Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why can't the Obama adminstration order BP to stop using dispersant?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:54 PM
Original message
Why can't the Obama adminstration order BP to stop using dispersant?
Isn't there a lot that BP can be ordered to do or we can't say anything about what they are doing?

Help me understand, I've been away for a few days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. EPA could sanction. They seem to be taking their time mulling. ProPublica
Edited on Sun May-30-10 04:03 PM by chill_wind
http://www.propublica.org/feature/epa-officials-weighing-sanctions-against-bps-us-operations

EPA Officials Weigh Sanctions Against BP’s U.S. Operations
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - May 21, 2010 1:27 pm EDT



Federal law allows agencies to suspend or bar from government contracts companies that engage in fraudulent, reckless or criminal conduct. The sanctions can be applied to a single facility or an entire corporation. Government agencies have the power to forbid a company to collect any benefit from the federal government in the forms of contracts, land leases, drilling rights, or loans.

The most serious, sweeping kind of suspension is called "discretionary debarment" and it is applied to an entire company. If this were imposed on BP, it would cancel not only the company's contracts to sell fuel to the military but prohibit BP from leasing or renewing drilling leases on federal land. In the worst cast, it could also lead to the cancellation of BP's existing federal leases, worth billions of dollars.

Present and former officials said the crucial question in deciding whether to impose such a sanction is assessing the offending company's culture and approach: Do its executives display an attitude of non-compliance? The law is not intended to punish actions by rogue employees and is focused on making contractor relationships work to the benefit of the government. In its negotiations with EPA officials before the Gulf spill, BP had been insisting that it had made far-reaching changes in its approach to safety and maintenance, and that environmental officials could trust its promises that it would commit no further violations of the law.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. They ordered it to stop using the coex-whatever
There are about ten dispersants approved by the EPA, maybe more but I saw ten or so on a list. This is the protocol for oil spills. Break it up so that wave action and evaporation can work more quickly. Skim the bigger slicks and plumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Did they stop using it? I heard that they hadn't. and that using the stuff
could help hid the scope of the spill.

Shouldn't they be issuing fines or something? I almost got fined if I didn't remove a Vote Democrat sign in my front room window? Why isn't our government fining their asses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. good question -- they are still using it
They were ordered to come up with alternatives...and they refused and continued dumping into our Gulf.

Here's another question: Why can't Obama *require* workers laying boom and such to wear respirators? BP is banning them, turning away workers who show up with them on, because it makes the disaster look as bad as it is. Thereby subjecting these people to serious toxins that long term are carcinogenic and cause neurologic disorders.

There are probably a zillion more things that the administration could -- and *should* -- be doing. But, you know how it is. Vacations and naps come first, ever since Reagan and W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I don't think it's a question of vacations and naps
But I do think it might be a question of this administration just not getting what big fat liars these corporations are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. My mistake
I thought they had stopped using the Corexit. I don't know why the EPA can't do something about that and yes there needs to be massive fines, instantly.

As to the dispersants themselves though, the purpose isn't to "hide" the oil. There's a number of pictures on the deepwater web site so they're stupid to put the pics up if they're trying to hide the spill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. BP wants to sink the oil ASAP. Since there is no way to actually clean up
sunk oil, they save billions by sinking it with the fringe benefit of making the spill appear smaller than it using surface observations. Note that the current estimates for how much is being spilled are coming from surface observations so this will also mitigate BP's per barrel fines.

Read all about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8445264

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. There is no "protocol" for a massive on going deep water oil gusher!
Let the oil come to the surface and then vacuum it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not sure, but I think they're using Air National Guard C-130s to
disperse the dispersant.

Wait a minute, who's in charge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Are you serious? Then why not user the right stuff and just charge them for it.
This is so fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. That was my understanding as well about the C-130s
Edited on Sun May-30-10 04:43 PM by PufPuf23
but do not have a link {edit} and saw in on either CNN or MSNBC.

Confusing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. 86 Air Force dispersant spraying missions & counting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here's Ms Lisa Jackson, tap-dancing all over the place.
Edited on Sun May-30-10 04:25 PM by chill_wind
May 25, 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson talks to Melissa Block about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. She ordered BP to slash its use of a toxic dispersant called Corexit 9500. EPA originally ordered BP to halt using it all together, but backed off after BP said it was having trouble finding a substitute in large enough quantities. Jackson says the EPA is continuing to conduct toxicity tests on the dispersant.

Here's the whole transcript:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127118171

IOW, BP told her to go piss up a rope, and so, like all the rest of our toothless federal agencies.. she will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. They did order BP to do so, but BP said no

BP said there aren't sufficient stockpiles of other dispersants available. That's a lie of course but the EPA said "oh, okay then go ahead with the toxic dispersant."

Each of the five states have warehouses stockpiled with tons of better dispersants but BP doesn't want to use those. They want to use corexit because they profit from corexit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I don't think they should be using them at all. Adding more toxins
to the ocean seems counterproductive to me. I wonder why no one wants to arrest the CEO's involved if they don't comply with the orders? If they get away with it, it will show our government to be toothless for other exploiters and maybe even terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. they profit from corexit...Are you fucking kidding me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yup
from:
http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m5d13-EPA-BP-makes-Gulf-oil-spill-worse-by-using-more-toxic-less-effective-chemical-dispersants

BP has been using a chemical dispersant called Corexit to break up the oil that has been pouring into the Gulf of Mexico since the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 22,2010.

However, Corexit is more toxic and less effective than 12 other EPA approved chemicals that BP could be using. Additionally, two of the dispersants on the list “were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective.”

So why would BP choose a product that only works on about half of the spilled oil, when they could use one that works on all of it?

It might have something to do with BP’s relationship with Nalco, the corporation that manufactures Corexit.

“Nalco was once part of Exxon Mobil, whose current leadership includes executives at both BP and Exxon,” according to the New York Times.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. not kidding. They own a piece of the manufacturer
this is beyond fucked up. x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Why aren't Navy and AF fighters on station to shoot down any plane trying to further poisin the gulf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. I wouldn't go that far but I'd sure go for forced landings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yeah, only shoot them down if they refuse to cease and desist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
11. The EPA said "find something less toxic"
BP said "fuck off".

The EPA said "okay then, carry on".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. Actually, the Microbes that convery oil into another more beinign form requires a breakdown using
Edited on Sun May-30-10 04:36 PM by opihimoimoi
dispersements

major companies can quickly culture large amounts of bugs for a continuous applications until prob is solved...cost will be borne by BP for the duration...

there is no other way to clean marshes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Not if you actually remove the oil from the ocean's surface they don't.
BP is instead using Big Oil's favorite toxic dispersant to bury the evidence at the bottom of the sea where both will necessarily enter the ocean's food chain: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4405141
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. Was the rig located in waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? I have to assume
that we have some sort of control or we wouldn't be able to say who can or who can't drill in those areas, but I don't know how much control we have over the companies who are drilling the wells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems to Win Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-30-10 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. They damn well should be. Use whatever force necessary.
STOP releasing dispersants. NOW. It is crazy to add more poison to the Gulf. Dispersants do nothing to assist the environment in naturally cleaning the oil; they just prevent (mostly) the ugly pictures of birds covered in pure black crude. Dispersants prevent the water surface being coated with a continuous, thick layer of crude, instead breaking it up into smaller globs. It does allow crude to somewhat mix with water to produce the goop that looks like chocolate ice cream, but that is no progress for the Gulf and it's creatures. Dispersants are just a toxic PR stunt, and the government needs to order BP to cease and desist immediately.

It is past time for 'I'm in charge' Obama to order BP to stop putting toxic poison into the Gulf. And send the Navy to forcibly stop BP from injecting toxic dispersant, if that's the only way to stop it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
23. Obama obviously wants to bury the evidence at the bottom of the ocean's food chain as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
24. They could but they don't want to make BP angry
because then they might not contribute to Obama for America in 2012.

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
25. after 1 month of scientists' howls, the EPA asked BP to stop, and BP said NO, and CONTINUES using it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-31-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. Obama has been in office for only a little over a year.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC