\nbefore they begin drilling in American offshore waters. Minerals Management
\nService safety <\/em>regulators are supposed<\/em> to scrutinize those plans
\nbefore signing off on them. But it’s looking more and more like no one bothered to
\nread BP’s backup plan before the Deepwater Horizon rig began drilling
\n35,000 feet below the ocean’s surface.\n<\/p>\n
Here’s the evidence:\n<\/p>\n
1. BP mentions sea lions, 2. BP’s “plan” offers a Japanese home shopping site<\/a> as the link to one of its “primary 3. The “plan” included no 4. The “plan” includes no 5. The “plan” directs BP 6. The “plan” included no 7. The nearly 600 pages of “This response plan is not worth the paper it is written on,” Steiner said in a prepared statement. “Incredibly, this voluminous document never once discusses how to stop a deep Even if BP tried to craft a decent plan, all such contingency plans Good times, huh? If the giant bleeding gash in the earth has you bummed out, go check out some constructive responses<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n (Big hat tip to PEER<\/a> for its work.)\n<\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n The gulf oil spill in video<\/a><\/p>\n BP gears up for ‘top kill’ to plug oil leak, despite doubts<\/a><\/p>\n
\nseals, sea otters, walruses in its Oil
\nSpill Response Plan<\/a> for the Gulf of
\nMexico region<\/em>. The geniuses who wrote the plan either don’t know
\njack about wildlife, or they cribbed text out of a plan for the Arctic region.\n<\/p>\n
\nequipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for] rapid deployment
\nof spill response resources on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis.” Apparently the
\nsite didn’t have a 100-ton underwater containment dome in stock—it took rescue workers days
\nto build one in an early attempt to stop the leak … which failed.\n<\/p>\n
\ninformation about tracking sub-surface oil plumes from deepwater blowouts,
\nalthough more oil may be spreading below the surface than at the top.\n<\/p>\n
\noceanic or meteorological data, despite the ocean-floor site in a hurricane-prone region.\n<\/p>\n
\nmedia spokespeople to never make “promises that property, ecology, or anything else
\nwill be restored to normal.” Sounds like weasely responsibility-dodging,
\nalthough this may be more honest than the company intended.\n<\/p>\n
\nmeasures for preventing disease (viruses and bacteria) transmission to captured
\nanimals in rehab facilities. This was found to be a major risk after the Exxon
\nValdez<\/em> spill, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
\n(PEER), which analyzed<\/a> the response plan and culled these absurd lapses in common sense.\n<\/p>\n
\nthe “plan” consist largely of lists, phone numbers and blank forms, according
\nto PEER Board Member Rick Steiner, a marine professor and conservationist who
\ntracked the Exxon Valdez spill.\n<\/p>\n
\nwater blowout even though BP has significant deep water operations in the
\nGulf.”\n<\/p>\n
\nare basically “fantasy documents,” according to Rutgers sociologist Lee Clarke,
\nwho studies disasters. “These documents let everybody get through the day,” he
\ntold Grist<\/a>. “They provide comfort that risks are under control. The plans
\nare based on assumptions that you can control the uncontrollable, and the truth
\nis there’s nothing much that can be done.”\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"