Proposed deepwater well in North Sea would spill more oil with severe repercussions for wildlife; but some think North Sea is safer than Gulf. Oil sheen over Macondo not from rig or riser wreckage. New article in peer reviewed journal criticises FDA reports on seafood safety. Vessels of Opportunity owners can now sue BP but risk losing wages earned.
Gulf Coast Task Force releases its plan for public review. Halliburton suit against BP thrown out.
You are in the current Gulf Watchers BP Catastrophe - AUV #563. ROV #562 is here.
|Follow the Gulf Watchers tag by going clicking on the heart next to the Gulf Watchers tag at the bottom of this diary.||Follow the Gulf Watchers Group by going here and clicking on the heart next to where it says "Follow" in the Gulf Watchers Group profile on the right. You will have to scroll down a little to see the profile.||Bookmark this link to find the latest Gulf Watchers diaries.|
Gulf Watchers Diary Schedule
Wednesday - afternoon
Sunday - late morning
Friday Block Party - evening
Please be kind to kossacks with bandwidth issues. Please do not post images or videos. Again, many thanks for this.
|Well I have to give old Tony just a smidgen of credit. After the Deepwater Horizon explosion and its fallout, he put on hold a deepwater drilling project near the Shetland islands that was viewed as risky. But now BP could be drilling in the North Uist area west of Shetland as early as January. The potential for this well, the first deepwater that BP has drilled in this area, would be a gusher of 75,000 barrels per day (the max estimated in the Gulf was 62,000). The area is also a sanctuary for seabirds and many marine mammals.
Internal company documents seen by The Independent show that the worst-case scenario for a spill from its North Uist exploratory well, to be sunk next year, would involve a leak of 75,000 barrels a day for 140 days – a total of 10.5 million barrels of oil, comfortably the world's biggest pollution disaster.
The exploratory well is set to be drilled in January, if it receives a license from the Energy Sectretary, Chris Huhne. The area is north west of Shetland. (Be sure to click for the great graphic.) BP has 3 other wells in the general area, but all are less than 1500 feet. This well will be approximately 4,000 feet.
The difficulty of capping a gushing well at such depths, vividly illustrated by the three months it took for Deepwater Horizon to be staunched, is greatly concerning British environmentalists who point out that the waters which might be affected by a North Uist spill are among the most wildlife-rich in all the UK.
Just guess what the BP spokesman has to say...can you guess?
A spokesman for BP said that the company was legally obliged to model the worst-case scenario, "but the reality is, the chances of a spill are very unlikely". Since Deepwater Horizon, he added, BP had invested "a huge amount of time and resources strengthening procedures, investing in additional safety equipment and further improving our oil spill response capability".
And here we thought all their resources were going toward cover up and trying to elude responsibility.
BP has held a public consultation about the project, which ended last week. However, it was not widely advertised, had virtually no publicity, and a BP spokesman said there had been "no responses" from the public.
No publicity...with their tweet machine and You Tube channel...I thought they were the experts! Let's hope the British are a little smarter than us.
U.S. Wildcat Culture Risks Macondo Oil Spill Repeat, Graham Says Bob Graham, co chair of the Deepwater Horizon Commission, believes it it our "wildcat" culture that caused the disaster in the Gulf and he points to the North Sea as better regulated. Which makes it even more interesting to see if the above license is granted.
“U.S. oil and gas culture is the culture of the wildcat that’s been transferred offshore,” Bob Graham said today in an interview at an oil conference in Abu Dhabi. “The Gulf of Mexico had a culture of complacency. For every one fatality in the North Sea, there were four in the Gulf of Mexico.”
|Remember the oil sheen that was sighted over the area of the Macondo Well. After a few reports and a local newspaper collected samples that were identified as oil from the Macondo, the Coast Guard and BP sent cameras down to look at the capped well. They reported no seepage and posted video from the ROV cameras on the Restore the Gulf web site. Further testing of the oil confirmed that it definately was Macondo oil. The Coast Guard then ordered Transocean, who owned the Deepwater Horizon, to go down with ROV's and examine the wreckage and the riser. The Coast Guard now reports that Transocean did not find the source of the oil on its investigation of the wreckage and riser.
Transocean sent its own ROV to inspect the rig and the riser that had connected the rig to the well head from Oct. 4 to 5.
The possibility of leakage from the formation is maybe scarier than the actual well leaking. I could find no reports as to whether or not there was still fresh oil to be seen over the area. Any locals that may know more about this please keep us informed!
Today the Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Health Perspectives, published an article critical of the FDA standards used in testing Gulf seafood after the spill. The authors point out the problems with the standards used by the FDA regarding body weight of the consumer and average serving amount eaten by the consumer. These are points that have been raised before, but this is the first scientific paper published that criticises the FDA.
The FDA Gulf seafood risk assessment contains numerous assumptions that are inconsistent with FDA’s own prior practice and with risk assessment guidelines produced by other authoritative entities, including the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US EPA, and the California EPA. Each of these assumptions would tend to result in an underestimate of risk for a significant fraction of the exposed population. The questionable assumptions include six main issues that are explained in greater detail in the following sections:
To highlight the first few... the FDA assumed a body weight of 176 pounds. (Ignoring most women and children) They assumed a serving size of 13 grams per day, whereas surveys in Louisiana reported intakes as high as 55 to 65 grams per day. They did not consider the effect of these chemicals on the fetus if eaten by pregnant women.
A PDF of the article can be downloaded from the above website.
It did not take long for the FDA to recounter and call the report dangerous. A PDF of the FDA response can also be downloaded.
Public health authorities are responsible for protecting consumers from contaminated commercial and recreational seafood sources, and to that end advisories may be issued to protect consumers. The federal and state interagency risk assessment for seafood safety following the BP oil spill of 2010 was designed and agreed on by all participants to provide conservative criteria that protect the public. The alternative interpretation provided by Rotkin-Ellman et al. (2011) carries a risk of doing more harm than good.
|BP has contended that it has the right to deduct from any settlement, should a Vessels of Opportunity boatowner sue for any reason, wages that were already paid to that person. Excuse me, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this. You are paid for work done...but you apply to the GCCF because your boat suffered damage, or you are losing business due to people not wanting seafood...you don't get fairly compensated, so you file a suit against BP. BP says it will deduct from your settlement any WAGES YOU EARNED!
People who participated in BP's Vessels of Opportunity program can now pursue claims for damage to their boats and possibly other grievances, even if they settled claims for economic losses from the oil spill with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, according to a letter from BP. But, BP, leaseholder of the ill-fated Macondo well, also says in the letter that it reserves the right to deduct any wages that boat owners earned in the Vessels of Opportunity program from any ultimate settlements.
BP thinks that the GCCF has "overcompensated" folks (WTF?) and would like to get that money back...but how can taking wages earned be legal?
The report of the Task Force for Gulf Ecosystem Restoration has released its report for public review. The PDF is downloadable from this link. The Gulf Restoration Network invites you to visit their site and participate in sending suggestions to them.
|Halliburton tried to sue BP for fraud over data regarding the well formation that BP didn't disclose.
A Halliburton unit that provided cementing services for the project claimed BP hid information about an additional hydrocarbon zone in the well, a possibly dangerous condition, before and after the blowout. Halliburton said it didn’t learn of critical data about the zone until a July 7, 2011, deposition of a BP scientist.
Not fond of Halliburton...but this was the judge that ordered Tony's deposition taken off the web.
PLEASE visit Pam LaPier's diary to find out how you can help the Gulf now and in the future. We don't have to be idle! And thanks to Crashing Vor and Pam LaPier for working on this!
Previous Gulf Watcher diaries:
|10-09-11 02:07 PM||Gulf Watchers Sunday - The Tainted Pieces Are Coming Together - BP Catastrophe AUV #562||Lorinda Pike|
|10-07-11 06:20 PM||Gulf Watchers Block Party: Trek to NASA Edition||BlackSheep1|
|10-05-11 04:00 PM||Gulf Watchers Wednesday - Waterkeeper report - Gulf still suffering - BP Catastrophe AUV #561||peraspera|
|10-02-11 02:33 PM||Gulf Watchers Sunday - YOU Are Paying BP's Fines! - BP Catastrophe AUV #560||Lorinda Pike|
Previous motherships and ROV's from this extensive live blog effort may be found here.
Again, to keep bandwidth down, please do not post images or videos.