Karen Dalton Beninato, writing for City Voices in New Orleans, obtained a copy of the BP Regional Oil Spill Response Plan for the Gulf of Mexico from 2009. This article closely follows Ms. Beninato's original article and conclusions. A digital copy of the response plan exists online for download. It is 29MB so e sure you have the room to download. The download link is:
While the name of the well has been redacted in the file, it is assumed that this is for Deepwater Horizon. The document was in an MMS Deepwater folder, but from the maps shown the field could also be the Thunder Horse field run by BP and Exxon. Whichever field it is, the document is 
its' response plan. Either way the plan is inadequate and makes various revealing statements about environmental and community impact.In the worst case discharge scenario (on chart below), an oil leak was expected to come ashore with the highest probability in Plaquemines Parish within 30 days (see map above from the Advance Response Plan). BP could have stored adequate boom there before a rig failure like the Deepwater Horizon, and workers could have been mobilized to apply the boom in the 30 days that the response plan predicted oil would hit the Plaquemines Parish wetlands.
Spokespersons were advised never to assure the public that an ecosystem would be back to normal after the worst case scenario, which is the scenario we have."No statements shall be made concerning any of the following: promises that property, ecology, or anything else will be restored to normal."Even in BP CEO Tony Hayward's new television commercial his assurance is an ambiguous, "We will make this right," without ever specifically addressing the preservation or restoration of America's Gulf Wetlands.
Corexit oil dispersant toxicity has not been tested on ecosystems, according to the Oil Spill Response Plan. "Ecotoxilogical effects: No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product." * Environmental Defense Fund scientist Richard Denison points out that dispersant maker Nalco's statement in the 2009 Plan is from 2005, and some ecotoxicity data can now be found on other response documents. The Plan's question and answer section 
discusses the choice of a dispersant with: "Have environmental trade-offs of dispersant use indicated that use should be considered? Note: This is one of the more difficult questions" and "Has the overflight to assure that endangered species are not in the application area been conducted?" Brown pelicans and sea turtles would have been the answer to the latter.
When it comes to Corexit, it is allowed in the Green Zone, not in the Red Zone without a waiver, and the Yellow Zone is a maybe. Yellow "includes any waters designated as marine reserves, National Marine Sanctuaries, National or State Wildlife Refugees or proposed or designated critical habitats; the waters are 
within three miles of a shoreline and/or fall under state jurisdiction; the waters are less than ten meters deep; and the waters are in mangrove or coastal wetland ecosystems or directly over coral reefs which are less than ten meters of water. Coastal wetlands include submerged algal and sea grass beds."
In summary the findings are:- BP knew in all probability where a Gulf of Mexico oil leak would go;
- BP knows it is pouring millions of gallons of chemicals untested for ecotoxicity near endangered wetlands; and
- BP knew it could not assure us that our environment will ever be back to normal.
City Voices, "BP's Spill Plan: What they knew and when they knew it", Written by Karen Dalton Beninato for City Voices, accessed June 15, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment