Seeking Alpha

FocalPoint Anal...'s  Instablog

FocalPoint Analytics
Send Message
I own and operate an analytical services/ research company.
My book:
The Internet in Everyday Life (Chapter 19)
  • Part 3: We all know the Gulf blow out is a disaster….  133 comments
    Jun 13, 2010 3:43 PM

    This is a continuation of the first InstaBlog on the same subject.


    Scroll down for charts and pictures.

    I hate being the bearer of bad news… but…..

    Key Facts:
    + One barrel of oil = 42 US gallons. 
    + One metric Ton of oil = 7.3 barrels = 306.6 US gallons
    + 5,000 barrels of oil = 210K gallons
    + 5,000 barrels of oil = 684.9 metric tons
    + The Exxon Valdez leaked 12M gallons of oil.
    + The Santa Barbara blowout released 4.2M gallons of oil.
    + The Gulf rig sank on April 22.  That's 10 days as of today, May 1st.

    Assuming 5,000 Barrels per day flow rate:
    5,000 barrels per day is 210k gallons per day. So as of today (May 1st), the Gulf blowout has released 2.1M gallons.  The Gulf blowout will be equal to the size of the Santa Barbara blowout on May 11. The Gulf blowout will be equal to the size of the Exxon Valdez spill on June 17th.

    As if that is not bad enough, check this out:
    Unfortunately, we are now hearing from experts that the amount of oil being released is not 5,000 barrels per day, its 25,000 barrels per day.

    If that is true, than we have a mega disaster here far in excess of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina (81.2B).

    Is there a historical precedent for this flow rate in a blowout?
    In 1979 a Pemex well (Ixtoc) in the Gulf of Mexico suffered a blowout. It was also a deep water well, and its blowout preventor also failed. It released between ten to thirty thousand barrels of oil per day into the Gulf. It took them between 8 to 9 months cap it.

    I would think they were using standard drilling pipe, so it appears the maximum out flow rate would be between 10K to 30K barrels of oil per day. The lower bound is twice as large as the current BP estimate, and the upper bound is twenty percent higher than the 25K barrels of oil estimate made by the scientist using satellite data to estimate spill amounts.

    Assuming 25,000 Barrels per day:
    25,000 barrels per day is 1.05M gallons per day. So as of today, the Gulf blowout has released 10.5M gallons.  Based on this flow rate, we have already exceeded the size of the Santa Barbara blowout .  The Gulf blowout will be equal to the size of the Exxon Valdez spill in 11.4 days after the rig sank. That should occur early in the morning of May 3rd (this coming Monday).

    If it takes them another 90 days to stop the flow, we are talking about the release of an additional 94.5M gallons of oil.  Adding the first ten day amount and we have a spill of 105M gallons of oil.  That's 8.75 times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

    Ramifications of 25,000 barrels per day flow rate:
    Your not going to stop a river of oil like that with booms.  We need to start burning it now. We need a massive deployment of chemical dispersants. That is going to require the mobilization of the Navy, the Cost Guard, the Army, and every oil service company that can get men and equipment into the Gulf.

    If we don't get an immediate massive response, the Gulf of Mexico is likely going to become a dead sea for quite some time.  That means no sea birds, no fish, no shrimp, no anything that depends on clean sea water. Tourism is going to die.

    Right now, I don't see any way the local fisheries are going to survive this. Costs for products that are dependent on those fisheries are going to increase extensively.

    I would think this would act as an incentive to pass the natural gas legislation currently in Congress.  This should act as a stimulus to switch more of our energy utilization from oil to natural gas.

    Oil spreads in water - Take a look at a map of the Gulf of Mexico. If this gets picked up by the Gulf Stream, it could take the oil into Cuba and around the tip of Florida all the way down the Eastern US coast.  Can it be wind driven into Mexico?

    There are going to be large political ramifications here concerning the response time line. Large amounts of aid are going to be needed to handle the massive unemployment and shocks to state economies that this is gong to cost. Who is going to pay the bill?  How long will it take for the Gulf ecosystem to recover?

    I have to say after working out the numbers and the ramifications that I am shocked, angry, dismayed, and sad, all at the same time.

    What about Hurricanes:
    Hurricanes could rupture underwater oil and natural gas pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already struggling with the worst oil spill in U.S. history, according to a new study by researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Mississippi.

    Disruption of the seafloor can reach depths of 300 feet from destructive currents, which can continue for up to a week after the hurricane passes, the researchers found.

    "It doesn't go away, even after the hurricane passes," said Hemantha Wijesekara, lead author of the study, according to a statement issued by American Geophysical Union, which will publish the study's results on June 10.

    Hurricane Ivan damaged or destroyed 22 platforms, some of which had been set adrift by the September 2004 storm.

    The storm also damaged and disrupted 13 undersea oil and natural gas pipelines triggering an oil spill on the Louisiana coast an cutting Gulf's production of gas for weeks.

    Projected Oil Flow Trajectories:

    Those red areas are where oil has been reported on land.

    In this next chart I superimposed the two images to more clearly show the flow direction from May 10 to May 13:

    I added the three dotted red arrows... those indicate the projected movement of the spill from May 10 to May 13th.  These charts are from NOAA.

    We don't have to be dependent on Government projections anymore.  We can all see the oil from daily satellite imagery by going to Weather Underground.

    Use the scroll controls to scroll left, and than zoom in... Here are some images I captured today, May 23.

Back To FocalPoint Analytics' Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (133)
Track new comments
  • Author’s reply » This is Part 3 of the origional Post.
    13 Jun 2010, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » LINK TO PART 2 POST:


    Last Comment Part 2:
    FROM: Graham and Dodd Investor
    MSM: Just one form of power (media) replacing another (money).
    13 Jun 2010, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I have been waiting for an article like this….


    This is about a small business called P&J Oyster company. Its been in business for 134 years. It has no more Oysters to shuck and sell to the local restaurants.


    This will put 11 shuckers out of work who will seek compensation from BP for lost wages….


    but what happens to that small business? Who pays the small business owner for the loss of their business revenues until the local oyster beds recover from BP's disastrous oil spill… In fact, this small business will likely loose some of their long term customers permanently.


    So I am going to the question directly to the place where the buck stops.










    (June 12) 134-year-old oyster company stops shucking
    From CNN Money by Catherine Clifford


    P&J Oyster Company, a 134-year old operation in the heart of New Orleans' French Quarter, has stopped shucking.


    The company processes and distributes oysters. A big part of its business was shucking oysters out of their shells, but that has been killed off by the BP oil spill. Fewer oysters are being farmed in the oil-stained waters of the Gulf of Mexico. So P&J Oyster has no oysters to shuck.


    "My son -- who is delivering oysters right now -- he asked me yesterday, 'Should I go apply for food stamps?' " said Al Sunseri, president and co-owner of P&J Oyster. "I started here when I was 21, and I remember how I wanted to carry on the tradition of our business and I remember the feeling of not only the pressures of trying to carry on this long-standing business but also the opportunity that I had to do it."


    Oyster shuckers are paid by the piece and typically make between $16 and $24 an hour depending on how skilled they are, according to Al Sunseri. Thursday was the last day P&J Oyster did any shucking, and 11 shuckers didn't have a job to report to on Friday.


    Sunseri had warned his employees that the end was near, and the shuckers started working with BP representatives and Louisiana state representatives Thursday to arrange compensation for lost wages.


    Oysters are big business in the Gulf area. About 67% of the nation's total production of oysters comes from the region, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In 2008, Louisiana alone landed nearly 13 million pounds of oysters worth almost $40 million in sales at the dock.


    The oyster farmer beds that P&J Oyster buys supply from were shuttered as a precaution. Sunseri isn't convinced the farms will reopen.


    Selling oranges in an apple market: Without Gulf coast oysters to purchase, Sunseri doesn't know what is next for his 25-employee business. He is considering purchasing oysters from the East and West coast to deliver to his long-time customers.


    Even if he can get prepackaged oysters on the half shell delivered from other regions of the country, there won't be enough to shuck. … And the oysters won't be the Gulf variety that tourists travel for and the locals love. "It is like trying to sell oranges instead of apples in an apple market," explained Sunseri. "Those oranges that people aren't accustomed to eating instead of those apples, they are having to pay 3 times the price."


    Sunseri doesn't know what is next for his oyster business. It takes oysters between 18 and 24 months to grow to full size to be harvested, and the next spawning season is in jeopardy. "There is a lot of unknown and it has everything to do with so much that we have never seen happen before."
    13 Jun 2010, 03:55 PM Reply Like




    14 Jun 2010, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » LOL... I think it would conclude with the following:
    PS: the IRS is auditing your returns for the past 10 years.


    14 Jun 2010, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • Nice one Mark. <sarcasm>Good thing that's not how it works...</sarcasm>



    14 Jun 2010, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • (NAT): Whoop! Avg. daily volume 456K, someone just bought 96K in 1 minute and drove the price up $0.73 over the next few minutes.


    Did something happen to the rest of the world's tankers?


    Anyway, been waiting for it to start back up. Dividend plus options profit (closed out short calls position a few days ago) already yielded 3.6% since 5/4. Was looking to do it again.


    14 Jun 2010, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • Apologies! Posted here when target was QC.


    14 Jun 2010, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • HTL - I suspect that the rise in NAT may be due to the saber rattling by Iran and the potential conflict in the Middle East.
    14 Jun 2010, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks! I was thinking it must be something unusual. Now I know its just the usual junk. :-\


    14 Jun 2010, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Kevin Costner to the rescue with his oil cleaning machines. BP is buying 32 and deploying them right away.

    15 Jun 2010, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • Sorry - I just realized that Graham and Dodd Investor has an insta on this topic entitled "Kevin Costner and BP: Life Imitates Art."
    15 Jun 2010, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 15) Scientists: Oil leaking up to 2.52M gallons daily
    From: AP by Ray Henry


    A government panel of scientists said that the ruptured well is leaking between 1.47 million and 2.52 million gallons of oil daily.
    [Ed: That’s 35,000 to 60,000 bpd] The figures move the government's worst-case estimates more in line with what an independent team had previously thought was the maximum size of the spill.


    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," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.


    The latest numbers reflect an increase in the flow that scientists believe happened after undersea robots earlier this month cut off a kinked pipe near the sea floor that was believed to be restricting the flow of oil, just as a bend in a garden hose reduces water flow. BP officials has estimated that cutting the kinked pipe likely increased the flow by up 20 percent.


    The new numbers are based on a combination of scientific data, including an analysis of high-resolution video taken by underwater robots, pressure meters, sonar, and measurements of oil collected by the containment device on top of the well.


    It is the fourth — and perhaps not last — time the federal government has had to increase its estimate of how much oil is gushing. At one point, the federal government claimed only 42,000 gallons were spilling a day and then it upped the number to 210,000 gallons.


    As of Tuesday, the maximum amount of oil that has gushed out of the well since the April 20 explosion is 116 million gallons, according to the estimates by scientists advising the federal government.


    BP PLC now has a containment system in place in the Gulf of Mexico that has been capturing nearly 648,000 gallons of oil daily. That system was forced to shut down as a precaution Tuesday morning because of a fire on a ship connected to it. BP said the collection system was not damaged and about five hours after the fire, the containment operations resumed.


    Under pressure from the federal government, BP plans to gradually expand its ability to capture the flow of oil until a relief well can permanently end the leak sometime in August. The collection system could expand to a peak capacity of 2.2 million gallons of oil by the end of June and up to roughly 3.4 million gallons of oil by mid July.

    15 Jun 2010, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • User - I read earlier (I apologize for not copying the link) that BP expects to be capturing 80,000 barrels per day in July from the leak. So, I guess that next estimate will be coming sooner than we might have thought. I did not see where they mentioned whether that would be all of the escaping oil or if there would still be some additional amount still leaking into the gulf waters.
    15 Jun 2010, 11:26 PM Reply Like
    15 Jun 2010, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Hi Mark - Thanks for that link.


    So BP will be able to capture one-third more oil than the government says is spilling….. That's a signal that the governments 60,000 high end estimate is too low, and BP knows its too low, or, BP is making up numbers again. BP has always underestimated the amount of oil coming out, and overestimated the amount of oil they are capturing. Sadly, I no longer trust any numbers from BP or the government.
    16 Jun 2010, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • What all these latest estimates mean is that even your early estimates that so many said were too high are proving to be far to low. And the amount of oil that has actually leaked into the gulf waters is probably more than double the highest estimates published thus far. No one seems to be estimating how much is out there; probably because neither the government nor BP want that number to be publicly known or discussed. They are trying to manage perceptions by spoon feeding only data that is not consistent, always changing. They know we'll stop trusting their estimates and that is just exactly what they want, IMHO.
    16 Jun 2010, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Its looking bad Mark.


    I watched POTUS last night, and was surprised at how little he said. If he wants an energy bill to pass, dump cap and trade. You build your energy plan step by step. Of course doing it that way eliminates the ability to hide all sorts of tricks in thousands of pages.


    The fundamental command and control problem is that BP holds the purse strings. That puts them in charge of everything. I like the escrow approach because it takes BP out of the loop. I don't like any approach that destroys BP. If BP is destroyed, than I would imagine the British bankruptcy courts would end up being in charge. Involvement of the courts should be avoided.


    If I was asked for my opinion, I would like to see command and control organized at four levels: Government, Coastline, Gulf, Sciences.


    One possible Plan:


    The government needs to be attending to the big picture. They need to get that well capped. I would call in the leading experts from the oil companies to at least review BP's plans here. They also need to start contingency plans in the likely event that a hurricane enters the Gulf.


    The government should call in the Norwegians to get their help in setting up tougher regulations and regulatory agencies that can do their job without politically motivated influence. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The goal is to shorten the time we are operating without improved regulations and regulatory agencies. If an agency is seen to be non-salvageable, then it needs to be dissolved. People currently working at those agencies can reapply at the new agencies. But there should be absolutely no guarantee of future employment. The leaders of the new agencies need to have total responsibility for who gets hired.


    The government needs to separate the functions of safety regulating and the function of industry promotion. That same fatal flaw exists in the FAA.


    The government needs to quickly inspect shallow water drilling operations, and as the rigs pass those inspections, they need to be allowed to continue drilling. Bring in the Norwegians if needed. The government should stuff the Jones Act if it in any way impedes this emergency response.


    The government needs to fund (this is a US expense) a Manhattan style project to design a true failsafe blowout preventor or some other design feature that performs the same function. This project should be performed by experts in the oil industry and experts in designing and building blowout preventors. Once the design is finalized, it should be built by private industry. The design should be put in the public domain.


    I would like to see the Gulf States get together and make up a committee to run the coastline cleanup. They should appoint a leader they think can do the best job. That leader needs to have the full cooperation of the government, and the leader needs to run the cleanup. I would like to see that leader delegate responsibility for the cleanup of the coastline to the Coastal Mayor's, and perhaps the cleanup of the wild life preserves delegated to organizations that are experts in that subject. These people know what needs to be done to best preserve their coast and their businesses. Funds would be provided by the BP escrow account. There has to be some reviewing done since if you give people a blank check, there will be abuses. I would like to see funds allocated to re-start businesses adversely affected when conditions allow such a re-start.


    The Gulf
    I would like to see responsibility for the cleanup of the Gulf handled by a committee of people that are experts in the fishing and boating business. I would want to see some fisherman in this group. This group is going to need a good deal of help from the scientific community since we really don't know the damaging effects of so much oil in such a rich marine life area.


    The Sciences
    We need to know the full effects of this spill on the eco system. Funds need to be provided to perform a complete investigation. Data needs to be collected now. If you don't know the risks, you can't properly design regulatory laws to protect the environment or all of the lives that are dependent on that environment.


    The Press
    The press needs full access because that is the only way to insure full public access to all of the information, irrespective of ability to embarrass the government. (I know, fat chance)
    16 Jun 2010, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Great analysis User. The problem is that you use a common sense approach, use rational solutions, and remove any possibility of politicians benefiting.


    That being said, there's something seriously wrong with our country right now. For people that can't see past the first ripple in the pond when it comes to creating legislation, they sure are good at analyzing the fallout of any decision regarding their mini empires...
    16 Jun 2010, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Unfortunately true Silentz.... The leadership function has turned into a bartering program where decisions are awarded to the highest payoff as opposed to being factually or even need oriented. Its a sad situation.
    16 Jun 2010, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » A history of shortcuts.....


    (June 16) BP documents highlight PR strategy after deadly Texas blast
    From: CNN U.S. by Abbie Boudreau and Coutney Yager


    In the hours after a 2005 refinery explosion that left 15 people dead, a BP executive suggested a holiday weekend and the national furor over a Florida woman's last days would eclipse the tragedy.


    With the oil company now battling to save an image tarnished by the worst oil spill in U.S. history, the lawyer who found that e-mail among a mountain of BP documents says nothing appears to have changed.


    "Their strategy is the same every time ... And it's always, first, damage control," Brent Coon told CNN. "And with damage control, they accentuate the positive, downplay the negative, tell everybody they're sorry, they're gonna fix it, they're gonna do better, and not to worry."


    Coon represented many of the victims of the March 2005 explosion at BP's refinery in Texas City, near Houston. The blast killed 15 workers and injured 180, with many of the survivors suffering severe burns, amputations and broken bones. During litigation that followed, Coon extracted about 7 million documents from the company, including the e-mail that discussed whether the upcoming Easter weekend would push the explosion off the public stage.


    "Looks like injuries and loss of life are heavy. Expect a lot of follow up coverage tomorrow. Then I believe it will essentially go away -- due to the holiday weekend," BP America public relations chief Patricia Wright advised other executives.


    Wright added, "This is a very big story in the U.S. right now -- but the Terry Schiavo story is huge as well."


    Schiavo was the severely brain-damaged Florida woman whose case became the centerpiece of a national right-to-die battle, and the controversy was reaching a climax just as the Texas City explosion occurred.


    Coon said … the stacks of paper, e-mails and slides uncovered after the Texas City blast offer a rare insight into the culture of BP and may take on a new meaning in light of the massive Gulf spill.


    BP is now under fire for its failure to shut down a ruptured undersea well in the Gulf of Mexico, a spill that now dwarfs the 1989 grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Alaska's Prince William Sound. Critics say it has downplayed the scale of the disaster, underreported the amount of oil leaking and trying to keep images of the gusher under wraps.


    With its stock plummeting and the environmentally friendly image it spent years cultivating taking a beating, the company has taken out full-page newspaper ads and aired television spots in which CEO Tony Hayward apologizes for the spill and vows, "We will make this right."


    But Coon said BP appears to be following "the same course of conduct" it did after Texas City. "I don't think there's a shred of evidence in BP's favor that shows that they've done anything to change their corporate safety culture," he said.


    Coon says the documents his law firm unearthed in the Texas City case showed BP employees warned that corners at the plant were being cut, and dangerous conditions were being ignored.


    "Quit waiting for a known possible disaster to happen before correcting the problem," one worker wrote.


    Another stated, "This company deliberately put my life in danger to try and save a buck."


    A third complained, "If this facility was an aircraft carrier, we would be at the bottom of the ocean."


    "What was shocking was that we didn't just find that smoking gun," Coon said. "We found an entire arsenal. You could have fitted an army with all of the smoking guns that we found in this."


    The Texas City blast killed 15 BP contractors who were housed in a trailer near the site of the explosion, which originated with equipment used to boost the octane levels in gasoline.


    In 2007, BP pleaded guilty to a felony, agreed to pay $21 million in fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and paid another $50 million in criminal penalties in connection with the disaster.


    The plea agreement required the company to fix the problems that led to the explosion. But when that didn't happen, they fined BP again in 2009 -- an $87 million proposed penalty that would be the largest in the agency's history if upheld.


    BP is contesting those citations and the assessed penalties. Coon said the Texas City case shows BP "has a lot of systemic problems that they are never going to change unless somebody makes them change."


    "If they don't make them change, something worse is going to happen," he said. "And it won't be that long. And it did happen."
    16 Jun 2010, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • It is sort of sick, isn't it? Damage control, downplay the problems, promise everything will be okay, and hope for another bigger story to move them out of the headlines. They will take the same strategy on their legal liability after the first $20 billion is spent they will delay and fight everything for a decade or longer.
    16 Jun 2010, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Sorry to be posting this article link about inhabitants of the gulf waters because it is so sad.



    "Dolphins and sharks are showing up in surprisingly shallow water off Florida beaches, like forest animals fleeing a fire. Mullets, crabs, rays and small fish congregate by the thousands off an Alabama pier. Birds covered in oil are crawling deep into marshes, never to be seen again."
    17 Jun 2010, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Thank you for the link Mark.... never to be seen again.... Unfortunately, that might be a prognosis for several endangered and "protected" species in the Gulf.


    The sea life is probably under respiratory distress because of all that oil and all that dispersant. I believe the EPA told BP to stop using that dispersant. BP ignored them. Perhaps a nice multi-billion dollar fine might get BP's attention as to who's waters they are operating in.


    Remember that experiment when I mixed a dispersant with oil and found that the water under the water surface looked cloudy, and did not transmit light like a clean water column and whatever it was in that water just stayed in solution no matter how much I stirred the water or how long I let it stand with no stirring?


    My bet is the sea life is encountering something along those lines in those 'plumes' under the sea. I remember one of the scientific teams reported that some of the plumes were quite translucent, and did not look like oil at all. That was just like the desktop experiment.


    The situation in the sea is worse because of the presence of oil eating bacteria. The concentration of oil eating bacteria would increase in the presence of oil, and while they are eating the oil, they consume a major part of the oxygen in the water. No oxygen, no life.


    Yet another possibility is that whatever is in that water is accumulating in the sea life's respiratory systems and that makes those respiratory systems less efficient in removing oxygen from the water. What happens when other sea life eats those fish? What happens when people eat those fish?


    If fish were in respiratory distress they would probably move into shallower waters where there is a heaver concentration of oxygen in the water due to increased mixing… and the eaters of those fish are following them. Of course, there are going to be mass deaths, but that will mostly occur out of sight. This is why its critical that we get our scientists out onto the Gulf to start measuring what is happening. That will allow people to understand more of the risks associated with an oil spill.


    Of course, oil companies don't want the public to better understand those risks. Their approach is to hide the effects of a spill. After all, even a 500 million gallon oil spill is minuscule when compared with the total volume of water in the sea. Apparently the fact that it would create a long term dead zone for sea life is irrelevant to their goals.


    Government needs to immediately use some of that two billion dollar escrow account to fund significant scientific research into the effects of this spill on sea life. In fact, the scientific research should have been funded out of pocket at the start of the event.


    Dr Steven Chu, holder of a Noble Prize…. You know what's happening. Why aren’t you talking? You should have gotten the money to start those studies when this first happened. Apparently one of the criteria of being a scientist in the government administration disconnects the persons moral responsibilities. I suggest they put this on your tombstone:


    Here Lies Dr Steven Chu, Ph.D.
    Noble Prize, Presidential Advisor
    Morally and Intellectually Bankrupt
    17 Jun 2010, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • The last line could go on the tombstone of every Presidential appointee currently in office, most members of Congress (both sides), and several administrators from past regimes as well.
    17 Jun 2010, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 18) Gulf oil full of methane, adding new concerns
    From: Associated Press by Matthew Brown


    It is an overlooked danger in the oil spill crisis: The crude gushing from the well contains vast amounts of natural gas that could pose a serious threat to the Gulf of Mexico's fragile ecosystem.


    The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill. That means huge quantities of methane have entered the Gulf, scientists say, potentially suffocating marine life and creating "dead zones" where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives.


    "This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history," Kessler said.


    A BP spokesman said the company was burning about 30 million cubic feet of natural gas daily from the source of the leak, adding up to about 450 million cubic feet since the containment effort started 15 days ago. That's enough gas to heat about 450,000 homes for four days.


    But that figure does not account for gas that eluded containment efforts and wound up in the water, leaving behind huge amounts of methane. Scientists are still trying to measure how much has escaped into the water and how it may damage the Gulf and it creatures.


    The small microbes that live in the sea have been feeding on the oil and natural gas in the water and are consuming larger quantities of oxygen, which they need to digest food. As they draw more oxygen from the water, it creates two problems. When oxygen levels drop low enough, the breakdown of oil grinds to a halt; and as it is depleted in the water, most life can't be sustained.


    The National Science Foundation funded research on methane in the Gulf amid concerns about the depths of the oil plume and questions what role natural gas was playing in keeping the oil below the surface, said David Garrison, a program director in the federal agency who specializes in biological oceanography.
    In early June, a research team led by Samantha Joye of the Institute of Undersea Research and Technology at the University of Georgia investigated a 15-mile-long plume drifting southwest from the leak site. They said they found methane concentrations up to 10,000 times higher than normal, and oxygen levels depleted by 40 percent or more.


    The scientists found that some parts of the plume had oxygen concentrations just shy of the level that tips ocean waters into the category of "dead zone" — a region uninhabitable to fish, crabs, shrimp and other marine creatures.


    Kessler has encountered similar findings. Since he began his on-site research on Saturday, he said he has already found oxygen depletions of between 2 percent and 30 percent in waters 1,000 feet deep.


    Shallow waters are normally more susceptible to oxygen depletion. Because it is being found in such deep waters, both Kessler and Joye do not know what is causing the depletion and what the impact could be in the long- or short-term. In an e-mail, Joye called her findings "the most bizarre looking oxygen profiles I have ever seen anywhere." [Ed: the dispersant is decreasing dissolved oxygen?]


    Representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration acknowledged that so much methane in the water could draw down oxygen levels and slow the breakdown of oil in the Gulf, but cautioned that research was still under way to understand the ramifications.


    BP spokesman Mark Proegler disputed Joye's suggestion that the Gulf's deep waters contain large amounts of methane, noting that water samples taken by BP and federal agencies have shown minimal underwater oil outside the spill's vicinity. "The gas that escapes, what we don't flare, goes up to the surface and is gone," he said.
    18 Jun 2010, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • I don't like to post things by authors I don't know. I got this as part of a free subscription. Rumor or real? I don't know.
    18 Jun 2010, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Naturally BP would dispute any findings that put them in bad light. That could just increase their liability and such horrific nonsense is just not acceptable!


    They'd better wacth out or they will paint themselves into a corner with these continued foot-in-mouth encounters. Comments like these and other from Hayward have got to be driving the PR people crazy.
    18 Jun 2010, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Hey, good news. The US government is about to loan $10billion to Petrobas, the state-owned Brazilian oil company, so they can develop a deep-sea drilling project. This one is almost 5 times deeper than the well in the gulf. If it's too dangerous for us to do, lets let other people do it? I guess there's a handy supply of idle drilling rigs available...


    Oh, and guess who has an $811million stake in Petrobas( George Soros. The same guy that finances the Center for American Progress( The same organization that the WSJ claims is heavily influencing(if not outright directing) the Obama administration's policy-making(


    These dots are getting just too big NOT to connect them.


    I think I'm gonna throw up.
    18 Jun 2010, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • What on earth is the US government doing loaning money to a private company outside the US? Is that legal? It shouldn't be. Especially when they are so many needs for investment here at home.


    Move over Silentz, I'm getting sick, too!
    18 Jun 2010, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 19) Anadarko says BP 'reckless' in Macondo well
    From: Oil&Gas Journal by OGJ Editors


    In a strongly worded press statement, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jim Hackett, whose company holds a 25% interest in the ill-fated well, directly criticized BP, the operator.


    “The mounting evidence clearly demonstrates that this tragedy was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions,” Hackett said. “Frankly, we are shocked by the publicly available information that has been disclosed in recent investigations and during this week's testimony that, among other things, indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling of the Macondo well. BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct and thus affect the obligations of the parties under the operating agreement."


    In a statement of its own, BP disputed Anadarko’s claims.


    “Anadarko Petroleum Corp. has announced it is refusing to accept responsibility for oil spill removal costs and damages, claiming that, under an exception to a joint operating agreement’s cost and liability sharing provisions, BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPXP) was ‘grossly negligent’ or engaged in ‘willful misconduct’ as operator for Mississippi Canyon Block 252,” the statement said. “BP strongly disagrees with these allegations and will not allow the allegations to diminish its commitment to the Gulf Coast region.”


    Hayward, who after his congressional appearance was relieved of day-to-day involvement in the spill response, said, “Other parties besides BP may be responsible for costs and liabilities arising from their obligations.” [Ed: I believe his removal from day-to-day operations occurred during that tete-a-tete in the oval office]


    Anadarko Senior Vice-Pres., Finance, and Chief Financial Officer Robert Gwin referred to Hackett’s statement in a later June 18 statement responding to the downgrading of Anadarko long-term debt by Moody’s Investor Services.


    "The action taken today by Moody's is very disappointing and surprising in light of Anadarko's limited role as a non-operating investor in the Macondo well,” he said. Although we understand the concern over uncertainty surrounding the current situation, we believe it is too early in the process for Moody's to take this action. Further, our significant concerns about the behavior and actions of BP as operator of Macondo were highlighted by our Chairman and CEO in a statement issued earlier today."
    19 Jun 2010, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • User - I read the article elsewhere and was going to post it here, but you beat me to it. Good job! The Anadarko situation may give us an opportunity for a short term trade if the pressure takes the stock down too far. I like APC a lot and it is one of the stocks I follow. It may be worth a play if it gets knocked down far enough, either short or long term.
    19 Jun 2010, 11:51 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Hi Mark - I have been looking at (APC) and (RIG). I figure their enterprise values at 61.4 and 85.4 per share, not counting liability. I did a little digging on the liability issue, and found the following:


    (May 4) Who will be held responsible for Deepwater Horizon?
    From: Oil&Gas Financial Journal


    Financial giant Morgan Stanley has released a comprehensive, although very preliminary, report on the financial implications of the Deepwater Horizon incident in the Gulf of Mexico and its potential impact on the various players involved. Although plaintiffs’ attorneys are likely to have a field day filing lawsuits, some of the companies will have less exposure to liability than others.


    The operator and the other lease interest owners will absorb the lion’s share of the financial liability for the oil spill and any potential punitive damages. The firm expects the following outcome:


    1) Cameron (CAM) and Smith International (SII) to be fully absolved of liability


    2) Transocean’s (RIG) potential liability to be relatively small and well within insurance policy


    3) Halliburton (HAL) unlikely to be held responsible, as the company claims it had not plugged the well, and even if it had plugged the well, it would be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate flaws with the cement


    4) industry-wide implications to be a long-term positive for equipment manufacturers and somewhat mixed for offshore drillers


    5) impact on shipping lanes in the Gulf of Mexico to trigger a congestion-like effect on tanker rates. The spill could also spur tighter tanker regulation in the US and could help accelerate the ban on single-hull vessels in the US. This would make the long-term supply outlook for tankers more favourable, says the firm.
    [I believe Freya recently came to this conclusion as well]


    As of this morning (Sunday 6/20) RIG is at 55.47 and APC is at 43.37. So if they move to my calculated enterprise value, there is a potential 53.9 and 41.6 percent profit potential there. I think RIG is a pretty good investment, but I am more interested in it as a trade… so now I break out the crystal ball…


    I see RIG has started to rebound while (BP) has not. I interpret plus relative movement to BP as a positive sign. RIG has positive momentum. APC has also started to rebound, but not as quickly as RIG. APC still has negative momentum. So the money appears to be favouring RIG. My crystal ball says that half of RIG's lost valuation will be re-gained within a year. My back of the envelope estimate is that every dollar invested in RIG today will be worth 1.27 within one year. As a trader, I would be very happy with a 15% profit on a short term hold, never-the-less a 27% profit, so I am going with RIG… I will also be following Freya's advice and will be looking for a tanker play as well…
    20 Jun 2010, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 20) Document Shows BP Estimates Spill up to 100,000 Bpd From:


    Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey on Sunday released an internal BP document that shows the oil spill could spew 100,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico, far more than has been estimated in public accounts. [Ed: That's 4.2 million gallons per day]


    The worst-case scenario is based on what would happen if the damaged wellhead were removed and not capped. The document showed a low-ball estimate of 55,000 barrels per day.


    [Ed: You can download the actual document by clicking on the link provided in the article. I note the document in the link specifies the well pressure, something that BP said they did not have. Of course, they had to have that pressure because without out it they could not calculate the proper mud weight to use.]


    Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander leading the government's response to the spill, said Thursday that the condition of the wellbore, or the hole drilled to reach the oil field, is still unknown and is the reason that other failed efforts to cap the well weren't more rigorous.


    This document raises very troubling questions about WHAT BP knew and WHEN they knew it. It is clear that, from the beginning, BP has not been straightforward with the government or the American people about the true size of this spill," Markey said in a statement released with the document.


    "BP needs to tell us what it will do if the wellbore is compromised and 100,000 barrels per day of oil spills into the ocean. At this point, we need real contingency planning ," Markey added.
    20 Jun 2010, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • Some FL scientists have thought since the beginning that: 1. There was a structural integrity problem with the ocean floor at the wellhead, and (from satellite readings of the plumes), 2. That there was another spew-point coming from the same rock strata about 5 miles away. Its all so pressurized that who knows what unintended consequences the drilling, explosion, and other man-made interference may have had in the subsurface oil channel.


    So here, in advance of Hurricane Season adults are sending emails about how to remove oil from everything from windshields to palm trees while eighth grade (mad) scientists are choosing projects to show if lightening could cause explosions/firestorms in aerosolized oil clouds.
    20 Jun 2010, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 20) BP rejects Markey charge underestimated oil spill
    From: Reuters By Bruce Nichols, Editing by Sandra Maler


    BP on Sunday rejected a charge by U.S. Representative Ed Markey that the British company had understated the size of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.


    "I don't think there's been any underestimating," BP spokesman Toby Odone told Reuters after Markey released a document that the congressman said shows BP has been deceptive. Odone said the document appeared to be genuine but the 100,000 barrels of oil per day estimate applied only in a situation where the well's blowout preventer was removed. "Since there are no plans to remove the blowout preventer, the number is irrelevant," he said. [Ed: no its not irrelevant, we also need to have an idea of what would happen if the blowout preventer was lost.]


    "We've always said we would deal with whatever volume of oil was being spilled, and that's exactly what we're doing. We've mounted the biggest spill response in history," Odone said.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Mr Odone and the executive management at BP would like the world to believe that flow rate is irrelevant because BP has "…mounted the biggest spill response in history". However, the fact that BP has mounted the largest response in history does not mean that the response was adequate given the flow rate.


    The amount of oil coming out is directly related to the needed response size. BP's original estimates of the flow rate were 1,000 and than 5,000 bpd. We now know BPs original estimates were an order of magnitude low. The document realised by Markey confirms that BP's engineers had the necessary information to compute the theoretical maximum flow rate with or without the blowout preventor present. It was BPs management that said they could not calculate the maximum flow rate. Clearly BP's engineers can and did calculate the maximum flow rate but BP management decided to lie about those numbers because they thought the "little" people were going to blindly accept whatever story BP offered.


    When I look at how BP has handled this disaster, I see a dinosaur. The Internet does not let a company hide behind volumes of techno babble anymore. Within minutes of hearing about the blowout, people were on the Internet learning about underwater drilling operations. People were learning about who was supposed to be checking to insure regulatory compliance. Internet access to information and knowledgeable people reveals obfuscations and outright lies almost in real time.


    BP told the Minerals Management Service [MMS] that its oil spill response plan could recover all of the daily oil discharge from an uncontrolled blowout of 491,721 barrels per day. Yet BP can't handle 60,000 barrels per day, about 820 percent less than their claim. If a trial lawyer can't prove egregious falsification of legally required documents with that kind of margin of error, they should be disbarred.


    Yet another obvious dinosaur is the US Government. If a company claims it can recover all of the discharge from a blowout of nearly 500,000 barrels of oil per day, wouldn't you think someone would be assigned to verify the claim? Where were all the oil skimmers, all the trained personal, all the hazmat suits, all the dispersants, all the booms, and so on. Where was the action plan, who would be in charge, where were the up-to-date engineering diagrams that described the equipment on each rig? How often did they practice for a maximum response? There was nothing in place because the entire claim was fraudulent. If one of the 'little' people committed fraud at that level they would be in handcuffs, not out yachting.


    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990:
    According to the Oil Polluting Act of 1990, The Secretary of Interior is charged with reviewing oil spill response plans, to require amendments to meet the requirements of the act, and to approve ONLY plans that comply with the act. The Lessee must calculate the volume of the worst-case discharge and describe the response equipment it would use to contain and recover the oil. OK… we know the MMS did not do their job…but the law specifically charges the Secretary of the Interior's office with reviewing responsibilities. Why didn't the office of the Secretary of Interior do their jobs?


    See how high up this reaches? Criminal Negligence is defined as the failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner. BP lied about their abilities on their oil spill response plan. The MMS had a legislative responsibility to verify BP's oil spill response plan, and the US Secretary of the Interior had a responsibility to also verify BP's oil spill response plan.. The same failures of regulatory supervision very likely exist for all of the major oil companies drilling off shore in the Gulf since they all essentially used a copy of the plan submitted by BP, including references to the protection of Walruses in the Gulf when they haven't been there for three million years.


    So it appears that all of the CEO's of the major oil companies should be brought up in handcuffs for the filing of fraudulent regulatory documents. The head of the MMS was fired. The MMS was very likely criminally negligent. But why was only Elizabeth Birnbaum fired? What about the Ken Salazar and or his deputies? How high up does the malfeasance go? The Department of the Interior is a cabinet member…


    Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the most honest person I have heard so far is the BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg when he brought up the 'little people'. Here I thought oil companies like BP were dinosaurs when in fact, it appears I am the dinosaur. I was acting under the premise that no one is above the law when in fact, there are two kinds of people. The people for whom laws apply, and people that hold positions of power and wealth that are above the law of the common man.
    20 Jun 2010, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Here is a must read article from The New York Times that provides the best description I have read so far with respect to the failure of the Blowout Preventor, and just how reliable they are.


    Of course, the key data comes from the Norwegians who found that in eleven situations where a deepwater rig's crew lost control of the well, the blowout preventors worked six out of eleven times. That's a failure rate of 45.4 % in something that is called a "fail safe" device. Not much better than flipping a coin.
    21 Jun 2010, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • User - Thanks for keeping the blog going. It continues to be very informative and worthwhile in keeping up on the potentialities of the oil spill.
    21 Jun 2010, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Hey all! Here is a link to the latest hot news about the spill. Apparently a robot down under nicked a vent and required BP to remove the cap that had been capturing some of the oil. So, now tens of thousands more barrels of oil are spilling into the gulf waters than we had just yesterday!

    23 Jun 2010, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (June 23) US to issue more flexible oil drilling moratorium
    From: Reuters by Tom Doggett and Ayesha Rascoe


    The U.S. Department of the Interior will reissue a deepwater oil drilling ban that was blocked by a federal judge, but will make it more flexible to possibly allow drilling in certain fields, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told lawmakers on Wednesday.


    Salazar told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee
    the new moratorium would be adjusted where appropriate and
    include criteria detailing when the drilling ban will end.


    … his suggestion that development wells on proven fields
    might be able to move forward would be good news for companies
    like Petrobras (PETR4.SA) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), who
    were set to delay major projects. It would also help ease the
    potential impact on future oil supplies from fields that are
    the best new source of domestic crude.


    "It might be that there are demarcations that can be made
    based on reservoirs where we actually do know the pressures and
    the risks associated with that versus those reservoirs which
    are exploratory in nature," Salazar said.


    The secretary would not commit to issuing the new drilling
    moratorium this week."We're working out the specifics. I have a meeting this afternoon on when we'll do it," he told reporters after thehearing.


    Meanwhile, the new head of the renamed agency that
    regulates offshore drilling made his first appearance before
    lawmakers and pledged to end the cozy relationships some
    federal inspectors have had with the oil companies they are
    supposed to oversee.


    Michael Bromwich, who heads the Bureau of Ocean Energy that
    replaced the troubled Minerals Management Service, said he will
    establish an internal investigation team to battle misconduct
    by government employees and regulated energy companies.


    [Ed: Meanwhile…]
    The Obama Administration said it would appeal the
    federal court ruling by the U.S. judge who overturned the
    moratorium after drillers who stand to lose business fought to
    block it.
    23 Jun 2010, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » BP spill hits a somber record as Gulf's biggest
    BP's massive oil spill became the largest ever in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday based on the highest of the federal government's estimates, an ominous record that underscores the oil giant's dire need to halt the gusher.


    The oil that's spewed for two and a half months from a blown-out well a mile under the sea hit the 140.6 million gallon mark, eclipsing the record-setting, 140-million-gallon Ixtoc I spill off Mexico's coast from 1979 to 1980. Even by the lower end of the government's estimates, at least 71.7 million gallons are in the Gulf.


    The growing total is crucial to track, in part because London-based BP PLC is likely to be fined per gallon spilled, said Larry McKinney, director of Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi's Gulf of Mexico research institute.


    "It's an important number to know because it has an impact on restoration and recovery," McKinney said.


    The oil calculation is based on the higher end of the government's range of barrels leaked per day, minus the amount BP says it has collected from the blown-out well using two containment systems. BP collected a smaller amount of oil than usual on Wednesday, about 969,000 gallons.
    1 Jul 2010, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • BP may actually get into the record books again at some point by posting the largest earnings loss on record. I hope nobody is counting of those BP dividends for living expenses.
    1 Jul 2010, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Mark, sadly, I think the people that own BP now, BP's "little people" are in a similar boat as the people that owned GM…


    BP's price has dropped by a little more than half… so if a retiree, one of BP's "little people" bought BP back in the 90s at $30, they have lost 100 percent of their investment gains over the past 15 years, and they have no dividend. Add onto that inflation, and those poor people are looking at a significant loss.


    Do they hold, or do they sell now? The success of those relief wells is not a sure thing. They have to hit a very small target from a great distance away... What is going to happen to BP's stock if they miss? What will happen if a big hurricane gets into the gulf and the storm surge carries contaminated water miles inland? I don't know that BP could survive those kinds of events, and at that point, the peoples investments would be gone. I don't think the American people have yet to get their heads around the potential magnitude of this mess.
    1 Jul 2010, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • You're making me think that a put on BP could make me some money. But alas, too many other thought of that long ago, as did I, but they jumped in while I hesitated. I'll have to go back and revisit the pricing premiums to see if I want to place a small wager with Vegas money.
    1 Jul 2010, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • User - Here is a link to an article I think you'll find of interest.



    An excerpt regarding the waste and misinformation:


    "Billy Nungesser, president of Louisiana's hard-hit Plaquemines Parish, said BP and the Coast Guard provided a map of the exact locations of 140 skimmers that were supposedly cleaning up the oil. But he said that after he repeatedly asked to be flown over the area so he could see them at work, officials told him only 31 skimmers were on the job."
    2 Jul 2010, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » It's really sad Mark...
    The US Navy should be running the sea show, and the US army the land effort. Those forces should have been mobilized at the end of April when the magnitude of the disaster became evident. The entire US effort should have been put under the control of a major military commander. Someone who has experience with dealing with LARGE SCALE operations, and someone that has a complete logistics system under his or her command. I love the Coast Guard, but it’s a small outfit that has been under budgeted for decades. They seem to be more focused on making sure each of the small boats has all the approved safety equipment than in coordinating the clean up effort.


    As a result, there are serious command and control problems. I blame the current administration for this. They clearly do not understand the organizational issues associated with SCALE and based on what I have seen, they don't seem to have the practical experience or leadership skills needed to get the job done expediently. There is no time to study the problems at length… Lack of good leadership is the fundamental problem.
    2 Jul 2010, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • User - I agree completely! This is an emergency of monumental proportions and should be treated as such. Instead it appears that the Administration is trying run this thing by committee. And the committee members have absolutely no experience with the problems or their rather obvious solutions. They really needed to get ahead of this thing even before the scope was fully understood. If they had the magnitude would have been recognized much sooner and additional resources could have been deployed when needed. We're now so far behind in the clean up effort, never mind containment, that the impact will undoubtedly be far greater than anyone inside the beltway has yet to imagine. Their only defense from here on out will be to put out lies and propaganda and when anyone calls them on it, to just call those people liars over and over again until the public starts to believe them. It's just another political campaign to the politicians. Nothing is real to them because none of them are ever directly affective negatively. If they lose their next election they start drawing a hefty retirement (on us) or hire on with a law practice or consultancy for far more than they were making in their elected position. It's a win-win situation for them. They can't lose.


    We need term limits now!
    2 Jul 2010, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Skimmer help on the way?



    Also, I saw that a video was availble at the bottom of the link, with the heading that "event" Horizon may be plugged sooner than the original mid-August estimate. Unfortunately, though I now have Internet, it takes forever to download video here in Honduras.


    Tried to download Peter Shiff's latest...not bothering to do that again.
    3 Jul 2010, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » One of the relief wells is very close now... aparently they are waiting a bit for the other one to catch up...


    How does a relief well work?
    I looked into this a bit and here is what I have found so far. Basically, they intersect the original drill pipe just above the start of the reservoir at the bottom of the well. Now they pump in drilling mud. Here is where things get a little counter intuitive. The mud they are pumping in is now carried UP the original drill pipe by the pressure of the reservoir.


    At some point, the weight of the column of mud pumped in balances the pressure of the reservoir. So the mud fills the original drilling pipe from the bottom up. When the weight of that mud counteracts the pressure of the reservoir, no more oil or gas can escape.


    The problem is that while they are pumping in the mud, the well is still pushing up gas and oil in the pipe too. So how does the mud form a consistent column without blowing out the top? I would think when the mud is injected, it would mix with the oil on the way up the drill pipe.


    At any rate, if the weight of the mud counterbalances the pressure of the reservoir, they pump in cement. I don't know where the cement goes in. Does it go in the top or in at the bottom?


    Another question is how exactly does that relief well pipe have to intersect the original drilling pipe? Does it matter if its not an exact interaction?


    I wonder if they are waiting a bit because they want to pump mud into the well from the two relief wells at the same time? Double the mud flow might help them. Good luck to the Drilling Teams!!
    4 Jul 2010, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (July 6) BP oil making its way into Lake Pontchartrain and toward New Orleans From: AP, by Mary Foster


    Until Monday, New Orleans had escaped direct affect from the oil disaster spreading across the Gulf Coast.


    That delicate balance changed when balls of tar were found in the Rigolets, one of two passes that connect Lake Pontchartrain with the Gulf of Mexico.


    "So far it's scattered stuff showing up, mostly tar balls," said Office of Fisheries Assistant Secretary Randy Pausina. "It will pull out with the tide, and the show back up."


    Pausina said he expected the oil to clear the passes and move directly into the lake, taking a backdoor route to New Orleans.


    Prevailing east winds since Hurricane Alex have steadily pushed the oil toward the city's eastern coastline along an arm of the Gulf. The state Department of Wildlife and Fisheries closed the area to fishing.


    On Monday, the Coast Guard confirmed oil found in Texas was from the BP well. It has now been found in every state along the U.S. Gulf Coast.
    6 Jul 2010, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • And it still hasn't been contained so it's still spewing thousands of gallons of oil into the gulf every day. There are so many concerns about the wildlife and fish, but I'm starting to become concerned about drinking water for New Orleans and other gulf coast communities if the oil gets carried inland with a big storm surge or high winds. BP won't be able to withstand the cost of claims from thousand dieing from poisoning of drinking water sources. Of course, most of the drinking water is "processed" and would probably be made safe to drink, assuming that the systems in place have the ability to extract the toxins and/or kill the residue that is not caught in filters.


    The gulf coast states have no legs to stand on economically speaking. The three largest industries are fishing, tourism, and oil exploration. With a moratorium, the third leg of the stool is gone. And without the legs all the unrelated retail and service businesses will be toast as income and demand dry up.
    6 Jul 2010, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • I read a good story in Sports Illustrated about the oil spill that contained very little about sports. There was a fascinating character in the story, a 94-year old man, who has lived a very simple life and has always maintained a great attitude. His secret to longevity, as he puts it, has been working every day and dancing every night. But because of the oil spill even he has lost his livelihood. He used to catch minnow in the marshes and sell them back at the docks. The oil has killed the sport fishing business so there's no demand for his minnows. And, when he tried to put some minnows into his holding pen for when things get better, the minnows all died because the oil has penetrated the marshes. But he still isn't angry with BP because people make mistakes and he just doesn't get angry over mistakes. What a great attitude. But my heart goes out to a guy who has been able to happily survive all these years but is now out of work. He was self employed so he and many others like him will not show up on unemployment roles. To the government, these people never really existed in the first place and remain invisible to their data collection methodologies.
    6 Jul 2010, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » So true Mark... Good data gets in the way of government spin control..... They don't want to measure it accurately because that would reveal the failure/ inadequately of their employment programs. So rather than find out how an intervention was working, they would rather generate numbers that hide the true magnitude of the unemployment problem.


    There is an old adage in the business consulting business... if you can't measure something, you can't evaluate it.
    6 Jul 2010, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Don't read the story at this link late at night. It could give you nightmares.

    7 Jul 2010, 04:36 AM Reply Like
    7 Jul 2010, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • A lot of the oil is submerged and will probably add more disaster if it gets stirred up and hits land. This is much worse than the tar balls and slick we see right now. My heart goes out to all those affected, especially since it will linger for years to come.
    7 Jul 2010, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Oh, No! There are new estimates of how much oil may have been spewing into the gulf. It is now estimated that the total amount of oil coming from the leak was between 60,000 and 80,000 bbls per day, perhaps a little more. This according to an article (link below) the new containment system, which will be collecting from "both" leaks will capture between 2.5 million and 3.4 million gallons of oil per day once in place, "essentially" all of the leaking oil. Essentially means almost all or just about all, with very little still leaking out. At 3.4 million gallons per day, they are now admitting that there was, when no containment system was working, as much as 81,000 barrels of oil per day flowing. And that amounts to "essentially" all, but not complete all of the leaking oil. I wonder how much the smidgen of oil that will still be leaking out will be? Probably such a small amount as to not be considered a problem; like maybe 5,000 bbls per day? Who knows?



    User - If there was 81,000 bbls of oil leaking after the pipe was cut, but probably 15% less before, and they have been capturing about 26,000 bbls per day since placing the containment system, how much oil do we have in the gulf now? I could do the math, but I suspect you already have the equation with all the days for each stage ready and just need to plop in the amounts. It was already ridiculous, but now it has surpassed even that word's capacity for misinformation. I mean, this has got to be getting close to 240 million gallons of oil.
    10 Jul 2010, 01:47 PM Reply Like


    Regarding Corexit. Particularly interesting is the EPA 96 hr survivability threshold. Followups claim that subjects alive after 96 hours had 100% mortality in 14 days.
    10 Jul 2010, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • If anyone knows of a Federal agency that actually does a good job and the "right" thing" for the money we pay them/it, please let me know.


    Don't say IRS, we already know its totally inept. Don't say military, the waste and fraud and politics in the military appropriations (both from the congress and internal military machinations) is well documented.


    It almost appears that we'd be better off with no government agencies because - here's a novel thought - we'd have to look out for ourselves.


    10 Jul 2010, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Hi Mark
    If the outflow was reduced by 15% due to crimping and resistance in the riser pipe before it was removed, we have .85 X 81K barrels per day equal to 68.8k bpd for 63 days. That's 4.34M b, or 182.2M gallons with bent riser pipe flow restrictions in place.


    After the riser pipe was cut, the flow rate was 81k bpd for 20 days as of today. That's 1.62M b or 68M gallons.


    So the total oil flow out of the well as of today (June 10) is 5.96M barrels or 250.3M gallons. That's twice the size of the Mexico 1980 blowout in the gulf and about 48% of the Kuwait spill in 1991 after Iraqi opened the valves of tankers.


    The hard part of the estimate is how much has been captured? This is guess work, so I will just provide some ranges…


    On the spill before the riser pipe was removed, they were not capturing much oil.


    A 2% capture would mean 178.6 M gallons released in the first 63 days.
    A 4% capture would mean 174.9 M gallons realised in the first 63 days.


    On the spill after the riser was removed, they have been presumably capturing more oil. I have ZERO confidence in any capture rates provided by BP as a result of their lying.


    A 20% capture would mean 1.3 M gallons released for 20 days.
    A 40% capture would mean .97 M gallons released for 20 days.
    A 50% capture would mean .81 M gallons released for 20 days.


    Worst case it looks like 179.0M gallons have been released into the environment to date. Best case given an average 50% capture for the past 20 days, is 176M gallons released into the environment to date.


    Because of all the time that went by with a minimal flow restriction, the amount of oil released during the initial 63 days of the leak is dominating the numbers.


    The clean water act applies a $4,300 fine per barrel of oil released. The amount of the fine depends on how the act is written. Is it released, or released - recovered? My guess is its released. If its released into the environment, as of today, it appears BP could be fined 25.6B…. if its released - recovered it looks more like 18B to date.


    Rant Warning:
    Of course, BP would like us to believe that most of those 179M gallons of oil have disappeared… BP's clean-up of the beaches consists of a surface clean. BP works on the notion that if you can't see the oil, its not there. They routinely dismiss evidence objectively collected by independent scientists that significant areas of the water column are contaminated.


    In reality, a good portion of that oil has not disappeared, its still out there as a mixture of oil and God knows what is in the dispersant. That is what is washing up on shore now and poisoning the marshes and fishing grounds. It does not matter how diluted it is because once it hits the ground, the contaminants are absorbed into the sand/ soil and concentrated after each wave. The sea life is breathing in contaminated water and collecting the contaminants in their bodies. I would think a good portion of that life is going to die as a result of the contamination.


    When the first big hurricane enters the gulf, it will mix the water, and than the storm surge will bring the contaminants far inland. The entire area subject to the storm surge will now be contaminated… It will be everywhere… under homes, in the water table, in the soil… How are they going to clean that up?


    As lower98th has pointed out, Corexit, the oil dispersant used by BP in the gulf is toxic. Shrimpers who were exposed to a mixture of oil and Corexit dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico suffered severe symptoms such as muscle spasms, heart palpitations, headaches that last for weeks and bleeding from the rectum, according to a marine toxicologist who issued the warning Friday on a cable news network. Meanwhile, BP is allowed to continue to use Corexit…. WHY??


    The locals will eat the sea life claming they don't see anything wrong with it, and for many of them, that is all they have anyway. Some of the catch will be sold commercially. Twenty or so years from now, statistics will show an increase in the average cancer rate. Hundreds of thousand of people will suffer reduced quality of life and shortened life expediency. The entire catastrophe will be reduced to a set of sterile summary statistics massaged by the government in order to minimize the event, and their level of culpability in that event. Meanwhile, the rotten criminals that caused this, including the criminals in the federal government that are just as responsible as BP, will get richer…. The problem is not confined to the current administration, the problem is the product of layers upon layers and year after year of corruption. You're right HT, no government is better than what we have.
    10 Jul 2010, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Ron Paul on the oil disaster:

    10 Jul 2010, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I wish we had more people like Congressman Ron Paul making up our government.
    10 Jul 2010, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • I just wish we had term limits. Then we'd have more people who cared about America and fewer who care only about their own self promotion (Congressman Paul excepted).
    11 Jul 2010, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » You hit the nail on the head Mark....
    11 Jul 2010, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » A must read article with respect to the food chain issue….
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (July 14) Scientists say Gulf spill altering food web
    From: AP by Matthew Brown


    Scientists are reporting early signs that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is altering the marine food web by killing or tainting some creatures and spurring the growth of others more suited to a fouled environment.


    Near the spill site, researchers have documented a massive die-off of pyrosomes — cucumber-shaped, gelatinous organisms fed on by endangered sea turtles. Along the coast, droplets of oil are being found inside the shells of young crabs that are a mainstay in the diet of fish, turtles and shorebirds. And at the base of the food web, tiny organisms that consume oil and gas are proliferating.


    If such impacts continue, the scientists warn of a grim reshuffling of sealife that could over time cascade through the ecosystem and imperil the region's multibillion-dollar fishing industry.


    Federal wildlife officials say the impacts are not irreversible, and no tainted seafood has yet been found. But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chairs a House committee investigating the spill, warned Tuesday that the problem is just unfolding and toxic oil could be entering seafood stocks as predators eat contaminated marine life.


    "You change the base of the food web, it's going to ripple through the entire food web," said marine scientist Rob Condon, who found oil-loving bacteria off the Alabama coastline, more than 90 miles from BP's collapsed Deepwater Horizon drill rig. "Ultimately it's going to impact fishing and introduce a lot of contaminants into the food web."


    The food web is the fundamental fabric of life in the Gulf. Once referred to as the food chain, the updated term reflects the cyclical nature of a process in which even the largest predator becomes a food source as it dies and decomposes.


    What has emerged from research done to date are snapshots of disruption across a swath of the northern Gulf of Mexico. It stretches from the 5,000-feet deep waters at the spill site to the continental shelf off Alabama and the shallow coastal marshes of Louisiana.


    Much of the spill — estimated at up to 182 million gallons of oil and around 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas — was broken into small droplets by chemical dispersants at the site of the leaking well head. That reduced the direct impact to the shoreline and kept much of the oil and natural gas suspended in the water.


    But immature crabs born offshore are suspected to be bringing that oil — tucked into their shells — into coastal estuaries from Pensacola, Fla., to Galveston, Texas. Oil being carried by small organisms for long distances means the spill's effects could be wider than previously suspected, said Tulane professor Caz Taylor.


    Chemical oceanographer John Kessler from Texas A&M University and geochemist David Valentine from the University of California-Santa Barbara recently spent about two weeks sampling the waters in a six-mile radius around the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig. More than 3,000 feet below the surface, they found natural gas levels have reached about 100,000 times normal, Kessler said.


    Already those concentrations are pushing down oxygen levels as the gas gets broken down by bacteria, Kessler and Valentine said. When oxygen levels drop low enough, the breakdown of oil and gas grinds to a halt and most life can't be sustained.


    The researchers also found dead pyrosomes covering the Gulf's surface in and around the spill site. "There were thousands of these guys dead on the surface, just a mass eradication of them," Kessler said.


    Scientists said they believe the pyrosomes — six inches to a foot in length — have been killed by the toxins in the oil because there have no other explanation, though they plan further testing.


    The death of pyrosomes could set off a ripple effect. One species that could be directly affected by what is happening to the pyrosomes would be sea turtles, said Laurence Madin, a research director at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Cape Cod, Mass. Some larger fish, such as tuna, may also feed on pyrosomes.


    "If the pyrosomes are dying because they've got hydrocarbons in their tissues and then they're getting eaten by turtles, it's going to get into the turtles," said Madin. It was uncertain whether that would kill or sicken the turtles.


    The BP spill also is altering the food web by providing vast food for bacteria that consume oil and gas, allowing them to flourish. At the same time, the surface slick is blocking sunlight needed to sustain plant-like phytoplankton, which under normal circumstances would be at the base of the food web.


    Phytoplankton are food for small bait fish such as menhaden, and a decline in those fish could reduce tuna, red snapper and other populations important to the Gulf's fishing industries, said Condon, a researcher with Alabama's Dauphin Island Sea Lab.
    14 Jul 2010, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • "Federal wildlife officials say the impacts are not irreversible, and no tainted seafood has yet been found."


    Of course the government would make such a statement even though it is a bald faced lie. That's what they do in their attempts to alter perceptions and the media generally follows in lock step, depending upon the party in power. The Administration is in denial and wants to claim that none of this is their fault. It didn't happen on "our" watch! BO knows by now that he is likely to be a one-term president, so that in the future he will claim that everything was going fine, just look at the press releases back then, and that this is all happening because the Republicans took over and messed everything up once they got to be in charge again. And it was Bush's fault that it happened in the first place because of all the lax regulators that the Bush Administration put into office. We did all we could. It's their fault. But don't blame him for lying. That's just what he does. And it's okay because it's just politics! :)
    14 Jul 2010, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Now we're trying to tell BP what they can do OUTSIDE the US??



    "BP Plc should stop a planned drilling campaign in Libya while links between the oil producer and the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are investigated, a group of U.S. Senators said. "




    "Menendez, Schumer and Lautenberg held a press conference in Washington this morning “to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya,” Mike Morey, a spokesman for Schumer, wrote in an e-mail. "


    14 Jul 2010, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Apparently some in Washington think there already is "One World" government and they're it. This is too ridiculous.
    14 Jul 2010, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I am keeping my fingers crossed….


    (July 16) BP is “encouraged” after a pressure test that halted the flow from its Gulf of Mexico well indicated no sign of an oil leak after the first 17 hours.


    Pressure in the well built steadily to about 6,700 pounds per square inch and is still rising, indicating no leakage from the wellbore, Kent Wells, BP’s senior vice president for exploration and production, said on a conference call with reporters today. Pressure of at least 8,000 pounds per square inch is needed to confirm the integrity of the well, he said.


    “We’ve had no negative information,” Wells said. While the test hasn’t yet confirmed the well’s integrity, “we’re encouraged by those results,” he said.
    16 Jul 2010, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • And now we can focus on the clean up and environmental/economic impact of what has already been done. The capping of the well is certainly good news. However, the work is just begun and we are still a long way from being out of the proverbial woods. How long will the clean up take? How will the oil below the surface be captured? Or will it? Or will the microbes be able to eat it? What impact will all of these microbes have on the aquatic life in the gulf region? How long will it take for the oxygen levels to get back to normal and support all of the indigenous life that lived in the gulf prior to the spill? How long will it take for the ecosystem to get back in balance and for all the affected species to repopulate? When will people in the fishing industry be able to go back to their regular jobs? Will there be a lag time of months or years between their being laid off from the clean up effort to when they can start fishing again? How long? What will be the economic impact to the gulf region? Who's going to pay? BP or the taxpayers?


    This isn't over yet. It's really just the beginning.
    16 Jul 2010, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (July 16) Feds: Test results from well not as good as hoped


    Pressure readings have been less than ideal from the new cap shutting oil into BP's busted well, but the crude will remain locked in while engineers look for evidence of whether there is an undiscovered leak, the federal point man for the disaster said Friday.


    Pressure readings after 24 hours were about 6,700 pounds per square inch and rising slowly, Allen said, below the 7,500 psi that would clearly show the well was not leaking. He said pressure continued to rise between 2 and 10 psi per hour.


    Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said on a conference call that pressure readings from the cap have not reached the level that would show there are no new leaks in the well. He said the developments were "generally good news" but needed close monitoring.


    Allen said there are two possible reasons being debated by scientists on the project for why the pressure hasn't risen as high as desired: The reservoir that is the source of the oil could be depleting after a three-month spill, or there could be an undiscovered leak somewhere down in the well.




    By the way, the size of the Macondo oil prospect [MC252] was estimated to contain 50M barrels of recoverable oil


    Based on previous calculations, we know around 180M gallons of oil have been released into the environment. That's about 4.3M barrels… lets round that up to 5M barrels. So as of today, about 90% of the recoverable oil reservoir has NOT leaked out.
    16 Jul 2010, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • "So as of today, about 90% of the recoverable oil reservoir has NOT leaked out. "
    This makes me re-think the notion of peak oil. It seems there is plenty of oil, and we just aren't permitted to drill on land where it is safer.
    There sure seems to be plenty in the water (i.e. Petrobas, etc). Drill baby, drill.
    17 Jul 2010, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » If the amount of oil that has leaked out is 180M gallons, than 90% of the recoverable oil in that reservoir is still there. I doubt the size of the reservoir figure is incorrect since that number establishes the economic viability for drilling the well in the first place. The oil companies usually get that right.


    So if they claim the pressure is lower because the reservoir is depleted, one of two possibilities is suggested. One - a lot more oil was coming out of that well than BP or our government wants to admit. Or, two - the pressure may be lower because oil and gas may be escaping from other locations.


    I think BP and the government are equally culpable for this blowout and the lack of information and so much misinformation suggests they are both hiding the truth from the public.


    - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Your comment that "… It seems there is plenty of oil, and we just aren't permitted to drill on land where it is safer" was responsible for starting an interesting line of investigation.


    Only a small portion of the oil in a reservoir is considered as "commercially" recoverable. So its not so much an issue of not being permitted to drill on land, its more an issue of its apparently cheaper to extract oil from a fresh deep underwater well than from a well that requires more and more expensive extraction methods.


    WARNING: Before continuing, you might want to take a blood pressure pill, or a stiff drink… its that bad…


    Dismayed and Disgusted:
    I wondered how it was possible for a deepwater well to be cheaper than extracting more oil from an existing land well?


    Deepwater drilling rig rates in 2010 were around $420k/day. Adding in additional costs, a deepwater well costs about one million per day just to bring the well in. It took about 70 days to bring in the Macondo oil prospect [MC252] well (Deepwater Horizon well), so it cost $70M to bring it in.


    Given 50M barrels of recoverable oil and oil at $70 per barrel, that gives BP $3.43B. The cost for the lease rights typically range between $15 to $20M, leaving $3.41B. Out of that $3.41B, the US would normally get 1/8 of the production value from the lease as a royalty. So on the Deepwater horizon well, the US would be expected to get $2.8B in royalties….


    BUT WAIT… 15 years ago (1995) Congress passed the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act, which exempted oil companies from paying the royalty on oil extracted from deepwater wells in federal waters. According to an MMS (Minerals Management Service) report "Significant deepwater leasing activities began in 1995 and showed remarkable increases from 1996 through 1998, especially in water depths greater than 800 m (2,625 ft), where the greatest royalty relief was available." During this time, leasing activities on shallow-water blocks diminished."


    Royalty relief was supposed to end when crude hit $40 a barrel. However, it never did due to a "paperwork error," (!!! I guess it was too much of a bother to fix a paperwork error costing the US taxpayers billions) and in 2004, Interior Secretary Gale Norton implemented further subsidies to oil companies. This policy continued under President Bush; in 2005, he signed an energy bill containing $2.6 billion in new tax incentives for drillers and expanded the royalty relief program. The bill also provided $1.5 billion in direct payments to drill deepwater wells.


    Meanwhile, the head of the MMS, the federal agency that was supposed to be regulating the safety of deepwater drilling was appointed in 2009 (President Obama) by Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salaza. That person was Sylvia Baca, a former BP executive.


    So in answer to the question of how deepwater drilling can possibly be cheaper, its because Americans get NO ROYALTIES. A big oil field like the Tiber field developed by BP in US waters holds 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil. Of that, about 25% should be recoverable, so that is 1.25B barrels of oil.


    At $70 per barrel that's $87.5B in revenues. If the standard royalty rate was in effect, that would be $10.9B to the US taxpayers. That 10.9B goes directly into BP's pocket.


    That is why its cheaper to drill in deepwater. The US government is essentially giving the oil away. This represents graft and corruption at unbelievable levels. Apparently, it does not matter what political party is in office either…. they are both corrupt.


    The reason the US does not have an energy bill designed to remove our countries dependence on oil is because big oil is effectively running our country through the provision of graft. The politician with the biggest war chest has a big advantage, and usually gets elected. The price for that big war chest…


    legislation designed to maximize the profits of big oil which effectively picks the pockets of the taxpayers. Cheep gas at the pumps…. it’s an illusion… the US consumer pays for that cheep gas by giving up its royalty payments. Money which big oil uses to enhance control of the US political process.


    I am Dismayed and Disgusted.
    17 Jul 2010, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • You forgot to factor in the massive income taxes the US gets from ..... errrrrrr, ummmmmmmm, never mind. Perhaps I have a touch of sunstroke today.
    17 Jul 2010, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Well, there you see the "comprehensive energy plan", for which we've all been clamoring, that our elected officials have provided.


    Unfortunately, it's not quite what we had in mind.


    User, you ought to turn all this into an article (multiple part if need be) and submit to SA for publication.


    It deserves to be widely disseminated.


    17 Jul 2010, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • HTL is right, User. Why not submit it for publication?!
    17 Jul 2010, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • I agree: great journalism.
    19 Jul 2010, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • I agree with Hard To Love, User: Massage your above comment and submit it as an article. I insist!!!! Everyone should be made aware of this preposterous level of sheer idiocy and abuse to the citizens of America.


    What you wrote in the above comment staggers me in two ways 1) How stupid, corrupt, and manilpulative our goverment is by the oil companies...wink, wink...the politicials love it 2) How brilliant and informative your work is on this oil disaster. I marvel at your dedication, pal!
    17 Jul 2010, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (July 18) Official: Seep found near BP's blown out oil well
    From: AP by COLLEEN LONG


    A federal official says scientists are concerned about a seep and possible methane near BP's busted oil well in the Gulf of Mexico


    Both could be signs there are leaks in the well that's been capped off for three days.


    The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Sunday because an announcement about the next steps had not been made yet.


    The official is familiar with the spill oversight but would not clarify what is seeping near the well. The official says BP is not complying with the government's demand for more monitoring.
    18 Jul 2010, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • User: More to that effect:



    Hydrocarbon seepage? That could be methane, or oil.


    Mark Anthony wrote of this possibility.


    I'm down here in an area of the planet where there are caves all over the place. Tales of subterranean winds blasting out of caves with force to knock you over exist, and are scientific fact. What info is out there that shows definitively that there are no cracks or fissures in the rock substructure, or hollows in the sub-sea strata, which would enable what's below the "hole" in the earth that BP drilled, to not escape elsewhere?


    In seabeds all over the world, oil leaks.


    I hope I'm wrong, but I fear this "leak" just might need more than one plug.
    18 Jul 2010, 11:38 PM Reply Like
  • If a serious leak, I suspect the plan would be to reopen the riser and draw off oil to reduce pressure. And the relief wells will be re-committed with the intention of going to production. The reservoir of oil will need to be significantly drawn down before the well can be closed down. 3-5 years of production with fingers crossed?


    Just speculating.
    19 Jul 2010, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Invest 97L
    A tropical wave (Invest 97L) between Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic has continued to become more organized today, and is a threat to develop into a tropical depression as early as Wednesday morning. The disturbance has brought heavy rains of 8+ inches to Culebra and Vieques islands over the past day, and all of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are under flash flood watches today.


    Right now, 9 out of 10 projected storm tracks say the storm is headed into the Gulf… Of course, that can change very quickly. However, the intensity of the storm can change very quickly as well, particularly if the storm goes over the Gulf Stream…
    20 Jul 2010, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » That Tropical Depression has now been upgraded to a Tropical Strom called Bonnie. All of the storm projections have it going right through the oil slick area, and I have to add right over the Gulf Stream as well. In fact, the center of the projections should go right over the Deep Horizon well site... Mother Natures Revenge?


    The wind shear over the storm has reduced, and as a result, the storm appears poised to become much stronger than was originally forecast. At its current strength, maximum potential storm surges are between three to six feet.
    22 Jul 2010, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (July 23 8:42 AM Eastern) So far… Bonnie is not projected to become a Hurricane
    The track models show remarkably good agreement for Bonnie's path across south Florida and towards southeast Louisiana. The current intensity forecast calls for Bonnie to maintain strong tropical storm force winds (40-50 knots) until it makes landfall in Louisiana, with a 15% chance of becoming a hurricane before then.
    23 Jul 2010, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • BP trys to pay scientists for silence, offers to buy entire Univ.department. Confidentially agreement includes to courts.
    23 Jul 2010, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Thanks 98th! Yes, they are trying to control the independent scientific reports that would tell the story of how much damage the oil and dispersants have caused in the environment. Given our governments complicity in this mess it would not surprise me to see limited funding from the federal government to study the long term effects of the spill. The less information the better for them.


    It would be great if an organization like the Gates Foundation would step up the plate and provide full funding so a comprehensive study of the effects of this spill could be documented over the next decade.
    23 Jul 2010, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Let's not forget the plumes of oil underwater that BP says don't really exist. That is what I fear the most at this point. Also, I saw a report on MSM that stated that BP and government officials expect the cleanup effort to be completed in about 30 days. They are only addressing the surface oil. That is why BP kept using the dispersant at deep levels: to keep most of the oil from coming to the surface so it wouldn't have to be cleaned up. Now, if the dispersant has the microbes that eat the oil and it is actually cleaning up the plumes, I could be forgiving. But I don't recall BP making that claim. Instead they tried to tell us that there wasn't any oil under the surface. Plumes that are hundreds of feet deep, miles long and miles wide could contain significant amounts of oil and may linger for months, killing much of the gulf's ecosystem and aquatic inhabitants, if not years. How will that cost and clean up be quantified and executed? I'm guessing that the powers that be fully intend to pretend it doesn't exist.
    30 Jul 2010, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • "Signs Emerge of Oil Spill Recovery Entering New Phase"



    Federal and BP people say fishing grounds can re-open but the local folks are skeptical, citing instances of oily blobs still being encountered and booms being covered with an oily sheen.


    "Damage control" in the political sense here, since they couldn't control the environmental damage.


    One positive sign is that atmospheric and oceanic folks say that the way the loop current is running right now, there's no chance that the oil get to Florida or up the east coast.


    30 Jul 2010, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • I have questions, not answers:. I've read that the microbes are eating up and disbursing the crude oil. You don't think the local folk want to carry on longer than necessary because they are being compensated by BP? In a bad economy, isn't it helpful to have BP on the hook, when some of these businesses would have been failing, anyway? Is that too jaded?
    30 Jul 2010, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • Not too jaded - there will certainly be some percent that are taking the tack you suggest.


    But also keep in mind that the microbes deplete the oxygen in the water, damaging the near-term ability of the food chain to recover. So there should be reduced production from early harvesting attempts.


    I do see the effort to re-open as being too early for this reason. It will push part of the remaining damage costs off the backs of BP and the government onto those small businesses as they expend resources trying to ply their trade with (at least) temporarily reduced profitable results.


    31 Jul 2010, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Posted on QC too since some investment decisions may be affected.


    US House Votes to End Deepwater Drilling Moratorium



    Attached to an energy bill, still needs senate and POTUS sign-off.


    31 Jul 2010, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • House votes new standards on offshore drilling, removes damages cap, 100% payment would be required. Reconciliation with senate bill will be required.


    - requires independent certification of equipment;
    - sets up other new offshore-drilling standards;
    - creates new agencies to oversee the industry



    1 Aug 2010, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • HT - Thanks for the link and update. I just hope that whatever they put on the books will be enforceable without running drillers out of Dodge. I also hope that the inspections actually happen and we create a safer process for protecting the environment. Intent is nice, but it doesn't fix things without proper execution.


    One other note: I've been reading that many of the rigs have already begun their journeys to other parts of the world. In the end, the Administration and Congress may be undoing their knee-jerk reaction too late to effectively retain the jobs we so desperately need.
    1 Aug 2010, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • "Creates new agencies to oversee activities". Yeah, that says it all, imo.
    2 Aug 2010, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » As some of you know, I have been under the weather… however, I am still following this disaster. When I heard that the Government and its agency NOAA are saying that most of the oil that spilled from the giant BP gulf leak 'has disappeared'…. I felt I had to respond.


    U.S. Says 75% of Oil Gone, but Sceptics Remain
    Government Reports Vast Majority Oil Has Either Been Captured, Burned or Has Broken Down; Critic Calls Upbeat Estimate "Spin"


    White House energy adviser Carol Browner said that a new assessment found Three-quarters of the oil from BP's massive spill has been cleaned up or broken down by natural forces, government scientists reported, though the upbeat claims were met with some skepticism. That leaves about 53.5 million gallons in the gulf. The amount remaining - or washed up on the shore - still is more than four times the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill.


    The report's calculations were based on daily operational reports, estimates by scientists and various analyses by experts. The government acknowledged it made certain assumptions about how oil dissolves in water naturally over time.


    This is a specific response by Ian McDonald - A Florida State University Oceanographer, and one of the first people to challenge the early reports of the size of the Gulf Oil Spill provided by BP, the Government, and specifically NOAA.


    A Florida State University oceanographer who has long been tracking the spill, and who early on challenged the government's low estimates of its size, called the report "spin." "There's some science here, but mostly it's spin, and it breaks my heart to see them do it," said the oceanographer, Ian McDonald.


    "This is an unfortunate report," he said. "I'm afraid this continues a track record of doubtful information distributed through NOAA."
    Here is an article from The University of Georgia Department of Marine Sciences that provides a very different perspective.


    (August 1) Where has the oil gone?
    FROM: Gulf Oil Blog UGA Department of Marine Sciences
    By Samantha Joye


    The Deepwater Horizon wellhead that tapped the Macondo reservoir was capped on 15 July 2010. After the venting of oil and gas into the Gulf waters was stopped, everyone felt a sense of relief. Multiple news outlets have reported that the surface oil has disappeared, for the most part. I read many reports that stated conclusively the oil had been either transferred to the atmosphere (via evaporation) or that it had been consumed by oil-eating microorganisms. Everyone’s reaction was, not surprisingly, ‘what a relief !!’.


    Should we be relieved? Is this disaster over?
    On the whole, I believe the answer to both questions is NO. It is a relief that the volume of surface oil is reduced, as this lowers the probability of oil-fouling of coastal beaches and marshes. However, it’s likely that a great deal of oil is still out there in the Gulf of Mexico’s waters, it’s just no longer visible to us.


    While some of the oil has most certainly evaporated, much of it was dispersed and this oil is still floating around, invisible to our eyes, within the ocean’s water column. Some of the oil has probably sedimented to the seafloor, where it is also invisible to our eyes. The fact that this oil is “invisible” makes it no less of a danger to the Gulf’s fragile ecosystems. Quite the contrary, the danger is real and the danger is much more difficult to quantify, track and assess.


    And, what about the dissolved gases, mainly methane? Very few measurements of methane concentrations have been made and very few people are thinking about methane’s potential impacts on Gulf deep waters. We, and a couple of others, have measured remarkably high methane concentrations in the water column. Its oxidation, and the microbial growth it fuels, will influence oxygen and nutrient budgets in the deepwater.


    What about the dispersants? Where have they gone and what is their impact in the system? How are dispersants influencing the organisms that call the Gulf’s waters, beaches and marshes home? We do not know the answers to these questions but we need to know.


    The impacts of the oil, gas and dispersant on the Gulf’s ecosystems will be felt for years, if not decades. We cannot pretend the danger has passed for it has not. Additional and on-going studies of open water, deep seafloor, and coastal dynamics are necessary. We must be diligent and we must insist that long-term monitoring programs be established and maintained so that we can evaluate and insure the recovery of the Gulf’s ecosystems.


    Questions posed to the Gulfblog
    1. Have microbes eaten most of the oil in the Gulf?
    We don’t know. I have not seen any data reporting measurements of microbial oil degradation rates in the Gulf’s surface waters since the spill started and I’m not aware of anyone making such measurements. My group measured oxygen and methane consumption rates but not oil consumption rates per se. So, concluding that microbes have consumed all the oil would be impossible.


    2. Will microbes eat the dispersants being used?
    We don’t know this either. There have been no reports of dispersant degradation in situ in the Gulf waters since the spill started. There have been reports of dispersants in larval crabs so it is getting eaten. It’s unclear how “biodegradable” the corexit is however so we don’t know how long it will persist in the environment.


    3. Was the characterization of your interview in the article fair?
    This question refers to this story ( My words were taken somewhat out of context. I said that we know there are elevated rates of microbial activity in the deepwater plumes but we don’t know if this activity is stimulated by oil, by gas, or by both. We did not measure oil degradation rates per se.


    4. Is BP buying off scientists?
    I know some very good people who are doing research that is funded by BP so I don’t think it’s fair to say that BP is buying scientist’s silence in a general sense. Yes, some scientists have been asked to sign confidentiality agreements but they are given a choice about this. Believe it or not, some good research is funded by BP but those things do not usually make the newspapers. I have heard the stories of getting people to sign confidentiality agreements and I think that’s a bad thing, in general and especially in a case like this. It will be interesting to see if those [confidentiality] agreements are voided or relaxed now that the issue is getting so much bad publicity.


    5. Is NOAA giving data to BP and not our public university scientist?
    I do not know the answer to this question. I know that the data BP is generating is flowing freely to Unified Command (NOAA/USCG/EPA) but NOT to university scientists. The JAG reports (ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.go...) contain some of the data generated by BP funded vessels (i.e. the R/V Brooks McColl). In general, I feel data should be more freely exchanged between the academic and federal/BP scientists and I feel that we need much more coordination and cooperative planning between academic and federal/BP scientists. There needs to be more central coordination in terms of what is being measured, where and when.


    6. Are any professors or scientist at UGA working for BP?
    Yes, a couple are but I don’t know the conditions of their contracts. My offshore work is funded by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.


    7. How dangerous are the methane levels in the Gulf?
    The methane concentrations in the Gulf’s deep waters are extremely high. The hazard posed by these high gas levels is that oxygen consumption will be stimulated and oxygen concentrations could become depleted. At this point, very few measurements of methane concentration have been made so we cannot say with certainty how high widespread the elevated methane levels are.


    8. Is the air quality around the Gulf nothing to worry about?
    I have not seen enough data to make a conclusion about this. I can tell you that when I was out there, the air quality was terrible (made me cough) when we were near areas of active burn-offs. Evaporation of oil into the atmosphere and potentially dispersants or dispersant by-products getting into the atmosphere could reduce air quality substantially. Once more, more data is needed before sound conclusions can be made.


    9. Had you seen these pictures of millions dead bait fish and do you think it was oil, corexit, methane or low oxygen or all of them?
    Fish kills happen without oil, corexit and methane. Determining the cause takes sleuthing and time. I have seen the pictures and it is tempting to link such events to the spill but we need data to do that and I have not seen convincing data making that link but I know studies are underway to make those linkages.


    10. Are you’ll still able to publish your data to the public, and when?
    No one is preventing us from publishing. It usually takes 4-6 months to write a paper after collecting and analyzing the data. I have already submitted a paper (it is in review) and I have another paper on the oil spill that will be submitted in a couple of weeks. When the papers are published, I’ll publish links to them on the blog.


    11. Are there other leaks on the gulf floor near the main leak we see on the cams?
    I have seen images of what looks like new seeps near the wellhead but it is difficult to say whether this is from natural seepage or whether it’s related to the blowout. Time will probably tell. Right now, it’s too early to say.


    12. Has BP sprayed 43 million gallons of Corexit instead the 1.5 million they reporting?
    I think it will be some time before we know the full scale and impacts of the dispersants used to manage this spill. I think it’s safe to say however, that 43 million gallons of corexit have not been used because the stockpile of corexit was not that big and the production capacity is limited. We can come up with the upper application limit by knowing those two things and it’s much closer to 5 million gallons than 40 million gallons.


    My two cents…
    I believe the claim that 75% of the oil has "disappeared" is a good example of our Government being so contemptuous of the knowledge of the American people that they believe they can say anything, and the people are supposed to blindly believe it. Remember that the Government is not a disinterested party in this disaster. The Government's failure to properly regulate deep water oil drilling, because they were in the pocket of BP, is a major reason this disaster occurred. Therefore, the Government wants to minimize the size of this disaster before the November elections.


    Where is the data that the Governments pronouncement is based on? Show us the data, and describe how that data was collected, when it was collected, and who collected it? What independent scientists signed off on the pronouncement that 75% of the oil is gone? Were the individuals that made that pronouncement remunerated in ANY way by the government or BP? If BP had anything to do with collecting the data, would you believe it? Blind statements by Government representatives should not be believed.


    If such data exists, then why haven't The University of Georgia Department of Marine Sciences scientists been provided access to it? Why hasn't Florida State University oceanographer Ian McDonald been given access to this mysterious data? When will the data be published in a high level scientific forum such as "Science" or "Nature"? When will the data be available to the press, assuming that we have a free press interested in telling the truth. How does corexit degrade, what are its long term effects… what about those high methane levels?


    All we have is the administrations proclamation that the problem is solved and basically everything is fine… yet we know that the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill, a much smaller spill had disastrous effects on the local ecology for decades. Yes, the temperature is lower in Alaska, but temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico are only a few degrees above freezing… Oil down there should degrade at a similar rate as that in the Gulf of Alaska. Of course if you don't look for oil below the surface, you aren't going to find it.


    Clearly, the government has put on the same blinders that its partner in this disgraceful crime, BP, has been wearing all along. This administration reminds me of the three monkeys. Mizaru, covers his eyes, and sees no evil; Kikazaru, covers his ears, and therefore hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covers his mouth, and therefore speaks no evil.
    4 Aug 2010, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Welcome back. I hope you're fully recovered. Thanks for the update and the response to the propaganda, now get back to bed and get well, if not fully recovered! ;-))


    4 Aug 2010, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (August 16) ABOARD THE KRISTY MISTY, Gulf of Mexico — Well before dawn on Monday, Nicky Alfonso set out down Bayou Terre aux Boeufs in his 38-foot shrimping boat, heading for open water.


    Keath Ladner, the owner of Gulf Shores Sea Products in Lakeshore, Miss., a distributor, said he did not expect any of the 70 boats he normally buys shrimp from to go out this season. His biggest customer, which buys 2 million pounds of shrimp a year, had canceled its entire order. “The sentiment in the country is that the seafood in the gulf is tainted,” Mr. Ladner said. “People are scared of it right now.”


    As Mr. Alfonso worked he explained that in his view, the main factor affecting the shrimp’s behavior this year was not the oil but the large amounts of fresh water that had been diverted from the Mississippi River to push oil away from the marshes. It had pushed the shrimp, which depend on the right temperature and salinity, away as well, making it harder to catch and decreasing the chances, he predicted, that the white shrimp would return to the interior waters to lay eggs as they normally would.


    Instead of schooling together, he said, the shrimp were dispersed. “See how we ain’t seeing no shrimp jump?” he asked. “That’s not good.”


    He added, “There’s too much stuff disturbed them. The shrimp out here don’t know which way to run because of that fresh water.”
    16 Aug 2010, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » There are two morals to the following story… One - if you don't look for it, you won't find it. This is the BP and Current US Government Administrations "see no evil" approach.


    Two - Do NOT trust the US Government with respect to providing the truth with respect to this oil spill. Remember, the US Government is directly implicated with respect to WHY this spill occurred. Withholding information with regard to public safety is immoral, and its probably illegal. Heads need to roll here, starting with the current Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. The root of the failure was NOT in the performance of lower level employees, the root is cantered much higher in the chain of command.


    Here is an abbreviated version of the article by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution which is one of the most respected scientific institutions in the world. By the way, these findings replicate the desktop experiment I conducted some months back and reported here in this news concentrator. Some of the oil treated with disbursements will NOT float to the surface, but will remain in a suspension below the surface. Some will also sink to the bottom.


    I know there is a lot of information here, but its WORTH taking the time to read. Staying well informed is the single most important thing we can do to protect our freedom.


    (August 19) Scientists report undersea oil plume stretching 21 miles from BP spill site From: The Washington Post, By David A. Fahrenthold and Kimberly Kindy


    Academic scientists are challenging the Obama administration's assertion that most of BP's oil is either gone or rapidly disappearing -- citing, among other evidence, the discovery of an undersea "plume" of oil stretching more than 21 miles from the well site.


    News of the plume was announced Thursday afternoon by researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. In late June, they found an invisible cloud of oil droplets as tall as a 65-story building and more than a mile wide.


    Since then, they said, all that oil was unlikely to have been consumed by the gulf's crop of hydrocarbon-eating microbes. These work quickly in the warm waters near the surface, but far more slowly in the cold, deep region where the plume was found. "Our data would predict that the plume would still be there now," said Benjamin Van Mooy, a Woods Hole researcher.


    Preparing to testify before a House subcommittee Thursday, Florida State University professor Ian R. MacDonald called the administration's account "misleading." MacDonald said that the government makes too-optimistic assumptions about how much oil is breaking down under the gulf's surface, and that its report didn't mention the natural gas that gushed out of BP's Macondo well along with the oil. Instead of disappearing rapidly, MacDonald wrote in prepared testimony, the oil "will remain potentially harmful for decades. I expect the hydrocarbon imprint of the BP discharge will be detectable in the marine environment for the rest of my life."


    In that hearing, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) criticized a NOAA scientist for saying that the agency would wait two months before releasing the full details of the methodology it used to calculate the oil's fate. "That is, to me, unacceptable. We need to have that information," Markey said.


    The University of South Florida research was an attempt to gather real-world evidence in the gulf. Scientists shone ultraviolet light on the bottom of the DeSoto Canyon, a deep notch in the edge of the continental shelf, full of sea life. If oil were there, it would reflect the light. "It flashes back at you as sort of a constellation of bright stars," Hollander said, indicating that the oil is in tiny drops.


    [Ed: This is exactly what I found in my desktop experiment using a laser. The suspended oil column can be easily detected because the transmission of light through the column is reduced by the presence of the small oil droplets.]


    Thursday's revelation, of an oil "plume" 3,600 feet below the gulf surface, came in an article published in the journal Science. It was among the first peer-reviewed studies of oil swirling beneath the gulf's surface, and it revealed not a black cloud, but a patch of gulf that looked as clear as spring water.


    But that water, scientists said, contained traces of petroleum. They said they were puzzled about how, exactly, the oil got there: Despite the conventional wisdom that oil floats, this crude seemed to have stopped rising less than halfway through its journey from the well to the surface. They thought perhaps icelike hydrate crystals played a role, or the dispersant chemicals squirted into the oil as it escaped.


    [My desktop experiment strongly suggested the suspended oil is the result of the dispersant. By the way, the particles carry an electric charge which is suggestive of what they are. These guys need to get into the lab more often.]


    A NOAA scientist, Steve Murawski, said that his agency has seen research indicating that the oil in this plume may be breaking down more rapidly than it was in June. Murawski declined to say which researchers had done the studies to support this finding, saying they were NOT PUBLIC. "It's based on not our opinion, it's based on scientific studies," he said.


    [Nothing from NOAA should be trusted. They are under political control. By the way, the breakdown of oil 3,600 feet below the Gulf will be VERY slow because its only a few degrees above freezing down there. NOAA knows that, but notice they don't even hint at it. Scientists who spin data, do so at the risk of their scientific credibility, and in the scientific community, that is all you have.


    The key to the credibility of scientific reports is access to that data and the scientific reports generated from it. Quoting findings from mysterious, non-public reports by unnamed researchers are PR, not science.]
    19 Aug 2010, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • When the dust settles and the oil dissolves, I think we will have found BP vilified for the opportunity to pick its bones and further an ecological agenda that is based largely upon fiction. This will have served as a distraction from the larger issues surrounding fiscal ill health.
    No doubt that there are people whose lives have been destroyed because of the oil blow out. There are always such casualties, but the big picture is not the one we have been presented with--in my opinion.
    19 Aug 2010, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » To me the major takeaway was not the oil spill, or even the long term effects of that oil spill. For me the major takeaway concerns the outright lies of the US Government that betrayed its responsibilities to the people. People that are so poorly informed that they don't have a clue as to what is happening.


    Adding yet more regulations is just another PR exercise to convince people that the Government is doing their job. However, the blow out did not occur because of a lack of regulations, it occurred because the regulations that were in place were not followed.


    The oil companies submitted grandiose spill response plans but did not have the necessary resources or equipment in place to execute those plans. To me, that means they submitted fraudulent plans. If we knowingly submit a fraudulent income tax return, we can go to jail. Yet it appears that companies can commit outright fraud without fear of substantial penalties including incarceration of its senior management who are ultimately responsible for the approval of the companies plans. An untested, complicated, emergency response plan is of little worth.


    The purpose of the oil regulatory agency was to provide the illusion that the Government was doing its job of protecting the people. That's as much of a fraud as the oil companies grandiose fake emergency response plans. All the regulatory agency was doing was rubber stamping approvals and blocking opposition from other US regulatory agencies under the direction of higher levels of the US government. Who was behind that behaviour?


    The head of the oil regulatory agency was fired, when in fact, the corruption goes up to the highest levels of our government. Excuses along the lines of "I was following orders" were shown to be inadequate to prevent convictions during the Nuremburg trials. Federal employees take an Oath of office that they "… will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


    Adding yet more regulations is akin to what some doctors do when they treat symptoms as opposed to determining the cause of those symptoms. I argue that the primary causal factor in the Gulf Oil spill was regulatory and inspection failures. If real tests and complete inspections had been carried out, it would have been apparent that the blow out preventor that failed was not functioning correctly, and that it had never been tested under real world operating conditions to see if it could fulfil its function.


    People expect a company like BP to cut corners. Real regulatory agencies anticipate the companies they are regulating will try to cut corners, and act to prevent that behaviour. Americans deserve better from their elected representatives who actively condone federal employees to ignore their legal and moral obligations.


    The real danger here is not that the government has failed miserably to fulfil its responsibilities, the real danger is that the government did not even bother to try to hide their malfeasance. They are clearly not afraid of the consequences of cheating and lying and taking bribes. The real danger is that the government is contemptuous of the American public. That is the major takeaway to be learned from this disaster.
    19 Aug 2010, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Dear User 283977:
    When you see an older person limping down the street, with a fist shaking toward the sky, next time you will think:
    "Oh, there's (me in twenty years)..._______ (fill in the blank) It might be any number of your cyber pals; me, Tripleback, Freya, etc...-- That's what one looks like after decades of watching government usurp freedom,power and wealth.
    Welcome, you have crossed the threshold.
    19 Aug 2010, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Crossed the threshold? Shoot! I painted the darn thing. They don't even have a gate there any more. Said it just slowed down the traffic too much and made people even madder (as if that's even possible).
    19 Aug 2010, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Today's NYT article questions that 3/4ths of the 5 million barrels of oil have [miraculously] dissapeared. I question if it was *only* 5 million barrels. There is an oil plume out there the size of Manhattan!

    23 Aug 2010, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • An new headline about another oil rig that exploded today off the coast of Louisiana:

    2 Sep 2010, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (September 12, 2010) Oil From the BP Spill Found at Bottom of Gulf


    Finding it Everywhere:
    Professor Samantha Joye of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, who is conducting a study on a research vessel just two miles from the spill zone, said the oil has not disappeared, but is on the sea floor in a layer of scum.


    "We're finding it everywhere that we've looked. The oil is not gone," Joye said. "It's in places where nobody has looked for it."


    All 13 of the core samples Joye and her UGA team have collected from the bottom of the gulf are showing oil from the spill, she said.


    Not From Natural Seepage:
    In an interview with ABC News from her vessel, Joye said the oil cannot be natural seepage into the gulf, because the cores they've tested are showing oil only at the top. With natural seepage, the oil would spread from the top to the bottom of the core, she said.


    The Layer is Thick:
    In some areas the oily material that Joye describes is more than two inches thick. Her team found the material as far as 70 miles away from BP's well. "If we're seeing two and half inches of oil 16 miles away, God knows what we'll see close in -- I really can't even guess other than to say it's going to be a whole lot more than two and a half inches," Joye said.


    Nothing Living in These Cores Other Than Bacteria:
    Joye said she spent hours studying the core samples and was unable to find anything other than bacteria and microorganisms living within. "There is nothing living in these cores other than bacteria," she said. "I've yet to see a living shrimp, a living worm, nothing."


    Results Are in Stark Contrast With Claims of Federal Government:
    Studies conducted by the University of Georgia and the University of South Florida caused controversy back in August when they found that almost 80 percent of the oil that leaked from BP's well is still out in the waters of the Gulf. Their report stood in stark contrast to that of the federal government, which on Aug. 4 declared that 74 percent of the oil was gone, having broken down or been cleaned up.


    The studies by Joye and other scientists found that what the government had reported to the public only meant that the oil still lurked, invisible in the water.


    Though initially denying the claim, BP -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- acknowledged the existence of the dispersed oil. BP subsequently pledged $500 million for gulf research.
    What kind of strings are attatched to those funds?
    13 Sep 2010, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Strings, indeed! If I were a university president I'd be studying the gulf waters and preparing reports. I'm surprised that there isn't a longer list of consulting firms lining up to take bribe money to keep them from publishing reports. We'll see whether the U of GA. and S.F. will go through with their studies and publish or if they will suddenly start building some new facilities or increasing their foundations substantially and keep quiet.
    13 Sep 2010, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Gulf oil spill volume estimated from video
    By Jonathan Amos - Science correspondent, BBC News


    Marine geophysicists Timothy Crone and Maya Tolstoy from Columbia University used a technique called optical plume velocimetry to study the oil escaping through the failed blowout preventer on the seafloor.


    Crone's and Tolstoy's analysis, to be published in Science suggests that the average flow rate of oil from the well between 22 April (the day the Deepwater Horizon rig sank) and 3 June was 56,000 barrels per day.


    After the riser pipe was removed, the researchers say some 68,000 barrels of oil was flowing into the ocean each day, until the well was finally capped on 15 July.


    BPs estimate was 5,000 barrels per day. So they low-balled the flow rate by more then an order of magnitude. Of course, anyone that looked at the videos and knew the diameter of the pipe knew that BPs number was a gross misrepresentation.
    23 Sep 2010, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Panel: Gov't blocked worst-case oil spill figures


    The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been, according to a panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.


    In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well.


    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


    BP's drilling permit for the Macondo well originally estimated the worst scenario to be a leak of 6.8 million gallons per day. In late April, the Coast Guard and NOAA received an updated estimate of 2.7 million to 4.6 million gallons per day.


    While those figures were used as the basis for the government's response to the spill — they appeared on an internal Coast Guard Situation report and on a dry-erase board in NOAA's Seattle war room — the public was never told. In the meantime, government officials were telling the public that the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day — a figure that would be later adjusted to be much closer to the worst-case estimates.


    "Despite the fact that the Unified Command had this information, relied on it for operations, and publicly states that it was operating under a worst-case scenario, the government never disclosed what its...scenario was," the report says.


    University of South Florida oceanographer David Hollander, who was also at the St. Petersburg meeting of 150 scientists studying the oil flow on Wednesday, said he was surprised to find that the White House budget office gagged NOAA. He said public disclosure would have helped scientists to figure out what was going on. "It would have been much better to know from a scientific point of view the reality," he said in an interview with The Associated Press.
    Welcome to what has become of the US Government. A Government that routinely LIES to its citizens.


    Oh, and by the way NOAA, you just lost a major part of your scientific credibility. Now everyone is going to be wondering when they look at your data whether its also been influenced by SPIN control, or DATA.


    I call for the immediate resignation of Jane Lubchenco, the current head of NOAA. By LYING to the public, she has destroyed any concept of trust with respect to NOAA. Jane Lubchenco has no business in the sciences.
    6 Oct 2010, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Why stop with Lubchenco? Why not call for the resignation of head of the White House Budget Office? After all, that's as high as the problem could possibly have gone, right? I'm sure that the POTUS was kept in the dark just like the rest of us. (sarcasm intended)
    6 Oct 2010, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I agree Mark... I would like the see the Sec of the interior fired over this whole thing as well....


    Lubchenco MUST go because by allowing scientific conclusions to be modified by political pressure, she has, in effect, destroyed the scientific credibility of NOAA. No scientist is going to trust anything out of that NOAA so long as she is there....


    She did nothing unusual for a lying sack of shit politician, but by not insisting that the truth be told, she has disgraced and besmirched every scientist at NOAA....


    what those people should do now is to threaten mass resignations unless she is fired. Lying about results is not and cannot be tolerated in the sciences. If you look her up, you will see there are a whole bunch of allegations along the same lines about this clown….
    6 Oct 2010, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • User - How do you think she got the got in the first place? The Administration wanted someone like this and they'll probably encourage all the "real" scientists to try their luck in the market so that they can be replaced with more malleable subordinates. They may even require them to join the "party" during the application process. Data from BLS is bad enough already, but with a few changes it could become even rosier, no matter what reality looks like. All that counts and is allowed to be released to the media is the party line. Does all this sound familiar? What is the difference between propaganda and news? The news isn't reported anymore!
    6 Oct 2010, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • I'm digusted by this news. It gets harder and harder to cram into my head the breath and amount of the amount of government corruption occurring these days. And the apathy of its citizens.


    I remember seeing the first video of that spill and saying to myself no way are "they" telling the truth. I think it was that same day you did the math, User, and I remember saying that my old frat could drink beer faster (for one or two seconds) than what the government was reporting of how much oil Horizon was spilling into the sea.


    And now comes the truth?


    User: As always, really appreciate your coverage on this oil spill.
    7 Oct 2010, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » HERE IS A MUST READ…


    State Senator District 1, State of Louisiana


    January 16, 2011


    The Honorable Barack Obama
    The President of the United States
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, D.C. 20500


    Re: The environmental impact of dispersing Corexit during and after the oil spill


    Dear Mr. President;


    The BP incident in the Gulf of Mexico has now been acknowledged as the greatest manmade disaster in history but there is yet another manmade disaster that must not be overlooked and has not been adequately addressed in the recently released report of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster.


    That second major disaster has been caused by the unnecessary use of the toxin Corexit dispersant. In early May of 2010 just after the crisis began, I requested that our Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell use whatever legal means were necessary to stop the use of this toxin. Shortly thereafter, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal requested that the use of this toxic dispersant be discontinued because of the long-term environmental damage. And still later, it was reported in the media that you also ordered BP to stop using Corexit. Surprisingly, I also read in the media that they even refused your request.


    Mr. President, my concern is that this toxic and damaging chemical is still being used and it will compound the long-term damage to our state, our citizens, our eco-system, our economy, our seafood industry, our wildlife and our culture.


    I am well aware that our emphasis, resources and energy is currently engaged working through the administrative and legal proceedings of the oil disaster but we must also recognize and begin the same process to address the damage Corexit has done and will continue to do as we go forward.


    As the State Senator for District 1 in the southeastern corner of the State of Louisiana representing the parishes of St. Tammany, St. Bernard, Orleans and Plaquemines, I respectfully request that you have your administrative officials provide the information requested in this letter. I need to make that information available to my constituents who are seeing their lives and lands threatened and their way of life hanging in the balance. Due to the threats to public safety and ecological realities, I am compelled to write this letter requesting answers to my questions regarding the role of the United States Government in administering the response to the crises in the Gulf. It is apparent that the response directed by our government was inadequate because it allowed the use of Corexit dispersants which increased the toxicity level of the spilled oil and delivered no substantial benefit.


    Corexit dispersants increased the toxicity of the oil itself when the two were mixed together. Its use caused the cross contamination of the Gulf water column by forcing the transfer of the surface oil downward through the water column, causing the oil to sink to the Gulf floor. The result was an unnecessary elevated negative impact as this same oil moved ashore later to the tidal zones delivering toxic weathered oil to coastal residents, tourists and businesses and workers in the Gulf region.


    Government officials stated over and over that the use of the dispersants was designed to break up the oil into smaller digestible parts to be consumed by the sub-sea living micro-organisms. This strategy is unsubstantiated. In fact, the Corexit dispersant created the opposite results since Corexit contains toxic ingredients which act as biocides to prevent microbial digestion of the oil. Physical evidence supports that the entire response administered by government agencies have been inadequate.


    Independent scientists have reported the waters and our shores of the Gulf are toxic. It has been reported that the toxins in the Gulf waters are directly linked to the distribution of dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527A) introduced this summer (and since then) during the BP disaster. It has not all evaporated (gassed off) or digested by the microbes and the remaining contamination needs to be cleaned up and not hidden so that the toxins can be removed quickly from our Gulf for the safety of our citizens and to allow what remaining species of sea and wild life to recover; if at all possible.


    Immediately following the accident, I spent a great deal of time researching this issue and met with numerous eminently qualified scientists and professionals with the hope of being able to save our coastal zone with the use of “bio-friendly” oil dispersants which I learned was available, safer, non-toxic and proven to be effective.


    Today, 9 months after the accident, there is still no plan by the United States Government to clean up the toxin Corexit. Many are concerned that the oil laced with this toxic dispersant is still in the Gulf being moved constantly by currents throughout the ecosystem spreading contamination.


    It is well known by many reputable scientists and environmental watchdog groups that non-toxic bio-remediation products, such as “OSE-II” was and is available. It has been used all over the world by many countries, contractors, private industry and the United States military and has been proven to be a safe solution in the past. Moreover, these types of products possess unique properties such as hydraulic lift (causes oil to float) so that the sunken oil can be raised from the sediments and detoxified.


    I believe that the officials at the BP science labs have been disingenuous about their supposed desire to protect the aquiculture of the Gulf and the livelihood of the families who harvest the fisheries of the Gulf, in that they have intentionally excluded safe, non-toxic and proven bio-remediation technology to clean up the oil and toxins. BP’s refusal to use bio-remediation products to restore Gulf waters to pre-spill conditions is very disturbing to me since the EPA and USCG has approved bio-remediation for the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska years ago. BP has also used non-toxic bio-remediation technology in the Caribbean and in Africa. RPT 6 of the EPA has used OSE-II in U.S. waters as well.


    Was the toxin Corexit used because it dropped the oil from the surface so it would appear that the problem was solved? Was it ever discussed that the dropping of the oil would render the huge undertaking of placing booms useless? The earthen berms called for by Plaquemines Parish President Nungesser and Governor Jindal was our only defense after the use of Corexit was employed as we witnessed in disbelief oil coming to our shores under the booms.


    Please have your administration provide answers to the following questions.


    1. Have acutely toxic chemical compounds been formed by the mixing of Gulf crude with toxic dispersants (Corexit 9500 and 9527A) applied individually or in a mixed ratio? If such chemicals have been mixed, please provide the ratios and provide the names of the other chemicals with which Corexit was mixed.


    2. Other acutely toxic compounds have been found in the air, water, and sediments in the Gulf. Have they evaporated off with the aid of dispersants? Have your scientist reported that these compounds have come ashore, contaminating our coastal communities?


    3. Is the oil spilled truly cleaned up, or has it been transformed through the evaporation and loss of lighter-chain hydrocarbons, leaving the heavier, longer-chain hydrocarbons in the water and sediments to continue delivering toxins to those exposed to them through time, which includes all the aquatic life within the Gulf waters?


    4. What levels of toxins can humans safely tolerate if these toxins are taken in either by ingestion or by direct exposure from the air or water?


    5. Are the Gulf waters safe? If so, define “safe.” Please define the test methods used to determine water quality and safety to assist independent scientists to verify these results.


    6. Is Gulf seafood safe? If so, define “safe.” Please define the test methods used to determine safety to assist independent scientists to verify these results. The independent smell test by the USDA has on occasion proven to be inaccurate. What test equipment is being employed? USDA Director Steve Wilson will not declare verbally.


    7. Were our Gulf waters safe prior to the recent 4,200 square mile ban by NOAA? If so, when? Please describe the testing methods and proof that it was safe. Where are the test data and a description of test methods that proved it was safe? What tests or methods were used to prove it was unsafe?


    8. Have our Gulf onshore breezes been safe, specifically from May/June and from 2010 to present? Environmental monitoring by the federal government has surely occurred since the accident and test results as well as a description of test methods and findings should be available by now. Much is still missing in this area of data on numerous agency web sites. Please provide them. Independent scientists have reported the presence of PAH’s, 2-butoxy-ethanol and other toxic compounds in the air and in onshore rainfall. Please provide any data available on this issue, including their effects on humans, and confirm if the public should be concerned about bio-accumulation in commercial seafood or not. If indeed there is any risk of bio-accumulation, then know that it is possible to detoxify the soil and ground water, if necessary. Both NOAA and the EPA data together with some of BP’s data are contradictory within their own summations. We just need transparency regarding these issues.


    9. What is the impact of prolonged exposure to these chemicals on humans in terms of toxicity and illness? What are the symptoms associated with various exposures? I ask this because in the Exxon-Valdez accident, it has been reported that all who participated in the clean up activity died within 20+ years of the accident. Understanding the chemical characteristics of the toxins used and mixed with the oil is important.


    10. With respect to water samples taken by EPA and NOAA, please provide the test data and a description of test methods regarding poly-propanol, 2-butoxy ethanol, ethylene glycol, total hydrocarbons and PAH’s in the water column, not just the surface waters. Reports of chemicals in the water melting the plastics or rubber products such as diving suits and gasket seals have been reported and documented. Also, fishermen have discovered the bottoms of their crab traps dissolved or were heavily coated with rubbery tar-type oil.


    11. Does the toxic effects of the dispersant Corexit 9500/9527A mixed with light sweet crude confirm that the toxicity level is increased for living organisms?


    Understanding that bacteria are living organisms, I have yet to discover any definitive proof that natural bio-remediation of the weathered oil is possible by using Corexit. The claims by EPA officials and Coast Guard personnel have been confirmed to be false since 1992 (EPA/NETAC Test 1992). This is critical because it is apparent that the toxin Corexit administered did nothing but drop and hide the oil allowing for vast amounts of oil and toxins to be released well below the surface in to the water columns and the food chain. Further, it has been suggested that the toxicity level may increase with time after a spill. There is definitive proof that natural bio-remediation was a viable alternative for use at the time of the disaster and that it can still be used after the natural crude has been dispersed. It is still possible to clean up the water, the coastal lands, the marsh grass areas, the sandy beaches, the water column and the oil on the Gulf floor. EPA has approved bio-remediation products on the NCP list such as OSE-II that can raise the sunken oil to the surface for a safe natural conversion to CO2 and water which will detoxify the water column and restore the Gulf waters to pre-spill conditions. It was recommended for use in the clean up effort by the USCG Testing lab on July 10, 2010 to the FOSC (Federal on Scene Coordinator), however no action was taken. For unknown reasons, the EPA has blocked its use and continues to deny requests for use by both BP and the Louisiana DEQ.


    Today in Louisiana and the other affected Gulf states, the health and welfare of our citizens, public safety, economic pain and environmental unknowns exist and the time to address this critical issue is now.


    We will not be fooled in to believing that the oil and the toxins are gone. Because the toxic dispersants have been, and are still being used today, the oil is being forced downward in to the water columns and then carried endlessly around and about by the Gulf currents adversely affecting our environment.


    On behalf of the citizens of all of the states on the Gulf coast, I strongly urge you to employ all of the resources you have available to guarantee a safe and healthy future for those of us in the Gulf coast states by joining with us to make sure safe non-toxic bio-remediation technology is put in to use immediately.


    It is my sincere hope that this request is answered in a timely fashion so that I can advise my constituents.


    I appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter.




    A.G. Crowe
    State Senator
    District 1
    State of Louisiana
    5 Feb 2011, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » [NOW WE HAVE THIS… ]


    (February 5, 2011) DeCA gives big boost to Gulf seafood sales
    (FROM: The Associated Press By Mary Foster)


    NEW ORLEANS — Sales of Gulf of Mexico seafood are getting a boost from the military after being hammered by last year’s BP oil spill, which left consumers fearing the water’s bounty had been tainted.


    The Defense Department-run Defense Commissary Agency sells groceries to military personnel, reservists, retirees and their families at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge. The stores have emphasized healthy diets as part of first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” fitness and health campaign.


    So far, 72 of the 249 U.S. commissaries have committed to stocking Gulf seafood, but more could join the program. Before, a large majority of the seafood stocked at commissaries was imported, Ketchum said. Progressive Grocer magazine ranked the commissary chain as the nation’s 17th largest grocery chain.


    “That’s true of all the grocery industry, but now our government is stepping up and saying they will use domestic product,” he said.


    [I am simultaneously ENRAGED, APPALLED, and DISGUSTED. I suggest Mr Obama and his entire family should eat these products on a daily basis. ]


    Meanwhile, the OYSTERS VOTE!


    Oyster fishermen worried about problem area along the coast (From: Eyewitness News by Maya Rodriguez)


    NEW ORLEANS -- In the waters stretching from the MR-GO, down to the mouth of the Mississippi River, oysters are having a tough time, and a mystery is unfolding in one of the state's most productive areas for oysters.


    "It's not a good sign," said John Tesvich, chairman of the Louisiana Oyster Task Force.


    The sign is a lack of oyster spat, in what is known as coastal zone number two. Scientists are baffled, and they said so at a meeting on Tuesday of the Oyster Task Force. The spat is the first critical step needed for oysters to rebound.


    [Scientists baffled??? The gulf was poisoned. Oysters are to the ocean as canaries are to the coal mines. Osyters are filter feeders… they are dead…. draw your own conclusions.]
    5 Feb 2011, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • So they're hiding the impact of the poison by buying the tainted seafood(what there is of it), and feeding it to OUR SOLDIERS?!?! F-ing unbelievable!
    7 Feb 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • Makes a certain Soylent Green / Appocalypse Now sort of sense, particularly since they despise our troops as part of their class warfare mantra anyway...


    Evil bastards.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • Agent Orange replaced by Corexit. A new way to die for your country.
    Does this make Michelle guilty of manslaughter?
    5 Feb 2011, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I am sad 98th… We shake our heads at what is happening in Egypt and think that our government is so superior… yet in reality, things are not so different in Egypt as here. The only thing that seems different is our people are too stupid to recognize they are being victimized by a totally corrupt political system. The Gulf is poisoned, and our response is a PR effort combined with poisoning members of our own military. It reminds me of the early part of the atomic age when the US government deliberately exposed military members to radiation… or your example of agent orange....
    5 Feb 2011, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • BTW, the "official" cause of bed die-off and lack of spat is "fresh water intrusion into salt water aquifiers." and Yes, we are So Stupid.
    5 Feb 2011, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • Let us not forget LSD exposure.


    5 Feb 2011, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • Its insane to think that a massive ecological event will not have ANY immediate consequences (regardless how politically inconvenient).


    The behavior of Voldemort and his Death Eaters (and my whimsical names for him and his minions) makes their titles darkly ironic given the topic...


    But the political cowardace has risen to the level of true evil now.


    Truly these people deserve our contempt.
    6 Feb 2011, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • TB, they deserve more than our contempt. What they truly deserve is unprintable, lest I am accused of spreading violent rhetoric.
    7 Feb 2011, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • It's hard to imagine this playing out the way it has unless big money and political connections were in play to try and alleviate some of BP's liability in this matter.


    My thinking is that the state should tell the Feds to "shove off" (the polite version) and exercise their state's right's in extended territorial waters (yes, I know, but it's about time the states did some grabbing instead of the Federal government - it'd be an interesting court case). Take action by immediately deploying the known-safe remedies. Protect their people, their livelihood and the environment for everyone.


    I'm sure the non-political populace would support them and only the politicos that fear the loss of the centralized power would be adamantly opposed, citing "potential collapse of the long-standing regulatory framework necessary for the continued productive cooperation of the several states in nationally beneficial manner".


    What's the worst the Feds can do if they do that? Will the Feds sue? Risk full disclosure in open court documents? I think not. If they do, so what?


    If there is any way to sue the Feds to recover the cost differential (difficult to ascertain, I know) between what cost would have been if the proper steps had been taken and the ultimate actual cost, then they should sue and get full exposure of the issues in open court documents.


    It's time to but the Feds, and especially the arrogant EPA, on the "Highway to Hell", judicially speaking.


    5 Feb 2011, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I very much like your idea HT.... if nothing else it would at least bring some of this to the surface... but just like in Egypt, I believe the primary political forces would rather settle for a payoff than actually do something for the people they are supposed to be protecting...


    Senator Crowe is clearly a very courageous person….
    5 Feb 2011, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • In short, the Feds will and have pulled financing from LA. The oil booms float abandoned, shores and marshes are oiled, not to mention wildlife. No money. Louisiana as a state has no recourse, they are dependent on the FedGov for disaster assistance, which doesn't exist as there is now no disaster. Dead seafloor, no problem.
    5 Feb 2011, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • And while I'm ranting. We have Feinberg, the "pay yourself whatever you want" Czar, who is now the "you haven't proved you claim" Czar.
    We are given the Keystone Kops for protection, while.....well, you know.
    5 Feb 2011, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • This new information sickenes me.


    Corexit 9500 is still approved by the EPA, yet it is so toxic it's eating through the hulls of boats. Those who helped clean up the Exon Valdez have an average life span of 51 years, meaning most who clean up the Alaskan spill, are dead. This is most likely going to be the same with the BP oil spill, except way worse. The UK has banned Corexit, yet we continued to use this dispersant, despite all the warning. Corexit is FOUR TMES more toxic than the oil itself!



    Now for the real truth:



    We are not the only ones outraged. Caution, this video is profanity-laced:

    5 Feb 2011, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » (Feb 22, 2011) Baby dolphin deaths rise along Gulf Coast
    From: Reuters By Leigh Coleman


    The bodies of 26 infant and stillborn dolphins have been discovered since January 20, on islands, in marshes and on beaches along 200 miles of coastline from Louisiana east across Mississippi to Gulf Shores, Alabama, officials said - the
    bulk of them since last week, researchers said on Tuesday.


    The alarmingly high number of dead young dolphins are being looked at as possible casualties of oil that fouled the Gulf of Mexico with an estimated 5 million barrels (205.8 million gallons) of oil over more than three months.


    That tally is more than 10 times the number normally found washed up along those states during this time of the year, which is calving season for some 2,000 to 5,000 dolphins in the region, said Moby Solangi, director of the Institute of Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport.


    "It's an anomaly," he told Reuters by telephone, explaining that the gestation period for dolphins runs 11 or 12 months, meaning that calves born now would have been conceived at least two months before the oil spill began.


    "What makes this so odd is that the dolphins were spread out over such a large area," Solangi said. Dolphins encountering oil on the surface of the water would face serious health consequences, Solangi said. These animals take a huge breath at one time and hold it. And when they take it, the fumes stay in the lungs for a long period of time and they cause two types of damage, one of which is immediate to the tissue itself. Second, the hydrocarbons enter the bloodstream," he said.


    None of the carcasses bore any obvious outward signs of oil contamination. But Solangi said necropsies, the equivalent of human autopsies, were being performed and tissue samples taken to determine if toxic chemicals from the oil spill may have been a factor in the deaths.


    Documented mortality in the adult dolphin population off the Gulf Coast roughly tripled from normal numbers last year, climbing from about 30 typically reported in a given year to 89 in 2010, Solangi said.


    But hey, according to our government the fish is safe to eat. Tell that to the dolphins.
    22 Feb 2011, 10:30 PM Reply Like


    "Employing a deep-diving submersible dubbed Alvin, Joye undertook five expeditions over 2,600 square miles of the Gulf's floor. She used chemical analysis to identify that the oil on the floor was indeed from the BP Macondo well that blew out last April. Having studied many of the locations before, Joye said the oil spill had a noticeable impact"


    Worth a read.


    23 Feb 2011, 07:19 AM Reply Like
  • And so BP now accuses Haliburton of destroying evidence? Could we not have seen this coming...yeah...right.



    (Nice hattie, Rattie!)
    6 Dec 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • To hell with the hat - I want some of the 'nog that put that silly grin on his face! :-))


    6 Dec 2011, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Incredible! Even I'm amazed at how long the government has taken to annouce its FIRST ARREST due to the BP spill:

    24 Apr 2012, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Our pal, Mark The Masked Man, K202, put together a nice investing premise for Haliburton, in this article:



    I'm considering calling my broker to discuss it with him, probably will tomorrow.
    2 Jul 2012, 07:29 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »

Latest Comments

Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.