NOAA Teleconference: Impressions - FDL

[WillyT]

NOAA Teleconference: Impressions
By: Teddy Partridge
Thursday May 20, 2010 4:54 pm

<snip>

I neither liveblogged nor recorded today’s NOAA 3:30pm (CDT) teleconference, so these are my impressions and not a transcript. If a word’s in quotes, though, it was said. Hope you enjoy reading it more than I did listening.

Because, despite calling in at 3:22 CDT and waiting until everyone assembled at 3:37, I didn’t get to ask a question. Only one question per person; questions permitted only after NOAA administrator Dr Jane Lubchenco’s upbeat introduction. Questions were taken only from Legacy Media (AP, Reuters, Miami Herald (?), Houston Chronicle and two others).

Wrapped by 4:45pm CDT.

Here are the players:

* Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator
* Dr. Nick Shay, professor of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, University of Miami, Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
* Lt. Cmdr. Nancy Ash, NOAA Corps, mission flight director

Also, NOAA Communications Director, a tense-sounding flack whose name I promptly forgot.

Here’s how it was billed:

A teleconference call with NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco to discuss the BP oil spill’s trajectory in relation to the Loop Current and preparations for NOAA research flight investigating the Loop Current.

And here are the questions I wanted to ask:

1. Why is BP’s spillcam from the wellhead (provided at Congressman Ed Markey’s insistence) only on a Capitol Hill server and not instead on the White House’s rich, robust worldwide electronic communications platform, with embedding permitted?

2. Does Dr Jane’s reference during Congressional testimony to bringing "all possible resources" to bear mean only "every possible NOAA asset", a phrase she also used? Or are university, research agency, corporate, country, NGO, US military, or other agency assets being tasked to provide NOAA plume measurement assets? How broad is this partnership and who determines entry into it?

3. Why is NOAA waiting on the return from Africa of its lead vessel (of only 19!) the research ship Ronald Brown? Why was it not called into the Gulf before 5/11? How long until the Ronald Brown reaches the Gulf?

4. When you say in your testimony (and repeated several times in your introductory statement) that a "small portion" of the slick has entered the Loop, Dr Jane, what scientific measure is that? Do you also know which portion of the PLUME has entered the Loop? How do you know what portion of the PLUME, since the PLUME is of unknown size?

5. What basis do you have for your 8-10 day estimate of when the oil will reach the Florida strait from the Loop current? Is that SLICK or PLUME?

6. Do you agree with BP COO Bob Dudley’s assessment to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC this morning that independent scientists’ "ALARMIST" estimates of the ongoing volume of the continued spill hurt the Gulf more than the actual OIL? Do you agree with his assessment that "the beaches are clean and the fishing is great?"

Even though, as Andrea Mitchell point out to him, 45,000 square miles of fisheries are closed?

Dr Jane of NOAA, in her prepared statement, was all about the SLICK and not the PLUME, first of all. She was also very excited about her new P-38 with a ’sophisticated’ measuring apparatus that is now (or will soon be, maybe?) flying over the SLICK constantly, dropping precise instruments to the surface of the Gulf to measure the SLICK’s depth, density, composition, and gunkiness.

But she can already report that the SHEEN of the SLICK is ‘very light sheen’ and ‘light sheen’ and the amount of the SLICK entering the Loop Current now is ‘isolated.’

Huzzah!

In case any of the assembled reporters missed it, Dr Jane clearly enunciated and repeated the phrases "light sheen" and "very light sheen." Got it?

<snip>

More: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/49558

:banghead:

:wtf:

[amborin]

1. Manchester Guardian on NOAA:

Gulf oil spill chemical dispersant too toxic, EPA orders

"The Obama administration has ordered BP to use a less toxic form of chemical dispersant to break up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The decision, first reported in the Washington Post, comes only hours after Congress heard devastating testimony from BP executives and scientists on the high toxicity of two forms of Corexit, and their relative ineffectiveness against the type of crude now polluting the Gulf. The two versions of the chemical being used on the spill are banned in the UK because they are damaging to sealife.

The Washington Post reported this morning that the Environmental Protection Agency has given the oil company 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of dispersant. Once approved by the EPA, BP will have 72 hours to deploy the new chemicals.

The heavy reliance on chemical dispersants to break up the spill has raised increasing concern among scientists and environmentalists. More than 600,000 gallons of chemicals have been sprayed on the surface of the Gulf with another 55,000 injected directly into the oil billowing out of the ocean floor.

Scientists say the chemicals could be doing more for the oil company's PR, than the overall clean-up of the Gulf. The chemicals that break up the oil in small droplets help prevent giant tides of oil washing up on shore, with their disturbing images of oil-encrusted wildlife.
But they are carcinogenic, mutagenic, and highly toxic, and it is unclear how much damage they are causing to marine life in deep water – a risk acknowledged by the EPA chief, Lisa Jackson.

snip

The scientists say there are more powerful, less toxic dispersants available than Corexit. Members of Congress suggested this week that BP chose Corexit because of links between the oil industry and the manufacturer, Nalco Holding. Nalco has a former BP executive on its board.
"Why would you use something that is much more toxic and much less effective, other than you have a corporate relationship with the manufacturer?" asked Jerrold Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York told a hearing on Wednesday. The EPA had approved 14 dispersants for use on the spill, including the two versions made by Corexit.

The controversy over Corexit also exposed the Obama administration to additional criticism that its scientific agencies have been too compliant with BP. In addition to sanctioning the use of Corexit, EPA has come under fire for withholding test results on the toxicity of the water close to shore.

Meanwhile, the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, which has charge of the oceans and forecasting, has been criticised for underestimating the scale of the disaster.
Independent scientists have dismissed Noaa's estimate that oil was flowing out of the ocean floor at 5,000 barrels a day, and say the agency has been slow to assess the damage caused by the underwater plume of oil.

Scientists studying newly released video footage of oil billowing out of the broken pipe on the ocean floor have put the flow rate as high as 100,000 barrels a day. The scientists are also demanding access to Noaa testing of deep water samples.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/20/gulf-...