BP tells EPA to stick it

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., held a briefing Friday on the effect on the ocean of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, He was photographed May 12 with a jar of the spilled oil.

The blog title should have said “dipstick” it. That’s what happens when I don’t get enough sleep: Even worse jokes than usual:

BP has told the Environmental Protection Agency that it cannot find a safe, effective and available dispersant to use instead of Corexit, and will continue to use that chemical application to help break up the growing spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP was responding to an EPA directive Thursday that gave BP 24 hours to identify a less toxic alternative to Corexit — and 72 hours to start using it – or provide the Coast Guard and EPA with a “detailed description of the alternative dispersants investigated, and the reason they believe those products did not meet the required standards.”

BP spokesman Scott Dean said Friday that BP had replied with a letter “that outlines our findings that none of the alternative products on the EPA’s National Contingency Plan Product Schedule list meets all three criteria specified in yesterday’s directive for availability, toxicity and effectiveness.”

So there.

He did not directly address widely broadcast news reports that more than 100,000 gallons of an alternative dispersant chemical call Sea-Brat 4 was stockpiled near Houston and available for application.

Oddly, BP is claiming dominion over the habitats they’ve polluted, to quote Twitter pal/radio host Karl Knox.

Sylvia Earle, the explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

“I would say, until we know more about the fate of the dispersants, I’d tell BP or anybody else who’s involved with this, whether it’s EPA or whatever, ‘Stop, just stop, don’t do it.’ “

“Stop, just stop, don’t do it.”: Words that should have been screamed, and heeded, years ago. Why didn’t the Obama administration put their foot down before now? Rhetorical.

Drill, baby, drill.

Weeks ago, experts were saying that dispersants were BP’s way of making it appear as if the oil was being contained on the surface, but deep in the ocean, the disaster was exponentially worse. “It’s an out of sight out of mind strategy only… a P.R. stunt.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The chemicals make it easier for sea life to absorb the smaller fragments, which in turn affects their/our food supply and health. Between the toxicity of the oil itself and the dispersant, our ecological future looks pretty bleak.

And as if what we do know isn’t enough:

“What is frightening about this spill isn’t just what we know but what we don’t know,” [Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.] said.

Frightening, IMHO, is an understatement.

H/t: Joeyess