Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BP Official Admits to Damage BENEATH THE SEA FLOOR ^ | Saturday, June 12, 2010

Posted on 06/13/2010 6:39:37 PM PDT by GonzoII

As I noted Tuesday, there is growing evidence that BP's oil well - technically called the "well casing" or "well bore" - has suffered damage beneath the level of the sea floor.

The evidence is growing stronger and stronger that there is substantial damage beneath the sea floor. Indeed, it appears that BP officials themselves have admitted to such damage. This has enormous impacts on both the amount of oil leaking into the Gulf, and the prospects for quickly stopping the leak this summer.

On May 31st, the Washington Post noted:

Sources at two companies involved with the well said that BP also discovered new damage inside the well below the seafloor and that, as a result, some of the drilling mud that was successfully forced into the well was going off to the side into rock formations.

"We discovered things that were broken in the sub-surface," said a BP official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He said that mud was making it "out to the side, into the formation."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bp; corexit; deepwaterhorizon; doomsday; oilspill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-248 next last
To: BobL

>>>Ooooo, this means that the ONLY option will be
>>>multiple relief wells

Assuming the relief well drillers can overcome whatever the reasons were this became a cloister phrock in the first place.... and not just make more exploding/leaking holes.

201 posted on 06/14/2010 1:41:08 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

Assuming the relief well drillers can overcome whatever the reasons were this became a cloister phrock in the first place.... and not just make more exploding/leaking holes.


They are currently drilling 2 relief wells...there is NO guarantee that they too won’t see similar problems...except that BP will most likely not take cementing short cuts against Halliburton’s professional SOP and they will also perform EVERY Schlumberger test that is required to VERIFY that all steps of cementing were DONE but have cured properly before proceeding.

and STILL no guarantee that the relief wells will work...none

however skimmers are needed to collect the globby oil on the surface...

202 posted on 06/14/2010 2:23:55 PM PDT by antivenom (OBASTARD must become a "Half Term President" * Impeach the anti-Constitution Bastard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: arkady_renko
"No, the saw ‘blade’ was a diamond impregnated cable. It could not have closed off the flow.

Before the saw cut, the main casing was cut of about 75 feet away from the bent and leaking exit of the BOP with a giant shear which basically pinched the 21" pipe flat. After the diamond saw got stuck near the top of the BOP, they gave up on it and again used the TWENTY THREE TON SHEAR to cut the rest of the casing. Both of these actions may have created a huge "water hammer" pressure spike that may have destroyed the already damaged casing. Not to mention the beating from using a 23 ton device similar to bolt cutter hung from a 5000 ft cable.

203 posted on 06/14/2010 2:29:39 PM PDT by Sefton (Marxism>Leninism>Stalinism>Trotskism>Maoism>Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24
"When you start talking “Sea floor caving in” I get pretty sceptical."

In the 1960's the greater Long Beach area was caving in, settling as much as three to four feet from pumping of oil from the Signal Hill area. They eliminated the problem by injecting salt water into the depleted oil domes. Granted they pulled out a lot more oil than we currently have gushing out of the gulf but who knows?

204 posted on 06/14/2010 2:39:39 PM PDT by Sefton (Marxism>Leninism>Stalinism>Trotskism>Maoism>Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Sefton

Yes, the shear could have had an effect. My comment concerned the original attemt to cut the riser.

205 posted on 06/14/2010 2:56:19 PM PDT by arkady_renko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Yes, I agree that this scenario is possible. Just a what if scenario here, but if a hurricane comes along and spreads this crude and toxic dispersant all over everything, or if that dispersant does become gaseous and is rained out over land....

The dispersant is essentially glorified detergent and biodegrades over a matter of weeks. No more chance of it becoming gaseous than the box of detergent in your laundry room.

As for a hurricane, they have little effect deeper than a few hundred feet. It would probably help biodegrade the oil nearer the surface by oxygenating the water.

206 posted on 06/14/2010 4:44:22 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

I think man knows a lot less than he thinks he does about a lot more things than he thinks.

207 posted on 06/14/2010 5:49:17 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

What depth did they stick the tool? It is possible there was gas/oil working through the plug while it set, which would explain a few things.

First, the channel(s) through the plug would explain the volume increase while they were pumping, and the flow, as the formation pushed fluid through the plug (no integrity).

It would also explain the bad negative pressure test.

And it might explain the changing production estimates, as the plug erodes, with the production from the wellbore increasing steadily. (As opposed to BP “lying” as so many seem to believe).

I can’t really see why an oil company, already with their ‘green’ reputation in shambles, would purposefully under-engineer any oil recovery device. Lost oil is not only a liability, but lost revenue as well, so you would think they would engineer any containment and recovery system for the wellhead for as much (or more than) flow as they expected.

An eroding plug downhole would be like opening a variable choke, exerting steadily diminishing pressure against the fluid coming out of the producing formation, allowing the flow from the well to increase over time.

If the CBL stuck or encountered resistance above the plug, there may have been some of the cement carried uphole by the formation fluid, or the volume of the plug was not calculated correctly (usually there is some small error).

208 posted on 06/14/2010 5:55:35 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

Um no, corexit 9500 is not essentially a glorified detergent.

I stopped reading right there.

209 posted on 06/14/2010 6:30:12 PM PDT by chris37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek


210 posted on 06/14/2010 7:26:45 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
What depth did they stick the tool?

Looked, but couldn't find any info as to depth, reason they stuck it or how much was logged.
Looked at the Schlumberger specs on the tool and found the recommended maximum casing size for it is 7 5/8".
It is also capable of running a production logging package below the sonic:
temp., pressure, gradiomonometer and flowmeter.
Don't know if they ran the whole works.
I know I get hung up on the technical crap, but those tools are your eyes to what the hell is going on with the downhole structures in the well.
Been retired for 12 years so the new stuff is well beyond the equipment I worked on.

211 posted on 06/14/2010 9:21:02 PM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Um no, corexit 9500 is not essentially a glorified detergent.

I stopped reading right there.


Perhaps you should have continued to read. The primary active ingredient in Corexit 9500 is dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, or DOSS. It's an anionic surfactant, which is a detergent. A number of consumer and industrial products use it as an emulsifier or cleaner. I've encountered it many times during my career.

212 posted on 06/14/2010 10:35:53 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike; chris37; manc; Travis McGee

Nalco claims all the chemicals used in the dispersants are safe and are used in everyday items such as skin cream, baby shampoos, beverages, and other common household items; however, one of the chemicals, 2-butoxy-ethanol, is not so harmless.
This chemical, 2-butoxy-ethanol, is on the Special Health Hazard Substance List and the amount of time a person can work around this chemical is limited by OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH. The Special Hazard Substance List warns that 2-butoxy-ethanol is a reproductive hazard, which means that it can affect a fetus if a woman is pregnant and can affect a male’s reproductive system. Additionally, the sheet warns that 2-butoxy-ethanol can affect kidney and liver function. It makes a person wonder if the public will ever find out the complete truth about the affects and after effects of the oil spill on people in the area and the workers who are cleaning up the spill. The Special Hazard Substance List warns that the after effects of 2-butoxy-ethanol can lasts for months or years after exposure. Therefore, people who are cleaning or are exposed to any area of the spill need to take all precautions.
How can Nalco say that the dispersants are basically safe if one of the chemicals in the dispersants is 2-butoxy-ethanol and is considered a carcinogen to humans? Carcinogens are capable of causing cancer and are found in a variety of products such as radon, asbestos, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals and substances. So, how can Nalco say the dispersants are less toxic than the oil? It makes a person wonder if the public will ever find out the complete true about how the spill will affect environmental health.
The EPA said “stop the Corexit.” BP said “no.” When the history of this occasion is written, we’re likely to know that we’d have been better off with just containment and no dispersant. I expect the Corexit will magnify the harm, injury, and damage from this disaster. In fact, if this event turns out 5X worse, we’re going to look back upon the application of Corexit as the most criminal act in the whole sorry saga.
Has Obama stopped the Corexit yet? Or is BP still wearing the pants up to this minute?
I think that his fecklessness on this point will become yet one more reason why Obama should resign or be impeached and then prosecuted.
Someone on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show today was speculating that it will be raining oil all the way up to New Jersey.

Hired by BP to survey the plume, they reported the location of oil slicks to company officials. But when airplanes began spraying chemical dispersants above the water, she said, these workers developed unusual symptoms – open sores, high blood pressure, nausea, and high white blood cell counts. Other sources reported headaches, dizziness, and breathing troubles. The workers were never given respirators.
Scientists believe the ailments most likely come from exposure to oil, oil vapors, or chemical dispersants like Corexit. But the companies say that’s impossible.
Nalco Holding Company, the chemical manufacturer that makes Corexit, claims its product is “at least 25 times less toxic than common dishwashing soap.” Never mind that the UK banned the dispersant’s use and the EPA said Corexit is more toxic and less effective than available alternatives. As of this writing, more than 1.1 million gallons of Corexit have been used in the Gulf.
BP has simply shrugged off these complaints. It maintains that its monitors can’t detect anything unusual that could be making workers sick. Tony Hayward, the company’s CEO, suggested the illnesses might be food poisoning.

What’s in Corexit — from the Horse’s Mouth
Here’s a list of what is reported to be the chemical components in Corexit:
Chemical Name
• 1,2-Propanediol
• Ethanol, 2-butoxy- (only in Corexit 9527)
• Butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester, sodium salt (1:1)
• Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate
• Sorbitan, mono-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs.
• Sorbitan, tri-(9Z)-9-octadecenoate, poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) derivs
• 2-Propanol, 1-(2-butoxy-1-methylethoxy)-
• Distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated light
A Nalco spokesman claims that “Both COREXIT dispersants have been approved by the EPA as part of the National Contingency Plan for treating oil spills.” What they don’t bother to mention is the circumstances for which they are approved, and that the approved dispersal method does NOT allow for it to be used sub-surface. In fact, as we reported earlier in this ecological disaster, the EPA and BP are specifically prohibited from using it in that fashion by the Clean Water Act of 1972. (CWA)
Throughout all of the Congressional hearings, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, no one seems to want to call the EPA and Lisa Jackson on the carpet for issuing permits in direct defiance of the CWA. The simple fact is that using Corexit under water was, and still is, illegal. It’s also illegal for the EPA to have issued a permit to do so. The CWA specifically states that a permit may NOT be issued if there is reasonable question as to the toxicity and/or result of releasing that chemical into the water. BP claimed early on that they didn’t know what the repercussions might be.

“A mysterious “disease” has caused widespread damage to plants from weeds to farmed organic and conventionally grown crops. There is very strong suspicion that ocean winds have blown Corexit aerosol plumes or droplets and that dispersants have caused the unexplained widespread damage or “disease”.’

(Note*****I don’t have a clue whether this is true or BS but let me say this. For 3-4 days we had N, NW and W winds. That blows the air from the GOM over the state of FL. We had Impatiens and orchids in bloom. ALL of the flowers wilted and died. When the breeze changed to E, SE and S, the new blooms ever since have been fine. Don’t say it was because we forgot to water because they are all watered with automatic misters.

Ill Winds Blowing At BP Oil
By Andrew Boggs.

The start of hurricane season may give BP even more uncertainty in its attempts to cap the Gulf of Mexico oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon rig.
Efforts to stop the oil from flowing into the Gulf of Mexico have so far been erratic at best. BP is creating even more of an environmental crisis by burning thousands of barrels-worth of excess surface oil in the ocean. The raw burning is adding tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere along with a fair amount of the toxic chemical cocktail dispersant Corexit 9500 mixed in with the burn that is getting into the skin and lungs of workers trying to contain the wayward petroleum spill. Over two thousand workers are forced to breathe both the raw oil and the dispersant, Corexit 9500. Corexit 9500 causes oil slicks to break into globules as well the sinking of the raw petroleum to the ocean floor where the oil is consumed by bacteria. However, Corexit is highly toxic to human beings and other species. Corexit 9500 causes severe respiratory damage and negative effects to one’s nervous system, liver, kidney and blood. Its components include 2-butoxyethanol and organic sulfuric acid. Even with its very high toxicity levels, it is only 54.7% effective when compared to another and more safer dispersant, Sea Brat, which is said to be 100% effective with less toxicity. One reason the less effective chemical is used is because of BP’s close ties with Nalco, makers of Corexit 9500.

Is Corexit Safe to Use?
The short answer is “No!” Corexit is highly toxic to humans as well as marine life.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the 2-butoxyethanol in Corexit to be a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill of respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.
According to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), Corexit 9500‘s “potential human bazard is: High.” It can cause central nervous system depression; nausea; unconsciousness; liver, kidney damage; and red blood cell hemolysis with repeated or prolonged exposure through inhalation or ingestion.
The dispersants are designed to break up the oil and lessen the physical damage. Unfortunately, they have an environmental cost of their own. BP initially responded to the growing spill by spraying Corexit 9527 containing 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that ruptures red blood cells when ingested. “When it was sprayed over the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, workers suffered health problems, including blood in their urine, and liver and kidney disorders,” says Shaw.
She goes on to explain that its replacement, Corexit 9500, contains compounds that are acutely toxic to invertebrates, and can cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into the lungs following ingestion. By the time this magazine went to press, more than one million gallons of dispersant had been sprayed on to the slicks. What we’d seen beneath the slick hanging in the water was a toxic cocktail of light sweet crude and dispersant, masquerading as plankton. As soon as it was ingested by grazing fish, it would start a journey from the body of prey to that of predator, and on up through the food chain, getting more concentrated at every step.

BP has financial ties with Nalco, which explains why they have now poured more than 1,021,000 gallons of it into the Gulf and have another 805,000 gallons on order. Because of these industry ties, Corexit is the only dispersant available in the massive quantities “needed” for an oil spill of this size.
In fact, they used up all exiting stockpiles of Corexit 9527A, the older and less desirable formula, and Nalco states it will be discontinued, now that it has been used up.
And if it is toxic enough to be discontinued, why was it being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico in the first place?
Of all 18 dispersants tested, Corexit 9500 and 9527A are the LEAST effective, further confirming that BP’s preferential use of these products is motivated by profit, rather than their proclaimed intention to “clean up the mess,” as Sayer Ji points out.
Although using less toxic dispersants is a good idea, relative toxicity is NOT really the issue. A far more critical point is the inherently damaging consequences of dispersing the oil by any means.
Casting Dispersions of Doubt
As Ji states:
“Dispersing the oil into the water column accelerates the poisoning of all marine life, deep throughout the water column and seabed. Ultimately it results in “covering-up” the extent of the disaster on the surface, while amplifying the damage within our oceans.
Also, when the dispersants mix with the crude oil, a third far more toxic product is produced called “dispersed oil.” Dispersed oil has been shown to be more toxic than the sum of its parts.
Dispersing simply keeps the oil deeper in the water column so that it will not surface, into the light of public scrutiny.”
Out of sight, out of mind... right?

Even EPA administrator Jackson said this about the use of the high volume of toxic dispersants:
“I think it’s fair to say that when it comes to this volume, we’re in uncharted waters.”
Dr. Jane Lubchenko, NOAA director, who approved the use of Corexit, rationalized it this way:”Research suggests the chemicals used in the dispersants are one-tenth to one one-hundreth less toxic than the oil. “Their use is a trade-off decision,” said Lubchenco earlier this week.
But not everyone is convinced. A group of toxicology experts are suggesting that the stew of chemical dispersants and crude oil might be doing more harm than good.
“The dispersants used in the BP cleanup efforts, known as Corexit 9500 and Corexit EC9527A, are also known as deodorized kerosene,” said Dr. William Sawyer.
“With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of kerosene exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins, breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other mammals,” said Dr. Sawyer.

A reader of this blog warns that the use of Corexit could, in fact, will, most likely will, have long term consequences:
As a marine ecology expert, she should know that degraded oil has significantly high toxicity to developing atherinid and clupeoid fish embryos and the fact that the biodegradation of crude oil is now known to produce water soluble fractions that may be toxic to marine life.
But that’s not all. Quietly exiting the scene through retirement in the wake of the oil spill scandal is Chris Oynes, a Clinton appointee left in place by Obama, who was promoted under Bush in spite of a scandal that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars:
Oynes was promoted to associate director despite his role in a “foul-up” at the MMS’ regional office in New Orleans, reports The Times-Picayune:
And the scandal is found here:
During his tenure at the Gulf regional office in Louisiana for the MMS, Chris Oynes played a central role in an offshore leasing foul-up that cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion in lost revenue. The Interior Department’s inspector general called the matter “a jaw-dropping example of bureaucratic bungling.” Despite that, the agency’s then-director promoted Mr. Oynes in 2007 to associate director for the offshore program.
And here:
The report said the inspector general had developed confidential sources “who provided additional information pertaining to M.M.S. employees at the Lake Charles District Office, including acceptance of a trip to the 2005 Peach Bowl game that was paid for by an oil and gas company; illicit drug use; misuse of government computers; and inspection report falsification.”
It becomes more and more obvious that the government officials in charge of the oil spill don’t know what the heck they are doing; in fact, it appears that politics is playing a more important role than environmental concern. It also appears that, as each day passes, they are digging in their heels denying the significance of what is happening and allowing this culture of corruption to flourish.,_cronyism_rules_the_day_in_the_Gulf_oil_spill.html
The day before BP placed the order with NOFO, on May 2, CNBC reported that BP had bought the “entire inventory” of the oil dispersant product Corexit 9500™, which represents 95 percent of the U.S. market for oil dispersants.

The milder, soap-water-like Dasic Slickgone, made by Dasic International Ltd., in the United Kingdom, is the main oil dispersant approved for use in the North Sea, due to its lower toxicity. It has been tested, studied, and used during NOFO’s unique annual drill: “We conduct an outdoor laboratory, in which we pump oil into the sea to simulate a real oil spill,” Mr. Knudsen explained.

Norway is also one of the few places in the world to warehouse such a large quantity of oil dispersants available to be shipped at a moment’s notice.

The dispersant Corexit 9500 that BP has been spraying over the Gulf spill and injecting one mile deep into the blowout vent, is banned by the UK and Norway, due to its high toxicity. “[Corexit] 9500 is forbidden to use in the North Sea offshore oil industry,” Mr. Knudsen explained.
he chemicals BP is relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil presents an additional reason for concern. Referred to simply as dispersants, the goal of these chemicals is to break down the oil and prevent it from hitting land. The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but sources reveal that it includes a dispersant known as Corexit.
A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. According to a literature review performed by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Corexit was later linked with respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders in humans. Although officials insist that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago, skepticism about BP’s dispersants on liver health persists.
The two versions of Corexit [Corexit 9500 and Corexit(R) EC9527A] believed to be in BP’s secret formula both contain 2-butoxyethanol, a substance known to cause headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, one of these substances may:
• Cause moderate irritation and be harmful if absorbed through skin.
• Be harmful if swallowed, causing liver and kidney effects and/or damage. There may be irritation to the gastro-intestinal tract.
• Cause central nervous system effects, nausea, vomiting, anesthetic or narcotic effects from excessive exposure.
• Cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver from repeated or excessive exposure.
It is easy to recognize BP’s underwater oil fountain as an environmental catastrophe, but human health is likely to be affected as well. Because of the dangers that both crude oil and chemical dispersants may pose to the liver, people with chronic liver disease are urged to take additional precautions if visiting the Gulf Coast this summer.

213 posted on 06/14/2010 11:57:48 PM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

COREXIT 9500 (PDF) will most likely end up helping kill the Gulf of Mexico. Mixed with the spewing crude, it packs a powerful punch. The ‘Emergency Overview’ section of COREXIT 9500s (PDF) Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) warns you not to get the chemical in your eyes, on your skin, on your clothing, not to take it internally and to avoid breathing in the vapors — to use with adequate ventilation. COREXIT 9500 is manufactured by NALCO, yet another company with a somewhat dubious history. In keeping with the usual disproportionate, potentially criminal use of alleged “experts” concocted to mislead the populations and harm the innocent, a federal panel of 50 “experts” has recommended the continued use of the toxic chemical dispersant. Despite the existence of a better, less toxic chemical being readily available, BP and the so-called “experts” have decided to use COREXIT 9500. A close look at board members affiliated with NALCO’s Chairman, CEO and President reveals a lot.

The Center for Biological Divers filed an official notice of its intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for authorizing the use of the toxic dispersant without ensuring that these chemicals would not harm endangered species and their habitats. According to the Common Dreams report, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity said that no one in the federal government ever required that these chemicals be proven safe and that the Gulf of Mexico has become Frankenstein’s laboratory for BP’s enormous, uncontrolled experiment. Regardless of the dangers, the EPA has allowed BP to dump nearly 1 million gallons of the toxic dispersant into the Gulf of Mexico. The total extent of the damages done by the toxic chemical won’t be known for years.

214 posted on 06/15/2010 12:03:21 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

J . Erik Fyrwald is the Chairman and CEO of NALCO and among other things, “…serves as a Director of Eli Lilly and Company, the Society of Chemical Industry, the American Chemistry Council and is a Trustee of the Field Museum of Chicago.” More of his relationships via shows he is also a Director of The Eexecutives Club of Chicago.- where they are launching The Global Leadership Institute of Chicago—a legacy that endows the capacity to make change.
Capacity to make change? Change you can believe in?
Let me think, who else is from Chicago that I can think of? Blagojevich, Wright, Ayers, President Obama. The biggest oil spill in the world has taken place under Obama’s reign and it took him days to hold a conference with administration officials and eleven days to go see for himself.
Keeping in good graces in the eye of the government and the public, Nalco issued this statement on EPA Analysis of Sub-surface Dispersant Use,, Ill.,
May 20, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) –Nalco (NYSE:NLC) today issued the following statement:We are gratified that the EPA has acknowledged that the use of Nalco’s dispersants has been effective and has had no undue impact on the marine environment. As the agency noted on its website today: “Toxicity data does not indicate any significant affects on aquatic life. Moreover, decreased size of the oil droplets is a good indication that, so far, the dispersant is effective.”
The results can be found at . To date, approximately 600,000 gallons of dispersant has been used on the surface and approximately 55,000 gallons of dispersant has been used subsurface, at the source of the spill.
Do you smell something fishy?
Nalco claims the products are working just fine with no hazards, yet the EPA is revoking the use of COREXIT? Yep. It boils down to the fact that the government is not happy with BP. In a Letter From Secretary Napolitano and EPA Administrator Jackson to BP CEO Tony Hayward (PDF) they all but accuse BP of adulterating water samples to justify that COREXIT and the sucking up gadget is having a positive effect of the spill.
Friday, May 21, 2010 11 a.m. CDT. U.S. Coast Guard Incident Commander Capt. Steven Poulin, U.S. Coast Guard Deputy Incident Commander Capt. Bill Drelling, and BP Incident Commander Keith Seilham of The Deepwater Horizon Response Unified Incident Command, Mobile, Ala., are scheduled to hold a press briefing about ongoing response operations along the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coasts. I got tired of listening to the music and hung up after the delayed start, but why wouldn’t the EPA be involved as well?
Nalco Ranks in Top 100 of Newsweek’s Green Rankings
NAPERVILLE, Ill., Sept. 22, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nalco Company (NYSE:NLC - News), providing essential expertise for water, energy and air, was in the top 20 percent of the 500 largest U.S. companies in Newsweek’s first Green Rankings, which was announced in the magazine’s September 28th issue.
“It is an honor to be included in this list,” said Nalco Chairman and CEO J. Erik Fyrwald. “Nalco continually works to develop sustainable technologies that have environmental, economic and social benefits. Our mission is to help our customers save water and energy, enhance production and improve air quality all while helping them reduce their total cost of operations. All Nalco employees appreciate this recognition of those efforts.”
Nalco finished 92nd in the 2009 Newsweek Green Rankings and was ranked 8th out of 47 companies listed in its industry category. Newsweek worked with KLD Research & Analytics, Trucost and to rank the largest companies in the United States by looking at three areas: environmental performance, policies and reputation. More information is available at
Nalco Co-Sponsors B4E Global Summit in Seoul
NAPERVILLE, Ill., April 19, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nalco (NYSE:NLC), providing essential expertise for water, energy and air, announced it is co-sponsoring the fourth Business for Environment (B4E) Global Summit, which is being held April 21-23 in Seoul, South Korea, in conjunction with Earth Day.
“Water, energy and air quality are among the critical environmental issues we are facing as a planet,” says J. Erik Fyrwald, Nalco Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “Through our involvement in forums such as B4E and our participation in global initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact and CEO Water Mandate, Nalco seeks to bring our expertise to bear on helping to develop balanced, long-term solutions which benefit the environment, the economy and society.”

Nalco shares jump on news of oil spill cleanup work
Eric Fyrwald CEO of the Naperville, Illinois-based company, told CNBC his company was working with BP to apply one of its proprietary chemicals that breaks down oil into small parts that can be eaten and dissolved by naturally occurring bacteria.,fce28a8

215 posted on 06/15/2010 12:04:26 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

Lord autumnraine, you’re freaking me out. :O I was concerned, then a little nervous, now I’m getting really worried. :(

216 posted on 06/15/2010 12:07:40 AM PDT by mojitojoe (banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I see you know how to cut and paste. How nice.

Toxicity is highly dependent on concentration. Are these things good at high concentrations? Of course not. Are we better off emulsifying the oil so we can get encourage bio-remediation? Of course.

I've got degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering and worked in the environmental business for 16 years, including owning my own consulting firm. You would recognize the names of many of the clients I had.

If you're going to stick your head in the sand and spam nonsense, you might as well be a liberal.

217 posted on 06/15/2010 1:01:59 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Listen to 80.1 and 80.2

(80.3 is an interview with the Grand Isle Chief of Police - also worth listening to)

If you only have time for one, choose 80.2.

218 posted on 06/15/2010 1:27:58 AM PDT by Natural Born 54 (FUBO x 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Ignore my post about a CBL being run, checked further and the CBL was run as a "Stuck Pipe Log" on March 12 according to the documents Schlumberger provided to the government.
Funny what checking dates and a little research will get you :^)
Anyway they ran it as a stuck pipe tool, stuck it and abandoned it.
Looks like a CBL run for cement evaluation was never done.
Sorry about the mis-info.
219 posted on 06/15/2010 1:29:14 AM PDT by The Cajun (Mind numbed robot , ditto-head, Hannitized, Levinite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

“Looks like a CBL run for cement evaluation was never done.”

Correct - it wasn’t. Mid March (when the tool got lost) was also about when an internal memo regarding the conditions and summary of the hole to that date was prepared. Also about the time that BP CEO sold 1/3 of his BP stock. And Goldman-Sachs sold a bunch too.

220 posted on 06/15/2010 1:41:49 AM PDT by 21twelve ( UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES MY ARSE: " begin the work of remaking America."-Obama, 1/20/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson