The sick children of the Gulf of Mexico

Unfinished Business: The Unspoken Link Between Dispersants and Sick Children in the Gulf of Mexico

Riki Ott - Marine toxicologist and Exxon Valdez survivor

Huffington Post,

26 April, 2012

All six of Julie Creppel's young children are sick. Vomiting. Blisters all over their bodies, even in their throats. Boils. Severe headaches that wake them up screaming at night. Nausea. Fevers. Diarrhea. Stomach spasms that contort their bodies in pain. Skin lesions. Psoriasis. Nose bleeds that gush unexpectedly. Respiratory infections. Dizziness. Sinus infections. Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease. Hair loss. And more.

The Creppels live in Boothville, La., in south Plaquemines Parrish. Area health clinics and hospitals are experiencing an influx of sick children for treatment for a range of symptoms that began after the BP oil disaster. The increase in numbers of sick children coincides with the massive spraying of toxic chemical dispersants into the water and air that began in 2010. More troubling is the fact that the children are still having these symptoms to this day.

The Corexit dispersants used in the Gulf are known human health hazards, causing eye and skin irritation, respiratory problems, harm to liver, kidney, and blood cells, injury and even death to unborn babies, immune suppression, skin disorders, and more.

Not surprisingly, the symptoms Julie's children suffer are epidemic across the Gulf states that were impacted by the BP disaster -- and the secondary disaster, the widespread use of Nalco's Corexit dispersants. Most medical doctors in the Gulf have continuously treated the sick with standard drugs used for infections and viruses. Nasonex. Citirizine. DryMax. Azithromycin. Zofran. Cefdinir. Xopenex. Amoxicilin. Flovent. Suprax. Viravan-P. Albuterol. Cefixime. Ichitha ointment. Budesonide. And more.

Some of these are potent drugs that children should not be taking for long periods of time because of side effects, including, ironically, many of the very symptoms being treated. They are taking the drugs for months and now even years because the children (and adults) are not getting better. So the medical doctors prescribe more drugs, but the persistence of the symptoms belies the diagnoses.

This child suffers from frequent spontaneous nose bleeds, a symptom consistent with chemical exposure. (photo courtesy Kindra Arnesen.)

The same child also experiences unexplained hair loss. (photo courtesy Kindra Arnesen.)

It should be clear to the medical community by now that they are misdiagnosing the illness and mistreating the patient. I believe the children are suffering from chemical illness, not from biological agents. This should have been clear back in 2010 after the first six to eight rounds of antibiotics and medication prescribed for babies, elders, coastal residents, visitors, and spill responders didn't clear the symptoms. It should have been clear two years after the disaster in March 2012 when BP completely reversed its position of denial of any harm to human health from oil-dispersant exposure and listed pages of same symptoms and illnesses that people had been reporting for two years as now covered by the BP medical benefits settlement (Exhibit 8) -- so-called, I can only suppose, because it mostly benefits BP, but that's another story.

The problem is the illnesses ­­-- like BP's oil­­ -- just don't "go away" because it's an inconvenience for oil companies and the federal government in charge of an impossible situation: There is no way to clean up oil spills, including tar sands spills. But there are many ways to lessen the impacts to workers and the public, none of which have been done to date in the Gulf.

Plenty has been done to lessen the liability and financial impacts to BP and the other companies involved in this tragedy. The most recent injustice was when U.S. District Judge Barbier dismissed Nalco from lawsuits over health problems stemming from use of its products. Barbier shielded Nalco from liability because, he reasoned, the dispersants had been approved by the federal government, and in most cases pre-approved by the Gulf states for use during spill response. The judge also was noted that a lawsuit might have a "chilling" effect on future use of these same dispersants in oil spill response -- exactly the opposite effect desired by the federal government and the oil industry.

The two main dispersants stockpiled in the United States for use on future spills are Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A -- the same dispersants that were known to be harmful to ecosystems and humans before the BP disaster, and that proved to be so after the disaster. These two dispersants are stockpiled in coastal communities around the contiguous United States and in Alaska and Hawaii. Most are owned either by the U.S. Coast Guard regional strike teams or the major national Oil Spill Response Organizations.

The federal government shields itself from any liability for use of these and other dangerous oil spill response products. Even worse, the federal government now considers human health an acceptable "risk tradeoff" for dispersant use. The March 2012 Dispersant Use Initiative, a document intended to guide and plan research needs and decision-making in future spills, states that key needs include, among others, "understanding risk to workers and public safety, and communicating the risk successfully, andunderstanding the trade offs of using dispersants with respect to human health" (emphasis added).


In other words, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico could happen to anyone who lives or works near, or recreates, or visits America's coasts. Many of the same chemicals in dispersants are also ingredients in diluents for tar sands and drilling fluids for hydraulic fracturing and manufactured by -- guess who -- Nalco. We need to stick together on this one, or all get sick together. Making it right in the Gulf is up to all of us before the next marine oil disaster.

Here are some suggestions for how YOU can help make it right in the Gulf.

1. Write a short letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in support of the People's Petition to amend the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan to ban toxic chemicals, including Corexit dispersants, from use in U.S. territorial waters. The letter should refer the People's Petition, document number AX120019088, and state who you are, why you care, and what you want the EPA to do. Personal letters carry more weight than form letters. Mail to: Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

2. Find out what dispersants or products are stockpiled in your backyard for oil spill response. Start by contacting your State Emergency Response Commission (google State name + SERC). The SERC page will list all the Local Emergency Planning Committees. Contact an LEPC near you and ask for a complete list of oil spill response products, which they will have as required under the Community Right-to-Know Act. For coastal communities, I would be surprised if that list did not include the ubiquitous Corexit dispersants. Raise local support to have your municipality pass a rights-based resolution to ban toxic dispersants and chemicals during oil spill response within the city's jurisdiction. A resolution template is available at www.ultimatecivics.org.

3. Ask your congressional delegates to hold hearings to investigate the link between Corexit dispersants and public health, especially children's health, in the Gulf of Mexico. Ask your delegates to support banning Corexit dispersants used during the BP Gulf disaster, as human health "tradeoffs" cannot be justified.

I would like to personally appeal to Warren Buffet to fund community health clinics in the Gulf of Mexico. His stock trading company Berkshire Hathaway bought shares of Nalco in 2009 before the BP disaster as an investment on water filtration, which at the time was most of Nalco's business. Berkshire divested its Nalco holdings in late 2010 -- after Nalco made millions in dispersant sales. The idea for community health clinics originated within the impacted communities as a way of getting treatment for immediate needs, but it was cherry-picked by BP as the centerpiece of BP's medical benefits settlement. One clinic in particular in Jean Lafitte, La., was ready to open its door to clients in fall 2011 but the doors remain closed because the settlement is stalled in court. Opening that clinic, now and independent of BP controls embedded in the settlement, could be done with private donations to the Jean Lafitte Health Clinic.

Early into the BP disaster, I warned people about the short- and long-term consequences of exposure to oil and dispersants. Now those consequences are hitting home -- especially vulnerable are the children. Don't believe those BP ads. We need to all help make this right for real.

Riki Ott will be touring the Gulf of Mexico in February, helping communities organize at the grassroots level to ban toxic chemical dispersants. Persons interested in hosting a training should contact via her web site, www.RikiOtt.com.

China rejects US sanctions

-- How different this is from western, corporate-owned media reporting. This is Iran's Press TV quoting the Chinese Foreign Ministry directly in an interview China gave to Iran. So when you hear U.S. and European mainstream talk that the U.S. has gotten China to go along with the embargo, you know somebody's lying. But what's scary is that it is so transparently obvious. The United States government couldn't find its way out of the restroom right now. -- MCR

China: US has no right to impose unilateral sanctions against Iran

China has rejected new US sanctions on Iranian oil imports by other countries saying that Washington has no right to enforce unilateral sanction on other nations according to its domestic law..

Press TV,

31 March, 2012

"The Chinese side always opposes one country unilaterally imposing sanctions against another according to [its] domestic law. Furthermore it does not accept the unilateral imposition of those sanctions on a third country," China’s Foreign Ministry said in a brief statement on Saturday, Associated Press reported.

On Friday, US President Barack Obama gave the green light for fresh sanctions against foreign banks and other financial institutions by or through which Iran’s oil is purchased. The move would allow the US to take measures against foreign banks that deal with Iranian crude.

New sanctions aim to force major importers of Iranian crude, namely China, South Korea, India, Japan and the European Union, to "significantly reduce" oil imports from Iran or face being frozen out of the US financial system.

The White House insists there’s enough oil in the market to fill the gap caused by a reduction in oil exports from Iran.

"There is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions," Obama said.

Despite US assurances, there are concerns about disruptions in oil supply. The sanctions have already led to a surge in global oil prices. Rising gasoline prices have become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign.

China is one of the biggest importers of Iranian oil, and has so far withstood US pressure to cut oil imports from Iran.

Britain beats the war drums

Over a barrel: UK pushes Iran oil ban, military action on table

RT,

16 January, 2012

The military showdown in the Persian Gulf seems even more inevitable, with the UK foreign secretary not ruling out military action against Iran. Applying even more pressure to the country, Europe may ban Iranian oil imports by the end of the month.

The UK will continue to pursue a diplomatic solution to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, although, according to the UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, his country has not “ruled out any option, or supporting any option.” 

“We believe all options should be on the table, that is part of the pressure on Iran, but we are clearly not calling for or advocating military action," Hague said. 

European foreign ministers are expected to meet on January 23 and Hague believes that the EU will come to an agreement on the measures against Iran. His remark of a military action still being on the table is the latest play in the game of threat and counter-threat unfolding around Iran.

"We are advocating meaningful negotiations, if Iran will enter into them, and the increasing pressure of sanctions to try to get some flexibility from Iran," Hague said.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said that the new sanctions would help to cut off funding to Iran's controversial nuclear program.

"So with new sanctions that we want to approve this month, we are now targeting the heart of the Iranian nuclear program: its oil and, with that, its sources of financing," Westerwelle said as cited by the Associated Press. "But the door to dialogue with Iran remains open at the same time."

Iran is OPEC’s second-largest oil producer and the third-largest crude oil exporter in the world, according to US Energy Information Administration.

Such countries as the UK and Germany have only about 1 per cent of Iranian oil in their total imports at the moment. Meanwhile, debt-stricken Italy, Spain, and Greece depend quite significantly on exports from Iran, with Iranian oil constituting around 13 per cent of total crude imports to each of these countries in 2011.

As a whole, Iran’s export volume to the EU countries had decreased to 18 per cent of total crude exports by the middle of 2011. At the same time, China, India, and South Korea have increased their imports of Iranian oil. Iran exports 22 per cent of its oil to China alone, with Japan, India, and South Korea consuming 14, 13 and 10 per cent of Iran’s total exports respectively.

In 2010, Iran's total oil export revenues amounted to approximately US$81 billion, according to the IMF, and in 2011 Iran’s revenues are estimated to have risen to around $100 billion. 

Iran's oil exports have already been affected by sanctions. In 2011, Iran experienced significant problems with receiving payments from India, when the Reserve Bank of India halted a clearing mechanism. And with the latest round of US sanctions targeting Iran’s financial sector, Iran is expected to have even more troubles receiving payments from most of his clients.

Meanwhile, a group of UN experts has identified that Iran violated the arms embargo set up by UNSC by exporting military equipment to the Syrian regime among other things, the French Foreign Ministry said on Monday. Iran is forbidden from importing or export weapons or ammunition under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions dating 2007 and 2010.

"These arms deliveries are illegal and deeply shocking because they benefit a regime that has chosen a kind of repression that the UN rights council has repeatedly said constitutes 'crimes against humanity'," said spokesman Romain Nadal. 

Washington is beefing up its naval presence in waters just outside the Gulf in response to Iran’s threats to block the crucial strait if the West places sanctions on its oil exports.  

The first encounter of between Iranian and US ships already happened on January 6, when US Navy amphibious ship New Orleans was heading through the Strait of Hormuz to the Persian Gulf. Three Iranian boats approached it at high speed, but turned away after a radio warning. The incident was considered “routine” according to US military officials.

Iran has received a letter from the US government about the Strait of Hormuz and will respond “if necessary.” On Sunday, Masoud Jazayeri, the deputy chief of Iran's armed forces, claimed that any US aggression in the region would fail.

“Despite their propaganda, the United States knows that it does not have the ability to halt the Islamic Republic's activities in certain areas, notably in closing the Strait of Hormuz,” Jazayeri said as cited by the Fars news agency.

Here are two perspectives on the ability of the Saudis to make up any shortfall in oil production.

Saudis have 2.5m barrels spare oil capacity, PFC says

Arabian Business

14 January, 2012

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is able to boost production to its officially-announced peak of 12.5 million barrels a day, according to PFC Energy.

Proposed European Union sanctions to block imports from Iran have raised the prospect that other suppliers may need to make up any shortfall.

Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, who has said the kingdom can reach a level of 12.5 million, said last month that it’s pumping at about 10 million a day.

“The market always questions how much spare capacity Saudi Arabia actually has,” Jamie Webster, an analyst at the consulting company, said by phone from Washington.

“Their total productive capacity including the neutral zone is around 12.5 million barrels.”

Saudi Arabia’s sustainable oil production capacity was estimated by the International Energy Agency, in its December 13 Monthly Oil Market report, at 12.04 million barrels a day.

The agency defines this as capacity levels that “can be reached within 30 days and sustained for 90 days.”

“When you talk to people that have a hand in the oil business, the closer you are to a handshake relationship with Saudi Aramco, the more likely you are to believe that they have the 12.5 million barrels,” Webster said.

Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said on December 27 the country would block the Strait of Hormuz, the transit route for about a fifth of the world’s oil, if the EU bans the country’s oil exports.

An accidental collision between navies amassed in the Strait of Hormuz poses a more likely security risk than Iran delivering on threats to close the waterway, PFC’s Webster said.

Comments from Mike Ruppert on this next story:

"The story itself is full of inaccuracies and lies, such as stating that Saudi reach 12mbpd this year. Saudi production of conventional oil has never exceeded 10 mbpd. So where did the other 2 mbpd come from? Natural gas liquids like propane and butane.The Saudis have always called that oil as well. Saudi oil books are as bad a Ban of America's, Lehman Bros., the Fed and MF Global". -- MCR

Saudi oil output 'stretched to the limit'

UPI, 

13 January, 2012

Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil exporter, has for decades used spare production capacity to cover shortfalls in output by other oil states and prevent prices spiraling in times of crisis.

But questions are being asked now whether the kingdom will be able to come to the rescue if Iran blocks Persian Gulf exports -- at least one fifth of the world total -- in its current confrontation with the West.

On paper, Saudi Arabia has spare capacity totaling around 2 million barrels per day.

Earlier this year, it raised its output to 10 million bpd, in part to pick up the slack from the drop in output by Libya because of its seven-month civil war and other drops in strife-torn Syria, Yemen and South Sudan.

That's the highest level for the kingdom in 30 years.

On Dec. 14, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which includes Saudi Arabia, increased its production ceiling from 24.84 million bpd to 30 million bpd.

But apart from Saudi Arabia and possibly the United Arab Emirates, no OPEC member has any spare production capability to act as a cushion in the event of a major supply crisis.

So the kingdom, as it has so often in the past, will be expected to play a crucial role if the global oil supply is heavily disrupted, as it would be if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

In November, Khalid al-Falihj, chief executive of state-owned Saudi Aramco, disclosed that Riyadh has halted a planned $100 billion expansion after the kingdom had reached 12 million bpd capacity.

He said the pressure on Saudi Arabia to raise its output capacity had "substantially reduced."

The kingdom launched the expansion program in the early 2000s, when production was pegged at 8.5 million bpd. The target was 15 million bpd.

Energy analysts said the decision to curtail the drive to boost production capacity may have stemmed from pressing budgetary problems as the ruling House of Saud grapples with the pro-democracy uprisings that have convulsed Arab republics for the last year.

"The current focus of Saudi Arabia is on domestic social spending on the back of the Arab Spring," observed Amrita Sen, an oil industry analyst with Barclays capital in London.

King Abdallah announced a social welfare and public spending package worth $130 billion earlier this year in a bid to stifle any demand for political reform by the kingdom's 12 million citizens.

Industry sources say Saudi Arabia would have difficulty sustaining production rates higher than its declared capacity for lengthy periods.

It has declared reserves of 262 billion barrels of oil, the highest in the world. But these are what the Saudis say they are, and there have been suspicions for some time that Riyadh's reserves may not be what they seem.

In February 2011, diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh to the State Department, released by WikiLeaks, cited Aramco's senior vice president for exploration, Abdallah al-Saif, as claiming Saudi Arabia had 716 billion barrels of total reserves, of which 51 percent was recoverable.

He further claimed that in 20 years Aramco would have reserves of 900 billion barrels.

That's roughly the combined reserves of the seven other leading producers, including Venezuela, Canada, Iran, Iraq and Russia.

But the U.S. diplomats quoted Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and Aramco's former head of exploration, as warning in November 2007 that the kingdom's production capacity target of 12.5 million bpd, needed to keep a lid on prices, could not be achieved.

This, he said, was because the kingdom's reserves may have been over-estimated by as much as 300 billion barrels, nearly 40 percent.

One cable said that in al-Husseini's view, "once 50 percent of original proven reserves had been reached … a steady output in decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it."

The U.S. consul in Riyadh observed that al-Husseini "is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

Al-Husseini, who had publicly questioned Saudi Arabia's state reserves before his encounter with the U.S. diplomats, later claimed he had been misrepresented in the cables.

It's possible he was pressured into doing that. But even so, gulf-based sources believe Riyadh could have a tough time covering shortages stemming from a serious confrontation in the gulf.


The original Guardian article on Wikileaks cables revelations AVAILABLE HERE

Thom Hartmann on Keystone XL oil pipeline

So, Oil barons just threatened the President of the U.S.

Speaking at a conference this week - Jack Gerard - the head of the American Petroleum Institute - which is the nation's largest lobbying organization for oil and gas corporations - told President Obama, "I think it would be a huge mistake on the part of the president of the United States to deny the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline...Clearly, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. A determination to decide anything less than that I believe will have huge political consequences." 

Do what the oil barons say - build the damn pipeline - or suffer "huge political consequences." 

The sad part is - in today's post Citizens United world - we have to take these threats seriously

Iran holds oil weapon

Iran threatens to block oil exports through Hormuz strait in sanctions row

Country reacts to threat of sanctions on its crude oil after UN watchdog's report into state's nuclear ambitions

the Guardian, 27 December, 2011

Iran threatened on Tuesday to stop the flow of oil through the strait of Hormuz if foreign sanctions were imposed on its crude exports because of its nuclear ambitions.

Western tensions with Iran have increased since a report last month by the UN nuclear watchdog saying Tehran appeared to have been working on designing an atomic bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Iran has defiantly expanded its nuclear activity despite four rounds of UN sanctions meted out since 2006 over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment and open up to UN nuclear inspectors and investigators.

Many diplomats and analysts believe only sanctions targeting Iran's lifeblood oil sector may be painful enough to make it change course, but Russia and China – big trade partners of Tehran – have blocked such a move at the UN.

Iran's warning came three weeks after EU foreign ministers decided to tighten sanctions over the UN report and laid out plans for a possible embargo of oil from the world's fifth biggest crude exporter.

"If they [the west] impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the strait of Hormuz," the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran's first vice-president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, as saying.

EU ministers said on 1 December that a decision on further sanctions would be taken no later than their January meeting. EU countries take 450,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil, about 18% of its exports.

China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, has warned against "emotionally charged actions" that might aggravate tension in the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Russia for its part has warned against "cranking up a spiral of tension", saying this would undermine the chances of Iran co-operating with efforts to ensure it does not build atomic bombs.

About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the strait of Hormuz in 2009, and US warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq must slip through the strait, a four-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

Some analysts say Iran would think hard about sealing off the strait as it could suffer just as much economically as western crude importers.

Industry sources said Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Opec states were ready to replace Iranian oil if further sanctions halted Iranian crude exports to Europe.

The Iranian oil minister, Rostam Qasemi, had said that Saudi Arabia had promised not to replace Iranian crude if sanctions were imposed.

"No promise was made to Iran, it's very unlikely that Saudi Arabia would not fill a demand gap if sanctions are placed," an industry source familiar with the matter said.

Gulf delegates from Opec said an Iranian threat to close the strait would harm Tehran as well as the major regional producers that also use the world's most vital oil export channel.

"If the sanctions take place the price of oil in Europe would increase and Saudi and other Gulf countries would start selling there to fill the gap and also benefit from the higher price," said an industry source, who declined to be named.

Brent crude oil futures jumped nearly a dollar to over $109 a barrel after the Iranian threat, but a Gulf Opec delegate said the effect could be temporary.

"For now, any move in the oil price is short-term, as I don't see Iran actually going ahead with the threat," the delegate said.