Putting the Oil Dispersant Debate into Perspective

To listen to the media reports over the supposed dispute between the government and BP about the use of chemical dispersant on the BP oil spill, there is a major battle brewing. An examination of the record of the press conference in Venice, Louisiana today and material on various company web sites suggest otherwise. Of course, facts often are excluded from news stories because they get in the way of sensationalism on television. 

 

ProPublica, an investigative news web site, reported that BP has snubbed the Environmental Protection Administration’s (EPA) demand that it use another less toxic dispersant in treating the oil. The media’s story line was that the EPA told BP to use a less toxic chemical and was told “No” over the weekend. An article from a German news publication was linked by a person commenting on the ProPublica story stating that BP was using Nalco’s Corexit, the reportedly toxic chemical, because it had an economic interest in the company since it was “sitting on the board.” That statement reflects both bad facts and a lack of understanding of American corporate governance by the German media. Nalco Company is a public company and as such has a board of directors who are responsible to shareholders for overseeing management of the company. On the board is a former senior executive of BP, Rodney Chase. He became a member of the board in May 2005 after having retired from BP in 2003 following 38 years of service culminating in his attaining the position of Deputy Group Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Chase did sit on the board of BP for 11 years while a senior officer of the company. There is no known relationship between BP and Nalco, except possibly for the stock being owned in one of BP’s pension funds, although we have no knowledge whether shares are owned or not.

 

In her press conference with Rear Admiral Mary Landry today, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, along with the Admiral, made positive observations about the value of Corexit to helping break up the oil slick. As Nalco said in its press release commenting on the press conference remarks, "We are pleased that Administrator Jackson and Admiral Landry acknowledged that Corexit has achieved ‘positive’ results in the Gulf of Mexico, with ‘limited environmental impact.’”   The Nalco press release went on further to say, “We also note that Admiral Landry said Corexit has prevented ‘much more’ highly toxic oil from reaching U.S. shorelines.” Nalco agreed that continued research into less toxic chemical dispersants is a worthwhile objective, but at the present time Corexit was the best solution currently available, approved by the EPA and was positively impacting helping to break up the oil spill.

 

When one reads the transcript of the press conference it becomes clear that the EPA believes that the success BP is having with injecting the chemical dispersant into the oil flow under water is sufficient and possibly the continued spreading of additional dispersant on the surface of the water may be creating future environmental problems. In effect, the EPA is acknowledging the success of Corexit while also acknowledging that neither it, nor anyone else, knows the ramifications of long-term use of the chemical or the application of such voluminous amounts.  Those are legitimate concerns and additional research should go on. 

 

We are disappointed that the media is adding to the frustration of people about the Deepwater Horizon accident and the resulting oil spill. Sensationalism of media stories does little to educate the people about the true issues of the oil spill – we have never encountered an oil spill of this nature. Much like the Apollo 1 accident, the Apollo 13 mishap and the Challenger disaster, we find ourselves in uncharted territory that demands the application of the best technologies available. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing environmental problem. Trying to solve it may result in numerous steps that fail before we find one that works. The oil industry, since it has been tapped by BP, is trying to find that solution and as disappointing as it is, we can only urge patience.