Sunday, July 11, 2010

Extraordinary times in Cuba

Laura Pollan, leader of Las Damas de Blanco, marches along Quinta Avenida in Havana on Sunday.

There has been a flurry of news in Cuba. First came the Cuban government’s decision to release 52 political prisoners over the next three months. Then came the extradition of Francisco Chavez Abarca, a Salvadoran accused of carrying out violent attacks against Cuba.

More news came today when Fidel Castro’s photographer son Alex posted photos showing the former Cuban president visiting a research center in Havana. Alex Castro shot the pictures last week at the National Center for Scientific Investigation in Havana. One news report said Castro used a cell phone camera to take the pictures; I haven’t confirmed that.

Photos by Alex Castro. Source: CubaDebate

News of Fidel Castro’s rare public appearance comes days after the Cuban government said it would free 52 prisoners held since a government crackdown on dissidents in March 2003.
Guillermo Fariñas announced he’d end his 134-day hunger strike after Cuban authorities announced the release. Fariñas is a dissident and independent journalist in the central town of Santa Clara. He began his protest after dissident Orlando Zapata Tamayo died in February after an 86-day hunger strike.

About Along The Malecón

The Malecón is the famed avenue stretching for more than four miles along Havana’s seawall. People go there every day: Blacks, whites and mulattoes – people of every hue. Young and old, they all go, die-hard revolutionaries and those who are fed up with the revolution. They take in the ocean air, dance and look for romance. They sip rum and stare at the water.

More than a dozen reporters and photographers showed up to cover the Damas’ march on Sunday. The women marched without any interference. A passing motorist yelled something like, “Those people aren’t news.” Another shouted, “Mariconas,” which means lesbians.

The Damas kneeled in front of Santa Rita Church and prayed after finishing their march, then they chanted “Freedom! Freedom!” A few minutes later as they gathered at a nearby park and some of them repeated the chant. A man who was shooting video missed that shot and asked the Damas to repeat it. One prominent member of the group refused, saying that these chants “come from the soul” and aren’t meant to be repeated just because someone asks.

The cameraman asked if, well, the Damas could please be inspired again to feel it “from the soul.” More than a half dozen of the women complied, chanting “Freedom! Freedom!” once again, then told the cameraman that they hoped he was satisfied.

Researchers Confirm Subsea Gulf Oil Plumes Are From BP Well

Friday 23 July 2010

by: Sara Kennedy  |  McClatchy Newspapers | Report

Sampling operations being conducted on the research vessel Brooks McCall, near the site of the oil breach at the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo: Dr. Oscar Garcia / Florida State University)

St. Petersburg, Fla. – Through a chemical fingerprinting process, University of South Florida researchers have definitively linked clouds of underwater oil in the northern Gulf of Mexico to BP’s runaway Deepwater Horizon well — the first direct scientific link between the subsurface oil clouds commonly known as “plumes” and the BP oil spill, USF officials said Friday.

Until now, scientists had circumstantial evidence, but lacked that definitive scientific link.

The announcement came on the same day that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that its researchers have confirmed the existence of the subsea plumes at depths of 3,300 to 4,300 feet below the surface of the Gulf. NOAA said its detection equipment also implicated the BP well in the plumes’ creation.

Together, the two studies confirm what in the early days of the spill was denied by BP and viewed skeptically by NOAA’s chief — that much of the crude that gushed from the Deepwater Horizon well stayed beneath the surface of the water.

“What we have learned completely changes the idea of what an oil spill is,” said chemical oceanographer David Hollander, one of three USF researchers credited with the matching samples of oil taken from the water with samples from the BP well. “It has gone from a two-dimensional disaster to a three-dimensional catastrophe.”

The other scientists involved in making the link, USF said, were biological oceanographer Ernst Peebles and geological oceanographer David Naar.

The finding is important because oil that escaped from the mile-deep, blown-out well had been treated with dispersants, which broke the oil in the water column into tiny droplets, and therefore did not form an oil slick at the surface, said Richard H. Pierce, senior scientist and director of the Center for Ecotoxicology at Sarasota’s Mote Marine Laboratory.

“It’s more readily taken up and absorbed and ingested by marine animals,” he explained.

Although dispersed oil degrades more quickly over the long-run, in the short-term, it poses a more toxic threat to marine life, Pierce said.

“So, we’ve been very concerned, and it is critical USF has verified it,” he said.

The full report was not released Friday, but will be available sometime next week, USF spokeswoman Vickie Chachere said.

BP declined to comment on the USF discovery. “We have only seen media reports, and have not yet seen the report and underlying data,” BP spokesman Phil Cochrane said in an e-mail.

USF scientists found microscopic droplets of biodegraded oil at varying depths beneath the Gulf’s surface, the university said in a statement.

One layer was 100 feet thick; it was found 45 nautical miles north-northeast of the well site, officials said.

The researchers found the plumes after models created by a USF expert in ocean currents, Robert Weisberg, predicted subsurface oil from the Deepwater Horizon well would move toward the north-northeast, USF said.

“The clouds were found near the DeSoto Canyon, a critical area that interacts with Florida’s spawning grounds,” USF said.

The NOAA study made similar findings. According to the report, which was reviewed by 19 scientists known as the Joint Analysis Group, data collected by five research ships deployed in the Gulf from May 19 to June 19 showed oil suspended in the water between 1,000 and 1,300 meters — about 3,280 feet to 4,265 feet.

The NOAA scientists detected the oil by measuring its fluorescence — many of the droplets are too small to detect otherwise — and said that that measurement linked it to the BP well.

The report said the oil had been detected in heaviest concentrations near the BP well and that its concentrations dropped as the ships moved away from the well, but that not enough samples had been taken to determine the full “horizontal extent” of the plumes.

The report also said the impact of the oil on sealife had yet to be determined. Even at low concentrations, the report said, the oil “might be biologically meaningful” because of the length of time fish and other organisms would be exposed to it.

The report also said that scientists had detected lower levels of dissolved oxygen in the water at depths below 3,280 feet, but that they couldn’t determine why the levels were low with certainty. They said the levels were not so low as to be fatal to sealife.

Steven Murawski, chief scientist for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, said the data confirm that the subsea plumes of oil were the result of the Deepwater Horizon well.

“That’s a real smoking gun, as far as we’re concerned,” he said. “It really is a flow” from the well.

In May, when scientists first reported that they had discovered oil beneath the Gulf’s surface and blamed it on the Deepwater Horizon spill, they were denounced by both BP and NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco.

BP CEO Tony Hayward denied that such plumes existed and Lubchenco called the reports “misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate.“

Do you like this? Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your inbox every day – free.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 223-4975, fax (202) 223-4979, or email coha@coha.org.

COHA is formulating a series of analyses of the breaking news from Havana that Cuba is in the process of releasing 52 political prisoners.

In immediate response to the latest news from Cuba – COHA released the following report by Staff Member Sara Nawaz.

COHA Staff Memorandum: Cuba Pledges to Release Political Prisoners.

State Department Must Seize Golden Opportunity to Utilize Momentum to Change its Cuban Strategy, and not Duck Behind Shallow Platitudes.

On Wednesday, July 7, Cuba vowed to release fifty-two political prisoners, five immediately and forty-seven in upcoming months. If successfully carried out, this would mean that about one-third of current political detainees on the island will have been released, leaving approximately one hundred still in custody. This is the first large-scale prisoner release by Havana since 1998, when upwards of 100 political prisoners were released following Pope John Paul II’s visit to Cuba. Spurred on by E.U. pressure, the current release was negotiated by the energized Archbishop of Havana Jaime Ortega, Spanish foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos, and Cuban president Raúl Castro. The Obama administration, which so far has failed to live up to its campaign rhetoric of broadening ties with Cuba, would be wise to seize this opportunity to warm up its outdated and unproductive Cuban strategy.

Despite promises to shift U.S. policy toward Cuba in the direction of greater flexibility, the Obama administration has so far only managed to reverse some of the more extremist policies implemented by President George W. Bush. While the current administration removed the limit on remittances to Cuba, as well as the cap on travel that prevented Cuban Americans from traveling to the island more than once every three years, its Cuban policies otherwise have been lame, listless, and bereft of imagination. While necessary, these have ultimately been only token steps that have failed to ignite much enthusiasm in Latin America because of their limited nature. Furthermore, despite Obama’s orders for the CIA to close Guantanamo Bay last year, the prison will now remain open for the next two years.

For full article click here

—————————————–

COHA Previous Releases on Cuba:

• Disparities in U.S. Immigration Policy toward Haiti and Cuba: A Legacy to be Continued?
by COHA Research Associates Alice Barrett & Kelsey Cary

• Travel to Cuba Legislation Mired by Scandal, Fierce Opposition
by COHA Research Fellow Katya Rodriguez and Research Associate Carl Patchen

• Cuba-U.S. Rhetoric Timeline: Hope for a Basic Shift in Policy Disintegrates into Continued Polarization
by COHA Research Associate Katya Rodriguez

• Cuba’s Health Politics: At Home and Abroad
by COHA Senior Research Fellow Julie Feinsilver

• Cuba – Russia Now and Then
by COHA Research Associate Evgenij Haperskij

• No “Common Policy,” as Europe Grapples over its Future ties with Cuba
by COHA Research Associate Evgenij Hapers

• ¿Cambio?The Obama Administration in Latin America: A Dissapointing Year in Retrospective
by COHA Research Fellows Guy Hursthouse and Tomás Ayuso

—————————————-

Clinton “Encouraged” by Cuba’s Prisoner Accord.

WASHINGTON, Jul 8 (IPS) – In the most positive U.S. statement on developments in Cuba in recent memory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday said the reported agreement between President Raul Castro and the Cuban Catholic Church regarding the release of 52 political prisoners was “very welcome”. At the same time, independent analysts here said the accord, in which Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos also played a role, should bolster chances that Congress will approve pending legislation that would end the ban on U.S. citizens travelling to Cuba.

“All of this will strengthen the chances of passage (of the bill) by the House of Representatives,” said Geoff Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). “To the extent the (Congressional) debate will be about the human rights situation in Cuba,” he told IPS, “this will provide evidence that the situation is improving and that engagement is more likely to produce results than isolation.”

Indeed, anti-Castro Cuban Americans expressed concern about the possible political implications here of a major prisoner release. “Those who perish in Castro’s dungeons deserve better than to be used as ploys by the Castro apparatus to extract concessions and financial rewards that will enable the regime to extend its stranglehold on the Cuban people,” said Cuban-born Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as the Archdiocese of Havana announced the accord in Havana.

“We must not be fooled. Until all political prisoners are liberated; all political parties, labour unions, independent media are legalised and allowed to operate freely; until the Cuban people are able to exercise their universal rights free of coercion and intimidation, maximum pressure must be exerted on the Cuban tyranny,” she added. Under the accord, which was the lead story in Thursday’s Washington Post, the Castro government will release 52 political prisoners over the next several months. Five of the prisoners are to be released immediately and sent to Spain, while six others are to go to prisons closer to their homes.

The 52 prisoners were among 75 dissidents – 23 of whom have already been released – who were rounded up during a major crackdown in March 2003 and sentenced to as much as 20 years for anti-state or counter-revolutionary activities. It is not yet clear whether any or all of them will be required to leave the country as a condition of their release, although published reports have quoted Spanish government sources as indicating that Madrid will take them in. The State Department said Thursday they would also be “welcome” in the U.S. but that “those released should be free to decide whether to remain in Cuba and those who do leave should be able to return to their country.”

The Havana-based Cuban Commission for Human Rights said the number of political prisoners held in the country’s prisons currently stands at 167, the lowest number since former President Fidel Castro took power in 1959. Release of the 52 would reduce their population by about one-third, according to Elizardo Sanchez, the Commission’s long-time president.

Amnesty International, which uses narrower criteria in determining who qualifies as a “prisoner of conscience”, said the release of the 52 would leave only one such prisoner, Rolando Jimenez Posada, in confinement. Posada, a lawyer who publicly protested the 2003 crackdown, was himself arrested in April of that year and is serving a 12- year sentence for “disrespecting authority and revealing secrets about state security police”.

“We welcome the commitment to release these prisoners, but there is no reason why all 53 prisoners of conscience held in Cuba should not be released immediately, said Susan Lee, director of Amnesty’s Americas Programme. “Forcing them to leave the country would be yet another attempt to suppress freedom of expression and movement in Cuba,” she added.

Key Congressional Committee Votes to Lift Travel Ban.
Jim Lobe*
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

WASHINGTON, Jun 30 (IPS) – In a major victory for anti-embargo forces, a key Congressional committee voted here Wednesday to lift restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba. If passed by both houses of Congress, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act will also ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to the Caribbean island that were imposed by former President George W. Bush.

“I am proud to say that today, the House Agriculture Committee took a courageous vote to end the short-sighted and failed policy that limits American agriculture’s access to the Cuban market,” said Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives who, along with a Republican colleague, Rep. Jerry Moran, was the bill’s chief sponsor.

“An unprecedented coalition of agriculture, business, religious and social organisations have endorsed (the bill), and today’s vote demonstrates that Congress is ready to change our nation’s approach on this issue,” he added. “We have tried to isolate Cuba for more than 50 years, and it has not worked. As it has in other countries, perhaps increasing trade with Cuba will encourage democratic progress.”

The bill, which was approved on a 25-20 vote that broke mainly along party lines, will now go to the House Democratic leadership which will decide whether to send it to the House floor.

Sources on Capitol Hill told IPS they believe the decision is likely to be affirmative and that a floor vote could take place by the end of July.

If it passes, the bill, entitled “The Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act”, would go the Senate where pro-embargo forces – mainly Republicans, but also a handful of anti-Castro Democrats – are in the minority but can resort to a number of procedural moves that could delay or even prevent a vote from taking place.

Still, supporters of lifting the travel ban and facilitating more trade with Cuba were jubilant about Wednesday’s Committee vote, depicting it as a major breakthrough in the decades-long battle to end the 49-year-old embargo.

“A committee that comes from a pro-trade, pro-business, and politically very centrist perspective has now called on Congress to lift the ban on travel,” said Geoffrey Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“That’s an important political message in itself to the Senate, certainly to President (Barack) Obama, and also to the Cuban government, which last month opened a promising dialogue with the Cuban Catholic Church,” according to Thale, who noted that two political prisoners have recently been released and a number of others have been moved to detention facilities closer to their homes. “This should encourage that dialogue,” he added.

“We commend the House Agriculture Committee for favourably reporting (the bill),” said Jake Colvin, vice president for Global Trade Issues of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), a lobby group representing more than 300 major U.S.- based companies engaged in international business.

“Today’s vote is the first step towards a more rational foreign policy towards Cuba, and one that the business community strongly supports,” he added.

He noted that the NFTC, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Farmers Union, has included the bill on their scorecards for rating lawmakers on their legislative records before the November elections due its importance as the only major trade-related bill on which the House will have voted this year.

That will add to pressure on pro-business incumbents – mostly Republicans – to vote in favour of the bill if and when it reaches the floors of either house.

U.S. farmers have been eager to increase their exports to Cuba since then president Bill Clinton relaxed the embargo in 1999, and Congress followed with its own reform bill the following year. Despite severe conditions imposed on their sale and shipment to Cuba by the Bush administration, however, exports continued to climb during his administration. Since 2000, more than four billion dollars in agricultural goods have been sent to Cuba.

Under the Peterson-Moran bill, the Bush conditions would be substantially eased. Cuban importers, for example, would no longer have to pay for the goods in advance of their actual shipment. In addition, U.S. banks, which were barred by Bush from handling such transactions, may now participate in their financing.

“Prior to the embargo, the United States accounted for nearly 70 percent of Cuba’s international trade. Cuba was the seventh-largest market for U.S. exporters, particularly U.S. farmers and ranchers,” noted Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to lawmakers before Wednesday’s vote.

He cited a March study by Texas A&M University that found that “easing restrictions on agricultural exports and lifting the travel ban, as proposed by (the bill), could result in up to 365 million dollars in additional sales of U.S. goods with a total economic impact of 1.1 billion dollars and create 6,000 new jobs in the United States.”

Like the business sector, the U.S. tourism industry has tried for years to ease the ban on travel. First imposed in 1961, the ban was lifted under President Jimmy Carter, only to be re-imposed by his successor, Ronald Reagan.

Clinton, who sought to encourage “people-to-people” exchanges, eased the ban, only to be reversed by Bush, who also severely limited the frequency of visits that Cuban Americans could make to the island to visit their families.

At various times under Bush, majorities in both houses of Congress approved provisions in larger bills that would have denied funds to the Treasury Department to enforce the travel ban. But each time the administration and anti-Castro lawmakers succeeded in having those provisions deleted before final passage of the underlying bills.

In that respect, the Peterson-Moran bill marks the first- ever “free-standing bill” to end the travel ban, and most political observers believe that majorities in both houses will vote for it if given a chance to do so.

In the upper chamber, however, several influential senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, have opposed lifting the ban and may resort to procedural methods to prevent it from reaching the floor.

Still, anti-embargo forces, who have been disappointed by Obama’s failure so far to take more aggressive steps to ease the embargo, said the Committee’s action gave them hope that Washington’s approach toward Havana was indeed changing.

“The U.S. needs a new Cuba policy, and the Peterson-Moran bill is a decisive change in the right direction,” said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas.

“By increasing food exports and repealing the travel ban, this legislation will provide more jobs for Americans and Cubans, and move our country from ‘helpless bystander’ to supporting Cubans as they debate and decide the future for themselves.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe//.

 http://www.offshorevaluation.org/

The Offshore Valuation is the first full economic valuation of Britain’s offshore renewable resource.

Where’s the Gulf Oil Spill Going?

Today’s Top Oil-Gulf Stories on AlterNet
June 8th, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/environment/
______________________________

 http://robertreich.org/post/604861772/bp…

BP Stands for Bad Petroleum

Saturday the White House warned BP that it expects the oil giant to pay all damages associated with the disastrous oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico, even if the costs exceed the $75 million liability cap under federal law. BP responded Sunday saying its public statements are “absolutely consistent” with the Administration’s request.

———————-

Actually, who still remembers that BP wanted us to believe that the letter stand for “BEYOND PETROLEUM?”

In effect BP moved into solar energy and together with the Shell Oil Company became one of the first two oil companies that tried to be seen as ENERGY COMPANIES by going beyond oil. We gave them lots of credit – then watched how Shell was helping destroy Nigeria. BP on the other hand was indeed rather blameless at that time. Both, BP and Shell got into the “ENERGY” business because of push by British NGOs. It was the enlightened part of the UK that did the trick, while the enlightened part of the US had no chance whatsoever because of the hold the US oil industry has on Washington – Democrats or Republicans alike.   It was EXXONMOBIL that actively fought the manmade global warming / climate change “theory” and funded all those self styled scientists – in the US and in the UK – that made sure that the media will conclude that only death is proof of death – what I mean is that only when disaster has occurred this is the proof that we are on the path to a disaster.

OK, disaster is striking the Southern coast of the US and beyond while BP has $10.5 Billion to distribute as dividend to share-holders. This alone is good reason for the US Administration to take over BP as it is unacceptable to see these funds leave the company’s coffers with potential reparation bills amounting to more then twice that amount. The $69 million mentioned by President Obama as first payment requested from BP in order to compensate for the oil-spill is pittance to the real cost of redress in this case. Robert Reich has quite a few important points on these issues.

Let us conclude this introduction by saying that BP will yet turn the clock back to the idea of “Beyond Petroleum” by having proven with their lack of preparedness for this accident that this is the true path to a sane world of the 21st century.

———————-

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism. His “Marketplace” commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

: Is this realistic?

A: Not only realistic but it may become necessary – both operationally and politically. If the disaster continues to worsen, it’s untenable for a for-profit corporation to be in charge.

Q: But why should we expect government to do any better job than BP?

A: BP would still be at the job – and its expertise, equipment, and other assets would continue to be utilized. But the federal government would be in overall control of the operation – weighing public risks and benefits, deciding what resources are necessary, getting accurate information and disseminating it to the public.

Q: Why should we trust the government?

A: This isn’t an ideological contest about how little you trust a giant oil company versus the federal government. It’s a matter of accountability. BP’s primary responsibility is to its shareholders. And it will cut corners – as it has before – if that’s the best way to maximize the value of their shares. But only the government, through the President, is directly accountable to the American public, and responsible for protecting it.

Q: Under what legal authority could the President take control of BP’s North American operations?

A: Obama has implicit authority through laws and regulations dealing with offshore drilling, especially the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. By analogy, if a nuclear reactor were melting down, the President would use his regulatory authority over nuclear energy to take temporary control over the plant and the relevant parts of the corporation that ran it. President Truman seized the nation’s steel mills in 1952, arguing that the emergency of the Korean War necessitated it. (The Supreme Court ultimately blocked him but according to Justice Jackson, whose opinion was essentially the majority’s, that was because Truman had no statutory basis for the seizure, not even an implicit one. That isn’t the case here.)

Q: But BP is a British corporation. How can the U.S. government take control?

A: The nationality of a corporation’s shareholders has nothing to do with it. If it is operating within the jurisdiction of the United States and poses a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of Americans, a president would take control of its operations and assets in the United States.

Q: Do you really think Obama would do this? Wouldn’t he prefer to stay away from this mess and keep the responsibility squarely on BP?

A: He may not have much of a choice. If the disaster worsens and Obama doesn’t take control he risks inheriting the mantle of Katrina.

Q: What will force his hand?

A: The White House is already inching toward control. BP’s new admission that it can’t stop the leak until August has shocked a public already deeply distrustful of it. As new evidence emerges of the scale of the disaster, the pressure on the Administration to take full and open control will only grow. Last Saturday Energy Secretary Chu asked BP to cease its so-called “top kill” effort to stop up the gush because he and his team of scientists had concluded it was too risky. Now the White House has to decide whether BP’s continued use of highly toxic dispersants poses more of a threat to the public and the environment than a help. When do these decisions tip over into control? Any time now.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created under President Richard Nixon. Since then it was all downhill. BP has now started to reeducate President Obama.

Our Deepwater wake-up call: Let’s rethink the trade-off between economic development and environmental protection.

- – - – - -

In the wake of Deepwater, let’s put the environment first

An oil-soaked bird struggles against the side of a ship near the oil-spill site. (Gerald Herbert/associated Press)

In June 1969, the stretch of the Cuyahoga River that runs through Cleveland was so polluted that it caught fire. Time magazine described the Cuyahoga this way: “Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows.”

The spectacle of a river in flames helped galvanize the environmental movement, and the following year, with Richard Nixon as president, the Environmental Protection Agency was established. In 1972, Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act. Today, the Cuyahoga is clean enough to support more than 40 species of fish.

We still don’t know the full extent of the environmental disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico — the impact on avian and aquatic life, on fisheries, on tourism, on the delicate ecology of coastal marshes and barrier islands. We do know, though, that it is the worst oil spill in our nation’s history, far surpassing the Exxon Valdez incident. And maybe the shocking images from the gulf of dead fish, oiled pelicans and shores lapped by viscous “brown mousse” will refocus attention on the need to preserve the environment, not just exploit it.

“Drill, baby, drill” isn’t just the bizarrely inappropriate chant that we remember from the Republican National Convention two years ago. It’s a pretty good indication of where the national ethos has drifted. Environmental regulation is seen as a bureaucratic imposition — not as an insurance policy against potential catastrophe, and certainly not as a moral imperative.

Yes, many Americans feel good about going through the motions of environmentalism. We’ve made a religion of recycling, which is an important change. We turn off the lights when we leave the room — and we’re even beginning to use fluorescent bulbs. Some of us, though not enough, understand the long-term threat posed by climate change; a subset of those who see the danger are even willing to make lifestyle changes to try to avert a worst-case outcome.

But where the rubber hits the road — in public policy — we’ve reverted to our pre-enlightenment ways. When there’s a perceived conflict between environmental stewardship and economic growth, the bottom line wins.

Barack Obama is, in many admirable ways, our most progressive president in decades. But as an environmentalist, let’s face it, he’s no Richard Nixon. Before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded — allowing, by some estimates, as many as a million gallons of crude oil to gush into the Gulf of Mexico each day for more than a month — Obama had announced plans to permit new offshore drilling. “I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything,” Obama said at the time. “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”

Obama has wisely backed away from that decision. The technology involved in deep-sea oil drilling turned out to be far more advanced than the technology needed to halt a spill if something goes wrong — essentially, like engineering a car to double its top speed without thinking to upgrade the brakes. This oversight apparently wasn’t noticed by anyone who had the power to correct it.

Calls for Obama to somehow “take over” the emergency response ring hollow. Take it over with what? Hands-on intervention has never been government’s role in this kind of situation. BP and the other oil companies had the undersea robots and the deep-water experience. Other private companies owned and operated the skimmers that remove the oil from the surface. There is no huge government reserve of the booms that are needed to protect Louisiana’s beaches and marshlands; those are made by private firms and are being deployed by unemployed fishermen.

Obama has rethought his enthusiasm for offshore drilling. Now he, and the rest of us, should rethink the larger issue — the trade-off between economic development and environmental protection. In the long run, our natural resources are all we’ve got. Defending them must be a higher priority than our recent presidents, including Obama, have made it.

Energy policy is one of Obama’s priorities. He talks about “clean coal,” which I believe to be an oxymoron, and favors technologies — such as carbon capture and sequestration — that are new and untested. The environmental risks must be a central and paramount concern, not a mere afterthought. Let’s preclude the next Deepwater Horizon right now.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

===================================

But the Washington Post, afraid of looking too progressive in a Sarah Palin dominated US political backwaters town, has balanced above excellent article with a second one that caters to the political sharks. Please read the two articles not just as a sandwich were our future is the filling. Read it rather as an effort to blunt the call for non-fossil future. In effect, this second article is nothing less then the Hofmeister defense of BP which we posted as our original article after we listened to this former CEO of Schell Oil Company on his launch at the US Foreign Policy Association on his start of a book-release campaign in defense of Big Oil.

- – - – -

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama’s tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep — to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That’s a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they’ve escaped any mention at all.

The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.

Obama to extend ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells; Va., Alaska, coasts lease sales to be canceled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701172.html?wpisrc=nl_politics&sid=ST2010052701253

By Debbi Wilgoren and Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 27, 2010; 11:46 AM

President Obama on Thursday, today,  will announce a six-month ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells, the White House said, and cancel plans for exploratory drilling and new lease sales off the coast of Alaska, as well as a proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast.

The clampdown comes as the president prepares to make public the results of a 30-day safety review of offshore drilling that was
ordered after the calamitous explosion of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting spill is creating the most serious environmental crisis in the United States in decades.

The latest effort to stop the flow of crude oil into the sea began Wednesday, and officials say they should know by Thursday afternoon whether it is taking effect. {We hope that some progress will be made in decreasing the flow of oil in the Gulf but the generic problem with this sort of bounty-hunting does not provide for a future of deepsea oil production.

Obama will hold a full East Room news conference on the oil spill
Thursday afternoon — his first such session with reporters in nearly
a year.

Despite a massive federal response at the scene, the White House has received withering criticism from all quarters as the sense of frustration with oil giant BP’s inability to plug the leak has ballooned. In recent days, the administration has come under increasing pressure to demonstrate that it is fully in control of the situation. this proves that when it comes to their own backyards, even ardent right wingers will say – No, Thanks! to visible pollution of their environment. There is nothing that sharpens better politicians’ minds then the prediction that it will hurt them at the poll.

Even Democrats have urged the president to do more, with strategist
James Carville, a Louisiana native, telling CNN Wednesday that “the
political stupidity of this is just unbelievable.”

Aides insist that the government is doing everything it can to hold BP
accountable for the spill and to assist the company’s frantic effort
to stanch the flow of oil at the bottom of the sea. But from the
beginning, Obama officials have been forced to work with BP because
the oil company, not the government, has the technology and expertise
to work at those depths.

The need to rely on the very company that operated the rig has become
a political albatross for Obama, who is likely to respond to questions
today about the government’s authority over BP and government
regulatory efforts going back years.

Obama’s announcement in March that he supported expanded offshore oil drilling has become a
political problem since the explosion.

Early Thursday, an aide speaking on condition of anonymity said Obama will “announce standards to strengthen oversight of the industry and enhance safety, a first step in a process that the independent presidential commission will continue.”

The commission, the aide said, is charged with determining “how to
prevent this from ever happening again.”

The aide said the president will announce that he is delaying plans for Shell Oil Co. to conduct exploratory drilling off the coast of Alaska in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, pending further review by the commission. The president will announce that he is extending an existing moratorium on new drilling by six months.

Obama also will cancel lease sales that had been planned for August off the coast of Alaska and the coast of Virginia, the aide said. The proposed sale in Virginia — while supported by many state officials — had drawn concern from environmental groups and the Defense Department, which has a large military presence in the area.

Environmentalists praised the decision to delay or cancel plans for new drilling, but the announcement is sure to spark criticism from energy industry officials and their allies, who have argued that the Deepwater Horizon accident does not justify a nationwide ban on offshore oil and gas drilling.

Kierán Suckling, executive director of the advocacy group Center for
Biological Diversity, called suspending Shell’s drilling permit in
Alaska this year “the first thing Ken Salazar has done right in
response to the Minerals Management Service scandals.”

“We applaud the secretary’s decision and hope that he permanently ends all new offshore oil drilling in Alaska. Drilling for oil in icy Arctic waters is like playing Russian roulette,” Suckling said early Thursday. “There is no way to clean up a spill there and endangered species such as polar bears, whales, walruses and seals are already under too much stress.”

But Shell officials have argued that they were planning to drill in shallower waters than BP had, and therefore should not face the same restrictions.

In a May 14 letter, Shell President Marvin Odum wrote to MMS Director Elizabeth Birnbaum that his company “is committed to undertaking a safe and environmentally responsible exploration program in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in 2010.”

Odum outlined an array of precautions Shell intended to undertake
there, including a relief well-drilling plan; having MMS inspectors
aboard the Frontier Discoverer rig 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
and testing the blowout preventer — the failure of which was a
primary cause of the BP rig explosion — weekly instead of every two
weeks.

But environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund argued these
safeguards were insufficient, given the remote area in which Shell
intended to drill. WWF noted that the company would only have “a few
major response vessels, a few thousand feet of boom and about 30 small
work boats that would form the basis of their region response” in the
event of a spill.

Even as they applauded Obama’s decision to restrict drilling, advocates said the administration must take bolder steps.

Suckling noted that a former BP executive currently serves as U.S.
assistant secretary for lands and minerals management. The official,
Sylvia Baca, helps oversee the Minerals Management Service, whose
director announced Thursday that she was leaving her job in the wake
of the spill.

And Carter Roberts, president of the World Wildlife Fund, said broad changes in U.S. energy policy are needed.

“ What is still missing is a solution to the underlying cause of the BP disaster — our addition to dirty, dangerous oil,” Roberts said in a statement. ” . . . The catastrophe in the Gulf should provide all the impetus needed for the president and Congress to finally pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill this year.”

Washington Post Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

Some of the other germane Washington Post publications:
*
Oil spill video: ‘Top Kill’ effort going as planned
*
Oil spill cleanup, containment efforts, hearings in wake of gulf disaster
*
Gulf oil spill now nation’s worst
*
Black death has just begun to take its toll on animals
*
Gulf oil spill’s animal victims
*
Fed: Government can’t push BP aside on oil spill
*
How the maneuver works
*
Is the Gulf spill ‘Katrina in slow motion?’
*
Anger over White House response to spill in the Gulf
*
‘No effort spared’ in government oil response
*
Gulf oil spill: BP briefs on breakdowns, mistakes
*
Glossary of terms related to Gulf Coast oil spill
*
Effort to plug well ‘proceeding as we planned’
*
U.S. oil drilling agency ignored risk warnings
*
Report: Inspectors took gifts from oil companies
*
Obama expected to boost offshore-drilling oversight
*
Republicans escalate criticism of oil spill response
*
Protest call runs on empty for some BP customers
*
Pressure to save time, money may have contributed to oil disaster
*
Gulf slick is invading fragile coastal bays
*
BP readies mud and robots to try to plug oil well
*
BP’s investigation finds unheeded ‘warning signs’
*
Obama to extend ban on drilling new deepwater oil wells; Va.,
Alaska lease sales to be canceled

===============================

from Cindy Shogan, Alaska Wilderness League <action@alaskawild.org> date Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:09 PM subject Thank you, Mr. President!

Dear Pincas,

Have you heard the big news? There will be no drilling in America’s Arctic Ocean this summer!

Moments ago, President Obama announced his decision to postpone Arctic offshore drilling until at least 2011, saying: “All drilling must be safe.”

Thankfully, after careful consideration, the President realized that there is no good answer to this question: If Big Oil can’t stop a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, surrounded by all their infrastructure and technology, how could they ever stop one amid the swells and sea ice of the Arctic Ocean?

Click here to thank President Obama for sparing America’s Arctic from offshore drilling this summer.

You deserve thanks, too. The Arctic Is Alive, and it is all around us. Big Oil doesn’t understand the natural connection that we share with our only Arctic ecosystem. But you do.

Take a moment to celebrate this victory, this reprieve from offshore drilling in the Arctic. But also remember the grave challenges ahead: We still do not know the full extent of the BP Gulf spill disaster and we likely won’t until next summer when Arctic drilling could be slated to begin anew.

We saw a flash of appreciation for Arctic life in the President’s remarks today. But we cannot stop pushing for protection until our leaders fully understand: our only Arctic ecosystem, vibrant and fragile, is a national treasure that cannot be bargained away for political gain. America’s Arctic deserves the kind of planning and preparation that the Gulf of Mexico, unfortunately, was never given.

Thank President Obama and urge him to protect America’s Arctic beyond 2011.

League supporters from across the nation have contributed to this effort to halt Arctic offshore drilling in light of the BP Gulf oil spill – pouring in their hours, their dollars, and their hearts – and now, we’re on the brink of a tipping point. We’re fighting the destruction of America’s natural treasures and we won’t let up. I know you won’t either.

Thank you for all that you do,

Cindy Shogan
Executive Director
Alaska Wilderness League

UNEP leads 27 countries of the Wider Caribbean on  “land-based pollution” at an International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting in Panama City based on the ISTAC of Kingston, Jamaica (Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee to the Cartagena Convention. Will they touch nevertheless the menacing Deep-Water Oil-Well Blow-Out?

from: James Sniffen <sniffenj@un.org>

UNEP/CEP PRESS RELEASE: REGIONAL GOVERNMENT POLLUTION EXPERTS MEET IN PANAMA.

Panama City, 24th May, 2010:

Over 50 pollution control experts from 27 countries of the Wider Caribbean
gather today (Monday 24th May) in Panama City at the invitation of the
United Nations Environment Programme’s Caribbean Environment Programme
(UNEP CEP) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The gathering of experts for the 5th Meeting of the Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee (ISTAC) to the Protocol concerning pollution from land-based sources, commonly known as the LBS Protocol, will last for five days.  The CEP is the Secretariat for this Protocol and is based in Kingston, Jamaica.

The LBS Protocol is one of three agreements under the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean
Region (the Cartagena Convention).  It establishes regional guidelines and
standards for reducing the impact of pollution on the coastal and marine
environment, and on human health.   Over 80% of the pollution of the marine
environment of the Wider Caribbean is estimated to originate from land
based sources and activities.

Panama, the host country, is one of only six countries to have ratified the LBS Protocol.  The others are Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, Saint Lucia, France and the United States.  Discussions during the meeting will focus on measures to increase the region’s commitment to ratify the Protocol, and have it enter into force and become international law as soon as possible.

In support of regional cooperation, UNEP CEP is partnering with the IMO and their joint Regional Activity Centre for Oil Spills (RAC REMPEITC) to bring together experts from environmental agencies, maritime authorities and port administrations for this 5th LBS ISTAC.

Delegates are expected to identify practical measures to improve the implementation of marine environmental agreements including the IMO London Convention on the control of pollution from dumping of wastes at sea and the MARPOL Convention on the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships.

According to Nelson Andrade, Coordinator of UNEP CEP”   “It is vital that
Governments adopt a more integrated approach to reducing pollution from
land and marine based sources”.  He noted that the continued partnership
between UNEP and IMO will help to effectively implement the Cartagena
Convention and its three Protocols and to reduce marine contamination.

Meeting Participants are also expected to review recent achievements of the
UNEP CEP to reduce and control marine pollution and to endorse a new work
plan and budget for 2010-2011.

For additional information, please contact:

Christopher Corbin,Programme Officer,
Assessment and Management of Environment Pollution (AMEP),
Regional Co-ordinating Unit, UNEP CEP
Kingston, Jamaica
Telephone: (876) 922-9267 — Fax: (876) 922-9292
http://www.cep.unep.org; cjc@cep.unep.org;

About UNEP’s Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) -  The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) in 1976 under the framework of its Regional Seas Programme.   It was based on the importance and value of the Wider Caribbean Region’s fragile and vulnerable coastal and marine ecosystems including an abundant and mainly endemic flora and fauna,

A Caribbean Action Plan was adopted by the Caribbean countries and led to the adoption, in 1983, of the only current regional, legally-binding agreement for the protection of the marine environment, the Cartagena Convention.  The Convention and its first Protocol (Oil Spill) entered into force in 1986.

Two other protocols were developed by the region – the Protocols on Special Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) and the Control of Pollution from Land Based Sources (LBS) in 1990 and 1999 respectively.

The SPAW Protocol entered into force in 2000, whereas three ratifying countries are still needed for the LBS Protocol.

The Caribbean Regional Coordinating Unit (UNEP-CAR/RCU) serves as the Secretariat to the Cartagena Convention and is based in Kingston, Jamaica.

Each Protocol is served by a Regional Activity Centre.  These Centres are
based in the Netherlands Antilles (Regional Marine Pollution Emergency
Information and Training Center for the Wider Caribbean, RAC/REMPEITC) for
the Oil Spills Protocol, Guadeloupe (RAC/SPAW) for the SPAW Protocol, Cuba
(Centre of Engineering and Environmental Management of Coasts and Bays) and
Trinidad & Tobago (Institute of Marine Affairs) for the LBS Protocol.

US Representative Ed Markey – “People do not trust the experts anymore – that is BP. Lots of people believe there is a BP cover up.”

WILL THE US ADMINISTRATION BE FORCED NOW TO DEVELOP A FEDERAL  APOLLO PROJECT TO GO INTO THE DEEP SEA FOR OIL?

THIS RATHER THEN GOING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND AWAY FROM OIL?

THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WHILE THEY DEVELOPED THE TECHNOLOGY TO DRILL FOR OIL IN THE DEEP SEA, THE INDUSTRY DID NOT DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY TO ACT IN CASE OF A BLOW-OUT?

THE EXPERTISE NEEDED HERE IS NOT THAT OF COURAGEOUS FIRE FIGHTERS, LIKE IT WAS IN EXTINGUISHING THE FIRES IN THE GULF, BUT THAT OF BRAINY ROBOTICS THAT WAS NOT APPLIED YET TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND.

IS IT A BP COVER UP – OR A FAILURE OF ALL THOSE ADMINISTRATIONS THAT ALLOWED FOR COMPANIES PERFORMING THIS DEEP SEA DRILLING FOR OIL WITHOUT MAKING SURE THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO ACT IN CASE OF A MISHAP?

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PUT A FINGER ON THIS WOUND WHEN HE SAID THAT HE FOUND A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN THE SAME US OFFICE ALLOWS FOR THE DRILLING PERMITS AND ALSO COLLECTS THE ROYALTIES FROM THE OIL COMPANIES – BUT THIS DID NOT HAPPEN YESTERDAY – AND PEOPLE IN THAT OFFICE MAY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR POSITION IN ROTATION WITH WORKING FOR THE INDUSTRY.

WILL THE CLIMATE BILL BE KEPT HOSTAGE TO THESE FORCES OF OIL?

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_o…

The best article we saw about the work on the leaking oil-source is in this week’s Economist:                    http://www.economist.com/daily/news/disp…

Month after oil spill, why is BP still in charge?

WASHINGTON – Days after the Gulf Coast oil spill, the Obama administration pledged to keep its “boot on the throat” of BP to make sure the company did all it could to cap the gushing leak and clean up the spill.

But a month after the April 20 explosion, anger is growing about why BP PLC is still in charge of the response.

“I’m tired of being nice. I’m tired of working as a team,” said Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana.

“The government should have stepped in and not just taken BP’s word,” declared Wayne Stone of Marathon, Fla., an avid diver who worries about the spill’s effect on the ecosystem.

That sense of frustration is shared by an increasing number of Gulf Coast residents, elected officials and environmental groups who have called for the government to simply take over.

In fact, the government is overseeing things. But the official responsible for that says he still understands the discontent.

“If anybody is frustrated with this response, I would tell them their symptoms are normal, because I’m frustrated, too,” said Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.

“Nobody likes to have a feeling that you can’t do something about a very big problem,” Allen told The Associated Press Friday.

Still, as simple as it may seem for the government to just take over, the law prevents it, Allen said.

After the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, Congress dictated that oil companies be responsible for dealing with major accidents — including paying for all cleanup — with oversight by federal agencies. Spills on land are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, offshore spills by the Coast Guard.

“The basic notion is you hold the responsible party accountable, with regime oversight” from the government, Allen said. “BP has not been relieved of that responsibility, nor have they been relieved for penalties or for oversight.”

He and Coast Guard Adm. Mary Landry, the federal onsite coordinator, direct virtually everything BP does in response to the spill — and with a few exceptions have received full cooperation, Allen said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was even more emphatic.

“There’s nothing that we think can and should be done that isn’t being done. Nothing,” Gibbs said Friday during a lengthy, often testy exchange with reporters about the response to the oil disaster.

There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.

Asked if President Barack Obama had confidence in BP, Gibbs said only: “We are continuing to push BP to do everything that they can.”

BP spokesman Neil Chapman said the federal government has been “an integral part of the response” to the oil spill since shortly after the April 20 explosion.

“There are many federal agencies here in the Unified Command, and they’ve been part of that within days of the incident,” said Chapman, who works out of a joint response site in Louisiana, near the site of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

Criticism of the cleanup response has spread beyond BP. On Friday, the Texas lab contracted to test samples of water contaminated by the spill defended itself against complaints that it has a conflict of interest because it does other work for BP.

TDI-Brooks International Inc., which points to its staffers’ experience handling samples from the Exxon Valdez disaster, said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service helped audit the lab and approved its methods.

“A typical state laboratory does not have this experience or capacity,” TDI president James M. Brooks said.

The company’s client list includes federal and state agencies along with dozens of oil companies, among them BP, a connection first reported by The New York Times. TDI-Brooks said about half of the lab’s revenue comes from government work.

Test results on Deepwater Horizon samples will figure prominently in lawsuits and other judgments seeking to put a dollar value on the damage caused by the spill.

Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes, who traveled to the Gulf the day after the explosion and has coordinated Interior’s response to the spill, rejected the notion that BP is telling the federal government what to do.

“They are lashed in,” Hayes said of BP. “They need approval for everything they do.”

If BP is lashed to the government, the tether goes both ways. A large part of what the government knows about the oil spill comes from BP.

The oil company helps staff the command center in Robert, La., which publishes daily reports on efforts to contain, disperse and skim oil.

Some of the information flowing into the command center comes from undersea robots run by BP or ships ultimately being paid by BP. When the center reported Friday that nearly 9 million gallons of an oil-water mixture had been skimmed from the ocean surface, those statistics came from barges and other vessels funded by BP.

Allen, the incident commander, said the main problem for federal responders is the unique nature of the spill — 5,000 feet below the surface with no human access.

“This is really closer to Apollo 13 than Exxon Valdez,” he said, referring to a near-disastrous Moon mission 40 years ago.

“Access to this well-site is through technology that is owned in the private sector,” Allen said, referring to remotely operated vehicles and sensors owned by BP.

Click image to see photos of oil spill’s eco impact

AFP

Even so, the company has largely done what officials have asked, Allen said. Most recently, it responded to an EPA directive to find a less toxic chemical dispersant to break up the oil underwater.

In two instances — finding samples from the bottom of the ocean to test dispersants and distributing booms to block the oil — BP did not respond as quickly as officials had hoped, Allen said. In both cases they ultimately complied.

“Personally, whenever I have problem I call (BP CEO) Tony Hayward” on his cell phone, Allen said.

———————————————–___————————————————

THE BOTTOM LINE – THE QUESTION: WHY IS BP IN CONTROL?

THE ANSWER: THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS THE TECHNOLOGY!

SO, WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SELL OUT NATIONAL INTERESTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO MAKE MONEY IN SITUATIONS THAT CREATE UNCHECKABLE NATIONAL AND EVEN GLOBAL RISKS?

————————————————————————————————-

Candy Crowley asks Admiral Thad Allen – Does Admiral Allen trust BP? Answer – “I TRUST BP CEO TONY HAYWARD.”

Candy: WILL BP STILL BE LEADING IN AUGUST?

James Carville the political pundit: GOV’T HAS BEEN “NAIVE” – “WE CANNOT WAIT TILL AUGUST.”

BP Managing Director (Houston) Bob Dudley: “We have 60 men that killed the fires in the Gulf.” BUT THIS IS INSANE – THESE MEN ARE USELESS AT -5.000 feet! THEY NEED THERE ROBOTS – AND THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT MAKE SURE THAT BP HAS THE CAPABILITY TO WORK AT THAT DEPTH IN CASE THERE IS A BLOW-OUT LIKE IT HAPPENED NOW!  THIS IS NOT JUST AN ACCIDENT. IT WAS A FORESEEABLE ACCIDENT THAT THE ONLY LACK OF FORESIGHT IS WITH ALL PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS THAT ALLOWED DEEP WATER DRILLING FOR OIL WITHOUT ASKING THE QUESTION – AND WHAT DO YOU DO IN CASE OF A BLOW-OUT?

———————————————————————————————-

Reuters:

HOUSTON — The U.S. government will move aside BP from the operation to try to halt the Gulf of Mexico oil spill if it decides the company is not performing as required in its response to the well leak, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Sunday.

…

“If we find they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately,” Salazar said, but he did not specify at what point this would occur or what might be the trigger for it.
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/23…

“I am angry and I am frustrated that BP has been unable to stop this oil from leaking and to stop the pollution from spreading,” Salazar told reporters after visiting BP’s U.S. headquarters in Houston.

“We are 33 days into this effort and deadline after deadline has been missed,” Salazar added, referring to the failure of containment efforts attempted so far by London-based BP to control the gushing undersea well one mile down on the ocean floor.

President Barack Obama‘s administration is facing growing public and political pressure to take full charge of the oil spill containment operation as criticism against BP grows.

The spill is threatening an ecological and economic disaster along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“This is an existential crisis for one of the world’s largest companies,” he said, in a reference to the billions of dollars of cleanup and damages costs that BP faces.

Salazar also said BP had agreed to pay cleanup costs beyond the $75 million liability limit set by current U.S. law.

———-

Above amounts as quoted will cover barely the costs of the peanuts consumed by the firefighters – not even the nits of the needed robots or the livelihoods of out-of-business fishermen.

—————————————————————————-

Despite Moratorium, Drilling Projects Move Ahead.

Lyle W. Ratliff/European Pressphoto Agency

BP has stationed one oil rig above the mile-deep wellhead to siphon the leaking oil and two other rigs to drill relief wells.

By IAN URBINA

Published: May 23, 2010, The New York Times.

WASHINGTON — In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

As the oil spill reaches land, we would like your updates and photographs of what you’re seeing. Photos are optional but recommended.

Multimedia Feature:

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill  – Multimedia Collection

Tracking the Oil Spill

Enlarge This Image

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will visit the gulf on Monday, along with Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Asked about the permits and waivers, officials at the Department of the Interior and the Minerals Management Service, which regulates drilling, pointed to public statements by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, reiterating that the agency had no intention of stopping all new oil and gas production in the gulf.

Department of the Interior officials said in a statement that the moratorium was meant only to halt permits for the drilling of new wells. It was not meant to stop permits for new work on existing drilling projects like the Deepwater Horizon.

But critics say the moratorium has been violated or too narrowly defined to prevent another disaster.

With crude oil still pouring into the gulf and washing up on beaches and in wetlands, President Obama is sending Mr. Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano back to the region on Monday.

In a toughly worded warning to BP on Sunday, Mr. Salazar said at a news conference outside the company’s headquarters in Houston, “If we find they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, we’ll push them out of the way appropriately.”

Mr. Salazar’s position conflicted with one laid out several hours earlier, by the commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Adm. Thad W. Allen, who said that the oil conglomerate’s access to the mile-deep well site meant that the government could not take over the lead in efforts to stop the leak.

“They have the eyes and ears that are down there,” the admiral said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “They are necessarily the modality by which this is going to get solved.”

Since the explosion, federal regulators have been harshly criticized for giving BP’s Deepwater Horizon and hundreds of other drilling projects waivers from full environmental review and for failing to provide rigorous oversight of these projects.

In voicing his frustration with these regulators and vowing to change how they operate, Mr. Obama announced on May 14 a moratorium on drilling new wells and the granting of environmental waivers.

“It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies,” Mr. Obama said. “That cannot and will not happen anymore.”

“We’re also closing the loophole that has allowed some oil companies to bypass some critical environmental reviews,” he added in reference to the environmental waivers.

But records indicated that regulators continued granting the environmental waivers and permits for types of work like that occurring on the Deepwater Horizon.

In testifying before Congress on May 18, Mr. Salazar and officials from his agency said they recognized the problems with the waivers and they intended to try to rein them in. But Mr. Salazar also said that he was limited by a statutory requirement that he said obligated his agency to process drilling requests within 30 days after they have been submitted.

“That is what has driven a number of the categorical exclusions that have been given over time in the gulf,” he said.

But critics remained unsatisfied.

Shown the data indicating that waivers and permits were still being granted, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, said he was “deeply troubled.”

“We were given the clear impression that these waivers and permits were not being granted,” said Mr. Cardin, who is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where Mr. Salazar testified last week. “I think the presumption should be that there should be stronger environmental reviews, not weaker.”

None of the projects that have recently been granted environmental waivers have started drilling.

However, these waivers have been especially troublesome to environmentalists because they were granted through a special legal provision that is supposed to be limited to projects that present minimal or no risk to the environment.

At least six of the drilling projects that have been given waivers in the past four weeks are for waters that are deeper — and therefore more difficult and dangerous — than where Deepwater Horizon was operating. While that rig, which was drilling at a depth just shy of 5,000 feet, was classified as a deep-water operation, many of the wells in the six projects are classified as “ultra” deep water, including four new wells at over 9,100 feet.

In explaining why they were still granting new permits for certain types of drilling on existing wells, Department of the Interior officials said some of the procedures being allowed are necessary for the safety of the existing wellbore.

Pending the recommendations of the 30-day safety review, the officials said, drilling under permits approved before April 20 “may go forward, along with applications to modify existing wells and permits, if those actions are determined to be appropriate.”

But Interior Department officials have also explained that one of the main justifications of the moratorium on new drilling was safety. The moratorium was meant to ensure that no new accidents occurred while the administration had time to review the regulatory system.

And yet, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has classified some of the drilling types that have been allowed to continue as being as hazardous as new well drilling. Federal records also indicate that there have been at least three major accidents involving spills, leaks or explosions on rigs in the gulf since 2002 caused by the drilling procedures still being permitted.

“The moratorium does not even cover the dangerous drilling that caused the problem in the first place,” said Daniel J. Rohlf, a law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, adding he was not certain that the Interior Department was capable of carrying out the needed reforms.

The moratorium has created inconsistencies and confusion.

While Interior Department officials have said certain new drilling procedures on existing wells can proceed, Mr. Salazar, when pressed to explain why new drilling was being allowed, testified on May 18 that “there is no deep-water well in the O.C.S. that has been spudded — that means started — after April 20,” referring to the gulf’s outer continental shelf.

However, Newfield Exploration Company has confirmed that it began drilling a deep-water well in 2,095 feet of water after April 20. Records indicate that Newfield was issued a permit on May 11 to initiate a sidetrack drill, with a required spud date of May 10. A sidetrack is a secondary wellbore drilled away from the original hole.

Among the types of drilling permits that the minerals agency is still granting are called bypass permits. These allow an operator to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole to the original target from the existing wellbore.

Five days before the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon requested and received a revised bypass permit, which was the last drilling permit the rig received from the minerals agency before the explosion. The bore was created and it was the faulty cementing or plugging of that hole that has been cited as one of the causes of the explosion.

In reviewing the minerals agency, federal investigators are likely to pay close attention to how permits and waivers have been granted to drilling projects.

Even before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the use of environmental waivers was a source of concern. In September 2009, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the waivers were being illegally granted to onshore drilling projects.

This month, the Interior Department announced plans to restrict the use of the waivers onshore, though not offshore. It also began a joint investigation of the offshore waiver process with the Council on Environmental Quality, an environmental arm of the White House.

The investigation, however, is likely to take months, and in the meantime the waivers are continuing to be issued. There is also a 60-day statute of limitations on contesting the waivers, which reduces the chances that they will be reversed if problems are found with the projects or the Obama administration’s review finds fault in the exemption process.

At least three lawsuits to strike down the waivers have been filed by environmental groups this month. The lawsuits argue that the waivers are overly broad and that they undermine the spirit of laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, which forbid drilling projects from moving forward unless they produce detailed environmental studies about minimizing potential risks.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24m…

NATION
Oil From Spill Moves Into Marshes, Gulf’s Loop Current.

by Doug Simpson, aol Contributor

(May 19) — Heavy oil has seeped into Louisiana’s delicate marshes and an oil sheen from BP’s leaking well has drifted into the Gulf of Mexico’s powerful loop current, federal scientists said today. Researchers said the sheen could flow to the Florida Straits and into the Atlantic Ocean.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said much of the oil sheen heading east would be dispersed in the roughly 10 days it would take to get to Florida. Or the oil could get caught in an eddy in the middle of the gulf and not get to the Florida Straits, NOAA said in a written statement today.

“Right now, any potential impact is perceived as light, and it’s days away” from Florida, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry, the government official overseeing the response to the BP spill.

The Coast Guard said that the tar balls retrieved Monday from Fort Zachary State Park in Key West, Fla., did not come from the gulf oil spill.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said the heavy oil oozing into his state’s marshes threatens “our way of life.”

“The oil is no longer just a projection or miles from our shore. The oil is here. It is in our shores and in our marsh,” Jindal said in a statement.

The Coast Guard said tar balls retrieved Monday from Fort Zachary State Park in Key West, Fla., did not come from the gulf oil spill. Tests at a Connecticut lab showed the tar balls were of a different type of oil than that spilling from the leaking well off Louisiana’s coast. The origin of the tar balls is unknown, the Coast Guard said.

It’s not uncommon for tar balls to wash up on the shores from tankers and cruise ships. Tar balls were also reported at Corpus Christi, Texas, though Landry said it’s “very, very unlikely” they came from the spill. She said those balls would also be tested.

Also today, BP reported improved containment of the oil that’s spewing from the site of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform that exploded April 20, killing 11 men, and sank two days later. About 5.4 million gallons of oil have since spilled into the gulf, according to the official estimate. The company and the Coast Guard have said their estimate of the total daily leak, 5,000 gallons, is an approximation — one that scientists say could be far too low.

Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer, said a tube inserted into the leaking pipe is now containing more than half of the flowing oil and funneling it to a vessel on the surface of the gulf. He said the piping device is containing about 3,000 gallons per day, up from 1,000 gallons Monday.

“It’s performing well. We’re very encouraged. We think this is a sustainable operation now,” Suttles said today at a news conference in Robert, La.

——
Full Oil Spill Coverage:

About half of the flow from the broken riser pipe is gas, roughly 14 million cubic feet per day, Suttles said. Gas that is funneled to the surface is separated from the oil, then burned off.

Suttles said BP hopes Sunday to begin its “top kill” operation, an attempt to clog the well by forcing heavy drilling mud material down the pipe, blocking the upward flow of oil and gas. If successful, that would be followed by a flow of cement to seal the well permanently.

Calm seas allowed for more burning of oil on the gulf’s surface, including one burn that lasted more than two hours, Suttles said.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today said he’s planning to break the Minerals Management Service, which regulates the oil and gas industry, into three separate offices as a result of criticism from President Barack Obama and others that MMS is “too cozy” with the industry. Lawmakers in Washington have blamed MMS for failing to force BP and other energy companies to better prepare for a blown well like BP’s.

The reorganization is designed to eliminate a conflict of interest in MMS’s three missions. The agency issues leases and collects royalties from oil and gas derived from those leases. MMS also polices offshore drilling.

“The Minerals Management Service has three distinct and conflicting missions that — for the benefit of effective enforcement, energy development and revenue collection — must be divided,” Salazar said in a statement.

U.S. and Cuban officials are discussing response to the spill in wake of reports that oil in the loop current could take it to the Florida Keys and northern Cuba, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said. In a statement, Obama also thanked Mexican President Felipe Calderon for his country’s offers of assistance in dealing with the spill.

——————–
News Alert: Top Interior official overseeing offshore oil and gas drilling to retire.
Monday, May 17, 2010
——————–

Chris Oynes, the top Interior official who oversees offshore oil and gas drilling for the Minerals Management Service, announced Monday that he will retire on May 31, 2010. (Here we have the first insider to pay a price.)

Oynes, who oversaw oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico for 12 years before being promoted to MMS associate director for Offshore Energy and Minerals Management, has come under fire for being too close to the industry officials he regulated.

His announcement comes as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar unveiled a series of reforms on how the department will conduct onshore oil and gas drilling.

——=============—–

ON CBS – FACE THE NATION, Sunday, May 16, 2010 – Senator Charles Schumer of New York had the following to say:

Schumer: Gulf spill makes passing climate bill more difficult.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would make passage of a climate bill this year more difficult because the bill includes a compromise allowing for the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described the spill as an “environmental disaster of gargantuan proportions,” and called for the administration’s response to be a “big part of the inquiry” into what happened. McConnell said “BP will pay for” the damage, but warned that raising the cap on damages too much would create a situation in which only large companies are able to extract oil and gas in the Gulf.


Schumer said that Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings “should not be a farce … they should talk about judicial ideology and philosophy.” He added that he hopes Kagan will be able to bring the court’s liberal and conservative factions together. McConnell said, “Republicans have treated Supreme Court nominees a lot better than Democrats have,” and added that he “can’t think of a single [Democratic] nominee treated like” Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.

While noting that the question of where and how to try self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was still open, Schumer said, “the chances of him being tried in New York are close to zero.”

After retiring Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) endorsed tea party favorite Rand Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul who ran in 2008 for the Presidency, as his replacement in Tuesday’s primary, while Senator McConnell endorsed Paul’s opponent Trey Grayson.  McConnell said he will attend a GOP unity rally at the state Capitol on Saturday. He said the tea party movement is “going to really help” Republicans in November. Schumer predicted that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) will edge out his primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) “by a little.”

——————–

So, the hope is in cooperative programs with China and Indonesia – The Halting of Global Warming May Be Possible in a Business Context that is Transboundary. Pitty the loss of President Obama’s trip to Indonesia of two months ago, because of burning internal issues in Washington, at the time we said that President Obama could have revived the UNFCCC efforts by bringing in an Indonesian to head that Climate Change UN agency.

——————–

Back to the BP accident:

People are asking why the industry was not better prepared to react in case of an accident? members of Congress hold hearings and find out that the federal regulatory agencies for minerals management actually had on the books all sort of regulations but nobody bothered enforcing them. Here comes the oil industry that made sue Washington does not bother them – and as could have been expected – the agencies had little interest to interfere with the oil companies.

The New York Times talks of technologies that were supposed to be in place, bur had not changed much in 20 years – booms, skimmers and chemical dispersants. now remember how further the drilling technology has advanced in these 20 years, and how further out into the sea, and how these drilling sites moved to much deeper wells, and it starts looking like criminal lack of supervision. Professor Robert G. Bea of the U. of California at Berkeley, who studies offshore drilling described what goes on now a s”some equivalent of a fire drill with paper towels and buckets for cleanup.” He said that for years the Minerals Management Service argued that “blow-out preventers were practically foolproof.” November 2009, Walter D. Cruickshank, the Deputy Director of MMS told a hearing that the wells had a safety devices to shut off the flow in emergencies. What they did not preict was that the whole rig will collapse. Now the Marine Spill Response Corporation, formed after the 21990 Exxon Valdez disaster, and using equipment and technology from 1990 vintage, is in charge. They where never given budget for research said Steve Benz, the group’s President, though he contended that with C-130 planes they are ahead of the regulatory agency.

President Obama finally came out blasting the “Cosy” relationship with the oil and gas industry, saying that federal government failures were partly to blame for the oil spill. Mr. OBAMA SAID THAT THE DAYS IN WHICH WASHINGTON REGULATORS WOULD ROUTINELY GRANT DRILLING PERMITS BASED ON LITTLE MORE THAN VAGUE ASSURANCES OF SAFETY WERE OVER.

The hearings showed that the books carried requirements for permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species and the agency warned about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf. The MMS allowed BP and dozens of other companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without getting first those permits. Also, doubts were expressed on Accuracy of Government’s Spill estimates – they were given as 5,000 barrels a day but are much larger – a huge plume  in the water is depriving oxygen from life in the gulf. Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, who is a specialist in analysing oil slicks, made calculations and gave notice of intent to sue the agency over its non-compliance with the law -It seems the agency thinks its mission is to help the oil industry evade environmental laws,” he said. One thing seems for sure – MMS will have to be broken up into a regulatory agency and a separate fee collecting office for the royalties – as if that could help. Really how do you get it to obey the already existing regulations?

Indeed – something is fishy with BP when the company, the rig owner – Transocean, and the drilling contractor – Halliburton of old fame, through accusations at each other, then the only immediate reaction in the US comes from Alaska interests that find Royal Dutch Shell of also potentially endangering the Alaska coast. We say here that these are coincidentally the two European companies that compete in the US for drilling sites with the US-based multinationals. Just going after these two companies and not even mentioning in the same context the US companies, might easily be interpreted a US oil-industry ploy to decrease competition. This is not a neat way of doing business either.

The CNN ireport – LIVING IN A TOXIC TOWN. CNN and Dr. Sanjay Gupta invite you to put on video what you know.
 http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories….

Living in a toxic town

Many residents of Mossville, Louisiana, suspect their proximity to more than a dozen chemical plants may be responsible for what they say are high rates of cancer and other diseases in the area.

Is there a place near you where pollution is making people sick? CNN is investigating the environment’s effects on health as part of Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s Toxic Towns USA special. We want you to join us in the newsgathering process.

“Put yourself on video and document conditions in your area, or take photos of what’s around you. Tell us what industrial or chemical pollution may be contributing to health problems for you and those you love, and be sure not to put yourself in a dangerous situation,” CNN writes.

“Tell us about toxic towns near you and Dr. Gupta may report on your community.”

This is a good piece on the engineering challenges presented in capping a spewing oil well 5,000 feet underwater.

‘Dome’ is a temporary method of containing gulf oil spill.

By Fred Tasker | The Miami Herald, Friday, May 7, 2010.

The 78-ton steel containment dome that crews lowered over the Deepwater Horizon site on Thursday night represents the best immediate chance to slow the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico from the blown-out well.

But even if it works — a big “if” that may not play out for days — it’s still a temporary measure subject to weather and other conditions.

“A dome might slow the leak, but it can’t stop it,” said Dr. Philip Johnson, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Alabama.

The only permanent solution is to drill relief wells to shut off the flow, Johnson and other experts say. And BP says that will take three months. Because of that, a half-dozen other methods — from burning the oil to dispersing it with chemicals, continue at full speed.

Workers lowered the four-story dome onto the seabed surface late Thursday night, but said it will be Sunday or Monday before they will know if it’s working.

Oil has been leaking in three places since the April 20 explosion. One small leak was capped Wednesday. The containment box will be lowered over a much bigger leak in a pipe that’s responsible for about 85 percent of the oil that’s coming out.

“This kind of system worked very effectively after Hurricane Katrina,” said Greg McCormack, director of the Petroleum Extension Service at the University of Texas. “But it was in much shallower waters, mostly less than 200 feet deep.”

At 5,000 feet it will be much harder.

“It’s pitch black down there. There are no divers. And there are all kinds of currents,” McCormack said.

If the box being lowered Thursday can contain the bigger leak, a second box being built may be used to stop the smaller leak at the blowout preventer.

Even with two domes in place, the method depends on piping the oil up to a ship, which will siphon it into smaller ships to be carried away. But, Johnson notes, “if a hurricane comes, you’re in trouble.” Hurricane season starts in June.

Relief wells are the best solution, the experts say.

“It’s the standard method when you’ve lost control of high-pressure wells,” said Greg Pollock, head of the oil spill division of the Texas General Land Office.

BP began drilling the first of two planned relief wells near the broken well on Sunday. Tony Hayward, BP’s group chief executive, estimates it will take three months to complete.

One other alternative BP engineers are considering is to try to plug the leaking well from the top instead of drilling a relief well to cap it from the bottom. That would take two to three weeks.

Three months to drill a relief well is “an optimistic estimate,” says Dr. Don Van Nieuwenhuise, geology professor at University of Houston who helped drill two relief wells for an earlier Gulf oil well blowout. The oil in the area beneath the BP well is trapped in shale under great pressure.

Drilling into it could create new leaks if not done carefully, he said.

Ever since the oil rig exploded, dozens of BP and Coast Guard ships have been cruising through the oil slick on the surface of the Gulf spraying dispersants into it. Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other compounds that break up the surface tension of the slick, making the oil more soluble in water.

Wave action pulls the oil apart into even smaller droplets, which remain suspended beneath the water or fall to the ocean floor. It helps protect onshore birds and animals, but wildlife experts fear its effects on fish and other animals living beneath the sea, according to the National Academics of Science.

In another novel attempt to reduce oil damage, BP workers on Wednesday injected about 3,000 gallons of dispersant directly into the leaking well on the seabed.

So far, Coast Guard and BP vessels have used 190,285 gallons of dispersant and have another 55,611 gallons available, according to the Deepwater Horizon Response Operation.

The use of dispersants has won only grudging approval from environmentalists and even petroleum engineers.

“Dispersants are chemicals. Chemicals aren’t good in the environment. It’s a trade-off,” McCormack said.

Meanwhile, BP, the U.S. Coast Guard and an army of volunteers are using several other strategies to stop damage from the gushing oil.

• Controlled burning: On Thursday, favorable weather conditions finally allowed cleanup crews to conduct a controlled burn of oil on the surface. An earlier successful burn took place April 28, destroying thousands of gallons of oil, but rough weather had frustrated several attempts since.

In a controlled burn, boats maneuver through the oil slick towing buoyant, fire-resistant booms to gather the oil into a thick, flammable pool. When a “boomful” of oil is gathered, it is towed away and ignited. When an oil slick burns, residue hardens and drops to the ocean floor. • Oil-skimming boats: BP and the Coast Guard have at least 35 ships in the Gulf skimming the oil from the surface and pumping it into barges.

“Rough seas can limit its effectiveness, but you have to use every method available,” Pollock said.

• Floating booms: These are miles-long, 20-inch-tall devices of vinyl fabric with a foam float stitched inside for buoyancy that can be stretched along the water. They can help contain oil slicks at sea, redirect them into planned areas for recovery or disposal and hold them back from environmentally sensitive areas.

The Deepwater Horizon Response Operation reports that 535,870 feet of booms had been deployed, with another 664,9891 feet available. They are being used offshore in the Gulf to redirect the oil slick, and near shore to protect shorelines at six locations including Pensacola. For days, rough seas have disrupted many of the booms, hurting their effectiveness.

Despite all the efforts, there are no guarantees.

Said Pollock: “I just hope things can happen quick.”

U.S. Oil Spill Hurting Energy Moves In Congress