Why Did The U.S. Refuse International Help on The Gulf Oil Spill?

by Dian L. Chu
Global Research, June 10, 2010
Economic Forecasts & Opinions - 2010-06-09

Despite the vow by President Obama to keep the Gulf oil spill a top priority until the damage is cleaned up, 50 days after the BP rig exploded, a definitive date and meaningful solution is yet to be determined for the worst oil spill in the U.S. history.

So, you would think if someone is willing to handle the clean-up with equipment and technology not available in the U.S., and finishes the job in shorter time than the current estimate, the U.S. should jump on the offer.

But it turned out to be quite the opposite. .

U.S. Refused Help on Oil Spill

According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it.

"..While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."

Blame It On The Jones Act?

Separately, Belgian newspaper De Standaard also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Jones Act forbids them to work in the U.S.

A Belgian group--DEME-- contends it can clean up the oil in three to four months with specialty vessel and equipment, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S. The article noted there are no more than 5 or 6 of those ships in the world and the top specialist players are the two Belgian companies- DEME and De Nul - and their Dutch competitors.

The U.S. does not have the similar technology and vessel to accomplish the cleanup task because those ships would cost twice as much to build in the U.S. than in the Far East. The article further criticizes this "great technological delay" is a direct consequence of the Jones Act.

What Is The Jones Act?

The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters and between U.S. ports. Section 27, also known as the Jones Act, deals with coastal shipping; and requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.

The purpose of the law is to support the U.S. merchant marine industry. Critics said that the legislation results in increased costs moving cargoes between U.S. ports, and in essence, is protectionism, Supporters of the Act maintain that the legislation is of strategic economic and wartime interest to the United States. .

European Service Sector - Offshore Subsea Specialist

As discussed in my analysis of the oil service sector, the European companies typically possess the knowhow in offshore and subsea; whereas their North American counterparts excel in onshore drilling and production technologies.

So, it is more than likely that European firms do have the expertise to clean up the spill quicker and more effectively as DEME asserts.

Since the Jones Act means the Belgian ship and personnel cannot work in the Gulf, it does seem the Act has inhibited technology and knowledge exchange & development, and possibly prevented a quicker response to the oil spill.

Jones Waiver Time

On the other hand, waivers of the Jones Act may be granted by the Administration in cases of national emergencies or in cases of strategic interest. It would appear the U.S. government's initial refusal to foreign help most likely stemmed from a mis-calculation of the scale and deepwater technological barriers for this unprecedented disaster, and/or perhaps ..... pride.
Whatever the rationale, and if De Standarrd's claim that the Jones Act forbids the European companies to help fight the spill is true, it is high time the U.S. government grant the Jones waiver, and let this be an international collaborative effort. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout)
It's always better late than never.

Masking the Extent of the Disaster: The Worst of the Gulf Oil Spill has not been Revealed

by Brian Merchant
Global Research, May 25, 2010
Treehugger - 2010-05-20

One of the biggest hurdles to covering the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was actually getting a good look at the oil. For somewhat murky reasons (health, safety of fragile habitats), press has been repeatedly forbidden to enter impacted areas by the Coast Guard, BP, or the Fish & Wildlife Service.

I was on the ground in the Gulf. Trying to get the story from one of the fishermen contracted to work with BP was like asking them if they'd like a root canal on the spot. Word is that cleanup workers are told if they talk to the press, they're fired. And then there are the toxic chemical dispersants, which plays the biggest role in masking the extent of the disaster's damage by breaking the oil up and spreading it out -- at who knows what cost. So, the question is, will anyone ever see the worst of the catastrophic BP Gulf oil spill? Here are the five main reasons that you might not.

1. It's Not a Photogenic Disaster ... Yet

I spent the last 10 days traversing the Gulf coast, and I hardly saw few traces of actual oil. I know that there are videos out there that show how devastating the spill is -- the one that shows the 'Gulf bleeding' is especially powerful. But I'm afraid it's not powerful in the conventional sense -- most people probably don't see the copper colored water and the oily sheen over the waves as tragic, necessarily, but bizarre.

There is no doubt that the millions of gallons of oil currently floating around in the Gulf of Mexico will be supremely hazardous to wildlife and the local economy. But it sometimes seems the whole event is registering closer to a curiosity than a tragedy to those not immediately connected to it.

2. Chemical Dispersant Cover-Up

Which brings us to what may be BP's greatest aide in furthering this aim: the chemical dispersants. BP's plan to spray the dispersants on the leak from the source -- as well as dump them from planes flying above -- will effectively prevent oil from reaching the shore in the same form that the notorious slicks did in famous spills like the Exxon Valdez.

Despite the fact that nobody is sure exactly how toxic the stuff is, or how being deployed on such a large scale will effect ecosystems, it will have at least one effect: it will delay public outrage by masking the apparent extent of the spill's damage. After all, BP must know how damaging the Valdez spill was for Exxon's image -- some people still conjure up pictures of oil-coated birds at the mention of the brand. But make no mistake -- chemical dispersants will disrupt ecosystems in a massive way, even if you never see the true effect with your own eyes.

3. BP, Feds Cutting Off Press?

But there are other concerns as well. Most recently, video surfaced of the Coast Guard turning press away, claiming it was BP's orders. An NPR team was turned away when trying to access the oil-hit Chandeleur barrier island chain. The workers hired to cleanup the spill seem to be under pressure not to talk to press -- whenever I would approach a hired fisherman or contractor, they'd most often wave me away, or refuse to talk on record.

When I contacted a BP community liaison, he essentially dared me to call his bluff: he didn't deny the contractual clause, but he did say "I've got fishermen in my office all the time -- you want to talk to one right now?" But that was hardly reassuring, and obviously not an acceptable circumstance for an unbiased interview.

I attribute some of the press exclusion from the feds to a messy bureaucratic command structure -- officials flown in from all over the nation were giving, deflecting, and misinterpreting orders, and sending them on down the line to crews. But there does seem be a pointed effort, especially from BP, to drastically restrict press access.

4. Relative Public Apathy

Satellite images, oddly colored water, a collapsed hi-tech rig -- it all might seem more like a strange spectacle than a catastrophe. Fox News' anchor Brit Hume summed up the apathy the other day when he retorted "Show me the oil."

Of course, the thousands of people who are losing their livelihoods and the conservationists who understand the impact oil will have on undersea food chains are confidant that this is nothing short of a disaster. But without pictures of devastated wildlife -- which thus far have been few and far between -- or blackened coastlines, I fear that most will continue to underestimate how damaging this spill will be. That would, of course, play directly in BP's favor -- and undercut further investigative efforts.

5. It's More Convenient to Conceal the Devastation

One oft-voiced worry among conservation groups and other press that I heard as I trekked from marina to marina, city to city around the Gulf, was that there would only be interest in ensuring that justice was brought to those impacted by the spill as long as the cameras were rolling. And without any distinctly shocking material to film, those cameras would be rolling away sooner rather than later.

Which is why it's important that the Coast Guard explain a concrete policy for press access and that BP encourage the fishermen who've been out in the field to speak up about their encounters with the oil. If they have nothing to hide, then why clamp down, right? It's a spooky thought, but if there are images of gruesomely oil-slicked beaches and blackened birds, the public has a right to see it. Even if this does sound distressingly like a call for sensationalism -- it's in part because that very sensationalism will help bolster conservation efforts and strengthen sound policy initiatives.

And of course, I believe that the use of chemical dispersants is far too dangerous a gamble, and not only because it helps prevent people from grasping the severity of the spill, but because of the unknown long-term threats they pose to marine habitats. This stuff could yet emerge as the dominant narrative of the Gulf spill in hindsight, damaging food chains for generations, or worse.

The point of all of this is: don't believe just your eyes -- listen to reports coming in from legitimate conservation scientists and investigative journalists. Much of the press down there are out on the boats every day, desperately trying to get the best sense of what's going on -- and being thwarted by weather, BP, the dispersants, and sometimes evidently the Coast Guard. For 10 days, I was trying my best, too -- and I can tell you, it's looking like we may never see the worst of this spill with our own eyes.

Energy expert: Nuking oil leak 'only thing we can do'

Matt Simmons Interview
Bloomberg, May 28, 2010

Editor's NOTE:

Matt Simmons has been more accurate in his predictions than BP or the Obama administration. It would seem to be critical for an independent scientific team to ascertain whether the well casing has been transgressed with leak of oil into the surrounding subfloor earthen formation and if so at what depth below the sea floor. This would appear to be wise before resorting to even a small tactical sized nuclear bomb. It may still be possible to stop the flow by utilizing the standard technique of killing the well through the relief well.

--Dr. J. P. Hubert

BP Official Admits to Damage Beneath the Sea Floor: Dim Prospects for Stopping the Leak

Global Research, June 13, 2010
Wahington's Blog - 2010-06-12

There is growing evidence that BP's oil well - technically called the "well casing" or "well bore" - has suffered damage beneath the level of the sea floor.

The evidence is growing stronger and stronger that there is substantial damage beneath the sea floor. Indeed, it appears that BP officials themselves have admitted to such damage. This has enormous impacts on both the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf, and the prospects for quickly stopping the leak this summer.

On May 31st, the Washington Post noted:

Sources at two companies involved with the well said that BP also discovered new damage inside the well below the seafloor and that, as a result, some of the drilling mud that was successfully forced into the well was going off to the side into rock formations.

"We discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface," said a BP official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He said that mud was making it "out to the side, into the formation."

On June 2nd, Bloomberg pointed out:

Plugging the well is another challenge even after BP successfully intersects it, Robert Bea, a University of California Berkeley engineering professor, said. BP has said it believes the well bore to be damaged, which could hamper efforts to fill it with mud and set a concrete plug, Bea said.

Bea is an expert in offshore drilling and a high-level governmental adviser concerning disasters.

On the same day, the Wall Street Journal noted that there might be a leak in BP's well casing 1,000 feet beneath the sea floor:

BP PLC has concluded that its "top-kill" attempt last week to seal its broken well in the Gulf of Mexico may have failed due to a malfunctioning disk inside the well about 1,000 feet below the ocean floor.

The broken disk may have prevented the heavy drilling mud injected into the well last week from getting far enough down the well to overcome the pressure from the escaping oil and gas, people familiar with BP's findings said. They said much of the drilling mud may also have escaped from the well into the rock formation outside the wellbore.

On June 3rd, The Canadian Press quoted the top government official in charge of the response to the oil spill - Admiral Thad Allen, the commandant of the Coast Guard - as pointing to the same possibility:

The failure of the so-called top kill procedure - which entailed pumping mud into the well at high velocity - suggested "there actually could be something wrong with the well casing, and there could be open communication in the strata or the rock formations below the sea floor," Allen said.

On June 7th, Senator Bill Nelson told MSNBC that he's investigating reports of oil seeping up from additional leak points on the seafloor:

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL): Andrea we’re looking into something new right now, that there’s reports of oil that’s seeping up from the seabed… which would indicate, if that’s true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced… underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we’re facing.

Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC: Now let me understand better what you’re saying. If that is true that it is coming up form that seabed, even the relief well won’t be the final solution to cap this thing. That means that we’ve got oil gushing up at disparate places along the ocean floor.

Sen. Nelson: That is possible, unless you get the plug down low enough, below where the pipe would be breached.



Indeed, loss of integrity in the well itself may explain why BP is drilling its relief wells more than ten thousand feet beneath the leaking pipes on the seafloor (and see this).

Yesterday, recently-retired Shell Oil President John Hofmeister said that the well casing below the sea floor may have been compromised:

[Question] What are the chances that the well casing below the sea floor has been compromised, and that gas and oil are coming up the outside of the well casing, eroding the surrounding soft rock. Could this lead to a catastrophic geological failure, unstoppable even by the relief wells?

John Hofmeister: This is what some people fear has occurred. It is also why the "top kill" process was halted. If the casing is compromised 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.

As noted yesterday in The Engineer magazine, an official from Cameron International - the manufacturer of the blowout preventer for BP's leaking oil drilling operation - noted that one cause of the failure of the BOP could have been damage to the well bore:

Steel casing or casing hanger could have been ejected from the well and blocked the operation of the rams.

Oil industry expert Rob Cavner believes that the casing might be damaged beneath the sea floor, noting:

The real doomsday scenario here… is if that casing gives up, and it does come through the other strings of pipe. Remember, it is concentric pipe that holds this well together. If it comes into the formation, basically, you‘ve got uncontrolled [oil] flow to the sea floor. And that is the doomsday scenario.

Cavner also said BP must "keep the well flowing to minimize oil and gas going out into the formation on the side":

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And prominent oil industry insider Matt Simmons believes that the well casing may have been destroyed when the oil rig exploded. Simmons was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush, is an adviser to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, and is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations.

On May 26th, Simmons referred to this issue on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On May 27th, Simmons again addressed this issue on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And he referred to it again on Bloomberg on May 28th:




And again on MSNBC on June 7th :


We have a right to know what's really going on.

Given the impact on America's people, natural resources and economy, BP and the government must fully disclose the amount of damage underneath the sea floor, and what that means for the efforts to cap the well.

Gulf oil spill: 'Kevin Costner solution' has green light, but no green

By: Louis Sahagun
Los Angeles Times
June 12, 2010 | 8:27 am



Actor Kevin Costner's oil-spill device has all the approval it needs to scoop the goop from the Gulf of Mexico, but is waiting for money from BP, according to the actor and his business partner.

BP has issued a letter of intent to buy 32 centrifugal oil-and-water separators, Costner said Thursday. His company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, was ramping up its operations to ship more than two dozen of the massive stainless steel machines to the Gulf of Mexico, he said.

“Kevin has spent 15 years and $24 million of his own money on this technology, and we have spent over $1 million more than that on adjusting the machines and preparing them for testing,” said Costner’s business partner, Louisiana attorney John Houghtaling. “We haven’t gotten a check yet from BP. The sooner it comes, the sooner we can act.”

Deployment of the 2½-ton machines had been delayed by rigorous testing requirements of BP and federal regulatory agencies, as well as engineering challenges posed by leaked oil that had degraded over time into gooey masses with the consistency of peanut butter, Costner said. MORE...

Gulf oil spill: Flow rate now 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day, panel says [Updated]

By: Bettina Boxall
Los Angeles Times
June 15, 2010 | 2:51 pm

As many as 60,000 barrels of oil per day may be flowing from the blown-out wellhead in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the newest government estimates.

Basing their calculations partly on pressure readings from the wellhead and acoustic soundings, a team of federal and independent scientists said Tuesday the current daily well flow ranges from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.

The figures are the latest in a series of flow estimates that have steadily risen in recent weeks, but they may not be the last.

"As we continue to collect additional data and refine these estimates, it is important to realize that the numbers can change," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "In particular, the upper number is less certain, which is exactly why we have been planning for the worst-case scenario at every stage and why we are continuing to focus on responding to the upper end of the estimate, plus additional contingencies."

[Updated at 4:04 p.m.: Federal officials said they have greater confidence in the latest numbers than earlier ones because the new calculations are based on a greater variety of data.

“This estimate brings together several scientific methodologies and the latest information from the sea floor, and represents a significant step forward in our effort to put a number on the oil that is escaping from BP’s well,” Chu said.

The new flow rates are based on high-resolution videos taken by underwater robots, acoustic soundings, new pressure readings from inside the recently installed containment cap and measurements of the volume of oil the cap is funneling to a production ship.

“This estimate ... is the most comprehensive estimate so far of how much oil is flowing one mile below the ocean’s surface,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

The higher flow rates are ratcheting up pressure on BP to quickly get enough tankers and equipment on site to capture the full amount.

On Monday, 15,420 barrels of oil were collected. The system BP currently has in place can capture up to 18,000 barrels a day. The company is adding additional capacity that will soon give it the ability to handle up to 28,000 barrels.

That will grow to about 50,000 barrels per day by the end of June and 60,000 to 80,000 barrels by mid-July, federal officials said.

The new estimates take into account any increase that occurred when a riser pipe attached to the well was sliced off early this month. Engineers had previously said the cut might push up the flow by as much as 20%. But Tuesday's release did not discuss the cut's effect. ]

In the early days of the spill, oil company BP and federal officials said the flow was 1,000 barrels per day, a figure that was ramped up to 5,000 after an environmental group challenged the figures. The scientific panel was formed, and it issued a preliminary estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day. Last week, the same group upped its estimate to 20,000 to 40,000 barrels per day.

The day after the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, the U.S. Coast Guard evaluated the "potential environmental threat" of a spill and concluded that, in addition to 700,000 gallons of diesel from the vessel, there was an "estimated potential of 8,000 barrels per day of crude oil, if the well were to completely blow out," according to Coast Guard documents released last week.

Two days later, Coast Guard logs included a new estimate that a full blowout could result in a spill of 64,000 to 110,000 barrels per day. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout) (A barrel equals 42 gallons.)

Gulf oil spill: Oil execs scolded for 'cookie cutter' spill plans

By: Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times
June 15, 2010 | 1:28 pm

Oil company executives came under attack during congressional hearings Tuesday for having what Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) called "cookie cutter’’ oil spill response plans that are similar to, and no better than, BP’s plan in the Gulf of Mexico.

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) asked Lamar McKay, chairman and president of BP America Inc., to "apologize to the American people’’ for his company’s underestimating the amount of oil spewing into the gulf, now pegged at between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels a day since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

Update: A government panel on Tuesday revised that figure to 35,000 to 60,000.

Markey contended that "BP’s low-balling’’ was "either deliberate deception or gross incompetence.’’

"We are sorry for everything the Gulf Coast is going through,’’ McKay said, though he disputed that his company was responsible for the earlier estimates, which ranged from 1,000 barrels to 5,000 barrels in the early days of the disaster.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) went further – calling on McKay to resign. "I really think in light of the performance of you as the CEO and what has occurred, I really think you should be resigning as chairman of BP America,’’ Stearns told McKay.

McKay did not respond.

Bringing up the devastating 1969 Santa Barbara spill during the hearing, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) displayed pictures showing how a boom used then had barely changed from the booms being used today.
"I don’t see a lot of difference in technology between the cleanup in Santa Barbara and the cleanup now underway in the gulf,’’ she said.

The hearing came during what has become an almost daily frenzy of activity on Capitol Hill over the disaster, which killed 11 men and started the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

A group of lawmakers, mostly Republicans and some Democrats from the Gulf Coast, stepped up their efforts to get deep-water drilling underway again, underscoring that energy policy is often shaped by regional interest rather than party affiliation. The Obama administration has enacted a six-month moratorium on such drilling, pending the findings of a presidential panel investigating ways to prevent another disaster like this one.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) likened the moratorium to "taking a jackhammer to the bedrock of the Louisiana economy’’ that depends on energy production for jobs.

On Tuesday, a group of Democratic senators sent another letter to BP calling on the company to "refrain from setting aside any funds for a dividend payment until the amount of the damages related to the oil spill can be estimated and the company has established an escrow account to cover those costs.’’
Yet more spill-related legislation was introduced, including one that would require oil companies to drill emergency relief wells at all new offshore drilling sites.