Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 89 of 89

Thread: Why Is the Gulf Cleanup So Slow?

  1. #76
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was hoping it that this had nothing to do with the oil. I still dont understand but I guess I never will. They may think it isnt their backyard but this whole Earth is in a way. This mess will find its way around eventually and it will become everyones problem. And now that theyve messed up what can be done about it? Drop more chemicals in the water? Way I see it, nothing. Then again I also know that when it comes to things like this I dont know much of anything so I could be wrong.

    So now that we have all these articles as evidence that BP is not only still spraying but also using toxic chemicals and people getting sick what is BPs response? I know they denied it in that one article but have they said anything since? The White House doing anything? Or are they both silent on it?

  2. #77
    Elite Member Mr. Authority's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Royal Oak,MI
    Posts
    4,631

    Default

    I'm guessing that the White House knows, but they're not willing to be painted as "big government - big brother" to do anything about it.

  3. #78
    Elite Member calcifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    Thanks for clearing that up. I was hoping it that this had nothing to do with the oil. I still dont understand but I guess I never will. They may think it isnt their backyard but this whole Earth is in a way. This mess will find its way around eventually and it will become everyones problem. And now that theyve messed up what can be done about it? Drop more chemicals in the water? Way I see it, nothing. Then again I also know that when it comes to things like this I dont know much of anything so I could be wrong.
    they use dispersants to avoid high fines. if you can make everything sink to the bottom of the gulf or disperse it in the water column, it will be harder to tell how much oil exactly leaked. if you amass it on the surface, you can put a number on it and it's more easily verified, too. at the moment BP can give us any number they want (for the amount of crude oil that leaked and for the amount of dispersants they used), nobody can really check it. maybe we can get an estimate by analyzing samples from the gulf and determining how many ppms of the main components they contain and we also know the flow rates but that's it. their main concern right now and in the last couple of weeks has been to survive this financially and if they have to poison their backyard to do that, they will.

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    So now that we have all these articles as evidence that BP is not only still spraying but also using toxic chemicals and people getting sick what is BPs response? I know they denied it in that one article but have they said anything since? The White House doing anything? Or are they both silent on it?
    no, not much has changed. i still think BP will make a quiet exit.
    Last edited by calcifer; September 1st, 2010 at 12:54 PM.

  4. #79
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    58,615

    Default

    I'd like to see test results from a lot more than just one pool. It might have something to do with the Corexit or it might be one family dumping stuff in the pool to try to have a lawsuit windfall.
    As Canadian as possible under the circumstances

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "What's traitors, precious?" -- President Gollum

  5. #80
    Elite Member calcifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    I'd like to see test results from a lot more than just one pool.
    so would i. they need to take samples from all the other pools in the extended neighbourhood and have them tested. 50 ppm is a lot. i would never have expected that, maybe 10 or 20 ppm at the most. not 50. i can only hope it's an outlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by twitchy2.0 View Post
    It might have something to do with the Corexit or it might be one family dumping stuff in the pool to try to have a lawsuit windfall.
    hmm, yeah. that's a possibility, i guess. what i want to know is if they also analyzed that sample for the other components of corexit 9527A. i'm guessing they didn't because it's not included in the lab results. you know, even if you can show there's 2-butoxyethanol present in the water, you can't really prove it's a consequence of BP's use of dispersants. it would have been easier if there was oil in their pool because a mixture of crude oil has a distinct chemical fingerprint. 2-butoxyethanol doesn't have that, it's a single compound. the only option then is to do an istope analysis. but in this case that would be pointless and inconclusive because there's no evaporation involved. i'll try to explain a bit. isotope analysis is a technique based on a process called isotope fractionation. it's something that occurs when a chemical or physical reaction (for example an evaporation of a certain compound) takes place. some istopes weigh heavier than others which means that compounds that consist of lighter isotopes will more readily evaporate than the compounds that consist of a higher (atom)percentage of heavier isotopes. it's basically mass discrimination. if you take the example of a (volatile) chemical compound that hits the water, it will evaporate and be carried by the wind right to the pool. isotope fractionation will have occured. it means that the isotope composition of the 2-butoxyethanol right beneath the surface of the water of the gulf now differs from the isotope composition of the 2-butoxyethanol in the pool because it changes the minute it evaporates. for this specific case there is no evaporation involved or any other chemical or physical process (except drift but i don't know to what extent that can make a difference) so there will be no isotope fractionation. meaning no chemical difference between the 2-butoxyethanol in the gulf and the one in the pool. there are some people though that insist that it does evaporate (and maybe a fraction of it does, i can accept that) but i think the amounts will still most likely be too low with the result that you won't find high enough signals in your analysis. you can't prove anything then or accuse BP.

  6. #81
    Elite Member calcifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,861

    Default

    Scientists: Dispersants May Delay Recovery of the Gulf By Years ... Or Decades

    The government and BP claim that the combination of Corexit and crude oil is less toxic than crude oil by itself.
    Is that true?

    Well, scientists have found that when Corexit is applied to the actual crude oil from BP's well, it releases 35 times more toxic chemicals into the water column than would be released with crude alone.

    And the tests conducted by the EPA which purport to show that dispersant plus crude is less toxic than oil alone used a combination of Corexit with Louisiana light crude oil. However, the oil coming out of BP's leaking well contains an unusually high concentration of methane. As CBS notes:

    The oil emanating from the seafloor contains about 40 percent methane, compared with about 5 percent found in typical oil deposits, said John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the spill.

    It is doubtful that the EPA used such unusually methane-rich oil in their testing.

    More importantly, EPA toxicity tests on the dispersant-oil mixture were conducted at sea level pressures (in other words, the pressure at the surface of the ocean). But enormous quantities of Corexit have been applied 5,000 feet under the ocean at the leaking wellhead.

    As the New York Times noted in May:

    There has been significant research in response to spills over the past few decades, especially the Exxon-Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 and the Prestige spill in 2002 off the coast of Spain.

    But all of the scientific precedent is from spills from tankers or near shore.

    "We are working with reliable knowledge from that science," Plumb said, "but it is limited and not across the scale or scope of the ecosystem we are in now."

    Scientists and responders are prepared to deal with oiled birds and shoreline effects, because those are the usual problems. An ongoing oil spill a mile under water is unchartered ground.

    "We've never dealt with this kind of deep water, we've never dealt with this amount of dispersants, we've never dealt with the Gulf," [Roger Helm, chief of the contaminants division of the Fish and Wildlife Service] said. "We're in a very early phase of the science here; there is not a lot of experimental work or practical work upon which to base the work we're doing."

    Marine biologist and toxicologist Dr. Chris Pincetich - who has an extensive background in testing the effects of chemicals on fish - told me yesterday that scientists have no idea what compounds will be formed when Corexit dispersant and oil interact under the high pressures present at BP's deepwater spill site (Dr. Pincetich directed environmental toxicity testing as a consultant and lab supervisor for many years, and now works to protect endangered sea turtles at the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Sea Turtle Restoration Project).

    And as Scientific American notes, breakdown products from the dispersant might be toxic as well:

    For example, more testing will be needed to determine if the breakdown of Corexit 9500 - either into other chemicals or when metabolized by animals - produces toxic products of its own. "In toxicology, it's quite often not the original compound that's the toxic entity," [toxicologist Cary Mitchelmore of the University of Maryland, who co-authored a National Research Council report on dispersants in 2005] notes.

    Indeed, even Sergio Alex Villalobos, toxicologist for Nalco - maker of the Corexit dispersant - says:

    Once it’s mixed with oil, that’s where you get the most impact, that’s where you see most of the toxicity.

    Government Testing is "Embarrassing"

    Dr. Pincetich says that he's "embarrassed" that the government is using inadequate tests regarding the toxicity of Corexit. For example, when I asked whether he thought the EPA's screening level for Corexit in the Gulf of 750 parts per million is based on sound science, Dr. Pincetich said no. He pointed me to a 1996 study which found that exposures of less than 20 ppm can adversely affect abalone.

    Dr. Pincetich also noted that the tests being used in the Gulf are not the standard type of tests used to measure toxicity of long-term chronic exposure, but are typically only used for initial screening of effluent from coastal dischargers. There is no scientific evidence to support using only such a short-term, acute exposure test. The EPA training manual contains dozens of better testing protocols, and toxicity tests are usually run on 7 different species when there is a screening of unknown toxic chemicals involved (and even basic national pollution discharge standards require testing for 3 species), but - in the Gulf - the EPA has only been testing using 2 species.

    Dr. Pincetich has also noted that EPA toxicity testing for Corexit is woefully inadequate, since EPA testing was only for mortality and only used a 48- and 96-hour time frame. His doctoral research found that fish that were alive at 96 hours after exposure to pesticide were dead at two weeks, so the chemicals were considered non-lethal for the purposes of the test:

    [YOUTUBE]-jqEC_Bgkbg[/YOUTUBE]

    Dr. Pincetich explained that many standardized EPA bioassay toxicity testing protocols exist to measure growth and reproduction in marine early life stage organisms, but EPA is just using the cheapest possible tests. He says that standard tests should be run, and BP should pick up the tab.

    Corexit May Delay Recovery of the Gulf for Years ... Or Even Decades

    Dr. Pincetich told me that he believes that use of dispersant may - in certain circumstances - delay recovery of the ecosystem for years.

    Indeed, PhD toxicologist Ricki Ott noted in a New York Times Op Ed that dispersants like Corexit can persist in the ocean for decades:

    [Dispersants] can linger in the water for decades, especially when used in deep water, where low temperatures can inhibit biodegradation.

    Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes.

    And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Ecology Department - Terry Hazen - argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades:

    Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine.

    As Hazen has noted:

    "The untreated coastal areas were fully recovered within five years of the Amoco Cadiz spill," says Hazen. "As for the treated areas, ecological studies show that 30 years later, those areas still have not recovered."


    Admittedly, chemicals other than Corexit were used in the Amoco Cadiz spill. But the precautionary tale still holds: chemicals should not be applied to oil spills unless scientists are positive that they will provide a net long-term benefit.

    Disturbingly, Corexit is apparently still being sprayed in the Gulf. See this, this and this.

    Scientists: Dispersants May Delay Recovery of the Gulf By Years ... Or Decades

  7. #82
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    Theyre still spraying Corexit? When do they intend to stop?

  8. #83
    Silver Member zillah.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    592

    Default

    Oil From the BP Spill Found at Bottom of Gulf
    9/12/2010

    Professor Samantha Joye of the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, who is conducting a study on a research vessel just two miles from the spill zone, said the oil has not disappeared, but is on the sea floor in a layer of scum.

    "We're finding it everywhere that we've looked. The oil is not gone," Joye said. "It's in places where nobody has looked for it."

    All 13 of the core samples Joye and her UGA team have collected from the bottom of the gulf are showing oil from the spill, she said.

    In an interview with ABC News from her vessel, Joye said the oil cannot be natural seepage into the gulf, because the cores they've tested are showing oil only at the top. With natural seepage, the oil would spread from the top to the bottom of the core, she said.

    "It looks like you just took a strip of very sticky material and just passed it through the water column and all the stuff from the water column got stuck to it, and got transported to the bottom," Joye said. "I know what a natural seep looks like -- this is not natural seepage."

    In some areas the oily material that Joye describes is more than two inches thick. Her team found the material as far as 70 miles away from BP's well.

    "If we're seeing two and half inches of oil 16 miles away, God knows what we'll see close in -- I really can't even guess other than to say it's going to be a whole lot more than two and a half inches," Joye said.

    This oil remaining underwater has large implications for the state of sea life at the bottom of the gulf.

    Joye said she spent hours studying the core samples and was unable to find anything other than bacteria and microorganisms living within.

    "There is nothing living in these cores other than bacteria," she said. "I've yet to see a living shrimp, a living worm, nothing."

    Studies conducted by the University of Georgia and the University of South Florida caused controversy back in August when they found that almost 80 percent of the oil that leaked from BP's well is still out in the waters of the Gulf.

    Their report stood in stark contrast to that of the federal government, which on Aug. 4 declared that 74 percent of the oil was gone, having broken down or been cleaned up.

    "A report out today by our scientists shows that the vast majority of the spilled oil has been dispersed or removed from the water," President Obama said in August.

    The studies by Joye and other scientists found that what the government had reported to the public only meant that the oil still lurked, invisible in the water.

    Though initially denying the claim, BP -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- acknowledged the existence of the dispersed oil. BP subsequently pledged $500 million for gulf research.

    In May, Joye was featured on a newscast as part a team of scientists that discovered giant underwater plumes of oil. Joye and other marine researchers claimed that these plumes present a major threat to underwater creatures.

    "The concentrations that are currently out there in various locations are high enough to have a toxic effect on marine life," said Charles Hopkinson, also of the University of Georgia's marine sciences program.

    NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, the government's top ocean scientist, has acknowledged concerns over the effects of dissolved oil, but has said that chemical dispersants had largely done their job.

    "Nobody should be surprised," Joye said. "When you apply large scale dispersants, it goes to the bottom -- it sediments out. It gets sticky."

    Oil From the BP Spill Found at Bottom of Gulf - ABC News

  9. #84
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    Mystery illnesses plague Louisiana oil spill crews



    AFP/Getty Images/File – Workers are seen cleaning up oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. One year …




    by Kerry Sheridan Kerry Sheridan – Sun Apr 17, 12:46 am ET
    RACELAND, Louisiana (AFP) – Jamie Simon worked on a barge in the oily waters for six months following the BP spill last year, cooking for the cleanup workers, washing their clothes and tidying up after them.
    One year later, the 32-year-old said she still suffers from a range of debilitating health problems, including racing heartbeat, vomiting, dizziness, ear infections, swollen throat, poor sight in one eye and memory loss.
    She blames toxic elements in the crude oil and the dispersants sprayed to dissolve it after the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico about 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the coast of Louisiana on April 20, 2010.
    "I was exposed to those chemicals, which I questioned, and they told me it was just as safe as Dawn dishwashing liquid and there was nothing for me to worry about," she said of the BP bosses at the job site.
    The local doctor, Mike Robichaux, said he has seen as many as 60 patients like Simon in recent weeks, as this small southern town of 10,000 bordered by swamp land and sugar cane fields grapples with a mysterious sickness that some believe is all BP's fault.
    Andy LaBoeuf, 51, said he was paid $1,500 per day to use his boat to go out on the water and lay boom to contain some of the 4.9 million barrels of oil that spewed from the bottom of the ocean after the BP well ruptured.
    But four months of that job left him ill and unable to work, and he said he recently had to refinance his home loan because he could not pay his taxes.
    "I have just been sick for a long time. I just got sick and I couldn't get better," LaBoeuf said, describing memory problems and a sore throat that has nagged him for a year.
    Robichaux, an ear, nose and throat specialist whose office an hour's drive southwest of New Orleans is nestled on a roadside marked with handwritten signs advertising turtle meat for sale, says he is treating many of the local patients in their homes.
    "Their work ethic is so strong, they are so stoic, they don't want people to know when they're sick," he said.
    "Ninety percent of them are getting worse... Nobody has a clue as to what it is."
    According to a roster compiled by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a total of 52,000 workers were responding to the Gulf oil spill as of August 2010.
    The state of Louisiana has reported 415 cases of health problems linked to the spill, with symptoms including sore throats, irritated eyes, respiratory tract infections, headaches and nausea.
    But Bernard Goldstein, an environmental toxicologist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the US government's method of collecting health data on the workers is flawed.
    For instance, a major study of response workers by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences was not funded until six months after the spill, a critical delay that affects both the biology and the recall ability of the workers.
    "It is too late if you go six months later," he told AFP.
    Benzene, a known carcinogen present in crude oil, disappears from a person's blood within four months, Goldstein said.
    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are pollutants that can cause genetic mutations and cancer. They are of particular interest in studying long-term health, but without a baseline for comparison it is difficult to know where they came from -- the oil spill or somewhere else in the environment.
    "They last in the body for a longer period of time but they also get confounded by, if you will, obscured by, other sources of PAHs," like eating barbecued meat or smoking cigarettes, said Goldstein.
    Further blurring the situation, Louisiana already ranks very low in the overall health of its residents compared to the rest of the United States -- between 44th and 49th out of the 50 states according to government data.
    Some similar symptoms, including eye irritation, breathing problems, nausea and psychological stress, have been seen among responders to the Prestige oil tanker spill off Spain in 2002 and the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 off Alaska.
    Local chemist Wilma Subra has been helping test people's blood for volatile solvents, and said levels of benzene among cleanup workers, divers, fishermen and crabbers are as high as 36 times that of the general population.
    "As the event progresses we are seeing more and more people who are desperately ill," she said.
    "Clearly it is showing that this is ongoing exposure," Subra said, noting that pathways include contact with the skin, eating contaminated seafood or breathing polluted air.
    "We have been asking the federal agencies to please provide medical care from physicians who are trained in toxic exposure."
    She said she has received no response.
    Asked for comment, BP said in an email that "protection of response workers was a top priority" and that it had conducted "extensive monitoring of response workers" in coordination with several government agencies.
    "Illness and injury reports were tracked and documented during the response, and the medical data indicate they did not differ appreciably from what would be expected among a workforce of this size under normal circumstances," it added.
    Any compensation for sick workers would fall under state law, and "BP does not make these determinations, which must be supported by acceptable medical evidence."
    For Simon, her way of life has been completely altered. She said she takes pain relievers every day just to function.
    A couple of weeks ago, she read in a local newspaper that other ex-cleanup workers were feeling sick too, and her grandmother urged her to see a doctor.
    "I never put the two together. I am just realizing that this is possibly related," she said.


    Source: Mystery illnesses plague Louisiana oil spill crews - Yahoo! News
    It was only a matter of time right? I hope they find out whats ailing these people and cure them.

  10. #85
    Elite Member calcifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,861

    Default

    mystery illness = chemical poisoning

  11. #86
    Elite Member nancydrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the black kid's pants
    Posts
    6,146

    Default

    So far I am not hearing any of that here. I know a lot of people who worked cleanup on the boats and such, and they have yet to have any health issues like this. I just hope they never do....
    (276): Michelle Duggar likes to fuuuuck
    OK, I can't sing, I can't act, I'm dumb, I'm a hillbilly, but I can twerk, so whatever.-Miley Cyrus

  12. #87
    Elite Member NVash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,471

    Default

    AP Enterprise: BP is looking strong a year later



    AP – FILE - This April 21, 2010, file photo show the Deepwater Horizon oil rig burning after an explosion …
    By HARRY R. WEBER, Associated Press Harry R. Weber, Associated Press – Mon Apr 18, 9:19 pm ET
    NEW ORLEANS – It's hard to tell that just a year ago BP was reeling from financial havoc and an American public out for blood. The oil giant at the center of one of the world's biggest environmental crises is making strong profits again, its stock has largely rebounded, and it is paying dividends to shareholders once more. It is also pursuing new ventures from the Arctic to India. It is even angling to explore again in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, where it holds more leases than any competitor.
    "BP has a critical role to play in meeting the world's ever-growing need for energy," BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said at the company's annual meeting in London last week.
    While some of this angers Gulf Coast residents, it is a testament to some deft handling of the crisis by the company, which after some major gaffes early on conducted a housecleaning in its executive ranks, adopted a careful communications strategy and assigned an outsider to handle victims' compensation claims.
    The company's decision to open its checkbook and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into Gulf communities, help out-of-work rig hands and support Gulf research also contributed to the turnaround.
    Yet BP is not out of the woods yet.
    BP employees could be found criminally negligent for the 206 million gallons of oil the U.S. government says gushed from the company's blown-out well and for the 11 men who died when the Deepwater Horizon rig it was leasing exploded. Hundreds of lawsuits and civil and criminal fines could add billions of dollars to its already staggering liabilities. And the findings of several investigations still under way could further damage its reputation.
    BP has estimated that the spill will cost the company at least $40.9 billion but is hoping to force some of its partners on the doomed rig to assume some of those costs.
    There is also lasting damage in the Gulf, including empty hotels, out-of-work oystermen and fears of a badly disrupted underwater ecosystem. And some of those worst hit by the spill scoff at BP's oft-repeated promises to make people whole again.
    "I don't know of one person who has come to me and said, `I've been made whole. I feel good.' Everything is completely negative from everybody," said Louisiana fishing guide Ron Price.
    When BP finally managed to cap its runaway well in July and permanently sealed it in September, the bankruptcy talk was reduced to a whisper and the 24-hour-a-day beating the company was taking on television and newspaper front pages eased up.
    By the fall, there was talk that the crisis wasn't as bad as feared and that the Gulf might recover sooner than expected. Then soaring oil prices came to the company's rescue, boosting its bottom line. Now, as Wednesday's anniversary approaches, the oil spill that so riveted the nation's attention is beginning to fade into memory.
    For the families of the men killed on the rig, BP's resilience can be downright painful.
    "BP has never done anything other than send flowers and three people to Jason's memorial service," said Shelley Anderson, the widow of rig worker Jason Anderson.
    BP officials point out that they set aside $20 billion for a fund that is still processing claims for victims of the disaster, though only $3.8 billion of it has actually been paid to date. They also still employ cleanup and recovery workers, though far fewer than before.
    Company officials also say they are living up to their commitments to restore the region's economy and environment.
    "BP has not — and will not — shy away from its responsibilities," CEO Bob Dudley told shareholders at the company's annual meeting, which was marked by scuffles between protesters and security guards, and investor dissent over the performance of several directors.
    Dudley took over Oct. 1 as CEO after the ouster of Tony Hayward, who infuriated Gulf residents by saying during the crisis, "I'd like my life back." Dudley, who grew up in Mississippi and was the first American ever to lead the British company, quickly sought to move BP beyond the crisis, firing the executive responsible for deep-water wells and announcing a new unit to police safety throughout the company.
    BP also signed energy-exploration agreements in Indonesia, China, India and Australia. It agreed to pay $680 million for a controlling interest in Brazilian ethanol and sugar producer CNAA. BP also agreed to pay India's Reliance Industries $7.2 billion for a stake in key oil and gas blocks, and announced a deal with Russia's state-owned oil firm Rosneft that would involve exploration in the Arctic Sea, where a big oil spill could damage a pristine ecosystem far less resilient than the Gulf of Mexico. The deal is facing opposition and is not yet final.
    BP isn't shying away from the Gulf, either, though it is moving more methodically there amid the political currents.
    The first deep-water permit issued after the Obama administration lifted a post-spill drilling ban went to Noble Energy Inc. for work on a well off the coast of Louisiana. BP is not the operator but it has a 46 percent stake in the well. BP also bought out Shell's 25 percent interest in two Gulf fields in December, making BP the sole owner of both.
    Spokesman Scott Dean said BP, the leading leaseholder in the Gulf, will remain active in all facets of the Gulf of Mexico oil exploration. The company has applied for a permit to drill one new well in the Gulf and is certain to apply for more.
    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement said BP's applications will be weighed just like any other company's.
    "BP is trying to refill its new-project pipeline with deals in the Arctic, offshore India, and Asia, but the Gulf of Mexico remains a key region for the company," said industry analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co. "They don't want to push too hard, knowing politicians and environmentalists will be all over them."
    Despite the uncertainties, BP announced Feb. 1 that it would restore its dividend and that it made a fourth-quarter profit of $5.6 billion, a 30 percent increase from the same period a year earlier. Rising oil prices are certain to boost its cash on hand and could lead to even higher profits. BP's stock fell 54 percent in the months after the spill, but it has regained much of that since then. Its stock is now trading about 20 percent lower than what it was the day before the rig exploded.
    BP was able to deflect some of the criticism by shifting the paying of victims' compensation to claims czar Ken Feinberg, who has absorbed much of the blame for what victims say is a slow payment process.
    Overall, the oil giant still has a lot of work to do to improve its reputation. Five Gulf Coast residents who had planned to tell investors about their post-spill woes were denied access to the company meeting, prompting confrontations with guards. Inside, hundreds of BP investors questioned board members about what they said was excessive executive pay and a lack of transparency on safety improvements.
    In Washington, lawmakers are watching BP closely.
    CEO Dudley still spends a great deal of time reassuring detractors.
    "We need to earn back your trust, along with that of state and federal leaders and the trust of Gulf Coast residents and customers," he said at an industry conference in Houston last month. "We are determined we will once again restore that trust, and I realize this requires action, not words."
    ___
    Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello in Washington, Jonathan Fahey in Houston and Jason Bronis in Buras, La., contributed to this report.


    Source: AP Enterprise: BP is looking strong a year later - Yahoo! News
    Guess that boycott of BP isnt going as well as everyone had hoped.

  13. #88
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,981

    Default

    Memories and grudges run deep in those areas... I wouldn't be so eager to start drilling that area again if I were BP...
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(•_•)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  14. #89
    Elite Member calcifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nancydrew View Post
    So far I am not hearing any of that here. I know a lot of people who worked cleanup on the boats and such, and they have yet to have any health issues like this. I just hope they never do....
    did any of them have their blood tested?

    Quote Originally Posted by NVash View Post
    Guess that boycott of BP isnt going as well as everyone had hoped.
    don't generalize.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Canada’s Gulf Islands
    By Honey in forum The Little Big World
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 1st, 2009, 03:53 AM
  2. Smoka the cat survives blaze and cleanup
    By Honey in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 11th, 2009, 12:59 PM
  3. Anyone from the Persian Gulf?
    By suzan in forum The Little Big World
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 7th, 2009, 01:15 AM
  4. Two F-15s collide over the Gulf of Mexico
    By Mariesoleil in forum News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 05:17 PM
  5. Cleanup on aisle 9 - Woman gives birth at Wal Mart
    By UndercoverGator in forum News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 9th, 2006, 02:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •