Outrage against BP is ridiculous.

look ...

1. the dispersants are known to be toxic to aquatic life and they are still using it
2. they won't allow anyone to test it
3. the EPA has like zero authority

what this ultimately showcases yet again is that these corporations work above the law ... and do not care about the public ... they have a willing ally in the gov't ...

********************************************
http://www.grist.org/article/Time-tough ... ants-Obama

Time to get tough with BP on dispersants
by Tom Philpott

15 Jun 2010 4:00 AM

Read More About
Climate & Energy, dispersants, Environmental Health, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Politics Share Print
As of June 9, BP had applied at least 1.1 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants to address its ongoing oil leak in the Gulf. That's the most that has been used in one place since 1979, when the Mexican government dropped between 1 million and 2.5 million gallons on a leak off the coast of Vera Cruz, the EPA reports.

As I reported in early May, the dispersant products, branded Corexit 9527A and Corexit 9500A, were made exclusively by a former Exxon subsidiary now owned by a company called Nalco. Exxon researchers had already acknowledged that they were significantly toxic for aquatic life. But just how toxic was mysterious -- particularly for humans. The publicly available data sheets for both products revealed that they have the "potential to bioconcentrate," but added this stunner: "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product."

Information about their precise composition was also vague, clouded by a veil of secrecy based on "proprietary" concerns. I found the information scarcity outrageous. A private company fouls a vast public resource and then dumps hundreds of thousands of gallons of a toxic chemical potion into it. Doesn't the public have the right to know precisely what's in that potion?

To me, the real culprit in the dispersants story wasn't BP or Nalco. Those companies are beholden to their shareholders to maximize profit. BP is working frantically to limit its liability from an ecological snafu of nearly bottomless proportions. Keeping as much oil off of shorelines and underwater, where its damage is hard to quantify, serves the company's economic interests. As for Nalco, its chief interest is to move product. Releasing precise information about its dispersants evidently works against that goal.

The real culprits in the dispersants affair, I argued, were the federal agencies overseeing the spill response: NOAA and EPA. They are duty-bound to protect the public and the Gulf ecosystem. Rather than cowering to the side, fretting about "proprietary" considerations, they should have been demanding Corexit samples and performing or commissioning studies. And if Nalco refused to hand over samples, the federal watchdogs should have bared their teeth and sued.

Even if the companies managed to fight off the challenges in court, they'd be exposing themselves to a potential PR firestorm -- and likely be shamed into behaving decently.

After my initial burst of reporting, I spent a week in California at the end of May, got immersed in other things, and lost track of the story. Honestly, I assumed that with increasing media attention, the EPA and NOAA would wrestle control over dispersant use from BP and impose a rational policy.

Memo to self: Don't be so naive ever again. The Public Radio International show "Living on Earth" reports that Nalco still won't release Corexit samples to independent researchers. LOE staff talked to no fewer than five university-based scientists who have been denied access to Corexit. These people are trying to answer critical questions: When you combine Corexit with crude oil in a seawater medium, how does the resulting mixture behave? How quickly does it dissipate? How much oxygen does its decomposition tie up, potentially making life inhospitable to marine life? How does the toxicity of the oil/Corexit mixture compare to that of the individual components? And so on.

University of Georgia marine sciences professor Samantha Joye had this to say:

In terms of understanding the impacts of dispersants on microbial activity I and many others are still trying to get samples of the various dispersants that are being used. I've been unable to secure any so far.
Added toxicology professor Ron Kendall, who directs the Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech University:

We attempted to acquire the Corexit from the manufacturer and basically were given a roadblock and have not been able to obtain it.
Meanwhile, as Nalco stonewalls independent researchers, the EPA is evidently getting quite worried about the toxicity of the dispersants -- and BP is brazenly ignoring the agency's requests on their use.

First, back on May 20, there was this widely reported EPA "directive" for BP to "identify and use a less toxic and more effective dispersant from the list of EPA authorized dispersants." BP responded like a spoiled teenager shurgging off an empty parental threat. The answer, in a word: no.

And now, according to Brad Johnson of the Wonk Room, BP is brazenly ignoring explicit EPA requests on dispersant use. Johnson points to yet another EPA directive, this one demanding that the company "eliminate the surface application of dispersants" and limit subsea applications to "not more than 15,000 gallons in a single calendar day," with a goal to reducing daily use to 75 percent of that low rate.

In other words, the EPA is calling for the near elimination of dispersants as a tool for addressing the spill -- evidence that the agency is highly skeptical of their benefits. And BP's response? Wonk Room's Johnson reports:

A Wonk Room analysis of information released by the oil disaster command center found that the May 26 directive has not been followed -- 120,000 gallons of dispersant have been used at the surface, total use is only down by 25 percent, and on Sunday, June 6, BP used 33,000 gallons of subsea dispersant, more than twice the allowed amount.
Confronted about the disobedience, Johnson reports, the EPA responded that BP personnel "blamed ‘mechanical difficulties' but do not expect it to happen again.'"

"Mechanical difficulties"? Sorry, that's hollow. It might have made sense a week after the "directive." Two weeks after, not so much.

As Tim Dickinson's Rolling Stone exposé (summarized here) shows in depressing detail, the Obama administration has proved unable to stand up to the oil industry on matters of substance both before and after the Deepwater blowout. (The administration's craven acceptance of BP's policy of passing on clearly false "estimates" of the leak rate are just one example.) In addition to the ConocoPhillips director now co-leading the administration's investigation of the disaster, the administration last year plucked no fewer than two execs from longtime perches at BP and gave them high positions in the Department of Energy and the Mineral Mining Services.

If Obama wants to credibly declare independence from the industry and show he's serious about shifting from oil to cleaner sources, wresting control over the dispersants issue from BP would make a good start

polaris_x wrote:

puremagic wrote:

You’re right, the public may not care about the regulations in place nor does it make a difference. What the public does care about, is if something goes wrong it should be fixed. The fact that BP could not clean up its mess drew the public outrage and continues to do so. This is a fact that was not lost on BP, the Bank of England or the UK.

That’s a strong signal to any company, create an environmental disaster you’d better be prepared to clean it up.

let's see how this plays out ...

to this day ... exxon still has not compensated the people that were affected by the valdez spill ... they continue to drag the case out in courts ... all the while people have died from being exposed to the oil during cleanup where they were not given adequate safety equipment again ... history has shown that oil companies get away with things ... i do hope this is a different scenario but nothing in the past has shown me otherwise ...

Nothing in the past has been this devastating and the economic timing highlights the problem.

Nothing in the past has demonstrated just how negligent BP’s safety and cleanup procedures were handled.

No one has ever proposed putting an oil company of this stature into receivership.

BP would have to weigh whether it could survive being in receivership during the remainder of Obama’s term while BP fought the DOJ.

BP would have to weigh whether offshore drilling would continue to be on hold during Obama’s term while BP fought the DOJ.

BP needs to move on and the talk about sitting aside revenues to settle claims (now) is one of the ways.

BP’s not concerned about the money, it will recoup money, what it can’t recoup is the money it is losing on the trading of its stocks.

This will not be another [hold your breath til you die] Valdez deal.

Billy Pumpkin wrote:

it's in a company's nature to destroy the earth? .

Any company ripping natural resources from this planet (whatever these resources are: oil, minerals, etc) are destroying the earth.

puremagic wrote:

Nothing in the past has been this devastating and the economic timing highlights the problem.

Nothing in the past has demonstrated just how negligent BP’s safety and cleanup procedures were handled.

No one has ever proposed putting an oil company of this stature into receivership.

BP would have to weigh whether it could survive being in receivership during the remainder of Obama’s term while BP fought the DOJ.

BP would have to weigh whether offshore drilling would continue to be on hold during Obama’s term while BP fought the DOJ.

BP needs to move on and the talk about sitting aside revenues to settle claims (now) is one of the ways.

BP’s not concerned about the money, it will recoup money, what it can’t recoup is the money it is losing on the trading of its stocks.

This will not be another [hold your breath til you die] Valdez deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill# ... oil_spills

there has definitely been a precedent for oil spills ... this list is just the largest ... a simple google search and you will see there are at least a dozen significant oil spills a year ...

i also counter your point about BPs cleaning procedure when it is clear that regulations for the oil industry have been washed away by the federal gov'ts ... mainly bush ...

how can you say that BP is not concerned about money but then talke about them going into receivership? ...

Shawshank wrote:

redrock wrote:

Any company ripping natural resources from this planet (whatever these resources are: oil, minerals, etc) are destroying the earth.

So in essence, you, me and everyone else here continues to be a contributor to this destruction. Am I right?

In essence, you are right! But that's the way man has lived and evolved - more of a philosophical discussion!

Shawshank wrote:

redrock wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

So in essence, you, me and everyone else here continues to be a contributor to this destruction. Am I right?

In essence, you are right! But that's the way man has lived and evolved - more of a philosophical discussion!

Then I would say that the only way to avoid this destruction is to go back to the stone age

Not exactly. As I said, it's the way we evolved. What we can do is try to minimize the damage we do. Use resources wisely, invest in less damaging ones. No need to mine ore until there is nothing left. No need to drain an oil reserve completely, then try to find the next one. Well.... the need is greed. It would seem that there is a wealth of minerals in Afghanistan that 'we' didn't know about. Did we miss it? No. Now that it's a possibility, big corporations are going to race to get there first and 'pillage', all of a sudden 'we' will need it.

that guy acts like he is on drugs. total idiot.

FiveB247x wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_moving_on

Yeah, I read this this morning. This news, bad as it is, didn't surprise me. The bottom line is, we're still burning fuel, all of us. These computers we're using are burning fuel. The solution isn't to blame BP (or Shell or Chevron or...). The solutions are:

Use less stuff, reuse more.
Use less energy.
Recycle everything you can.
Plant trees.
Ride a bike.
Work closer to home or visa versa.
Procreate at reasonable levels.
If you drive, do everything you can to increase your MPG.

And have a good time, stop bickering over petty details and instead, love somebody. Bad vibes also pollute.