Gulf Oil Deception Part 3: Evidence of a Cover-Up?

Good news for fishermen both commercial and recreational as NOAA opened over 8000 square miles of Gulf waters from Louisiana to Florida, saying no oil or sheen has been documented in that area since July 25.

But there's a problem. In 2000, our own government (the Minerals Management Service or MMS) and BP conducted an oil spill experiment in Norway that eerily mirrored the Deepwater Horizon spill ten years later. They called it "Operation Deep Spill" and the report it generated had in it some eye-opening observations. One of them was that when oil is spilled at great depth, much of it tends to stay at depth, permanently, in large cloud-like plumes. So to say that a body of water is free of oil based on the absence of a visible "sheen" is patently absurd.

More disturbing is the fact that this "Operation Deep Spill" was not reported on in the media when the first oil plumes were discovered and BP was denying their existence. For the media, they might have excuses. Possibly they were lazy, or just incompetent. Not good excuses but something. But BP and the Feds? They knew per their own experiment that the oil clouds would happen. Is this evidence of a cover-up?

Wait, there's another problem. NOAA also based the opening of the federal waters on "protocols" which basically is testing samples of all kinds of seafood. They did sensory testing (taste and smell) along with chemical testing for what they called "oil related compounds." But in the 2000 report, on page 89, they say something interesting: "...the results from these measurements show that the rising of the oil through the water column represents a kind of a 'stripping' process of some of the most toxic compounds in the oil. The end result is therefore that a portion of the most toxic compounds is left in the water column."

So, in essence, the most harmful substances are being taken out of the oil and left in the water. If these substances are no longer in the oil itself and the NOAA protocols are looking for "oil related compounds" or the lack thereof as a basis for whether or not the seafood is safe to eat, might it be possible that they are missing the toxic compounds altogether? Could they be looking only for oil and be overlooking the presence of these stripped-out, lethal compounds? Given their track record, it's a scary thought.

This video goes into detail about "Operation Deep Spill":

The government's need to reopen these waters is understandable. Jobs are important. Fishing is the only means of income for many coastal communities in the Gulf, and every day the waters are closed means more financial suffering for these people. But how much greater would the suffering be if we rushed into this, opening these waters to fishing and then allowing untold numbers of people to consume potentially harmful seafood?

sources: underwatertimes.com, blog.al.com video: drevenkaine (YouTube)

Back to

Captain Kujo's Drysuits & Waterproof Bags

Home