal supported climate change deniers in the US senate in 2010 for $107,200. Their total support for senators blocking climate change legislation in the US amounts to $240,200, which is almost 80% of their total spendings in 2010 senate race. This is why those funds are seen as systemic. This amount is higher than the same type of spending of the most notorious US climate denier and Tea Party funder: Koch Industries ($217,000).

It is also evident that those same companies supported key democrats (e.g. Blanche Lincoln, Dem, Arkansas) in the Senate responsible for breaking a majority supporting binding targets reduction targets and a national cap and trade system. We conclude that the support of European companies is not only targeted at deniers and blockers but that the financial streams are also very strategic. Another example is the support for Lisa Murkowski (Rep.), the brain behind a resolution which would take away the possibility of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This resolution, which was defeated in the Senate, would have removed an important stick from the US administration to push for cap and trade legislation.

The question is, what are we going to do about it? If the outcome of this election is consistent with the pundits' claims, the House will be lost and the Senate majority will be retained by just a tiny hair. If eight nine Senate seats go to Republicans, look for Lieberman to be the player everyone loves to hate on every single piece of legislation out there.

A Guardian editorial attached to their story on the Climate Action Network Europe report is dismal, but true. In their estimation, Obama lacks both the room and collective will to effect lasting change:

A winner-takes-all voting system where both main parties are sustained by corporate financing, the congressional districts are openly gerrymandered and 40% of the upper chamber can block anything, is never going to be a benign vehicle for radical reform. Virtually every enduring progressive development in US politics since the war has been sparked either by massive mobilisations outside of electoral politics that have forced politicians to respond, or through the courts.

BP and other foreign corporations strategically funding climate change deniers speaks volumes about our broken system of campaign financing, and affirms the disaster that Citizens United has wrought (though I will note that the contributions in their report were disclosed and publicly available on OpenSecrets.org).

Bailout recipients shoveling cash to Republican candidates. Foreign oil companies giving to climate change deniers. Tea parties funded by corporate interests planned in secret meetings attended by press, Supreme Court justices and rich guys who want to be richer.

I cannot recall a time since Nixon where such blatant abuses of power have been used to hijack our politics, our livelihoods, and in this case, our planet.

It's going to get worse before it gets better, since they're not only in our elections, but in our courts, too.

Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Post-wellcapping reports of "missing" oil contributed to message failure by giving the impression that Obama's administration simply wanted the oil to vanish from media attention, and was therefore declaring "Mission Accomplished." The White House certainly could have done better. Steadily-climbing spill estimates should have been avoided by coming up with two or three scenarios and publicly crossing fingers. Widespread reports of BP harrassing, intimidating, and banishing reporters from beaches invited all the wrong comparisons to Katrina and Bush.

It really wasn't a fair fight. BP has practiced this scenario many times in the global south: corporate message-makers deny, minimize, and suborn state agencies. The EPA is in such a state of deep capture after three decades of anti-government governance that it lacked power to stop BP from inserting a Corexit spout directly into the flow of oil. BP also had the tools, personnel, and resources to deal with the blowout, whereas the United States government did not. Without any real way to produce results in the Gulf, White House message-men took advantage of the Beltway preference for narrative over things like fluid dynamics and chemistry. The facts?! Who cares...

And so we all wonder about missing oil instead of learning anything. See how that works? Much more after the jump and this very non-metal video:

Continue reading »

Thank heavens, this part of the mess is over. But reports from the Gulf seem to indicate BP's abandoned cleanup efforts:

BP Plc started pumping cement into the top of its crippled Gulf of Mexico well, moving closer to permanently plugging the source of the world’s biggest accidental offshore oil spill on record.

“We’ll create a significant milestone and make a major step forward, probably by tomorrow when the cementing is done,” National Incident Commander Thad Allen told reporters today in Washington. “We can all breathe a little easier regarding the potential that we have oil in the Gulf ever again.”

BP pumped mud into the top of its Macondo well earlier this week, pushing back the flow of oil and gas and making the cementing possible. The cement will cure in 24 to 36 hours, and then the company will resume drilling a relief well that aims to permanently plug Macondo from below.

BP temporarily sealed the well on July 15 through a valve stack placed atop Macondo, stopping a leak that spewed 4.9 million barrels of crude since an April 20 drilling-rig explosion, according to a government estimate. The relief well near Macondo will take at least five days to finish drilling its final 100 feet (30 meters).

By filling the well from top to bottom, pushing cement into the oil and gas reservoir, London-based BP will eliminate any possibility of a leak, Allen said. The well is located about 40 miles (64 kilometers) off the Louisiana coast.

Crooked Timber: Covering the Great Recession

William K. Wolfrum Chronicles: An open and honest conversation about my racism

Mario Piperni: GOP = Bush

archy: We have always been at war with Episcopalians

The Brad Blog: The news this summer has largely focused on an unstoppable, slimy, toxic, oozing gusher polluting our nation. That, and on the BP oil disaster.

Democurmudgeon: Amusement park offers 'Alien Attack', where you get to shoot a black man holding a scroll labeled "Health Bill"