BP and the Federal Government: Reforming Image, Setting Precedent

By Elizabeth Cook

BP and the U.S. government, through their actions on the Gulf coast, have set about creating precedent as to how oil spills will be handled. Through the claims of "seafood safety" and "most of the oil gone", these precedents are being viewed by Gulf residents with much skepticism and outrage, particularly for those who are ill from exposure to the chemicals and whose seafood catches are makedly down.   In addition, the methods used to contain the oil are currently being framed in a way as though these methods "worked"and will potentially be used again.

The these of "political sacrifice", a these repeated often when speaking to Gulf residents active in attempts to expose the actions of BP and the government during the oil disaster, is closely tied in with the continued use of dispersants to sink and disperse the oil that remains in the Gulf. You won't hear about this in the New Orleans Times Picayune, beholden to the oil industry and the lifting of the so-called drilling moratorium, or in the corporate media, not that folks haven't been trying to alert the media to these issues.

There are many people who live on the Gulf and loved her waters and lived off of her waters who are fighting a lonely battle: to expose the continued use of Corexit by BP; to question the more outrageous claims of BP and the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as all of these agencies have worked together to reopen fishing waters and proclaim "mission accomplished" in waht many believe is an effort to hide the truth: that most of the oil still remains in the Gulf and is dispersed throughout the water column, or sitting on the bottom of the Gulf.

This  "political sacrifice" and by many accounts, and in the minds of numerous Gulf residents and activists, willful poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, has, in the minds of many, taken place to reduce the corporate/financial liability of BP, and the political liability of the Obama administration. The decision made to allow the massive use of dispersant in order to sink the oil, an "out of sight, out of mind" disastrous policy, for Gulf residents actively working to expose conditions on the Gulf coast, has nothing to do with protecting people or marine life or our shores. It has everything to do with protecting the corporate viability of BP, and the political power of the Obama administration.

Just ask Clint Guidry, President of the Louisiana Shrimpers Association, how he feels about the "trade off" as Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, has described the use of the dispersant Corexit:

Ladies and gentlemen, HELL has come to South Louisiana. A HELL created by British Petroleum (BP) and a failed U.S. Government response to the disaster...

...The second response came from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who in an effort to minimize the spill and save BP face, unleashed two dangerous chemical dispersants which were injected into the water column at the sea floor and sprayed on the surface over the oil and workers in the areas of the spill and along the coast close to coastal fishing communities. These chemical dispersants contain solvents that are dangerous to marine populations in the Gulf and coastal estuaries and were never fully tested for dangers to humans. In the product sheets for these chemical dispersants, there is always a disclaimer: “This listing does not mean that EPA approves, recommends, licenses, certifies or authorizes the use of this product on an oil discharge.”

And that IS exactly what EPA did and is still doing with total disregard to marine populations that will collapse because of it and human populations that will get sick and may die because of this decision.

“Kill the Ocean, Save the Beaches,” a “Trade-Off” decision. Under what logic does this work? The Gulf is the Mother and the Estuaries are the nurseries. If the Mother dies, there will be no children to incubate.

The reality is the oil and chemical dispersants are entering our estuaries as we speak. The “Trade-Off” logic FAILED. [Emphasis mine.]

Samantha Joye with the University of Georgia led a team of scientists that strongly disputed the government's claim that most of the oil is gone.

A report released today by the Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia concludes that up to 79 percent of the oil released into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon well has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem.
The report, authored by five prominent marine scientists, strongly contradicts media reports that suggest that only 25 percent of the oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill remains.

It was, in fact, a government report, authored by NOAA and published on August 4th, that suggested most of the oil from the Macondo well oil leak was gone, and/or dispersed. This "mission accomplished banner", announced just 20 days after the capping of the well on July 15th, was clearly a political move by the government to begin to take control of the public relations framing of the spill.

Although it was reported by the Guardian UK that NOAA had retracted their report, and indeed, the lead NOAA scientist and author of that report certainly seems to back down from the conclusions, the report remains on the NOAA web site.

The government's decision to release such a report, ludicrous on the face of it to suggest most of the upwards of 190 millions of gallons of oil spilled (possibly a conservative estimate) into the Gulf is gone, is clearly counting on the belief that the American public has a short attention span, and/or is looking for a way to continue to believe in this administration politically.

NPR's All Things Considered on September 10th reported findings by Samantha Joye in a recent research trip in the Gulf: miles of thick oil coating the bottom of the sea floor.

The Research Vessel Oceanus sailed on Aug. 21 on a mission to figure out what happened to the more than 4 million barrels of oil that gushed into the water. Onboard, Samantha Joye, a professor in the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, says she suddenly has a pretty good idea about where a lot of it ended up. It's showing up in samples of the seafloor, between the well site and the coast.
"I've collected literally hundreds of sediment cores from the Gulf of Mexico, including around this area. And I've never seen anything like this," she said in an interview via satellite phone from the boat...

...Right below it she finds much more typical seafloor mud. And in that layer, she finds recently dead shrimp, worms and other invertebrates...

..."A lot of fish go down to the bottom and eat and then come back up," Hollander says. "And if all their food sources are derived from the bottom, then indeed you could have this impact."

Clearly the bottom of the sea floor has taken a beating from the spill. In addition, fishermen have been working diligently to document the continued presence of oil in reopened fishing waters.

On September 2nd, there appeared this article in the Times Picayune by Bruce Albert:

"Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup Provided Valuable Lessons, BP Report Says"

BP authored a 46 page report, "Harnessing the Lessons of Deepwater Horizon, that was submitted to "federal offshore oil and gas regulators". This report appears to be an attempt by BP to reform its own image, and reform public opinion on the methods used to contain the spill, including the massive use of dispersants that by many accounts, is still occurring.

Although much of this report deserves to be challenged, I will focus on two claims by BP as stated in the Times Picayune article:

Chemical dispersants, which critics in Congress and the environmental community said were overused at significant risk to fish, wildlife and humans, were effective in breaking up oil.

The vessels of opportunity program (VOO), in which fishers and charter boat operators were hired to help clean up oil, was effective.

Claiming that the VOO program has been "effective" deserves critical review. Fishermen were and are being used as "spotters" for oil; BP sends them out to locate the oil, report it, and get out of the way, they are told, quickly. Then the boats move in to spray dispersant from the back of the boats.

Marine Toxicologist Ricky Ott has gathered together evidence that Air Force C-130 planes are still being used to spray dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico.It should be pointed out that Thad Allen stated in a media conference call, on August 9th, that dispersants were no longer being used after July 15th.

In a recent meeting in Biloxi between fishermen and women, Mississippi state officials, Ricky Ott and others, on September 7, 2010, fishermen were adamant in their belief that dispersant is still being used. Here is an account of the meeting by the SunHerald:

“I get reports that somebody is spraying this and spraying that and C-130s are coming over at night spraying dispersants,” Walker said.  “We don’t have any real evidence of that.”

An audience member asked Walker if he could disprove that dispersants were being sprayed at night.  Walker responded, “How can you prove that something doesn’t happen, ma’am?”

Walker said the only dispersants that have been used are in waters about 100 miles south of Mississippi’s Coast. He said he believes the dispersants have done their job.

Billy Walker, who is head of the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) in Mississippi, then went on the compare the use of dispersants to soap in a bathtub. "They've done their job", he said.

A recent Los Angeles Times report questions the stated ability of dispersants to make oil more accessible to microbes so that it can be broken down. This report suggests that the use of dispersants might reduce the ability of microbes to break down the oil. The report clearly states the jury is still out, regarding the effectiveness of dispersants, versus their harm, and much more study needs to take place. In the meantime, who are the guinea pigs?

Here is a statement Ed Cake made on the condition of coastal waters in Mississippi, at the same DMR meeting:

Ed Cake, a biological oceanographer who was one of the featured speakers, said he disagreed with the “rosy picture” Walker was painting.
“The oil is here,” Cake said. “It is coming ashore on our beaches daily. All you have to do is ride down on the beach and see the BP workers walking up and down the beaches and picking it up. All you have to do is talk to the (Vessels of Opportunity) operators who have dragged absorbent boom on the bottom and you will know it is on the bottom of the Sound. It is in our deeper passes.”

Ricky Ott said at the DMR meeting with fishermen in Biloxi, that people and marine life have been exposed to these harmful chemicals, and full results of this exposure won't be known right away:

She said she has found fishermen who have been sick for weeks after being exposed to oil. They’ve been misdiagnosed as having heat strokes and food poisoning, she said, but their symptoms have lasted too long.
Ott said the pollution could affect the reproductive systems of organisms. She said it took about four years for the ecosystem in Alaska to be fully affected by the spill there.

The independent journalist Dahr Jamail has written extensively on this environmental catastrophe, interviewing fishermen and activists up and down the gulf coast, drawing out the stories of the men and women who have courageously stepped forward to say what they did working for BP, and what they have witnessed and are witnessing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dahr Jamail knows Jim "Catfish" Miller, a fisherman from Mississippi. I met Catfish at a meeting of fishermen and activists in D'Iberville, Mississippi in mid-August. One by one fishermen stood up in that meeting and spoke about the continued use of Corexit. They spoke about getting sick from working for BP in the VOO program, the diarrhea, nausea, headaches, rashes and respiratory problems.

There is Dean Blanchard, a seafood processing plant owner who lives on Grand Isle, and isn't afraid to speak his mind. "You don't want to pick up the oil," he told a BP official at a Grand Isle townhall meeting in early August; "You're going in at night and you're sinking it." A glance at Ricky Ott's letter to the EPA appears to back up what Blanchard and others are saying.

Another method that BP is using to reform its image is the funding, or partial funding of research into the effects of the spill. Just listen to this Louisiana State University Professor, Linda Hooper-Bui, on her take of BP funding of research of the oil spill:

Functioning as an independent researcher in and around the Gulf of Mexico these days is no simple task. I study insect and plant communities in near-shore habitats fringing the Gulf, and my work has gotten measurably harder in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It's not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it's the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you're not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

BP and the National Institute of Health are partnering to fund research into "possible" health effects of Gulf oil spill workers. Here is a quote from the National Institute of Health web site:

NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services have had a continuous presence in the Gulf since the explosion occurred. The NIEHS Worker Education and Training Program (WETP) used its 24 years of experience preparing people for hazardous conditions to contribute to training more than 100,000 workers in the Gulf so they could safely clean up the oil spill.

The NIH is the research arm of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is also a research branch of the feds, DHHS. These are the same agencies that have failed to step up the plate and protect Gulf oil spill workers adequately. These same agencies also failed to protect the people living on the Gulf coast by not speaking out against the use of Corexit in massive quantities, or advocating for the evacuation of those along the Gulf coast at greatest risk of exposure to the toxic oil and dispersant.

What the NIEHS did do is craft the hazmat training program, and adapted it to the BP oil spill. These adapted safety measures did not protect workers from exposure to the toxicities they were, and are, cleaning up.

Clint Guidry, well into this disaster, criticized BP for not providing "correct personal protection equipment". There is this quote from NIEHS from their safety awareness booklet for oil spill cleanup workers:

Booklet: NIEHS Oil Spill Cleanup Initiative: Safety Awareness for Oil Spill Cleanup Workers (ENGLISH)

NOTE: More conventional hazmat gear will likely not
be used. Rarely, respirators ranging from an N-95 to a
Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) will be used.

Essentially, the NIEHS refused to require BP to provide the respirators. Indeed, workers have been told if they use respirators, they will be fired. Truth is though, would even respirators be enough protection for workers against this onslaught of chemical poisoning? Dispersants can enter the body through the skin as well. We would have to have suits like those used for radioactive substances to fully protect workers.

Clearly the BP and DHHS initiated study should not be trusted.

Appently, what was never considered seriously, that in order to protect workers, toxic dispersants should not be used in the first place. If you are creating an environment in which workers are likely to be poisoned, aside from the oil spilling into the Gulf, then perhaps you are also harming the environment in a drastic way as well. This environmental disaster clearly demonstrates the link between the human species, and the health of our waterways. If you do everything possible to protect the waterways, then you protect the workers as well. If you choose to dump poisons into the water in order to break up the oil, those same poisons will affect the workers in a drastic way as well.

George Orwell must have turned over in his grave: fishermen employed to assist in the poisoning of the very environment their livelihoods depend on. Fishermen used as "spotters" to spot the oil, knowing the dispersants will follow, have had to swallow the reality that the Gulf ecology that they so love and depend on is being damaged possibly for decades to come.

For residents who paricipated in the VOO progam and worked the BP disaster, this has been a damaging and degrading experience for those workers, who are being physically and psychologically traumatized undoubtedly by this experience. Caught between a rock and a hard place, working for VOO meant the difference between total, or partial economic devastation. However, what will be left for them after the end of VOO? Workers ought never to have to make a choice such as this, and here's one writer who is hoping they organize in the shadow of this spill to refuse such collusion in the future.

Whether or not BP fully rehabs its own image, NOAA is doing a bang up job rehabbing BP's methods to contain the spill. The results of a NOAA study on the spill's effects in the water column were released on Tuesday, September 7th.

This study concluded that while oxygen levels in the dispersed oil plumes in the Gulf are being depleted, in some areas, by as much as 20 percent, this is not cause for alarm.

To date, the decrease in oxygen has not been significant enough to cause hypoxia at depth -- that is, a dead zone -- nor is it likely to, going forward," said Steve Murawski, chief science adviser for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and lead scientist for the oil spill Unified Command's Joint Analysis Group, which authored the report.

Weeks before the September 7th government report, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute published a report on August 19th that presented a much less rosy picture of what is happening in the Gulf. The oil plumes detected are degrading at a slower rate than the government has tried to depict.

The plume has shown that the oil already “is persisting for longer periods than we would have expected,” Camilli said. “Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily biodegraded.
“Well, we didn’t find that. We found it was still there.”
Whether the plume’s existence poses a significant threat to the Gulf is not yet clear, the researchers say.  “We don’t know how toxic it is,” said Reddy, “and we don’t know how it formed, or why. But knowing the size, shape, depth, and heading of this plume will be vital for answering many of these questions.”

Returning to the NOAA report published on September 7th, it could be seen as a report that is meant to defend, push and rehabilitate the use of dispersants for major spills:

The study results seem to indicate at least limited success in the controversial decision to use dispersants at the wellhead, Murawski said...
..."The whole theory of using dispersants was that you would make the particles small enough that they could be readily consumed by bacteria, and that apparently is happening," he said...
But he said only a portion of the droplets were created by the dispersants. The explosive ejection of oil and natural gas at high speed from the wellhead also caused the oil to disperse in tiny particles that were neutrally buoyant, meaning their mass and weight keeps them from sinking or rising, and thus would continue to float in plumes in the Gulf's deeper water.

If it is true that only a "portion of the droplets were created by the dispersants", and the goal of the dispersants was to disperse the oil...why continue its massive use?

When the TMT Offshore Group of Taiwan brought in the massive tanker to skim the oil, the use of dispersant proved too great a weapon against this type of skimming, according to the company.

If dumping poisonous dispersants is the prime weapon of choice by the government and corporations against an oil spill, then clearly, the policy of allowing offshore drilling to begin with should be re-examined.

The other method used to rehabilitate BP's and the government's handling of the spill is the reopening of coastal fisheries for commercial fishing. The distress of fishermen over the reopening of still oiled waters that they know very well, is well documented. Now evidence of contamination of seafood has been released by Louisiana Environmental Action Network. In addition, this Press-Register investigative report calls into question the allowable levels of contaminants in seafood for this spill, as opposed to other spills.

....Dr. Gina Solomon, a University of California toxicologist, member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's science advisory board, and senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the FDA’s approach leaves people who like shellfish more vulnerable.

“The FDA’s allowable level of cancer-causing PAHs for Gulf shrimp is about four times higher than for fish, and is far higher than levels that have been allowed for human consumption after previous oil spills,” Solomon said. “These levels are not likely to cause immediate health threats, but for people who like shrimp, these contaminants could pose a significant health problem over time.”

A recent National Geographic report raises concerns over the effects of the evaporation cycle transporting oil and dispersant far inland. Thier report states that not much study has been done as to the effects of toxins in the ocean, on land far inland. Concerning the water cycle, evaporation is the key. On the Nalco (the manufacturer of Corexit) material safety data sheet, up to 5 percent of Corexit, when applied in the environment, will evaporate in the air.

BP says that they have stopped using dispersant. The fishermen and activists on the Gulf coast say otherwise, and have numerous evidence, including pictures to prove it. Let's say that the amount of dispersant used is the amount BP has stated, around 2 million gallons. 5 percent of 2 million is 100,000. That's upwards of 100,000 gallons of Corexit that has potentially evaporated into the atmosphere.

Hydrocarbons are showing up in the blood of residents, for example, inland in Florida. When you consider the size of the oil spill, and the amount of toxins dumped in an effort to "disperse" the oil, it is no wonder the chemicals are showing up inland.

Clearly, the dangers for people who live along the Gulf coast, and inland, have been downplayed by both BP and the Federal government. The closer that you live to the coast, the greater the danger. NPR ran a story of an oily mist that is coating lawn furniture, beach furniture, on the Florida Gulf coast.

There is particular concern for children, and for those with chronic illnesses. Clearly though, tens of thousands of people along the Gulf coast and inland are vulnerabl. Just as our marine life just offshore and in our marshes is suffering a devastating impact from the dispersed oil, and the continued use of dispersants, so too, are we being exposed to these chemicals, whether through the air, the water or through seafood.

Stories of fish kills are quite common, and not that hard to find. A recent visit by environmentalists, including Alexander Cousteau, granddaughter to Jacques Cousteau, to Modoto island in Terrebonne parish revealed a horrific specter of dead and dying birds by the hundreds.

In the minds of Gulf residents, the government and BP are playing a fool's game, denying the physical reality of the damages wrought by the toxic mixture of Corexit and oil. It is our job not to play or it go along with it.

Elizabeth Cook