'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Nordic » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:54 pm

Yeah, what happened to the days, which human beings have enjoyed for better or for worse, when someone had to actually be AFRAID of screwing a whole lot of people over to the point where they'd turn on him?

What's it take to be turned upon these days?

Apparently you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT now, to ANYBODY, and as long as you're rich and powerful, it's okay! And you can complain to all of them that it's really stressful for you and you 'want your life back'.

WTF is wrong with the world, where a guy like this actually can walk the beaches without fear of being lynched?

I'm REALLY starting to think there's something in the water, or something to the whole chemtrails nonsense, because people literally have turned into sheep. Nobody will do ANYTHING anymore, even to defend themselves! It's right into the cattle cars, for everybody.

It blows my fucking MIND.

Hell, even Montezuma was killed by one of his own people throwing a rock.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:02 pm

Nordic wrote:Yeah, what happened to the days, which human beings have enjoyed for better or for worse, when someone had to actually be AFRAID of screwing a whole lot of people over to the point where they'd turn on him?

What's it take to be turned upon these days?

Apparently you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT now, to ANYBODY, and as long as you're rich and powerful, it's okay! And you can complain to all of them that it's really stressful for you and you 'want your life back'.

WTF is wrong with the world, where a guy like this actually can walk the beaches without fear of being lynched?

I'm REALLY starting to think there's something in the water, or something to the whole chemtrails nonsense, because people literally have turned into sheep. Nobody will do ANYTHING anymore, even to defend themselves! It's right into the cattle cars, for everybody.

It blows my fucking MIND.

Hell, even Montezuma was killed by one of his own people throwing a rock.


I agree, Nordic.

And there IS something in the water.

Fluoride.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:20 pm

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010
Oil Is About to Pay a Visit to Alabama's Coast
Alabama, which perhaps has sucked up to corporate interests more than any other state over the past 15 to 20 years, is about to pay a huge price.

The Associated Press reports that oil from the massive BP leak is forecast to hit Alabama's shores for the first time on Wednesday afternoon.

Reports AP:

A forecast map issued Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows a light sheen of oil completely covering the mouth of Mobile Bay and coming ashore in Baldwin County by noon Wednesday.

The NOAA maps note that moderate south to southwest winds are forecast for the upcoming week, which "indicate that oil may move north to threaten the barrier islands off Mississippi and Alabama."

How bad could it get?

"I think it's uncharted territory for everybody," said Bethany Kraft, the director of the Alabama Coastal Foundation.

It is deeply ironic that oil is about to befoul Alabama's gorgeous beaches as voters go to the polls today in our state's primary election. Thousands of Alabama voters will reflexively pull the lever for the very Republican candidates who are backed by corporate interests, the same interests whose malfeasance has brought disaster to the Gulf of Mexico.

How strong is big oil's grip on Alabama politics? Consider the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in November 2007 that, in an 8-1 vote, overturned most of a $3.5 billion fraud verdict against ExxonMobil.

All eight justices who voted to overturn the verdict are Republicans. And who provided much of their funding. Scott Horton, of Harper's, tells us in a piece called "The Best Justice Money Can Buy."

First, Horton notes that Karl Rove and his buddy Bill Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama, launched a campaign in 1992 to take over Alabama's appellate courts. Did it work? Well, 13 of the 14 justices on the Alabama Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Civil Appeals now are Republicans.

Does having "pro business" justices make a difference? ExxonMobil undoubtedly would say yes. Reports Horton:

So who funded the G.O.P.’s vise-like grip on the Alabama Supreme Court? The answer is complex, but part of it is: Exxon Mobil did.

In the last six years, Republican candidates for the state’s highest court have taken more than $5.5 million in campaign contributions from Exxon Mobil lobbyists and lawyers, and groups allied with the company. That means that the eight judges who voted to throw out the state’s massive jury award against Exxon Mobil were actually placed on the court with Exxon Mobil’s money and support—though that support is almost all carefully funnelled in an indirect way, of course. Just think about it from a corporate perspective—an investment of $5.5 million to eliminate a $3.6 billion liability? The best investment those oil men ever made.

Where exactly did that $5.5 million come from? Horton reports:

• Tort-reform groups whose leadership include Exxon lobbyists, or who were funded indirectly by the company, made nearly $3 million in contributions to the GOP members of the Supreme Court.

• Seven Political Action Committees controlled by Exxon’s Alabama lobbyists, Fine Geddie & Associates, made $293,000 in direct campaign contributions to the Supreme Court justices who ruled in the company’s favor.

• Alabama lawyers who represent Exxon in the gas royalties suit gave thousands of dollars more to the justices who ruled in favor of Exxon in the case.

And then we have this:

• The biggest corporate trade group in Alabama, Billy Canary’s Business Council of Alabama, also contributed at least $2.1 million to the GOP justices who ruled favorably to Exxon.

Bradley Byrne, who figures to come out on top in today's Republican primary and probably will win the general election in November, has strong ties to . . . the Business Council of Alabama.

Consider this from Byrne's campaign Web site:

During Bradley’s tenure in the Alabama senate, two of the state’s strongest advocates for legal reform, the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee and the Business Council of Alabama, frequently called on him to sponsor and work for passage of important legal reform legislation.

The campaign Web site tells us that Byrne has spent much of his legal career defending corporate titans:

Bradley Byrne practiced law as a respected defense attorney for 27 years. As a member of the Alabama Senate, Bradley was the leading advocate for lawsuit reform in the legislature. In fact, he was awarded for his leadership in fighting for legal reform by leading business and industry organizations.

So here is what we have in Alabama today. Voters are likely to vote heavily for Bradley Byrne, a candidate supported by big oil and other business interests. Meanwhile, oil is about to start lapping up on Alabama's shores, especially in Baldwin County, which is Byrne's home territory.

Message for Alabamians: You pay a price when you exhibit cluelessness at the ballot box. If you don't believe it, just check out our shoreline over the next several weeks.

For almost 20 years, Alabama citizens have consistently voted for Bradley Byrne types who say they want "lawsuit reform." That reform, of course, means that businesses are allowed to do pretty much anything they want in Alabama.

What do we have to show for it? It looks like, in a matter of a few days, we'll have oily beaches.

So why do we keep voting for Bradley Byrne types? As Dr. Phil might say, "And how . . . is that . . . working out . . . for you?"




ExxonMobil 1, Alabama 0
Many Alabamians must have awakened this morning with soreness in their hindquarters.

That's because we took one up our collective wazoo from the corporate yes-men on the Alabama Supreme Court. Maybe this case will wake Alabamians up to what it means to mindlessly vote for Republicans to staff our appellate courts.

And for those who study the case, it should bring appreciation for former Governor Don Siegelman, now in federal prison on a corruption conviction that appears to be politically motivated.

The state's high court overturned a 2003 circuit-court ruling that ExxonMobil had committed fraud and owed the state $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a dispute over natural-gas royalties. In an 8-1 decision, the court awarded Alabama $51.9 million (plus interest) in compensatory damages and threw out all punitive damages, which made up most of the $3.6 billion verdict.

Guess who cast the lone dissenting vote on the high court? It's only Democrat, Sue Bell Cobb.

The Alabama Conservation Department had sued ExxonMobil, saying it had intentionally underpaid the state for royalties due from natural gas wells the company drilled in state-owned waters along the Alabama coast. The company argued that no fraud was involved, and the case was an ordinary contract dispute.

In 2003, a Montgomery jury agreed with the state's arguments and returned a verdict of $102.8 million in compensatory damages and $11.8 billion in punitive damages. Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey, citing U.S. Supreme Court guidelines, cut the punitive damages award to $3.5 billion.

The Alabama Supreme Court, in yesterday's ruling, slashed the compensatory damages to $51.9 million and threw out all of the punitive damages.

"When a powerful and politically influential corporate giant can get away with what Exxon did to the citizens of our state, it's truly a sad day for Alabama," said Jere Beasley, one of the state's attorneys.

This is a complex case, one that requires considerable study to understand. But my initial research indicates there was ample evidence of fraud, and the $3.5 billion punitive damages award should have been upheld.

Even the legal advisor for Republican Governor Bob Riley was shocked at the result. "I am extremely surprised at the decision, because under the facts of the case, I was relatively certain that there was fraudulent conduct, which would result in punitive damages," Ken Wallis said. "I'm shocked that the court found no fraud."

Why should Wallis be shocked? Corporate interests, the same ones who support Bob Riley, have bought and paid for our appellate courts. For Ken Wallis to say he's shocked at this result, is mindblowingly disingenuous. My guess? Riley and Wallis knew it was coming, and they are fine with it.

In fact, if Riley's hand-picked choice as chief justice (Drayton Nabors) had not been beaten by Cobb, the vote would have been 9-0.

Our previous governor, Don Siegelman, was not fine with it. He committed significant resources to fighting the case on the state's behalf. Of course, Siegelman can't do much about yesterday's verdict. He's busy cleaning toilets in a Louisiana federal prison.

The Riley administration shocked? Just how stupid do they think Alabama voters are?

Will Alabama voters ever wake up? Hard to tell. But this ruling is going to become a source of major attention on our blog, along with the Siegelman case, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.

By the way, my case involved some absurdities related to punitive damages. We will outline how Alabama's high court reacts to punitive damages assessed (wrongly) against a regular citizen compared to such damages assessed (probably correctly) against a corporate giant.

Way too many issues are involved in this ExxonMobil ruling to go into today. But this should be a profoundly important wakeup call to our state. And if the Alabama Democratic Party cannot take this case and use it politically to install some balance on our appellate courts, God help us all. They should use this case like a sledgehammer on the heads of Republican judicial candidates.

For those interested in learning more about the Exxon case, there is a ton of information out there. A good place to start is at the Web site of the Mobile law firm of Cunningham, Bounds, Crowder, Brown & Breedlove. That's the firm that Siegelman engaged to help Alabama fight for the money it was owed. Background on the case can be found here.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:23 pm

Hurricane Winds Carried Ocean Salt & Plankton Far Inland
April 24, 2003

Hurricane Winds Carried Ocean Salt & Plankton Far Inland
Researchers found surprising evidence of sea salt and frozen plankton in high, cold, cirrus clouds, the remnants of Hurricane Nora, over the U.S. plains states. Although the 1997 hurricane was a strong eastern Pacific storm, her high ice-crystal clouds extended many miles inland, carrying ocean phenomena deep into the U.S. heartland.
Image

Kenneth Sassen of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and University of Alaska Fairbanks; W. Patrick Arnott of the Desert Research Institute (DRI) in Reno, Nev.; and David O. Starr of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., co-authored a paper about Hurricane Nora's far-reaching effects. The paper was published in the April 1, 2003, issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

Scientists were surprised to find what appeared to be frozen plankton in some cirrus crystals collected by research aircraft over Oklahoma, far from the Pacific Ocean. This was the first time examples of microscopic marine life, like plankton, were seen as "nuclei" of ice crystals in the cirrus clouds of a hurricane.

Nora formed off the Panama coast, strengthened as it traveled up the Baja Peninsula, and the hurricane crossed into California in September 1997. Over the western U.S., Nora deposited a stream of high cirrus, ice crystal, clouds that created spectacular optical effects, such as arcs and halos, above a broad region including Utah and Oklahoma. That stream of cirrus clouds enabled researchers to analyze growth of ice crystals from different nuclei.

Different nuclei, like sulfate particles, sea salt and desert dust, affect ice-crystal growth and shape. Torn from the sea surface by strong hurricane winds, sea salt and other particles from evaporated sea spray are carried to the cold upper troposphere in storm updrafts, where the drops freeze and become ice crystals. Plankton, a microscopic organism, is also likely present in the sea spray and is similarly lofted to high levels.

"Understanding how ice crystals grow and what determines their shapes is important in understanding how they interact with sunlight and infrared energy," Starr noted. "These interactions are important processes in the global climate system. They are also critical to sensing cloud properties from space, where NASA uses measurements of the reflected solar radiation to infer cloud physical properties, such as ice-crystal size," he said.

Data were gathered using ground-based remote sensors at the Facility for Atmospheric Remote Sensing in Salt Lake City and at the Clouds and Radiation Testbed in northern Oklahoma. A research aircraft collected particle samples over Oklahoma. Observations from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 9 (West), launched by NASA and operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were also used. DRI analyzed the ice crystals collected from Nora.

Scientists were using data generated through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program. The ARM Program's purpose is obtaining field measurements and developing computer models of the atmosphere. Researchers hope to better understand the processes that control the transfer of solar and thermal infrared energy in the atmosphere, especially in clouds, and at the Earth's surface.

The ARM energy measurements also double-check data from the Moderate Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites. By ensuring the satellites are recording the same energy reflected and absorbed by clouds from Hurricane Nora as those provided by the ground data in this study, scientists hope to take fewer ground measurements in the future, and enable the satellites to provide the data.

The DOE ARM program, National Science Foundation, and NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research. The Earth Science Enterprise is dedicated to understanding the Earth as an integrated system and applying Earth System Science to improve prediction of climate, weather and natural hazards, such as hurricanes, using the unique vantage point of space.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby ninakat » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:34 pm



Thanks SLAD -- that's the kind of information I was looking for a few weeks ago, when I was posing the question of this shit (oil and/or toxic disperants) coming inland as a result of a hurricane (and its associated water spouts perhaps). Looks like a confirmation, very regrettably. Does this vindicate the Sorcha Faal (sp?) report? Say it isn't so.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby ninakat » Tue Jun 01, 2010 2:51 pm

via Cryptogon.com

Gulf oil spill: 'This disaster just got enormously worse'
By RENEE SCHOOF AND CHRIS ADAMS
McClatchy Newspapers
5-30-10

WASHINGTON -- If the growing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico isn't contained soon - and the latest efforts suggest that's unlikely - then the damage to the fragile region will intensify over the coming summer months as changing currents and the potential for hurricanes complicate the containment and cleanup efforts.

"It's all lose, lose, lose here," said Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska marine scientist who's familiar with both the current Gulf oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster two decades ago.

"The failure of the top kill really magnified this disaster exponentially," he said. "I think there's a realistic probability that this enormous amount of oil will keep coming out for a couple months. This disaster just got enormously worse."

As the federal government and BP try yet another strategy to curb the flow of oil from the blown well a mile below the surface of the Gulf - one that could increase the flow of oil by as much as 20 percent - scientists anticipate a range of disastrous effects, only some of which are well understood.

The damage to the shorelines of Gulf states such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida is literally only the surface of the problem: The damage to the sea floor could be extensive, and oil could also devastate marine life between the Gulf floor and its surface, as well as in coastal areas far from the leaking wellhead.

If none of the short-term solutions plugs the well, the only long-term fix - drilling two relief wells to stem the flow of oil - likely won't be completed until late July or August. President Barack Obama on Saturday called the news about the latest failed attempt "as enraging as it is heartbreaking."

"As I said yesterday, every day that this leak continues is an assault on the people of the Gulf Coast region, their livelihoods, and the natural bounty that belongs to all of us," he said in a White House statement.

Larry Crowder, a professor of marine biology at Duke University, said if the spill continues for a couple more months, then oil almost certainly would get into the Loop Current that flows clockwise around the Gulf. It then would be a week to 10 days before it got to the Florida Keys, and a couple of weeks more before the Gulf Stream carried it to North Carolina.

If the leak had been stopped this weekend, the oil might have been diluted, but if there's two to three times the current amount by August, he said: "It could go anywhere."

"If you have enough oil, it can go a big distance," and some 100 million gallons could be spilled by this summer. "There's almost no place that's off-limits," Crowder said.

With summer approaching, hurricanes are the most obvious complication. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts an above-average hurricane season, and a hurricane getting into the Gulf and moving toward the Louisiana coast could force BP to halt its effort to drill the relief wells until the storm passed.

Hurricanes also could disperse the oil farther and wider - or roil the waters so oil at the surface plunges to great depths and poisons the deepwater ecosystem.

Any hurricane and its accompanying storm surge also could drive oil onto land, even into the rice and sugarcane fields that aren't far from the coast in Louisiana, said James H. Cowan Jr., a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University.

"It will probably get stranded if it gets to the upper estuary, and it's very difficult to clean there," he said.


Right now, a big eddy that's spun off the Loop Current is still blocking oil from entering it and it has moved south - away from the oil, Cowan said, but scientists say it's not possible to predict exactly where winds and currents will drive the oil.

Less is known about where the oil may already be going in the western part of the Gulf. Scientists don't know if there are any big plumes of oil under water to the west of the leaking well, although it's reasonable to suspect there are some, Cowan said.

The oil already is spread along 100 miles of the Louisiana coast, and the coastal current could take it west toward Texas and an area where two deltas have been building since the 1970s. There, freshwater marshes would suffer even more damage than saltwater marshes do; freshwater plants could be devastated. Storms or other changes in the currents also could send oil toward sensitive saltmarshs, killing fisheries and other animal life.

"It's a nightmare that just won't quit," Cowan said. He's spent his career researching fisheries production and ecosystem management, but he now sees nothing ahead but studying what the oil is doing to the Gulf. "I'm 54, and I never expected I'd spend the rest of my career dealing with oil spill issues," he said.

Steiner, the Alaska scientist, said while the shoreline has gotten the most attention, the damage from oil plumes under the Gulf's surface would be extensive.

"A lot of this oil has yet to surface, and so it's formed these huge sub-surface plumes," he said.

That oil will devastate marine life that's sensitive to contaminants from the sea floor to the surface. The Gulf, he said, is a critical spawning habitat for many large fish species such as bluefin tuna and blue marlin. Eggs and larvae from such species probably already have been exposed to toxins in the oil and the chemicals BP has been using to disperse it.

"There is a lot of oil going into the sea there," he said. "It does degrade over time, but before it degrades it is toxic, and it wreaks havoc."

The dispersants also could have unintended long-term effects. They've never been used at such depths, and never in such huge amounts, said Crowder of Duke University.

The dispersants seem to be keeping most of the oil offshore, but they're driving much of it deep underwater. The chemicals have never been used in water as cold and under as much pressure as there is at this leak a mile below the surface, he said.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Jeff » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:05 pm

And that's it, then:

Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says

By Jim Polson - Jun 1, 2010

BP Plc has decided not to attach a second blowout preventer on its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico and efforts to end the flow are over until the relief wells are finished, according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Thad Allen, who spoke at a press conference today.



http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010- ... -says.html
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby ShinShinKid » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:33 pm

Things are not looking good.
I would suggest we all start organizing now, although I have seen thread about it before, who owns some arable land in the continental US or Canada?
I can liquify all assets, and be on the road in a few days. We need to start planting crops and digging wells ASAP.

Am I the only one who is seriously starting to freak out? Maybe it's just my financial situations, but wha?!?!
Well played, God. Well played".
User avatar
ShinShinKid
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: Home
Blog: View Blog (26)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:49 pm

ShinShinKid wrote:Things are not looking good.

Am I the only one who is seriously starting to freak out?




This WILL be the summer from hell
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Username » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:57 pm

~

~
Username
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:27 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:25 pm

ShinShinKid wrote:Things are not looking good.
I would suggest we all start organizing now, although I have seen thread about it before, who owns some arable land in the continental US or Canada?
I can liquify all assets, and be on the road in a few days. We need to start planting crops and digging wells ASAP.

Am I the only one who is seriously starting to freak out? Maybe it's just my financial situations, but wha?!?!


I've been looking into this sustainable community in Costa Rica, ShinShinKid.

http://osamountainvillage31.homestead.com/
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Jeff » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:25 pm

Jeff wrote:And that's it, then:


Or not. Jesus, the confusion atop catastrophe is too much.

BP DENIES RUMORS THAT IT'S ABORTING LATEST ATTEMPT TO PLUG LEAK

UPDATE II: BP spokesperson John Curry denied reports of any problems with the Lower Marine Rise Package, which begins drilling today.

Reports that BP had canceled all rescue plans were based on a headline from Bloomberg: Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP's Leaking Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says. While BP is ending efforts to halt the flow, it will continuing efforts to capture the flow.


http://www.businessinsider.com/disaster ... z0pdCHWdP2
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby Peachtree Pam » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:38 pm

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0601/attorn ... ll-opened/

Attorney General: Criminal probe of Gulf oil spill opened


Attorney General Eric Holder says federal authorities have opened criminal and civil investigations into the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.

Holder would not specify Tuesday which companies or individuals might be the targets of the probe. He says federal clean air and pollution laws give him the power to open the investigations.

__________________


Forgive me if I remain sceptical.
Peachtree Pam
 
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:46 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:27 pm

Forgive me if I remain sceptical



Former Dick Cheney Spokesperson Begins Job at BP
Posted by Brian Montopoli Leave Comment


Former Vice President Dick Cheney addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010. (Credit: AP)
Anne Womack-Kolton, the 2004 campaign press secretary for Vice President Dick Cheney, began a new job today as BP's head of U.S. media relations, TPM reports.

Reuters first reported BP's hiring of Womack-Kolton, who also worked as head of public affairs at the Department of Energy under former President George W. Bush. The company is looking to improve its battered public image in the wake of the disastrous and continuing oil leak in the Gulf.

Here's Womack-Kolton's LinkedIn page detailing her employment history. As TPM notes, in 2004 she was often identified as Cheney's spokeswoman.

Cheney was for five years the chief executive of Halliburton, one of the companies tied to the rig that exploded in April, killing 11 and causing the massive oil spill. He said he severed his ties with Halliburton upon becoming vice president, though critics noted that he continued to receive compensation from the company.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: 'Not for public': the oil spill may be getting much worse

Postby 82_28 » Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:45 pm

Jeff wrote:And that's it, then:

Efforts to End Oil Flow From BP Well Are Over, Coast Guard Says

By Jim Polson - Jun 1, 2010

BP Plc has decided not to attach a second blowout preventer on its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico and efforts to end the flow are over until the relief wells are finished, according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Thad Allen, who spoke at a press conference today.



http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010- ... -says.html


Holy fucking shit. What does this mean besides cataclysmic disaster? Where does anybody go from here? What's the game plan?
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests