Started By
Message
locked post

BP tells EPA to stick it and stays with corexit

Posted on 5/22/10 at 6:08 am
Posted by Oyster
North Shore
Member since Feb 2009
10224 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 6:08 am
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 7:54 am to
At this point, and considering what independent scientist say versus what BP's guys are saying, this is enough waiting around.

The government needs to step in right now and handle this. There's alternatives that BP won't consider for whatever reason. They still aren't allowing people close to the site unless they are BP's people. They do not run things. Enough sitting around. Big brother needs to step up now.
Posted by bigwheel
Lake Charles
Member since Feb 2008
6491 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 8:08 am to
In case you have not realized, the "regime" does not want the matter cleaned, solved or stopped. The more pollution, the more they can blame BIG OIL.

If they are so smart, they should step in, solve the problem, and bill BP
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 8:26 am to
quote:

In case you have not realized, the "regime" does not want the matter cleaned, solved or stopped.


I wouldn't go as far as to say that. For them to want BIG OIL to be the blame so they can stop drilling, or for whatever reasons you believe, is just not believable for me.

If O&G goes through another mass layoff (like in the 80's when it was down big time) at this point in time, it would be a crippling blow to this state, the southern region that supplies 90% of all oilfield employees, and the nation.

I don't know what reasons they have for not stepping in and taking over or for not forcing BP to be forthcoming with accurate information. And to be honest, the reasons don't matter.

Only thing that does, is that nobody is stepping up and making BP realize they aren't the law and don't make the rules.
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
54680 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 8:57 am to
Obama must step up and force BP's hand, Jindal doesn't have enough stroke.
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 8:59 am to
quote:

Obama must step up and force BP's hand, Jindal doesn't have enough stroke.


No doubt. But I think if Jindal were to make a hard stand, it might force Obama to do the same. Obama isn't doing it on his own.
Posted by Mudminnow
Houston, TX
Member since Aug 2004
34200 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 9:09 am to
It is time for Obama to take more control of the situation.

I understand the reason not too, but BP doesnt care about any enivironment ramifications, tremendous amount of deceit, nor the people along the Gulf Coast.

the lying is getting to almost a comical point now. Wonder what other Big Oil execs are thinking of BPs efforts?

All of Big Oil is getting branded as a result of thisand just wait till the oil hits FL's white sandy beaches then all the oil industry will suffer tremendous PR.
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
54680 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 9:16 am to
frick all the politics it's time to do what's right.
Posted by givemeabeer
Member since Mar 2006
3306 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 9:20 am to
quote:

frick all the politics it's time to do what's right.


Tell that to Nashville. They're still waiting on Obama to give a crap about them too. Guess they should've voted Democrat.
Posted by YatTigah
Lakeview, New Orleans, LA
Member since May 2010
517 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 9:44 am to
quote:

Tell that to Nashville. They're still waiting on Obama to give a crap about them too. Guess they should've voted Democrat.


Louisiana has been a red state for awhile now and R's didn't give a shite about us in 2005. i've been waiting for quite a while for someone to give a shite about Louisiana.
Posted by Luke4LSU
Member since Oct 2007
11986 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 9:52 am to
BP needs to be black-balled from this country.

(Speaking emotionally here...not logically)
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
52884 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:05 am to
I've been trying to look into if that is not the appropriate reaction rather than strangling the entire industry.

After Exxon Valdez, how many non-BP major accidents were there, and how many of them were BP. And how many non-BP companies participated in intentional negligence compared to BP in these accidents.
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
52884 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:07 am to
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/22/10 at 10:12 am
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
52884 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:11 am to
Oyster, why didn't you factor this in your thread? Its the first line of the article:

quote:

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


That doesn't sound like BP is telling them to stick it when the EPA gave them that very option.

This ignoring of facts is made even more puzzling when you chose to include quotes that help your case with peripheral arguments.
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:12 am to
quote:

BP needs to be black-balled from this country.

(Speaking emotionally here...not logically)


I actually agree with this. Now that we're into the second month, this isn't a knee jerk reaction. If their efforts don't start showing some progress, I have no problem with them being made an example of.

I know in reality this won't happen. But it's like thinking about winning the lottery. It's fun to imagine.
Posted by Loophole
Brentwood
Member since Feb 2008
104 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:30 am to
quote:

Tell that to Nashville. They're still waiting on Obama to give a crap about them too. Guess they should've voted Democrat.


Your Nashville comment is completely misleading. Sure some folks in Nashville will find something to gripe about. Everyone will not be 100% pleased. But FEMA under Obama arrived immediately, did and continues to do a great job, and most objective people, Dem or Rep, agree. Now FEMA under Bush in NO, well, we all know that story.

Here's a by-the-numbers look at the Nashville disaster recovery to date:
$110 million in federal assistance has been approved ($98.2 million in housing assistance such as rental and home repair assistance, and $11.8 million in other needs assistance such as personal property lost due to the storm).
48,978 people have registered with FEMA for Individual Assistance, (15,291 on the Web; 33,687 through the Call Center.)
$2.9 million in loans has been approved by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
137 Community Relations specialists are going door to door in communities across the state making sure families are registered to get the support they need.
28 Disaster Recovery Centers.

It may be smaller than the BP tragedy, but read on about FEMA in Nashville...

"In the wake of a punishing storm and flood that devastated large swaths of this city's neighborhoods and parts of several surrounding counties, Nashville is giving FEMA high marks. "...Having this amount of money on the street and having served this many clients, this certainly wouldn't have happened a few years ago," says James Bassham, director of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency. "There's a lot of great lessons learned."

"...this time there's many a kind word for the feds, who are often mistrusted on principle by Southerners. It's genetic. Genes passed down from long-forgotten great-grandfathers who survived harsh Reconstruction make wariness of "yankee bureaucrats" instinctive. But FEMA's quick response has dissolved residual resentment of bureaucrats, Yankee or not."

"Floodwaters surrounded the home of William Nicks in the Bellevue neighborhood and moved so quickly that Mr. Nicks and his wife had to flee to the roof of their house. When they were rescued Mr. Nicks applied for federal help. "We had heard they kicked most of the applications back to make you re-do them just to cull out some folks," he says. "But in one week I got $30,000 in the bank. That's all right."

"...officials say they tried to make Mr. Nicks' experience typical. Putting cash in bank accounts, and eliminating the usual bureaucratic hurdles, became a priority. "I think we've tried to streamline as much as we can," ...a FEMA spokesman, tells the Tennessean, the Nashville newspaper. "There's a lot of money out on the streets already, and we're less than two weeks out [from the flood]." FEMA inspectors, armed with laptop computers, became a familiar sight on blighted streets, entering photographs and information for instant communication to FEMA headquarters. Homeowners were typically not asked to fill out the usual reams of forms for dealing with Washington. Evan Kroft, whose home in East Nashville was flooded, filed for a grant to repair damage to his insulation and ventilation system, and four days later received a grant of $2,500. "Then they came out and did a follow-up call to make sure everything went well. Talk about responsive."

"...the response from the feds was a nice surprise. Maybe Barack Obama should thank George W. Bush for the lessons in how not to respond to a natural disaster".

LINK
This post was edited on 5/22/10 at 10:41 am
Posted by BROffshoreTigerFan
Edmond, OK
Member since Oct 2007
10004 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 10:34 am to
quote:

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


I understand your point, and I read the whole article. But look at what you quoted.

It never said anywhere in the article that BP provided data as to their findings. What I'd like to see is reports as to what is available, and what isn't, and why it can't use products that are available.

And remember, this is BP's payrolled employees that are telling the government that they can find nothing better.
Posted by MoreOrLes
Member since Nov 2008
19472 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 11:45 am to
Anybody who says The O DRAMA administration is handling the oil gush in a fine fashion is bias and is simply choosing to do so.
Posted by Geaux2Hell
BR
Member since Sep 2006
4792 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 11:51 am to
Like it or not, there is an experiment going on in our beloved Gulf of Mexico. Not even the foremost authority on the Environment or spill clean-up knows the impact the events of the past month will have on our coast for the next decade.

Interesting info from a research article on Corexit 9500:

quote:

In the UK toxicity test used to approve dispersants, between 100 and 1000 parts per million of dispersant are used in order to ensure that toxic effects can even be observed during the test, which lasts 100 min. Studies by Gagnon and Holdway (1999) showed that oil must be present at 500 parts per million for 3 h to be lethal to Atlantic salmon. Exposures to 250 ppm of dispersed oil for four days was not acutely toxic and enzymatic activity returned to normal within 2–4 days afterward. In a typical dispersant response, however, Wells (1984) points out that the maximum concentration of dispersant in the water column will generally be below 10 ppm and this level will drop to less than 1 ppm in less than a few hours due to ongoing mixing and dilution. The US National Research Council's Committee on Dispersants conducted a multi-year review of dispersants in the 1980s (National Research Council, 1989. Using Oil Spill Dispersants on the Sea. National Academy Press, Washington, DCNational Research Council, 1989). One of the Committee's major conclusions is that the toxicity of the dispersant per se is not of concern. It reports: “It is unlikely, based on concentrations of dispersants that would result from spraying in marine waters at common rates, that dispersants would contribute significantly to lethal or sublethal toxicities”. In view of the low to nil contribution to toxicity played by dispersants, it is unfortunate that some countries (particularly in the Far East) rely so rigidly on toxicity testing to approve dispersants. This has on occasion eliminated some of the most effective products from consideration for what the authors believe are inappropriate reasons. In the US, dispersant toxicity is measured so that users can make relative comparisons, but it is not a factor in deciding dispersant approval; effectiveness is the only determinant.
Posted by Funreaux
United States
Member since Jun 2007
7369 posts
Posted on 5/22/10 at 12:50 pm to
quote:

Jindal doesn't have enough stroke.

Jindal has been out there every single day since about april 30th. The problem that the state runs into is that BP won't consider anything that the state is proposing. Furthermore due to the fact that our boundary is just a few miles off the coast, we can't force them to do anything out there at the leaking site. Jindal can't help that he can't do anything.

Barack is scared to get his hands dirty.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram