BP is sticking with its dispersant choice

[kpete]

Source: The Times-Picayune

BP is sticking with its dispersant choice
By Jonathan Tilove
May 21, 2010, 9:10PM

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit -- and 72 hours to start using it -- or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."

BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."

Dean noted that "Corexit is an EPA pre-approved, effective, low-toxicity dispersant that is readily available, and we continue to use it."


Read more: http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_is_sticking_with_its_disper.html

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Step off, EPA! We're BP, and we're in charge here!

No piddly little government agency is gonna tell an OIL corporation what to do!

[HubertHeaver]

2. OK EPA, your move.

[truedelphi]

3. Why should BP use some other surfactant? It owns this one, & since whole name of the game thes

Is CorpoRATe Profit and so the Ecology be Damned, who would stop them? <sarcasm meant> They already have the Obama Administration lying through their teeth about the size of the release - thus saving them billions.

This nation is all about the Ersatz Capitalists and their greed and their profit factor.

[AndyA]

4. EPA response: OK, BP, go ahead. Your fine will be $100 million an hour

for as long as you continue to use it.

This dispersant is BULLSHIT. It is not going to HELP, in fact testimony before Congress last week from experts said it would make it MORE DIFFICULT to clean up the oil. It's all being done as a public relations stunt!

[pocoloco]

14. "MORE DIFFICULT to clean up"

or impossible?

Nevermind....... Hell, we'll even use Are Force tankers to drop the poison.

[Hawkeye-X]

27. $100 million? Id prefer $1 billion an hour

They will only have 200 hours to remove the dispersant and use others that have been shown to be 100% effective on the Gulf of Mexico oil.

[Ruby the Liberal]

5. Key word there = AVAILABILITY (Having to buy it from someone else)

In other words, we own 1/3 of the world's supply of this more toxic and less effective (on LA crude) chemical, so the alternatives didn't pass the 3-prong test.

[Donnachaidh]

So BP just flipped off the EPA. Do you THINK this might be the time for OBAMA to get involved?

You know -- like ordering people to be arrested for disregarding EPA orders?

Oh wait -- BP gave how much to the campaign?

Nevermind. :sarcasm:

[Lorien]

7. Way, way past time

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[yodoobo]

6. Seems like this question should be been settled long before

the oil spilled.

[sabrina 1]

33. Exactly. Why, why were they allowed to drill so deep in the

ocean without a plan to deal with a situation like this which most experts say was not a matter of 'if it might happen', but 'when' especially considering their record?

[louis-t]

8. BP: "but we PROMISED Monsanto we would buy

another 2 million gallons!"

[Cetacea]

15. They also "promised" it would be safe to drill

[chill_wind]

9. An informative thread about the business relationships

for any who haven't seen it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8387437#8391914

[csmagula]

10. wow

can;t believe the guy went to his BDay party,....i
mean,..seriously

[Tx4obama]

11. It's no surprise that BP is lying.

There is a company here in Houston that has a purchase order from BP that has TONS of a less toxic dispersment chemical.
The company has been waiting for BP to pick it up/give the order for delivery.
It's been on the news the past few days - the owner of the company has been complaining that BP ordered it and has not been using it.
It is amazing that BP is outright lying especially after the news has been covering the less toxic product.

[Uncle Joe]

12. What kind of dispersant would Britain or Europe use if it were their waters?

From what I recall reading here on one of the other threads, Corexit isn't approved for usage over there.

I can also relate to this statement by Carl Safina.

A second panelist at Markey's briefing, Carl Safina, president and co-founder of Blue Ocean Institute, a New York-based conservation organization, was even more unsparing in his criticism of the use of a dispersant strategy, which he said had more to do with PR than good science.

"It's not at all clear to me why we are dispersing the oil at all," Safina said. "It's an out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy. It's just to get it away from the cameras on the shoreline.

"It takes something that we can see that we could at least partly deal with and dissolves it so we can't see it and can't deal with it."

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[suffragette]

24. Here's the list from the UK

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf

It shows the ones approved by the UK as well as the ban on Corexit.

So as a UK company, they are saying Corexit is good enough for us even though banned in their home, but nothing ok'd for use over there is appropriate here. Total BS.

Markey's one of the few who's been trying to push this in a better direction.
I hope he hammers them.

[Jamastiene]

31. This should be an OP

I'll K&R a single post the only way I can though. I'll just say it. K&R

[suffragette]

32. I appreciate that

Some threads already posted gave more info on that, though.
I'm just adding thoughts given the latest slap in the face by BP.

Here's an example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4387343

[ashling]

13. Less toxic disperswant IS available NOW

I just caught the end of a piece that showed pallets and pallets of a less toxic dispersant just sitting in a lot in Houston. Apparently BP ordered it May 4 and it has just been sitting there.

Now all they are sowing is some bab skiing or some such shit, and I can't find anything on their site

[Tx4obama]

16. Here's one video/article I found regarding the Houston company

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/bp-had-alternative-less-toxic-dispersant-c
Look on the video starting around the 3:30 mark

Excerpt:
As Ed Lavandera discovered, BP had an alternative bought and paid for, ready to go, just sitting on shore since early this month. Again, the question is why.

Ed Henry -- Ed Lavandera tonight "Keeping Them Honest."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hundreds of containers are just sitting here in the Houston sun. To some, it's just another example of the mismanagement of the oil spill. The containers are full of a chemical dispersant calls Sea Brat 4. Why is it sitting here, and not in the ocean instead? No one really knows, especially since BP's on record as saying it would use the stuff.

DOUG SUTTLES, COO, GLOBAL EXPLORATION, BP: We also have a second product now identified to use called Sea Brat 4, which we will begin introducing into the -- the process as well.

LAVANDERA (on camera): That's what BP said almost a week ago. But we found the Sea Brat 4 just sitting here in an industrial park outside of Houston, Texas. You're looking at it, almost 100,000 gallons of the less toxic dispersant. Guess who ordered it? BP did, on May 4, almost three weeks ago.

JOHN SHEFFIELD, PRESIDENT, ALABASTER CORPORATION: This is Sea Brat. It's in totes ready for delivery.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): John Sheffield is president of the company that makes Sea Brat 4.

(on camera): Do you think it's weird that stuff's just sitting here in the Houston area?

SHEFFIELD: It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. You know, I think something's intentionally trying to stop us from getting our product in the water.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): EPA and Coast Guard officials say there's nothing stopping BP from using Sea Brat 4. Sheffield says that, by now, he could be making 50,000 to 100,000 gallons of dispersant a day.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. Thanks for digging that up!

[ashling]

28. Thanks

that's the one I saw :hi:

[Jumping John]

18. And of course Obama is as useful as Bush would be in this situation. n/t

[livingonearth]

19. This is the kind of crap the tea baggers should be protesting,

instead of being used as useful idiots.

[Towlie]

20. I don't get it. Why is their dispersant choice even their choice? Who are they to decide that?

It just doesn't make sense to me. This post of mine goes into more detail:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8393436

In that post I used the analogy of a fire started by a corporation in a national forest. This development is analogous to the corporation choosing to dump toxic chemicals on the fire instead of water. If it's a national resource in jeopardy, why are they allowed to make the decision?

[jillan]

21. Does this mean they are going to be willing to pay for all the medical treatment that people are

going to need because of this decision?

Let me guess...it's written in their contract somewhere that they won't need to pay.

THIS is exactly the kind of thing that our President needs to rebuke. Paging Obama....Where the hell are YOU?

[marylanddem]

22. BP just said "F**k you to the EPA - and by extension the United States.

It's way way way overdue to get their asses out of control of this disaster.

[suffragette]

23. Are they saying none of the dispersants ok'd for UK use

meet the three criteria and EPA approval?

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/pollution/documents/approval_approved_products.pdf

They are getting away with using something here that has been determined too dangerous to use in their home waters.

I call total BS on this.

And the EPA needs to as well.

[aquart]

25. I'm thinking, they don't live here.

[Doremus]

26. We need someone to pick one city of the many in harm's way and schedule a mass protest.

Pick the date and place then pass the word far and wide.

Until we the people take to the streets and stop this shit it's going to keep happening and keep happening and keep happening .....

Who will it be? What group could get the ball rolling on this?

[NCarolinawoman]

29. So BP is saying this is an EPA pre-approved dispersant...

Whose EPA? Cheney's EPA? Obama's EPA?
Were the rules kept the same after the Democrats started running the EPA? It sounds like the EPA does not approve of this dispersant anymore, or is it still technically approved on the books? If this poison is only being used for cosmetic purposes the EPA should tell them to cease and desist!

Why is BP allowed to run rings around a sovereign country?

How about we call this a national security issue (it is) and start kicking BP's Butt to kingdom come. They have already killed eleven of our citizens. :nuke:

BP is calling the shots in our own territory! I think now is the time for the President to find his inner Teddy Roosevelt.

[Odin2005]

30. BP is showing who is REALLY in charge.

[Shining Jack]

34. +1 n/t