All the while only a couple of university and "experts" were being interviewed on mainstream media. I observed in May that the University of South Florida, Tampa, appeared to be on the forefront of reporting the presence of oil plumes in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Being a scientist, I wondered, "Where is my alma mater Florida Institute of Technology? Where is the University of Miami? MIT? Woodshole?" The scientific community was totally hush-hush as the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States progressed--and BP's crew of stooges attempted to "plug the hole." What I innately believed to be true and later described on the internet finally upwelled into mainstream news noting BP was "buying up" notable experts at universities for pending lawsuits. Essentially, BP shopped around for experts who were willing to assist BP at hourly rates up to $250/hour in exchange for a three-year gag order on publishing. Universities like Texas A&M, Louisiana State University, and University of Southern Mississippi jumped at the opportunity. Who else may have sold out to BP will only be known in the future.
Now you see it, now you don't!
As the summer months ensued the ecological and economical effects from the Gulf Oil Crisis appeared bleak. BP commercials using homey language "we're gonna' make things right" and daily full-page ads emblazoned BP's image campaign. BP has spent millions to protect its image yet where is pay-out to the gulf region it economically affected?
The daily reports of BP's attempting to cap the well became part of the normal media spectrum (if not a daily joke). Obama and his administration continued to look weak in spite of tough "kick ass" rhetoric. Much to the embarrassment of the "drill baby drill" crowd the worst case scenario of the result of drilling became a reality. Much to dismay of the energy industry, additional spills around the globe (including China, Michigan, and Utah) funneled into the news. Fear of eating Gulf seafood and vacationing on tar-covered sands prevailed. On the bright side the summer gas prices began to lower, possibly to create a warm and fuzzy feeling toward the oil industry. After all, it is an election year. By the end of July, BP's CEO Tony Hayward stepped down from his position with an estimated package worth $18 million.
Low and behold, articles emerged declaring the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico as cleaned up! WTF? Had the Feds called in David Copperfield to make it disappear like an illusion in his Las Vegas show? "New York Times" reporter Justin Gillis presented the results of a NOAA study indicating 74 percent of the 4.9 million barrels of oil evaporated or was skimmed, recovered, or dispersed. He noted the testing of fish had "little cause of worry so far" but possible storms could change the scenario. The NOAA report lists the estimates as follows: 17% recovered, 5% burned, 3% skimmed, 25% evaporated or dissolved, 10% dispersed naturally, 8% broken up by Corexit, and 26% remaining at sea or onshore. Truthfully, only the skimmed and burned estimates can be "real" and the rest are assumptions, fuzzy at best. The report was obviously rushed and molded to fit the agenda that the plume had vanished.
ã ‚¬ ‚¬
I researched Gillis'articles written about the oil spill in the last couple of months and noticed a trend as follows:
May 15--Giant Plume Found Under Gulf of Mexico;
May 19--Scientists fault lack of studies over Gulf Oil Spill;
July 18 --After Oil Spills, Hidden Damage Can Last for Years;
July 28--Gulf Surface Oil Vanishing Quickly; and
Aug 4--Oil in Gulf Poses Only Slight Risk, New U.S. Report Says.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
4
