How many think BP may have used dispersants to hide the oil?

[Locut0s]

This may sound a little conspiracy theorist. I am not a conspiracy theorist and dislike almost all such claims. However it occurred to me today that maybe one of the reasons that BP is so adamant about using chemical dispersants despite the fact that the environmental benefit of using them is at best little understood, is that they want to cover this up. The reason the Exxon spill became such a large rally cry for the public against big oil were the countless images of oil covered birds. It had very little to do with the actual environmental impact and or the amount of oil spilled. Let's face it dead fish and shrimp don't get a lot of people teary eyed, though it should. Maybe BP though that by using enough dispersant they could sink the oil or keep it below the surface so that its real environmental impact would never be known. Seems it's sort of 1/2 worked as the amount of oil that has reached the shore is relatively small compared to the total amount of oil that could have. But scientists have now discovered the HUGE underwater oil plumes that BP may have just hoped would go unnoticed. And of course these plums will likely wreck untold environmental harm.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. I believe that is either a majority opinion around here, or damn close.

At the very minimum, it was a blatant unethical business move. BP essentially bought the Corexit from its own side company from what I understand, in lieu of at least somewhat safer alternatives which would have been more expensive.

The Gulf is destroyed for decades at a minimum, and some bitches need to do some heavy time.

[KT2000]

2. Absolutely!

Heard this discussed on tv a couple weeks ago.

Carol Browner has said from the beginning that BP's liability hinges on the amount of oil that is released. It is to their benefit to minimize that amount, which they have done from the beginning. She did not discuss the dispersant being used for that but she made clear - minimizing the amount of oil release is what BP has done and will continue to do.

[RKP5637]

3. Out of sight, out of mind... n/t

[dipsydoodle]

4. Dispersants are used in such instances

to help avoid landfall of an intact slick. Its exactly the same in Europe when tanker disasters occur.

[Locut0s]

5. True but it's also in BPs best interests that most of the oil doesn't reach the surface....

Also oil that's on the surface of the water is relatively easy to clean up. You can contain it with booms and suck it up much more readily than subsurface oil. So while I agree there may be some environmental benefits to using dispersants there are also many reasons not to and many reasons BP might want to use them to limit their liability.

[Syrinx]

6. that's exactly what dispersants are for

And the one they've been using in the Gulf is so toxic, that it is banned in Great Britain, among other countries. Yet British Petroleum has used it with abandon here.

[Locut0s]

7. Well yes and no...

Dispersant is used because there is a belief, not necessarily backed by science, that by breaking up the oil it will biodegrade faster and be less harmful to the environment than the oil in slick or gooey tar form. In other words it's used because of its possible environmental benefits in the face of an oil spill. But it's also a useful tool to cover up how much oil leaked.

[dipsydoodle]

8. It's the original Corexit 9500 which is banned in Europe.

but not necesarily later versions. I would assume that the reason its been used in the Gulf is that you have no such ban. Hence the actual issue is infact the absense of your ban.

[Syrinx]

9. no argument here

There should be a ban on the stuff.

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. I believe they are using Corexit for a legal reason also.

Corexit is very toxic and the use of it or any dispersant has been questioned. Dispersing the oil, especially with this substance that will be attached, seems to be a very poor choice.

BP does have some kind of tie to the company that makes Corexit. I don't believe they are using it because they hope to make a lot of money off of it. They defied the government when they were told to stop.

Corexit is on the EPA's list of approved chemicals. Using it does 2 things that will benefit them more. It will make some of the oil harder to see. It will also muddle the question about where the harm from the spill is coming from.

When cases are brought about the damage of the oil, BP will ask how do you know it's just the oil? They will also point out that they were using a chemical that had government approval. If the harm from the Corexit can't be separated from the harm done by the oil, they will argue that it's impossible to blame them completely. The government is complicit they will claim.

They have already used this in one way. When an injunction was filed and a man asked for hazmat suits to be issued in the cleanup, BP pointed to the EPA list.

It will just be one more way to help avoid all the expense they should suffer if they can pull it off.

[Locut0s]

14. Really good points. nt

[Scuba]

11. Well, duh.

[MichellesBFF]

12. Thom Hartmann was saying this weeks ago!

[cwydro]

13. No shit.

They are certainly using dispersants and the government is complicit in this. Everyone wants to hide the damage, But they can't.