The disaster wreaking havoc on the Gulf seems to get worse and more bizarre each day.
Despite being able to see the oil spill from space, BP chief executive Tony Hayward has these reassuring words:
“It is impossible to say and we will mount, as part of the aftermath, a very detailed environmental assessment. But everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest.”
It’s clear we can trust his evaluation of the impact. It’s not like BP-hired contractors and Coast Guard officials are threatening journalists with arrest if they attempt to film the damage on shore. Oh. Wait. They are.
At least Corexit, BP’s top choice of dispersant chemical for oil spill cleanup is the most effective and least toxic option. Right?
Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.
So why would BP choose dump 600,000 gallons (so far) of Corexit into the Gulf? Surely, it can’t be that BP and Exxon executives serve on the board of directors for the chemical’s manufacturer, Nalco. Wait a second. They do?
But if anyone has learned something from this disaster is must be the government.
Only days after the spill, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service approved 27 offshore drilling projects.
Oh, come on!