The Oil Slick BP Tried To Hide Has Been Discovered

In Thick Layers On the Sea Floor Over An Area of Several Thousand Square Miles

by Washington's Blog

BP and the government famously declared that most of the oil had disappeared.

But as I've noted, as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.

I have repeatedly pointed out that BP and the government applied massive amounts of dispersant to the Gulf Oil Spill in an effort to sink and hide the oil. Many others said the same thing.

BP and the government denied this, of course.

But the oil is not remaining hidden.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal noted on December 9th:

A university scientist and the federal government say they have found persuasive evidence that oil from the massive Gulf of Mexico spill is settling on the ocean floor.
The new findings, from scientists at the University of South Florida and from a broad government effort, mark the latest indication that environmental damage from the blowout of a BP PLC well could be significant where it's hardest to find: deep under the Gulf's surface.

***

Scientists who have been on research cruises in the Gulf in recent days report finding layers of residue up to several centimeters thick from what they suspect is BP oil.

The material appears in spots across several thousand square miles of seafloor, they said. In many of those spots, they said, worms and other marine life that crawl along the sediment appear dead, though many organisms that can swim appear healthy.

***

Tests now have started to link some oil in the sediment to the BP well could add to the amount of money BP ends up paying to compensate for the spill's damage.

***

The test results also raise questions about the possible downsides of the government's use of chemical dispersants to fight the spill.

***

Under federal direction, about 1.8 million gallons of dispersants were sprayed on the spilled oil in an effort to break it up into tiny droplets that natural ocean microbes could eat up. At the time, officials said the dispersants shouldn't cause oil from the spill to sink to the seafloor. However, more recently, a federal report said dispersants may have helped some spilled oil sink to the sediment.

Scientific teams have reported in recent months finding a strange substance on the Gulf floor, in some cases as far as about 80 miles from BP's ill-fated Macondo well, which blew out in April and spilled an estimated 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf before it was capped.

***

"The chemical signatures are identical," said Mr. Hollander, who found the contaminated samples in an area of the Gulf floor off the Florida Panhandle. Although it's conceivable the tests could show a false match with the BP oil, "the statistical probability of something like that is unimaginable," Mr. Hollander said.

The federal government also has found oil matching Macondo oil in Gulf sediment, Steve Murawski, a top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, said in an interview. He declined to disclose how much sediment contamination the government found, or exactly where in the Gulf it was, saying experts still are analyzing the test results.

***
Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia oceanographer, also has found what she believes to be evidence of BP oil in Gulf sediment. She is awaiting lab results tracing the chemical fingerprints of sediment samples she took.

On a research cruise in the Gulf that ended Friday, she saw worms that crawl along the Gulf floor "just decimated," she said. But eels and fish, which can swim away, often appeared fine, she said.

The Journal noted on December 18th:

Oil from BP PLC's blown-out well has lodged in the sediment of the Gulf of Mexico at levels that may threaten marine life, according to a federal report released Friday.

***

There is no practical way to clean up the spilled oil that has settled deep in the Gulf, officials said, adding that microbes in the water could eventually eat it up.

The massive application of dispersants to hide the amount of oil spilled has caused major problems to the Gulf:

--The use of dispersants prevented clean up of the oil by skimming, by far the easiest method of removing oil from the water.

--Dispersants make the toxins in crude oil more bioavailable to sealife, and scientists have found that applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil releases many times more toxic chemicals into the water column than would be released with crude alone.

--Dispersant might have caused some of the chemicals in oil to become airborne.

--The crude oil which does not become aerosolized sinks under the surface of the ocean, and can delay the recovery of the ecosystem by years or even decades (see the Wall Street Journal article quoted above).

--The overwhelming majority of studies find that dispersants slow the growth of oil-eating microbes.

--Dispersants cause Gulf fish to absorb more toxins and then make it harder for the fish to get rid of the pollutants once exposed.

--Dispersants may bioaccumulate in seafood.

--Blood tests show elevated levels of toxic hydrocarbons in Gulf residents.

Extend-And-Pretend Will Fail

As I noted in May - shortly after the spill started - the responses of the government to the Gulf Oil spill and to the financial crisis are remarkably similar, as both have focused on covering up the problems, instead of actually fixing them. Because the financial system was never really reformed, the next financial shock will send the economy reeling. Because the oil was never properly cleaned up, the next hurricane will stir up immense quantities of oil now lying on the sea floor.

Extend-and-pretend is being attempted in both cases, and - in both cases - it will fail, because nothing has been fixed, and the fundamentals can only remain hidden for so long.

Moreover, in both cases, the government used "highly toxic" measures to try to hide the real problems. The government has used "emergency measures" and virtually all of its resources to prop up the giant banks instead of using the proven methods of restructuring insolvent banks and prosecuting the criminals who caused the crisis, which has caused major problems for the real economy.

Similarly, the government applied close to 2 million gallons of highly toxic dispersant to hide the amount of oil instead of using it's resources to deploy tried-and-true clean up methods, which has caused significant problems for the Gulf.

Finally, new and potentially bigger crises will take place, because regulation hasn't been put in place to prevent them. Regulation of the financial system - including international agreements like Basil III - have been gutted. And as Time magazine notes:

Congress never managed to pass legislation that would have overhauled drilling safety.

_________________________________

Blood Tests Show Elevated Level of Toxic Hydrocarbons in Gulf Residents

Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Washingtons Blog

A number of different chemists are finding elevated levels of toxic hydrocarbons in the bloodstream of Gulf coast residents.

What is most disturbing about these results is that people who simply live near the water are showing higher than normal levels of toxic chemicals. These are not fishermen, shrimpers, oil workers or others who work on the water.

Jerry Cope recently wrote about his test results in a must-read essay at Huffington Post.

Several Gulf coast residents described their test results in the following video:

And the Intel Hub has uploaded some of the other test reports.

The local ABC news affiliate in Pensacola, Florida - ABC3 Wear - covered the story:

Several residents of Orange Beach say the oil spill has been making them sick...and they have the test results to prove it.

Gerry Cope, Margaret Carrouth and Robin Young were all feeling the same symptoms of headaches, watery eyes, and breathing problems...

All three had blood samples taken at the beginning of August...

Tests revealed each had elevated levels of the Hydrocarbons Ethyl Benzene and Xylene.

Bob Naman, a chemist out of Mobile, analyzed the results.

"He shows three times the amount you typically find in someone's blood."

"These people are from different backgrounds, and from different walks of life, all showing same similar organic compounds in blood, says to me its very likely in the air."

MORE...

Gulf Oil Update: Day 88

Oil Spill Capped for a Second Day, Offering Some Hope

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON and HENRY FOUNTAIN
The New York Times
July 16, 2010

NEW ORLEANS — The hemorrhaging well that has spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico remained capped for a second day Friday, providing some hope of a long-term solution to the environmental disaster.


BP, via Associated Press
A video image Thursday afternoon showed no oil flowing.

Live video from the seabed Friday morning showed that all was quiet around the top of the well, suggesting the test assessing the integrity of the well was continuing. Earlier in the week, Kent Wells, a senior vice president for BP, had said that the longer the test continued the better, because it would indicate that the pressure inside the well was holding.

The oil stopped flowing around 2:25 p.m. Thursday when the last of several valves was closed on a cap at the top of the well, Mr. Wells said.

The announcement that the oil had stopped flowing into the Gulf came after a series of failed attempts to cap or contain the runaway well that tested the nation’s patience. Mr. Wells emphasized that pressure tests were being conducted to determine the status of the well, which is now sealed like a soda bottle. BP and the government could decide to allow the oil to flow again and try to collect all of it; they could allow the oil to flow and, if tests show the well can withstand the pressure from the cap, close the well during hurricanes; or they could leave the well closed permanently.

The last option seems unlikely, but whatever the decision, the cap is an interim measure until a relief well can plug the leak for good.

“I am very pleased that there’s no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” Mr. Wells said, “but we just started the test and I don’t want to create a false sense of excitement.”

That was not much of a risk along the Gulf Coast, where countless livelihoods have been put in jeopardy and fishermen frequently and gloomily remark that Prince William Sound has never been the same since the Exxon Valdez disaster.

“It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a dead man in my opinion,” said Jeff Ussury, 48, who considers his days as a crabber over for good. He doubted the news of the capping was even true.

“I started out kind of believing in them,” he said, “but I don’t believe in them at all anymore.”

Whether it was just the eye of the hurricane or the morning after the storm, the moment was a time to take stock of just how much damage had already been done since the deadly explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on the night of April 20.

For weeks, the BP spill camera — which along with terms like “top kill,” “containment dome” and “junk shot” made up a growing list of phrases that many people wish they had never learned — had shown a horrible chocolate plume of oil pouring upward from the broken blowout preventer, a symbol of government and corporate impotence. The plume has been a constant presence in the corner of TV screens, mocking reassurances from officials on the news programs who describe the latest attempt to stop the gushing.

But the view on Thursday afternoon was eerily tranquil, just the slate blue of the deep interspersed with small white particles floating across the screen. Though the exact amount of the oil that has poured out of the well may never be known, it was suddenly and for the first time a fixed amount. The disaster was, for a little while at least, finite.

At the White House, President Obama called the development a “positive sign,” though he cautioned that the operation was still in the testing phase.

In statements, Louisiana officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, said they were “cautiously optimistic.”

Officials at all levels played down expectations. Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who is coordinating the spill response, told reporters on Thursday that the cap was primarily meant to be used to shut the well during extreme weather.

“The intention of the capping stack was never to close in the well per se,” he said. “It creates the opportunity if we have the right pressure readings to shut in the well. It allows us to abandon the site if there is a hurricane.”

He said that after the test, the cap would be used to capture oil through surface ships — two that are on the site now and two more that will be in operation in a week or two. With all four collection ships in place, BP could capture all of the oil, estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.

Mr. Wells cautioned that the test could take 48 hours or more, as scientists study pressure readings from the cap. If pressure rises and holds, that would be a sign that the casing — the 13,000-foot string of pipe that lines the well bore — is undamaged.

But if the pressure stays low or falls, that would suggest the well is damaged. In that case, Mr. Wells said, the test probably would be stopped well ahead of schedule, valves would be reopened and collection systems that had been shut down for the test would start again.

“Depending on what the test shows us, we may need to open this well back up,” he said.

The test had been delayed by about two days, first when the government ordered a last-minute review of the procedure out of concern that, by allowing the buildup of pressure, the test itself might harm the well. A particular fear, experts said, was that it might cause a shallow blowout — damaging the well lining close to the seabed, which could allow oil and gas to escape into the gulf outside the well, making the spill worse.

By Wednesday afternoon, those concerns had been allayed and preparations were made to begin the test. But late that night, a hydraulic leak was discovered in part of the choke valve equipment, and the test was scrubbed.

Thursday afternoon the test began again, first with the shutting down of pipes that funneled oil and gas to two surface ships.

In even the most optimistic case, the BP oil spill is far, far from over.

There are still millions of barrels of oil out in the gulf and months of work missing for fishermen and shrimpers; inestimable harm is still being inflicted on wildlife throughout the food chain; and anger still seethes along the Gulf coast.

“What’s to celebrate?” asked Kindra Arnesen, the wife of a shrimper from Plaquemines Parish, La., who has become a recognizable voice of outrage over the past two and a half months.

“My way of life’s over, they’ve destroyed everything I know and love,” she said, before going on to explain, in detail, why she believes the pressure tests are likely to fail.

Gulf Oil Update: Day 83

Editor's NOTE:

As regular readers are aware, this site has devoted a great deal of coverage recently to the Gulf Oil "Spill." In the past week I have provided a daily update in which hopefully the most informative pieces have been posted. It has been challenging to walk just the right line between on the one hand being alarmist and the other inappropriately optimistic especially since BP and the Obama administration have begun to seriously limit media access and investigation by scientists and other interested parties.

Some of the claims made by certain author's who allegedly have obtained "inside" information have been difficult to independently verify. The information contained on the separate "Gulf Oil Catastrophe Documented Effects Update" page HERE...represents what I believe has been established as fact. I do not include theories, hypotheses or speculation there.

Clearly, the ongoing contamination of the Gulf of Mexico with oil and gas is at a minimum a horrendous problem and could if not stopped become one of monumental proportions.

I encourage readers to send me any comments and reactions to what has been offered here vis a vis the Gulf Oil "Spill" and ask that anyone who has other anecdotal information or actual data to report send me an e-mail as directed under the communication section located on the right hand side of the site.

The following article is an example of a theory which I have been unable to independently validate. Note that the author makes multiple claims but does not reference them in the body of his piece.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

____________


How the ultimate BP Gulf disaster could kill millions

by Terrence Aym
Helium

Disturbing evidence is mounting that something frightening is happening deep under the waters of the Gulf of Mexico—something far worse than the BP oil gusher.

Warnings were raised as long as a year before the Deepwater Horizon disaster that the area of seabed chosen by the BP geologists might be unstable, or worse, inherently dangerous. (Editor--a reference citation should have been included here)

What makes the location that Transocean chose potentially far riskier than other potential oil deposits located at other regions of the Gulf? It can be summed up with two words: methane gas.

The same methane that makes coal mining operations hazardous and leads to horrendous mining accidents deep under the earth also can present a high level of danger to certain oil exploration ventures.

Location of Deepwater Horizon oil rig was criticized

More than 12 months ago some geologists rang the warning bell that the Deepwater Horizon exploratory rig might have been erected directly over a huge underground reservoir of methane. (Editor--this claim sorely needs a reference citation)

Documents from several years ago indicate that the subterranean geologic formation may contain the presence of a huge methane deposit. (Editor--ditto)

None other than the engineer (Editor--what is his name and where did he allegedly make the following claim?) who helped lead the team to snuff the Gulf oil fires set by Saddam Hussein to slow the advance of American troops has stated that a huge underground lake of methane gas—compressed by a pressure of 100,000 pounds per square inch (psi)—could be released by BP's drilling effort to obtain the oil deposit.

Current engineering technology cannot contain gas that is pressurized to 100,000 psi.

By some (Editor--Who?) geologists' estimates the methane could be a massive 15 to 20 mile toxic and explosive bubble trapped for eons under the Gulf sea floor. In their opinion, the explosive destruction of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead was an accident just waiting to happen.

Yet the disaster that followed the loss of the rig pales by comparison to the apocalyptic disaster that may come.

A cascading catastrophe

According to worried geologists (Editor--name them), the first signs that the methane may burst its way through the bottom of the ocean would be fissures or cracks appearing on the ocean floor near the damaged well head.

Evidence of fissures opening up on the seabed have been captured by the robotic submersibles working to repair and contain the ruptured well. (Editor--I have been unable to find a reference that documents this claim) Smaller, independent plumes have also appeared outside the nearby radius of the bore hole itself. (Editor--I believe this has been established as fact)

According to some (Editor--again, who?) geological experts, BP's operations set into motion a series of events that may be irreversible. Step-by-step the drilling team committed one error after another.

Congressmen Henry Waxman, D-CA, and Bart Stupak, D-MI, in a letter sent to BP CEO Tony Hayward, identified 5 missteps made by BP during the period culminating with the explosion.

Waxman, chair of the Congressional energy panel and Stupak, the head of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said, "The common feature of these five decisions is that they posed a trade-off between cost and well safety."

The two Representatives also stated in the 14-page letter to Hayward that "Time after time, it appears that BP made decisions that increased the risk of a blowout to save the company time or expense."

Called by some insiders investigating the ongoing disaster a "perfect storm of catastrophe," the wellhead blew on the sea floor catapulting a stream of mud, oil and gas upwards at the speed of sound.

In describing the events—that transpired in a matter of seconds—they (Editor--Who?) note that immediately following the rupture the borehole pipe's casing blew away exposing a straight line 8 miles deep for the pressurized gas to escape. The result was cavitation, an irregular pressure variance sometimes experience by deep diving vessels such as nuclear submarines. This cavitation created a supersonic bubble of explosive methane gas that resulted in a supersonic explosion killing 11 men and completely annihilating the drilling platform.

Death from the depths

With the emerging evidence of fissures, the quiet fear now is the methane bubble rupturing the seabed and exploding into the Gulf waters. If the bubble escapes, every ship, drilling rig and structure within the region of the bubble will instantaneously sink. (Editor--Apparently fact since ships on the surface of the water would lose their bouyancy if that scenario occured) All the workers, engineers, Coast Guard personnel and marine biologists measuring the oil plumes' advance will instantly perish.

As horrible as that is, what would follow is an event so potentially horrific that it equals in its fury the Indonesian tsunami that killed more than 600,000, or the destruction of Pompeii by Mt. Vesuvius.

The ultimate Gulf disaster, however, would make even those historical horrors pale by comparison. If the huge methane bubble breaches the seabed, it will erupt with an explosive fury similar to that experienced during the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens in the Pacific Northwest. A gas gusher will surge upwards through miles of ancient sedimentary rock—layer after layer—past the oil reservoir. It will explode upwards propelled by 50 tons psi, burst through the cracks and fissures of the compromised sea floor, and rupture miles of ocean bottom with one titanic explosion.

The burgeoning methane gas cloud will surface, killing everything it touches, and set off a supersonic tsunami with the wave traveling somewhere between 400 to 600 miles per hour. (Editor--Several writers have said this on the internet but I have been unable to find a geologist who will go on the record and defend this contention)

While the entire Gulf coastline is vulnerable, the state most exposed to the fury of a supersonic wave towering 150 to 200 feet or more is Florida. The Sunshine State only averages about 100 feet above sea level with much of the coastline and lowlands and swamps near zero elevation.

Elevation Map:



A supersonic tsunami would literally sweep away everything from Miami to the panhandle in a matter of minutes. Loss of human life would be virtually instantaneous and measured in the millions. Of course the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and southern region of Georgia—a state with no Gulf coastline—would also experience tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Loss of property is virtually incalculable and the days of the US position as the world's superpower would be literally gone in a flash...of detonating methane.

Report about the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum (LPTM), which occurred around 55 million years ago and lasted about 100,000 years. Large undersea methane caused explosions and mass extinctions.

This explores the controversial paper published by Northwestern University's Gregory Ryskin. His thesis: the oceans periodically produce massive eruptions of explosive methane gas.

____________


George Noory Interview



Noory's guest argues that "independent geological scientists should be supplied with the Mocondo Well 'mud log data' in order to help predict what might transpire"

___________


Dying, dead marine wildlife paint dark, morbid picture of Gulf Coast following oil spill
BY Matthew Lysiak In Grand Isle, La. and Helen Kennedy
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Originally Published:Wednesday, June 2nd 2010, 12:52 AM
Updated: Wednesday, June 2nd 2010, 5:44 PM


DelMundo for News Carcass of a decomposing dolphin on rocks at Queen Bess Island in Gulf of Mexico.


DelMundo for News A sign expressing hatred towards BP stands on the side of Highway 1 in Grand Isle.

Here's what President Obama didn't see when he visited the Gulf Coast: a dead dolphin rotting in the shore weeds.

"When we found this dolphin it was filled with oil. Oil was just pouring out of it. It was the saddest darn thing to look at," said a BP contract worker who took the Daily News on a surreptitious tour of the wildlife disaster unfolding in Louisiana.

His motive: simple outrage.

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

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

The day was 85 degrees, the blue sky almost white with sunshine, the air fresh with salt tang.

After checking that he was unobserved, he motored out to Queen Bess barrier island, known to the locals as Bird Island.

The grasses by the shore were littered with tarred marine life, some dead and others struggling under a thick coating of crude.

"When you see some of the things I've seen, it would make you sick," the contractor said. "No living creature should endure that kind of suffering."

Queen Bess Island was the first place where fledglings were born when the beloved, endangered Louisiana brown pelicans were reintroduced in the 1970s. Their population rebounded and was finally declared stabilized in 2002.

Now their future is once again in doubt. In what had been such an important hatchery, hundreds of pelicans - their white heads stained black - stood sentinel. They seemed slow and lethargic.

"Those pelicans are supposed to have white heads. The black is from the oil. Most of them won't survive," the contractor said.

"They keep trying to clean themselves. They try and they try, but they can't do it."

The contractor has been attempting to save birds and turtles.

"I saw a pelican under water with only its wing sticking out," he said. "I grabbed it and lifted it out of the water. It was just covered in oil. It was struggling so hard to survive. We did what we could for it.

"Nature is cruel, but what's happening here is crueler."

The uninhabited barrier islands are surrounded by yellow floating booms, also stained black, that are supposed to keep the oil out. It's not working.

"That grass was green a few weeks ago," the contractor said. "Now look. ... This whole island is destroyed. How do you write a check for something like this?"

He said he recently found five turtles drowning in oil.

"Three turtles were dead. Two were dying and not dead yet. They will be," he said.

As the boat headed back amid the choppy waves, a pod of dolphins showed up to swim with the vessel and guide it to land.

"They know they are in trouble. We are all in trouble," the contractor said.

BP's central role in the disaster cleanup has apparently given the company a lot of latitude in keeping the press away from beaches where the oil is thickest.

On Monday, a Daily News team was escorted away from a public beach on Elmer's Island by cops who said they were taking orders from BP.

BP spokesman Toby Odone denied the company is trying to hide the environmental damage; he noted BP has organized press visits to the spill zone and said BP cannot tell cops what to do.

The contractor for BP said the public needs to see the truth." (Editor's bold emphasis)

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

Gulf Oil Update: Day 82

Tom Hartman interviews John Wathen (photographer and activist) known as the "Hurricane Creekkeeper"



____________


Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Nunguesser Calls Out Coast Gaurd
Thank God for Billy Nunguesser!




Nunguesser: "It seems like there's a conspiracy between BP and the US Coast Guard!"

Posted by Hurricane Creekkeeper (John Wathen) at 5:11 PM

____________


U.S. Air Force sprays Corexit From Plane.



At 3:30 into the video the pilot says... "How do you pick a spot? It's everywhere.
May 15, 2010

The toxicity of Corexit EC9527A is quite high, here is an extract from the Corexit EC9527A Materials Safety Data Sheet:
SAFETY DATA SHEET
PRODUCT
COREXIT(R) EC9527A

APPLICATION: OIL SPILL DISPERSANT
NFPA 704M/HMIS RATING
HEALTH: 2/ 2 FLAMMABILITY: 1/ 1 INSTABILITY: 0/ 0 OTHER:
0 = Insignificant 1 = Slight 2 = Moderate 3 = High 4 = Extreme

2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
Our hazard evaluation has identified the following chemical substance(s) as hazardous. Consult Section 15 for the nature of the hazard(s).

Hazardous Substance(s) CAS NO % (w/w)
2-Butoxyethanol 111-76-2 30.0- 60.0
Organic sulfonic acid salt Proprietary 10.0- 30.0
Propylene Glycol 57-55-6 1.0- 5.0

3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
**EMERGENCY OVERVIEW**
WARNING

Eye and skin irritant. Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells, (hemolysis), kidney or the liver. Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not take internally. Use with adequate ventilation. Wear suitable protective clothing. Keep container tightly closed. Flush affected area with water. Keep away from heat. Keep away from sources of ignition -No smoking.
May evolve oxides of carbon (COx) under fire conditions.

PRIMARY ROUTES OF EXPOSURE:
Eye, Skin

SKIN CONTACT:
Can cause moderate irritation. Harmful if absorbed through skin.

INGESTION:
May be harmful if swallowed. May cause liver and kidney effects and/or damage. There may be irritation to the gastro-intestinal tract.

INHALATION:
Harmful by inhalation. Repeated or prolonged exposure may irritate the respiratory tract.

SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE:

Acute:
Excessive exposure may cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects.

Chronic:
Repeated or excessive exposure to butoxyethanol may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver.

AGGRAVATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Skin contact may aggravate an existing dermatitis condition.

HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS -CHRONIC:
Contains ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (butoxyethanol). Prolonged and/or repeated exposure through inhalation or extensive skin contact with EGBE may result in damage to the blood and kidneys.The Unified Command reported that as of May 6, 2010 Modular Aerial Spray System (MASS) aircraft have flown numerous dispersant missions-dispensing the same dispersant chemical being used by BP and the federal responders. These systems are capable of covering up to 250 acres per flight.

The Unified Command also reported that, as of May 6, 2010, 253,000 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and more than 317,000 gallons are available

If you see anything fishy happening on your waterways don't hesitate to call the Lower Mississippi Riverkeerp hotline at 1-866-MSRIVER


Editor's NOTE:

It would appear that the spraying of oil dispersant's in the Gulf water and air should be terminated immediately as there is ample evidence to suggest that it is:

1) Killing marine life throughout the entire water column
2) Disguising the amount of oil and gas that has actually flowed into the Gulf
3) Beginning to become a health hazard for clean-up and recovery workers
4) Reducing the amount of money which BP should have to pay in damages
5) Decreasing the effectiveness of oil skimming operations.
6) No longer effective since much of the coast has already been contaminated with oil

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

____________


Caught Restricting the Press and Public Again, BP Clarifies Policy on Access Limits
bpoilslick.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, July 7, 2010

« Where Oh Where Have All the Wildlife Gone?



A John Wathen Video

by Glynn Wilson
GULF SHORES, Ala. — More reports surfaced today of contractors for British Petroleum and local police taking it upon themselves to limit access to oiled sites on the Gulf coast by media and citizens with cameras.

John Wathen, an activist photographer and videographer, was harassed at the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge Tuesday, and told he was not allowed on the beach with a camera where workers were moving oil with heavy machinery.

He has audio recordings to prove it as part of a video (see above). When asked about the policy, a person who answered the phone at the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge said the policy was not to restrict access by the media or to prevent anyone from taking pictures. Authorities are preventing people from driving down Pine Beach Road to Gator Lake so you have to park and walk the mile to the beach.

In response to numerous reports of media access being limited across the Gulf in violation of Obama administration policy and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Megan Moloney, a spokesperson for BP Deepwater Horizon Response National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen, issued a statement clarifying the policy on media access and the establishment of so-called “safety zones,” such as the 65-foot zone outside boom surrounding pelican rookeries.

“Since the beginning of the response to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, federal agencies have worked to provide timely and factual information to the public, make personnel available to the media, and provide access to areas and operations the press could not reach on their own,” Moloney says. “At the same time, we have directed BP and its contractors to not restrict public access unless safety or security is jeopardized while recognizing that private individuals hired by contractors cannot be compelled to speak to the press.”

The administration claims this “openness” has led to hundreds of daily press briefings and conference calls by federal officials, “who have conducted thousands of interviews, and posted thousands of documents and images of, not only this historic response, but also the tragic impacts of this continuing oil leak. In addition, response assets have provided press access to field operations nearly 700 times during the last two months including those areas hardest hit by this tragedy.”

Most of the images after the first two weeks put out by the Deepwater Response via e-mail, however, can only be described as “green washing,” showing pretty blue water and clean orange boom and happy federal workers on the job.

If it wasn’t for the Louisiana bureau of the Associated Press, a hand-full of broadcast reporters, and other independent journalists and activists challenging the media access fight at every level, the public would know little of the horrible, permanent travesty at work in the Gulf of Mexico.

“While a handful of sporadic instances have occurred where members of the media were turned away from certain areas by private entities, local law enforcement or non-leadership personnel, the constant stream of images on television and the robust amount of information available is testament to the fact these instances are the exception, not the rule,” Moloney said.

Last week Coast Guard Captains of the Port in the region put in place “limited, small waterside safety zones,” he said, around protective boom and those vessels actively responding to this spill, which caused an outcry and the creation of a Facebook group of photographers who plan to challenge the limit.

“This was required due to recent instances of protective boom being vandalized or broken by non-response vessels getting too close,” Malony said. “These 20-meter zones are only slightly longer than the distance from a baseball pitcher’s mound to home plate.

“This distance is insignificant when gathering images,” he claimed. “In fact, these zones, which do not target the press, can and have been opened for reporters as required.”

Nevermind that a photographer for the New Orleans Times Picayune said it would take a telescope to get closeup images from that distance, taking into account how far the boom is from land in places.

Media Could Face Criminal Penalties for Entering Oil Cleanup Safety Zone? For full article go HERE... For additional background See THIS...

“It is unfortunate that the safety zones are needed at all, but the responsibility of officials is to wage the most effective and safest response possible while best supporting factual and open reporting,” Malony says. “That will continue until BP caps its leaking well and the cleanup is complete.”

If it is ever capped, that is, and if the cleanup is done right.
Meanwhile, Plaquemines Paris President Billy Nunguesser has been outspoken in his support of having the media tell the story.

____________


Papantonio: BP Escrow Fund is a Sham

July 9th, 2010
Ringoffireradio.com

Mike Papantonio appears on The Randi Rhodes Show (with guest host Nicole Sandler), to discuss some of the most recent developments in the BP oil spill, including the new revelations that reporters could be fined as much as $40,000 and face a Class D felony for getting too close to oil workers.

Part 1



Papantonio:

"There is somewhat of a 'police state' starting to form up over the BP oil spill."

Reporters are being kept away from things that BP and the Obama administration don't want the public to see.

Part 2



Papantonio:

"This isn't just a BP story, this is about corporate America being in total control of the discion making process of our government."

"There is no BP money in escrow." Nothing is securitized. It's only a talking point. It is a lie." If BP went bankrupt tomorrow there would be no money.

"The 'frikin' government is taking over everything that is dear to us!"

Call your neighbor and say: we must talk about what's happening in America."

____________


Papantonio: BP - Salazar Should be Fired



____________


BP OIL SPILL VOLCANIC TSUNAMI AND POISON GAS ALERT



Dr.Bill Deagle

"There are 3 possible disconcerting scenario's 1) huge poisonous gaseous release(s) which could contaminate the gulf water and surrounding coast, 2) the precipitation of violent tropical storms and hurricanes and 3) as sea water gets into the oil reservoir with gradual equalization of pressures, the oil reservoir could become like a 'steam kettle' precipitating a dropping and rising of the sea floor and a resulting steam-related (volcanic) Tsunami."

Editor's NOTE:

I have been unable to independently verify the claims of Dr. Deagle so far.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

Gulf Oil Update: Day 81

Congressman Ed Markey Predicted Danger of Hurricane (Alex)

ds

Markey:

"We have no idea about the condition of the well casing under the Gulf."

"We should assume the worst case scenario now, prepare for it and hope that we don't have to use it."

____________


New Data from BP’s Coverup Firm Shows Dispersants in 20% of Offshore Workers

By: Michael Whitney
Firedoglake.com
Friday July 9, 2010 12:59 pm


Christine Millner, Environmental Scientist with CTEH (Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health) collects water and air samples from the Gulf of Mexico waters off Shell Beach, LA.

CTEH is the company contracted by BP to monitor air levels as they related to recovery worker safety in the Gulf of Mexico. The firm, which has a sordid history of covering up corporate environmental disasters, just released new data with BP yesterday that shows disturbing levels of toxic dispersants in 20% of offshore recovery workers and 15% of near-shore workers. But these just aren’t any toxic dispersants. It’s the same chemical blamed for chronic health problems in Exxon Valdez recovery workers that is now poisoning at least one-fifth of BP’s offshore recovery workers. Elana Schor reports for Greenwire:

"In an under-the-radar release of new test results for its Gulf of Mexico oil spill workers, BP PLC is reporting potentially hazardous exposures to a now-discontinued dispersant chemical — a substance blamed for contributing to chronic health problems after the Exxon Valdez cleanup — among more than 20 percent of offshore responders. [...]

The new BP summary, including results up to June 29, show a broad majority of workers testing below exposure limits set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). But the Valdez-linked chemical 2-butoxyethanol was detected at levels up to 10 parts per million (ppm) in more than 20 percent of offshore responders and 15 percent of those near shore. The NIOSH standard for 2-butoxyethanol, which lacks the force of law but is considered more health-protective than the higher OSHA limit, is 5 ppm."

Data from Louisiana Office of Public Health compiled by Firedoglake shows that almost half of workers reporting illnesses were working offshore. Their symptoms include headaches, nausea, vomiting, sore throat, coughing, shortness of breath, and irritation of the nose and eyes - symptoms consistent with of exposure to 2-butoxyethanol.

Of course, while CTEH and BP included the health limits for every other chemical they measured, they conveniently forgot to include that helpful information for its measurements for 2-butoxyethanol.

OSHA’s standard for exposure to this toxic chemical is 50 parts per million for a 40-hour work week, while NIOSH, part of the CDC, suggests a toxicity limit of just 5 parts per million. CTEH and BP’s data showed 20% of offshore workers and 15% of near-shore workers had levels of this toxic chemical at 10 parts per million. (Twice the toxic level of 5 ppm--Editor)

When I spoke with Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Jordan Barab, earlier this week, Barab told me that OSHA hasn’t ”found anything approaching the minimum levels” of toxic components of dispersants for the “most of up to date limits.” I asked the Department of Labor to clarify this morning if this included 2-butoxyethanol, but have not yet received a response.

The danger with OSHA’s level is that it is based on a work week – however, many recovery workers, particularly those working offshore, are around the toxic chemicals almost 24/7. Workers on boats, rigs drilling relief wells, and others miles off shore have constant exposure. Many others who aren’t deep offshore still live and work near or on the water, and have near constant exposure to toxic chemicals in the air for more than 40 hours per week.

But OSHA isn’t responsible for offshore workers. The agency’s jurisdiction ends 3 miles offshore, far away from the offshore workers most affected by exposure to dispersants. OSHA tells me that NIOSH is observing and monitoring offshore, with the Coast Guard in charge of enforcement. But CTEH apparently has primary responsibility for worker safety monitoring data offshore.

So what’s next? It seems to be that CTEH and BP’s exclusion of toxic limits for 2-butoxyethanol is an omission consistent with CTEH’s track record of covering up for corporate disasters. It’s clear that this toxic chemical that caused so much pain for Exxon Valdez recovery workers needs to be taken with the utmost concern by the federal government. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout) Levels of this chemical need to be considered in any health and safety protections for recovery workers, including respirators, at NIOSH’s limits. There also needs to be a government agency officially charged with protecting the safety of offshore workers that doesn’t rely on CTEH. There’s no reason to do anything less when the health and safety of recovery workers are at stake.

Finally, CTEH’s data has been long in coming; while CTEH claims to send data to the government on a daily basis, this is the first public release of data since early June. The government needs to whip BP and CTEH in line to provide real time information about toxicity in order to do everything possibly to protect recovery workers. If that means CTEH needs to go, then they need to go.

____________

GRITtv: BP Exploiting Workers in the Gulf

By: Michael Whitney
Firedoglake.com
Friday July 9, 2010 11:21 am



Yesterday I (Michael Whitney) went to GRITtv and spoke with host Laura Flanders and Louisiana author Jordan Flahrety about BP’s exploitation of working people in the Gulf Coast. We discussed just a few of the many problems facing fishermen, recovery workers, and residents of the Gulf that are all at the mercy of BP. Though OSHA issued limited standards for respirators, with health problems prevalent in the Gulf, OSHA says illnesses are heat-related. I also discussed problems with the claims process, ways fishermen can get screwed by BP, and how some are organizing to fight back. Jordan also makes some interesting points about the problem of historical exploitation of Gulf Coast communities by the oil industry, and what needs to happen for people to reclaim their lives back from Big Oil.

Check out our discussion in the video above, and much thanks to GRITtv and Laura Flanders for the great discussion.

Editor's NOTE:

Michael Whitney stressed that OSHA is currently underestimating the environmental risk to Gulf clean-up and recovery workers. For details see THIS...

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

____________


Rep. Maloney: Address Health of Gulf Cleanup Workers Now, Before They Lose It

By: Michael Whitney
Firedoglake.com
Wednesday June 9, 2010 3:59 pm



Rep. Carolyn Maloney took to the floor of the House of Representatives this morning to speak about the need to protect the health of cleanup workers responding to the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Maloney, who represents parts of Manhattan and Queens in the House, is one of the leaders in Congress in fighting for the health of 9/11 workers and rescuers who lacked adequate safety equipment. She stands up for the 60,000 people who pitched in at Ground Zero, more than half of whom report serious respiratory and other health problems to this day.

Knowing OSHA’s poor track record at enforcing laws during times of crisis, like the 9/11 cleanup, Maloney saw the situation unfolding in the Gulf and spoke out about the need to protect the health of cleanup workers, as she put it, “before they lose it.” Maloney said on the floor of the House this morning:

"The BP oil spill has caused a great emergency along our Gulf Coast. I hope as the response to it continues, we never forget the lessons of the Ground Zero workers. In the wake of 9/11, thousands of men and women labored tirelessly. Driven by a sense of urgent purpose, safety precautions were not taken, and assurances were given that proved to be false. The health of far too many of those who worked on that toxic pile, they suffered long-term health consequences.

Now in the Gulf, men and women are once again being exposed to a toxic sea of elements. After just 40-some days, there are already reports that workers have suffered exposure to the oil, and this cleanup will go on for years. The time to address the issue of the health of the cleanup workers is now, before they lose it."

Maloney knows that in the days, weeks, and months following 9/11, people in lower Manhattan were at risk of serious health issues due to poor air quality and asbestos from the fallen buildings. Despite pleas from local authorities, members of Congress, and the workers themselves, OSHA and EPA refused to require workers use respirators and other personal protection equipment to protect their health. Dr. Kirk Murphy at the Seminal pointed us to what happened, or didn’t, after 9/11:

"With regard to the Ground Zero clean-up, the FOIA request uncovered a trail of email and other documents showing that the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the New York City Fire Department (NYCFD) all asked for OSHA enforcement during October 2001 when the immediate crisis had passed and extensive clean-up efforts were underway. Despite requests, OSHA did not enforce its regulations. It is estimated that as many as 60,000 workers and volunteers assisted in the clean-up. Though no one knows what portion failed to use proper PPE, anecdotal reports suggest that unsafe exposure was commonplace. Already, as many as 60 percent of all Ground Zero workers have shown some signs of respiratory illness and some have died due to their exposure."

OSHA needs to conduct a monitoring program independent of the recovery effort of BP and the Coast Guard. We need to know every data point of air monitoring in the region. We need to know the safety training for workers gives them the knowledge they need to recognize risks to their health. And we need to know workers have every available piece of personal protection equipment, including respirators, that they need to work safely with the cleanup of BP’s oil. If we don’t act now, and if OSHA continues to provide cover for BP, Gulf cleanup workers will suffer for the rest of the lives, and BP will wash its hands thanks to the complicity of OSHA.

Gulf Oil Update: Day 80

Censorship and Cover-up in the Gulf Oil Disaster
World Socialist Web Site, wsws.org
6 July 2010

The Obama administration has intensified its cover-up of the BP oil disaster. On July 1 it issued an order barring the public and the news media from coming within 65feet of clean-up operations without permission from the Coast Guard. The transparent aim of the order, which purports to protect the safety of clean-up workers, is to prevent the population from viewing the devastation wrought by the BP oil blowout.

The gag order states that that anyone not authorized by the Coast Guard “must not come within 20 meters [65 feet] of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.” The wording—“oil spill response operations”—could be construed as covering the entire affected region, which stretches from the Mississippi Delta to the Florida Panhandle.

Journalists who “willfully” defy the White House order could be prosecuted as Class D felons and face up to five years in prison and a $40,000 fine. Exceptions to the ban will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans.

In defending the order, Coast Guard Commander Thad Allen stated that the measure aims to protect clean-up workers, but he failed to cite a single incident of safety being compromised by “unauthorized personnel.”

The real concern the White House has is that clean-up workers might reveal something about the dangerous conditions under which they work and the real scale of the environmental devastation—defying a gag order imposed by BP. An unknown number of these workers—likely hundreds, perhaps thousands—have become sick from exposure to oil and toxic dispersants and may well face a lifetime of chronic ailments.

The new effort to gag the media continues a campaign launched three weeks ago by the administration to reach what Obama adviser David Axlerod called an “inflection point” in the Gulf crisis. In a string of public relations events from June 11 through June 17, President Obama visited the Gulf for two days, gave a nationally televised Oval Office speech on the blowout, and met in the White House with BP CEO Tony Hayward and Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg.

That meeting resulted in the announcement that BP would finance a $20 billion settlement fund, which would be “independently” administered. This was presented by Obama as a major concession wrenched from the oil company and a boon to the many thousands of Gulf residents whose livelihoods have been destroyed as a result of BP’s actions.

In reality, the deal was a boon to BP, effectively placing a cap over its major liabilities—for a disaster whose total costs will be reckoned in the hundreds of billions of dollars—and shielding it from lawsuits and damage claims.

“Investors in BP should know that there’s now an alternative to the litigation system in place,” Independent Claims Facility administrator Kenneth Feinberg told CNBC. “I think that’s a really helpful sign if you’re an investor.”

Feinberg has already declared that the fund will be off limits to the majority of those affected by the blowout—people in the tourism industry, fishermen who operate on a cash basis, Gulf coast homeowners whose property values will plunge.

The carefully scripted and orchestrated series of events in mid-June was meant to signal a halt to the anti-BP posturing by the government and begin a tamping down of media coverage of the catastrophe. In effect, the American people were told the poisoning of the Gulf, with all of its consequences, would continue at least until BP completed its relief wells some time in August—and they should get used to it!

The latest move to censor coverage of the Gulf crisis is in keeping with this strategy and is in line with the Obama administration’s policy ever since the Deepwater Horizon rig blew up on April 20, killing 11 workers. The primary concern of both BP and the White House has been to cover up the gravity of the pollution of vast parts of the Gulf of Mexico and beaches and wetlands in at least four US states.

At stake is not only the population’s right to know what is happening to the seas, shores and wildlife that are now treated as the private property of BP, it is quite simply impossible to formulate an adequate response outside of an independent assessment of the extent of the damage.

There are by now countless reports of journalists and citizens being ordered away from beaches or blocked from viewing the spill from the land, air and sea by BP, the Coast Guard and hired security agents. In mid-June, the White House banned airplanes from flying over the spill zone at altitudes below 3,000 feet, and helicopters below 1,500 feet, without a special exemption from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported last week that journalists have been repeatedly barred from a government mobile hospital in Venice, Louisiana that is treating clean-up workers.

BP and its supplier Nalco, have even refused to reveal to scientists the chemical composition of Corexit, the dispersant that has been dumped by the hundreds of thousands of gallons into the Gulf to break up the oil, because, they say, it is a trade secret. BP simply defied an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order issued one month ago, to cease use of Corexit pending further testing. Obama decided not to pursue the matter.

For nearly two months, BP and government stonewalling made it impossible even to assess how big the blowout was. Insisting from the first that BP was “in charge” of the clean-up, the administration colluded with the oil giant to block independent analysis of the gusher one mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. Only under steady criticism from scientists did the administration repeatedly revise upward the rate of the oil erupting from the sea floor. The spill is now, by all accounts, the largest in history.

All of this underscores the necessity to take the response to the oil disaster out of the hands of BP and the Obama administration.

The Gulf disaster requires a mass response. It is first of all necessary to bring together the best scientists and engineers in the world, give them full and unfettered access to all information related to the disaster, and place them in charge of hundreds of thousands of well-trained, well-equipped and well-paid workers.

The resources necessary for this undertaking can be realized by nationalizing BP and the entire oil industry and converting the industry into a public utility, democratically run by the working population in the interests of society as a whole.

This, in turn, requires the mass mobilization of the working class, independently of both parties of big business, based on a socialist program that rejects the “right” of corporations and financiers to unfathomable wealth at the expense of the people and the environment of the planet.


l27,000 abandoned oil wells in Gulf of Mexico
By Hiram Lee
wsws.org
8 July 2010

There are 27,000 abandoned oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. In spite of the potential for oil leaks due to corrosion and underground pressure, the wells are not inspected by the US government or any agency within the oil industry. These revelations were uncovered as part of an investigative report conducted by the Associated Press which describes the Gulf of Mexico as “an environmental minefield.”

According to the AP, over half of the 50,000 wells which have been drilled in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico have been abandoned, with 23,500 of them considered permanently sealed. As many as 3,500 of the wells are considered “temporarily abandoned.” The oldest of the abandoned wells investigated by the AP date back to the 1940s.

Wells are abandoned by oil companies when they are considered to no longer be profitable, or when the potential for the amount of oil to be drawn from the well is not as high as the company may have initially believed. According to the AP, “Some owners temporarily abandon wells to await a rise in oil prices.”

The standard procedure for plugging a well to be abandoned permanently by an oil company involves cutting riser piping 15 feet beneath the seabed, filling the well with heavy liquid, often referred to as drilling mud, to prevent the flow of oil and capping the well with cement plugs which can be up to 200 feet in length.

Several factors can cause abandoned wells to leak or fail, including erosion or aging in the cement used to plug the wells and repressurization of wells due to changes in geological conditions. Erosion in well casing or other areas of the well structure can allow oil and gas to escape to the surface. This can occur gradually or in a sudden catastrophic blowout.

The permanent sealing of an offshore well is costly and time consuming, costing as much as $200,000 and taking as many as 10 days work. Many oil companies get around this by classifying their wells as “temporarily abandoned,” so they can plug the wells in a less thorough and expensive process. Federal regulations only mandate that companies provide a yearly plan stating their intentions to either return to the well or to seal it permanently in the future.

Using this loophole, companies can leave their wells in a kind of legal limbo for years. They can do so knowing they will face no repercussion from governmental regulating industries. The AP found that the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) has issued fines of “just $440,000 on seven companies from 2003-2007 for improper plug-and-abandonment work.”

The AP reports that “About three-quarters of temporarily abandoned wells have been left in that status for more than a year, and many since the 1950s and 1960s—even though sealing procedures for temporary abandonment are not as stringent as those for permanent closures.”

BP has abandoned no less than 600 wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

Relief wells could be ineffective.

A contractor with BP has said the company is ahead of schedule in drilling its first relief well. Billy Brown, the president of Blackhawk Specialty Tools, a company hired by BP to work on the cementing process of the relief well plan, claims BP is within ten feet of intersecting with its leaking Macado well. Brown recently told reporters “hopefully in the next two weeks we are going to be hearing some very good things.”

National Incident Commander Thad Allen gave reporters a different estimate on Tuesday saying, “They have about 264 feet left to go before they can get to a point where they can potentially intercept the well.” Allen is standing by the timeline which places completion of the first relief well in mid-August, even though he says BP is a week ahead of schedule.

The relief wells are intended to intersect the blown-out Macado well at a depth of 18,000 feet. Once the wells intersect, a heavy liquid will be pumped into the leaking well in order to stop the flow of oil. The Macado well will then be plugged with concrete.

While BP’s plan to stop the leak with relief wells has been promoted as the ultimate solution to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the more trustworthy fall-back plan once all other efforts to stop the leak had failed, there is a real possibility the relief wells could also be ineffective.

David Rensink, the incoming president of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, has discussed the difficulties involved with intersecting the leaking well. Rensink told reporters, “You’re trying to intersect the well bore, which is about a foot wide, with another well bore, which is about a foot wide.” Rensink has said making contact on the first attempt “would truly be like winning the lottery.”

There is a danger that if BP misses its target, it could drill into a high-pressure zone and cause a gas “kick” which might lead to a blowout in the relief well itself. However, even if the company does hit its target on the first try, there is still no guarantee of success.

In an online discussion hosted by the Washington Post, John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil and the current CEO of Citizens for Affordable Energy, discussed the possibility that the Macado well casing could have been damaged during the April 20 blowout or eroded by the leaking oil, putting the success of a relief well in doubt. Damage to the casing could allow the mud to be forced into the well to escape and prevent it from bringing the flow of oil to a halt.

“If the casing is compromised,” wrote Hofmeister, “the well is that much more difficult to shut down, including the risk that the relief wells may not be enough. If the relief wells do not result in stopping the flow, the next and drastic step is to implode the well on top of itself, which carries other risks as well.”


Oil spill reaches Texas and Lake Pontchartrain
By Tom Eley
wsws.org
7 July 2010

Laboratory analysis on Tuesday confirmed that tar balls found washed ashore on beaches in Galveston, Texas, over the weekend originated from the BP’s Macondo well, which is gushing out millions of gallons of oil per day 50 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana.

Oil has now washed ashore in all the Gulf states—Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida—in a 550-mile stretch, about equivalent to the length of Great Britain from its northern to southern tips.

Tar balls and oil sheen have also been discovered in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain, the estuary located directly to the north of New Orleans. Since the large saltwater lake is connected by only a thin strait to the Gulf, the arrival of the tar balls suggests that the oil and its toxic effects will increasingly penetrate into inland areas.

On Monday the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration expanded its ban on Gulf fishing to more than 81,000 square miles, about a third of all federal waters in the Gulf. The ban already includes most of the region’s richest fishing areas, effectively shutting down one of the coast’s largest industries.

BP’s efforts to collect the oil, meanwhile, are floundering.

In its skimming operations, BP has been able to collect less than 1,000 barrels of oil per day by its own count. Yet in an environmental impact statement produced only one month before the April 20 blowout on the Deepwater Horizon, BP told the federal government that it would have the ability to skim and remove 491,721 barrels per day, the Washington Post reports.

Obama administration regulators did not question the estimate before approving BP’s operations at the Macondo site. BP’s daily collection average, 900 barrels, has been about two tenths of one percent of what the oil giant assured the federal government it could remove. In fact the total amount of oil skimmed in the 77 days of the disaster—67,143 barrels—is but 13 percent of what BP claimed prior to the blowout that it could remove in a single day.

BP and the Obama administration have sown confusion about the effectiveness of the skimming, reporting on Monday that 671,428 barrels had been skimmed. This would be an impressive figure, were it not the case that it was at least 90 percent seawater.

Skimming operations have been made ineffective in recent days by choppy waters, conditions which are expected to continue for the next week.

Walter, a skimming boat captain, told World Socialist Web Site reporters that skimming is ineffective. “We’re barely doing anything. Out of 150 million gallons, we haven’t picked up two million,” he said. “They deliberately sunk all the oil to the bottom as a PR move. There just isn’t much for us to skim.”

John, a cleanup worker from Missouri, said that a six-man boat crew, working all day, sometimes can gather only fifteen gallons of oil. Dean Blanchard, a shrimper, has seen boats return after a day’s work with only 4-5 gallons.

BP has burned a much larger share of the oil, 238,095 barrels in all, and it claims that 632,410 barrels have been recovered from siphoning operations at the wellhead. The burning of the oil has been harshly criticized over concerns about potential damage to human health caused by the resulting airborne pollutants.

But the largest amount by far has been lost into the deeper waters of the Gulf. At the high-end spill rate estimate, according to PBS, the blowout has produced 300 million gallons, or about 7,143,000 barrels. The low end in the range of official estimates, 87 million gallons or just over 2 million barrels, is simply not credible, given BP’s claim that it has siphoned, burned, or skimmed about half of that amount.

With each passing day the social and ecological catastrophe caused by the spill worsens. The fishing and tourism industries have been all but shut down. The consequences to human health are only now beginning to come into focus, with hundreds or perhaps thousands of clean-up workers developing health problems from acute exposure to the toxic mix of oil and chemical dispersants. Entire species, some already endangered, now face annihilation.

Scientists have expressed fear that the Gulf region could reach an ecological tipping point where a substantial share of sea life will vanish from vast areas of what was once one of the most biologically rich zones in the Western Hemisphere.

Now a British team of scientists has warned that the oil disaster is likely to raise the level of arsenic in the sea water substantially.

Arsenic, a highly poisonous metallic element, occurs naturally in sea water. Normally it is deposited in sediment on the seafloor and covered up. However, oil seems to disrupt this natural settling process, and also carries substantial levels of arsenic itself. Fish and other organisms consume the arsenic, and it accumulates and concentrates as it moves its way up the food chain toward humans. In addition, arsenic can disrupt photosynthesis in simple marine plants and cause genetic defects in animals.
“Oil spills stop the normal process because the oil combines with sediment and it leads to an accumulation of arsenic in the water over time,” said Professor Mark Sephton of Imperial College. “Our study is a timely reminder that oil spills could create a toxic ticking time bomb, which could threaten the fabric of the marine ecosystem in the future.”

This week BP announced that it will proceed with high-risk oil exploration in spite of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It made the declaration in response to opposition from a group of shareholders.

“The position is the same now as it was at the strategy update earlier in the year. We are committed to three core areas of deep-water oil, unconventional gas and enhanced recovery on super-sized fields,” a spokesman said in London. “The world needs oil to meet growing demand and total risk aversion would just drive up prices.”

"The Gulf of Mexico is Hemorrhaging Oil: Greed is Destroying the Environment

Citizens Take Action to Stop Gulf Oil Catastrophe

by Chip on Thu, 2010-06-24
WarIsacrime.org

New Emergency Committee Condemns “Drill, Baby, Drill” Ruling; Demands “Stop Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico” | Press Release
Calls for Mass Independent Action to Stop Gulf Oil Catastrophe |

See: GulfEmergencySummit.org

A new Emergency Committee to Stop the Gulf Oil Disaster, formed this past weekend following an Emergency Summit in New Orleans, has condemned the Federal Court decision to overturn a temporary ban on oil drilling and has called for a complete half to offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, demanding that all those affected by a shutdown be provided full compensation, retraining and new employment if needed.

“Judge Feldman’s decision that the government didn’t make its case to shut down deepwater drilling flies in the face of common sense and sanity,” said committee member and NOLA resident Elizabeth Cook. “The oil lapping at our shores, killing our wildlife and marine life, IS the case for shutting down deepwater drilling.”

“This decision is an outrage,” said committee member Larry Everest, an author and writer for Revolution newspaper. “Millions of gallons of oil are spewing into the Gulf everyday, BP has removed even its temporary cap on the gusher, and the system is basically saying ‘drill, baby, drill.’ The people must act to stop this catastrophe. This system is not a fit caretaker of the earth.”

The new Emergency Committee argues that this decision and the entire course of this disaster show that “the response to this catastrophe must not be left in the hands of BP and the government.” Organizers state, “We won’t sit by or be reduced to passive spectators, we’re committed to getting out the truth, mobilizing mass independent action, and galvanizing many, many more to act to stop the oil catastrophe.” On Monday, June 21, the new Committee organized the first protest at the offices of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command Center now in New Orleans, where it presented the following demands:

1) Stop oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Full compensation, retraining, and new employment for all affected.

2) Immediately end use of dispersants. Fund all necessary scientific and medical research on human and environmental impact of dispersants and make public all findings. Immediately begin remediation of damage caused by dispersants.

3) The government and entire oil industry must allocate all necessary resources to stop and clean up the blowout gusher, prevent oil from hitting shore, protect wildlife, treat injured wildlife, and repair all devastation. Full support, including by compensation and a major public works program, must be given to peoples’ efforts on all these fronts and to save the Gulf.

4) No punishment to those taking initiative independent of BP and the government to protect the environment and public health; no gag orders on people hired, contracted, or who volunteer. Those responsible for this crime against the environment and the people should be prosecuted.

5) Full mobilization of scientists and engineers. Complete transparency and disclosure of all information and documentation, including scientific and technical data, concerning every aspect of this disaster.

6) Full compensation for all losing livelihood and income from the disaster.

7) Immediately provide all necessary medical services to those suffering direct and indirect health effects from the oil disaster. Immediately protect the health of and provide all necessary equipment for everyone involved in clean up operations. Full disclosure of medical and scientific studies concerning the impacts of the oil disaster.

Contact: Larry Everest 504-644-7214

Initial Endorsers:
William Quigley, Loyola University; Legal Dir., Center for Constitutional Rights*
Michael G. Hadfield, Marine Biologist, University of Hawaii*
Larry Everest, author Oil, Power & Empire, Revolution newspaper
John Pearse, Prof. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of California,
Santa Cruz*
Eloise Williams, Lower Algiers Environmental Committee, New Orleans
Elizabeth Cook, Women United for Social Justice, New Orleans
Andy Washington, Civil Rights Activist, New Orleans
Survivors Village, New Orleans
Ben Gordon, Pax Cristi, New Orleans
Debra Sweet, Director, World Can't Wait
Sharon Jasper, public housing activist, New Orleans
C3-Hands Off Iberville, New Orleans
George Mahdi, Social Worker, New Orleans
Endesha Juakeli, housing activist, New Orleans
Randy Poindexter, New Orleans
Rebecca Austen, New Orleans
Gilda & Sain Reed, New Orleans

* for identification purposes only

Lapses Found in Oversight of Failsafe Device on Oil Rig

By by David Barstow, Laura Dodd, James Glanz, Stephanie Saul and Ian Urbina.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 20, 2010

It was the last line of defense, the final barrier between the rushing volcanic fury of oil and gas and one of the worst environmental disasters in United States history.

Its very name — the blind shear ram — suggested its blunt purpose. When all else failed, if the crew of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig lost control of a well, if a dreaded blowout came, the blind shear ram’s two tough blades were poised to slice through the drill pipe, seal the well and save the day. Everything else could go wrong, just so long as “the pinchers” went right. All it took was one mighty stroke.

On the night of April 20, minutes after an enormous blowout ripped through the Deepwater Horizon, the rig’s desperate crew pinned all hope on this last line of defense.

But the line did not hold.

For days, technicians and engineers worked furiously to figure out why, according to interviews and hundreds of pages of previously unreleased notes scrawled by industry crisis managers in the disaster’s immediate aftermath.

Engineers sent robotic submersibles 5,000 feet deep to prod the blind shear ram, nestled in the bosom of a five-story blowout preventer standing guard over the Macondo well.

They were driven on, documents and interviews reveal, by indications that the shear ram’s blades had come within a few maddening inches of achieving their purpose. Again and again, they tried to make the blades close completely, knowing it was their best chance to end the nightmare of oil and gas billowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

“If that would’ve worked,” a senior oil industry executive said of the blind shear ram, “that rig wouldn’t have burned up and sunk.”

Much remains unknown about the failure of this ultimate failsafe device. It continues to be a focus of inquiries, and some crucial questions will not be answerable until the blowout preventer is recovered from the sea.

But from documents and interviews, it is possible to piece together some of the decisions and events that came into play when the Deepwater Horizon most needed the blind shear ram.

Engineers contended with hydraulic fluid leaks that may have deprived the ram of crucial cutting force. They struggled to comprehend what was going on in the steel sarcophagus that encased the shear ram, as if trying to perform surgery blindfolded.

They wondered if the blades had by chance closed uselessly on one of the nearly indestructible joints that connect drilling pipe — a significant bit of misfortune, given a decision years before to outfit the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer with just one blind shear ram when other rigs were already beginning to use two of them to guard against just this possibility.

But the questions raised by the failure of the blind shear ram extend well beyond the Deepwater Horizon.

An examination by The New York Times highlights the chasm between the oil industry’s assertions about the reliability of its blowout preventers and a more complex reality. It reveals that the federal agency charged with regulating offshore drilling, the Minerals Management Service, repeatedly declined to act on advice from its own experts on how it could minimize the risk of a blind shear ram failure.

It also shows that the Obama administration failed to grapple with either the well-known weaknesses of blowout preventers or the sufficiency of the nation’s drilling regulations even as it made plans this spring to expand offshore oil exploration.

“What happened to all the stakeholders — Congress, environmental groups, industry, the government — all stakeholders involved were lulled into a sense of what has turned out to be false security,” David J. Hayes, the deputy interior secretary, said in an interview.

Even in one significant instance where the Minerals Management Service did act, it appears to have neglected to enforce a rule that required oil companies to submit proof that their blind shear rams would in fact work.

As it turns out, records and interviews show, blind shear rams can be surprisingly vulnerable. There are many ways for them to fail, some unavoidable, some exacerbated by the stunning water depths at which oil companies have begun to explore.

But they also can be rendered powerless by the failure of a single part, a point underscored in a confidential report that scrutinized the reliability of the Deepwater Horizon’s blowout preventer. The report, from 2000, concluded that the greatest vulnerability by far on the entire blowout preventer was one of the small shuttle valves leading to the blind shear ram. If this valve jammed or leaked, the report warned, the ram’s blades would not budge. This sort of “single-point failure” figures prominently in an emerging theory of what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon’s blind shear ram, according to interviews and documents. Some evidence suggests that when the crew activated the blind shear ram, its blades tried to cut the drill pipe, but then failed to finish the job because one or more of its shuttle valves leaked hydraulic fluid.

These kinds of weaknesses were understood inside the oil industry, This sort of “single-point failure” figures prominently in an emerging theory of what went wrong with the Deepwater Horizon’s blind shear ram, according to interviews and documents. Some evidence suggests that when the crew activated the blind shear ram, its blades tried to cut the drill pipe, but then failed to finish the job because one or more of its shuttle valves leaked hydraulic fluid.

These kinds of weaknesses were understood inside the oil industry, documents and interviews show. And given the critical importance of the blind shear ram, offshore drillers began adding a layer of redundancy by equipping their blowout preventers with two blind shear rams. . And given the critical importance of the blind shear ram, offshore drillers began adding a layer of redundancy by equipping their blowout preventers with two blind shear rams. MORE...

Extent of Biochemical and Ecological Effects of Gulf Oil Catastrophe To Date

--->Formation of underwater "plumes" of oil and water mixed.

--->Markedly increased methane concentrations (up to 10,000 times normal so far) in large underwater "plumes" which could eventually create extensive "dead-zones."

--->Decreased oxygen levels in underwater oil plumes.

--->Decreased phytoplankton "bloom."

--->Extensive Destruction of Gulf wet-lands, aquatic fish, mammals and bird life.

Putting A Lid on the Truth: Underwater Oil Plumes. The Oil Spill is far worse than the Surface Slick would suggest.

by Jim White

Global Research, May 20, 2010

On Saturday, the New York Times brought the world’s attention to the discovery by a team of researchers on the the vessel Pelican that there are large underwater plumes of oil see THIS... emanating from the Deepwater Horizon spill. Remarkably, the response of the government to the attention focused on this discovery has been to tell the researchers to stop granting interviews with the press. At the same time, the blog on which the researchers had been providing updates has also fallen silent since Saturday. (Editor's NOTE: For background see THIS...

Pensacola television station WEAR filed a report on the oil plume and broke the news about the scientists being muzzled by the government:

Over the weekend, a research crew from the University of Southern Mississippi found evidence that there are 3 to 5 plumes… About 5 miles wide, 10 miles long and 3 hundred feet in depth.

But after giving that information to the press, the lead researcher now says he has been asked by the federal government… Which funds his research… To quit giving interviews until further testing is done.

What an interesting change of course for the government. Even the government’s website on the Deepwater Horizon response had been touting the mission of the Pelican as recently as May 6:

The university fleet research vessel Pelican, operated by the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, departed Cocodrie, La., late Tuesday and arrived at the spill source on Wednesday. They will return on Sunday for more supplies, and go back to the site later that week.

The ship had been outfitted and ready to support a different NOAA-funded mission, but it was scrubbed in favor of gathering timely and much-needed data close to the oil spill source.

“This sampling mission is one of many NOAA responses to the oil spill,” acting NOAA assistant administrator for NOAA Research Craig McLean said. “It fills an important gap in researching the interaction of spilled oil and the ocean environment. The samples will help us better understand affected ocean resources.”

“We plan to sample as close to the well head as is safe, reasonable and allowable,” said Ray Highsmith, executive director for NIUST and principal investigator for both the original and revised mission. “We then plan to travel northwestward toward our long-term study site.”
The question now becomes whether the government, in the form of NOAA (which sponsored the research) is merely asking for a pause in order to process data more fully, or if it is putting the lid on a story that shows the oil spill to be far worse than the surface slick would suggest. One way to judge the answer to that question will be to see how quickly the research team is able to find ship time for gathering more data. Here is one of the researchers, Dr. Vernon Asper, speaking with NPR on May 16 with interviewer Guy Raz (in the only post-May 15 interview I’ve been able to find for any of the researchers):

RAZ: Vernon Asper, what will you and the scientists aboard the Pelican be looking at in the coming days and weeks?

Dr. ASPER: The first thing we’re going to do is analyze our data and analyze the samples. And, of course, we’re planning our next cruises. We’re already making inquiries into finding ship time. It turns out that the limiting factor for studying this plume is the availability of research vessels.

The research fleet in the United States for academic purposes has been dwindling over the last few decades, and there just aren’t ships available. So we’re having a hard time getting access to vessels that can take us out there.

If the US government, acting through NOAA, is truly interested in understanding the extent of underwater oil plumes emanating from the Deepwater Horizon spill, then they will be able to arrange access for this team to gather more data aboard the Pelican or another research vessel very soon. On the other hand, if the desire of the government is to divert attention from what could be very disturbing results, then somehow this team just won’t be able to find ship time in the next few months. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout).

In the meantime, we have the first report of tar balls washing ashore in Key West. The material will be analyzed, and if the profile matches the material from the spill, then we will have confirmation that the oil has entered the loop current. Since we don’t see surface oil that far south, how could that oil reach Key West? Perhaps traveling as a plume under the surface?


Editor's NOTE: The following article by researcher Samantha Joye from almost 2 weeks ago provides valuable background information on the oil plumes.

Hide and seek
Gulf Oil Blog
By Samantha Joye | Published: June 6, 2010 12:17am

June 5th, 18:34. The plume was hiding. We anticipated that the flow trajectory of the oil and gas discharging from the leaking riser pipe would change after the pipe was cut but it was tough to predict which way the flow would go. We had a day and a half of ops remaining and our goal was to find the plume, revisit several stations to see how they had changed over time, and sample two control sites well away from the plume.

When we arrived back at ground zero, things had changed. The Discoverer Enterprise was sporting a methane flare. This is how drilling ships and rigs get rid of excess methane gas—they burn it.

The flare was visible from several miles away and when we were up close, about 0.75 miles away, the roar of the flame was audible. Several fire control boats were dousing the flare pipe and the area around it with water to keep it as cool as possible. The sound of the burning flame was mesmerizing and we spent some time taking in the sight.

We found the plume after about 8 (very frustrating) hours of searching for it. The weather was windy and rainy; the seas were unsettled; visibility was limited. The Discoverer Enterprise was about 1.5 miles away from us but you could barely see it through the rain. The dreary conditions mirrored how I felt after spending 8 hours trying to find something I knew was there. I thought the plume had moved to the east but it turned out that it had moved south. So much for intuition!

In the end, all was well because we found it. We wanted to have plume samples after the riser was cut so we could compare them to those collected before it was cut. We collected samples of the plume waters near the spill site and of the waters above and below the plume. Then, we moved on to re-occupy some stations we visited during our first three days of operations with the goal of determining how things had changed over a week.

We have three stations remaining to sample and will head back to Gulfport about 10PM this evening. We should be in tomorrow afternoon. During this cruise, we sampled 79 stations and conducted 89 CTD casts. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be analyzing samples, running lab experiments and pulling all the data together to see what stories they tell.

Below, I’ll do my best to answer some of the questions I have received in the past few days. The questions are in bold (I’ve shortened some of them); my answers are in regular font.

Is the oil/dispersant mixture in micellar form? Or is the oil in droplets?

The answer is both. It’s likely that some of the oil-dispersant mixture is present as micelles but there are also oil droplets in some of the samples, especially those from near the leaking riser pipe. There is a lot of light scattering in the plumes, this could be due to several factors, including the presence of oil in the water.

Re: sulfonate detergent micelles: what effect does this ionic packaging have on accessibility to the oil of bacteria doing the bioremediation?

Unfortunately, no one knows the answer to this question and it is a KEY question that we need to know the answer to.

Iron depletion appears to be a limiting factor in growth of algae in seawater. Is it known whether this, or some other limitation, will restrict bacterial degradation of the oil?

Oddly enough, there could be a good bit of iron coming out of this leaking well. We have not measured total Fe (Iron) content but others have told me that there is a lot of iron [Fe(III)] in the water. So, iron concentrations could be elevated around the spill site.

Why can’t they implode the well like they did during the Gulf War?

That is not really an option in this situation. This reservoir is extremely methane rich and detonating a blast would lead to major destruction and destabilization of a significant area of the slope in the vicinity of MC252. In my opinion, this option is far too dangerous to be seriously considered.

How serious is the oxygen depletion problem?

Potentially, this is a very serious problem. At present, oxygen concentrations exceed 2 mg/L but if concentrations drop below that, it would spell problems for any oxygen requiring organisms. The Southwest Plume is, at a minimum, 15 miles long x 2 miles long and the plume is about 600 feet thick. Temperatures in the plume are about 8-12ºC. We do not know the absolute oil content at this time.

The plume is largely water. This is not thick oil like you see on the surface in some places, it’s diluted oil and it’s most concentrated closest to the leaking riser pipe. Unlike a natural oil seep, which is most intense on the bottom and whose signal decreases with depth above the seafloor, the plume we are studying starts 200m above the seafloor and its intensity decreases horizontally with distance away from the leaking wellhead.

The specific gravity of oil is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not oil like you buy at the auto supply store. Think of it as gas-saturated oil that has been shot out of a deep sea cannon under intense pressure – it’s like putting olive oil in a spray can, pressurizing it and pushing the spray button. What comes out when you push that button? A mist of olive oil. This well is leaking a mist of oil that is settling out in the deep sea.

How much biodegredation appears to being observed for the oil plumes?

There is a tremendous amount of oxygen consumption in the plumes. We have measured respiration rates in the plumes, above and below the plumes, and at control sites where plumes are not present. The respiration rates in the plume are at least 5-10 times higher than we see anywhere else.

Are the conditions good for the microbes that can degrade these types of hydrocarbons?

Right now, conditions seem to be ideal for microbial degradation. But we need to do additional lab experiments to figure out what is regulating microbial activity.

Are the concentrations of the hydrocarbons so great that the microbes are overwhelmed or killed?

We have not yet measured toxicity but we plan to do that when we get back to the lab at UGA.


UGA expert describes a spill like no other

By Lee Shearer
Onlineathens.com
Published Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Nothing like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has ever happened before - at least not in human history - and it will take years for scientists to understand the damage it causes, University of Georgia marine scientist Samantha Joye said Tuesday.

"It's an imbalance in the system, and that's the danger. You've pushed it to a much more unstable condition," Joye said during a news briefing in the Georgia Center for Continuing Education.

Even the unprecedented infusion of millions of gallons of oil and methane gas probably won't turn the Gulf into a completely dead zone, said Joye, who returned Sunday from a two-week ocean-going research expedition to map and analyze one of the giant plumes that have formed underwater as oil, methane gas and other chemicals spew from a broken oil well a mile below the surface.

The scientists found that oxygen is severely depleted even in water far from the spill - creating conditions close to so-called dead zones, where fish and other marine creatures can't breathe because of the lack of dissolved oxygen in the water.

Bacteria breaking down the methane and other hydrocarbon chemicals in the oil consume the oxygen, Joye explained. But a lack of other nutrients such as nitrogen will likely limit the bacteria's ability to reproduce and use up the remaining oxygen.

Oil has spread for miles along the Gulf Coast since the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon blew up April 20, killing 11 workers and causing the well to spew petroleum uncontrollably. The oil now is washing ashore, killing marine birds, mammals and other animals, and fouling beaches.

Scientists fear the ecological damage could be worse from the oil hidden underwater than the slicks of oil visible at the surface.

Researchers first discovered the plumes in early May, but federal officials only Tuesday confirmed their existence. Officials with BP, the company responsible for the spill, said last week the plumes don't exist.

The plumes are not just oil, but a mixture of oil, methane and other organic chemicals suspended in sea water.

Joye's team measured methane levels in some places at 10,000 times what normal ocean water would contain.

"I've never seen methane concentration this high anywhere in the water," she said.

The oil is likely to slosh around in the Gulf of Mexico for a long time, swirled around by ocean currents, she said.

"It's not a closed body of water, but it's an isolated body of water," she said.

Chemical dispersant's added by BP have helped keep oil underwater.

"The whole goal of adding dispersant's (in deep water) was to keep the oil under water, which seems to be working," she said.

But much would have remained underwater anyway - and some of it could stay there a long time, too, Joye said. The mixing rate - the time it takes for bottom water to reach the surface and vice versa -in the Gulf is about 175 years, she said.

Scientists don't know how the spill and the drifting plumes will affect the web of life in the ocean, said Joye. They also don't know what the effects of the chemical dispersant's, will be, though the chemicals are banned as toxic in some countries.

Joye's research team found some evidence that some kinds of life are being suppressed. Small creatures called phytoplankton, a crucial link in the oceanic food web, usually proliferate at this time of year. But the depressed oxygen levels the scientists found indicate the blooms are not happening this year, she said.

Joye, a UGA faculty member since 1997, will recommend in hearings before Congress today that a blue-ribbon National Academy of Sciences panel investigate the consequences of the spill.

An estimated 50 million gallons or more has spewed into the Gulf since the rig sank, two days after the fatal explosion. Federal officials say the oil flow could continue into the fall.


SCIENTIST AWED BY SIZE, DENSITY OF UNDERSEA OIL PLUME IN GULF
By Paul Quinlan and Josh Vorhees of Greenwire
New York Times
June 9, 2010 (posted Jun. 8)

Vast underwater concentrations of oil sprawling for miles in the Gulf of Mexico from the damaged, crude-belching BP PLC well are unprecedented in "human history" and threaten to wreak havoc on marine life, a team of scientists said today, a finding confirmed for the first time by federal officials.

Researchers aboard the F.G. Walton Smith vessel briefed reporters on a two-week cruise in which they traced an underwater oil plume 15 miles wide, 3 miles long and about 600 feet thick. The plume's core is 1,100 to 1,300 meters below the surface, they said.

"It's an infusion of oil and gas unlike anything else that has ever been seen anywhere, certainly in human history," said Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia, the expedition leader.

Bacteria are breaking down the oil's hydrocarbons in a massive, microorganism feeding frenzy that has sent oxygen levels plunging close to what is considered "dead zone" conditions, at which most marine life are smothered for a lack of dissolved oxygen.

Such low-oxygen conditions were noticed farther from the spill site, although Joye said she did not think the process would immediately produce a dead zone, since low nutrient concentrations in the water would limit the rate of the bacterial consumption.

Joye said her team also measured extremely high levels of methane, which is also spewing from the gushing BP well at up to 10,000 times background levels in Gulf waters.

"I've been working in the Gulf of Mexico for 15 years," Joye said. "I've never seen methane concentration this high anywhere in the water."

Less clear to researchers like Joye are what role the unprecedented deployment of oil-dispersing chemicals are having on the undersea gathering of oil. She said dispersant's likely played a role in keeping the oil underwater but that they are "certainly not required" to produce such an effect, given the deep-water -- as opposed to surface -- injection of oil and gas.

Also still unclear, she said, are the long-term effects of oil and dispersant use on fisheries.

"The primary producers -- the base of the food web in the ocean -- is going to be altered. There's no doubt about that," Joye said. "We have no idea what dispersant's are going to do to microorganisms. We know they are toxic to many larvae. It's impossible to know what the impacts are going to be."

A full understanding and the full impact to the Gulf's fishery may be years away, she said.
"It's a very, very complicated problem, and there are a lot of people doing fisheries work to try to get a handle on this, but it's going to be months or years probably before we realize the full consequences of this spill," Joye said.

Asked to react to BP officials earlier assertions that the Gulf of Mexico was a large enough body of water to absorb the impact of an oil spill under way, Joye bristled.

"The solution to pollution is not dilution," she said. "It's an excuse, and it's arm-waving, and it takes away from the important things that we should be thinking about," she said, such as measuring the scope of the spill and its effects.

FEDERAL CONFIRMATION

Federal officials for the first time today confirmed the researchers' findings, although Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is leading the federal response to the spill, questioned the use of the term "plume" to describe that underwater oil.

"The term 'plume' has been used for quite awhile, [but] I think what we are talking about are concentrations," he said. "'Cloud' is a better term."

Joye's team's results echo the findings of a University of South Florida team aboard the Weatherbird II vessel.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said her agency had finished testing water samples collected by the USF team that confirmed the presence of the oil.

"The bottom line is, yes there is oil in the water columns," she told reporters. "That's confirmed for the sites we've done the analyses."

BP CEO Tony Hayward had disputed the presence of plumes, saying on June 6 that there was "no evidence" of their existence. BP spokesman John Pack said today they would be paying attention to the data that is coming in.

"We will obviously listen to what they have to say," Pack said.

Lubchenco said the test confirms the presence of subsurface oil, which she said federal scientists suspected was present.

Lubchenco said that oil was found in "very low concentrations" in the range of less than 0.5 parts per million. NOAA tested samples from three collection sites, confirming the presence of subsea oil 40 nautical miles northeast of the well. She said samples from a site 42 nautical miles northeast were inconclusive and that samples from a site 142 miles southeast "were not consistent with the oil spill."

"That does not mean it doesn't have significant impact. A more complete picture will require additional information, and we're in the process of getting that," Lubchenco said.

"We remain concerned about the location of oil on the surface and under the sea," Lubchenco said. "We are attacking it aggressively to mitigate the harm and understand the impact."

Lubchenco said "there is definitely oil subsurface" and that NOAA would continue to analyze water samples as they were collected.

"We will continue to do research to understand where it is and in what concentrations and what are its impacts," she said.