This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Senior EPA Analyst: "Government [Agencies] Have Been Sock Puppets for BP In This Cover Up"
I have previously noted
that dispersants are being used to cover up the amount of oil spilled,
and that they are making the effects of the oil spill worse. I have
also pointed out that dispersant Corexit is extremely toxic to people.
See this
and this.
The
senior policy analyst at the EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response - and former the EPA ombudsman's chief investigator - agrees,
telling Democracy Now today:
Corexit is one of a
number of dispersants, that are toxic, that are used to atomize the oil
and force it down the water column so
that it’s invisible to the eye. In this case, these dispersants
were used in massive quantities, almost two million gallons so far, to
hide the magnitude of the spill and save BP money. And the government—both EPA, NOAA, etc.—have
been sock puppets for BP in this cover-up. Now, by hiding the
amount of spill, BP is saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars in fines, and so, from day one, there was tremendous economic
incentive to use these dispersants to hide the magnitude of the gusher
that’s been going on for almost three months.***
We have
people, wildlife—we have dolphins that are hemorrhaging. People who
work near it are hemorrhaging internally. And that’s what dispersants
are supposed to do. EPA now is taking the position that they really
don’t know how dangerous it is, even though if you read the label, it
tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked
with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is
around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic—it’s an
economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public.***
Who
saves money by using these toxic dispersants? Well, it’s BP. But then
the next question—I’ve only seen one article that describes it—who owns BP? And I think when you
look and see who owns BP, you find that it’s the majority ownership, a
billion shares, is a company called BlackRock
that was created, owned and run by a gentleman named Larry Fink. And Vanity
Fair just did recently an article about Mr. Fink and his connections with Mr. Geithner, Mr. Summers
and others in the administration. So I think what’s needed, we
now know that there’s a cover-up. Dispersants are being used. Congress,
at least three Congress folks—Congressman Markey, Congressman Nadler
and Senator Mikulski—are on the case. And I think the media now has to
follow the money, just as they did in Watergate, and tell the American
people who’s getting money for poisoning the millions of people in the
Gulf.***
The sole
purpose in the Gulf for dispersants is to keep a cover-up going for BP
to try to hide the volume of oil that has been released and save them
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of fines.
That’s the purpose of using the dispersants, not to protect the public health or
environment. Quite the opposite.
I have also
previously pointed
out the similarities between the government's handling of 9/11 and
the oil gusher. Kaufman gives some insight about the parallels:
[Question]
You’ve made comparisons between Corexit, the use of Corexit and hiding
BP’s liability, and what happened at Ground Zero after the attacks of
September 11th, Hugh Kaufman.
[Kaufman] Yeah, I was one of the
people who—well, I did. I did the
ombudsman investigation on Ground Zero, where EPA made false statements
about the safety of the air, which has since, of course, been proven
to be false. Consequently, you have the heroes, the workers there, a
large percentage of them are sick right now, not even ten years later,
and most of them will die early because of respiratory problems,
cancer, etc., because of EPA’s false statements.
And
you’ve got the same thing going on in the Gulf, EPA administrators
saying the same thing, that the air is safe and the water is safe. And
the administrator misled Senator Mikulski on that issue in the hearings
you talked about. And basically, the problem is dispersants mixed with
oil and air pollution. EPA, like in 9/11—I did that investigation nine
years ago—was not doing adequate and
proper testing. Same thing with OSHA with the workers, they’re using
mostly BP’s contractor. And BP’s contractor for doing air testing is
the company that’s used by companies to prove they don’t have a
problem.
Here's a video of the interview:
And see this. Note regarding the Attorney Kerry Kennedy claimed on CNN However, I wrote to Ms. Kennedy was
Exxon Valdez deaths. A test application
of Corexit was used in the initial response to the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. However, the full-scale use of Corexit was not approved
(pages 56 & 69). The workers who were part of the test
application, and those who subsequently worked in and around the test
area, could have been exposed to Corexit.
that almost all of the cleanup crew working on the Exxon Valdez oil
spill are now dead, and that the average life expectancy for an
Exxon Valdez oil spill worker is around 51 years, 26.9 fewer years
than the average American.
toxicologist Dr. Ricki Ott - who has blown the whistle on the BP cleanup
(see this and this),
and who was present during the Valdez cleanup - to ask whether
Kennedy's statement was correct. I received the following
reply from Dr. Ott's personal assistant:
mistaken.
For more information, check www.rikiott.com/spillinfo.php
. You will see that out of a workforce of 11,000, Exxon documented
6,722 cases of Upper Respiratory Illness. In 2003, a Yale grad student
conducted a pilot study that showed roughly 1/3 of the sample, taken
from the list of workers who reported URIs during the EVOS cleanup,
reported lingering symptoms.
There has been no
epidemiology study, so no statistics exist as to the mortality rate of
EVOS workers, to our knowledge.
I have no idea whether Kaufman and Kennedy
know something that Ott doesn't.
- advertisements -
The following blog post gives the perfect setting for the Geo Wash form of analysis
Reading for Comprehension
http://geophysics.vox.com/library/post/reading-for-comprehension.html
<snip>
Unfortunately, there are a number of people who do use such press releases as research sources; worse, they use them as primary sources [4]. As a result, a game of “Science Telephone” ensues [5]. And with each round of the game, the distortion only increases.
For an example, consider this report on Helium: Doomsday: How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a 'world-killing' event
Like the start? It is a dead giveaway of the “If it bleeds, it leads” school of journalism.
This paragraph is a “truth sandwich”; in between the distortions, there is a layer of truth. The Permian extinction event was probably the most extensive extinction event that ever happened; over 95% of the marine species known to have lived at the time [6] went extinct. However, there is only partial evidence for a massive methane eruption, much less one big enough to have caused a mass extinction event. Currently, there are several theories, all of which are equally well-supported and so equally likely.
If you don't think the way I do, then you can't think. That is a common-enough attitude - understandable, since there is no way any one person can know everything there is to know. So we reduce reality to a ball that is small enough for us to grasp. And everybody ends up grasping a different ball of reality. That is why reality-testing is such an important part of science. It attempts to answer the question whose thinking can we trust? Are the conclusions reached supported by all of the available evidence? And since there might be evidence we don't know about, are the conclusions reached also supported by what we know is true of math and scientific principles? Now, thinking that passes all of these hurdles can, and sometimes does, turn out to be wrong. The answer turns out to be different than what we knew suggested it would be. It is at this point that knowledge is added to the world's collective body of information.
Nah! Too much work. I'll just think like my uncle.
Here is the latest 5 leaks around the well according to Allen seays no need to worry....YET.
Five leaks in and around BP's well are more like "drips" and aren't yet reason to worry, said retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. He extended testing of the experimental cap by another day, which means the oil will remain shut in.
So there are 5 leaks IN AND AROUND all together - Now they are going to do another topkill attempt and get the relief wells in by this weekend.
I guess we will have to see if we are getting bullshitted by Allen and BP again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR201007...
entire article above
One thing is for sure is that BP will have had an army of US lawyers floating around from the moment the incident happened. Typically, I'd say at least 2 senior companies supporting its US General Counsel and a host of smaller specialists as well. Impacts:
1) A lot of legal firms will be conflicted when it comes to going to court, so there will be a local quality differential in Louisiana etc between those that have been recruited by BP and those that are left for others.
2) The first target for BP lawyers will be to evade criminal liability, which is why some of the BP engineers are already claiming the 5th and why they'll prove that there is no systemic issue, but just human error - they'll need to show manuals and other examples of how they have done stuff elsewhere and then hang out the local guys to dry....
3) The second target is to both confuse the whole issue as well as minimise the provable amount that did leak out. Whilst I think the 1-5 kb/d initial estimate could be worthy of an investor lawsuit, thereafter BP has been careful to both disperse, not measure and focus on other things so that it can lower the 'average' level of assessments of oil spillage. It will of course also focus on DNA testing to prove that a lot of stuff flowing ashore came from other sources, some deliberately (which is partly possible from ship waste). That's what's already happening anecdotally is you speak to BP folks - they shift emphasis by claiming that others are being naughty.
If I was BP, I might have done the same things to minimise my liability, but I would also not have done anything which could later be proven to be bollox or unethical, such as buying the google accounts, faking pictures (today's news) etc. All these little things just poison the minds of the general public.
Upshot is that the legal eagles are going to smell $$$ and will encourage BP to fight this out in court for a long time by citing all sorts of negative consequences for paying up early etc.
Sleep on, you haven't heard a word
Perhaps it's just as well
Why spoil your little dreams
Why put you through the hell
this would be an example of what I'm talking about above:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/countrywide-vip-loan-fannie-mae_n_653386.html
I beleive a number of countries ahve banned the use of corexit.. To regardless of the deabte if it isn't allowed in say the UK/north sea I am Ok to take the view it shouldn't be used here.
People are forgettig ne overwhelming fact. Throughtout this crisis BP was lowballed everything. To give the company theh benefit of the doubt ignores a huge amount of evidence of them cutting corners, past environmental mistakes, tampering of photographs, etc. How about their efforts to restrict media access.
George may not becorrect but there is a big icentive for the company to limit their damages and avoid full disclosure. Hence a skeptical view of everything is appropriate.
There is an old saying fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. I find the support of this company to be very strange and it smacks of trolling to me.
Instead of taking the term majority owner alter biggest shareholder, one of the largest shareholders and it is almost the same. really I see picking on small things as an attempt to cloud the over all point. It is a often used tactic.
Regarding the use of corexit. george does a good job of updating the material.
By the way this senior policy analyst clearly is risking his job in his statements. Let us not forget the scientists who had asked to be able to make measurements in the water but weren't allowed.
I'm afriad just like 9/11, just like the financial crisis, just like wmd in Iraq, Katrina (good job Brownie) the overall picture amounts to government efforts to hide the truth. Look all governments around the world have an incentive hide what a shitty job they are doing. Having two viable parties means our democratic system is easily controlled. They are cash cows. Add alternative parties or people so fed up with things they vote in outsiders and those in control loose power, deal with people who can't be predicted.
I look at Watergate and don't think anything like that could happen again. we are more concerned with covering tracks than getting to the truth.
for the record I don't believe we shot arms at the wrod trade center. But I believe that 11 guys with box cutters, intelligence warnings, etc shows a huge government screwup. Governments don't want people to know how bad they screwed up.
In the BP case the whole management system of wells and inspection by the government. The worse it is the worse our failed government looks. So there is a real incentive to hide the truth so we don't look to deeply into the revolving door of industry and regulation and the money.
It isn't just this, the Iraq war and the lies about progress (end of major combat operations, no bid jobs to halliburton, etc.
It all smells to high hell and to me that is the real major point of George's article. Is there anyone out there who really belives our governemt tells the truth first. I don't and that is a major reason for low congressional approval levels. While americans may not voice it directly we understand how corrupt our system has become.
the use of the corexit stuff and the alaska data are really small things compared to the whole pie of cover and obscure the truth.
So - that is the topic of discussion here - how corrupt our government has become and the many ways we can prove it? Serious question. Have we moved beyond discussing actual events in the gulf? If that is the case, G.W. probably needs to change the titles of these threads.
Who knew we needed an extended conversation to prove to some folks that our government hides things from the American people. Is this news? Do some folks also think their parents told them everything they knew? And in the corporate world, most everybody owns a piece of everybody else. Is this news also?
Richard, I would direct you to this statement in the text:
I have also previously pointed out the similarities between the government's handling of 9/11 and the oil gusher.
I have been on ths site for a long time, and I know when I see people who are getting paid to be out there. The amount of people going after GW here is really telling. The amount of detailed info they have is also very telling. I know when something smells fishy.
And yes the tipoc shoulkd include the overall view, because people should not be distracted by one little side event.
as for GW he provides sources, link, corrects himelf when proven wrong, or adds a disclaimer. I believe he admits in the article doubts about the alaska.
I also know when language is being used in a manner designed to make the public think something. in fact it is a sign of cyber bully techniques. Instead Of "I disagee", the data is have read says:, etc. Instead you get something like> "this is total BS, another one of washington's useless posts, your full of crap. Language like this is intended to make the reader think less of the writer. Notice the writer does not use these techniques on posters.
You'd have to be an idiot to not see what is going on here. pointing out small flaws to distract from the over all picture, language used to make the writer look worse, all those people coming out of nowhere. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
after all OJ got off on "if the glove don't fit...". it is a proven technique to break down things so there are questions regarding the smaller issues to obtain a good judgement.
You are defending G.W. I was not criticizing him. Your post - to which I responded - gave me an aha moment, and that is what I was addressing.
The Feds don't tell us everything they know, and sometimes lie to us. The Feds and big business are in bed together. Big business' all own each other. A small, select group of people sit on the boards of multiple big business and thereby control most big business. These are points that many of us here have understood for a long time. These points are assumed in our comments and conversations. Your post got through to me that, for many others here, this is probably the first time they have been forced to confront the reality of the points I listed (the Feds don't tell us everthing they know, etc.). To the extent that this is true, then - for one group of folks here - this conversation really has not been about what is happening in the gulf. It has been about their awakening to what is actually going on in the world of government and big business. That would explain to me why the two groups seem to have been talking past each other on this subject - here and elsewhere. There really are two different conversations going on, but both of them triggered by the blowout in the gulf.
Maybe the US government is using BP to kill Americans to reduce unemployment
and if Obama can reduce the lifespan of millions of Americans it will help reduce Social Security deficits
Interesting to see how many BP shills are operating on this site presently as well...not too bright, however.
anyway, the conspiracy theorists on the right are liable to claim that most of those who will die from Corexit and the oil contamination are regarded by the democrats as "white trash" repug voters.
Where have you gone, George Washington?
A nation turns it's skeptical eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo).
GW you have undermined the whole of ZH. Tyler needs to beat your ass like the prettyboy, you are a discrace to project mayhem.
Just saw a commercial on TV saying Florida has like 866 miles of nice clean beachs, so y'all c'mon down for a great vacation. Funny, my sister lives in the Cocoa Beach area and says part of the beach is now closed due to some kind of bacteria. Hmmmmm.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.....
I smell oil and lies and fake videotapes.
Augi, quoting the feds on anything substantive is meaningless. A waste of your energy.
Say something original and illogical for once. Be the anti-shill. Say to yourself, I'll be true today.
Of course, the effort may cause permanent neural pathway foul-ups.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Now this is NEWS. I don't know why the EPA even bothered to test that Nalco product used as dispersant. The Chief of Green owns a part of the company. About 2 1/2 million shares. Does he know someone, or what? The man without Chakra certainly would not be involved in producing something that would kill a shrimp egg, would he?
Al Gore's Generation Investment Management FORM 13F HOLDINGS REPORT-November 10, 2009http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1375534/000117266109001492/gen3q09.txt
Blood and Gore.
One of the best descriptions I've heard for Al-the-bloated-parasite was courtesy of Alex Jones:
"...like a 30 pound tick on a 10 pound dog..."
There are two wells within two miles of BP's blowout, one that has been abandoned and another that is not in production.
There around 27,000 abandoned wells in the Gulf, and an Associated Press investigation showed this month that they're not checked for leaks.
Allen also says five leaks in and around the broken well are more like 'drips' and don't mean the well is unstable.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
come on????????? like they wouldn't have seen this before now? WTF its been 93 days and BP wouldn't have claimed this as part of the total impact to release liability on total gallons spilled? Not a buyer here, sorry! Seems too convenient for them.
The stuff being called "seeps" is simply very small bubbles of methane. It would not have a bearing on what is comming from Macondo as far as damage claims or anything else. It IS being used to drum up more scary BS to frighten people.
I tend to agree with M4570DON who discredits most of the hoorah 'immediate death' claims around Corexit. Nalco mostly makes purification chemicals for treating potable water, all approved for public consumption. Dispersants work in similar fashion, changing the surface charge on small particles. Propylene glycol is widely used in many consumer products, most radiator fluid, and deicing systems. It is much less toxic than ethylene glycol, which it has essentially replaced. Deicing systems recover the glycol, concentrate it and reuse, not because of the BOD, but because it is expensive. Butyl cellusolve is a commonly used crossover solvent (part dissolves in oil, part dissolves in water, thus it can control the oil/water interface). It is present in almost all household cleaners, inks, paints, etc. It is not very toxic, but certainly would add stress to aquatic organisms that encounter it in ppm levels. There is little doubt that Nalco enjoys the benefits of a huge sale of their dispersant, a sale that may have been facilitated by their owners connections to the Obama cartel.
There is also little question that dispersed oil poses a different kind of environmental impact than floating oil, which probably benefits BP by reducing the visible impact of the 'spill.' Pollution is defined as the presence of an unnatural compound in concentration or quantity that is undesirable. Significant oil seeps into the Gulf naturally, but it is fairly quickly broken down and consumed by bacteria, and the BP oil will also be consumed in this fashion. Dispersing it in deep water will slow and complicate this process, because biological processes and re-oxygenation are both very slow in the cold deep. Thus this dispersed oil could travel huge distances, but since we have no way to track and measure this, BP will not be fined for it. This is the only reason for using dispersant, but there is some validity to the decision, because if all the released oil were to hit the Gulf beaches, the public outrage would force the gummint to do even more stupid things. So the decision to use dispersant was based on politics, not environmental protection or public health. Whether it was the right decision from an environmental standpoint, we won't know for a few years.
So, they drill too fast, to save money, then the problems start and they need to take a 2 week vacation while trying to fish the tools into the well and solve the problem.
But the problem isn't solved and can't be solved, so the company calls their connection ( that needs to get rid of the worst-of-the-worst toxic waste, and mix that ultra-toxic waste with the drilling mud. Because no-one would suspect this, and because there is an exemption on toxic mud, they can cover-up the problem. This money they get for disposing of the ultra-toxic material helps pay for the 2-week down-time and other expenses and whos the wiser, who is going to examine the drilling-mud if it ever comes back to the surface?
But with the pressure's involved with this well, that toxic-waste may come back up the well-bore and be discovered, so that's why we urgently needed the cap.
So, the cap needs to be put in place so any of that toxic-waste is forced out of the well-bore and come up instead in the sea-bed and cannot be traced back to them.
How toxic was the waste?
Spent nuclear fuel or something else?
For your point to be valid, the mud would have to have been pushed past the bottom of the well and into the oil basin. That is the definition of stopping the gusher. They never did stop the gusher. All mud pushed into the pipe was pushed back out well before it got 1/4 of the way down the well. The top-kill did not work. There is no mud being locked in by the well cap.
Or maybe you were joking.
Is English your 4th language?
Another poor post from GW.
Apart from anything else, BP is not majority owned by Blackrock as you might be able to work out from the fact that a) it can't be majority owned by another company under company law without an offer being made etc and b) even if Blackrock had 1 bn shares, you can work out the % of total market cap that this represents quite easily.
I think you've been watching "A View to a Kill" too much and believing that the bigger Matt Simmons type game is to raise property prices on the east and west coasts deliberately through this spill. Damn, why didn't I think of that !!?
exactly. It's not like this is something that is hard to look up. Even if they own 1 billion shares, that is absofuckinglutely in no way a majority ownership. The truth is, BlackRock only owns about 7% of BP. That's it. Like I said, GW continues to deteriorate his credibility by the day with these ridiculous posts.
Blackrock is financially involved in literally everything regarding this spill. Pretending that Blackrock isn't pulling the strings is hysterically naive.
Except that, in terms of voting rights, etc, 7% ownership is a pretty influential ownership level. I could be remembering wrong, and I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but I think that if you take more than a 5% position in a company, you must report it to the SEC. It used to be that way anyway. And I know BP is not a U.S. company. I'm just saying that 7% is an influential level of ownership.
The three levels of control as identified by GAAP:
Passive. The purchasing company has a relatively small investment and cannot exert influence over the investee company. The goal is to realize dividends and capital gains. Generally passive is < 20% of (voting) shares outstanding.
Significant influence. The percentage of voting stock owned is greater than a passive, short term investment and the company can exert significant influence over, but not control, the activities of the investee company. Generally, 20% < Significant influence < 50%, but it can also exist through contractual agreements as well.
Control. It has the ability to elect a majority of the board of directors and, as a result, the ability to affect the investee company’s strategic direction and the hiring of executive management. Control is generally presumed if the investor co. owns more than 50% of (voting) shares outstanding; but can sometimes occur at less than 50% stock ownership by virtue of legal agreements, tech licensing, or other contractual mans.
That is my point. Anyone who has taken a financial accounting course would know this. It's pretty basic stuff. And the 7% figure was actually a typo. I meant to type 6%. The actual figure is 5.9% but we'll round it up. To call BlackRock's 6% stake a majority ownership is lunacy. In what world is 6% a majority ownership? When GW posts that BS without any questioning, either he doesn't have even a basic knowledge of financial accounting, or he couldnt be bothered to spend 10 seconds to fact check the info first. I do not wish to accuse him of the former so that can only leave the latter.
Here's a graphic of BP's major shareholders from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/06/17/business/energy-environment...
And here is the relevant info BP's site:
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&co...
Now, if you wish to make the case that 6% is significant, you will have to demonstrate that. According to the FASB, an investment of less than 20% of voting shares should lead to a presumption that the investor cannot exert significant influence over the investee, unless such ability can be demonstrated. Examples of such are provided in APB Opinion no. 18.
Also, as you noted, BP is not a US company. For more info on standards in the UK, see Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) 5 of the FSA Handbook (In particular see 5.1 and 5.3)
http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DTR/5/1
http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DTR/5/3
Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. Without making a big deal out of it, I will stand by my original comment that any ownership level over 5% is considered influential (influential, not significant). Influential - not investor over investee - but investor to investor.
With a 6% ownership share, you will likely have better luck drawing other investors to support your position in any stockholder vote than, say, somebody who only holds 100 shares. With a 6% ownership share, an investor cannot throw its weight around. But it is better positioned to exert leadership over other investors. At which point, an investor leading a voting block could get to the point where it exerts significant influence or control - your terms defined in your post above.
Gw, this was already posted in response to that BS Kaufman is spewing in one of your other posts:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/214978-realities-of-the-post-spill-gulf-...
I used to enjoy reading your posts most of the time, prior to the BP spill. Now that you post almost exclusively on the spill and continue to focus only on the most ridiculous and outlandish claims (most of which are not even remotely based in reality), you have definitely lost a significant amount of credibility IMHO. I honestly seems like you're just throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks by posting every possible doomsday scenario or conspiracy theory in the remote chance that something might happen and you can point to one of your posts later and say "See! Who told you first??" I welcome the day this well gets plugged and these macabre articles end.
I know, I know. I MUST be a shill. I'll give it 5min before I get flagged.
Though, I did see this article the other day. I'm really surprised you weren't all over this. If you covered it I guess I missed it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-is-buying-up-gulf-scientists-at-205-an...
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's ok because most of the time we can get some of our most pertinent leads from people like yourself.
There is also another kind of important ecotoxicity:
http://www.epa.gov/guide/airport/Airport_EIB_Proposed_2009.pdf
whistleblower says BP call center is a sham:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x1D0SPkJO8
Wow.
Whatever, the Government will own BP soon enough. Others are leaving or have left our waters.
Gov. owned BP will probably be the only Gov./ Union approved company left in the gulf in two years...So who gives a damn how much oil has leaked??
Welcome to Socialism
Don't worry about the mule son, just load the wagon.
There may very well be merit to this, there are plenty of ways this could happen. .gov may decide it needs to have strategic operational capability in case of another accident or even 'accident'. Agrees to pay dividend. Prints more to issue compensation checks to Gulf residents and businesses. Everyone lives happily ever after.
Again, junked in miliseconds,..Very open minded.
The Corexit in the Gulf is just a beta test for all that toxic sludge residing in Maiden Lane
http://publicintelligence.net/blackrock-inc/
http://publicintelligence.net/maiden-lane-llc/
Thanks for digging a little deeper. If people only knew how deeply the corporate interests were tied in, including the Federal Reserve, they would understand why I have been saying all along this is nothing but their version of American Idol!
Cheers.
Added bonus...from the bottom of the web page at the first link:
"Schwarzman was also member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale University."
S+B (a.k.a. The Brotherhood of Death )
So many things to destroy...so little time...
And one further observation I forgot to mention, here comes the "Colombo".. If you look into Blackstone's real estate portfolio you would understand why the word on the street is, SPRAY BABY SPRAY!
http://www.splitting-images.com/Ralph-Colombo.jpg
Though the media can't seem to find it in their heart to say so, I think one reason BP doesn't want to re-open the cap is because they'd be able to measure the actual flow. In which case an accurate volume could be judged for fines.
But I'm probably just being paranoid as usual...
Sounds like BINGO to me.
Scratching a bit more below the surface you ask? Who makes corexit? That would be Nalco...which is associated with BP and Exxon. Then you follow the trail a bit further and realize that Blackstone Group owns Nalco.Blackstone's private equity business has been one of the largest investors in leveraged buyout transactions over the last decade while its real estate business has been an active acquirer of commercial real estate. You don't think that Blackrock and Blackstone would have any ties do you? YUP! I'm not going to get into the details but here is a good article that pretty much sums it up! How come Goldman Sachs always seems to make this kind of story?
.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread588620/pg1
.
And one more clip regarding a toxicologists opinion about Corexit. I have connections at UC Davis so send some samples this way and we can do a test of our own!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FxfYqnlQ50&feature=related
Wow. This conversation is going south in a hurry... At the risk of breaching protocol, here are some tangentially related thoughts from another thread:
I would urge you to check out the pg 16 map of the 'Initial Exploration Plan' from BP. Note the locations and distance of the two proposed wells.
Also note the interview from 60 Minutes referenced in GW's other post.
Is there any available documentation on HOW DEEP the first drill attempt went?
Then take a look at pages 24 & 25 of the mission report from the NOAA vessel Thomas Jefferson, which went to see if it could measure the quantity of oil underwater.
I am curious as to whether anyone thinks there may be a common thread here...
There is only one well. It was started with another rig. that rig was damaged in a hurricane and was taken off the well for repairs. DWH came in and drilled through the same top hole in a sidetrack to get around the stuck drill pipe. the portion of the hole with the stuck pipe was cemented in before the sidetrack.
I am curious to find out more, if there is documentation or press that discussed the topic, please share. I am aware of the previous drilling rig being seriously damaged by a hurricane (Ida, I think it was) -- but that was in summer/fall 2009. The drill attempt the electrical tech is talking about is implied to have occurred this year, as the process to drill the existing (though now not exactly up-to-spec) well was set back by several weeks and lots of budget overruns due to the drill failure/breakage.
A brief history of Macondo
http://www.subseaiq.com/data/PrintProject.aspx?project_id=56
and here
http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=562
and on page 42 of this document (Adobe page 54) the results of the lease sale for MC 252
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/206/206FinalBidRecap.pdf
Thanks. I am looking for something that specifies the process of the attempted but failed initial well spud (location, depth, etc.) and the subsequent second attempt (diagram, drawing, etc.). Didn't anyone from BP submit a full drawing of the structure of the well, top to bottom, to the Congressional panel? If so, does anyone happen to know where it might be? If not, why not?
This well location is the initial and only well location. There is only ONE location.