Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Metastasis of the Gulf of Mexico. Part 13-1

(continued; previously: part 12-2; part 1)~ translation by Microsoft.


Пляж Алабамы, 25 июня 2010-го. Фото Tyrone Turner.
The changes and mutations that occur in the food chain of the Gulf, the water which flows the Gulf stream for several months to reach the shores of Canada and Europe are increasingly otčëtlivost′û. The concluding part of the digest and summarize the opening and "zakručivaûŝuûsâ" a large-scale picture of the final phase of the project "big oil."

What are the real magnitude of this man-made disaster and its consequences? What changes are happening in the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico? In what direction is changing the climate of the North American continent and the planet 2 years later after the accident? The fate of the Earth's biosphere and mankind have behind-the-scenes puppeteers, which continued to cover the Western and Russian MEDIA "? Who, how and why it has a global operation with bacterio-èkocidu gennobiohimičeskim bias? The area of the underwater mud volcano and the deep geological faults BP drilled THREE wells, but said only about one? How fossil hydrocarbons influence on global governance, and what changes are expected in the case of a transition to the world of renewable energy? As is the case with nefterazlivami and koreksitom in our country? What is the plan, part of which is the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? If you do not want to spoil yourself for a blissful mood, don't read this stuff and do not look at the figures in it documents, photos and videos. But look, don't be silent. Otherwise silent lie about it never ceases.

Three stages of acceptance of scientific truth: the first is "this is absurd"
the second is that something is "the third" is well known.
Ernest Rutherford (AEB, p. 491)
Waking up in the morning, I was torn between a desire to improve
This world and a desire to enjoy this world.
This is a very difficult lesson planning on the day.
Elwyn Brooks white (Elwyn Brooks White, 1899-1985)
Modern adaption:
Waking up in the morning, I was torn between the desire to
enjoy the peace and the desire to break up
the system structure, which this world shatters.
This is a very difficult lesson planning on the day.
Corey Moningstar (Cory Morningstar)

Results of operations involving the concealment of information: mutations, disease, and population change
"This is something ...
To date, the overall picture of the processes occurring at the base of the Gulf stream, is quite clearly. A purposeful global bioterrorističeskaâ operation cover which provides government and secret services of all States, as well as the vast majority of the world's media and the so-called scientific community. However, everything in this review, it becomes known, thanks to the efforts and civil courage of individuals and small groups of doctors, scientists, environmentalists and various functional specialists. Everyone makes their choice, and they would prefer their security and welfare coverage and public education the North American continent and of the world in respect of existing risks and threats.
Numerous pieces of evidence, data and evidence on this subject received from insiders and from public sources, analysed by experts and keep coming to such Web resources like http://www.tuberose.com/GulfOilSpillTragedy.html, http://bklim.newsvine.com/, http://blueplague.org/ and several others. Chain and a chronology of events leading up to the disaster, despite the enormous difficulties, was thoroughly restored in May this year. It is now known that the bioterakt in the Gulf was planned long before April 2010 year. But in recent months, the article appeared in scientific journals, confirming the findings of microbiologists indeed occurring by Michael Edward back in the year 2010. Today on the topic of disaster and related effects me around 9000 files (text documents, scientific publications, articles and e-mails; photographs, videos, films and broadcasts). The array of data continues to grow. [1] and there are no doubts: large-scale and extremely dangerous for the whole of the biosphere process gains momentum (although it remains outside the attention of society and its ruling elites).

The extent of the phenomenon is suchthat it is no longer possible to hide, and through the large-circulation MEDIA "such as"Fox News","DailyMail","Herald Tribune","USA Today, ""The Nation","Gazette"and"The Week"in April-May this year began to break through anxiety and sometimes hysterical " bells "on vymiraûŝej, the patient and mutiruûŝej fish and shrimp, and even on ill people. [2] even the magazine "Forbes" has not remained aloof and unflatteringly called on BP, noticing that, when his share in 135 billion. dollars, BP America can't get a decent number of "lajkov" on his page on Facebook.

At the same time much more meaningful processes-large-scale "castling" in the food chain and the massive extinction of dolphins and other marine mammals are still diligently silenced (on the situation in July 2012, see link). 754 documented cases of disposal on land to the North of the Gulf of Mexico from February 2010 to July 2012. Thus, after almost 2 years of stage "absurd" and "this can't be" in March-April this year, the attitude in the Gulf began to shift in the direction "in that there is something».

Russian media about this for two consecutive years are underlined by a conspicuous silence, and to relevant materials don't react. [3] Article about lawsuits to BP or dead corals – not in score but sporadic exceptions only confirm the rule. In Runet, I caught my eye just a 3-minute report on the second anniversary of the disaster, plus a 10-minute story "the blue plague the Gulf", [4] with the participation of the doctor of biological sciences P. Garâeva ("military secret", may 2012). [5] there were also publishing the doctor of geological and mineralogical Sciences P. Polevanova (communication of the Gulf stream to the climatic changes). And since April of this year (see the OTM. 35: 15) to the complex issues related to the Gulf in their statements several times asked the famous Russian historian and publicist A. Fursov. That's all the coverage of the biggest environmental disaster of global significance for one and a half years.
The protest, which caused the ecologists of Greenpeace including British Petroleum – the culprit catastrophe – a sponsor of the London Olympics, our media is not shared. For sponsorship and PR-actions of BP, this "very dirty", representatives of the world's "Save the Arcticwas reads:" Through the funding of such activities as Cultural Olympiad London Festival-2012, World Festival of Shakespeare and the Olympic Games will be able to continue their heat VR, though all more lucrative operations. However, the topic of disaster in the Gulf so far is a taboo even in the camp of opponents of Britain and the United States.  
Strange, isn't it?
However, in subsequent parts of the review will provide information on all major destinations, and the information can be verified by following the hyperlinks, or entering into correspondence with the authors, scholars and professionals.
What is happening in the world (in the sense of Western scholars and insiders) can be formulated as follows. The global scenario of destabilizing/haotizacii "consistently enforced. More and more vast territories are turned into zones of civil strife and fighting, or "natural" disasters; covered by droughts and floods. Change the usual climatic stencils and comfort living conditions. Approaches problems with shortages of food and drinking water. Bandit "Mayhem", the arbitrariness of the NATO countries, Las and Israel and their secret services in the region of the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf, is now ready to become a regional and then shambles world (followed by energy and a deep economic crises) ... Yes, and from the upcoming Olympic holiday with rockets on the roofs ", this" show at the arena behind barbed wire "are quite justified the attacks, which will certainly be used as a pretext to start a war with Iran and Syria (explosion in a bus with Israeli tourists in Bulgaria this guess confirmed).
Testing the climate-control systems, about which so many reported a curious Dutchsinse, apparently completed; "coming events" launches. Researchers predicted a series of catastrophesthat will lead to the conclusion of the games, "China (Bohai Gulf tsunami and on the shelf plus powerful tremors on the Mainland). Earthquake in the Black Sea and around naval bases of Russia in order to incapacitate their potential. "Natural" catastrophe in the North Sea, which trigger the gas attack on the British Isles. Hurricanes and tsunamis on the Gulf Coast, and powerful seismic events along the new Madrid fault ... And the higher population density and significance of the region, the more likely scale "epidemics", "natural" strikes, "man-made" disaster and the scenario of destabilization. Land ceases to be a paradise, so consider Western "pessimists".

Saturday, July 28, 2012

BP is not alone in Gulf exposure

bp_oil_spill_glove.top.jpg By Roger Parloff, senior editor


FORTUNE -- Last week I wrote a short legal primer aimed at answering some key questions surrounding the legal landscape of the BP Gulf Coast oil spill. At the same time, I invited readers to send me their questions, so I could take a stab at those, too. Here goes.
In general, my own questions focused on BP (BP)'s civil liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), and whether the company would really be subject to OPA's $75 million limitation on liability. (Basically, my answer was no.) Readers had a few follow-up questions about those topics, but also inquired about two other matters: how else can BP be punished and how imperiled are their own investments in peripheral players in the catastrophe -- especially Transocean (RIG), Halliburton (HAL, Fortune 500), Cameron International (CAM, Fortune 500), and Anadarko Petroleum (APC, Fortune 500).
Finally, several readers, apparently of an entrepreneurial bent, wanted to know exactly who owns the spilled oil. Specifically, they wondered, could they skim some off the surface and resell it to refiners themselves?
When BP says it will pay for all costs of cleaning up the oil spill, does that mean it is committing to restoring the Gulf to its previous state?
No. "Clean-up" means removal of the oil, according to Vincent Foley, a partner at the law firm of Holland & Knight, who specializes in maritime law and has testified before Congress about Deepwater Horizon oil spill liability issues. To the extent that natural resources are damaged over the long-term -- diminished fish stocks, for instance -- states can sue to recover damages for those under OPA, but that's not considered "clean-up" costs, which is what BP is voluntarily taking on.
You said in your primer that BP is "100% responsible" for clean-up costs. But what about other investors in the well, like Anadarko?
As the federally-licensed operator of the oil well, BP has been designated as the "responsible party" under OPA, meaning that it is 100% responsible for the clean-up costs in the first instance. It can, however, go after other parties for contribution, including investors in the well.
Though BP operated the well, it owned only a 65% interest in it. Anadarko Petroleum Company owned 25% and Mitsui Oil Exploration owned 10%. (According to the Wall Street Journal, Mitsui Oil Exploration, in turn, was 70% owned by trading company Mitsui & Co.; 20% by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; and 10% by assorted Japanese investors.)
Anadarko's SEC filings suggest that it anticipates being on the hook for one-quarter of the damages unless certain indemnification provisions kick in, though it did not specify the terms of those indemnifications. Anadarko's insurance for its interest in the well comes to only $177.5 million, less deductibles of about $15 million, according to its filings, so it had better hope those indemnification provisions do apply.
According to one lawyer I spoke with, a standard joint operating agreement in this industry would usually provide that a passive investor like Anadarko would be on the hook for its pro rata share of liability unless the operator, BP in this instance, acted in "gross negligence."
Anadarko's spokesman declined to comment on whether this was, indeed, Anadarko's situation. "Our priority right now is to continue offering help to the Unified Command and at the same time be mindful of the interests of our stakeholders," he said.
If I were a betting man, I'd guess that Anadarko has an enormous incentive to prove gross negligence on BP's part.
Mitsui Oil Exploration's spokesman was as laconic as Anadarko's: "MOECO is unable, at this time, to determine the cause of the incident, and the impact, if any, that the incident will have on MOECO's future operating results, financial positions, or cash flows." He declined further comment, citing the pending U.S. government investigation.
A BP spokesperson said she did not know what BP's indemnification agreements were with Anadarko or Mitsui, and that BP's legal team was "so focused on other things" that I should call back "in a couple weeks when things have quieted down a bit."
What about contractors, like Halliburton, Cameron International, and Transocean?
Both Halliburton, which did cement work on the well, and Transocean, the Swiss owner of the rig, have claimed in SEC filings or in congressional testimony that they have broad indemnification agreements with BP that will leave BP holding the bag for virtually all the spill costs -- assuming, of course, that BP stays solvent. In its SEC filings, for instance, Transocean says that that BP has assumed "full responsibility for any loss, expense, claim, fine, penalty or liability for pollution or contamination, including control and removal thereof, arising out of or connected with operations under the contract" and that BP has agreed to "indemnify us and bear the cost of bringing the well under control in the event of a blowout or other loss of control."
(Halliburton and Transocean will certainly bear exposure to the personal injury suits being filed on behalf of the 11 dead and at least 17 injured workers, although, according to the congressional testimony of a top Halliburton lawyer, there are reciprocal indemnification agreements in place whereby a Halliburton will indemnify BP for suits brought by BP workers, while BP indemnifies Halliburton for suits brought by its employees. The lawyer, senior vice president and deputy counsel James W. Ferguson, testified that such agreements were standard practice in the industry.)
Notwithstanding Transocean's assertions, BP's lawyers evidently have some theory under which they think they can invalidate the oil-spill indemnification agreements Transocean thinks it's protected by. BP has already sent a demand letter to Transocean's excess insurers, seeking to tap the $750 million in insurance obligations they owe to Transocean. That letter prompted those insurers, led by certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London, to sue BP in Houston in May for a judicial declaration that they owe BP nothing. (Transocean and its insurers both acknowledge responsibility for any oil leaks coming from Transocean's rig, which floated on or above the water, but not for any leaks from the well itself, a mile below the surface. So far, virtually the entire spill is assumed to come from the latter.)
As previously noted, BP's spokesperson said she could not address my questions about BP's indemnification arrangements.
The general counsel of Cameron International, which made the blow out preventer (BOP) on the well -- one of the crucial safeguard devices designed to avert disasters like this one -- told a congressional committee last month that it was "far too early to draw factual conclusions about how the incident occurred" and, therefore, it was also "impossible for anyone to make liability determinations at this point." Cameron's SEC filings say that it has $500 million of insurance available.
Isn't BP exposed to some sort of per-barrel fine?
Yes. Though my primer dealt mainly with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), BP is also subject to substantial penalties under the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). Specifically, it can be hit with either $37,500 per-day or $1,100 per-barrel civil penalty for oil spills, even without a showing of wrongdoing on its part. Consulting the PBS News Hour Oil Leak Widget, readers can see that by even the most conservative estimates, BP's per-barrel exposure is already around $1 billion. (Remember that there are 42 gallons in a barrel.) If BP is shown to have been guilty of "gross negligence" or "willful misconduct," those penalties can be trebled. Turning to "experts' worst case" scenarios for the size of the oil spill, and assuming gross negligence, one can at least theoretically jack those penalties up to devastating levels.
These penalties would ordinarily be sought by the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and any money collected would go into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, described in the primer.
One lawyer points out to me that BP would probably much rather pay cleanup costs and civil damages than Justice Department penalties, since the latter are not tax deductible. The prospect of imposing these gives the government enormous bargaining leverage over BP, even before one begins talking about the potential criminal sanctions BP could face. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has, of course, said that he is looking into the possibility of criminal violations of at least four environmental laws.
Worse yet for BP, it's a recidivist offender. BP units were on probation for two prior environmental crimes when the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20. In October 2007, two BP units simultaneously agreed to plead guilty to environmental crimes relating to two different incidents. (One was a felony violation of the Clean Air Act that helped cause an explosion at its Texas City refinery in March 2005, killing 15 and injuring more than 170. BP was fined $50 million and ordered to institute safeguards that cost it about another $265 million. The other was a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act stemming from two oil pipeline leaks in 2006, which drenched stretches of Alaskan tundra with 200,000 gallons of crude oil. BP was fined $20 million for that one.)
Who owns the spilled oil? If I skim some off the surface, can I resell it to a refiner?
Though neither of two experts to whom I posed these questions was immediately confident of the answer to the first one, they both thought the answer to the second question was no.
"It's not finders keepers," says Foley, of Holland & Knight. Both he and Chris Kende, an insurance specialist at Cozen O'Connor, thought the oil belonged to either the federal government, from whom BP licensed the right to drill, or to BP.
A reader who wants to claim ownership of oil he collects would probably have to claim that BP "abandoned" it, Kende said, "which, I think, would be hard to prove." Alternatively, he continued, the reader could use "some kind of novel salvage theory, like the old Spanish galleon cases." In maritime law, he explains, if you salvage an old sunken vessel or its cargo, you can stake a claim in it. But to do that here, he says, "you would have to 'sue' the oil you recovered to assert a lien for the salvage." More important, he says, "salvage only applies to maritime property like vessels or cargo on board vessels," and this oil never reached a vessel and was, thus, never cargo.  To top of page

Friday, July 27, 2012

I have never stated that the oil we have been finding is coming from the Macondo well.

by Amin Fasei on Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 1:58am

For more than 2 years, we have keenly followed our Gulf hero's stories documenting the oil slicks in the Gulf following the BP Macondo blowout and oil spill disaster on April 20, 2010. Like millions others, we could have swore her narration and aerial photos implicated BP of the continuing spills and leaks from the Macondo reservoir. One member of our group however, fowarded this story and her statement "I have never stated that the oil we have been finding is coming from the Macondo well."

If this statement is true, then we must have all been misled. If all the periodic oil slicks (miles and miles of them) had been "natural", where were all the aerial photos and intense reporting of such grand natural phenomena prior to the disaster?

Were they spraying Corexit to sink all the "natural" oil spills and seeps prior to the disaster? Were the Gulf residents complaining of sickness from hydrocarbon poisoning from such "natural" oil spills and seeps before the disaster?

Hard to believe the recent spate of "new found oil" in various forms (oil slicks, oil sheens, tar balls, tar mat, dead dolphins and other wildlife, oiled and mutated sea lives just to name a few) could have been a new natural phenomenon.

Hey, if oil is finding itself to the surface, there must have been "natural" major leaks somewhere after April 20, 2010 or maybe the govt and oil companies had been hiding this vast shallow natural resources from the public all this while.

WOW! All these vast oil resources just beneath our feet and we had to fight all these expensive, endless "oil wars" on foreign lands, thousands of miles away just to protect our American's oil supply. Couldn't the American oil companies drill nearer and cheaper in shallow Gulf waters? We could have been "rich" like the Arabs Sheiks with oil flowing out of our ears. Sorry, apologize to all oil spill workers who did complain of oily brown discharge out of the ears.

Doesn't seem to add up here or are we missin' somethin' ? 

Oil Still Gushing From BP Well In Gulf By Adonai
September 3, 2011


She continued, “We found significant amounts of oil in globule form still at the Deepwater Horizon site and at the Taylor Energy site, and we saw miles-long surface rainbow sheens from two different leaking platforms between [Deepwater Horizon] and the Chandeleur Islands.”

When this reporter asked her about leaks in the gulf’s seafloor, Ms. Schumaker discussed how often she sees oil residue when flying over the gulf. She said, “If BP [officials] can’t see anything from the air with their own eyes, can we trust what they claim to see, or don’t see, under the water?” Ms. Schumaker also pointed out a report that links new oil samples with the Macondo site.

It seems conclusive that even if the actual drill site of Deepwater Horizon has been sufficiently capped, the damage done by BP with U.S. Government approval is too extensive to be stopped. The size of the Macondo well and its explosive pressure has been unleashed, breaking through the surface at every point of least resistance, poisoning the gulf with every passing moment.

1 Comment
1. Reply
Posted September 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM
Just one clarification: I have never stated that the oil we have been finding is coming from the Macondo well. In fact, that ‘gravesite’ looks quiet and clear. The oil we’ve documented has been over a band that runs about 25 nm north to south and stretches between about 7 and 20 nm east (northeast to southeast) of that Macondo well. Scientists have told us that this is more oil than they’ve seen before from natural seeps in the Gulf, and there are many research vessels out there every day, both BP-contracted (such as the Bordelon family of vessels — Sarah, Rachel, Wes, etc. and the giant ROV-carrying Skandi Neptune) and government agencies (NOAA’s Okeanos Explorere and McArthur II), so the area is clearly one of great interest and, we presume, concern.

Thanks for caring about the Gulf! –Dr. Bonny (Bonny@OnWingsOfCare.org)

Excerpts from the main article:

Bonny Schumaker, founder of On Wings of Care, recently wrote about her flyover of the gulf region. On Aug. 19, she reported: “Today we flew about 500 miles over the gulf to check out yet more reports of oil. We didn’t even get to some of the places reported, because in just a few hours we had already found plenty in at least four distinct locations—all within 75miles of the shores of Louisiana.”

She continued, “We found significant amounts of oil in globule form still at the Deepwater Horizon site and at the Taylor Energy site, and we saw miles-long surface rainbow sheens from two different leaking platforms between [Deepwater Horizon] and the Chandeleur Islands.”

When this reporter asked her about leaks in the gulf’s seafloor, Ms. Schumaker discussed how often she sees oil residue when flying over the gulf. She said, “If BP [officials] can’t see anything from the air with their own eyes, can we trust what they claim to see, or don’t see, under the water?” Ms. Schumaker also pointed out a report that links new oil samples with the Macondo site.

On Aug. 25, The Mobile Press-Register stated that it collected the samples and had them tested by chemists Ed Overton and Scott Miles at Louisiana State University, who “did much of the chemical work used by federal officials to fingerprint the BP oil, known as MC252.”

The story quoted Overton as saying, “After examining the data, I think it’s a dead ringer for the MC252 oil, as good a match as I’ve seen.” All of this validates what this reporter and AFP have been covering for months.

It seems conclusive that even if the actual drill site of Deepwater Horizon has been sufficiently capped, the damage done by BP with U.S. Government approval is too extensive to be stopped. The size of the Macondo well and its explosive pressure has been unleashed, breaking through the surface at every point of least resistance, poisoning the gulf with every passing moment.

Frank Whalen has been a radio talk show host for the past 17 years, and worked as a consultant for Maxim magazine. For more news and views from Frank, see www.franklyspeakingradio.com.
By Frank Whalen, AFP