Project Gulf Impact: One chapter closed, many more remain open

Stories in this series:

• From the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, a new Truther movement is born
• EXCLUSIVE: What’s really going on with Project Gulf Impact?
• Continuing the investigation into Project Gulf Impact: Questions, questions, questions
• Project Gulf Impact and passing the “smell test.”

Last night, Project Gulf Impact posted these two documents on their website:

The Statement of Incorporation contains details that are inconsistent with the query results found earlier this week at the California Secretary of State’s website, and the dates of filing on the two documents are years apart. However, PGI deserves the benefit of the doubt here.  I wrote yesterday that 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,” I’d post it.  They’ve answered the first request well enough and that chapter is closed. 

Interestingly, a few hours after these documents appeared, an accusatory and obscenity-laden diatribe was posted anonymously on yesterday’s comment section, and both site traffic monitors used here pegged the originating IP address to a location in Burbank, California.  Draw your own conclusions there, but the post was deleted and the comments section closed. Let’s behave like reasonable, well-centered grownups here.

While the SOI and Bylaws answer the questions raised regarding PGI’s operation under a legitimate corporate umbrella, a number of other key matters remain unresolved.  Specifically:

Why was PGI’s donation page significantly altered after PGI was contacted with a request for information about it?  PGI made significant changes to their primary fundraising solicitation document—the document they used to solicit the charitable contributions—but only after being alerted that someone was digging.  More troubling is the fact that the changes made to that document removed all of the language that described how the organization would use those funds—after the bulk of the funds were raised.

If I were going to make a donation to a charitable organization, I’d want to know exactly how the organization planned to use my money. Wouldn’t you? And, if the organization suddenly changed its plans to something I was less comfortable with after I’d made my donation—or removed language describing those plans altogether—I’d be pretty upset.  Wouldn’t you?

One of the stated objectives was to “provide teach-ins and workshops on health-related issues.” How many of these events were held?  What were the dates and locations of these events? 

Another of the stated objectives was “to provide aid in the way of supplies, gas cards and other necessary materials for Gulf residents.”  What supplies were provided?  Meals?  Clothing?  Medicine?  Infant formula?  How many gas cards were purchased?  What were the denominations?  Who were they distributed to?  Did PGI conduct any type of eligibility testing to insure that only those truly in need received these resources? It’s unthinkable that PGI went down to Plaquemines Parish Louisiana and simply threw money into the air. 

“Health hazards and prevention will be the primary focus,” PGI’s website said.  What specific health hazards were the focus, and how did PGI endeavor to prevent them?  Did they distribute TyVek© suits? Gas masks and respirators?  To whom?  The website also makes a bare allegation that “residents are currently breathing and being poisoned by toxic elements.” What data has PGI collected to document the alleged poisoning of residents?  Have those data been analyzed in controlled scientific investigations?  What were the results?

The website also flatly stated that “funding will also be used towards independent air and water testing.”  Who are the independent labs PGI used to conduct the air and water tests?  What were the sampling procedures used?  What were the testing protocols employed? What were the results?  How did those results compare with the results of extensive air and water sampling performed by EPA?  EPA’s results found no significant human health hazards.  Does PGI’s data dispute those results? 

Who are the “doctors and experts” that PGI were allegedly connected with?  How was their independence determined?  What were their qualifications?  Are they physicians licensed to practice medicine in the states PGI visited, or are they quacks?  What in their curriculum vitae establishes that they are suitably qualified to serve as experts, and what exactly were they consulted about?  What were their conclusions?  Have their data, analyses and conclusions been peer-reviewed?  Are their analyses published in any scientific journal? 

The number one priority in the now-deleted statements was to “get back down to the Gulf.”  PGI felt that was so important, it was stated twice.  And, by all accounts they did indeed get back down to the Gulf.  What did they do? The aspiring actor, the Southern Cal grad student and the grad student’s girlfriend promptly threw a party for themselves and a few dozen of their very best friends.

Two other questions regarding PGI’s objectivity should be addressed as well. It’s already been established that Mr. Garrison produced a government-funded documentary on global climate change. It’s also been established that PGI has “partnered” with Coffee Party USA, an astroturfed leftist response to the much larger conservative-minded Tea Party grassroots movement that will likely shape the November 2010 election.  And, the aspiring actor’s address to the Netroots Nation 2010 Convention firmly establishes a relationship with that left wing organization.

Remember the last paragraph of the organization’s bylaws (dated October 5, 2006):

Unlike other non-profits, Coffee Party USA is a 501(c)(4) organization, and its contributions are NOT tax deductible.  501(c)(4) organizations do actively participate and intervene in political campaigns, and can spend money on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office. Many of the self-described “grass roots” organizations associated with Net Roots are 501(c)(4) corporations, as well.

It’s difficult to conclude that PGI has violated its own bylaws through formal relationships with left wing political fundraising organizations. It’s a fine line, and PGI seems to have come awfully close to it.  Regardless of whether that line has been crossed, PGI’s relationship with Netroots Nation and Coffee Party USA, combined with Mr. Garrison’s climate change filmography makes one wonder what the real agenda is.

Is it really about improving the plight of Gulf Coast residents, or is it about pushing a radical, leftwing environmental agenda?

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:

• From the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, a new Truther movement is born
• EXCLUSIVE: What’s really going on with Project Gulf Impact?
• Continuing the investigation into Project Gulf Impact: Questions, questions, questions

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.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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. 

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?

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…

"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:”

---

"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.

Jones Act Folly Shows Misguided Priorities

Today's Mobile Press-Register has an insightful editorial urging the Obama regime to suspend enforcement of the Jones Act, allowing foreign-flagged vessels much greater freedom in assisting the domestic fleet in the response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  The editorial board writes, in part:

---

Now, under current law, foreign ships can request individual waivers to enter and exit U.S. ports, but such requests must be reviewed by the Departments of Defense and Energy, plus the Coast Guard, before customs officials can grant them.

That's way too cumbersome and time-consuming for a Gulf Coast awash in oil.

...

The U.S. has said it will accept equipment from several countries. But we cannot afford to tell anyone "thanks, but no thanks," as the president did to the Dutch when they wanted to send ships in the days after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded. Had those ships departed in late April, they already would have spent weeks skimming the oil that is now covering wetlands and wildlife across several states.

---

The editorial goes on to say that this is basically oily water under the Perdido Pass bridge, but it is still very important to point out that incredibly precious time has been squandered by the regime, and this is not even the first--or the worst--instance of thumb-twiddling.  Valuable opportunities to take bold action have presented themselves on numerous occasions since the April 20 explosion, fire and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 men and set off what could become the worst spill in the history of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Consider:

• Crews didn't begin the first "controlled burn" of oil floating atop the water, using specially constructed fire booms, until April 28. The fire booms, which were not on hand (or even within hundreds of miles of the coast) had to be ordered from Ohio. Experts in marine oil spills harshly criticized BP and the federal government, stating that burning procedures were established in plans approved in 1994 and were pre-approved to facilitate rapid response.
• Obama waited until April 29, nine days after the disaster began to declare it a "Spill of National Significance," which only then triggers a federal response under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. On May 1, eleven days into the spill, he named Thad Allen the "National Incident Commander," which only then triggers the organized disaster response protocol known as the National Incident Management System, or NIMS.
• In less that 30 days after the spill began, Congressional Democrats had held no fewer than seven hearings on the accident and the spill.  While Obama can't control the Congress' agenda, to argue that he can't influence it is ridiculous.  Furthermore, hearing after hearing forces the executives and technical experts from BP and federal responders to stop what they're doing, prepare testimony, gather evidence, travel to DC and sit before a bunch of grandstanders.
• On May 22, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser both blasted federal officials, especially the US Army Corps of Engineers, for sitting on permit requests to construct sand berms and protect Louisiana marshes.  Plans were not approved until June 13.
• James Carville famously blasted the regime for not doing enough on the political disaster and inaction.
• The Coast Guard didn't grant approval to attempt the "top kill" (injection of heavy drilling mud into the well) until May 26, a full two weeks after BP submitted plans for the procedure.  While it ultimately failed, the time it took to review those plans and the days lost in attempting the top kill allowed tens of thousands more barrels of oil to flow into the Gulf, and in turn delayed the deployment of the additional vessels now being put in place to capture and either process or burn off oil from the well.
• The regime completely ignored technology used as far back as 1993 by the Saudis, and recommendations of former Shell Oil Company President John Hofmeister.  The strategy calls for deploying a fleet of empty tankers to vacuum huge quantities of oil and water (as in several tens of millions of gallons per day) and transporting them to shore for offloading, separation and processing.  But that, ladies and gentlemen, would require a waiver of the Jones Act.

 Instead of taking bold action to protect the livelihoods and ecological resources of the Gulf Coast, the regime has instead dispatched teams of lawyers to the area.  Suing the well isn't going to make it stop.  And neither are criminal investigations.

Instead of commandeering tankers, waiving the Jones act and clearing the bureaucratic mess that's hampered local and state response "since Day One," the regime manufactured evidence that experts supported a moratorium on deepwater drilling.  In fact, ALL offshore drilling was halted by the regime's bogus and fatally flawed moratorium, and only after a region-wide political and media crap-storm was shallow water drilling allowed to resume on June 8.

The thumb-twiddling, the bureacratic morass, the dispatching of teams of government lawyers, the imposition of draconian, economically disastrous measures to halt drilling, and the stubborn refusal to waive the Jones Act should all be be viewed in the largest possible context.  When you do so, it's hard not to see that the regime's priorities are out of whack.

It appears as if the regime is not nearly as concerned with preventing the damage as it is ensuring that the damage is caused and then amplifying the effects.

Why?

UPDATE: More at Patterico, and more still at Confederate Yankee, and still more at JammieWearingFool.


Gimme some feedback in the comments.