Gulf of Mexico Disaster

Overwhelmed by Oil and Toxic Pollutants: The Destruction of an Entire Coastline

2010-07-05T14:44:28Z

By Felicity Arbuthnot. Republished from The Centre for Globalization Research.

"The sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours
For this, for everything, we are out of tune." (William Wordsworth, 1770-1850.)

]]> For the people of the Gulf and the region - watching some of the most toxic pollutants known to man, being sprayed to disperse one of the most toxic pollutants known to man, unleashed as a result of man's fallibility, in a near-global addiction to consumerism - it must be an environmental apocalypse now. One dispersant Corexit 9500, is four times as toxic as oil, and also disrupts the reproductive systems of organisms.

There is magic about those sun-sparkled coasts, translucent, shimmering, sapphire sea, later turning peach, apricot, deep blush, then seeming near blackberry as the sun falls and the dusk, then dark, takes over. Then the great pelicans sit sentry, on remains of old breakwaters, sillhouetted against the moon's

An all time memory is of the Mexican coast on the Gulf. One day remains apart, on some special mental shelf for treasures, oft taken down, wondered at, minutely re-savoured. Four of us hired a boat for the day, the others wanted to fish for marlin, I to relish the glittering ocean and sun. Lying below the little open wheelhouse, the old, toothless boatman and I quickly formed a bond. His boat was his life, he was an extention of it and it of him. His eyesight was phenominal. "Look, look", he'd say, pointing somewhere into the distant horizon: "tuna .." I could see nothing, but a few miles towards the spot, sure enough, the ocean boiled and churned with the great shoal.

Shark fins often glided along side the boat, their sleek elegance visible below the surface.

Another: "look ..", a pointed, gnarled finger, and there would be the unmistakable spout from a whale, then a great, seemingly ocean-shuddering, roll or two. The Gulf hosts twenty nine marine mammal species, alone, including blue, beaked, fin, dwarf sperm and humpback whale. On 16th June, the first whale, a sperm whale, was found dead off Mississipi. Whales are thought to live up to one hundred and thirty years. The July 1st issue of "Nature" reveals remains of a sperm whale in Peru, thought to be thirteen and a half million years old. The whale is also thought to possibly be the world's oldest species. If the oil industry turns out to be the biggest threat they have ever faced, that will be quite a first.

As ever, the old man of the sea, saw the dolphins before I did : "look, look, look ...." they leapt, in their joyous pairs, in perfect synchrony. As the boat neared, they surrounded it, cavorting in fours, sixes, eights, twelves, higher and higher, over and over. Attempting to capture the images, the lens appeared less than clear, then I realized it was not the lens, but the tears streaming down my face, in response to witnessing overwhelming minutes of beauty beyond imagination. Suddenly, was a certainty of feeling blessed, to understand poet John Gillespie Magee's words : "...in the sunlit silence, put out my hand, and touched the face of God."

Fifty dolphin have so far, been reported found dead. Experts estimate only one tenth of species which die will be washed up. The full toll of big oil's "collateral damage", now, previously and in the future, will likely never be known.

When my friends hauled in a huge marlin, which had fought for its life with wile and valor, the old man of the sea said again: "Look. Watch." The great creature lay in the sun, gasping on the deck, its body glittering all over, in sequin-like, opalescence. "Watch", he repeated. In seconds, the lights started to go out and the magnificent creature became just a very large, dark, lump of flesh. Killing for sport is another obscenity.

As the sun lowered, we headed for the shore. Approaching it, the boatman ("Watch...") put his arms above his head, steering with his knees. Instantly, the sky darkened with birds, appeared seemingly from no where. They called, swooped, rose, fell, circled. He leant in to the bait bucket and threw the remains, bit by bit, in to the air. Every morsel was expertly caught. Not one missed, dropped. The bucket empty, his hands went back on the wheel, the birds did a farewell fly past and departed in to the dusk. In the shallower waters shoals of vibrantly coloured fish, darted between the delicate coral reefs.

Bird species of the region include albatrosses, petrels, shearwaters, frigatebirds, cormorants, gannets, boobies, gulls, terns and skimmers. With temperatures of one hundred degrees and birds becoming oil covered, experts warn they are boiling, alive. The thick, tarry oil, absorbs the heat.

The many turtle species lay their eggs on or near the beach where they were born. Conservationists are removing eggs to unpolluted shores hundreds of miles away, where hopefully they will survive but another extraordinary natural miracle will have been severed. Four hundred and thirty two turtles have been found dead since April.

The Gulf's Loggerhead turtle's hatchlings follow the light of the moon to reach the ocean and swim to safety, away from land's predators, when they emerge from the egg. For the tiny moon followers, the ocean itself has become their ultimate predator.

Inspite of the scale of this environmental death warrant, Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, supports a legal action to reverse the Presidential six month moratorium on deep water drilling, in place to allow time to determine the exact cause of the spill, thus, hopefully, avoiding a repetition. Jindal views the cost in jobs as too high. Oil jobs, that is. And as the hurricane season has moved in with the great winds spreading unleashed deadly pollutants, farther and wider.

Dahr Jamail, in Louisiana, writes of a poignant, differing view. Locals have erected white crosses, each representing something loved and lost: "Family time, crabs, white trout, camping, diving, walking the dog on the beach, sea shells, sea turtles, dolphins, barbecues, shrimp, shark, sand between my toes, boogie boarding, mullet, marsh, palm trees." (Christian Science Monitor, 22nd June 2010.) The crosses will undoubtedly multiply.

Mexico's ancient mariner was utterly in tune with with his universe and all which shared it with him. A reverence a million miles from those who think only to ravage it.

Raining Oil

2010-06-25T15:44:41Z

By Rowan Wolf

After being told it is impossible for the oild from the runaway BP Macondo well to be sucked intothe air and preciptate elswhere, we have reports that is indeed the case. Below are two YouTube videos which document such rain - 1 from Florida and one from Louisiana

Florida - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Evqr855igU

Louisiana - YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqr6eMNB8Ew

What do BP and the Banks Have In Common? The Era of Corporate Anarchy

2010-06-21T12:03:41Z

By Gonalo Lira. Republished from Centre for Research on Globalization.

(Click Corporate Nexus of Power to access interactive map for image.)

On the occasion of the BP oil spill disaster, President Obama's delivered an Oval Office speech last night--a masterpiece of milquetoast faux-outrage. The speech was all about "clean energy" and "ending our dependence on fossil fuels". Faced with the BP oil spill--likely the most severe environmental disaster ever--this was President Obama's response: Polite outrage, and vague plans to "get tough", "set aside just compensation" and "do something".

]]> President Obama missed what the BP oil spill disaster is really about. Though unquestionably an environmental disaster, the BP oil spill is much much more.

The BP oil spill is part of the same problem as the financial crisis: The BP oil spill and the banking crisis are two examples of the era we are living in, the era of corporate anarchy.

In a nutshell, in this era of corporate anarchy, corporations do not have to abide by any rules--none at all. Legal, moral, ethical, even financial rules are irrelevant. They have all been rescinded in the pursuit of profit--literally nothing else matters.

As a result, corporations currently exist in a state of almost pure anarchy--but an anarchy directly related to their size: The larger the corporation, the greater its absolute freedom to do and act as it pleases. That's why so many medium-sized corporations are hell-bent on growth over profits: The biggest of them all, like BP and Goldman Sachs, live in a positively Hobbesian State of Nature, free to do as they please, with nary a consequence.

The added bonus to this, though, is that the largest corporations have convinced the governments and the people of the "Too Big To Fail" fallacy--they have convinced the world that if they cease to exist, the sky will fall atop our collective heads. So if they fail, they must be saved--without argument, without penalty, and without reform.

Let's take BP: British Petroleum caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There were various Federal Government agencies charged with supervising their operations--but all of those agencies deferred to BP, before the accident. As a large corporation--one of the largest oil companies in the world--BP operated more or less without any Government supervision. As is emerging, because of this lax and toothless supervision, safety rules and procedures were ignored. Insane risks were taken. No safety contingency plans were drawn up.

From what some memos are saying, disaster was inevitable.

Once the accident happened, BP controlled the information it released concerning the disaster. BP unilaterally decided not to proceed with an immediate top-kill of the well--instead, BP risked a wider disaster, in order to save the oil field by drilling a "relief well". BP's reasoning was simple: By implementing an immediate top-kill, BP would have sacrificed the oil field (and lost its investment) in order to save the environment. BP did not do this. Instead, it tried to stretch out the process, so as to salvage the oil field (and the profits) with the "relief well". But when it became impossible to hide the extent of the damage--when the smell of oil permeated the clear skies of Louisiana a hundred miles from the site of the spill--BP tried to implement the top-kill. We know how that ended.

Where was Authority? Where was Someone In Charge? The fact was, there was no one in charge. There was no one supervising--or at any rate, the ones who were supposed to be supervising had had their teeth yanked. And BP knew it--so they did whatever they wanted, regardless of the risks, or the costs.

Worst of all, BP realizes that, if it finally cannot get a handle on the oil spill disaster, they can simply fob it off on the U.S. Government--in other words, the people of the United States will wind up cleaning BP's mess. BP knows that no one will hold it accountable--BP knows that it will get away with it.

No one was holding the banks accountable either. It's no accident that American and European banks nearly went broke, but banks here in Chile sailed along smoothly: That's because banks here are regulated up the wazoo. They literally can't fart without an independent banking inspector supervising them, and then getting a stamped form in triplicate. When Chile's banks went bust in the crisis of 1980, it put paid to any illusions that the banks knew what they were doing--the government bailed out the banks then, but kept them under glass ever after.

But in Europe and America, the story was the Greenspan Put. Easy Al was so convinced that the banks would "self-regulate" that he pulled the teeth of the Fed, the banks regulatory agency, and let the "free market" have its way.

With this free pass, what do you think the banks did? They went anarchic--they invented all sorts of clever "financial products" that exponentially increased risk, rather than mitigating it. We all saw how that movie ended. When Lehman busted and the credit markets froze, a slap-dash improvised "rescue package" was drawn up, then the $700 billion TARP, then Quantitative Easing, all of these efforts lubed up with a lot of talk to "strengthening the regulatory environment" and "protecting the financial markets".

The upshot? The banks did whatever they pleased--with no supervision. And when their recklessness led inevitably to the catastrophe in the Fall of '08, the banks got bailed out--with no repercussions. The biggest ones even managed to turn a profit off the tax payer-funded bail-outs!

Even after the worst of the crisis--when the effects of no regulation and no supervision were clearly understood--nothing happened. The zero-regulation, zero-supervision regime continued.

This isn't the case for people, for individuals: People are regulated, people are controlled. Individuals are supervised and limited in what they can do and say--and no one complains. On the contrary--everyone is relieved, because it protects us all from the unreasonable behavior of an individual.

As an individual, I am limited in countless ways, from the trivial, like jaywalking, to the severe, like murder. I can't even speak up and yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater--I would be arrested for inciting a panic, the general good of avoiding a potentially lethal stampede overriding my need to express myself by yelling "Fire!" when there is none.

Curiously, individuals--ordinary people--are being supervised and regulated more and more stringently. Yet at the same time, corporations are becoming more and more free to do as they please. No one notices how strange this is--we have even lost the social framework to even talkabout regulating and supervising corporations, because too many foolish pundits equate supervision and regulation with Socialism. Yet curiously, personal freedom is being chipped away, day by day, without a peep from these pundits.

Meanwhile, the banks run amok.

Meanwhile, BP runs amok.

We can look at other industries--Big Pharma, for one--but there's no real need: Big Pharma will fit the same pattern as BP and the banks. Get so big that you can do whatever you want, and no one will challenge you, not even the government. Carry out practices that will inevitably create a crisis--like unsafe drilling, like toxic bonds--and be confident that you will be bailed out.

Bailed out, and allowed to continue, unfettered. "Allowed" to continue, unfettered? I'm sorry, I mis-spoke: Encouraged to continue, unfettered.

This era of corporate anarchy is reaching a crisis point--we can all sense it. Yet the leadership in the United States and Europe is making no effort to solve the root problem. Perhaps they don't see the problem. Perhaps they are beholden to corporate masters. Whatever the case, in his speech, President Obama made ridiculous references to "clean energy" while ignoring the cause of the BP oil spill disaster, the cause of the financial crisis, the cause of the spiralling health-care costs--the corporate anarchy that underlines them all.

This era of corporate anarchy is wrecking the world--literally, if you've been tuning in to images of the oil billowing out a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico.

I think we are at the fork in the road: One path leads to revolutionary change, if not outright revolution. The other, appeasement and stasis, as the corporations grind the country down.

My own sense is, there will be no revolutionary change. The corporations won. They won when they convinced the best and brightest--of which I used to be--that the only path to success was through a corporate career. No necessarily through for-profit corporations--Lefties never seem to quite get how pernicious and corporatist the non-profits really are; or perhaps they do know, but are clever enough not to criticize them, since those non-profits and NGO's pay for their meals.

Obama is a corporatist--he's one of Them. So there'll be more bullshit talk about "clean energy" and "energy independence", while the root cause--corporate anarchy--is left undisturbed.

Once again: Thank God I no longer live in America. It's too sad a thing, to watch while a great nation slowly goes down the tubes.

Gonzalo Lira, a novelist and filmmaker (and economist) currently living in Chile and writing at Gonzalo Lira

Animated Explanation of BP's Efforts

2010-06-15T12:18:22Z

The BBC has a nice interactive step through of BP's efforts to date to stop the runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico. Stopping the oil - an interactive guide.

Behind the Gulf oil crisis: Big Oil extends its political influence

2010-06-15T11:51:25Z

By Dan Brennan. Originally published at World Socialist Web Site

A month and a half into the worst oil spill in US history, frustration and anger directed towards both the oil giant BP and the US government are soaring.

]]> Among the principal factors leading up to the April 20 oil rig explosion, and the subsequent uncontrolled eruption from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, was the absence of any regulations on the profit-driven operations of the energy industry. Government agencies under both Bush and Obama pushed for the expansion of deep-sea oil drilling and rubber-stamped all the decisions made by BP.

One measure of this influence is money. Through a combination of large individual gifts, Political Action Committees and other indirect channels, the oil and gas industry pumped over $250 million into federal campaign coffers over the past 20 years, according to a new report from the Center for Responsive Politics.

This does not include lobbying. The industry spent $174 million last year alone on lobbying the federal government, the third largest of 121 industries. BP, for its part, spent $16 million last year. All told, since 1998 the oil lobby has committed $1 billion to exert its influence on public policy.

"The oil and gas industry has long been one of the most influential in Washington. They are truly a powerhouse industry," Center for Responsive Politics Communications Director Dave Levinthal told the WSWS.

Levinthal explained, "At any time there are dozens of pieces of legislation on the table and lots of diverging interests. Still, the confluence of all this oil industry money in politics above all purchases access. It gets company executives into the game. The amount of influence they get one can only dream of if you don't have millions to spend."

One direct result is that the industry has been allowed to regulate itself. The federal agency with responsibility for oversight and regulation of oil drilling, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), routinely allows extensive offshore drilling without requiring obligatory environmental reviews and permits. MMS waived basic safety precautions that might have prevented the spill.

While the public disgust in the wake of the disaster has skyrocketed, it has not stalled the collusion between government and Big Oil. In fact, the opposite is true. Halliburton, the energy company involved in making the cement casings for the rig, which may have ultimately contributed to the explosion, last month ramped up its political spending to the highest levels since just before the 2008 elections.

Just one week prior to appearing before an investigative subcommittee of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Halliburton donated $1,500 to the campaign fund of the ranking Republican, Joe Barton (Texas), according to a report by Politico.

In May, Halliburton also contributed donations of $1,000 on Senator Mike Crapo (Idaho) of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Richard Burr (North Carolina) of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Both committees are holding their own hearings to investigate the oil disaster.

Along similar lines, Democratic Senator turned lobbyist John Breaux, who now represents some clients in the oil and gas industry, is working to ensure oil industry representation on the five member "independent" presidential commission to investigate the spill. Breaux told the New Orleans newspaper Times-Picayune, "The commission shouldn't consist of all environmentalists, or all industry people. You need to have a mix."

One of Obama's two choices to head the commission is former Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly, who currently sits on the board of directors of oil giant ConocoPhillips.

Congressional donations, not surprisingly, are highest to committee members who play integral roles in crafting legislation affecting the oil industry. Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee received an average of about $52,000 from individuals and groups associated with the oil and gas industry this election cycle. However contributions are near ubiquitous: 78 percent of House members and 84 percent of Senators received funding from oil and gas this past election cycle.

Both parties have received millions, though donations to Republicans have outweighed Democrats over the years about three to one. Nonetheless, President Obama was the second largest recipient of all candidates for federal office from the oil industry in 2008, pulling in just shy of one million. Only Republican presidential challenger John McCain received more.

BP executives, however, contributed twice as much to Obama, the largest single recipient of the company's funds.

This current election season, several candidates have already received over $100,000 from the oil industry. Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) leads the way with over $280,000 collected thus far. Lincoln currently sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Republican Senators David Vitter and Lisa Murkowski--from the oil states of Louisiana and Alaska, respectively--both pulled in over $200,000 to date.

The influence extends beyond the executive and legislative branches of government. According to the National Law Journal, seven of the 12 federal judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana have recused themselves from hearing oil spill cases, citing connections to the oil industry.

The ties uniting government officials with the oil industry are intertwined further by the "revolving door" between political office and industry employment. Just within the Department of Interior, these connections are everywhere.

The Obama administration appointed Sylvia Baca, a BP executive, to serve as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. Baca was appointed last June by Obama's Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, who himself has extensive ties to the oil industry and has long promoted off-shore oil drilling.

Bush administration Interior Secretary Gale Norton, after leaving the government took a position as general counsel for Royal Dutch Shell.

Outside the Interior Department, Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, headed a research institute at the University of California, Berkeley, which was funded by BP with a $500 million grant. On becoming Energy Secretary, Chu selected BP's chief scientist, Steven Koonin, to be the DOE undersecretary for science.

One of the most egregious examples is Steve Griles, who served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior Department and a representative on Dick Cheney's energy task force. After leaving office to start up his own energy lobbying firm, Griles was convicted of obstructing justice in the investigation of lobbyist Jack A. Abramoff. A federal judge sentenced Griles to 10 months in prison.

The movement between political positions and lobbying firms is very widespread. Of BP's 37 registered lobbyists identified by Center for Responsive Politics, 22 have held positions within the executive or legislative branches or as senior staffers.

Acting Inspector General Mary Kendall underscored these connections in an investigation released last month that confirmed allegations of MMS employees accepting gifts from oil and gas companies and other misconduct. In the report she wrote, "Of greatest concern to me is the environment in which these inspectors operate--particularly the ease with which they move between industry and government."

Mandy Smithberger, from the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight put it more bluntly in an interview with the Associated Press. "To say that MMS has had a revolving door problem doesn't even begin to describe how profoundly this agency has entangled itself with industry. The revolving door has spun so readily in this case that the lines between the regulators and the regulated are now virtually nonexistent."

BP and government authorities collude to suppress reality of oil spill

2010-06-14T12:48:02Z

By David Walsh. Republished from WSWS

Numerous media accounts confirm that oil giant BP, in collusion with the Obama administration and various federal agencies, is attempting to block information about the extent of the damage wreaked on the Gulf Coast and other areas.

]]> The New York Times reported Wednesday ("Efforts to Limit the Flow of Spill News") that "Journalists struggling to document the impact of the oil rig explosion have repeatedly found themselves turned away from public areas affected by the spill, and not only by BP and its contractors, but by local law enforcement, the Coast Guard and government officials."

The Times article describes the media "being kept at bay" is merely "another example of a broader problem of officials' filtering what images of the spill the public sees," adding that "Scientists, too, have complained about the trickle of information that has emerged from BP and government sources."

Essentially, BP and the authorities are trying to suppress information about the oil spill just as the US military, with the complicity of the American media, has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. From Vietnam came images of wounded and dying soldiers, which had a significant impact on public opinion; from the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, notes Newsweek magazine, "pictures of dead otters, fish, and birds, as well as oil-covered shorelines, ignited nationwide outrage and led to a backlash against Exxon." The Pentagon and the corporate elite have learned a simple lesson: by whatever means necessary, prevent the population from learning the truth.

The Times observes, "Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor at the Associated Press, likened the situation to reporters being embedded with the military in Afghanistan. 'There is a continued effort to keep control over the access,' Mr. Oreskes said. 'And even in places where the government is cooperating with us to provide access, it's still a problem because it's still access obtained through the government.'"

Indeed CNN has described its correspondent, Kyra Phillips, as "embedded" with US Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen.

There are numerous examples of BP and the government blocking media coverage of the oil spill. A CBS television crew was threatened in late May with arrest for attempting to film an oil-covered beach in Louisiana. A vessel carrying BP contractors and Coast Guard officials stopped the crew, and the pilot told CBS reporters, "This is BP rules, it's not ours."

A reporter from Mother Jones recounted in detail how local deputies, at the behest of BP, prevented journalists from reaching Elmer's Island Wildlife Refuge, also in Louisiana. An oil company representative told the reporter, "BP's in charge because 'it's BP's oil.'"

An airplane pilot planning to carry a New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter over the oil slick was denied permission for the flight. "We were questioned extensively. Who was on the aircraft? Who did they work for?" recalled Rhonda Panepinto, who owns Southern Seaplane with her husband, Lyle. "The minute we mentioned media, the answer was: 'Not allowed.'"

When Associated Press photographer Gerald Herbert attempted to accompany Jean-Michel Cousteau, son of Jacques Cousteau, on a trip to Breton Island, a national wildlife refuge off the barrier islands of Louisiana, the US Coast Guard intervened. Newsweek reports, "Upon approaching the island, a Coast Guard boat stopped them. 'The first question was, 'Is there any press with you?' says Herbert.' They answered yes, and the Coast Guard said they couldn't be there. 'I had to bite my tongue. That should have no bearing.'"

Newsweek comments: "Photographers who have traveled to the Gulf commonly say they believe that BP has exerted more control over coverage of the spill with the cooperation of the federal government and local law enforcement. 'It's a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words 'Coast Guard' affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with 'BP,'' says Charlie Varley, a Louisiana-based photographer. 'It would be funny if it were not so serious.'"

At 10 pm the evening before a scheduled trip by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, along with a group of journalists, on the Gulf of Mexico, reports the New York Times, "someone from the Department of Homeland Security's legislative affairs office called the senator's office to tell them that no journalists would be allowed.

"'They said it was the Department of Homeland Security's response-wide policy not to allow elected officials and media on the same 'federal asset,'' said Bryan Gulley, a spokesman for the senator. 'No further elaboration' was given, Mr. Gulley added."

A reporter and photographer from the New York Daily News were told by a BP contractor that they could not have access to a public beach on Grand Isle, Louisiana. A local sheriff, brought in by the BP employee, told the reporter that "news media had to fill out paperwork and then be escorted by a BP official to get access to the beach." (New York Times)

The stories go on and on, underscoring, on the one hand, the determination of BP to conceal the catastrophe by suppressing images of the spill on land and sea. Financial questions are at the heart of this. The extent of the devastation has a bearing on the immediate fate of BP's share price, as well as the amount of the damages eventually levied against the oil giant.

On the other hand, the collusion of the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration and other institutions with the censorship efforts of a private corporation reveals something about the character of the Obama administration and all levels of the government in the US: they are entirely subservient to the interests of big business and equally hostile to the interests of the American population.

Rise in Offshore Spills Raises Wider Questions on Drilling

2010-06-14T00:19:52Z

By Sasha Chavkin. Republished from ProPublica

The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico has been portrayed as a one-of-a-kind disaster, a perfect storm of bad equipment, bad planning and bad luck.

]]> But it's far from the only spill that's taken place this year - or even the only spill occurring in the Gulf right now.

On June 7, the Mobile Press-Register reported that the Ocean Saratoga rig has been leaking into the Gulf [1] [1] since April 30. Interior Department spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff confirmed the next day that "small amounts of oil" were leaking from the wells beneath the rig, about 10 miles from Louisiana's southeastern coast.

Taylor Energy, the well's owner, said in a statement [2] [2] that it was engaged in an "ongoing well intervention plan" with the government to fix damage caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, and that no significant new spill had occurred.

The Deepwater Horizon isn't the only recent spill for BP, either. On May 25, according to Reuters, an accident on the Trans-Alaska pipeline [3] [3] spilled thousands of barrels of oil and forced the pipeline to be shut down for more than three days. BP is the largest owner of the pipeline operator, controlling 47 percent. (Read our story about BP's troubled history [4] [4] in Alaska and its other U.S. operations.)

In addition, there was the Jan. 24 spill in Port Arthur, Texas, when an Exxon-Mobil tanker collided with an outgoing vessel [5] [5] and dumped nearly half a million gallons of oil into the Gulf.

If it seems as if oil spills - and particularly offshore spills in US. waters - are on the rise, that's because they are.

A USA Today analysis of federal data found that spills from offshore oil rigs and pipelines have more than quadrupled [6] [6] in the last decade. From the 1970s to 1990s, offshore facilities averaged four spills per year of more than 50 barrels. From 2000 to 2009, the annual average soared to 17.

The report also found that the rate of oil being spilled was increasing faster than the growth in production. From USA Today [6] [6]:

In the 1980s, an average of about 2,900 barrels of oil and other toxic chemicals spilled a year. That figure rose to more than 4,400 in the 1990s and to more than 6,100 in the 2000s. Offshore oil production increased during that time, but the rate of barrels spilled per barrels produced continued to increase.

The company with the most spills in the last decade was BP, which had reported 23 spills of over 50 barrels without counting the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

Why are offshore oil facilities spilling more in recent years than they have in the past?

One possibility is that regulators haven't been able to keep up with the surge in offshore drilling. The Washington Post reported [7] [7] Thursday morning that the Minerals Management Service has only seven more inspectors now that it did in 1985, even as offshore drilling projects have skyrocketed. From the Post:

Although the number of exploration rigs soared and the number of deep-water oil-producing projects grew more than tenfold from 1988 to 2008, the number of federal inspectors working for the Minerals Management Service has increased only 13 percent since 1985.

A message left for MMS this morning has not been returned.

Stefan Mrozewski, a drilling engineer with Columbia University's Borehole Research Group and a former oil industry employee who once worked on the Deepwater Horizon, said the increase may in fact be driven by a very different dynamic - better voluntary reporting of spills by the industry.

Oil companies and service companies in the Gulf of Mexico "have - at least over the past 10 years - been extremely conscientious about report [sic] spills, incidents, hazards, etc," wrote Mrozewski in an e-mail. "I would venture that the same attitude did not prevail in the 90s, and certainly not in the 70s."

David Miller of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and gas industry, said that offshore drilling was heavily regulated by the government, citing the MMS's extensive guidelines for deepwater drilling [8] [8].

"There's quite a few regulations that the industry has to follow to be in compliance with the MMS," said Miller.

Another possibility is that oil is simply harder to reach now - that increased consumption has led companies to turn to deeper waters and riskier procedures to satisfy the ever-expanding demand for energy.

"While the point of "peak oil" may or may not have been reached, what Michael Klare, a professor at Hampshire College, has dubbed the Age of Tough Oil has clearly begun," wrote the New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert [9] [9] on May 31.

Write to Sasha Chavkin at sasha.chavkin@propublica.org.

The Oil Spills You Never Heard Of

2010-06-12T13:13:45Z

By Conn Hallinan. Republished from FPIF.

While the news about British Petroleum's (BP) Deepwater Horizon platform blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is on a 24-hour news feed, it took a long boat ride and some serious slogging by John Vidal of The Observer (UK) to uncover a bigger and far deadlier oil spill near the village of Otuegwe in Nigeria's Niger Delta.

]]> "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots. This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest," Otuegwe's leader, Chief Promise, told Vidal.

The culprits in Nigeria are Shell and Exxon Mobil, whose 40-year old pipelines break with distressing regularity, pouring oil into the locals' fishing grounds and drinking water. The Delta supports 606 oil fields that supply close to 40 percent of U.S. oil imports.

This past May, an Exxon Mobil pipeline ruptured in the state of Akwa Ibon, dumping more than a million gallons into the Delta before it was patched. According to Ben Ikari, a writer and member of the local Ogoni people, "This kind of thing happens all the time in the Delta...the oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care, and people must live with the pollution daily. The situation is worse than it was 30 years ago."

Just how bad things are is not clear, because the oil companies and the Nigerian government will not make the figures public. But independent investigators estimate that over the past four decades the amount of oil released into the Delta adds up to 50 Exxon Valdez spills, or 550 million gallons. According to the most recent government figures, up to June 3, Deepwater Horizon had pumped between 24 to 51 million gallons into the Gulf.

Nigerian government figures show there have been more than 9000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are currently 2,000 official spill sites. The oil companies claim the majority of them are caused by local rebels blowing up pipelines or siphoning off the oil, and that spills are quickly dealt with.

However, the locals say most of the spills are caused by the aging infrastructure, and they and environmental groups charge that the companies do virtually nothing to clean them up. And when local people do challenge the oil giants, they say they get run off by oil company security guards.

The biggest oil disaster in the world, however, is not in Africa or the Gulf of Mexico, but in Ecuador's Amazon jungle, where Texaco--now owned by Chevron--pumped 18.5 billion gallons of "produced water" into an area of more than 2,000 square miles. "Produced water" is heavily laden with salts, crude oil, and benzene, a carcinogenic chemical,.

According to the Amazon Defense Coalition, Chevron dumped the toxic waste directly into rivers and streams, in spite of recommendations by American Petroleum Institute that such waste be injected deep into the earth. "The BP tragedy was an accident; Chevron's discharge in Ecuador was deliberate," said the Coalition in a press release.

Experts estimate that 345 million gallons of oil have been discharged into the rainforest, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. The oil and wastewater, along with "black rains" produced by the uncontrolled burning of gas, has created a nightmare for the local indigenous groups--the Secoya, Cofan, Siona, Huarani, and Kichwa.

Ecuador and the five tribes are currently suing Chevron for $27 billion, but the oil company claims it bears no responsibility for Texaco's practices and says it will not pay a nickel if it is assessed for any of the damage.

As oil resources decrease, the pressure will be on to seek new resources in more marginal territory, including the deep ocean, tropical rain forests, and sensitive artic and tundra zones. Shell is chomping at the bit to start drilling in the Artic Ocean.

Judith Kimerling, who wrote "Amazon Crude" about the oil industry in Ecuador, toldThe Observer, "Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care."

Except, of course, the people who live in the middle of them.

Live Spill Feeds from BP ROVs

2010-06-10T11:32:31Z

There are several places to access live video feeds from BP's Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs).

Note that all BP feeds are in Windows Media format, hence everyone pulling those feeds are using that same format. One of the "tricks" is that double clicking on a video feed zooms it to full screen (Esc key returns to normal mode). Video quality degrades in full page mode.

1. BP. This is a cumbersome access as they provide links to each camera on different pages.

2. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This is the site from the House Committee Chaired by Rep. Edward Markey. All feeds are on one page which makes them easier to scroll through.

3. Live Video Feed Panel of the Gulf Oil Disaster - All Cameras. These feeds are from The Environmentalist. This is the best display in my opinion becasuse feeds are in a panel format which easily allows watching multiple cameras at once.

Behind the Gulf oil crisis: Big Oil extends its political influence

2010-06-08T05:23:08Z

By Dan Brennan. Originally published at World Socialist Web Site

A month and a half into the worst oil spill in US history, frustration and anger directed towards both the oil giant BP and the US government are soaring.

One of Obama's two choices to head the commission is former Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly, who currently sits on the board of directors of oil giant ConocoPhillips.

BP executives, however, contributed twice as much to Obama, the largest single recipient of the company's funds.

Bush administration Interior Secretary Gale Norton, after leaving the government took a position as general counsel for Royal Dutch Shell.

Coast Guard Backs BP in Banning Journalists

2010-06-07T06:25:28Z

This report and CBS video can be found at Mother Nature Network. In Karl Burkhardt's May 18, 2010 article, he states:

Contacts in Louisiana have given me numerous, unconfirmed reports of cameras and cell phones being confiscated, scientists with monitoring equipment being turned away, and local reporters blocked from access to public lands impacted by the oil spill. But today CBS News got it on video, along with a bone-chilling statement by a Coast Guard official: "These are BP's rules. These are not our rules."

Watch CBS News Videos Online

BP Oilpocalypse Creates Underwater Nightmare

2010-06-07T06:10:50Z

From Repower America The video is of a Good Morning America Report.

From YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lBQkNgY3bY&feature=player_embedded#!

The New Dead Sea

2010-06-06T18:22:02Z

By Rowan Wolf

I am waiting for someone to turn the bad news of the Gulf into a money making opportunity. In the characteristic mumbles of our time, I can see a future where state tourism departments are hawking "Welcome to the new Dead Sea!"

]]> As hundreds of thousands of gallons a day of oil (liberally seasoned with the Corexit dispersant) flow into the Gulf of Mexico, but we are told that the Gulf is large and the spill a minute amount within that vastness. Now we are watching the viscous oil killing the marshes of Louisiana and making its way around the Gulf - to Florida today.

And within that stinking sludge we see the birds and wildlife who have become so coated it is difficult to tell what they are.

Across the Gulf is an ever-growing "sheen" of oil - moving with the wind and the tide. However, not all the oil is on the surface. An unknown amount moves through the various depths and are subject to the complex edies and currents of any large body of water. In the Gulf of Mexico, the strongest current is the "Loop Current." That flow is already circulating the oil around the Gulf of Mexico including towards Cuba.

As the gushing oil has moved east, there is now public admission that the Atlantic is also at risk - particularly the East Coast of the U.S. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research produced a simulation (below) and reported "Ocean currents likely to carry oil along Atlantic coast".

From YouTube posting by ncaruar

The simulation shows that the oil could hit not just the East Coast of the United States, but continue to drift towards the Mid-Atlantic - and the North Atlantic current. That path will ultimately take it to the Arctic. In its wake, will swim and feed the marine life of the coasts and marshes; the fish and mammals, the plankton and crabs. It will impact the entire marine food chain. While most of the impact will likely contaminate the life of the Gulf, it seems highly unlikely that it will stay there.

The BP disaster, also known as the Macondo Prospect well, could continue to gush until at least August 2010 - and perhaps much longer. Millions of gallons of oil and natural gas will create growing dead zones and plumes that capture all life in its wake. The Gulf of Mexico could indeed become a "dead sea" for decades. The question is whether the Atlantic will share that fate.

Teach a Man to Fish

2010-06-04T23:12:34Z

By Rowan Wolf

There is the old Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Well along the Gulf of Mexico fishing is a way of life and the people of the Gulf and of the United States are learning some hard lessons. These lessons are tied to the issue of livelihood and "way of life." They are tied to an awakening that there are things you can't put a price on.

]]> What is happening with the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf is the destruction of precious and irreplaceable marine environment. More specifically, it is resulting in the destruction of whole ecosystems. Currently, the most visible destruction is occurring in the rich fisheries of the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The "solution" for BP is to pay fisherman (and others) for their loss of income. However, as has been eloquently stated by some of the local people interviewed, this is about more than money. How do you put a price on a heritage?

We can look at "heritage" in a number of ways. The connection to fishing (including shrimping, crabbing, and the oyster farms) has passed from one generation to the next. Even those not directly engaged in these activities for their livelihood are variously impacted from "recreational" and subsistence activities, to the daily food and cuisine of the Gulf Coast. It is at once a natural heritage and a cultural one. It is at once a personal embedding and part of the deep bonds of shared experience and environment. There is no dollar amount that can be placed on a culture. Hiring local men to clean beaches or haul boom may (barely) meet their family economic needs, but does not replace their livelihoods. In fact, for many folks, their skills are largely worthless (from an economic perspective) with the loss of the Gulf and the marshes.

This human-caused destruction has "economic" impacts for sure. However, more importantly it is removing the capacity to continue a way of life. It is removing the capacity to pass on a heritage. This is an important component of the story that is an almost hidden public side of this disaster. It makes real an issue that many in the United States have failed to understand or appreciate. Namely, you can't pay people for the destruction of their lives and culture.

Capacity is an important concept to grasp in this disaster. The economic failure of families and businesses that are happening along the coast is not a matter of lack of desire, or skill, nor ability. It is that the capacity to attain those things has been removed. One can't wish fish into existence. One cannot dust off the oysters coated in oil and Corexit and have those oysters reproduce. What BP's unchecked gusher has done is to undermine the capacity to continue - economically and culturally.

In a society that has increasingly been focused on "everything is economics," and "everything is money," the importance of "other things" has been minimized beyond recognition. This has been part of a long, embedded process of cultural minimization. It is historically reflected in the forced life changes placed on the tribes of the United States where the deliberate destruction of ways of life were seen as positive things to do. Namely, bringing the "heathens" into the "right" world of the European-based colonizers.

This theme was so "successful" that it carried over into other endeavors beyond the shores of the United States - particularly in South America, though certainly elsewhere. The "plans" historical and modern were to bring "those" people into the modern age. We could use their land and resources for our purposes, but we would give them ... villages down the road with running water, schools, and a medical clinic; or new jobs in factories producing goods for our consumption (that they could not afford).

One of the ugly realities was (and is) the removal of the capacity for "those" people to continue "their way of life." All too frequently, there is a virtually permanent removal of that capacity. So, for example when the forests of the Amazon are destroyed to make room for ranches and resource extraction, the lives of the people of those forests are gone forever. This is part of what we are witnessing right now along the U.S. Gulf coast. The death of the ecosystem means the death of a way of life for millions of people. With the shrimp, crab, fish gone - likely for decades if not forever - then those who have for generations made their livelihood from that natural wealth have had that capacity to live and pass on "their way of life" ripped from them.

Sure, BP (even at its most generous) may pay the fishers, and shrimpers, and tour guides, and restraunteers (and many others) for their economic losses for this year (and perhaps several years in the future). However, money will not replace their "way of life." Money will not replace the soul of a culture.

The capacity to fish has been removed. Giving a previously self-supporting people "fish" feeds them only for today.

It is said that the people are "angry." The reality is that as the oil and toxic dispersant have rolled into the marshes and shores, the people have watched a death and they are in a rage of grief. Something central to their lives and souls has died and is dying. However, it did not simply die, it was murdered. What justice is there for this crime? How ?do you make a people - and an ecosystem - "whole?"