Click here to check if anything new just came in.
January 25 2012
Report: White House Pressured Scientists to Underestimate BP Spill Size
Back at the height of the massive Gulf oil spill in 2010, there was quite a bit of controversy about just how much crude was blasting out of the well. According to new documents that a watchdog group released on Monday, there was heated debate among the scientists who evaluated the flow rate as well.
For the first few weeks after the spill began in April 2010, BP misled the public about how big it was, and the government repeated BP's estimate without question. And when the government released its own estimate in late May of up to 25,000 barrels per day, that too was controversial—and proved to be far lower than the actual size, which was more like 53,000 barrels of oil per day.
Now, an email released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) traces efforts to downplay the spill size in the initial weeks back to the White House. The group released a May 29, 2010 email from Dr. Marcia McNutt, the director of the US Geologic Survey and head of the government's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), that was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The email came after scientists on the flow-rate team complained to McNutt about how the spill figures were conveyed to the press, and in response she cited pressure from the White House as the reason the numbers were low-balled. Rather than reporting that the lower-end estimate of the spill was 25,000 barrels per day, officials cited that figure as the higher-end estimate:
I cannot tell you what a nightmare the past two days have been dealing with the communications people at the White House, DOI, and the NIC who seem incapable of understanding the concept of a lower bound. The press release that went out on our results was misleading and was not reviewed by a scientist for accuracy.
McNutt's email reportedly came in response to complaints from scientists on the team about how the flow rate had been handled. PEER also filed a complaint against Dr. William Lehr, a scientist at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who was the team lead for the FRTG's plume analysis team. PEER argues that Lehr "manipulated the scientific results" of the team's experts and understated the spill rate in what it communicated. From PEER's release on the complaint:
Lehr was leader of one of the most important FRTG teams, the “Plume Team” which analyzed videos of the oil leaks to produce the first estimates. Three of the 13 Plume Team experts used a technique called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) to estimate a leak rate in the range of 25,000 bpd. But three other experts on the Plume Team reported that PIV was underestimating the size of the leak by more than 50%. Those three experts used a different technology to correctly peg the leak rate at 50,000 to 60,000 bpd.
Yet Lehr did not tell the public or key decision makers that there was a deep split on the Plume Team. In the Plume Team’s Final Report, the body of which Lehr wrote, he reported that "most of the Plume Team used PIV" which produced “consistent and accurate” estimates. These underestimates were repeated to the public and media.
The government was also criticized for its handling of an August 2010 report on where the oil went, for which Lehr also served as the lead scientist. (I've requested comment from NOAA and the White House, and will update this post to reflect that when I receive it.) UPDATE: Scott Smullen, a spokesman for NOAA, said it is "not appropriate to comment" on this matter because it is still in litigation.
It's not entirely clear from PEER's release, though, what was real reason for the inaccurate figures—a single scientist giving inaccurate information, the White House pressuring him to do so, or the White House screwing up the reporting of the figures. Whatever it was, it resulted in the public getting a dramatically inaccurate impression about the size of the spill.
January 04 2012
What We Didn’t Learn From The Deepwater Horizon Disaster
Almost 20 months have passed since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. And to this day, the lessons we should have learned from that disaster remain completely ignored.
In spite of an intense battle involving a moratorium on deep water oil drilling after the explosion, the Obama administration was out-maneuvered on the issue by the powerful oil industry, losing court battles as well as facing three separate bills in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to overturn the drilling moratorium. (An interesting side-note about the court battle is that the judge who overturned the ban, Martin Feldman, actually owned stock in Transocean at the time of his decision.)
With oil still washing ashore at the time of the first proposed moratorium, right wing bloggers helped muddy the waters by claiming that the moratorium was devastating Gulf economies. The conservative website Free Republic even posted a video and story about the “Victims of the Obama Drilling Moratorium,” that turned oil companies into the victims as local fishermen and tourist-centered businesses were struggling to make ends meet. Their analysis of the real “victims” was based on “investigations” by oil-funded groups like The Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Energy Research. A commenter on that video had the audacity to claim, “Obama just killed Louisiana more than Katrina.”
But the right wing attacks on the moratorium paid off, and today the deepwater offshore oil industry is once again thriving in the Gulf of Mexico.
From The Associated Press, via Huffington Post:
Across the Gulf, energy companies are probing dozens of new deepwater fields thanks to high oil prices and technological advances that finally make it possible to tap them.
The newfound oil will not do much to lower global oil prices. But together with increased production from onshore U.S. fields and slowing domestic demand for gasoline, it could help reduce U.S. oil imports by more than half over the next decade.
Eighteen months ago, such a flurry of activity in the Gulf seemed unlikely. The Obama administration halted drilling and stopped issuing new permits after the explosion of a BP well killed 11 workers and caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
But the drilling moratorium was eventually lifted and the Obama administration issued the first new drilling permit in March. Now the Gulf is humming again and oil executives describe it as the world's best place to drill.
And the number of oil rigs is only expected to climb in the next few months, even though the oil that is recovered is doing next to nothing to lower energy prices:
By early 2012, there will be 40 deepwater rigs in the Gulf, up from 37 before the BP spill, according to Cinnamon Odell of ODS-Petrodata. BP received its first permit to drill in late October.
The Gulf produces an average of 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, according to Wood Mackenzie. That's 27 percent of U.S. output and 8 percent of U.S. demand.
As the BP disaster made clear, drilling in deep water presents difficulties and dangers. Last month a Chevron well in the deep waters off of Brazil ruptured and spilled 2,400 barrels of oil into the Atlantic after Chevron underestimated the pressure of the oil field it was tapping.
So we’ve established that deepwater offshore drilling is dirty, dangerous, and does little to help meet oil demand. But the dirty energy industry has money – lots of it – and they don’t mind throwing their weight around in American politics to achieve their goals.
But there is a small glimmer of hope to kick off the new year: The federal government is finally gearing up to file criminal charges against BP for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Agence France-Presse by way of RawStory laid it out as follows:
US prosecutors are readying criminal charges against British oil giant BP employees over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident that led to the catastrophic Gulf oil spill, The Wall Street Journal reported online.
The charges if brought and prosecuted by the US Justice Department would be the first criminal charges over the disaster.
Citing sources close to the matter, the Journal said the prosecutors are focusing on US-based BP engineers and at least one supervisor who they say may have provided false information to regulators on the risks of deep water drilling in the Gulf.
Felony charges for providing false information in federal documents may be made public early next year, said the Journal.
We have documented in the past the ways in which federal regulators allowed the oil companies to run roughshod over laws, and these potential federal charges are a bit of fresh air for those of us who live on the coast.
While the criminal charges are needed, it is unlikely that they will hinder the expansion of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. As long as the oil industry’s tentacles reach through the corridors of Washington, they will be able to make their own rules when it comes to drilling.
BP will Kosten für US-Ölpest auf Halliburton abwälzen
Der Ölkonzern BP will für den Schaden nicht aufkommen, den seine havarierte Ölplattform «Deepwater Horizon» im Frühjahr 2010 angerichtet hat. Verantwortlich für das Unglück sei die Firma Halliburton, welche Zementarbeiten am Bohrloch ausgeführt hatte, so das Argument vor Gericht.
(sda/dpa) Mehr als anderthalb Jahre nach der verheerenden Ölpest im Golf von Mexiko versucht der Ölkonzern BP mit Nachdruck, die Milliarden-Kosten auf seine Ex-Partner abzuwälzen. Der britische Konzern erneuerte vor einem US-Gericht seine Forderung, dass der Erdöldienstleister Halliburton für den Schaden haften soll.
Halliburton war für die Zementarbeiten am Bohrloch der explodierten Ölplattform «Deepwater Horizon» zuständig. Über Monate strömten riesige Mengen Öl ins Meer und verseuchten grosse Teile der US-Küste.
BP verlangt laut den bei einem Gericht im US-Staat Louisiana eingereichten Unterlagen, dass Halliburton für Kosten und Schäden aufkommt, die dem britischen Konzern im Zusammenhang mit dem Unglück entstanden sind. Der Anwalt von BP führte namentlich die Ausgaben für die Säuberung der Umwelt sowie entgangene Gewinne aus der gestoppten Ölförderung an.
Dutzende von Milliarden
Es ist unklar, wie teuer die Katastrophe für BP wird. Die Briten hatten einen 20 Mrd. Dollar schweren Fonds aufgelegt, mit dessen Mitteln die Umwelt gereinigt und etwa Fischer oder Hoteliers an den betroffenen Küstenabschnitten für ihre Einnahmeausfälle entschädigt werden sollen.
BP rechnet allerdings damit, dass das Unglück den Konzern am Ende mehr als 40 Mrd. Dollar kosten wird. Ein Firmensprecher wollte sich nicht weiter dazu äussern, wieviel Geld nun Halliburton zahlen soll.
Bei der Explosion der Bohrinsel «Deepwater Horizon» im Golf von Mexiko waren elf Arbeiter ums Leben gekommen. Durch das Unglück entstand ein Leck am Bohrloch. Mehrere Versuche, das Leck zu schliessen, schlugen zunächst fehl.
Erst im Juli - drei Monate nach dem Unglück - gelang es den Ingenieuren, das Bohrloch mit einem tonnenschweren Zylinder provisorisch zu verschliessen. Mit einem Schlamm-Zement-Gemisch wurde die Quelle im September endgültig versiegelt.
Streit um den Zement
BP war der Betreiber der Bohrinsel und hatte Halliburton angeheuert, das Bohrloch am Meeresgrund zu zementieren. Die Briten werfen dem US-Unternehmen vor, dass der damals verwendete Zementmix fehlerhaft gewesen sei und dass Halliburton nach der Explosion belastende Testergebnisse vernichtet habe.
Bereits kurz nach dem Unglück gingen die Streitigkeiten los. Im April 2011 reichte BP dann unter anderem Klage gegen Halliburton ein.
Halliburton weist jede Schuld von sich und geht nach eigenem Bekunden davon aus, keine Haftung übernehmen zu müssen. Die US-Firma sagt, dass schlechte Ingenieurs- und Wartungsarbeiten bei BP in die Katastrophe geführt hätten. Im frühen New Yorker Handel fiel die Halliburton-Aktie nach dem Aufwärmen der Klage um 2 Prozent; BP gewannen 3 Prozent. Zuger Transocean verwickelt
Verkompliziert wird der Streit dadurch, dass weitere Firmen in das Unglück involviert sind. So gehörte die Ölplattform der Schweizer Firma Transocean. BP hatte sie nur gemietet und verlangte auch von Transocean Schadenersatz.
BP verklagte im April 2011 ebenfalls die texanische Firma Cameron International, einen Hersteller von Notabdichtungen für Ölquellen, deren «Blowout Preventer» in diesem Fall versagt hatte. Für BP dürfte es aber schwer werden, ihre Forderungen komplett durchzusetzen.
Im September 2011 hatten US-Behörden in einem Bericht die Hauptschuld für die Katastrophe bei den Briten gesehen. Transocean und Halliburton seien mitverantwortlich, hiess es. Der Untersuchungsbericht lastete BP eine Reihe von Entscheidungen an, die das Zementieren komplizierter und riskanter gemacht und möglicherweise zu dem Entstehen des Lecks beigetragen haben sollen.
December 22 2011
Shell hat mal 40.000 Barrel Rohöl
in Niger-Delta auslaufen lassen. Das ist selbst für Shell- und Nigeria-Verhältnisse eine richtig fette Sauerei.Shell has said the recent oil spill is likely to be worst in a decade.Das lief aus, als sie von einem Ölfeld in einen Tanker verladen wollten; das Ölfeld produziert überhaupt nur 200.000 Barrel pro Tag. Soviel also zu den Notfallprozeduren vor Ort.
Satellite pictures obtained by independent monitors Skytruth suggested that the spill was 70km-long and was spread over 923 square kilometers (356 sq miles).
Menschenrechtsorganisationen vor Ort weisen darauf hin, dass Shell bisher noch nie durch ehrliches Einräumen von Fehlern aufgefallen ist, und meinen, man solle die Zahlenangabe mal als untere Schranke nehmen.
Quelle: http://blog.fefe.de/?ts=b00da0a5
November 24 2011
Brazil: Maximum Fine After Silence on Chevron's Oil Spill
On 7 November, the Frade field oil platform, operated by the American drilling company Chevron-Texaco, began leaking crude oil. It is located in Bacia de Campos, 350km North from Rio de Janeiro. Last Monday, 21 November, Chevron was fined the maximum amount allowed by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), $R50 million (approximately $28 million USD).
Though the oil spill is now believed to have been brought under control, further explanations from Chevron are expected in the next few days. Meanwhile, what began as scarce coverage by mainstream media has lead many bloggers to criticize the lack of journalistic depth on the intricacies of the environmental disaster.

Chevron's oil spill in Bacia de Campos, November 18, 2011. Photo by Rogério Santana, Government of Rio, for release
“Silence is criminal”
Journalist Fernando Brito, on the blog of the federal deputy Brizola Neto Tijolaço [pt], decided to “swim against the media tide” that he had considered to be mere re-publication of corporate press releases. He embarked on a thorough and tireless work of investigative journalism trying to shine a light on the case, with 25 posts with denouncements in just two weeks. What he saw as signs that something was wrong with the mainstream coverage was later explained in an interview [pt] for the blog Vi O mundo:
Primeira: a Chevron-Texaco demorou para admitir o problema e, quando o fez, foi por uma nota marota, dizendo que havia sido detectado vazamento “entre o campo de Frade e o de Roncador – que é operado pela Petrobras - quando, na verdade, ele se deu bem próximo de uma de suas plataformas de perfuração, a Sedco706 (…).
Segunda: a história de que falha geológica seria a causa. É improvável que falhas geológicas capazes de provocar um derramamento no mar não tivessem sido detectadas nos estudos sísmicos que precedem a perfuração.
Terceira: mesmo depois de a presidenta Dilma Rousseff ter determinado em 11 de novembro a investigação rigorosa do caso, a nossa imprensa (…) continuou a dar quase nenhuma importância ao caso da Chevron-Texaco, uma multinacional com boas relações com o senhor José Serra.
First, Chevron-Texaco was slow to admit the problem and when it did, it was with a naughty note, saying that a leakage had been detected “between the Frade field and Roncador - which is operated by Petrobras - when, in fact, it happened very close to one of its drilling rigs, the Sedco706 (…).
Second, the story that a geological fault could be the cause. It is unlikely that faults capable of causing a spill at sea had not been detected in seismic surveys prior to drilling.
Third, even after the President Rousseff determined on 11 November a rigorous investigation of the case, our press (…) continued to give little or no importance to the case of Chevron-Texaco, a multinational company with good relations with Mr. José Serra. [Governor and Mayor of Sao Paulo, former Brazilian Presidency candidate ].
Giving further background to the third point above, economist Pedro Migão, from the blog Ouro de Tolo, recalls a post he wrote last year on “revelations by Wikileaks“:
sobre o lobby que as petrolíferas americanas estavam fazendo junto a setores da imprensa e a políticos do PSDB para terem o controle do pré sal - que é a última fronteira petrolífera mundial.
As public debate [pt] about the environmental dangers of offshore oil drilling had been sparked, Greenpeace Brazil started spreading the hashtag #VazaChevron (Spill Chevron, a play with words meaning Go Away Chevron), and took the opportunity to promote a petition [pt] against oil exploitation by Chevron planned for the Abrolhos region, a protected area in the state of Bahia.
Greenpeace Brazil's action urges transparency by Chevron on the causes and effects of the spill
Valéria Müller (@valeria47), tweeting from Porto Alegre, said [pt]:
Quando se tem dinheiro, dá até pra derramar petróleo no mar que não vira notícia. Taí a Chevron-Texaco pra provar isso. #VazaChevron
On Twitter, many have also commented on the amount of the fine, which is just about “half a day's profit” for Chevron, such as Mirinho Braga (@mirinhobraga), Mayor of Buzios, who asks:
A Chevron polui nosso mar…o IBAMA multa em milhoes a empresa. Os pescadores q são prejudicados recebem o que?
Given Chevron's “track record of fraud related to an even larger oil disaster in neighboring Ecuador”, solidarity and awareness have come from activists in that country, where rainforests have also been contaminated by the company's spills, as Global Voices reported earlier this year.
On Wednesday, November 23, Chevron is expected to give further explanations about the disaster in a public hearing of the Environmental Committee of the Senate, along with Minister of Environment Izabella Teixeira, Minister of Mines and Energy Edison Lobao and representatives of the National Petroleum Agency (ANP) and IBAMA.
At the time this article was published, Fernando Brito's last post concerning Chevron's “bet on taking risks”, leaves a question in the air:
Um carro não bate por estar em velocidade imprudente, mas esta é o contexto que facilita a ocorrência do acidente.
No caso do autmóvel, porém, isso é motivo para ter a habilitação cassada. A Chevron-Texaco vai perder a carteira?
A car does not hit to be at reckless speed, but this is the context that facilitates the accident.
Concerning driving, however, this is a reason to have one's license revoked. Will Chevron-Texaco lose its license?
November 12 2011
October 26 2011
BP to Drill Again in the Gulf of Mexico
September 17 2011
No end in sight for oil in the Gulf of Mexico
Thick oil sheen in the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 19 km northeast of BP's stricken Macondo well [Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera]
Fifteen months after BP's crippled Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico caused one of the worst environmental disasters in US history, oil and oil sheen covering several square kilometers of water are surfacing not far from BP's well.
Al Jazeera flew to the area on Sunday, September 11, and spotted a swath of silvery oil sheen, approximately 7 km long and 10 to 50 meters wide, at a location roughly 19 km northeast of the now-capped Macondo 252 well.
According to oil trackers with the organisation On Wings of Care, who have been monitoring the new oil since early August, rainbow-tinted slicks and thicker globs of oil have been consistently visible in the area.
"BP and NOAA [National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] have had all these ships out there doing grid searches looking at things, so hopefully now they'll take a look at this," Bonny Schumaker, president and pilot of On Wings of Care, told Al Jazeera while flying over the oil.
Schumaker has logged approximately 500 hours of flight time monitoring the area around the Macondo well for oil, and has flown scientists from NASA, USGS, and oil chemistry scientists to observe conditions resulting from BP's oil disaster that began in April 2010.
Edward Overton, a professor emeritus at Louisiana State University's environmental sciences department, examined data from recent samples taken of the new oil.
Overton, who is also a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) contractor, told Al Jazeera, "After examining the data, I think it's a dead ringer for the MC252 [Macondo Well] oil, as good a match as I've seen".
He explained that the samples were analysed and compared to "the known Macondo oil fingerprint, and it was a very, very close match".
While not ruling out the possibility that oil could be seeping out of the giant reservoir, which would be the worst-case scenario, Overton believes the oil currently reaching the surface is likely from oil that was trapped in the damaged rigging on the seafloor.
He said the oil could either be leaking from the broken riser pipe that connected the Deepwater Horizon to the well, or that oil is leaking from the Deepwater Horizon itself.
But other scientists remain concerned that the new oil could be coming from a seep from the same reservoir the Macondo well was drilled into. The oil field, located 64 km off the coast of Louisiana, is believed to hold as much 50 million barrels of producible oil reserves.
Natural oil seepage in the Gulf of Mexico is a natural phenomenon and can cause sheens, but the current oil and sheen is suspect due to their size and location near the Macondo well.
"From what I've seen, this new oil and sheen definitely seemed larger than typical natural seepages found in the Gulf of Mexico," Dr Ira Leifer, a University of California scientist who is an expert on natural hydrocarbon oil and gas emissions from the seabed told Al Jazeera. "Because of the size and its location, there is a greater concern that should require a larger public investigation."
Fishermen and residents of the four states most heavily affected by BP's disaster continue to struggle to regain a sense of normalcy in their lives. Many continue to experience health problems they attribute to chemicals in BP's oil and the toxic dispersants used to sink it.
Shrimpers and oyster fishermen have seen their catches drop dramatically, and in some areas entire oyster populations have been annihilated.
"Crabs are dying in fishermen's traps, and of those that make it to the docks, 40 per cent of die before they can be sorted," Dr Ed Cake, a biological oceanographer, as well as a marine and oyster biologist, told Al Jazeera while on a fact-finding mission to check oyster beds for signs of recovery.
Al Jazeera asked Cake how the shrimping industry in Louisiana was doing.
"The issue with the shrimpers is that the spawning ground for the shrimp was out where BP used most of the dispersants to sink the oil," Cake said. "As far as how the industry is doing?"
He pointed to rows of shrimp boats tied up to a nearby dock.
BP's Gulf of Mexico disaster is, to date, the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. BP has used at least 1.9 million gallons of toxic dispersants to sink the oil, in an effort the oil giant claimed was aimed at keeping the oil from reaching shore.
The dispersants are banned in at least 19 countries, including the UK.
Meanwhile, fresh oil, either from natural seeps, oil platform wreckage, the Macondo 252 reservoir itself, or all four, continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico.
Natural seeps
Al Jazeera spotted two BP research vessels in the area in question.
"These vessels are conducting research on natural oil seeps as part of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment [NRDA] process," Tom Mueller, a press officer with BP America, told Al Jazeera. "They were parked over a known natural seep on the bottom of the Gulf, collecting samples and documenting the natural seep activity in that area using a remote operated submarine and acoustic sensing equipment."
According to Mueller, the intent of the NRDA study is to learn more about the locations of natural seeps and test samples taken from them, and the current study should conclude the end of October.
BP, whose Macondo well gushed at least 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico last year after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank to the bottom, has denied that the oil is coming from their well.
"We can tell you that we recently sent a remote operated submarine down to inspect the Macondo well cap and the relief well cap," Mueller, added, "Both are intact and show no evidence of any oil leak. So no oil is leaking from the Macondo well."
Leifer remains concerned that the seep, given its proximity to the Macondo well, could be oil in the reservoir that entered a layer of mud and has migrated into a natural pathway that leads to the seabed.
"I see these new observations [of the seep] as the canary in the coal mine that indicates something could be changing at the seabed and should not be ignored and hope it goes away," he said.
Given Overton's findings that the oil does appear to be from Macondo, Leifer added, "It's not necessary to be alarmist, but this is something that deserves setting an alarm off to investigate".
His concerns are that if the seep increases in volume, "It could be a persistent, significant, continuous oil spill again, and that would require BP to go back and re-drill, and block off the pipeline even deeper than they already did, or else they would be liable for whatever the emissions are, forever, because it's not going to stop for a very long time".
Dr Ian MacDonald, a professor of biological oceanography at Florida State University who uses satellite remote sensing to locate natural oil releases on the ocean surface, confirmed that there are natural seeps in this region of the Gulf of Mexico, but believes more investigation is necessary in order to determine the cause and source of this particular site.
"The question for science is: Are the rates of seepage consistent with what they were prior to the blowout?" MacDonald told Al Jazeera. "Is the amount of oil we're seeing now unusual with respect to historic levels? Can this oil be traced back to these formations?"
Anthropogenic seeps
MacDonald sees the heightened attention to the way the oil industry operates in the Gulf of Mexico that occurred as a result of BP's oil disaster as a silver lining, but said, "It's never the case that the natural processes [seeps] excuse pollution that human activities add to the water".
He added, "The ecosystem is adjusted to the natural seeps, and the bottom communities have adapted over thousands of years, and that's not the case with these blowouts".
Leifer, like MacDonald, pointed to the natural seeps in the area.
"There is natural migration in the area around Macondo, and one of the sites we've studied is MC118, about 18 km away," but added, "The concern is not that human activities caused a fault, but by creating pathways outside the [well] casing, they are allowing oil to travel along the well pipe then migrate horizontally until it intersects an existing vertical fault migration pathway, then reach the sea bed."
His concern, shared by other scientists, is the possibility that the volume of oil flowing from the seep, if it is related to the Macondo area, could increase with time.
"We should be having sonar works done of that area, and the public needs to be informed of the findings," Leifer said. "That survey should be repeated every three or six months to confirm that the seepage is not becoming larger and more widespread."
'Worst crisis I've ever seen'
As concerns about the possibility of new oil persist, fishermen and scientists continue to deal with the aftermath of BP's disaster.
"We are in the worst crisis I've ever seen," Brad Robin, a sixth-generation fisherman and seafood proprietor told Al Jazeera while out on a boat surveying the crippled oyster population where he fishes, "The [oyster] industry might do 35 per cent this year."
Dr Cake, who along with University of New Orleans oyster biologist Prof Tom Soniat, invited Al Jazeera to accompany them, Robin, and Robin's son Brad along to check for recovering oyster populations.
The marsh area outside of Yslovskey, Louisiana, was severely affected by massive fresh water diversions that were made from the Mississippi River. The choice was made in an effort to flush the marsh in order to prevent oil from washing in, but the fresh water has killed all the oysters, and Cake believes dispersed oil came in anyway.
Further complicating things, Cake has pinpointed at least two invasive species that do not bode well for a recovery of Louisiana's oysters.
"We are finding sponges growing on our oysters," Cake told Al Jazeera, "They encrust the oyster shell and that prevents new spat [baby oysters] from attaching to grow new oysters. We don't know why this is happening, but we think it came in response to the fresh water and oil. This is the first time we've seen it."
The sponge is chalinula loosanoffi, and is from Ireland, the upper East Coast of the US, and in The Netherlands.
Cake has also found a worm, poydora aggregata, from Maine, that attaches itself to oysters and fouls their shells.
"I'm worried these sponges and worms could wreak havoc on the industry," Cake said.
Last year's oyster harvest in Louisiana was cut in half, to a 44-year low, due to BP's oil disaster. Scott Gordon, Mississippi's director of the Shellfish Bureau of the Office of Marine Fisheries, said this summer, "I fully expect to have 100 per cent mortalities of the oysters in the western Mississippi Sound".
Prof Soniat explained that the oyster industry is afflicted with "multiple impacts".
"First the oil spill took away their fishing season," he said of the banning of fishing in the wake of BP's disaster. "Second, the fresh water diversion took away the oysters; and third, the program of having oystermen harvest shells from their leases to try to re-seed other areas killed the oyster reefs."
Meanwhile, concern over ongoing oil seeps, whether they be natural or anthropogenic, persists, and scientists are calling for further investigations.
"I don't understand why we're seeing so much more oil out there right now than we’ve seen in the past," MacDonald said. "We need to dig in and investigate and see what is going on."
Leifer said that the amount of oil out near the Macondo site "definitely seems larger than typical natural seepages found in the Gulf of Mexico; both because of that and its location, there is a greater concern that should require a larger public investigation".
The possibility that brings the greatest concern is that oil is leaking from the reservoir straight out of the ground. This situation could be impossible to stop, because the vent would increase in size over time due to the highly pressurised reservoir.
September 03 2011
BP’s Macondo well is still leaking. Matt Simmons explains why.
BP’s Deepwater Horizon site is still leaking, according to recent trips to the site. See Stuart Smith, environmental lawyer, for the very latest on the investigation. One theory of interest, supported by oil industry expert Matt Simmons (RIP), is that the seafloor was cracked and badly damaged in the initial explosion and during subsequent capping procedures (“the fix is worse than cure”).
Related: 5 Ingredients in Corexit can cause cancer. (Alternet)
August 26 2011
Scientists: Oil fouling Gulf matches Deepwater Horizon well
Oil bubbles to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico within one mile northeast of BP's Macondo well on August 23, 2011. (Press-Register/Jeff Dute)
MOBILE, Alabama -- Scientific analysis has confirmed that oil bubbling up above BP’s sealed Deepwater Horizon well in recent days is a chemical match for the hundreds of millions of gallons of oil that spewed into the Gulf last summer.
The Press-Register collected samples of the oil about a mile from the well site on Tuesday and provided them to Ed Overton and Scott Miles, chemists with Louisiana State University.
The pair did much of the chemical work used by federal officials to fingerprint the BP oil, known as MC252.
“After examining the data, I think it’s a dead ringer for the MC252 oil, as good a match as I’ve seen,” Overton wrote in an email to the newspaper. “My guess is that it is probably coming from the broken riser pipe or sunken platform. ... However, it should be confirmed, just to make sure there is no leak from the plugged well.”
In an emailed statement, BP officials wrote that the company had a vessel stationed at the site all day Thursday but never saw any oil.
During BP’s inspection, the wind was blowing up to 10 mph, and waves were up to 2 feet high. Scientists said that even a light chop would likely have obscured the small sheens emerging every few seconds.
By contrast, the wind was still and seas were flat and glassy Tuesday when the newspaper located the oil.
“There is still no evidence that the oil came from the Macondo well,” BP officials wrote in the emailed statement.
Late Thursday night, BP officials sent word that an ROV survey of the well found no leaks.
It took several hours for the Press-Register to locate the small area where oil was bubbling to the surface. Scientists said the location where oil emerged would change continually, depending on water currents.
In response to a Press-Register story about the find, the U.S. Coast Guard sent a helicopter and a boat to the well site Thursday but failed to find any oil, according to Capt. Jonathon Burton, who oversees operations in that portion of the Gulf.
“If it is a natural seepage, or a burp out of the wreckage down below, that would explain why we had something two days ago and not today,” Burton said.
He said knowing that the oil matches with the BP well was useful, as it ruled out the possibility of other sources, such as the pipelines that crisscross the Gulf floor.
“The good news is it looks as if we’ve ruled out any significant source,” Burton said, referring to the apparently small amount of oil hitting the surface. “We certainly need to see if we can pinpoint the cause. We’re going to work that way.”
Burton speculated that wind and sea conditions might have played a role in hiding the oil during the Coast Guard inspections.
“The next time we’ve got a nice flat calm day, we’re coordinating to get something out there to see what might be coming up at that point,” Burton said.
Bonny Shumaker, a pilot with On Wings of Care, along with members of the Gulf Restoration Network, first observed the oil sheens from the air on Friday and reported the location as the Macondo well site.
During the newspaper’s Tuesday trip, the area where oil sheens could be seen blooming on the surface regularly was about an acre in size. The oil was the heaviest about a mile from the well.
Robert Bea, a prominent University of California petroleum engineer studying the BP spill, was not surprised that oil was seen away from the well head. Bea said he believed there was a high probability that the oil originated from the BP well.
“Looks suspicious. The point of surfacing about one mile from the well is about the point that the oil should show up, given the seafloor at 5,000 feet ... natural circulation currents would cause the drift,” Bea said. “A remote operated vehicle (ROV) could be used to ‘back track’ the oil that is rising to the surface to determine the source. This should be a first order of business to confirm the source.”
Bea provided drawings to the newspaper that illustrated how oil might be able to rise up from thousands of feet underground along the outside of the sealed well pipe.
“Perhaps connections that developed between the well annulus (outside the casing), the reservoir sands about 17,000 feet below the seafloor and the natural seep fault features” could provide a pathway for oil to move from deep underground to the seafloor.
Philip Johnson, author of the Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering and a professor at the University of Alabama, suggested that trapped oil might be escaping from the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which is still sitting on the seafloor.
Other possibilities, he said, included heavy oil deposited on the seafloor slowly being degraded by bacteria and releasing lighter components, a natural seep, or, in a worst case scenario, a leak in the 5,000 foot long cement plug used to seal the well.
August 20 2011
Oil Rising Again from Macondo Well: BP Hires Fleet of 40 Shrimp Boats to Lay Boom Around Old Deepwater Horizon Site
Oil from the Macondo Well site is fouling the Gulf anew – and BP is scrambling to contain both the crude and the PR nightmare that waits in the wings. Reliable sources tell us that BP has hired 40 boats from Venice to Grand Isle to lay boom around the Deepwater Horizon site – located just 50 miles off the Louisiana coast. The fleet rushed to the scene late last week and worked through the weekend to contain what was becoming a massive slick at the site of the Macondo wellhead, which was officially “killed” back in September 2010.
The truly frightening part of this development, as reported in a previous post (see below), is the oil may be coming from cracks and fissures in the seafloor caused by the work BP did during its failed attempts to cap the runaway Macondo Well – and that type of leakage can’t be stopped, ever.
Catch up on how this could possibly be happening – again – by reading or re-reading my July 25 post below. Stay tuned as we will be all over this story as it continues to develop.
Is BP’s Macondo Well Site Still Leaking? Fresh Oil on the Gulf Raises Concerns and Haunting Memories
Fresh oil is surfacing all over the northern quadrant of the Gulf of Mexico. Reports of slicks that meander for miles and huge expanses of oil sheen that look like phantom islands are becoming common, again. Fresh oil, only slightly weathered, is washing ashore in areas hit hardest by last year’s massive spill, like Breton Island, Ship Island, the Chandeleurs and northern Barataria Bay. BP has reactivated its Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program to handle cleanup. It’s a sickeningly familiar scene that has fishermen, researchers and public officials searching for answers, as haunting memories of last year’s calamity come roaring back.
The fifty-thousand-dollar question, of course, is where is all the new oil coming from?
One theory: The Macondo Well site, located just 40 miles off the Louisiana coast, is still leaking untold amounts of oil into the Gulf. Some argue that the casing on the capped well itself is leaking. Others believe oil is seeping through cracks and fissures in the seafloor caused by months of high-impact work on the site, including a range of recovery activities (some disclosed, some not) as well as the abortive “top kill” effort.
In January 2011, a prominent “geohazards specialist” wrote an urgent letter to two members of Congress – U.S. Reps. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and John Shimkus, chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy – suggesting that the Macondo site is leaking oil like a sieve. Here’s an excerpt from that letter (see it in its entirety at link below):
There is no question that the oil seepages, gas columns, fissures and blowout craters in the seafloor around the Macondo wellhead… have been the direct result of indiscriminate drilling, grouting, injection of dispersant and other undisclosed recover activities. As the rogue well had not been successfully cemented and plugged at the base of the well by the relief wells, unknown quantities of hydrocarbons are still leaking out from the reservoir at high pressure and are seeping through multiple fault lines to the seabed. It is not possible to cap this oil leakage.
BK Lim, the letter’s author, has more than 30 years of experience working inside the oil and gas industry for companies like Shell, Petronas and Pearl Oil.
More from Mr. Lim’s letter:
The continuing hydrocarbon seepage would have long term, irreversible and potentially dire consequences in the GOM (Gulf of Mexico)…
The letter is dated Jan. 14, 2011 – and we’ve been seeing more and more evidence that the scenario Mr. Lim describes is indeed taking place deep below the Gulf’s surface.
For example, on March 28, 2011, Paul Orr and his team from the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper – an organization I’ve worked with frequently over the course of the last year – conducted a 50-mile boat patrol and sampling tour of Breton Sound, which lies just off the southeast coast of Louisiana. The excursion was prompted by multiple, increasingly frantic, reports of oil in the area by fishermen and others, including On Wings of Care pilot Bonny Schumaker, who has dozens of Gulf flyovers under her belt.
Mr. Orr took a sample from the southern end of Breton Island National Park – and sure enough, lab-certified tests results established a fingerprint match to BP’s Macondo Well (see link to my previous post and test results below).
The most alarming part of the finding was not simply that the Breton Island sample had BP’s fingerprint on it, but that the test results were nearly identical to those from the fresh oil seen in the early days of the BP spill – instead of the heavily weathered and degraded oil we’ve come to expect in recent weeks and months.
Those test results seem to disprove the other theory surrounding this spate of recent “fresh oil” reports. That is: All the oil BP strategically sunk to the seafloor with nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersant is beginning to break free and rise to the surface en masse, and in turn, blacken the coastline with fresh oil. According to civil engineer and petroleum expert, Marco Kaltofen, oil that has been lying on the seafloor for several months would be much significantly more weathered than the fresh oil we’re seeing more and more of.
As you’ll notice from the histograms, the Breton Island sample mirrors the submerged oil sampled from Pensacola Bay on Nov. 5, 2010 (see link to original post with histograms below) and a sample taken from Panama City Beach on July 14, 2010. You don’t have to be a marine biologist to see that this is the same oil with nearly identical weathering.
So we had fresh oil with BP’s signature on it coming ashore in March – more than eight months after the Macondo Well was capped. And since then, members of my team and other researchers have reported fresh oil, of the “only slightly weathered” variety from Grand Isle to Pensacola. One charter boat fishing captain, who frequents the waters around Louisiana’s barrier islands, is describing the current, hauntingly familiar situation on the Gulf as the “second wave” of the BP disaster.
August 19 2011
August 18 2011
A New BP Leak in the Gulf of Mexico?
There's apparently a new oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, and some believe that BP may again be at fault. The sheen was spotted in roughly the same region of the Gulf as last year's spill, but the company says it doesn't believe it's coming from BP's operations. Via the Associated Press:
BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said his company had sent several remotely controlled mini-submersibles into the water over the weekend to investigate the source of the sheen — a shiny coating that floats on the surface of the water which generally comes from leaked or spilled oil — but had concluded "that it couldn't have been from anything of ours."
The company indicated that it appears to be coming from two abandoned exploration well sites in the Green Canyon Block, which is southwest of the the site where the Deepwater Horizon blew up last year and unleashed millions of barrels of oil on the Gulf. Some residents of the region, including this New Orleans lawyer, are arguing that the new sheen is indeed coming from the site of last year's blowout. But the new leak looks to be pretty far away from that site, so I'd wait for more information before making any claims on that front.
But this is a good reminder of something we noted last year, which is that there is plenty of background leakage in the Gulf at any given time. We really don't have a very good idea of how much oil leaks into the water regularly, since we don't really monitor it. But small leaks from day-to-day operations, abandoned wells, and pipelines are fairly common. (There are, of course, also natural seeps.) The massive blowout last year got a whole lot more attention, but oil operations regularly wreak havoc on the Gulf.
July 26 2011
BP wieder mit Milliardengewinn
Der britische Ölmulti BP hat das zweite Quartal mit einem Milliardengewinn abgeschlossen. Im Vorjahreszeitraum hatte die Ölkatastrophe im Golf von Mexiko dem Konzern noch einen zweistelligen Milliardenverlust eingebrockt - fast 17 Mrd. Dollar. Das teilte BP am Dienstag mit.July 22 2011
July 20 2011
“— Empörung nach Ölkatastrophe im Meer - Umwelt - derStandard.at › PanoramaDer britische Mineralölkonzern BP kämpft neuerlich gegen einen Ölunfall in den USA. Eine wegen Reparaturarbeiten vom Netz genommene Pipeline in Alaska sei geplatzt, teilte das Unternehmen mit. Bis zu 16.000 Liter einer Mischung aus Methanol und öligem Wasser sollen ausgetreten sein.
Doch nicht nur in den USA sorgt Öl für Probleme. Auch in China, wo es bereits im Juni zu zwei Lecks in einem Ölfeld kam - die zunächst verschwiegen wurden. Der Umgang mit der Katastrophe in der Bohai-Bucht am Gelben Meer hat einen Sturm der Entrüstung ausgelöst.
Die staatliche Ozean-Verwaltung (SOA) hatte wochenlang über die Lecks geschwiegen. Dann kam die Wahrheit auch nur langsam ans Licht - via Internet-Blogs. Erst als die Meereshüter zunehmend ins Kreuzfeuer gerieten, gingen sie in die Offensive und ordneten in der vergangenen Woche einen Förderstopp auf den zwei betroffenen Plattformen des Ölfelds Penglai 19-3 an.
[...]
”
July 10 2011
July 09 2011
BP argues Gulf recovery so strong that future loss claims should end
BP is arguing that victims of last year’s Gulf oil spill should not be paid any more claims for future losses because the areas affected by the spill have recovered and the economy is improving.
The British oil company makes its case in a 29-page document filed with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, which administers the $20 billion fund for victims.
It criticizes several aspects of the fund’s policies and claims that at some times it has paid victims more than is allowed under the federal Oil Pollution Act.
“Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that, to the extent that portions of the Gulf economy were impacted by the spill, recovery had occurred by the end of 2010, and that positive economic performance continues into 2011, with 2011 economic metrics exceeding pre-spill performance,” the BP document said.
To back up its argument, the document notes that all commercial fisheries have re-opened, hotel industry statistics indicate strong occupancy rates and news reports on tourism venues reporting strong business.
The company is not arguing against paying out claims for documented losses. And those who feel more damages for future losses are warranted, or who are otherwise unsatisfied, can reject the final compensation offer and pursue litigation.
“Any claimant who is of the view that, notwithstanding the economic data, there is too much risk of future loss to enter a final settlement has the right to file an interim claim and seek the payment of past loss without signing a release of liability,” the BP document said.
The fund’s administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, said BP’s arguments would be considered, but he declined further comment.
As for BP’s claims that various GCCF payments exceed that authorized by federal law, Feinberg said the GCCF was authorized to use that law as a guideline. “Many of our claims, I readily admit, go beyond what’s required by federal law,” he said. “But it was always understood in our original protocol establishing the GCCF, that the GCCF would use the federal law as a guide, that’s all.”
BP had already argued months ago that Feinberg’s formula for determining final payments includes a “future factor” that artificially inflates future expected losses. That formula would provide individuals and businesses twice their documented 2010 losses. Oyster harvesters, in some limited cases, would be offered four times their losses.
In its latest filing, BP says Feinberg should end automatic “’future factor” payments for everyone, except in limited cases involving oyster harvesters.
BP notes evidence of recovered fisheries and government assurances that seafood is safe to eat as part of its argument. New Orleans seafood processor Harlon Pearce says that doesn’t address the lingering effect of the spill on the seafood business.
“For someone to say we don’t have damage in the future is clearly wrong,” Pearce said. While BP comments cited evidence that Gulf Seafood is safe, Pearce said the public’s perception hasn’t caught up with that reality. He estimated his distributions are down about 25 percent and it will take years to regain the trust of consumers and a place in the national market.
Pearce, who is president of the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board, said the board’s research indicates it took three to five years for the Alaskan seafood market to rebound after the Exxon Valdez spill, and noted a study commissioned by the board that says 75 percent of consumers around the country are still concerned about seafood safety.
Lawyers for the state of Louisiana also don’t think things have turned around, according to a court document filed Friday in an ongoing lawsuit over the spill.
Allan Kanner, an attorney for the state, wrote: “The state’s economy is still battling the prolonged downturn brought on by the Deepwater Horizon event and resulting spill, including the impacts of the offshore drilling moratorium imposed in direct response to the spill. The State’s revenues depend on a robust coastal economy, and that very economy continues to struggle in the wake of the spill.”
Economist Loren Scott in Baton Rouge said there are points favoring BP’s argument. He cited sales and “bed tax” revenue from tourist-dependent areas of northwestern Florida, which were only beginning to recover from the Great Recession when the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon explosion killed 11 offshore workers and caused the spill.
And, while the seafood industry can point to a drop in consumer confidence, Scott said, BP lawyers would likely argue that it was the industry’s own complaints of oil spill damage that contributed to the drop.
“As it has from the outset, BP supports the payment of legitimate claims, and to the extent that a claimant can substantiate future losses, a final offer covering past and future losses and a release of claims are appropriate,” spokesman Tom Mueller said in a statement. “Given the strong evidence of recovery, what we are objecting to is GCCF’s practice of assuming future losses on certain claims,” he said.
Still, the BP comments stirred lingering animosities.
“They go back on their word. They try to weasel out of everything they told you they’d do,” Orange Beach, Ala., Mayor Tony Kennon said.
Kennon said BP still owes Orange Beach $2.5 million for lost revenues during 2010. While the summer season is off to a good start this year, it’s too soon to say whether different sectors of the coastal economy — including lodging, restaurants, seafood, retailers and tourist attractions — have fully recovered because there’s no data yet to show whether visitors are spending as much as they once did.
In Mississippi, Tom Becker, head of the Charter Boat Captains Association and a fisherman in Biloxi, said he has only booked eight trips for this month, when before the oil spill he would have expected three times as many.
Becker said some charter boat captains are still hoping to get money out of BP and he thinks it’s premature for BP to seek to end any payments.
He said potential customers still ask if the seafood is safe to eat.
“It hasn’t recovered,” Becker said. “I wish they wouldn’t come out with statements like that. It’s just depressing. It’s like, ‘Here we go again.’ A lot of us don’t believe that this is over with.”
Ocean Springs Mayor Connie Moran said she was “astounded. I was really just flabbergasted.”
“While I understand BP is still committed to paying losses from last year and early 2011, there are many businesses that continue to be negatively impacted by the spill, among them the seafood industry and charter fishing,” Moran said.
Moran said it will take years to fully recover and the long-term impact on delicate ecosystems is not clear.
July 05 2011
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...




