Copy the code and paste it into your site.

Embed as interactive Flash graphic:

big: 800x600
small: 400x300

Embed as image:

Title:
Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Description:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deepwater Horizon oil spill From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.(+) This is the latest accepted revision, accepted on 16 August 2010. Jump to: navigation, search 2010 oil spill and BP oil spill redirect here. For other oil spills in 2010, see 2010 oil spill (disambiguation). For the 2006 oil spill involving BP, see Prudhoe Bay oil spill. This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (July 2010) Deepwater Horizon oil spill Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010 - with locator.jpg The oil slick as seen from space by NASAs Terra satellite on May 24, 2010. Location Gulf of Mexico near Mississippi River Delta Coordinates 28°44′12″N 88°21′58″W / 28.736628°N 88.365997°W / 28.736628; -88.365997Coordinates: 28°44′12″N 88°21′58″W / 28.736628°N 88.365997°W / 28.736628; -88.365997 Date April 20, 2010 – August 16, 2010 (119 days) Cause Cause Wellhead blowout Casualties 13 dead (11 killed on Deepwater Horizon, 2 additional oil-related deaths)[1][2] 17 injured Operator Transocean under contract for BP[3] Spill characteristics Volume up to 100,000 barrels (4,200,000 US gallons; 16,000 cubic meters) per day; up to four million barrels (170 million gallons) total (as of July 26, 2010)[4] As much as 180m gallons (4.28million barrels)[5] Area 2,500 to 68,000 sq mi (6,500 to 180,000 km2)[6] The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster or the Macondo blowout)[7][8][9] is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.[10][11] The spill stemmed from a sea-floor oil gusher that resulted from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion. The explosion killed 11 platform workers and injured 17 others.[12] On July 15, the leak was stopped by capping the gushing wellhead[13] after releasing about 4.9 million barrels (780×10^3 m3) of crude oil.[14] It was estimated that 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) were escaping from the well just before it was capped. It is believed that the daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about 62,000 barrels per day (9,900 m3/d) and decreasing as the reservoir of hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted.[14] The spill is causing extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats as well as the Gulfs fishing and tourism industries.[15][16] Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of dissolved oil not visible at the surface.[17] Crews have been working to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands and estuaries along the northern Gulf coast, using skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. The U.S. Government has named BP as the responsible party, and officials have committed to holding the company accountable for all cleanup costs and other damage.[18] Contents [hide] * 1 Background o 1.1 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig o 1.2 Explosion * 2 Volume and extent of oil spill o 2.1 Spill flow rate o 2.2 Spill area and thickness o 2.3 Oil sightings o 2.4 Underwater oil plumes o 2.5 Expansion predictions o 2.6 Independent monitoring * 3 Efforts to stem the flow of oil o 3.1 Short-term efforts o 3.2 Considerations of using explosives o 3.3 Permanent closure * 4 Protecting the coastline and marine environments o 4.1 Containment + 4.1.1 Barrier island plan o 4.2 Dispersal o 4.3 Removal * 5 Consequences o 5.1 Ecology o 5.2 Fisheries and tourism o 5.3 Other economic consequences o 5.4 Litigation o 5.5 Health consequences o 5.6 U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy o 5.7 Spill response fund * 6 Reactions * 7 Investigations * 8 See also * 9 References * 10 External links [edit] Background [edit] Deepwater Horizon drilling rig Main article: Deepwater Horizon Deepwater Horizon prior to explosion. Parts of the rig providing buoyancy are invisible below the waterline in this picture. Origin of oil spill Location of the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010 The Deepwater Horizon was a 9-year-old semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit, a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet (9,100 m).[19] It was owned by Transocean, operated under the Marshallese flag of convenience, and was under lease to BP from March 2008 to September 2013.[20] At the time of the explosion, it was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast.[21][22] Production casing was being installed and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. Once the cementing was complete, the well would have been tested for integrity and a cement plug set, after which no further activities would take place until the well was later activated as a subsea producer.[23][24] BP is the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with a 65% share, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit of Mitsui.[25] BP leased the mineral rights for Macondo at the Minerals Management Services lease sale in March 2008.[26] [edit] Explosion Main article: Deepwater Horizon explosion Vessels combat the fire on the Deepwater Horizon while the United States Coast Guard searches for missing crew During March and early April, several platform workers and supervisors expressed concerns with well control. At approximately 9:45 p.m. CDT on April 20, 2010, methane gas from the well, under high pressure, shot all the way up and out of the drill column, expanded onto the platform, and then ignited and exploded. Fire then engulfed the platform.[24][27] Most of the workers were evacuated by lifeboats or were airlifted out by helicopter,[28] but eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are presumed to have died in the explosion.[29] Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of April 22, 2010.[30] [edit] Volume and extent of oil spill Main article: Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill An oil leak was discovered on the afternoon of April 22 when large oil slick began to spread at the former rig site.[31] According to the Flow Rate Technical Group the leak amounted to about 4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons) of oil exceeding the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest ever to originate in U.S.-controlled waters and the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill as the largest spill in the Gulf of Mexico.[14] It was estimated that 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) were escaping from the well just before it was capped. It is believed that the daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about 62,000 barrels per day (9,900 m3/d) and decreasing as the reservoir of hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted.[14] [edit] Spill flow rate In their permit to drill the well, BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels per day (25,800 m3/d).[32] Immediately after the explosion BP and the United States Coast Guard did not estimate any oil leaking from the sunken rig or from the well.[33] On April 24, Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry announced that a damaged wellhead was indeed leaking.[34][35] Initial estimates by BP and officials were that the wellhead was leaking only 1,000 barrels per day (160 m3/d).[34] Outside scientists quickly produced higher estimates, which presaged later increases in official numbers.[36][37][38] Official estimates increased from 1,000 to 5,000 barrels per day (160 to 790 m3/d) on April 29,[39][40] to 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day (1,900 to 3,000 m3/d) on May 27,[41][42][43][44] to 25,000 to 30,000 barrels per day (4,000 to 4,800 m3/d) on June 10,[45][46][47] and to between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels per day (5,600 and 9,500 m3/d), on June 15.[48][49] Internal BP documents, released by Congress, estimated the flow could be as much as 100,000 barrels per day (16,000 m3/d), if the blowout preventer and wellhead were removed and if restrictions were incorrectly modeled.[50][51] Progression of oil spill flow rate estimates Source Date Barrels per day Gallons per day Cubic metres per day BP estimate of worst case (with no BOP) Permit 162,000 6,800,000 25,800 United States Coast Guard April 23 (after sinking) 0 0 0 BP April 24 1,000 42,000 160 Official estimates April 29 1,000 to 5,000 42,000 to 210,000 790 Official estimates May 27 12,000 to 19,000 500,000 to 800,000 1,900 to 3,000 Official estimates June 10 25,000 to 30,000 1,100,000 to 1,300,000 4,000 to 4,800 Flow Rate Technical Group June 19 35,000 to 60,000 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 5,600 to 9,500 Internal BP documents worse case (with no BOP), released by Congress June 20 up to 100,000 up to 4,200,000 up to 16,000 Official estimates[52] August 2 62,000 2,604,000 9,857 Official estimates were provided by the Flow Rate Technical Group—scientists from USCG, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and outside academics, led by United States Geological Survey (USGS) director Marcia McNutt.[53][54][55] The later estimates were believed to be more accurate because it was no longer necessary to measure multiple leaks, and because detailed pressure measurements and high-resolution video had become available.[56] According to BP, estimating the oil flow was very difficult as there was no underwater metering at the wellhead and because of the natural gas in the outflow.[39] The company had initially refused to allow scientists to perform more accurate, independent measurements, saying that it was not relevant to the response and that such efforts might distract from efforts to stem the flow.[17] Former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Carol Browner and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) both accused BP of having a vested financial interest in downplaying the size of the leak in part due to the fine they will have to pay based on the amount of leaked oil.[57] The final estimate reported that 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) were escaping from the well just before it was capped on July 15. It is believed that the daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about 62,000 barrels per day (9,900 m3/d) and decreasing as the reservoir of hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted.[14] [edit] Spill area and thickness Oil slicks surround the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, in this aerial photo. The oils spread was initially increased by strong southerly winds caused by an impending cold front. By April 25, the oil spill covered 580 square miles (1,500 km2) and was only 31 miles (50 km) from the ecologically sensitive Chandeleur Islands.[58] An April 30 estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles (10,000 km2).[59] The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Breton National Wildlife Refuge.[60] On May 19 both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other scientists monitoring the spill with the European Space Agency Envisat radar satellite stated that oil had reached the Loop Current, which flows clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico towards Florida and becomes the Gulf Stream.[61] On June 29, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that the oil slick was no longer a threat to the loop current and stopped tracking offshore oil predictions that include the loop currents region. The omission is noted prominently on the ongoing nearshore surface oil forecasts that are posted daily on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration site.[61][62] On May 14, the Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills model indicated that about 35 percent of a hypothetical 114,000 barrels (18,100 m3) spill of light Louisiana crude oil released in conditions similar to those found in the Gulf would evaporate, that 50 to 60 percent of the oil would remain in or on the water, and the rest would be dispersed in the ocean. In the same report, Ed Overton says he thinks most of the oil is floating within 1 foot (30 cm) of the surface.[63] The New York Times is tracking the size of the spill over time using data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the US Coast Guard and Skytruth.[64] The wellhead was capped on July 15 and by July 30 the oil appeared to have dissipated more rapidly than expected. Scientists believe the rapid dissipation of the surface oil may have been due to a combination of factors that included the natural capacity of the region to break down oil (petroleum normally leaks from the ocean floor by way of thousands of natural seeps and certain bacteria are able to consume it.); winds from storms appeared to have aided in rapidly dispersing the oil, and the clean-up response by BP and the government helped control surface slicks. As much as 40% of the oil may have simply evaporated at the ocean surface, and an unknown amount remains below the surface.[65] [edit] Oil sightings Oil began washing up on the beaches of Gulf Islands National Seashore on June 1.[66] By June 4, the oil spill had landed on 125 miles (201 km) of Louisianas coast, had washed up along Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, and was found for the first time on a Florida barrier island at Pensacola Beach.[67] On June 9, oil sludge began entering the Intracoastal Waterway through Perdido Pass after floating booms across the opening of the pass failed to stop the oil.[68] On June 23, oil appeared on Pensacola Beach and in Gulf Islands National Seashore, and officials warned against swimming for 33 miles (53 km) east of the Alabama line.[69][70] On June 27, tar balls and small areas of oil reached Gulf Park Estates, the first appearance of oil in Mississippi.[71] Early in July, tar balls reached Grand Isle but 800 volunteers were cleaning them up.[72] On 3 and July 4, tar balls and other isolated oil residue began washing ashore at beaches in Bolivar and Galveston, though it was believed a ship transported them there, and no further oil was found July 5.[73] On July 5, strings of oil were found in the Rigolets in Louisiana, and the next day tar balls reached the shore of Lake Pontchartrain.[73][74] [edit] Underwater oil plumes On May 15, researchers from the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology,[75] aboard the research vessel RV Pelican, identified oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico,[76] including one as large as 10 miles (16 km) long, 3 miles (4.8 km) wide and 300 feet (91 m) thick in spots. The shallowest oil plume the group detected was at about 2,300 feet (700 m), while the deepest was near the seafloor at about 4,593 feet (1,400 m).[77] Other researchers from the University of Georgia have found that the oil may occupy multiple layers.[78] By May 27, marine scientists from the University of South Florida had discovered a second oil plume, stretching 22 miles (35 km) from the leaking wellhead toward Mobile Bay, Alabama. The oil has dissolved into the water and is no longer visible. Undersea plumes may be the result of the use of wellhead chemical dispersants.[79] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration conducted an independent analysis of the water samples provided from the 22–28 May research mission of the University of South Floridas Weatherbird II vessel. The samples from all undersea plumes were in very low concentrations, less than 0.5 parts per million. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also indicated that one of the plumes was unrelated to the BP oil spill, while the other plume samples were in concentrations too low or too highly fractionated to determine their origin.[80] BP challenged the validity of the multiple reports from scientists that vast plumes of oil from the spill were spreading underwater, stating its sampling showed no evidence that oil was massing and spreading in the gulf water column.[81] On July 23, University of South Florida researchers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, employing a chemical fingerprinting process, released two separate studies confirming the subsea plumes of oil were indeed the result of the Deepwater Horizon well.[82] [edit] Expansion predictions James H. Cowan, a biological oceanographer at Louisiana State University, said a hurricane could push oil inland, possibly affecting rice and sugar cane crops.[83] A hurricane could also delay attempts to close the well and could spread/dilute the oil further or deeper in the ocean.[83] Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground, pointed out the possibility of more widespread damage to coastal areas, airborne oil droplets immersed in hurricane winds, and a chance that the oil spill could cause explosive deepening of hurricanes in the Gulf.[84] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations position is that the oil spill would have a minimal effect on a hurricanes behavior, as long as the spill is small in comparison to the storm. Also, the high winds and rough seas would aid in the weathering process of the oil slick, and the agency discarded the possibility of petroleum being embedded in the hurricanes precipitation. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stressed that the direction of any spreading of oil due to the passage of a tropical cyclone depends on the exact track of the storm, and cautioned that the hurricanes storm surge may carry oil inland.[85] [edit] Independent monitoring Wildlife and environmental groups have accused BP of holding back information about the extent and impact of the growing slick, and urged the White House to order a more direct federal government role in the spill response. In prepared testimony for a congressional committee, National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger said BP had failed to disclose results from its tests of chemical dispersants used on the spill, and that BP had tried to withhold video showing the true magnitude of the leak.[86] On May 19 BP established a live feed of the oil spill after hearings in Congress accused the company of withholding data from the ocean floor and blocking efforts by independent scientists to come up with estimates for the amount of crude flowing into the Gulf each day.[87][88] On May 20 United States Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated that the U.S. government would verify how much oil has leaked into the Gulf of Mexico.[89] Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano asked for the results of tests looking for traces of oil and dispersant chemicals in the waters of the gulf.[90] The live video feed was turned off for 3 days in the last week of July 2010, about which Thad Allen was asked a question on July 30. Shortly thereafter the feed returned, showing ROVs cleaning oil off the wellhead, and MSNBC raised questions about leaks getting worse shortly before the live feed was taken down and whether there was an effort to avoid a life feed until these leaks could be fixed.[91][92] Journalists attempting to document the impact of the oil spill have been repeatedly refused access to public areas. Photojournalists have been prevented from flying over areas of the gulf to document the scope of the disaster. These accusations have been leveled at BP, its contractors, local law enforcement, USCG and other government officials.[93][94] Scientists have also complained about prevention of access to information controlled by BP and government sources.[93] BP states that its policy is to allow the media and other parties as much access as possible.[93] On June 30, the Coast Guard put new restrictions in place across the Gulf Coast that prevented vessels from coming within 20 meters (66 ft) “ of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations ”.[95] In a press briefing, Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen said the new regulation was related to safety issues.[96] On CNNs 360, host Anderson Cooper rejected the motivation for the restrictions outright.[97] [edit] Efforts to stem the flow of oil Main article: Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill See also: Offshore oil spill prevention [edit] Short-term efforts Oil containment dome under construction in Port Fourchon, Louisiana, at Wild Well Control on April 26 The first attempts to stop the oil spill were to use remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves on the well head; however, all these attempts failed.[58][98] The second technique, placing a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) containment dome (which had worked on leaks in shallower water) over the largest leak and piping the oil to a storage vessel on the surface, failed when gas leaking from the pipe combined with cold water formed methane hydrate crystals that blocked the opening at the top of the dome.[99] Attempts to close the well by pumping heavy drilling fluids into the blowout preventer to restrict the flow of oil before sealing it permanently with cement (top kill) also failed.[100][101] More successful was the process of positioning a riser insertion tube into the wide burst pipe. There was a stopper-like washer around the tube that plugs the end of the riser and diverts the flow into the insertion tube.[102] The collected gas was flared and oil stored on the board of drillship Discoverer Enterprise.[103] 924,000 US gallons (22,000 barrels) of oil was collected before removal of the tube.[104] By June 3, BP removed the damaged riser from the top of the blowout preventer and covered the pipe by the cap which connected it to a riser.[105] CEO of BP Tony Hayward stated that as a result of this process the amount captured was probably the vast majority of the oil.[106] However, the FRTG member Ira Leifer said that more oil was escaping than before the riser was cut and the cap containment system was placed.[107] The Q4000 and the Discoverer Enterprise during the failed top kill procedure On June 16, a second containment system connected directly to the blowout preventer became operational carrying oil and gas to the Q4000 service vessel where it was burned in a clean-burning system.[108] To increase the processing capacity, the drillship Discoverer Clear Leader and the floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel Helix Producer 1 were added, offloading oil with tankers Evi Knutsen, and Juanita.[109][110] Each tanker has capacity of 750,000 barrels (32,000,000 US gallons; 119,000 cubic metres).[108] In addition, FPSO Seillean, and well testing vessel Toisa Pisces would process oil. They are offloaded by shuttle tanker Loch Rannoch.[108] On July 5, BP announced that its one-day oil recovery effort accounted for about 25,000 barrels of oil, and the flaring off of 57.1 million cubic feet (1.62×10^6 m3) of natural gas. The total oil collection to date for the spill was estimated at 660,000 barrels.[111] The governments estimates suggested the cap and other equipment were capturing less than half of the oil leaking from the sea floor as of late June.[69] On July 10, the containment cap was removed to replace it with a better-fitting cap consisting of a Flange Transition Spool and a 3 Ram Stack (Top Hat Number 10).[112][113] On July 15 BP tested the well integrity by shutting off pipes that were funneling some of the oil to ships on the surface, so the full force of the gusher from the wellhead went up into the cap.[114][115] That same day, BP said that the leak had been stopped after all the blowout preventer valves had been closed on the newly-fitted cap.[13] [edit] Considerations of using explosives In mid-April, United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu assembled a team of nuclear physicists, including hydrogen bomb designer Richard Garwin and Sandia National Laboratories director Tom Hunter.[116] On May 24 BP ruled out conventional explosives, saying that if blasts failed to clog the well, We would have denied ourselves all other options.[117] [edit] Permanent closure Transoceans Development Driller III started drilling a first relief well on May 2 and was at 13,978 feet (4,260 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14. GSF Development Driller II started drilling a second relief on May 16 and was halted at 8,576 feet (2,614 m) out of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) as of June 14 while BP engineers verified the operational status of the second relief wells BOP.[118][119][120][121][122][123] Each relief well is expected to cost about $100 million.[124][125] Starting at 15:00 CDT on August 3, first test oil and then drilling mud was pumped at a slow rate of approximately two barrels/minute into the well-head. Pumping continued for eight hours, at the end of which time the well was declared to be in a static condition.[126] At 09:15 CDT on August 4, with Adm. Allens approval, BP began pumping cement from the top, sealing that part of the flow channel permanently.[127] On August 4, Allen said the static kill was working.[128] [edit] Protecting the coastline and marine environments Men in hard hats standing near water next to large pile of bundled large yellow deflated rubber tubing United States Environmental Services workers prepare oil containment booms for deployment The three fundamental strategies for addressing spilled oil were to; contain it on the surface, away from the most sensitive areas, to dilute and disperse it in less sensitive areas, and to remove it from the water. The Deepwater response employed all three strategies, using a variety of techniques. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, the leaking oil was of a heavier blend which contained asphalt-like substances. According to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well. Once it becomes emulsified, 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 said.[129] On May 6, BP began documenting the daily response efforts on its web site.[130] While these efforts began using only BPs resources, on April 28 Doug Suttles, chief operating officer, welcomed the US military as it joined the cleanup operation.[39] The response increased in scale as the spill volume grew. Initially BP employed remotely operated underwater vehicles, 700 workers, four airplanes and 32 vessels.[34] By April 29, 69 vessels including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels were active in cleanup activities. On May 4 the US Coast Guard estimated that 170 vessels, and nearly 7,500 personnel were participating, with an additional 2,000 volunteers assisting.[131] On May 26, all 125 commercial fishing boats helping in the clean up were ordered ashore after some workers began experiencing health problems.[132] On May 31, BP set up a call line to take cleanup suggestions which received 92,000 responses by late June, 320 of which were categorized as promising.[133] [edit] Containment An oil containment boom deployed by U.S. Navy surrounds New Harbor Island, Louisiana. The response included deploying many miles of containment boom, whose purpose is to either corral the oil, or to block it from a marsh, mangrove, shrimp/crab/oyster ranch or other sensitive area. Booms extend 18–48 inches (0.46–1.2 m) above and below the water surface and are effective only in relatively calm and slow-moving waters. More than 100,000 feet (30 km) of containment booms were initially deployed to protect the coast and the Mississippi River Delta.[125] By the next day, that nearly doubled to 180,000 feet (55 km), with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) staged or being deployed.[134][135] [edit] Barrier island plan Main article: Louisiana barrier island plan On May 21, Plaquemines Parish president Billy Nungesser publicly complained about the federal governments 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 said that the request was still under review.[136] Gulf Coast Government officials released water via Mississippi River diversions in an 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, on May 23, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted a massive landfall to the west of the Mississippi River at Port Fourchon.[137] On May 23 Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell wrote to Lieutenant General Robert L. Van Antwerp of the US Army Corps of Engineers, stating that Louisiana had 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.[138][139][140] 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 build the berms and challenge the Corps in court.[141] On June 3 BP said barrier projects ordered by Adm. Thad Allen would cost $360 million.[142] On June 16 Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company under the Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure Group began constructing sand berms off the Louisiana coast.[143] [edit] Dispersal Spilled oil naturally disperses via storms, currents, and osmosis with the passage of time. If the oil density reaches a low enough level,[citation needed] other natural processes can consume it. Chemical dispersants accelerate the dispersal process, although they may have significant side-effects. Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A have been the principle dispersants employed.[144] These contain propylene glycol, 2-Butoxyethanol and dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[145][146] 2-butoxyethanol was identified as a causal agent in the health problems experienced by cleanup workers after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.[146] Corexit manufacturer Nalco states, [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....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.[147] Corexit EC9500A and EC9527A are neither the least toxic, nor the most effective, among the Environmental Protection Agency approved dispersants.[148] They are also banned from use on oil spills in the United Kingdom.[149] Twelve other products received better toxicity and effectiveness ratings, but BP says it chose to use Corexit because it was available the week of the rig explosion.[148][150] Critics contend that the major oil companies stockpile Corexit because of their close business relationship with its manufacturer Nalco.[148][151] A large four propeller airplane spraying liquid over oil-sheen water A C-130 Hercules drops an oil-dispersing chemical into the Gulf of Mexico On May 1, two military C-130 Hercules aircraft were employed to spray oil dispersant.[152] 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 Louisianas wildlife and fisheries, environment, aquatic life, and public health. Officials requested that BP release information on their dispersant effects.[153] The Environmental Protection Agency later approved the injection of dispersants directly at the leak site, to break up the oil before it reaches the surface, after three underwater tests.[154] Independent scientists suggest that underwater injection of Corexit into the leak might be responsible for the oil plumes discovered below the surface.[150] 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.[150] By July 12, BP had reported applying 1,070,000 US gallons (4.1E+6 l) of Corexit on the surface and 721,000 US gallons (2,730,000 l) underwater (subsea).[155] The same document listed available stocks of Corexit which decreased by over 965,000 US gallons (3,650,000 l) without reported application, suggesting either stock diversion or unreported application. Under reported subsea application of 1,690,000 US gallons (6,400,000 l) would account for this discrepancy. Given the suggested dispersant to oil ratio between 1:10 and 1:50, the possible use of 1,690,000 US gallons (6,400,000 l) in subsea application could be expected to suspend between 400,000 to 2M barrels of oil below the surface of the Gulf. On May 19, the Environmental Protection Agency gave BP 24 hours to choose less toxic alternatives to Corexit from the list of dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, begin applying the new dispersant(s) within 72 hours of Environmental Protection Agency approval or provide a detailed reasoning why the approved products did not meet the required standards.[156][157] On May 20 US Polychemical Corporation reportedly received an order from BP for its Dispersit SPC 1000 dispersant. US Polychemical said it could produce 20,000 US gallons (76,000 l) a day in the first few days, increasing up to 60,000 US gallons (230,000 L) a day thereafter.[158] Also on May 20, BP determined that none of the alternative products met all three criteria of availability, toxicity and effectiveness.[159] On 24 May, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Jackson ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct its own evaluation of alternatives and ordered BP to scale back dispersant use.[160][161] According to analysis of daily dispersant reports provided by the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command, prior to May 26 BP used 25,689 gallons a day of Corexit. After the EPA directive, the daily average of dispersant use dropped to 23,250 gallons a day, a 9% decline.[162] By July 30, more than 1.8 million gallons of dispersant had been used, mostly Corexit 9500.[163] On July 31, Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, released a letter sent to National Incident Commander Thad Allen, and documents revealing that the U.S. Coast Guard repeatedly allowed BP to use excessive amounts of the dispersant Coexit on the surface of the ocean. Markeys letter, based on an analysis conducted by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee staff, further showed that by comparing the amounts BP reported using to Congress to the amounts contained in the company’s requests for exemptions from the ban on surface dispersants it submitted to the Coast Guard, that BP often exceeded its own requests, with little indication that it informed the Coast Guard or that the Coast Guard attempted to verify whether BP was exceeding approved volumes. “Either BP was lying to Congress or to the Coast Guard about how much dispersants they were shooting onto the ocean,” said Rep. Markey.[164] On August 2, the EPA said dispersants did no more harm to the environment than the oil itself, and that they stopped a large amount of oil from reaching the coast by making the oil break down faster.[165] However, independent scientists and EPAs own experts continue to voice concerns regarding the use of dispersants.[166] Dispersant use stopped after the cap was in place.[165] A government report released August 4 said nearly 2,000,000 US gallons (7,600 m3) of dispersants took care of 10 percent of an estimated 172,000,000 US gallons (650,000 m3). Paul Anastas of the EPA said no dispersants had been found on the coast or in wetlands.[128] [edit] Removal Three basic approaches to removing the oil from the water have been burning the oil, filtering off-shore, and collecting for later processing. On April 28, the US Coast Guard announced plans to corral and burn off up to 1000 barrels of oil each day. It tested how much environmental damage a small, controlled burn of 100 barrels did to surrounding wetlands, but could not proceed with an open ocean burn due to poor conditions.[134][167] BP stated that more than 215,000 barrels of oil-water mix had been recovered by May 25.[59] In mid June, BP ordered 32 machines that separate oil and water with each machine capable of extracting up to 2000 barrels per day,[168][169] BP agreed to use the technology after testing machines for one week.[170] By June 28, BP had successfully removed 890,000 barrels of oily liquid and burned about 314,000 barrels of oil.[171] The Environmental Protection Agency prohibited the use of skimmers that left more than 15 parts per million of oil in the water. Many large-scale skimmers are therefore unable to be used in the cleanup because they exceed this limit.[172] An urban myth developed that the U.S. government declined the offers because of the requirements of the Jones Act.[173] This proved untrue and many foreign assets deployed to aid in cleanup efforts.[174] The Taiwanese supertanker A Whale, recently retrofitted as a skimmer, was tested in early July but failed to collect a significant amount of oil.[175] According to Bob Grantham, a spokesman for shipowner TMT, this was due to BPs use of chemical dispersants.[176] The Coast Guard said 33 million gallons of tainted water had been recovered, with 5 million gallons of that consisting of oil. An estimated 11 million gallons of oil were burned. BP said 826,000 barrels had been recovered or flared. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated a third of the oil had been removed from the Gulf.[177] By late July 2010, two weeks after the flow of oil had stopped, oil on the surface of the Gulf had largely dissipated. Concern still remains for underwater oil and ecological damage. The presence of oil eating bacteria is one factor in the rapid disappearance of oil on the water surface.[178] A government report August 4 said three-fourths of the oil has been cleaned up, dispersed or eliminated by other means.[128] Ronald Kendall, director of Texas Tech Universitys Institute of Environmental and Human Health, said, Im suspect if thats accurate or not; Id like to say that even if its true, there are still 50 to 60 million gallons that are still out there.[179] Scientists said a lot of oil was still underwater and could not be detected.[179] According to the NOAA report,[180] about half of the oil leaked into the Gulf, or 103 million gallons – the equivalent of nine Exxon Valdez disasters – remains on or below the Gulf’s surface.[181] Some scientists are calling the NOAA estimates ludicrous. According to University of South Florida chemical oceanographer David Hollander, while 25 percent of the oil can be accounted for by burning, skimming, etc., 75 percent is still unaccounted for.[182] The federal calculations are based on direct measurements for only 18 million gallons of the oil spilled — the stuff burned and skimmed. The other numbers are educated scientific guesses, said Bill Lehr, an author of NOAA report, because it is impossible to measure oil that is dispersed. FSU oceanography professor Ian MacDonald called it a shaky report and is unsatisfied with the thoroughness of the presentation and sweeping assumptions involved.[183] John Kessler of Texas A&M, who led a National Science Foundation on-site study of the spill, said the report that 75 percent of the oil is gone is just not true and that 50% to 75% of the material that came out of the well remains in the water in a dissolved or dispersed form.[184] [edit] Consequences See also: Global industry and economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster [edit] Ecology Heavily oiled Brown Pelicans wait to be cleaned of Gulf spill crude The spill threatens environmental disaster due to factors such as petroleum toxicity, oxygen depletion and the use of Corexit dispersant.[185][186] Eight U.S. national parks are threatened.[187] More than 400 species that live in the Gulf islands and marshlands are at risk, including the endangered Kemps Ridley turtle, the Green Turtle, the Loggerhead Turtle, the Hawksbill Turtle, and the Leatherback Turtle. In the national refuges most at risk, about 34,000 birds have been counted, including gulls, pelicans, roseate spoonbills, egrets, terns, and blue herons.[59] A comprehensive 2009 inventory of offshore Gulf species counted 15,700. The area of the oil spill includes 8,332 species, including more than 1,200 fish, 200 birds, 1,400 molluscs, 1,500 crustaceans, 4 sea turtles, and 29 marine mammals.[188][189] As of August 13, 4,768 dead animals had been collected, including 4,080 birds, 525 sea turtles, 72 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 reptile.[190] According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, cause of death had not been determined as of late June. Also, dolphins have been seen which are lacking food, and acting drunk apparently due to the spill.[191] A reporter kayaking in the area of Grand Isle reported seeing about 60 dolphins blowing oil through their blow holes as they swam through oil-slick waters.[192] Duke University marine biologist Larry Crowder said threatened loggerhead turtles on Carolina beaches could swim out into contaminated waters. Ninety percent of North Carolinas commercially valuable sea life spawn off the coast and could be contaminated if oil reaches the area. Douglas Rader, a scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, said prey could be negatively affected as well. Steve Ross of UNC-Wilmington said coral reefs could be smothered.[193] In early June Harry Roberts, a professor of Coastal Studies at Louisiana State University, stated that 4 million barrels (170,000,000 US gallons; 640,000 cubic metres) of oil would be enough to wipe out marine life deep at sea near the leak and elsewhere in the Gulf as well as along hundreds of miles of coastline. Mak Saito, an Associate Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts indicated that such an amount of oil may alter the chemistry of the sea, with unforeseeable results.[194] Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia indicated that the oil could harm fish directly, and microbes used to consume the oil would also reduce oxygen levels in the water.[195] According to Joye, the ecosystem could require years or even decades to recover, as previous spills have done.[196] Oceanographer John Kessler estimates that the crude gushing from the well contains approximately 40% methane, compared to about 5% found in typical oil deposits.[197] Methane could potentially suffocate marine life and create dead zones where oxygen is depleted.[197] Also oceanographer Dr. Ian MacDonald at Florida State University believes that the natural gas dissolving below the surface has the potential to reduce the Gulf oxygen levels and emit benzene and other toxic compounds.[56][198] In early July, researchers discovered two new previously unidentified species of bottom-dwelling pancake batfish of the Halieutichthys genus, in the area affected by the oil spill.[199] Damage to the ocean floor is as yet unknown.[177] In late July, Tulane University scientists found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf, indicating that the use of dispersants has broken up the oil into droplets small enough they can easily enter the food chain. Marine biologists from the University of Southern Mississippis Gulf Coast Research Laboratory began finding orange blobs under the shells of crab larvae in May, and reportedly continue to find them in almost all of the larvae they collect from over 300 miles of coastline stretching from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Florida.[186] [edit] Fisheries and tourism June 21, 2010 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration map of the Gulf of Mexico showing the areas closed to fishing. As of June 21, 2010, the area closed to fishing encompassed 86,985 square miles (225,290 km2), or about 36% of Gulf of Mexico federal waters. In BPs Initial Exploration Plan, dated March 10, 2009, they said that it is unlikely that an accidental spill would occur and no adverse activities are anticipated to fisheries or fish habitat.[32] On April 29, 2010, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency in the state after weather forecasts predicted the oil slick would reach the Louisiana coast.[200] An emergency shrimping season was opened on April 29 so that a catch could be brought in before the oil advanced too far.[201] By April 30 the Coast Guard received reports that oil had begun washing up to wildlife refuges and seafood grounds on the Louisiana Gulf Coast.[202] On May 22 The Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board stated said 60 to 70% of oyster and blue crab harvesting areas and 70 to 80% of fin-fisheries remained open.[203] The Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed an additional ten oyster beds on May 23, just south of Lafayette, Louisiana, citing confirmed reports of oil along the states western coast.[204] On May 2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration closed commercial and recreational fishing in affected federal waters between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Pensacola Bay. The closure initially incorporated 6,814 square miles (17,650 km2).[205][206] By June 21 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had increased the area under closure over a dozen times, encompassing by that date 86,985 square miles (225,290 km2), or approximately 36% of Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and extending along the coast from Atchafalaya Bay, Louisiana to Panama City, Florida.[207][208] On May 24 the federal government declared a fisheries disaster for the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.[209] Initial cost estimates to the fishing industry were $2.5 billion.[202] On June 23, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ended its fishing ban in 8,000 square miles (21,000 km2) square miles, leaving 78,597 square miles (203,570 km2) with no fishing allowed,[210] or about one-third of the Gulf. The continued fishing ban helps assure the safety of seafood, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration inspectors have determined that as of July 9, Kevin Griffis of the Commerce Department said, only one seafood sample out of 400 tested did not pass, though even that one did not include concerning levels of contaminants.[211] Although many people cancelled their vacations at first, hotels close to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama reported dramatic increases in business from 2009 during the first half of May 2010. On May 25 BP gave Florida $25 million to promote its beaches, which the oil had not reached, and the company planned $15 million each for Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Bay Area Tourist Development Council bought digital billboards showing recent photos from the gulf coast beaches as far north as Nashville, Tennessee and Atlanta. Along with these and other assurances that the beaches are so far unaffected, hotels have cut rates and offered deals such as free golf. Also, cancellation policies have changed, and refunds have been promised to those where oil arrives. However, 2009 was a slow year, and those working to deal with the spill have rented rooms in the area. Revenues remain below 2009 levels due to the special deals.[212] By June many people were cancelling vacations while they could do so, fearing the arrival of oil on the beaches.[213] The U.S. Travel Association estimated that the economic impact of the oil spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a three-year period could exceed approximately $23 billion, in a region that supports over 400,000 travel industry jobs generating $34 billion in revenue annually.[214][215] [edit] Other economic consequences Main article: Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster On July 5 BP reported that its own expenditures on the oil spill had reached $3.12 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid, and federal costs.[216][217] The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 limits BPs liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million unless gross negligence is proven.[218] BP has said it would pay for all cleanup and remediation regardless of the statutory liability cap. Nevertheless, some Democratic lawmakers are seeking to pass legislation that would increase the liability limit to $10 billion.[219][220] Analysts for Swiss Re have estimated that the total insured losses from the accident could reach $3.5 billion. According to UBS, final losses could be $12 billion.[221] According to Willis Group Holdings, total losses could amount to $30 billion, of which estimated total claims to the market from the disaster, including control of well, re-drilling, third-party liability and seepage and pollution costs, could exceed $1.2 billion.[222] On June 25 BPs market value reached a 52-week low. The companys total value lost since April 20 was $105 billion. Investors saw their holdings in BP shrink to $27.02, a nearly 54% loss of value in 2010.[223] A month later, the companys loss in market value totalled $60 billion, a 35% decline since the explosion. At that time, BP reported a second-quarter loss of $17 billion, its first loss in 18 years. This includes a one-time $32.2 billion charge, including $20 billion for the fund created for reparations and $2.9 billion in actual costs.[224] BP has announced that it is setting up a new unit to oversee management of the oil spill and its aftermath, which will be headed by former TNK-BP chief executive Robert Dudley.[109] BP gas stations, the majority of which the company does not own, have reported sales off between 10 and 40% due to backlash against the company. Some BP station owners that lost sales say the name should change back to Amoco, while others say after all the effort that went into promoting BP, such a move would be a gamble, and the company should work to restore its image.[225] Local officials in Louisiana have expressed concern that the offshore drilling moratorium imposed in response to the spill will further harm the economies of coastal communities.[226] The oil industry employs about 58,000 Louisiana residents and has created another 260,000 oil-related jobs, accounting for about 17 percent of all Louisiana jobs.[226] BP has agreed to allocate $100 million for payments to offshore oil workers who are unemployed due to the six-month moratorium on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico.[108] The real estate prices and a number of transactions in the Gulf of Mexico area have decreased significantly since beginning of the oil spill. As a result, area officials want the state legislature to allow property tax to be paid based on current market value, which according to State Rep. Dave Murzin could mean millions of dollars in losses for each county affected.[227] The Organization for International Investment, a Washington-based advocate for overseas investment into the U.S., warned in early July that the political rhetoric surrounding the disaster is potentially damaging the reputation of all British companies with operations in the U.S.[228] and sparked a wave of U.S. protectionism that has restricted British firms from winning government contracts, making political donations and lobbying.[229] [edit] Litigation Main article: Deepwater Horizon litigation See also: Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar By May 26 over 130 lawsuits relating to the spill had been filed[221] against one or more of BP, Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, and Halliburton Energy Services,[230] although it is considered likely by observers that these will be combined into one court as a multidistrict litigation.[230] By June 17 over 220 lawsuits were filed against BP alone.[231] Because the spill has been largely lingering offshore, the plaintiffs who can claim damages so far are mostly out-of-work fishermen and tourist resorts that are receiving cancellations.[232] The oil company says 23,000 individual claims have already been filed, of which 9,000 have so far been settled.[221] BP and Transocean want the cases to be heard in Houston, seen as friendly to the oil business. Plaintiffs have variously requested the case be heard in Louisiana, Mississippi or Florida.[232] Five New Orleans judges have recused themselves from hearing oil spill cases because of stock ownership in companies involved or other conflicts of interest.[233] BP has retained law firm Kirkland & Ellis to defend most of the lawsuits arising from the oil spill.[234] [edit] Health consequences As of May 29, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All but two had been hospitalized suffering from symptoms emergency room doctors diagnosed as dehydration. At a press briefing about the May 26 medical evacuation of seven crewmembers from Vessels of Opportunity working in the Breton Sound area, Coast Guard Captain Meredith Austin, Unified Command Deputy Incident Commander in Houma, LA, said that air monitoring done in advance of beginning work showed no volatile organic compounds above limits of concern. No respiratory protection was issued, said Austin because air ratings were taken and there were no values found to be at an unsafe level, prior to us sending them in there.[235] On June 15, Marylee Orr, Executive Director for Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN),[236] said on MSNBCs Countdown with Keith Olbermann that people along the Gulf Coast are getting very sick, with symptoms of dizziness, vomiting, nausea, headaches, and chest pains, not only from the first responders to the crisis, but residents living along the coast as well. LEANs director reported that BP has threatened to fire their workers if they use respirators distributed by LEAN, though health and safety officials have not required their use, as they may exacerbate risks of heat exhaustion.[237][238] By June 21, 143 oil spill exposure-related cases had been reported to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH) since the crisis began; 108 of those cases involved workers in the oil spill clean-up efforts, while thirty-five were reported by the general public.[239] The Institute of Medicine of the U. S. National Academies held a workshop 22 and June 23 to assess known health effects of this and previous oil spills and to coordinate epidemiological monitoring and ongoing medical research. The Louisiana state health officer Jimmy Guidry stated that need as: “This is more than a spill. This is ongoing leakage of a chemical, and adding chemicals to stop the chemicals. Were feeling like were in a research lab.[240][241] On the second day of the meeting the suicide of William Allen Kruse, a charter boat captain working as a BP clean-up worker,[242] intensified previous expert commentary on the current and likely long-term mental health effects of the ongoing crisis. David Abramson, director of research for Columbias National Center for Disaster Preparedness, noted the increased risk of mental disorders and stress-related health problems.[243][244] On August 10, the Institute of Medicine released a Workshop Summary: Assessing the Effects of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill on Human Health. [edit] U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy Main articles: United States offshore drilling debate and 2010 U.S. Deepwater Drilling Moratorium See also: Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar After the Deepwater Horizon explosion a six-month offshore drilling (below 500 feet (150 m) of water) moratorium was enforced by the United States Department of the Interior.[245] Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar ordered immediate inspections of all deep-water operations in the Gulf of Mexico. An Outer Continental Shelf safety review board within the Department of the Interior is to provide recommendations for conducting drilling activities in the Gulf.[124] The moratorium suspended work on 33 rigs.[245] It was challenged by several drilling and oil services companies. On June 22, a United States federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Martin Leach-Cross Feldman when ruling in the case Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, lifted the moratorium finding it too broad, arbitrary and not adequately justified.[245] The Department of Justice appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted the request for an expedited hearing. A three judge panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on July 8.[246][247] On June 30, Salazar said that he is working very hard to finalize a new offshore drilling moratorium.[248] Michael Bromwich, the head of the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, said that a record of bad performance, deadly performance by an oil company should be considered a relevant factor for the government when it decides if that company should be awarded future drilling leases.[248] Representative George Miller plans to introduce to the energy reform bill under consideration in the United States House of Representatives that a companys safety record should factor into leasing decisions. By this amendment he wants to ban BP from leasing any additional offshore acreage for seven years because of extensive record of serious worker safety and environmental violations.[249] On April 28 the National Energy Board of Canada, which regulates offshore drilling in the Canadian Arctic and along the British Columbia Coast, issued a letter to oil companies asking them to explain their argument against safety rules which require same-season relief wells.[250] Five days later, the Canadian Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice said the government would not approve a decision to relax safety or environment regulations for large energy projects.[251] On May 3 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew his support for a proposed plan to allow expanded offshore drilling projects in California.[252][253] On July 8 Florida Governor Charlie Crist called for a special session of the state legislature to draft an amendment to the state constitution banning offshore drilling in state waters, which the legislature rejected on July 20.[254][255] According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico accounts for 23.5% of U.S. oil production.[256] The chief argument in the U.S. offshore drilling debate has been to make the United States less dependent on imported oil.[257][258] American dependence on imports grew from 24% in 1970[259] to 66% in 2008.[260] [edit] Spill response fund BP initially promised to compensate all those affected. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, stated, 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 honour them. We are going to be very, very aggressive in all of that.[261] On June 16, after meeting with President Obama, BP executives agreed to create a $20 billion spill response fund.[108][262][263] BP has said it will pay $3 billion in third quarter of 2010 and $2 billion in fourth quarter into the fund followed by a payment of $1.25 billion per quarter until it reaches $20 billion. In the interim, BP posts its US assets worth $20 billion as bond. The amount of this fund is not a cap on BPs liabilities. For the funds payments, BP will cut its capital spending budget, sell $10 billion in assets, and drop its dividend.[108][264] The fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg.[108][262][263] One aim of the fund will be to minimize lawsuits against the company.[265] According to BPs officials the fund can be used for natural resource damages, state and local response costs and individual compensation but cannot be used for fines or penalties.[108] [edit] Reactions Main article: Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Reactions to the oil spill, from various officials and interested parties, ranged from blame and outrage at the damage caused by the spill, to calls for greater accountability on the part of the U.S. government and BP, including new legislation dealing with preventative security and cleanup improvements. [edit] Investigations On April 22 the United States Coast Guard and the Minerals Management Service launched an investigation of the possible causes of the explosion.[24] On May 11 the Obama administration requested the National Academy of Engineering conduct an independent technical investigation to determine the root causes of the disaster so that corrective steps could be taken to address the mechanical failures underlying the accident.[266] On May 22 President Obama announced that he had issued Executive Order 13543 establishing the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, with former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly serving as co-chairs. The purpose of the commission is to consider the root causes of the disaster and offer options on safety and environmental precautions.[267][268] On June 1 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he has opened an investigation of the oil spill.[269] According to Holder, the Justice Department is interviewing witnesses as part of a criminal and civil investigation. Besides BP, the investigation could apply to other companies involved in the drilling of the damaged well.[270] The United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce has conducted a number of hearings. On June 17, CEO of BP Tony Hayward testified before the Committee.[271] The heads of Anadarko and Mitsuis exploration unit will testify before the Committee July 22.[272] In a statement made in June the Committee noted that in a number of cases leading up to the explosion, BP appears to have chosen riskier procedures to save time or money, sometimes against the advice of its staff or contractors.[273] On April 30, the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked Halliburton to brief it as well as provide any documents it might have related to its work on the Macondo well.[124] Attention has focused on the cementing procedure and the blowout preventer, which failed to fully engage.[274] A number of significant problems have been identified with the blowout preventer: There was a leak in the hydraulic system that provides power to the shear rams. The underwater control panel had been disconnected from the pipe ram, and instead connected to a test ram. The blowout preventer schematic drawings, provided by Transocean to BP, do not correspond to the structure that is on the ocean bottom. The shear rams are not designed to function on the joints where the drill pipes are screwed together or on tools that are passed through the blowout preventer during well construction. The explosion may have severed the communication line between the rig and the sub-surface blowout preventer control unit such that the blowout preventer would have never received the instruction to engage. Before the backup dead mans switch could engage, communications, power and hydraulic lines must all be severed, but it is possible hydraulic lines were intact after the explosion. Of the two control pods for the deadman switch, the one that has been inspected so far had a dead battery.[275] Employee Tyrone Benton told the BBC on June 21 that a leak was spotted on a crucial piece of equipment in the oil rigs blowout preventer weeks before the accident, and that Transocean and BP were emailed about it.[276] According to the testimony of Doug Brown, the chief mechanic on the Deepwater Horizon, on May 26 at the joint U.S. Coast Guard and Minerals Management Service hearing, a BP representative overruled Transocean employees and insisted on displacing protective drilling mud with seawater just hours before the explosion.[277] One of the BP representatives on the board responsible for making the final decision, Robert Kaluza, refused to testify on the Fifth Amendment grounds that he might incriminate himself; Donald Vidrine, another BP representative, cited medical reasons for his inability to testify, as did James Mansfield, Transoceans assistant marine engineer on board.[278][279][280] In a June 18 statement, Jim Hackett, the CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, said research indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ... BPs behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct.[281] BP responded by strongly disagreeing with the Anadarko statement and said that, despite being contractually liable for sharing clean-up costs, Anadarko is refusing to accept responsibility for oil spill removal costs and damages.[282] BP has sent Anadarko a bill for $272.2 million; Anadarko is assessing our contractual remedies.[73] According to the US Congressional investigation the rigs blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at the base of the well, built by Cameron International Corporation, had a hydraulic leak and a failed battery, and therefore failed.[283]