“It appears that some of our elected officials, as well as many in the media, are buying BP’s that most of the oil spilled has miraculously vanished and that the disaster really isn’t so bad after all. The spin put out by BP’s public relations campaign since the April disaster in the Gulf, at a cost of about $100 million, seems to be working. But the truth is that BP and its partners have transformed themselves into modern-day “pirates,” operating beyond law or conscience. When BP announced that over 75% of the oil it had spilled into the Gulf had miraculously vanished, the federal government and many in the media appeared to accept it without question. Let’s take a look at what BP has said over the past months.

When the spill first became public, BP said only 1,000 barrels of oil were escaping. Then the oil giant changed its estimate to 5,000 barrels and then it suddenly stopped talking publicly about the massive volume of oil being released. We now learn that BP had internal documents that indicated it knew almost 60,000 barrels per day was being spilled into the Gulf.

Despite an ever-expanding estimate of the volume of the spill, relatively little oil washed ashore at first, and only a small portion ever will. Instead, trapped below the surface, the oil fouls the ocean’s deep depths. There is a toxic mix of oil, methane, chemical dispersants, and drilling mud below the surface of the Gulf. Nobody with walking around sense would believe that the threat from the oil spill is anywhere close to being under control. The relatively small amounts of oil washing ashore, and the “relief” felt when the surface oil began to dissipate, hardly account for the devastation being done at the bottom of the Gulf and in the waters below the surface. Recent reports by independent scientists indicate there are plumes of oil beneath the surface throughout the Gulf that are 20 miles long.

I have been surprised that many in the media have virtually ignored the chemicals used by BP. I believe the 2 million gallons of Corexit poured into the oil spill has created a calamity in the Gulf. The effects of the chemicals dumped in by BP won’t be known for years. The effect of the chemicals was to keep the oil about 50-100 feet below the surface where it couldn’t be accounted for. Then much of the oil sank to the bottom because of the chemicals. I am told by experts that the chemicals turn the oil and chemical mix into a neutrally buoyant emulsion, which will stay down deep and go anywhere and everywhere over time.

It’s difficult to understand how the EPA and Coast Guard could allow these misconceptions to exist and linger on. The lack of a plan by either BP or the government to deal with a massive spill of this sort is impossible to comprehend. Maybe somebody in authority should have asked BP why the United Kingdom banned Corexit. By the way, it should be noted that Corexit is owned indirectly by BP and Exxon. BP had to know that Corexit is hazardous to health. By its own internal reports, Corexit can cause red blood cell, liver, kidney and respiratory malfunctions or failure in humans and sea life.”

Written by Beasley Allen on Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Businessmen, scientists and right-wing thinktanks are joining forces to promote ‘geo-engineering’ ideas to cool the planet’s climate, writes Clive Hamilton In August 1883 the painter Edvard Munch witnessed an unusual blood-red sunset over Oslo. Shaken up by it, he wrote in his diary that he “felt a great, unending scream piercing through nature”. The incident inspired him to create his most famous work, The Scream. The sunset he saw that evening followed the eruption of Krakatoa off the coast of Java. The explosion, one of the most violent in recorded history, sent a massive plume of ash into the stratosphere, turning sunsets red around the globe. The gases emitted also caused the Earth to cool by more than one degree and disrupted weather patterns for several years. The cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions has been known for some time. A haze forms from the sulphur dioxide spewed into the upper atmosphere reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. It’s estimated that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 — the largest since Krakatoa — cooled the Earth by around 0.5°C for a year or more. Now, a powerful coalition of forces is quietly constellating around the idea of transforming the Earth’s atmosphere by simulating volcanic eruptions to counter the warming effects of carbon pollution. Engineering the planet’s climate system is attracting the attention of scientists, scientific societies, venture capitalists and conservative think tanks. Despite the enormity of what is being proposed — nothing less than taking control of Earth’s climate system — the public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning. The Royal Society defines geoengineering as “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” and divides methods into two types: carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management aimed at reducing heat coming in or reflecting more of it out. Techniques ranging from the intriguing to the wacky have been proposed to remove carbon from the atmosphere, including fertilising the oceans with iron filings to promote the growth of tiny marine plants that absorb carbon dioxide, installing in the ocean a vast number of floating funnels that draw nutrient-rich cold water from the deep to encourage algal blooms that suck carbon dioxide from the air, and construction of thousands of ‘sodium trees’ that extract carbon dioxide directly from the air and turn it into sodium bicarbonate. Some of the ideas put forward to block the Sun’s heat would be far-fetched even in a science fiction novel. One is to send billions of reflective discs to a point in space known as L1 and located between the Earth and the Sun. Another is to launch hundreds of special unmanned ships that plough the oceans sending up plumes of water vapour that increase cloud cover. Or dark-coloured forests could be converted into light-coloured grasslands that reflect more sunlight. Enhanced dimming But the option that is taken most seriously is altogether grander in conception and scale. The scheme proposes nothing less than the transformation of the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere so that humans can regulate the temperature of the planet as desired. Like volcanic eruptions, it involves injecting sulphur dioxide gas into the stratosphere to blanket the Earth with tiny particles that reflect solar radiation. Various schemes have been proposed, with the most promising being adaptation of high-flying aircraft fitted with extra tanks and nozzles to spray the chemicals. A fleet of 747s could do the job. To have the desired effect we would need the equivalent of one Mount Pinatubo eruption every three or four years. The emissions from the eruption in April of Iceland’s ‘Mount Unpronounceable’ were less than a hundredth of those from Pinatubo, so to engineer the climate we’d need the equivalent of one of those every week, every year for decades. More cautious scientists recognise that attempting to regulate the Earth’s climate by enhancing global dimming is fraught with dangers. Most worryingly, the oceans are absorbing around a third of the extra carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by humans, which is raising their acidity, dissolving corals and inhibiting shell-formation by marine organisms. Turning down the dimmer switch may reduce incoming solar radiation but would do nothing to slow ocean acidification. The climate system is hugely complicated and tinkering with it might be akin to introducing cane toads to control sugarcane beetles. Moral hazards Although ideas for climate engineering have been around for at least twenty years, until recently public discussion has been discouraged by the scientific community. Environmentalists and governments have been reluctant to talk about it too. The reason is simple: apart from its unknown side-effects, geoengineering would weaken resolve to reduce carbon emissions. Economically it is an extremely attractive substitute because its cost is estimated to be “trivial” compared to those of cutting carbon pollution. While the international community has found it difficult to agree on strong collective measures to reduce carbon emissions, climate engineering is cheap, immediately effective and, most importantly, available to a single nation. Among the feasible contenders for unilateral intervention, one expert names China, the USA, the European Union, Russia, India, Japan and Australia. Could they agree? It’s like seven people living together in a centrally heated house, each with their own thermostat and each with a different ideal temperature. China will be severely affected by warming, but Russia might prefer the globe to be a couple of degrees warmer. If there is no international agreement an impatient nation suffering the effects of climate disruption may decide to act alone. It is not out of the question that in three decades the climate of the Earth could be determined by a handful of Communist Party officials in Beijing. Or the government of an Australia crippled by permanent drought, collapsing agriculture and ferocious bushfires could risk the wrath of the world by embarking on a climate control project. To date, governments have shunned geoengineering for fear of being accused of wanting to avoid their responsibilities with science fiction solutions. The topic is not mentioned in the Stern report and receives only one page in Australia’s Garnaut report (see Section 2.4.2). As a sign of its continuing political sensitivity, when in April 2009 it was reported that President Obama’s new science adviser John Holdren had said that geoengineering is being vigorously discussed as an emergency option in the White House, he immediately felt the need to issue a “clarification” claiming that he was only expressing his personal views. Holdren is one of the sharpest minds in the business and would not be entertaining what is now known as ‘Plan B’— engineering the planet to head off catastrophic warming — unless he was fairly sure Plan A would fail. Fiddling with the dimmer switch may prove an almost irresistible political fix for governments. It gets powerful lobbies off their backs, gives the green light to burn more coal, avoids the need to raise petrol taxes, allows unrestrained growth and is no threat to consumer lifestyles. In short, compared to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering gets everyone off the hook. No government is yet willing to lend official support to geoengineering. However, the pressure is building and the day when the government of a major nation like the United States, Russia or China publicly backs Plan B cannot be far off. Then the floodgates will open. Even now, beneath the radar, Russia has already begun testing. Yuri Izrael, a Russian scientist who is both a global-warming sceptic and a senior adviser to Prime Minister Putin, has tested the effects of aerosol spraying from a helicopter on solar radiation reaching the ground. He now plans a full-scale trial. Strangelove and son Two of the earliest and most aggressive advocates of planetary engineering were Edward Teller and Lowell Wood. Teller, who died in 2003, was the co-founder and director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco, described by US author Jeff Goodell as having a “near-mythological status as the dark heart of weapons research”. Teller is often described as the “father of the hydrogen bomb” and was the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, the wheelchair-bound mad scientist prone to Nazi salutes in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film of that name. Lowell Wood was recruited by Teller to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and became his protégé. For decades Wood was one of the Pentagon’s foremost “weaponeers”, leading him to be christened “Dr. Evil” by critics. He led the group tasked with developing Ronald Reagan’s ill-fated Star Wars missile shield that included plans for an array of orbiting X-ray lasers powered by nuclear reactors. Since 1998 Wood and Teller have been promoting aerosol spraying into the stratosphere as a simple and cheap counter to global warming. Reflecting the dominant opinion of the 1950s, they believe it is humankind’s duty to exert supremacy over nature. It is perhaps for this reason that they have long been associated with conservative think tanks that deny the existence of human-induced global warming. Both men have been associated with the Hoover Institution, a centre of climate scepticism partly funded by ExxonMobil, and Wood is listed as an expert with the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank that became one of the main centres of climate denial in the 1990s. It is strange that geoengineering is being promoted enthusiastically by a number of right-wing think tanks that are active in climate denialism. The American Enterprise Institute, an influential think tank also part-funded by ExxonMobil that offered US$10,000 to academics for papers debunking the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has launched a high-profile project to promote geoengineering. Of course, geoengineering protects their supporters and financiers in the fossil industries because it can be a substitute for carbon reductions and justify delay. But a deeper explanation lies in their beliefs about the relationship of humans to the natural world. Pursuing abatement is an admission that industrial society has harmed nature, while engineering the Earth’s climate would be confirmation of our mastery over it — final proof that, whatever minor errors made on the way, human ingenuity and faith in our own abilities will always triumph. Geoengineering promises to turn failure into triumph. Lowell Wood believes that climate engineering is inevitable; it’s a matter of time before the ‘political elites’ wake up to its cheapness and effectiveness. In a statement that could serve as Earth’s epitaph, he declared: “We’ve engineered every other environment we live in—why not the planet?” Wood is contemptuous of the ability of world leaders to reduce emissions (which he dubs “the bureaucratic suppression of CO2”) and of their ability to reach a consensus on trialling geoengineering. He predicts that necessity will overrun popular resistance to the idea of fiddling with the atmosphere. Faced with this resistance, Wood speculates about getting private funding from a billionaire for an experiment. “As far as I can determine, there is no law that prohibits doing something like this”. Wood is right: there is no law against a private individual attempting to take control of the Earth’s climate. Regulating climate regulation This goes to the heart of the push to develop the tools for climatic manipulation. The debate over climate engineering is at present confined largely to a tight-knit group of scientists, some of whom want to keep the public in the dark and fend off regulation of their activities. In his book, How To Cool the Planet, Goodell describes a series of three private dinners in early 2009 that brought together the main players. Convened by two of the leading advocates, Ken Caldeira of Stanford University and David Keith of the University of Calgary, they were “a turning point in the evolution of geoengineering as a policy tool”. In March this year a private meeting of leading climate engineers,held in Asilomar, California, aimed to develop guidelines to govern research and testing. The invitees wanted a voluntary code of conduct that would forestall regulation by governments and the international community so that the experts could work unhindered at their task of understanding how to control of the Earth’s climate system. David Keith argues that an international treaty may be unnecessary because the use of solar radiation management could be regulated by unwritten “norms”. This is despite his acknowledgement that the threat of unilateral action is very real; any one of a dozen countries could begin it within a few years. Indeed, one wealthy individual could transform the atmosphere and, with enough determination, bring on an ice age. Perhaps the wealthy individual he has in mind is Bill Gates, who has covertly been funding geoengineering research for three years with advice from Keith and Caldeira. They now oversee Gates’ research fund, which has spent some $4.5 million to date, including funding the three private dinners. Keith will not reveal what the money is being spent on, downplaying it as “a little private funding agency”. Right—the world’s richest man has a little private funding agency devoted to researching ways to manipulate the Earth’s climate system. Conspiracy theory anyone? Gates is also an investor in a firm named Intellectual Ventures that is promoting a scheme called “StratoShield”, which would pump sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere through a 30-kilometre hose held aloft by V-shaped blimps. Intellectual Ventures is run by Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer at Microsoft, and includes Lowell Wood among its associates. Gates is not the only billionaire lone ranger who wants to save the planet. Richard Branson has set up his own “war room” to do battle with global warming. The battalions he wants to mobilise on “the path to victory” are successful entrepreneurs—like himself—and their weapons are “market driven solutions to climate change”, including geoengineering. The Carbon War Room — where inspirational quotes from Branson are mixed in with those of other titans like Churchill, Roosevelt and Einstein — represents the type of rich man’s folly common amongst modern entrepreneurs with a Messiah complex. The War Room site promotes a paper co-authored by Lee Lane of the American Enterprise Institute and published by the centre run by “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. It argues that the benefits of geoengineering vastly outweigh the costs and shows how to set an optimal temperature for the Earth for the next two hundred years. The authors worry that ethical objections from environmental advocacy groups may block the deployment of solar radiation management, before noting with relief, “in reality, important economies remain largely beyond the influence of environmental advocacy groups.” They expect deployment of solar radiation management will be led by nations with weak environmental lobbies—which of course means dictatorships. Blue-sky dreaming More vivid sunsets like the one Edvard Munch saw in 1883 would be one of the consequences of using sulphate aerosols to engineer the climate; but a more disturbing effect of enhanced dimming would be the permanent whitening of day-time skies. A washed-out sky would become the norm. If the nations of the world resort to climate engineering, and in doing so relieve pressure to cut carbon emissions, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would continued to rise and so would the latent warming that would need suppressing. It would then become impossible to call a halt to sulphur injections into the stratosphere, even for a year or two, without an immediate jump in temperature. It’s estimated that, if whoever controls the scheme decided to stop, the back-up of greenhouse gases could see warming rebound at a rate 10-20 times faster than in the recent past, a phenomenon referred to, apparently without irony, as the “termination problem”. Once we start manipulating the atmosphere we could be trapped, forever dependent on a program of sulphur injections into the stratosphere. In that case, human beings would never see a blue sky again. •

16 September update: Projects supported by the Gates’ fund are now fully disclosed online

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” -John Maynard Keynes

This Blog began as a place for me to save and file the kind of information that has helped me better understand the underbelly of this catastrophic, dangerous,  and world-changing ocean/environmental/political debacle.  Just in the past week it has been reported that  BP is now embarked on a challenging and risky mission:  Replacing the Blowoff Preventer and simultaneously pulling the drill pipe from the well.  There have been reports this week of high levels or Hydrogen Sulfide ashore,  Black Ops mercenaries applying Corexit  oil dispersant secretly at nights,  BP harassing Scientists who are doing independent testing of water and air, allegations of BP secretly drilling three wells in the immediate vicinity of the blowout well they are showing us,  undisclosed seafloor oil and gas leaks, and the discovery of a huge plume of oil hovering deep below the surface. Furthermore,  the Mainstream Media has largely backed away from reporting on the ongoing drama.  For example,  Thad Allan *Coast Guard Admiral and point man for BP and the Federal Gov’t,”   has been doing press briefings in the last few days attempting to explain the problems and rational behind their decision to replace the BOP.    This is big news but you won’t find it on the Google News roundup.  There is plenty of coverage of the ongoing hearings concentrating  on the interrogation of  BP and Transocean personnel  and fixing  blame for the situation.  Missing is the undersea drama unfolding that, if unsuccessful could lead to more spilled oil, and no end to the problem.

Also the relief well team has ceased its mission for the time being.  Why? There is no rational answer from Thad Allen or BP.  This would lead one to believe that they have some major disagreements and fears about what the next best move is. There is widespread speculation by the drilling community on what the problems are that BP faces in killing this well.  Plus,  the Feds have declared Gulf  seafood safe to eat when independent testing has found  highly carcinogenic and toxic hydrocarbon byproducts in seafood samples.

A new oil plume is reported to be 650 feet high,  2 miles wide,  and twenty two miles long:

Hydrogen Sulfide and Testing of Corexit Dispersant:

confirmed-corexit-still-being-sprayed.html

Hydrogen Sulfide Increases 700% Since July 15 Well Cap-Alex Higgins

Florida Oil Spill Law Website Article

BP harassing Independent Scientists:

Washington\’s Blog

B.K. Lim’s assertion that BP  has secretly drilled three wells  and  story behind the Deception:

4994064-the-diagrammatic-illustration-that-says-it-all

Thad Allen’s  Commentary :

Thad Allen has turned out to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for BP.  It is amazing that BP still calls the shots….

The Oil Drum is a forum where Oil Geologists,  Platform Managers, Drillers, Oil Industry Veterans vent their opinions on what BP is doing Wrong and doing Right.  A source for some of the best information available and at times highly technical:

The Oil Drum #6888

The Oil Drum #6895

The Oil Drum #6899

The Oil Drum #6902

The Oil Drum #6905 Aug. 31, 2010

The Story of Two Wells and the Deception BP uses to obscure the truth:

Keep Sound off until Interview with Mike Williams:

More Good Sleuthing:

This Video Shows Existence of Well \”B\”- Alex Higgins

Fintan Dunne Reports on Dr. Robert Bea -Oil Geologist and His Knowledge of Two Wells being drilled:  Here

If you put this all together,  this is a scenario that unfolds:

BP submitted a proposal to drill Well “A” on Feb. 23, 2009 .  Well “A” encountered some sort of formation collapse where the drill pipe and bit became stuck and had to be cut.  At this point there is conflicting information.  Scenario 1: BP and Transocean drilled well “A”,  had a formation blowout, plugged the formation failure with cement and redrilled the well.  They never did  drill Well “B”. Well “A” has been the only well at that location.  This is the location that we see today, after tropical storm Bonnie. Scenario 2: BP abandoned well “A”   due to the underground formation failure and the subsequent jambing of the drill pipe and cutting tip.  BP and  Transocean commenced drilling well “B”  and this is the well that blewup on April 20 and it is Well “B” that is the source of the ongoing disaster.What is troubling is that the ROV footage of the wellhead gushing and being cut with first the wire saw and then with the “giant shears”  was clearly the well “B” location (check the GPS coordinates on Skandi ROV)… as  the screen shots from the cutting operation show.  Well “B” location has been the one we have been viewing up until storm Bonnie according to GPS coordinates..  As soon as the storm Bonnie passed and the seas subsided the ROV’s clearly showed the new Cap on well “A” (GPS Coordinates for Well “A”).  Some have assumed that BP switched the cap to present a picture of a non leaking well while they continued to struggle with Well “B” which  many think is still out of control.  If this is true it would partially explain why hydrogen sulfide levels have spiked since the well was supposedly capped.  It might also explain why there are reports of night time spraying of disperant Corexit.  Ever since tropical storm Bonnie BP has had their undersea cameras trained on non event scenes.  For all we know,  they could be struggling with a blowout of Well “B”,  or seafloor leaks and eruptions.  Of course, if this is happening we would  be the last to know.  I think the increased hydrogen sulfide levels are the most troubling indicators of something amiss.  It’s highly poisonous and FEMA has evacuation plans drawn up if HS levels get out of hand.   If the Well is capped,  and there are no serious seafloor blowouts or eruptions… as BP has led us to believe,  then there should be no readings indicating hydrogen sulfide during air quality tests.  These videos and links will point you in the direction you need to take to better understand what is going on here.  I admit, drawing conclusions from all of this is difficult.

R. Clegg

8/31/2010


I Think BP is Losing their Grip on the Media to some extent.  BP has spent much effort and money trying throttle the University Researchers who have been thoroughly researching the potential health effects and ecological effects caused by the complex toxic hydrocarbons and the toxic dispersant Corexit.  They are obviously doing it in the public interest.  The stakes are high for  the health and economic wellbeing of the gulf states and the oceans.  BP does not care much about these issues and has proved it with their actions.  In the last few days CNN  and ABC News have taken a new stance on reporting based on truth and substance.  The American people have a  right to truthful news reporting….

Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution talk about a hydrocarbon plume in the Gulf of Mexico.

Researchers say they saw 22-mile hydrocarbon plume in the Gulf of Mexico

August 19, 2010 6:52 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — Scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said they detected a plume of hydrocarbons in June that was at least 22 miles long and more than 3,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, a residue of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. According to the institution, the 1.2-mile-wide, 650-foot-high plume of trapped hydrocarbons provides at least a partial answer to recent questions asking where all the oil has gone as surface slicks shrink and disappear.

“These results indicate that efforts to book-keep where the oil went must now include this plume” in the Gulf, said Christopher Reddy, a Woods Hole marine geochemist and oil spill expert. He is one of the authors of the study, which appears in the Aug. 19 issue of the journal Science.  Researchers saw the plume over two weeks in June but were chased away by Hurricane Alex, Reddy told CNN Radio. “I have no idea where those compounds are now,” he said.  Another of the report’s authors said the plume has probably moved elsewhere, noting that the BP- operated well has been capped for more than a month and that the plume was moving in a southwesterly direction at a rate of about 6.5 kilometers (4 miles) a day. “(It’s) extremely likely that the hydrocarbons in that plume have long moved elsewhere,” report author Rich Camilli told CNN. Reddy said that experts need more data before they can determine how much remains in Gulf.

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,” Reddy said in a statement, “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.”

Camilli, also a Woods Hole scientist, said colder temperatures at the plume’s extreme depths inhibited the degradation properties of oil. Microbes act more slowly on the subsea oil than on surface oil because of lower temperatures, he said. If all other conditions were equal, microbes would eat up the plume’s subsea oil about 10 times more slowly, Camilli said.

Meanwhile, Thad Allen, the government’s point man for the oil disaster, responded Thursday on CNN to two recent studies that appeared to contradict the government’s estimate that about 75 percent of the oil has been cleaned up.

Researchers at the University of South Florida have concluded that oil may have settled at the bottom of the Gulf farther east than previously suspected — and at levels toxic to marine life. In addition, a team from Georgia Sea Grant and the University of Georgia released a report that estimates that 70 to 79 percent of the oil that gushed from the well “has not been recovered and remains a threat to the ecosystem,” the university said in a release.

Allen said the government has determined the flow rate to have been about 53,000 barrels a day, or a total of 4.9 million barrels. “The next question is, what happened to it?” he said. “There are certain things we know for certain. We produced almost 827,000 barrels that we collected and brought ashore.” The government also knows how much oil was skimmed, how much was burned and how much was affected by dispersant use. When that is added up, it leaves 26 percent still in the water, Allen said.  “That’s not a definitive statement, but that’s a way to start a conversation about the oil,” Allen said. “You can take a lot of different estimates and run that formula, but that’s the one we’re starting with … other than the 26 percent, the rest can be accounted for some way. That 26 percent is going to end up on a beach or dealt with somehow.”

CNN’s Vivian Kuo contributed to this report

Nigeria Oil Spills- Surpass the Scale of the BP Gulf Disaster

A 2006 report compiled by international environmental groups and the Nigerian government estimated that on average, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez has been occurring each year in the past five decades. According to environmental groups and the Nigerian government, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, spewing at least 9 million barrels of crude into the delta, home to vast wetlands that form the livelihood of millions of people.

A man walks on slippery spilled crude oil on the shores and in the waters of the Niger Delta swamps of Bodo, a village in the famous Nigerian oil-producing Ogoniland, which hosts the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in Nigeria’s Rivers State on June 24, 2010. The region has in recent years experienced an average 300 spills a year, roughly one spill a day, from terminals, pipes and platforms, according to government officials and experts. Sabotage of oil facilities by armed rebels fighting a fairer share of oil wealth for locals and theft of crude, popularly known as oil bunkering in recent years saw spills spiking to new levels. Photo courtesy AFP.UN food agency steps up aid to drought-hit Niger.

Rome (AFP) July 20, 2010 – The United Nations’ emergency food agency said Tuesday it was stepping up aid to Niger, describing drought in the Saharan country as an “unfolding catastrophe” for millions. “We are struggling against time to scale up quickly enough to reach the escalating number of hungry,” said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the Rome-basedWorld Food Programme. “To meet the needs of the people of Niger, we are looking for urgent and immediate cash contributions from our donors,” said Sheeran, who was travelling to Niger on Tuesday.

The WFP has in hand only about half of the estimated 213 million dollars (165 million euros) needed for the operation, the agency said in a statement. Up to eight million people — more than half Niger’s population of some 15 million — have lost crops and livestock in the drought, it said. Sheeran warned that August and September were “critical” months, and that children under two needed special nutritional help because their “brains and bodies face permanent damage from acute malnutrition.”  The BP oil spill is a major tragedy for the Gulf of Mexico region, yet the people in Nigeriahave had to live with similar environmental catastrophes for decades.  A 2006 report compiled by international environmental groups and the Nigerian government estimated that on average, a spill the size of the Exxon Valdez has been occurring each year in the past five decades. According to environmental groups and the Nigerian government, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, spewing at least 9 million barrels of crude into the delta, home to vast wetlands that form the livelihood of millions of people.

But while the Deepwater Horizon spill has mobilized the entire U.S. political scene, in Nigeria, an increasing number of the population has had to suffer — undetected by Western politicians. And that’s despite the fact that the United States imports roughly 10 percent of its oil from Nigeria.

“We see frantic efforts being made to stop the spill in the U.S.,” Nnimmo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth International, recently told The Observer, a prominent British Sunday publication. “But in Nigeria, oil companies largely ignore their spills, cover them up and destroy people’s livelihood and environments. The gulf spill can be seen as a metaphor for what is happening daily in the oilfields of Nigeria and other parts of Africa.”

Big Western oil companies including BP, Shell and Exxon Mobile operate in Nigeria; the environmental groups accuse them of being ignorant to their spills — an estimated 2,000 contaminated sites have yet to be cleaned up. Moreover, locals and non-governmental organizations claim the companies operate old and rusty pipes and are often too slow or indifferent to reacting to spills.

The many Nigerian governments of the past, which have earned billions of dollars since drilling began in 1958 but gave little to their people, have been largely unable to pressure companies into cleaning up the mess.

The companies deny the allegations, arguing the spills are mainly due to acts of vandalism and terrorism, and are dealt with in a timely manner.  “We have a full-time oil spill response team,” a Shell spokesman told The Observer. “Last year we replaced 197 miles of pipeline and are using every known way to clean up pollution, including microbes. We are committed to cleaning up any spill as fast as possible as soon as and for whatever reason they occur.”

But the spill in the gulf has reduced trust in the oil companies, with some Western countries openly accusing multinationals of behaving recklessly when drilling foroil in poor countries.

“Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care,” Judith Kimerling, a professor of law and policy at the City University of New York and an expert on oil development in poor countries, told The Observer. “What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident is that the oil companies are out of control. It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the U.S. and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet.”

“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”-John Maynard Keynes

The Doctored Photographs

This week it came to light that BP had photoshopped—poorly—an official image of their crisis command center. Apparently, that wasn’t an isolated incident.

The photo, sent in by a tipster and entitled “View of the MC 252 site from the cockpit of a PHI S-92 helicopter 26 June 2010,” shows up here, a section of BP’s website that hopes to explain their response effort through pictures. This one, sadly, is fabricated.

And last, while the helicopter clearly appears to be situated at some height above the boats ahead, the readouts on the dash appear to indicate  that the door and ramp are open and the parking brake engaged, not to mention that the pilot appears to be holding a pre-flight checklist

The first thing you might notice out of place is the looming air traffic control tower in the upper left hand side of the photo:

And so on. As one reader pointed out, the tower may in fact be an oil rig adjacent to a helipad (which would also explain why the pilots are in prep mode), but the photo’s still clearly been doctored. Badly.

Obviously there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to BP, but every time they fabricate an image like this, it undermines whatever little credibility they have left.  BP is a company still more concerned with image than reality.

Credit: Alexander Higgins

Live Cam Broadcasts

BP has at times looped old footage,  and suddenly killed live feeds when something  comes up that they’d rather we not see.  Here is an example of

a recent live cam video where they turned the contrast down so it was not possible to see  oil and methane explosions on the sea floor.

By enhancing the video  we can now see what is really going  on the seafloor.  Oil Seeps, Explosions, Eruptions…

BP live feed from Boa Deep C ROV 2, August 6, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. EDT:

Same videos, same timing.

Enhancements to video on right: Levels adjustment and Brightness/Contrast adjustment


News Blackout on Covert Disposal of Dead Sea Mammals, Birds, and Fish

Federal Law calls for fines as high as $50,000 for the deaths of marine mammals caused by negligent pollution.  This could subject BP to several Billions more in fines.

In May, Mother Nature Network blogger Karl Burkart received a tip from an anonymous fisherman-turned-BP contractor in the form of a distressed text message, describing a near-apocalyptic sight near the location of the sunken Deepwater Horizon — fish, dolphins, rays, squid, whales, and thousands of birds — “as far as the eye can see,” dead and dying. According to his statement, which was later confirmed by another report from an individual working in the Gulf, whale carcasses were being shipped to a highly guarded location where they were processed for disposal.

CitizenGlobal Gulf News Desk received photos that matched the report and are being published on Karl’s blog today. Local fisherman in Alabama report sighting tremendous numbers of dolphins, sharks, and fish moving in towards shore as the initial waves of oil and dispersant approached in June. Many third- and fourth-generation fisherman declared emphatically that they had never seen or heard of any similar event in the past. Scores of animals were fleeing the leading edge of toxic dispersant mixed with oil. Those not either caught in the toxic mixture and killed out at sea, or fortunate enough to be out in safe water beyond the Source, died as the water closed in, and they were left no safe harbor. The numbers of birds, fish, turtles, and mammals killed by the use of Corexit will never be known as the evidence strongly suggests that BP worked with the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, private security contractors, and local law enforcement, all of which cooperated to conceal the operations disposing of the animals from the media and the public.

The majority of dead animal disposal operations were carried out under cover of darkness. The areas along the beaches and coastal Islands where the dead animals were collected were closed off by the U.S. Coast Guard. On shore, private contractors and local law enforcement officials kept off limits the areas where the remains of the dead animals were dumped, mainly at the Magnolia Springs landfill by Waste Management where armed guards controlled access. The nearby weigh station where the Waste Management trucks passed through with their cargoes was also restricted by at least one Sheriff’s deputies in a patrol car, 24/7.

Dauphin Island was one of the sites where carcasses of sperm whales were destroyed. The operational end of the island was closed to unauthorized personnel and the airspace closed. The U.S. Coast Guard closed off all access from the Gulf. This picture shows the area as it was prepped to receive the whale carcasses for disposal.

2010-08-04-oil7.jpg

It’s important to remember that BP can’t hide these facts from the public alone.  They need help from a complicit Federal Government.

The bottom line is that your tax dollars are being used to hide this information from all of us.

B.K. Lim – BP Disaster Interpreted by Risk Assessment Oil Geologist

Why it could not have happened as reported by BP.

B.K. Lim has come up with a staggering theory that may explain some of the nagging unanswered questions about undersea craters, gushers, explosions, oil and gas plumes coming from the seafloor,  GPS coordinates for ROV operations that do not add up,   and the conflicting well locations…Well A and Well B.  B.K. Lin is a respected Geologist who has 20  years of experience assessing Geological Data in terms of Risk for Big Oil clients.  It’s pretty clear to me that we may never know the truth.  I’m publishing his theory, not because I necessarily believe it’s true, but rather that it needs to be put out there so that the public can read further and make up their own mind.

Fugre 1 ROV activities chart

Diagrammatic illustrations are used to explain why the Deepwater Horizon blowout could not have happened as reported by BP. BP could not have been drilling at Well A location when the 20th April blowout occurred, but an undisclosed seabed location (S20BC) 720ft NW of Well A. BP capped the wrong well as many had long suspected but unable to prove without insiders’ information.

If the shoe fits, ……. There are probably more evidence out there, in the ROVs’ videos, emails, logs etc which are more incriminating. There must always be a story beneath all these. Why would BP go through such an extensive and elaborate cover-up? It just doesn’t add up. Unless ……..?

LT student

Hi BK

Glad you are back. Had been waiting for your posting. Excellent diagrams. OMG. How can they do such a thing? Who do they think they are to play with our lives?

Thanks BK. This thing is far from being wrapped up,as the administration is saying, and some people are saying they did a great job. Yeah, mission accomplished. Sure.

This is interesting, and when are the liars in this incedent going to be exposed?

There will be many in the Obama administration that need to be exposed, and fired.Or jailed

  • 5 votes

Reply#1 – Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:39 AM EDT

Clarification of 2nd well that was blown up on 20th April 2010. Most would assume it is Well B. No it is not. For some obvious reasons (to be disclosed later), BP drilled at another location 720 ft NW of Well A. It might be shocking to most but it is a fact oil companies and offshore contractors do not faithfully and accurately report what is actually going on in the field. What is a few hundred feet in the middle of the ocean thousands of feet deep?

Back in the good old days where shore-based positioning systems (Hifix, Argo, Syledis etc) were the state of the art systems; where you have to record more than a week at a stationary point to get enough decent satellite passes to locate where you were, you would be lucky to get within 50 m of your target absolute position.

Most oil companies would apply for a backup location (in this case Well B) close by since they were unsure whether it would even be drilled. At 300ft apart (between well A and B), even a layman from outside the oil industry would see that it is ridiculously near especially when the ocean depth is 5000 ft (6%) and your target is another 18000 ft. That distance is just 6% and 1.3% respectively. No for all purposes and intent, well B location is for “show only”location wise. It has other purposes.

A second well would be useful in case of unexpected delay. As in BP’s case, the permit for well A and B run from 15 April-24 July 2009 and from 15 April till 24 July 2010 (100 days each) respectively. So it is handy as evident in BP’s case. Since each well will take between 2 weeks to 4 weeks actual drilling, you do not need 100 days. But it comes in handy so that you do not run foul of the law.

BP re-entered Well A on 6th Feb 2010. By right it would be reported as Well B since the permit for Well A ran out on 24 July 2009. In fact Well A, drilled by Marianas from 7 Oct till 9 Nov 2009 did not exactly fit the permit details either (see link).

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/15/4683478-a-pattern-of-massive-shares-sell-off-by-bp-directors-prior-to-expected-disasters

Even from this few events, you can see that the details given in the MMS BP permit and exploration plan (ref: OCS-G 32306 control no: N-9349 submitted Feb 2009) did not remotely match the actual field events. Is this not proof of what I had been saying all along? What goes on in the field offshore is not always accurately reported; let alone future events applied for more than a year before the drilling has even started. In my long career, I had investigated and proven many wells and boreholes had been drilled at the wrong places; some by more than 500 m from their intended location. In one survey, the survey area shifted by more than 1.5 km. There were deliberate cover-ups of course (like in BP’s case) to save their own skin, once the initial discrepancies were noted.

In the end truth will prevail as always but it takes time and efforts. If you have survived as many blowout, drilling and survey fiascos as I have (on the truth side I mean), you will know that there are a lot of sharks swimming out there in the offshore industry. BP’s cover-ups are not new to me. In fact I would be truly surprised and amazed if BP had been an angel.

My postings had been strategically timed and laden with predictive “traps” to prove the hidden moves behind this Charade of the Century. It will become clearer with the coming posting “Of predictability, disasters and insider trading”.

pops-2201786

Mr. Kim, Are we to assume the oil is still flowing from the unreported blow out crater? Why is it not rising to the surface like the other oil? Can it be stopped? How can the blow out crater be verified? What is to be done? thank you.

BK Lim

Yes probably but the ROVs are not showing any video of it. I doubt if BP is willing to show the unadulterated videos of the blown-out crater. At this stage, I would be very sceptical of any data coming out of BP as the videos of other seabed could be shown giving the S20BC’s coord. BP would do anything to discredit me or this posting.

I am probably letting the cat out of the bag. BP could have capped the Bogus Well (Well A) much earlier or the relief wells could have been drilled faster to kill the gushing well. How would it look if the Bogus Well A (which was inadequately plugged and started leaking again after the 20 April massive blowout) was capped in May and oil was still gushing out from the S20BC open well (suspected 20 April blownout crater)? So all attempts to kill well A had to fail or were designed to fail. See how easy the latest “Top Static Kill” was?

Remember the Containment Domes fanfare. It was cancelled due to some flimsy excuses even before they were deployed. Before the 10th of May, BP was sincerely trying to contain the spill with the Containment Dome until some smart Alex suggested the Switch-A-Roo plan to refocus the world’s attention to Well A. Deploying the containment domes would have exposed S20BC location to the world. Video of it was shown to the world before 11 May when BP started to float the “Top Kill” idea through the BOP at Well A.

The reasons should be obvious if you have been paying attention. I have a nagging suspicion that if everything else failed, BP will just leave the S20BC open well as “a natural seep”; 3 months are probably long enough to reduce the gushing oil to resemble a more natural oil leak. Have you noticed BP’s Bogus Press had been amplifying the thousands of leaking abandoned wells and natural oil seeps in the gulf and redirecting world’s attention to BOP on Well A, after mid May.

At least that was the devious plan. Man proposes but GOD disposes.Hope that answers your questions.

Why is it not rising to the surface like the other oil?

This leads to the question why so much dispersant (corexit) was used. If you were to plot the ROVs’ dispersant ops, they would no doubt be centred on this S20BC location. Again the ROV data may be adulterated to discredit this disclosure. I am pretty sure all the ROVs’ operators had been “threatened” to secrecy. Some may not even know (just follow orders) of this top level Crime of Mass Deception.