General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReport: White House Pressured Scientists to Underestimate BP Spill Size
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/01/report-white-house-pressured-scientists-underestimate-bp-spill-sizeBack at the height of the massive Gulf oil spill in 2010, there was quite a bit of controversy about just how much crude was blasting out of the well. According to new documents that a watchdog group released on Monday, there was heated debate among the scientists who evaluated the flow rate as well.
For the first few weeks after the spill began in April 2010, BP misled the public about how big it was, and the government repeated BP's estimate without question. And when the government released its own estimate in late May of up to 25,000 barrels per day, that too was controversialand proved to be far lower than the actual size, which was more like 53,000 barrels of oil per day.
Now, an email released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) traces efforts to downplay the spill size in the initial weeks back to the White House. The group released a May 29, 2010 email from Dr. Marcia McNutt, the director of the US Geologic Survey and head of the government's Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), that was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The email came after scientists on the flow-rate team complained to McNutt about how the spill figures were conveyed to the press, and in response she cited pressure from the White House as the reason the numbers were low-balled. Rather than reporting that the lower-end estimate of the spill was 25,000 barrels per day, officials cited that figure as the higher-end estimate:
'I cannot tell you what a nightmare the past two days have been dealing with the communications people at the White House, DOI, and the NIC who seem incapable of understanding the concept of a lower bound. The press release that went out on our results was misleading and was not reviewed by a scientist for accuracy.'
McNutt's email reportedly came in response to complaints from scientists on the team about how the flow rate had been handled. PEER also filed a complaint against Dr. William Lehr, a scientist at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who was the team lead for the FRTG's plume analysis team. PEER argues that Lehr "manipulated the scientific results" of the team's experts and understated the spill rate in what it communicated. From PEER's release on the complaint:
'Lehr was leader of one of the most important FRTG teams, the Plume Team which analyzed videos of the oil leaks to produce the first estimates. Three of the 13 Plume Team experts used a technique called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) to estimate a leak rate in the range of 25,000 bpd. But three other experts on the Plume Team reported that PIV was underestimating the size of the leak by more than 50%. Those three experts used a different technology to correctly peg the leak rate at 50,000 to 60,000 bpd.'
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Official Minimizers get here to point us in the right direction.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...just thought we'd at least all get a nice kiss before getting fucked....guess not...
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Confusion reigned and too many people that don't understand a Hertz from an RPM in the communication chain.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"The email came after scientists on the flow-rate team complained to McNutt about how the spill figures were conveyed to the press, and in response she cited pressure from the White House as the reason the numbers were low-balled."
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)There was no confusion. It was clear from very early on that the government was lying about the size of the leak, and they kept doing it even after being called out by many experts. The White House wanted to manage this like it was a political sex scandal, rather than treat it as the environmental catastrophe which it was.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The quote I presented was from the very article from the original post. The person that researched the topic doesn't agree with your characterization. Having tried to communicate technical information to nontechical people who are responsible for its dissemination, I can relate that they can screw up the most clearly presented information in their attempt to "simplify" it.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)That shitty speech he gave after the thing had been gushing for MONTHS was the moment when he lost me for good.
I was SO ANGRY, and I still am.
surfdog
(624 posts)From a speech about the oil leak ?
Let's be honest now.
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.
After the speech was over I went outside, ripped the Obama stickers off the cars, and threw the stickers in the trash.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)the Oil Drum (?) website who were saying flat out the admin. were lowballing the flow rate to downplay the spill size. I think anyone with two eyes could see things were not as we were being told.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I have a firm recollection of there being compelling evidence of damage-lowballing.
And while we're at it, there is an ongoing coverup of the health & environmental consequences of the spill.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)from the insignificance of the spill.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I never even considered that possibility.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I also remember the empty grandstanding at the hearings.
Occupy.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)There's a new one every damned day.
Occupy.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)All that corexit.
I cry for the Gulf.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the companys political action committees $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. "
All you need to know. Follow the money.
Occupy.