More can be done I'm sure. Different things can be done I'm sure. But to say that BP and the federal government is doing nothing is pretty off the wall. Plus, the reasons why the Corps has interfered with some of what Louisiana wants to do is because Louisiana wants to build berms that will push the oil off to neighboring states. Not good.
The wiki summary of the efforts so far:
BP, which was leading the cleanup, initially employed remotely operated underwater vehicles, 700 workers, four airplanes and 32 vessels to contain the oil.[44] After the discovery that the undersea wellhead was leaking, the oil cleanup was hampered by high waves on April 24 and 25.[76] According to Hayward, BP will compensate all those affected by the oil spill saying that "We are taking full responsibility for the spill and we will clean it up and where people can present legitimate claims for damages we will honor them. We are going to be very, very aggressive in all of that."[150] On May 6 BP launched a section on their corporate web site devoted to the daily response efforts.[151]
On April 28 the US military announced it was joining the cleanup operation.[48] Doug Suttles, chief operating officer of BP, welcomed the assistance of the US military.[48] The same day, the US Coast Guard announced plans to corral and burn off up to 1,000 barrels (42,000 US gallons; 160 cubic metres) of oil on the surface each day. It tested how much environmental damage a small, controlled burn of 100 barrels (4,200 US gallons; 16 cubic metres) did to surrounding wetlands, but could not proceed with an open seas burn due to poor conditions.[152][153] By April 29 69 vessels including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels were active in cleanup activities. On April 30 President Barack Obama announced that he had dispatched the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Homeland Security, as well as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA to the Gulf Coast to assess the disaster.[154]
Clouds of smoke billow up from controlled burns taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.In an attempt to minimize impact to sensitive areas in the Mississippi River Delta area more than 100,000 feet (30 km) of containment booms were deployed along the coast.[149] By the next day, this nearly doubled to 180,000 feet (55 km) of deployed booms, with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) staged or being deployed.[152][155] On May 2 high winds and rough waves rendered oil-catching booms largely ineffective.[156]
As of April 30, approximately 2,000 people and 79 vessels were involved in the response and BP claimed that more than 6,300,000 US gallons (150,000 barrels; 23,800 cubic metres) of oil-water mix had been recovered.[77] On May 4 the US Coast Guard estimated that 170 vessels, and nearly 7,500 personnel were involved in the cleanup efforts, with an additional 2,000 volunteers assisting.[157] On May 26 all of the commercial fishing boats helping in the clean up and recovery process were ordered ashore. A total of 125 commercial vessels which had been outfitted with equipment for oil recovery operations were recalled after some workers began experiencing health problems.[158]
The type of oil involved is also a major problem. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, because the blown well is deep under the ocean, the gushing oil is a heavier blend which contains asphalt-like substances. According to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well, making a "major sticky mess". Once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, does not rinse off as easily, cannot be eaten by microbes as easily, and does not burn as well. "That type of mixture essentially removes all the best oil clean-up weapons", Overton and others said.[159]
On May 21 Plaquemines Parish president Billy Nungesser publicly complained about the federal government's hindrance of local mitigation efforts. State and local officials had proposed building sand berms off the coast to catch the oil before it reached the wetlands, but the emergency permit request had not been answered for over two weeks. The following day Nungesser complained that the plan had been vetoed, while Army Corps of Engineers officials claimed that the request was still under review.[160] Gulf Coast Government officials have released water via the Mississippi River diversions in effort to create an outflow of water that would keep the oil off the coast. The water from these diversions comes from the entire Mississippi watershed. Even with this approach, NOAA is predicting a "massive" landfall to the west of the Mississippi River at Port Fourchon.[161]
On May 23 Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell wrote a letter to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the US Army Corps of Engineers,[162] stating that Louisiana has the right to dredge sand to build barrier islands to keep the oil spill from its wetlands without the Corps' approval, as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government from denying a state the right to act in an emergency.[163][164] He also wrote that if the Corps "persists in its illegal and ill-advised efforts" to prevent the state from building the barriers that he would advise Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal to proceed with the plans and challenge the Corps in court.[165]
On June 3 BP said barrier projects ordered by Adm. Thad Allen would cost $360 million.[84]
On June 4 Ecosphere Technologies, a diversified water engineering and environmental services company, deployed a non-chemical water treatment system to assist in the remediation efforts.[166]
On June 16 Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company under the Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group began constructing sand berms off the Louisiana coast to limit the amount of approaching oil in the Gulf of Mexico.[167]
[edit] Dispersants
On May 1 two United States Department of Defense C-130 Hercules aircraft were employed to spray oil dispersant.[168] Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A are the main oil dispersants being used.[169] These contain propylene glycol, 2-butoxyethanol and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[170][171] On May 7 Secretary Alan Levine of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Secretary Peggy Hatch, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham sent a letter to BP outlining their concerns related to potential dispersant impact on Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. Officials are also requesting BP release information on the effects of the dispersants they are using to combat the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[172]
A C-130 Hercules drops an oil-dispersing chemical into the Gulf of Mexico.The Environmental Protection Agency approved the injection of dispersants directly at the leak site, to break up the oil before it reaches the surface, after three underwater tests.[173] Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the dispersants approved by the Environmental Protection Agency,[174] and they are banned from use on oil spills in the United Kingdom.[175] Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings,[176] but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.[174] Critics contend that the major oil companies stockpile Corexit because of their close business relationship with its manufacturer Nalco.[174][177] By May 20, BP had applied 600,000 US gallons (2,300,000 l) of Corexit on the surface and 55,000 US gallons (210,000 l) underwater.[178]
Independent scientists have suggested that the underwater injection of Corexit into the leak might be responsible for the plumes of oil discovered below the surface.[176] However, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco said that there was no information supporting this conclusion, and indicated further testing would be needed to ascertain the cause of the undersea oil clouds.[176]
On May 19 the Environmental Protection Agency gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit. The alternative(s) had to be selected from the list of Environmental Protection Agency-approved dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule with application beginning within 72 hours of Environmental Protection Agency approval of their choices, or provide a "detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards."[179][180] On May 20 US Polychemical Corporation reportedly received an order from BP for Dispersit SPC 1000, a dispersant it manufactures. US Polychemical stated it was able to produce 20,000 US gallons (76,000 l) a day in the first few days and increasing up to 60,000 US gallons (230,000 L) a day thereafter.[181] BP spokesman Scott Dean said May 20 that BP had responded to the Environmental Protection Agency directive with a letter "that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the Environmental Protection Agency 's National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday's directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness."[182] BP has so far refused to offer an acceptable "detailed description of the alternatives investigated and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards" on a public Web site, as called for in a letter sent on May 20 by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to BP CEO Tony Hayward, claiming such full disclosure would compromise its confidential business information.[183][184] In a press conference on May 24, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) of dispersants already used was "approaching a world record" and that “dissatisfied with BP’s response” she was ordering the EPA to conduct their own evaluation of alternatives to Corexit, while ordering BP to take “immediate steps to scale back the use of dispersants.”[185][186][187]
The EPA released further data on the chemical composition of Corexit, including 2-butoxyethanol, identified as a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.[188] Nalco has added a webpage to their site titled, Nalco Releases Additional Technical Information About COREXIT. They claim that COREXIT 9500 "is a simple blend of six well-established, safe ingredients that biodegrade, do not bioaccumulate and are commonly found in popular household products". They state, "The COREXIT products do not contain carcinogens or reproductive toxins. All the ingredients have been extensively studied for many years and have been determined safe and effective by the EPA".[189]
></o
