Showing posts with label Oil Spill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Spill. Show all posts

Monday, March 21, 2011

Oil Spill False Alarm

image I woke yesterday to the news that a “massive” new oil slick had been spotted in the Gulf of Mexico, just a few dozen miles away from the site of last year’s Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, fire and ensuing oil spill disaster.

Needless to say, nerves remain on edge and reports of the new spill set alarms off from Lake Charles, Louisiana to Panama City Beach Florida.  Reading some of the news reports, such as this from from NOLA.com, caused me to hold off posting updates. I don’t have a lot of faith in “California-based environmental nonprofit groups, even those with innocuous names like “On Wings of Care.”

As things turned out, I was wise not to fly off the handle and join the hysteria over hyped reports of a 100 mile wide new oil slick. Reports from last night indicate that it’s not an oil spill at all. It’s a bunch of mud from the Mississippi River.

Last Fall, I reported on another California-based nonprofit group, called Project Gulf Impact. PGI reportedly raised a large sum of money through public charitable donations, then abruptly changed their website’s solicitation pages after being alerted that someone was digging into their story. Their website and YouTube pages then carried a slew of scary-sounding stories of poisonings, sickenings and other black helicopter stuff and made the pages of conspiracy theorist websites.

With yesterday’s news of a potential new oil spill, I wondered how long it would take for a “California-based environmental nonprofit group” to fan the flames of controversy and panic, and “On Wings of Care” didn’t disappoint. They were on it within hours. “Like a duck on a June bug,” my grandfather would say.

A solemn anniversary arrives in approximately one month. April 20 marks one year since the Deepwater Horizon suffered a blowout, exploded, caught fire and sank.  Eleven brave men lost their lives in the accident, and millions of gallons of oil were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. Events like this—manmade disasters of such large proportions—inevitably cause the wackos to come out of the woodwork to sell their stories of woe and take advantage of a fearful, nervous public.

Fortunately, we’re likely not seeing a repeat of last year’s disaster. At least not from the news reports we’re seeing this morning. So will the “California-based environmental nonprofit groups” please get their asses back to the left coast? The Gulf Coast doesn’t need any of your help.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Click Here for The Wall Street Journal Bloomberg Businessweek

Thursday, October 7, 2010

The Empire Strikes Back: White House denies it quashed spill reports

Push Back:


WASHINGTON — The White House is pushing back against accusations that the administration blocked government scientists from telling the public just how bad the BP oil spill could become.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs says the White House never tried to withhold “the most accurate and timely information” on the amount of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico as soon as it became available.


Oh yes they did.

The time frame referenced in the Commission’s report was around April 29, the White House’s "WTF moment.” This is the approximate time frame that new sources of leaking oil were discovered.  This was also about the time that El Presidente decided that he wouldn’t visit the Gulf, then panicked and reversed himself.

At this point, the public was getting angrier and angrier at the lack of a coordinated response, and this is when the regime started the tough talk.  The boot on the throat stuff.

In this environment, does anyone really think the White House is going to let a worse case scenario estimate of spill quantity get out there in the news cycle?

Despite the regime’s best efforts to quash the data, the Mobile Press-Register’s Ben Raines had already documented the existence of the “war room” memo.  Raines mentions that in his story in the Press-Register today.

Project Gulf Impact and passing the “smell test”

Stories in this series:

Yesterday, the investigation into Project Gulf Impact continued with the revelation that after being contacted via email and asked to provide information and comment, and after this blog ran its exclusive story investigating the background of the organization’s membership and political connects, PGI altered their website to remove information provided to prospective contributors regarding how their donations would be used.

Today, we continue to “ask questions” and “seek the truth.”  After all, isn’t that what PGI is supposed to be all about?  Seeking truth?

This organization still doesn’t quite pass the smell test.

PGI’s new donation page still maintains that it is operating under California law and is seeking federal 501(c)(3) status.  Continued, in-depth investigation cannot verify that this is the case.

To assist prospective charities in forming their organization and preparing the proper documentation, the Attorney General’s Office for the State of California has published a Guide for Charities (1.46mb PDF). From that document:


A California nonprofit public benefit corporation is formed by completing the steps summarized here:

  1. Choose a corporate name.
  2. Draft and file articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State.
  3. Draft the bylaws of the corporation.
  4. Draft action of incorporator and have it signed by all incorporators.
  5. File federal application for employer identification number (EIN) with the IRS.
  6. File a statement by domestic nonprofit corporation. The Statement by Domestic Nonprofit Corporation is sent by the Secretary of State within 90 days of filing Articles of Incorporation.  You must complete and return this statement to the Secretary of State.
  7. Register with the Attorney General's Registry of Charitable Trusts. Charities must register with the Attorney General’s Office within 30 days after receiving their first assets by filing Articles of Incorporation and bylaws with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and pay a $25 registration fee. Organizations must renew registration and file financial reports annually thereafter.
  8. Hold first meeting of directors.
  9. File application for exemption from federal income taxes with the IRS and state income taxes  with the California Franchise Tax Board.
  10. Review the corporation's need for state and local permits and licenses and establish procedures  to meet deadlines for required periodic filings with the IRS, FTB, Secretary of State and Attorney General. This procedure is important to keep the organization in good standing and avoid the need to pay delinquency fees.

This investigation didn’t get past the second step. Like most states, the California Secretary of State’s office maintains a search facility that allows queries of its database of domestic stock, domestic nonprofit and qualified foreign corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships’ information of record.

On October 6 and October 7, 2010 a set of exhaustive queries of that database were conducted, and there were no results consistent with PGI’s public statements and published web pages.

Searching by corporation name, the following searches provided zero consistent records on each attempt:

  • Project Gulf Impact
  • Project Gulf
  • Gulf Impact
  • Project Impact
  • Laws of the Ocean
  • Law Ocean
  • Ocean Law

The search term “project impact” did produce results.  However, none of the corporations listed showed any of PGI’s principals as the incorporator; some had been dissolved and others were incorporated many years before PGI was alleged to have been formed.

UPDATE: A commenter notes a typographical error and provides additional information. The search terms “project impact” and “Laws of the Ocean” did produce results.  However, none of the corporations listed showed any of PGI’s principals as the incorporator; some had been dissolved and others were incorporated several years before PGI was alleged to have been formed.

Searching by Limited Liability Company/Limited Partnership Name, the following searches also provided zero consistent records:

  • Project Gulf Impact
  • Project Gulf
  • Gulf Impact
  • Project Impact
  • Laws of the Ocean
  • Law Ocean
  • Ocean Law

These query results strongly suggest Project Gulf Impact is unlikely to be a California charity or charitable trust and in turn, the organization would likely have insufficient documentation to file for federal 501(c)(3) status.

However, as has been documented in the stories published earlier this week, the organization has actively sought contributions under those names and under the guise of operating as a non-profit, charitable organization. And, as has been documented in public interviews, radio broadcasts, public statements and this series, the organization appears to have used those funds for travel, entertainment and other purposes, and despite requests no documentation has been provided for those expenses.

Furthermore, this series shows that the organization changed the language on its website after being made aware that there were questions about its fundraising and activities in Louisiana.  The changes were made after the organization apparently concluded a summer fundraising drive using the website as its primary source of information about how donations would be used.

With this being the case, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that California and/or federal laws may have been violated.  Accordingly, all of the information and documentation collected during this investigation have been turned over to the California Attorney General’s office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Since the organization has apparently established an office in Port Sulphur, LA, the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office has also been notified.

This blog will monitor developments and post updates as they become available.

UPDATE II: In response to reader email—if PGI’s principals provide documentation showing that they are indeed a legitimate charitable organization and that the use of funds were consistent with the stated goals of the organization, then this blog would acknowledge and print that information.  However, as of this date, the organization has still not responded to a request for it.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Continuing the investigation into Project Gulf Impact: Questions, questions, questions

Interesting.  Soon after this blog post was published, the PGI website made changes to its donation page.  The information shown on the new page is much different from the previous version, snapshot here:
image_thumb1
The organization still claims to be working under California law regarding non-profit organizations, and still claims to be pursuing Federal 501(c)(3) status. 

Gone however, are the paragraphs describing how the organization intended to use funds raised through donations.  Is there something to hide, here? This doesn’t look good, folks.  PGI was contacted via email at 8:40 am CDT on October 5, 2010, and asked to provide specifics regarding its charitable status.  As of this post’s publish time of 8:53 pm CDT on October 5, 2010, the organization had not responded.  As of the current post’s publish time of 4:10 pm CDT on October 6, 2010, the organization had still not responded.

Yet, after being contacted via email and after the story ran yesterday, PGI has made significant changes to their primary fundraising solicitation document—the document they used to solicit the charitable contributions documented in the previous post.

PGI should answer the following requests so that donors can determine whether the organization is operating in an honorable way:
  1. Please provide the name and/or contact information for the individual responsible for maintaining your organization's charitable trust or charity status.
  2. Please provide the name and/or contact information for the individual at the University of Southern California responsible for the University's status as your fiscal sponsor.
  3. Please provide the approximate amount of travel and related expenses in connection with members’ most recent trip to the Gulf Coast.
  4. Please provide the approximate amount of expenses associated with leasing, purchasing and/or occupying the organization’s headquarters in Port Sulphur, Louisiana.
  5. Please provide information on the workshops and “teach-ins” on health-related issues identified in the earlier fundraising solicitation page.
  6. Please provide the approximate amount of funds expended to purchase “aid in the way of supplies, gas cards and other necessary materials for Gulf residents,” as mentioned in the earlier fundraising solicitation page.
  7. Please provide details regarding and the approximate costs of  “the independent air and water testing” activities mentioned in the earlier fundraising solicitation page.
  8. Please provide the names, qualifications and curriculum vitae of the “independent doctors and experts” mentioned in the earlier fundraising solicitation page.
  9. Please provide any information regarding the degree of financial support that PGI is receiving from Coffee Party USA.
  10. Please provide any information regarding the degree of financial support that PGI is receiving from Netroots Nation.
These are not difficult questions to answer.  If PGI is indeed operating in a lawful and honorable manner, this information will be readily available.  PGI need not contact this blog or its staff.  Posting the information in a public area on the PGI website will suffice.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

EXCLUSIVE: What’s really going on with Project Gulf Impact?

UPDATE: Story continues here.
Last week, this blog introduced you to Project Gulf Impact, an organization putatively set up to raise money for providing information about the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and humanitarian assistance to the spill’s victims.  The group’s videos and interviews have become favorites of conspiracy theorists and they are exemplified by the story linked in my original post. The conspiracy nuts love PGI’s dispatches because they routinely suggest a massive coverup of environmental and health effects related to the spill.  New evidence suggests that PGI may not be the humanitarian foundation its principals claim it to be.  Instead, the evidence shows that the organization has strong left-wing and environmentalist ties and may not be a legitimate non-profit organization at all.
The principal director of the group was a featured speaker at Netroots Nation 2010 convention, is connected with a NOAA-funded climate change videographer, and is directly tied with a former Barack Obama political operative.

In last week’s post, I identified one of the organization’s founders as Gavin Garrison, a graduate student and filmmaker at the University of Southern California.  Mr. Garrison was the individual who registered the organization’s domain name and established its website.

Mr. Garrison’s work includes a NOAA-sponsored film on the climate change debate, called Proof or Propaganda.  Climate change skeptics should probably avoid watching it.

Additional research has revealed that the organization’s co-founders are Matt Smith, a 22-year old aspiring actor; and Richard Virgen, a self-described “freelance celebrity” (warning: obscene gesture imagery at the link).  Virgen has also been listed as the “Producer” on a number of the organizations videos hosted on its site and at YouTube.

UPDATE: Independent investigation and subsequent corroboration have determined that Mr. Virgen is no longer associated with PGI.

Reading Mr. Smith’s blog indicates that his motives for beginning the organization were purely driven by concern over what he perceived as a human tragedy unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. It gives the distinct impression that Project Gulf Impact was formed as a noble and worthy humanitarian cause.

However, judging from the content and tone of his interviews with Intel Hub and the videos posted on his organization’s site, combined with his organization’s intense drive for contributions, it looks doubtful that humanitarian goodwill is the only motivation.  Further, we could substantiate no information that confirms Project Gulf Impact is a legitimate non-profit organization, and the organization itself did not respond to a request for information regarding its status.  Further still, we did substantiate the organization’s leftist ties. 

The radio interviews, some conducted as late as September 20, make unsubstantiated claims that massive amounts of oil are still floating around in the Gulf of Mexico; that dispersant chemicals—including conspiracy theorist boogeyman Corexit 9500—are still being sprayed by BP and/or the United States Government; and that there are scores of people suffering from mysterious ailments.

These allegations are difficult to corroborate.

Spokesmen for the Unified Command Center in Mobile, AL and BP North America in Houston, TX both stated that for weeks they have received no reports of significant quantities of oil on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico and that both aerial and subsurface applications of dispersant were halted weeks ago.  The USCG official noted that the government was no longer publishing oil spill slick trajectory maps because no significant surface oil could be found just weeks after the successful July 15 capping of the well. Neither spokesman had heard reports of large-scale illnesses among Gulf Coast residents. Without prompting, both spokesmen provided hotline numbers for anyone to call and report such problems.  For oil at sea or on land, people are encouraged to call 1-866-448-5816.  For medical emergencies related to oil-related sickness or poison control, people are encouraged to call (800) 222-1222.

SmithTweet01 So why would Project Gulf Impact’s principals still be reporting that things are getting worse rather than better, and that people are still getting sick? Despite every credible and reasonable source stating unequivocally that the oil is virtually gone and that the Gulf’s healing is occurring more rapidly than expected, these people are still claiming that the disaster is getting worse.  Why?

Could there be a financial motivation?

The organization’s website has a donation page, snapshot here:
image

The text from the page (emphasis mine):

Your contributions to Project Gulf Impact will help get back down to the Gulf to report the truth and get people out of the area to avoid the growing health risks.
Register for The Spill Was Just The Beginning: Project Gulf Impact Online Awareness Fundraiser in Plaquemine, LA  on Eventbrite
Project Gulf Impact is currently working under the CA non-profit organization status of “Law of the Oceans” as it files for its own non-profit corporation and for 501(c)(3) status. Currently, we are seeking a fiscal sponsor for the organization to ensure that donations are properly tax-exempt. This is a common situation for start up non-profits, especially one that’s genesis was under a month and a half ago.
The funds will be going to two [sic] places:
1) To get Project Gulf Impact back down to the Gulf in order to continue filming and updating the world on what is happening in the Gulf. The team has already received over 250,000 YouTube views and is focused on telling the truth and exposing the human health hazards in the area.
2) The funding will also be used in relief efforts in the Gulf. The group is specifically focused on the human health hazards in the Gulf. They will be setting up a campaign headquarters to provide teach-ins and workshops on health-related issues, to act as a clearinghouse for information and resources in the Gulf (a huge missing piece of the relief efforts currently going on in the Gulf) and to provide aid in the way of supplies, gas cards and other necessary materials for Gulf residents. Health hazards and prevention will be the primary focus as many residents are currently breathing and being poisoned by toxic elements with no means of protecting themselves.
3) The funding will also be used towards independent air and water testing.
The team is connected with doctors and experts who are ready to chip in and start getting this going as soon as the team gets back down to the Gulf.
Project Gulf Impact’s video page contains a variety of videos filmed by the team that are heartbreaking testaments to the health and financial troubles being faced by Gulf residents.

On its website, PGI lists Coffee Party USA as one if its partners.  The Coffee Party is a cheap, astroturfed response to the Tea Party movement, a real grassroots organization that is still growing in influence and political punch. The Coffee Party founder, Annabel Park, is a former Barack Obama political operative with a specialty in documentary filmmaking.
 
And, fundraising.

SmithTweet02 Using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Project Gulf Impact conducted an intense and coordinated fundraising effort through much of July and August. 

Principals and activist volunteers furiously hammered out tweets and facebook messages requesting small donations.  The organization’s website, twitterfeeds and facebook posts specifically mention plans for the organization to return to Louisiana.

That fundraising effort appears to have culminated with Smith’s speech to the Netroots Nation 2010 Convention.  In his address, Smith lays the schmooze on hard and thick.  In it, he says “people are dying.”  That’s violin music to netroots’ ears. 

Netroots2010
There are no documents describing how much money was raised, but Mr. Garrison is a filmmaker and grad student at USC and Mr. Smith’s primary residence is in Hollywood’s backyard.  Mr. Garrison has already made one left-leaning documentary, and Mr. Smith has already made two single-episode appearances in a pair of popular TV series. It’s fair to speculate that the pair’s Hollywood connections, the speech before the Netroots Nation Convention and the “partnership” with Coffee Party astroturfers makes for an attractive fundraising base.

But what would they do with the money?

Shortly after the netroots speech, the urgent requests for funding stopped and at some point in early September, the crew reassembled in Plaquemines Parish, ostensibly traveling using the charitable donations solicited by the group and raised during the June-August push.

However, research conducted in preparation for this story was unable to locate a non-profit or charitable organization registered in either the state of California or with the IRS.  Initial research consisted of searches of the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts using various search terms, including Law of the Oceans; starts-with Law; starts-with Project; and includes Project Impact.  The searches, conducted October 3 and 4, 2010, produced no filings consistent with Project Impact’s alleged founder in 2010 or putative status.

Additional research conducted on October 4 and 5, 2010 consisted of queries to the IRS’ Search for Charities database.  Queries included search terms identical to the ones used on the California Attorney General’s website.  The queries again produced no results consistent with the organization’s founders or putative status.

Similar queries were used on the Louisiana Secretary of State’s website, also with zero results.

Project Gulf Impact did not respond to an email request sent to the website’s contact address regarding the organization’s status.

Without access to these filings, and in the absence of financial reports detailing the organization’s sources and uses of funds, it is nearly impossible to determine whether Project Gulf Impact is honorably and legally conducting a charitable, humanitarian effort on the Gulf Coast.  How does a donor know where their money is being spent?  Is it on charitable, humanitarian efforts?

image Do these efforts include a party and BBQ in Port Sulphur, LA?  The snapshot on the right shows a public invitation on Facebook for an event that was held on September 10.  The invitation page shows that as many as 43 people were in attendance.  While a “potluck” party in Port Sulphur is certainly no gala extravagance, an event like that is still not free.  One wonders if fresh Gulf Seafood was part of the menu. One also wonders whether well-meaning donors in faraway places like Ohio and Nevada would approve of their charitable donations being used to entertain a few dozen young adults on a Friday night.

During my online investigations and interviews with residents, officials and knowledgeable sources in the Gulf of Mexico area, including local government, law enforcement and military contacts in Port Sulphur, New Orleans, and Jesuit Bend in Louisiana; Mobile in Alabama and Pensacola/Gulf Breeze in Florida, two other names popped up in connection with Project Gulf Impact:  Casey Nunez of New Orleans and Gregg Hall of Pensacola Beach.  I can find no principal or financial connection between PGI and these two individuals.  Though the two gentlemen were described to me as “colorful” and might be considered unconventional, they appear to be bit players or volunteers whose interests and circle of friends intersected coincidentally with those of PGI. 

In fact, it appears that a lot of people have been caught up in a new truther conspiracy, cooked up by the usual conspiracy hawking suspects and perpetuated by a group of very slick, polished actors through the well-meaning largesse of charitable contributions from the public.  PGI has strong left-leaning connections, including the Coffee Party and the Netroots organization.

It is very difficult to conclude that PGI is a non-partisan, non-political organization with purely humanitarian goals.  Indeed, it appears to be another astroturfing effort organized by the environmental left, with questionable credentials as a non-profit organization.

Again, Project Gulf Impact was contacted prior to publication, and did not respond to a request for information regarding their charitable status.

Page linked by Doug Ross @ Journal.  Thanks!
Page linked by Dan Riehl @ Carnivorous Conservative. Thanks!
The story continues here…

Thursday, September 9, 2010

"We have a situation," the assistant driller said. "The well is blown out.”

The Associated Press has a riveting account of the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig’s last hours.  Three days before the fateful blowout, explosions and fire that killed 11 men, sunk the rig and set off the nation’s worst marine oil spill, senior Halliburton technical adviser Jesse Gagliano warned colleagues that “we have a potential problem here:”


Gulf Oil Spill Investigation "We have a potential problem here," the Halliburton employee told 3 colleagues he met in the hallway in BP PLC's Houston headquarters. He said his computer model was predicting a "serious gas flow problem" with BP's well abandonment plan.

His idea for addressing the issue would never be carried out. BP decided it wasn't necessary. Five days later, on April 20, the well blew out, causing the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

In an internal report released Wednesday, BP stood by its decision, saying Gagliano's plan would not have stopped the explosion.

The disagreement was just one of several that emerged in the days and hours before the blast, according to BP's report and e-mails, documents and testimony gathered by federal investigators. Confusion surrounded crucial tasks and frustration rose among people involved.

BP operated the well, Transocean owned the rig and Halliburton carried out the cement job. They had to work together.  Yet key plans kept changing. Critical tests meant to ensure the well would be safely cemented were not going smoothly.

Gagliano's computer model exposed yet another possible problem. The longtime technical adviser concluded that the cementing operation needed more centralizers, devices designed to ensure that the casing — or drilling pipe — runs down the center of the wellbore to increase the chance for a perfect seal and prevent leaks. BP had planned to run six centralizers and had them onboard.

After a corridor chat with BP's senior drilling engineer, Gagliano worked up more models. By the evening of April 15, Gagliano had a model with 21 centralizers that resolved the gas flow problem. The 15 additional centralizers were acquired and scheduled for delivery the next morning, in time for the Halliburton cementers to do the job.

BP drilling engineer Brett Cocales learned the next afternoon, April 16, that his company's engineers had decided against using the additional centralizers because of questions about their mechanical integrity. Members of a BP investigation panel said Wednesday that those concerns were unfounded because engineers were mistaken about which centralizers had been shipped.

In an e-mail to fellow drilling engineer Brian Morel, Cocales explained the extra centralizers could help meet the goal of inserting the casing properly. Then he continued:


"But who cares? It's done. We'll probably get a good cement job," he wrote, frustrated it had taken so long to make a decision.


Obviously, they didn’t get a good cement job at all, because four days after Cocales’ and Morel’s email exchange, a methane gas bubble erupted through the well, displacing mud and seawater on its way through the crown of the Deepwater Horizon.  A series of mistakes aboard the well then let the gas escape and reach an ignition source.

By all means, go read AP correspondent Ramit Plushnick-Masti’s account of the events, conversations and people involved.

But as I pointed out here yesterday, this is an account of a chain of events in which had someone made the right choice at any point in the process, the disaster would have likely been averted or the blowout brought under control. Instead, the rig was doomed by a cascading series of missteps, from failing to insure that a “fool proof blowout preventer” was indeed foolproof during testing; failing to heed Gagliano’s advice on centralizers; Vidrine’s decision to displace the mud with seawater; the crew’s failure to implement emergency procedures once they realized that the well was gonna go.

A tragic series of events indeed, but a series of events that is exceedingly rare in today’s oil and gas exploration industry.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Featured in the News: Financial Regulation done. Pharma Reg next?

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Could Federal Thumb-twiddling Have Led to Disaster?

Former oil spill response coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ron Gouget, says that federal officials should have started burning off oil much sooner, even immediately after the event:


Ron Gouget, who also managed Louisiana's oil response team for a time, said federal officials missed a narrow window of opportunity to gain control of the spill by burning last week, before the spill spread hundreds of miles across the Gulf, and before winds began blowing toward shore.

He also said the heavy use of dispersants instead of burning the oil has likely knocked so much oil into the water column that portions of the Gulf may be on the threshold of becoming toxic to marine life. Add in the oil spreading into the water as it rises from the seafloor, and Gouget said he expected officials would have to begin limiting the use of the dispersants.


There's more at the link, but if Gouget is correct, then federal officials appear to have completely blown the response. What may have been a garden variety spill now has the potential to wreak havoc on one of the most productive and pristine shorelines in the country. Some experts are saying that the spill could grow into one of the worst in US history.

Why didn't Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano use the in-situ burn procedure sooner? I am not a big conspiracy buff at all, but there's something fishy here, and it's not the smell of rotting seafood floating in black soup.

Whether through incompetence, apathy or outright political malice, DHS knew last week that in-situ burning of oil was a viable alternative in their response strategy, and they failed to employ it. The question is, why?


Extra Point: Money Quote from Gouget: "This whole thing has been a daily strip tease. At first they thought it was just the diesel, then they said the well wasn't leaking. It's unfortunate they didn't get the burning going right away. They could have gotten 90 percent of the oil before it spread."