WHY is BP still pumping COREXIT into the oil geyser???

[crikkett]

Haven't they been told to stop?

:mad:

[mikelgb]

1. because...

they haven't managed to bury this flag in congealed dispersed oil globs:

[Mimosa]

14. I questioned it from the beginning

We know BP was trying to 'hide' the oil from looking like a big slick. At the same time the dispersant makes it nearly impossible to actually skim the oil from the surface.

They should have been stopped from spraying poison. :(

[PearliePoo2]

2. Because they run the fucking show...that's why. Who's going to stop them?

Hard to put a number on barrels spilled when it can't be seen. Hard to recover oil that's
sub-surface. Hard to pin down liability when the oil can't be measured.
Fuckers are poisoning the planet and they don't give a damn..

[Greyhound]

3. Because the only people that can stop them refuse to act. n/t

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. And there are only a couple of reasons that explain that refusal

Either the use of Corexit in some way also serves their interest or they lack the practical ability to enforce any directive to quit using Corexit and know it.

[jobycom]

4. Maybe the same reason people put Renuzit in the cat box room?

They know it doesn't work and only stinks the place up, but it gives them the appearance of trying.

That or they are trying to make it look less bad than it is.

[doc03]

5. Because they can n/t

[MineralMan]

6. They're trying to hide as much of the oil that's gushing

as they can. They've been told not to use it on floating oil, but they apparently have approval to inject it into the oil stream at the wellhead. That's my understanding of it, at least.

[Karenina]

8. Please EVERYONE support the people dedicated to STOPPING THIS!

http://vodpod.com/watch/3891601-drew-wheelan-demands-that-bp-stop-using-the-dispersant-corexit-in-the-gulf?u=dandelionsalad&c=dandelionsalad

[notesdev]

7. hiding the evidence

their liability is proportional to the number of barrels spilled... if they're getting credit for dispersion (and they probably are) then it lowers the amount of the fine they have to pay

The GOM burns while these Neros fiddle with money and lawyers!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. In short, no. It's complicated. More info here:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/24/24greenwire-bp-continues-to-use-surface-dispersants-in-gul-80293.html

Apparently BP was told to cut subsurface use by 75% from peak levels and surface use entirely, unless BP provided a legitimate reason for not doing so. They've cut subsurface use by 68% at the time of this report, and they've gotten a waiver for surface use by the Coast Guard.

[tom_paine]

13. Excellent info. Thank you for posting. However, it changes very little.

If I spill a quart of oil into a stream and try to hide it with dispersant/detergent, I am going to jail.

Think I could get a waiver? Of course not, but then again, I am not a Corporate Ubermeschen, rather a Flesh and Blood Plebian Untermenschen.



"Look closer, Lenny..."

"Hey, you're eleven feet tall, and all covered in gold."

These dispersants will almost certainly do far greater harm to the GOM, not just by their very presence, but by the fact that they have allowed (unlike ever before) milions of gallons of oil to sink deep.

Finally, what's so complicated about "there is no good reason to use this stuff other than Public Relations and hiding the scope of the problem"? What's so complicated about "we can skim more oil if it stays on the surface and we have ZERO idea about what it will do when sunk into the water"?

I mean, shouldn't someone have performed some experiments first, before we experiment with the entire GOM? It's not like Corexit was invented yesterday, and aren't hazardous chemicals supposed to be fully tested before they are allowed to be used?

Not in our Corporate Oligarchy, apparently. Not anymore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. If you spill a gallon of oil on purpose, then a gallon of dispersant, yes, you'll get in trouble.

I don't think you'd go to jail, probably you'd get a fine.

If you were working on your car in your garage, and you accidentally spilled oil. Then you'd clean it up with one of the detergent based cleaners they'd use for such things, you would not go to jail. Or get fined.

You're really comparing apples and oranges there.

The EPA would not be allowing (and even recommending) the use of dispersants if they felt it was worse than the spill itself. Moreover, it looks like BP's more or less in compliance. If less then compliance then it'd likely be a civil issue rather than a criminal one.

[tom_paine]

19. Ever heard of "regulatory capture"? If you haven't, Google it.

We will probably have to agree to disagree here, but telling me I am comparing apples and oranges, while in the very next breath compare a land-based spill (in my garage) with a water-based spill, seems a bit specious, as well.

The larger picture is the 40 year well-documented Reagan-Bush assault on our government agencies, as well as the culture now prevalent in almost every aspect of American Life, which is Unchecked Corporate Power.

Just like people who cling to old, long-discredited ideas like, "A cover-up couldn't happen because our Free, Vigorous and Independant Press would uncover it," it is dangerous to apply any beliefs that were true about pre-Reagan Bush America to what we live in today.

On so many levels, government has been hollowed-out, neutralized, defunded, and privatized to the point where the EPA simply cannot be trusted.

The EPA would not be allowing (and even recommending) the use of dispersants if they felt it was worse than the spill itself.

Do I have to bring up the EPA in 2002 telling the 9/11 Rescue Workers that the air was OK and they didn't need respirators? I think I do. By the way, how'd that turn out?

And that happened with 6 years of Bush assaults on the EPA still left to go. That's 6 years of honest people (if any were left) hounded out and replaced with Busho-Corporate Cronies, to say the least.

I do appreciate you answering me in a civil and detailed fashion, but let me say this: It is very dangerous to make assumptions based on post-WWII America (1945-1980) and apply them to today because that nation simply doesn't exist anymore and isn't coming back.

I cannot for certain say how neutralized, compromised, and corporatized the EPA is now, but I believe that a long-enough and deep-enough observable trend of "regulatory capture" has been going on for the last 40 years (at least 20 of them under the corrupt governance of the Bushies) warrants suspicion and very likely invalidates your pre-1980 assessment which I italicized above.

Think about it, please.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. You're comparing something done on purpose to an accident.

The BP blowout is a colossal, fatal accident. Now there's plenty of reason to argue that failures in safety by BP led to an accident. And that's why there's an ongoing criminal investigation in that regard.

But that's why I'm saying you're comparing apples and oranges.

"Do I have to bring up the EPA in 2002 telling the 9/11 Rescue Workers that the air was OK and they didn't need respirators? I think I do. By the way, how'd that turn out?"

On the other hand, the EPA says lots of things are OK, and it turns out they really are OK. There's a lot of things that BP has fucked up. I don't think the use of dispersants is one of them. Or at least I haven't seen good evidence that it's not.

[Catherina]

10. Because they can. No one will stop them. All hail the corporation. n/t

[City Lights]

11. Because they're calling the shots.

At least that's what it looks like to me.

[Swamp Rat]

16. There is only one, true explanation: to cover up their crime and gain more profit.

Corexit was banned in the UK because of its lethal toxicity. BP earns money as they spray death from above because they own significant interest in the chemical.

I said this over a month ago: BP is killing us and nobody is stopping them.

[Mimosa]

17. ^ BP is killing us and nobody is stopping them.^

That is why I am furious and embittered about the administration. What would Bush have done differently? BP is in charge still.

I forgave the health care betrayal. But this environmental disaster is far worse than anything which has happened in my lifetime. It's ecocide and people as well as the ocean and the wetlands will suffer.

BP is getting away with it for some reason.


I guess so much of our military and the resources they require is 'over there' in Afghanistan. A trillion a years, billions a month. If we could use those resources HERE and NOW the environmental disaster could be assuaged at least a little. :(

[Bluebear]

18. Who's in charge?

That will answer your question. . . and the answer is BP!

[amborin]

20. BP is in charge & dump dispersants with impunity