A Glimpse at the Risks We Must Bear for Your Pathetic "National Unity."

Two things: the Deepwater Horizon disaster involved conventional, crude oil. They were not dealing with tar-like sludge laced with toxins, acids, heavy metals and carcinogens. Secondly, it was a fairly easy site for oil spill response crews and vessels to get at. No mad currents, no huge swells, no tides, no rocky projections and inaccessible coastlines.

For all that, it was a catastrophe. That much should have been obvious as soon as they used military-grade transport aircraft, C-130 Hercules, to spray an even more lethal chemical, Corexit, not to disperse the oil or render it harmless, but to sink it out of sight.

Oil spills, even conventional crude oil spills, are catastrophic. More than a quarter century later the Exxon Valdez oil still confounds clean up crews in Prince William Sound, Alaska. It's on the shoreline, it's in the water. It's now expected to claim one of the two resident Orca pods in that area. That's a quarter century plus.

What about the Deepwater Horizon? It is now allowing researchers to chronicle how even a conventional oil spill can savage the marine ecology - for ever.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster may have had a lasting impact upon even the smallest organisms in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists have found – amid warnings that the oceans around America are also under fresh assault as a result of environmental policies under Donald Trump. 

Lingering oil residues have altered the basic building blocks of life in the ocean by reducing biodiversity in sites closest to the spill, which occurred when a BP drilling rig exploded in April 2010, killing 11 workers and spewing about 4m barrels of oil into the Gulf.

Researchers took sediment samples in 2014 from shipwrecks scattered up to 150km (93 miles) from the spill site to study how microbial communities on the wrecks have changed. On two shipwrecks close to the source of the outpouring of oil – a German U-Boat and a wooden 19th-century sailing vessel – scientists saw a visible oil residue. 

“At the sites closest to the spill, biodiversity was flattened,” said Leila Hamdan, a microbial ecologist at the University of Southern Mississippi and lead author of the study. “There were fewer types of microbes. This is a cold, dark environment and anything you put down there will be longer lasting than oil on a beach in Florida.

The BP oil disaster fouled more than 1,300 miles of coastline, caking seabirds and killing sea creatures and other wildlife, leading to huge financial losses for the tourism and fishing industries. But Hamdan said the oil’s impact on microbes, each measuring just a fraction of a millimeter, could prove even more significant given their foundational role at the base of the ocean food chain.

“We rely heavily on the ocean and we could be looking at potential effects to the food supply down the road,” she said. “Deep sea microbes regulate carbon in the atmosphere and recycle nutrients. I’m concerned there will be larger consequences from this sort of event.”

The marine ecology begins at the sea bed. Ocean food chains begin with the smallest creatures on the sea bed that are eaten by the next biggest creature in a process aptly described as a "food chain" in which the top predators are usually found toward the surface.

As the smallest creatures are eaten, the contamination they have absorbed into their bodies or cells passes on to their immediate predators in a process called "bio-concentration." That contamination keeps concentrating at each successive link in the food chain, straight up to the top. It attacks everything, every species, along the way. It's a direct path from microbe to orca or the great whales.

Maybe you believe prime minister Trudeau's most outrageous and deliberate lie - that there's some magical oil spill response that will keep British Columbia's coastline and our productive marine environment safe from a bitumen spill. Where is this world class oil spill package? Given that oil spills, on average, take 50 years to clean up, "world class" is a euphemism for catastrophe. And, besides, why did his own EnviroMin, Dame Cathy herself, authorize the use of Corexit in BC waters?

Trudeau assures us that his government has "done the science" on these environmental hazards. That's a lie. His very own Environment Canada says the science hasn't been done. Canada's pre-eminent scientific body, the Royal Society of Canada, says the science hasn't been done. They both put the lie to every dodgy and maliciously false claim this prime minister makes. He's simply not to be trusted, especially by the very people his petro-greed most imperils, coastal British Columbians.

Now, of course, Trudeau has even more incentive, 4.5 billion of them (and that's just for starters), to lie and obscure, confound and confuse. He's bought himself a goddamned pipeline, the J. Trudeau Memorial Pipeline, 65-years old and prone to leaking like those middle age women dancing around in those TV ads. He likes that pipeline so much he paid a sketchy outfit from Texas more than six times its actual value. There's a guy who's not looking to give any straight answers on environmental questions.

Even the former Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, says some British Columbians protesting the pipeline will have to be killed before urging the Trudeau government to find the courage to take those lives.

"we have to be willing to enforce the law once it’s there … It’s going to take some fortitude to stand up.”

No, Dave. What will take fortitude is to take those bullets and fall down.

Justin Trudeau, his entire cabinet and all the horses they rode in on; Rachel Notley, the outgoing premier of Alberta; Jason Kenney, the incoming premier of Alberta; some stooge from Saskatchewan named Moe; that former governor of the Bank of Canada; those Kinder Morgan bandits who fleeced the Dauphin and the entire roster of the Calgary Petroleum Club, they're all - oh what's that word?

Which brings to mind an article in Vox by  Stanford psychology professor, Robert Sutton, who has now defined the term, "asshole" -

There are a lot of academic definitions, but here’s how I define it: An asshole is someone who leaves us feeling demeaned, de-energized, disrespected, and/or oppressed. In other words, someone who makes you feel like dirt. 

Christy Goldfuss, former environmental advisor to Barack Obama, now with the Center for American Progress, summed it up in a way that should resonate with the people of British Columbia, our First Nations and our provincial government:

“In the absence of a president [prime minister] who is willing to lead, it is now more important than ever that coastal governors [premier Horgan], tribal leaders, state legislatures the [B.C. legislature] and local communities take up the mantle of leadership and work together to defend and restore the health of [Canada's] oceans."

Setting the Record Straight on Trudeau, Notley, Bitumen, and Our Future.

What's the difference between all-out nuclear war and catastrophic climate change? So far we haven't been stupid enough to resort to all-out nuclear war.

Both of them can end civilization, indeed most life on Earth. The way we're going it's unclear which will get the job done first.

Canada, of course, doesn't field a nuclear arsenal but it sure as hell is doing its bit on the other threat, runaway global warming. We have huge proven reserves of the filthiest, most dangerous, high-carbon ersatz oil on the planet, Athabasca bitumen. And we've got two provinces and a succession of federal governments hell bent on getting as much of that deadly crap as conceivably possible to foreign markets.

When challenged on this, our prime minister pops a fuze and says the only thing he can come up with. Here's what he told an angry crowd yesterday in Nanaimo:

"We wanted a national carbon reduction plan, a national emissions plan that is going to allow us to reach our climate goals, to reach our Paris commitments but in order to do that, part of moving forward is approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It is something many people feel very strongly about on either side, but that is the nature of the compromise we had to make in the best interests of Canada."

That's some ripe horseshit to be sure. Flogging Black Death is "part of moving forward." It's "in the nature of the compromise" that the Liberal government "had to make in the best interests of Canada."

If that's "moving forward," in what direction exactly is Canada heading? Well, given that Trudeau's climate goals were set by Stephen Harper and we're not on track to even meet those, you can probably figure out where Justin is taking us.

One of America's top climate scientists and advocates, James Hansen, had this to say five years ago about the Tar Sands.

"To avoid passing tipping points, such as initiation of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, we need to limit the climate forcing severely. It's still possible to do that, if we phase down carbon emissions rapidly, but that means moving expeditiously to clean energies of the future. Moving to tar sands, one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, is a step in exactly the opposite direction, indicating either that governments don't understand the situation or that they just don't give a damn."

Hansen isn't alone. Climate science backs him up. When Justin Trudeau and his environment minister burst onto the floor of the Paris Climate Summit in 2015, they scored big by urging that the old target for maximum global warming, then at 2 degrees Celsius, be cut to a humanity-saving 1.5C. McKenna and Trudeau didn't hear, nor heed, the warning of another top world climate scientist at the Paris Summit, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber's warning that any hope of holding global warming to 1.5 C would depend on an "induced implosion" of the fossil energy industry.

Schellnhuber said if we want to do this we can if the petro-states move quickly to shut down their fossil fuel resources and rapidly transition to alternative energy. It doesn't sound like Hans had Trudeau's let 'er rip energy policy in mind.

Here's the thing. Trudeau, Notley and their Oil Patch patrons, frame this as a purely economic issue. Schellnhuber argues it goes way beyond economics.

“In the end it is a moral decision. Do you want to be part of the generation that screwed up the planet for the next 1,000 years? I don’t think we should make that decision.”

Oil field experts say that these new pipelines are 30-year investments. Barring some collapse of markets, those investing the hundreds of billions of dollars into these pipelines have confidence that they'll reap their rewards. And, so long as the Oil Patch has reliable and indulgent governments like Harper's and Trudeau's, they're probably taking a safe bet.

Trudeau sees calls for real action to fight climate change as "sanctimonious crap." Ask David Suzuki:

Trudeau called him personally June 28, 2015, to talk about the Liberal platform on climate change that was to be revealed the next day. “I didn’t call Justin, he called me,” Suzuki said. “He wanted an endorsement and he wanted to tell me exactly what his program was.”

The program includes support for the Keystone XL pipeline, a rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline and a commitment to work with the provinces to establish a cap-and-trade system.

“I said, ‘Justin, stop it, you’re just being political, you just want to make headway in Alberta,’” Suzuki says he told Trudeau. “You’re for the development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway, you’re all over the damn map!”

Suzuki went on to advise Trudeau that taking the target of a two-degree rise in temperature seriously means 80 per cent of the oil sands has to stay in the ground. Suzuki believes stopping oil sands development will mean “no debate about pipelines or expanding railways or shipping stuff offshore—none of that comes into it.”

Suzuki says this is when the exchange turned nasty. “He said, ‘I don’t have to listen to this sanctimonious crap.’ I proceeded to call him a twerp.”

Mr. Trudeau obviously won't be talking about this but if you want to know how Athabasca bitumen impacts humanity's chances of averting climate catastrophe, a good place to start is this 2012 U. Vic. paper by Neil Swart and Andrew Weaver. I suppose, in Trudeau's mind, that's just more sanctimonious crap.

Hansen, Schellnhuber, Suzuki, and Weaver, there are plenty more voices backing them up. You can't reconcile their science with Mr. Trudeau's political bafflegab. 

Schellnhuber is right. This is a moral issue. It's a deadly serious moral issue. Deadly as in lethal. Remember how we used to export asbestos to sketchy markets offshore even though we knew it would condemn people in the Third World to a horribly painful end? Well, we're doing something along those same lines with bitumen.

Climate change is already claiming innocent lives, predominantly in the poorest, most vulnerable corners of the world. They're dying from heatwaves, drought, flooding, severe storm events, sea level rise, crop failures and more. We've now got a new phenomenon, climate wars - wars that are triggered in whole or in part by the devastation of climate change. The civil war in Syria began as the result of famine caused by crop failure. And this is just the early onset stuff. There's a lot more coming their way. These people are collateral damage to our economic imperative. 

I'm one of a growing number of British Columbians steadfastly opposed to the machinations of Harper-Trudeau, Klein-Notley, the Tar Sanders and their very sketchy dilbit pipeline operators with their horrible accident track record. They've shown us what these pipelines do to the territories they cross. Ask the people of Kalamazoo, Michigan. That, of course, was Enbridge. But what do you know about the current contender, Kinder-Morgan? Let's put it this way. If they were operating school buses instead of pipelines you would probably wind up home-schooling your kids.

And when it comes to an armada of lumbering, dilbit-laden supertankers navigating British Columbia's very challenging and dangerous coastal waters, there are many problems. The odds aren't on our side. We've had Coast Guard and RCN officers, merchant mariners, all advise Trudeau's National Energy Board that  a supertanker calamity isn't a matter of if but when and how often.

It was March 24, 1989, nearly 30 years ago, that the Exxon Valdez came to grief in Alaska's Prince William Sound. Ten million gallons were spilled. But that wasn't dilbit. It was conventional crude oil, kid's stuff. That spill covered 1,300 miles of coastline, 11,000 square miles of ocean.  More than a quarter of a century later the oil still isn't cleaned up.

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out.[33] Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 US gallons (61 to 79 m3) of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles (725 km) away. Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all. A USGS scientist who analyses the remaining oil along the coastline states that it remains among rocks and between tide marks. "The oil mixes with seawater and forms an emulsion...Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise – or mousse."[34] Alaska state senator Berta Gardner is urging Alaskan politicians to demand that the US government force ExxonMobil to pay the final $92 million (£57 million) still owed from the court settlement. The major part of the money would be spent to finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled herring population.

The Exxon Valdez spilled conventional crude oil and yet Trudeau and Notley want to put us to that very risk only with something vastly worse, dilbit, diluted-bitumen. Bitumen, a persistent sludge laced with acids, abrasives, toxins, heavy metals and carcinogens, that will head right for the sea bed where it will remain for decades contaminating the coastal waters, devastating the marine ecology. To borrow Hansen's words, "they just don't give a damn."

The Trudeau government put the lie to its vaunted "world class oil spill clean up" preparations when Dame Cathy's environment ministry was caught having approved an incredibly dangerous chemical, Corexit, for use in BC waters as an oil dispersant. We know a lot about Corexit from its use during the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. 

If you don't know about this chemical that our federal government has cleared for use in British Columbia's coastal waters, watch this.

If you've got the stomach for it and want to watch the entire Vice expose on Corexit, you can watch it here.

This is the reality of what Justin Trudeau wants to do to our coast, intends to do to our coast, tells us he is going to do to our coast.

Pushing ever more bitumen onto world markets is morally reprehensible. Worse yet, it's a betrayal of our own kids and grandkids. Shipping it in the most lethal possible form, dilbit, rather than requiring that it be refined on site, in Athabasca, to remove the most odious components - the acids, the abrasives, the heavy metals, the carcinogens, the pet coke, and the sludge - is equally reprehensible. To even imagine using Corexit in British Columbia's coastal waters is fiendishly reckless. And they're doing it all just to put a few extra bucks in Rachel Notley's and her Oil Patch patrons' pockets.

So What's Our Excuse?

Amnesty International is urging Britain's Cameron government to stop arms shipments to Saudi Arabia.  Amnesty claims the weapons are being used to deliberately slaughter civilians in Houthi-rebel controlled parts of Yemen.

Amnesty said it found a pattern of “appalling disregard” for civilian lives by the Saudi-led coalition in an investigation of 13 air strikes in north-eastern Saada governorate during May, June and July: these killed some 100 civilians – including 59 children and 22 women and injured a further 56, including 18 children.

Since last March coalition air strikes have hit homes, schools, markets and other civilian infrastructure, as well as miltiary objectives. Saada, a Houthi stronghold, has been badly hit. Thousands who remain in the governorate “live in constant fear of the airstrikes and dire humanitarian conditions”, Amnesty says.

Canada is also on the Saudi weapons of indiscriminate destruction/war crimes gravy train with Harper having inked a $15-billion deal for the sale of light armoured fighting vehicles (light tanks) presumably for democracy suppression patrols. The deal supposedly gags Harper from discussing (having to explain) the sale but seemingly leaves him quite free to excuse it on the basis that, if we didn't sell Saudis its instruments of carnage then some other nation would.

For the radical Sunni Muslim House of Saud, being a Shiite Muslim is enough to qualify you for live-fire target practice.  Fortunately, that exempts the devoutly Sunni al Qaeda, al Nusra and ISIS terrorists/insurgents from Saudi bloodlust. Yemen's Houthi rebels daily fight ISIS and al Qaeda forces while the Saudis, with the active support of Canada, Britain and the US, wage a ground and air war against the Houthis.

If you're interested in this curious murderous mess, check out this episode of VICE TV. The Houthi segment begins at the 17:00 minute mark. It's an eye-opener.



Keeping with the theme of "So What's Our Excuse?" let's talk bitumen and the armada of supertankers that may soon ply British Columbia's coast.  Roger Annis has written an important report, "The Canadian Election and the Global Climate Crisis," for CounterPunch that should be required reading for every British Columbian before they vote in the federal election.  The only party that's even partly standing up for this province and our incredibly fragile ecosystems is Elizabeth May's Green Party and even May is a bit wobbly on bitumen trafficking.

Which brings us to the first segment of the VICE TV episode above concerning the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and how BP used a highly toxic chemical, Corexit, that, instead of dispersing the oil as promised simply made it far more lethal and sank it to contaminate the bottom and the marine life that is found there. Watch it. It's a genuine call to arms.

h/t Northern PoV

Deepwater Horizon Mystery - Methane

Scientists testing the waters in the vicinity of the Deepwater Horizon well have found massive amounts of sea life-killing methane. From Reuters:

Texas A&M University oceanography professor John Kessler, just back from a 10-day research expedition near the BP Plc oil spill in the gulf, says methane gas levels in some areas are "astonishingly high."

Kessler's crew took measurements of both surface and deep water within a 5-mile (8 kilometer) radius of BP's broken wellhead.

"There is an incredible amount of methane in there," Kessler told reporters in a telephone briefing.

In some areas, the crew of 12 scientists found concentrations that were 100,000 times higher than normal.

"We saw them approach a million times above background concentrations" in some areas, Kessler said.

Methane can fuel microbe growth that strips the water of oxygen, giving rise to "dead zones."

BP Ditches "Top Hat" - Deepwater Horizon Gushes Freely Again

For the past few days BP has been beaming at having succeeded in capturing up to 27,000 barrels a day in oil gushing from the Deepwater Horizon wellhead. Most of that came from a device called a "top hat" that gathered escaping oil from the seabed and conveyed it, via a pipe, to a ship where it could be collected.

Today BP surprised everyone by removing the "top hat" and allowing the escaping oil to gush freely again. It seems methane gas was entering the ship via the pipeline creating a risk of explosion. The operation was pumping warm water into the top hat to prevent hydrate crystals from blocking the pipe. As the crystals melted (there's a reason they're called "methane calthrate"), highly explosive methane gas was released to flow up the pipe into the ship.

BP is currently suggesting it's all the result of a malfunction but that's anything but clear. If they have to melt the hydrate crystals to keep oil flowing, isn't methane release inevitable?

BP's Junior Partner Fingers Oil Giant

Anadarko Petroleum has blasted BP for "reckless decisions and actions" that led to the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. Andarko owns a quarter interest in the affected oil well.

In a written statement, Andarko said that evidence disclosed this week, "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ...BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct."

Andarko which is also on the hook for clean-up costs says it may sue BP noting that its contract with the oil giant makes BP liable to it for all damages "caused by its gross negligence or willful misconduct."

Sounds like a company that has a lot to gain and nothing to lose by denouncing BP.

Joe Barton Isn't Alone

Republican congressman Joe Barton caused quite the furor yesterday when he apologized to BP CEO Tony Haywire for what he termed, in written remarks, a "20-billion dollar shakedown" by the White House. That sent the Repug spin machine into overdrive. While the BP hearing was still underway, Barton was yanked out of his seat and hauled off to the offices of Repub Minority Leader John Boehner for a little damage control.

Embarrassing as Barton may have been to Congressional Republicans, the Christian Science Monitor reports, he's by no means alone:

Taking back something that was part of your written statement at the hearing opening – not just some off-the-cuff blather to a reporter in the hallway? Whoa. That’s not just eating your words. That’s like having them cut up and fed to you one by one in front of an audience of interns on the National Mall.

But Barton has his defenders. There are people in Washington who believe that by using the pulpit power of the presidency to push BP in that direction the president did indeed exceed his authority.

This was the headline on an analysis posted Friday on the Heritage Foundation website: “Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House.”

Heritage analyst Conn Carroll notes in the piece that BP has, among other things, received no assurance from the White House that it won’t ask for more money, and no assurance that final damages won’t be higher. And by the way, the whole thing was negotiated in the presence of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened BP with criminal prosecution.

The real victim was not even BP, writes Mr. Carroll. “It was the rule of law.”
At National Review Online, Daniel Foster says that Barton’s choice of words was awful, but that on substance, he was right. Establishing a fund over and above an existing claims process is, if not illegal, “then at least extra-legal,” writes Mr. Foster.
And prior to Thursday’s hearing, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of conservative GOP members, used “shakedown” to describe the White House escrow-establishment process.

And let's not forget the Republican's Congressional Dipshit in Chief, Representative Michele Bachmann who condemned the $20-billion compensation fund a "redistribution of wealth" and earlier this week urged BP execs not to be "chumps" by giving in to White House demands. The Minnesota Independent reports that Bachmann has reconsidered her remarks given that 82% of her constituents think the fund idea is just fine. Now the big hair dimbulb has come out with this:

“I'm not here to shill for BP. That's not the goal. BP clearly is at fault here. They need to pay every last dime of damage and that’s what needs to be done. But at the same time, we don’t want these payouts to become political.”

Another Brilliant BP Parody - Must See

A Nuclear Option for the Gulf Oil Leak?

According to The New York Times, some oil experts have been giving serious thought to using nuclear devices to seal off the Deepwater Horizon wellhead.

"...The idea has gained fans with each failed attempt to stem the leak and each new setback — on Wednesday, the latest rescue effort stalled when a wire saw being used to slice through the riser pipe got stuck.

“Probably the only thing we can do is create a weapon system and send it down 18,000 feet and detonate it, hopefully encasing the oil,” Matt Simmons, a Houston energy expert and investment banker, told Bloomberg News on Friday, attributing the nuclear idea to “all the best scientists.”

Or as the CNN reporter John Roberts suggested last week, “Drill a hole, drop a nuke in and seal up the well.”

Sounds pretty wild, doesn't it? It might sound a little less bizarre to those who realize that nuclear oil mining was once considered a serious prospect for the Athabasca Tar Sands. In fact, at one point, the US government had a deal with the then Ritchfield Oil Company to produce and deliver a nuclear device for testing at the Tar Sands. They had even decided to fly it to northern Alberta claiming the risk of a mishap causing an accidental surface detonation was acceptable.

The history of nuclear oil mining plans for the Tar Sands is detailed in William Marsden's book, "Stupid to the Last Drop" Random House Canada, 2007. The idea was dropped in the 60's not because of environmental concerns but thanks to the development of cheaper oil drilling projects in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. In 1973, the US Navy Secretary obtained Canadian patent 933087 for a "Nuclear Explosive Method of Stimulating Hydrocarbon Production from Ptroliferous Formations (tar sands)."

BP to Shell Out $10-Billion in Shareholder Dividends

Tony Haywire has decided to poke Washington in the eye with a sharp stick by forking out billions to BP shareholders. The oil giant's CEO is caught between American fury and plummeting share prices. Haywire, the munchkin now best known for spinning the most godawful nonsense about the Deepwater Horizon fiasco, intends to tell BP shareholders that he's sure the company can afford both the dividend and the fiscal whipping it faces in the US, estimated in the $20-60 billion dollar range. $60-billion? That might just be the sound of Haywire whistling past the graveyard.

According to The Guardian, BP and its dividends are simply too important to the "City" to pass up:

...BP's dividend is of crucial importance to the City and to the pensions of millions who depend on payouts from profitable companies to boost their retirement funds. Together with rival Shell, BP accounted for 25% of the total dividends of £50bn paid in the UK market last year. Any cut in the dividend could result in investors selling BP shares, further weakening the company, which has lost nearly 30% of its value since the disaster began.

The newspaper reports that British bookie, Paddy Power, is now offering even odds that Haywire will be gone from BP by the new year.

Anger at Britain's largest corporation is heating up in the United States with calls for the government to seize BP's American assets and some commentators predicting the company could face an operating ban in the US. There is a lot of speculation from many corners that BP may not survive the Deepwater Horizon debacle and is already a takeover target.

BP Denies Subsurface Oil Plumes

BP must sense it's facing a fight for its very survival. How else to explain the company's curious campaign of denial and deception about the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster?

The oil company's CEO, Tony Hayward (make that "Haywire"), has become notable for his off the wall remarks such as, "The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume." Yes, Mrs. Lincoln, but other than that, how did you like the play?

Hayward is now denying the reported presence of massive, subsurface oil plumes said to be spreading through the well area. That's a tough sell for those of us who've seen video of the plumes and watched Phillipe Cousteau swim through the murk.





Hayward claims that all the oil disgorged by the well is on the surface. I suspect what he's really saying is that all the oil for which BP can be fined is on the surface. Every barrel it can treat to sink is a freebie.

For a fun look at Tony Haywire, check this out: http://twitpic.com/1pck5t

There's Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 to 6 Miles Away

There's a Hole In the Bottom of the Sea

Americans believe. They're a nation of believers. The late Pierre Berton said their passionate "need to believe" was, more than anything else, what distinguished Americans from Canadians.

Being gripped by belief has served the American people, by turns, both very well and very poorly. It has formed the foundation for a highly confident, dynamic nation that - albeit briefly - ascended to unipolar global supremacy. For a while that seemed not just to confirm but to conclusively prove the reality of American exceptionalism. It manifested itself in neo-conservatism expressed by the likes of The Project for the New American Century and given life in the Bush Doctrine.

There is an often blurry line between confidence and arrogance. Crossing that line usually carries unwelcome consequences. Arrogance begets hubris, the "pride that blinds", a cup from which Americans took deep draughts ever since the arrival of Reagan's Age of Ruin and, particularly, over this past decade. It has left America unbalanced and bloated - bloated with debt.

This crippling debt was understood by the Project for the New American Century. The Neo-Cons realized that American governments, corporations and the American people had mortgaged their global supremacy to foreign lenders and therefore advocated the use of American military superiority to bolster their country's dominance, militarily and economically. This madness was formally adopted in the Bush Doctrine. "It's ours and if you dare rival us, we'll bomb you into submission." Bush's supporters believed this was their nation's due. They believed America's destiny and rightful place was to rule, or at least "guide" on advantageous terms, the rest of the world - in perpetuity. The world would be led forever by the United States of America. It was state gangsterism, the act of a rogue state. America proclaimed itself beyond the laws of nations that America itself had prescribed, an outlaw state.

There were some who supported the conquest of Iraq as fulfillment of this American superiority doctrine. One neo-con (whose name unfortunately escapes me) opined that America chose Iraq as an opportunity to throw a small nation against a wall as a lesson to other states of the consequences of defiance.

Ever wonder what the world would look like today if America had pulled off stunning victories in Iraq and Afghanistan? Wrap your mind around that for a while. In your mind, rewrite the history of the past decade. Who would have been next? Where would the madness have ended and at what cost?

The madness of America's quest for global domination was mirrored by a deep madness at home. The American people lost their grip on reality. What other people could believe that a debt-ridden government running massive deficits could simultaneously wage two wars and cut taxes for the very rich without leading the country to ruin? What other people could believe that achieving wealth was simply a matter of getting title to a home or two or three, four maybe? Perhaps a nation in which an immensely powerful vice president was able to assure his president that "Reagan showed that deficits don't matter" as justifying additional tax cuts for the rich? What other people could believe that the solution to financial distress was to refinance, or "re-fi", their homes? Where were the Tea Partiers when this madness was bringing ruin to their nation? Why was it only after the hens came home to roost that they rebelled? Madness, that's why and a firm belief in truly magical thinking.

To a people in thrall to utter delusion, what must it mean that all the King's horses and all the King's men cannot save them from a mere hole in the bottom of the sea? It must be driving them mad. A little hole in the bottom of the sea that imperils the American south from Texas to Florida and possibly the Atlantic states to boot. Is it any wonder they blame Obama when the path to this disaster leads directly back to the days when neo-conservative Oil Men occupied the White House?

Unless he fights back and fights hard, Obama may wind up wearing the Deepwater Horizon fiasco, because, to a lot of voters, he hasn't kissed their boo-boo nor has he conjured up the shiny thing to distract them as his predecessors so routinely did. What must it feel like to this horde to see their country exposed as impotent by a mere hole in the bottom of the sea?

Spurn Baby, Spurn

There may be a silver lining to the Deepwater Horizon debacle.

In the runup to the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections, Democratic support has been flagging. Big Oil just might give the Dems the opportunity to revive their fortunes.

The latest Gallup poll shows Republicans remain unmoved by the Gulf of Mexico fiasco and continue to solidly support domestic energy development over environmental protection by better than two to one. Democrats, by contrast, have gone from 58 to 73% pro-environment and, even more importantly, independents have gone from being slightly pro-energy to solidly pro-environment since the Deepwater Horizon fiasco.

How hard is it going to be for Obama and Congressional Dems to remind American voters that the oil men ran the White House from 2000 to 2008, that none other than Big Oil's patron saint, Dick Cheney, manipulated their nation's energy policy during those critical years? Bang that drum, over and over - Cheney, Big Oil, Deepwater Horizon; Cheney, Big Oil, Deepwater Horizon; Cheney, Big Oil, Deepwater Horizon. Burn it into the voting public's mind so that it remains front and centre when they go to the polls this fall.

In the meantime the Dems should get busy amending their energy legislation to produce an ambitious, alternative energy bill to force the Republicans' hand well prior to the mid-terms. Build a confrontation that will keep Democratic supporters motivated and independent turnout safely on the Democrat's side.

The Straw That Broke Big Oil's Back?

It may be too much to hope for but a new Gallup poll claims Americans' priorities are shifting to environmental protection from energy security.

In March, a Gallup poll found Americans favouring the development of US energy supplies over environmental protection by a 50-43% margin. The latest poll shows environmental protection has trumped domestic energy production by 55-39%. What's particularly interesting is that Republican numbers remained unchanged with energy production favoured over environmental protection two to one in March and again in May. The big change came from Democrats who from 58/35% pro-environment to 73/23% pro-environment and independents who went from 51/43% pro-energy in March to to 58/34% pro-environment in May.

With the Republican base stuck on pro-energy and the Democratic base energized on pro-environment along with the independent sector shifting to pro-environment, this could be an enormous opportunity for the Dems in the mid-terms.

The question asked respondents which they favoured, environmental protection even at the risk of limiting US production of oil, gas and coal or development of US energy supplies even if the environment suffers to some extent.

Is "drill baby, drill" dead and gone? Probably not, at least not yet. It is hard to imagine the trend reversing so long as the Deepwater Horizon disaster and its prolonged environmental fallout remain the dominant story on America's airwaves. Once it recedes from the public's consciousness, however, that's anybody's guess. This could be a tipping point or it could just be a bout of indigestion for the fossil fuelers and you can assume that Big Oil and Big Coal are gearing up their publicity/manipulation machines to fight back. With hundreds of billions of dollars potentially at risk and a "bought and paid for" Congress, it's inconceivable they'll go down without a fight.

In any case it's an issue that seems custom made for the 2010 mid-term Congressional elections, one that might just break along party lines. Could this be America's first election fought on environmentalism?

Let's Hope BP Isn't Out of Ideas

If the "Top Kill" procedure was supposed to staunch the oil gorging out of the seabed, it doesn't appear to be working. BP's live video feed shows what appears to be a mixture of substances still erupting. If anything, it appears to have worsened. The stuff appears to be pouring out through three or four large ruptures in the apparatus. See it for yourself here. You be the judge.

There are reports that BP is now going to attempt the "junk shot" - an attempt to plug the leaks by packing the pipe with debris including rubber straps and perhaps golf balls.

BP Goes Judge Shopping

It's not unknown for some litigants to go "judge shopping" - trying to get their cases heard before a judge known to have, shall we say "helpful" leanings. Usually it's something they try to keep quiet. Not British Petroleum. They're judge shopping and they know just who they want - US District Judge Lynn Hughes.

With more than a hundred suits already brought against BP arising out of the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP has asked that all pre-trial motions in all suits be heard by Judge Hughes. McClatchey Newspapers explains why that might be:

That judge, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, has traveled the world giving lectures on ethics for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a professional association and research group that works with BP and other oil companies. The organization pays his travel expenses.
Hughes has also collected royalties from several energy companies, including ConocoPhillips and Devon Energy, from investments in mineral rights, his financial disclosure forms show.

Hughes, appointed to the bench in 1985 by then-President Ronald Reagan, declined to comment for this report.

Legal experts say the request for a single judge, while not unprecedented, is unusual, and they surmise BP is seeking rulings from a judge well-versed in the company's issues.

Edward Sherman, a law professor at Tulane University in New Orleans who has closely followed the BP legal maneuvers, said BP probably studied Hughes' past rulings and his caseload before suggesting he take the cases.

"Probably studied Hughes' past rulings"? Gee, I guess that's possible. Sure, BP's lawyers probably studied Hughes decisions just like the sun will probably come up again tomorrow morning.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/26/94887/bp-wants-houston-judge-with-oil.html#ixzz0p8vUHxD6

Obama Gets It. Will Premier Campbell?

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill fallout is reverberating throughout Washington. It has even driven president Obama to suspend exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean offshore of Alaska.

The move will stop Shell from drilling five wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas off northern Alaska weeks before it had hoped to start work, an administration official told McClatchy Newspapers.

The move will stop for now a controversial expansion of oil drilling in a part of the world that could hold vast stores of oil and natural gas, but which environmentalists warn would come at great risk.

"He is suspending proposed exploratory drilling in the Arctic," an administration official said on condition of anonymity to talk before [Interior Secretary] Salazar's report is officially released Thursday. "He will not consider applications for permits to drill in the Arctic until 2011 because of the need for further information-gathering, evaluation of proposed drilling technology, and evaluation of oil-spill response capabilities for Arctic waters."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/27/94885/citing-gulf-oil-spill-obama-to.html#ixzz0p8sf1WKr

Now if only BC Premier Gordo Campbell would step back and re-examine offshore oil and gas exploration along the seismically active BC coast. When the government keeps warning us this mega-earthquake could hit any day, will probably hit some time in the coming century, this might not be the era for offshore oil wells in British Columbia waters.

Rolling the Dice in the Gulf of Mexico

Game's On. British Petroleum has decided to gamble with a "top kill" procedure to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The risky procedure was started shortly after noon today. The idea is to pump masses of heavy liquids into the ruptured pipe in hope that will be enough to seal it off which would then allow BP to cement it over. Will it work? Nobody knows because the technique has never been attempted underwater. Some observers warn it's a gamble that carries the risk of making the spill much worse if it fails.

Nobody knows the odds but what we do know is that the "kill shot" wasn't BP's first choice. In fact they've tried a few other options before coming to this and only now, after 33-days of failure, are they taking this gamble.

You can watch BP's live video stream of the site here.

Hurricane Season Just Five Days Away

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has managed to dump hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the water just in time for the arrival of hurricane season.

The season officially begins on June 1st, next Tuesday, and scientists are predicting a very active year for major storms. From McClatchey Newspapers:

...William M. Gray and Philip J. Klotzbach, forecasters at Colorado State University, predict 15 named storms, while Ken Reeves, senior meteorologist and director of forecasting operations for AccuWeather.com , predicts 16 to 18, with a ``higher-than-normal number of impacts, which is not a good thing.''

In 160 years of record keeping, only eight seasons have brought 16 or more storms, according to Accuweather.com.

One factor that could generate major hurricanes this year is the strength of the Gulf "loop current" that flows at rounhly 4.5 miles per hour:

The Loop Current "is one of the fastest currents in the Atlantic Ocean,'' [the Weather Undergound's Jeffrey Masters] writes. "The current is about . . . 125 to 190 miles wide and . . . 2,600 feet deep, and is present in the Gulf of Mexico about 95 percent of the time.

"During summer and fall, the Loop Current provides a deep . . . layer of very warm water that can provide a huge energy source for any lucky hurricanes that might cross over.