Gulf of Mexico oil geyser

I guess the lawsuits will be interesting to see if there is actually any culpability present of "officials" being responsible for public safety. With all the other blackouts, white-washing, and ass covering going on, I would really be surprised if it went that way, though.

This was posted over on my CornSnakes.com site, and thus far is unconfirmed without any referencing link.... So take it with a grain of salt, please.

Goldman Sachs wasn’t alone either in its astute “foreknowledge” of the collapse of BP’s stock value due to the Gulf disaster as BP’s own chief executive, Tony Hayward, sold about one-third of his shares weeks before this catastrophe began unfolding too.

But according to a FSB report the largest seller of BP stock in the weeks before this disaster occurred was the American investment company known as Vanguard who through two of their financial arms (Vanguard Windsor II Investor and Vanguard Windsor Investor) unloaded over 1.5 million shares of BP stock saving their investors hundreds of millions of dollars, chief among them President Obama.

For though little known by the American people, their President Obama holds all of his wealth in just two Vanguard funds, Vanguard 500 Index Fund where he has 3 accounts and the Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund where he holds another 3 accounts, all six of which the FSB estimates will earn Obama nearly $8.5 million a year and which over 10 years will equal the staggering sum of $85 million.

The FSB further estimates in this report that through Obama’s 3 accounts in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund he stands to make another $100 million over the next 10 years as their largest stock holding is in the energy giant Exxon Mobil they believe will eventually acquire BP and all of their assets for what will be essentially a “rock bottom” price and which very predictably BP has hired Goldman Sachs to advise them on.

Important to note is that none of this wealth Obama, Goldman Sachs, and other American elites is acquiring would be possible without this disaster, all of whom, as the evidence shows, “somehow” knew what was going to happen before it actually did, including the US energy giant Halliburton who 2 weeks prior to this disaster just happened to purchase the World’s largest oil disaster service company Boots & Coots”. Obama is a criminal and should be prosecuted for being a corporatist pig

Obviously there are more conspiracies associated with this oil event than you can shake a few sticks at.....

Originally Posted by WebSlave

This was posted over on my CornSnakes.com site, and thus far is unconfirmed without any referencing link.... So take it with a grain of salt, please.



Obviously there are more conspiracies associated with this oil event than you can shake a few sticks at.....

Lucky for these Elites they sold out just in time, just like they have before 911

Instead of losing money they take/make more money all at our expense.

BP launches search for new investors: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100704/..._new_investors

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/0...aring-for.html

BP wasted no time preparing for oil spill lawsuits

By Marc Caputo | McClatchy Newspapers
TALLAHASSEE — In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, BP publicly touted its expert oil clean-up response, but it quietly girded for a legal fight that could soon embroil hundreds of attorneys, span five states and last more than a decade.

BP swiftly signed up experts who otherwise would work for plaintiffs. It shopped for top-notch legal teams. It presented volunteers, fishermen and potential workers with waivers, hoping they would sign away some of their right to sue.

Recently, BP announced it would create a $20 billion victim-assistance fund, which could reduce court challenges.

Robert J. McKee, an attorney with the Fort Lauderdale firm of Krupnick Campbell Malone, was surprised by how quickly BP hired scientists and laboratories specializing in the collection and analysis of air, sea, marsh and beach samples — evidence that's crucial to proving damages in pollution cases.

Five days after the April 20 blowout, McKee said, he tried to hire a scientist who's assisted him in an ongoing 16-year environmental lawsuit in Ecuador involving Dupont.

"It was too late. He'd already been hired by the other side," McKee said. "If you aren't fast enough, you get beat to the punch."

At the same time it was bolstering its legal team, BP was downplaying how much oil was spewing from the Deepwater Horizon well — something that lawyers say is likely to be a critical factor in both court decisions and government fines.

"The rate we're seeing today is considerably lower, considerably lower, than what was occurring when you saw the rig on fire," BP America's chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, told NBC Nightly News on April 25, three days after the Deepwater Horizon sank.

BP would stick to low estimates of how much oil was leaking — first, 1,000 barrels a day, then 5,000 barrels a day — until the Obama administration stepped in under congressional pressure nearly a month later and set up an independent commission of scientists to determine the flow.

In mid June, the so-called Flow Rate Technical Group said the well is gushing 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day — but the delay and imprecision of that estimate will make how much oil escaped into the gulf a matter of debate for years.

In the early days after the spill, BP also included a liability waiver in the paperwork it gave fishermen and prospective workers. That prompted Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, among other Gulf coast officials, to warn citizens: "Do not sign waivers."

A BP spokesman said the company doesn't comment on lawsuits and "won't be giving running commentaries" on the number of court actions it's facing.

In Florida, however, the company has hired Akerman Senterfitt, the state's largest law firm and a major player in the state's capital. It's a strategy the company is likely to follow throughout the Gulf. When President Barack Obama met with BP executives last month to set up the $20 billion fund, BP was represented by Jamie Gorelick, who was deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton.

The grounds for the suits and potential suits run the gamut: federal pollution and environmental laws, general maritime law, international treaties, public-nuisance codes and even state and federal racketeering laws.

Under the federal Oil Pollution Act, state and local governments can sue to collect lost tax revenues and the cost of increased governmental services as a result of a spill. That can include lost sales and hotel room taxes in tourist-dependent towns all across the Gulf coast.

So far, an estimated 250 court suits have been filed against BP, and more come each day. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has tapped Steve Yerrid, one of the so-called "dream team" of lawyers that won Florida $11.3 billion in a landmark tobacco suit, to assemble a new legal crew to provide advice. Counties and cities are hiring lawyers as well.

Brian O'Neill, a lead attorney in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill case, said the Gulf Coast states and residents should realize it will take years to clean the waters, the marshes and the beaches. Three years after the Alaska spill, salmon stocks started to return, he said, but the herring population was "exterminated'' in Prince William Sound.

Exxon spent $2 billion and cleaned up just 8 percent of the oil, he said. And the oil never left.

"You're going to have to wait years to figure out what happened and what is happening," O'Neill said. "The oil goes where you don't expect it. You will clean a beach and the oil will just come back in a few months or a year. The beaches could be oiled and oiled again."

The fight against the oil company is likely to take decades.

"Exxon has shown you can stiff those you hurt and tie them up in court for 21 years and nothing bad happens to you," he said. "You hope BP won't do that."

St. Petersburg crabber Howard Curd is expecting a long battle. His blue- and stone-crab fishing grounds in Tampa Bay were killed off when Hurricane Frances blew out a retaining wall at a phosphate pit that spewed acidic water into the bay.

The fertilizer company, Mosaic, persuaded a trial court and an appeals court that Curd and other fishermen couldn't sue because they didn't own the seafood that was potentially killed, so they weren't technically damaged.

Finally, six years later, the state Supreme Court on June 17 reversed lower-court opinions and said Curd and other fishermen could sue. Curd now has to prove damages in court. The ruling in his favor arrived just in time for Florida's 23,422 commercial and charter fishermen who could use the new ruling to press pollution claims against BP.

Curd said crabbing in the bay is bouncing back, but the BP spill is depressing seafood sales even though the oil is nowhere near the western coast of Florida.

He's prepared to sue BP, but harbors no illusions about facing a big corporation in court.

"They've got all the money, and all the attorneys and all the experts on retainer. It really doesn't cost them anything," Curd said. "It's like it's cheaper to pay their attorneys and fight in court than paying the money to people they hurt and doing the right thing."

(Caputo reports for the Miami Herald.)

This is interesting

So, would anyone here still swim in the Gulf of Mexico?

Heck, just reviewing the description of the dispersant and it's effect it has on the oil would certainly give me pause to even put one of my toes into the Gulf of Mexico right now.

Corexit[1] is a product line of solvents primarily used as a dispersant for breaking up oil slicks. It is produced by Nalco Holding Company which is associated with BP and Exxon.[2] Corexit is the most-used dispersant in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with COREXIT 9527 having been replaced by COREXIT 9500 after the former was deemed too toxic.[3] Oil that would normally rise to the surface of the water is broken up by the dispersant into small globules that can then remain suspended in the water, potentially forming underwater plumes of oil.[4]

Use
Corexit was used during the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in Alaska. In 2010, Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are being used in unprecedentedly large quantities in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[5][6] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had pre-approved both forms of Corexit for uses in emergencies such as the Gulf oil spill.[7]
On May 19, 2010 the EPA gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit, selected from the list of EPA-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule,[8] and begin applying them within 72 hours of EPA approval of their choices, but BP refused to change from Corexit, citing safety and availability concerns with alternatives.[9] Sea Brat 4, the only effective alternative that is available in quantities large enough for the spill and is less toxic, was rejected by BP because of the risk that components would break down into nonylphenol, which persists in the environment and is toxic to marine life.[10]

BP had used Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A by late May, applying 800,000 US gallons (3,000,000 l) total,[11] but more accurate estimates run as high as 1,000,000 US gallons (3,800,000 l) underwater.[12] By late April 2010, Nalco, the maker of Corexit, says that it has been deploying only Corexit 9500.[13]

Composition
Corexit 9527
The proprietary composition is not public, but the manufacturer's own safety data sheet on Corexit EC9527A says the main components are 2-butoxyethanol and a proprietary organic sulfonate with a small concentration of propylene glycol.[14][15]

Corexit 9500
In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[16] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[17] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[18]

Toxicity
The relative toxicity of Corexit and other dispersants are difficult to determine due to a scarcity of scientific data.[3] The manufacturer's safety data sheet states "No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product," and later concludes "The potential human hazard is: Low."[19] According to the manufacturer's website, workers applying Corexit should wear breathing protection and work in a ventilated area.[20] Compared with 12 other dispersants listed by the EPA, Corexit 9500 and 9527 are either similarly toxic or 10 to 20 times more toxic.[7] In another preliminary EPA study of eight different dispersants, Corexit 9500 was found to be less toxic to some marine life than other dispersants and to break down within weeks, rather than settling to the bottom of the ocean or collecting in the water.[21] None of the eight products tested are "without toxicity", according to an EPA administrator, and the ecological effect of mixing the dispersants with oil is unknown, as is the toxicity of the breakdown products of the dispersant.[21]

Corexit 9527, considered by the EPA to be an acute health hazard, is stated by its manufacturer to be potentially harmful to red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.[22][13] The chemical 2-butoxyethanol, found in Corexit 9527, was identified as having caused lasting health problems in workers involved in the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[23] According to the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the use of Corexit during the Exxon Valdez oil spill caused people "respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders".[15] Like 9527, 9500 can cause hemolysis (rupture of blood cells) and may also cause internal bleeding.[4]

According to the EPA, Corexit is more toxic than dispersants made by several competitors and less effective in handling southern Louisiana crude.[24] On May 20, 2010, the EPA ordered BP to look for less toxic alternatives to Corexit, and later ordered BP to stop spraying dispersants, but BP responded that it thought that Corexit was the best alternative and continued to spray it.[3]

Reportedly Corexit may be toxic to marine life and helps keep spilled oil submerged. There is concern that the quantities used in the Gulf will create 'unprecedented underwater damage to organisms.'[25] Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said that oil mixed with Corexit is "more toxic to marine life, but less toxic to life along the shore and animals at the surface" because the dispersant allows the oil to stay submerged below the surface of the water.[26] Corexit 9500 causes oil to form into small droplets in the water; fish may be harmed when they eat these droplets.[4] According to its Material safety data sheet, Corexit may also bioaccumulate, remaining in the flesh and building up over time.[27] Thus predators who eat smaller fish with the toxin in their systems may end up with much higher levels in their flesh.[4]

Effectiveness
The oil film will be dispersed in small droplets which intermix with the seawater. The oil is then not only distributed in two dimensions but is dispersed in three.

Corexit EC9500A (formerly called Corexit 9500) was 54.7% effective in handling Louisiana crude, while Corexit EC9527A was 63.4% effective in handling the same oil.[28][29] The EPA lists 12 other types of dispersants as being more effective in dealing with oil in a way that is safe for wildlife.[7] One of those tested was Dispersit, which was 100% effective in dispersing Gulf oil and is less toxic to silverfish and shrimp than Corexit.[30]

Alternatives
UK authorities have an approved list of products which must pass both "sea/beach" and "rocky shore" laboratory toxicity tests, following a review of approval procedures over a decade ago.[31] Corexit did not pass the rocky shore test when submitted for renewal of its inclusion on the list, and was dropped. Although it has been omitted from the approved list since 1998, existing stocks which pre-date the removal may be permitted for use away from rocky shorelines, subject to prior approval.

Alternative dispersants which are approved by the EPA are listed on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule[8] and rated for their toxicity and effectiveness[32].

References

1. ^ http://lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf
2. ^ By PAUL QUINLAN of Greenwire (2010-05-13). "Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
3. ^ a b c d David Biello (18 June, 2010). "Is Using Dispersants on the BP Gulf Oil Spill Fighting Pollution with Pollution?". scientificamerican.com. Retrieved 19 June 2010.
4. ^ a b c d Gaelin Rosenwaks (June 5, 2010). "Oil spill's environmental costs". torontosun.com. Toronto Sun. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
5. ^ Juliet Eilperin. "Post Carbon: EPA demands less-toxic dispersant". views.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
6. ^ New York Times, "less toxic dispersants lose out in BP oil spill cleanup", May 13, 2010
7. ^ a b c Mark Guarino (May 15, 2010). "In Gulf oil spill, how helpful – or damaging – are dispersants?". CSMonitor.com. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 26 June 2010.
8. ^ a b "National Contingency Plan Product Schedule". Environmental Protection Agency. 2010-05-13. Retrieved 2010-05-21.
9. ^ "Dispersant Monitoring and Assessment Directive – Addendum". Environmental Protection Agency. 2010-05-20.
10. ^ Jamie Anderson (May 23, 2010). "BP to persist with Corexit 9500 dispersant". themoneytimes.com. The Money Times. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
11. ^ Paul Quinlan (2010-05-24). "Secret Formulas, Data Shortages Fuel Arguments Over Dispersants Used for Gulf Spill". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-24.
12. ^ Juliet Eilperin (2010-05-20). "Post Carbon: EPA demands less-toxic dispersant". Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
13. ^ a b Shelley DuBois (Jun. 15, 2010). "Company profile of NALCO, maker of Corexit for BP oil spill". cnn.com. Fortune. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
14. ^ "Safety Data Sheet Product Corexit® EC9527A". Retrieved 2010-05-16.
15. ^ a b "Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns". ProPublica. Retrieved 2010-05-07.
16. ^ "Safety Data Sheet Product Corexit® EC9500A". Nalco. p. 1. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
17. ^ Anne Mulkern (June 25, 2010). "Maker of Controversial Dispersant Used in Gulf Oil Spill Hires Top Lobbyists". nytimes.com. New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
18. ^ Schor, Elana (2010-6-09). "Ingredients of Controversial Dispersants Used on Gulf Spill Are Secrets No More". The New York Times.
19. ^ "Safety Data Sheet Product Corexit® EC9500A". Nalco. pp. 5–6. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
20. ^ Sanjay Gupta (June 10,2010). "Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - How will the oil spill affect my health?". cnn.com. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
21. ^ a b CNN Wire Staff (June 30, 2010). "Dispersants appear to break up in Gulf, EPA says". CNN.com. CNN. Retrieved July 1, 2010.
22. ^ "Material Safety Data Sheet: Corexit EC9527A". NALCO. May 11, 2010. Retrieved May 30, 2010. "may cause injury to red blood cells (hemolysis), kidney or the liver"
23. ^ Elana Schor (June 9, 2010). "Ingredients of Controversial Dispersants Used on Gulf Spill Are Secrets No More". nytimes.com. New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
24. ^ "Less toxic dispersants lose out in bp oil spill cleanup", The New York Times, May 13, 2010
25. ^ Dugan, Emily (May 30, 2010). "Oil spill creates huge undersea 'dead zones'". The Independent. Retrieved May 30, 2010.
26. ^ "Nalco dispersant makes oil more toxic to marine life, group says". dailyherald.com. Daily Herald. June 15, 2010. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
27. ^ Bill Riales (June 18, 2010). "BP Dispersant Getting Independent Lab Test". wkrg.com. WKRG News 5. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
28. ^ Environmental Protection Agency, NCP Product Schedule, Accessed May 16, 2010
29. ^ Environmental Protection Agency, NCP Product Schedule, Accessed May 16, 2010
30. ^ Brandon Keim (May 5, 2010). "Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative". wired.com. Wired Science. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
31. ^ Oil spill treatment products approved for use in the United Kingdom. Marine Management Organisation. May 18, 2010. Retrieved June 13, 2010.
32. ^ "National Contingency Plan Product Schedule Toxicity and Effectiveness Summaries". Environmental Protection Agency. May 13, 2010. Retrieved May 21, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

May I mention it was Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. who sprayed the Corexit.


Here's a little info about Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. They are the planes we see everyday making those big white stripes n our skies that turn into artificial clouds "chemtrails" that are for our benefit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergre...ional_Aviation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...iation%2C_Inc.


.

You would think items of interest would be easier to find on YouTube, wouldn't you?

.