BP/ARCO: OIL SPILL NOT OUR FAULT
BP told Congress on May 11, 2010 that the Gulf oil spill was caused by the failure of a key safety device made by another company. That company in turn has blamed a third company for not capping the wellhead properly. The third company responded that it had followed BP/ARCO's plans in pouring the concrete to cap the well. Lamar McKay, Chairman of BP America, said that it did not own the rig and that the responsibility of the safety of drilling operations belongs to Transocean.
"Offshore oil and gas production projects begin and end with the operator, in this case BP," said Transocean CEO Steve Newman. He said it was BP that prepared the drilling plan and BP that gave the go-ahead to fill the well pipe with sea water before a final cement cap was installed, reducing the downward pressure.
(05-11-2010)
WAS GULF TRAGEDY AN ACCIDENT OR NEGLIGENCE?
Information barely being
covered in any press or media outlet is that BP/ARCO had certain environmental
responsibilities when drilling and operating in the Gulf that they did not meet.
It has already been pointed out, albeit briefly, that a rubber-skirted boom is
supposed to be on hand in order to provide an immediate response to such an
incident. The boom surrounds the leak and pumps then skim the oil off the top.
Where was the barge with that equipment, and where was the response crew? Is it
true that they were told they were not needed because BP/ARCO had already sealed
the well?
When you drill, you pack special cement around the outer side of the casing at
the top to prevent a blowout, where oil and gas pressure force their way up the
outside of the casing and blow off the wellhead. It is possible that the company
which provided that cap, (Haliburton), was misinformed by BP/ARCO (in an
effort to cut costs?) as to the depth of the well and therefore poured too
small a cement cap. Resulting pressure could blow that cap, destroy the
automatic shutoff valves and create the resulting mess. Word seeming to support
the possibility came late Friday that a huge methane bubble escaped from the
wellhead and surfaced below the drilling rig, causing the instantaneous
explosion and fire.
The White House was also slow to respond. Nine days passed before the
Administration put into motion its emergency management response to the
disaster. Although the President and Secretary of DHHS both insisted that the
Administration was on top of things “from day one,” it was heard Friday and
mostly unreported that BP/ARCO had called authorities and told them they had
everything under control. That remark would tend to substantiate Obama’s early
statement that the "experts," BP/ARCO, were on the scene and taking care of
things.
Those who have followed BP/ARCO’s environmental and safety track record are very
aware of its extremely poor performances, its stone-walling and its continued
failure to meet its corporate responsibilities to the environment and to the
countries where it operates. While accidents can and do happen, BP/ARCO’s
accidents invariably involve negligence… usually gross negligence. Their CEO,
Tony Hayward, bragged last year that, despite increased oil production in exotic
deep waters, he had cut BP's costs by an extra one billion dollars a year. Was
that all due to cutting safety corners?
British Petroleum’s 1st Quarter
profit in 2010 exceeded $6.1 billion. That’s $67 million per day operating
profit. While three days worth of profits could more than adequately mitigate
the remaining radioactive and other dangers at BP’s Yerington Anaconda Mine in
Nevada, BP has continued to fight cleanup efforts every step of the way. In the
meanwhile, downstream residents are facing increasing levels of uranium and
arsenic in their domestic wells.
(05-09-2010)
PUMP BACK SYSTEM EVALUATION ENDING
A lengthy data collection effort work is coming to an end on the pump-back well system evaluation project at the mine. BP/ARCO conducted the project with oversight from the U.S.E.P.A.. It was hypothesized that pump-back well system has not been effective in preventing potentially contaminated groundwater (in shallow groundwater) from migrating away from the mine site.
The Technical Work Group determined the best way to evaluate the system was to shut off the wells for a year or more. This project included repairs or replacement to the liners of the evaporation ponds that were developed to capture the water pumped back from the wells. An up-date may be presented during the scheduled May 4th Stakeholders Meeting.
(05-02-2010)
EPA TO CLEAN UP ASBESTOS
Region 9 of the U.S.E.P.A, which is the primary federal agency responsible for regulating the cleanup of hazardous waste like asbestos, recently announced it is going to clean up asbestos at the mine site. The EPA's plan to demolish the administration building is only one of several planned projects at the site, but so far the only one involving asbestos, which is recognized as a carcinogen and thus classed as hazardous waste.
The EPA has admitted that removal actions like that directed at the administration building are designed to "address what it believes to be urgent threats to human health and the environment." Work on the building, located on Burch Drive across from the main entrance to the mine site, was expected to begin in April and be completed within 30 days. Removal of asbestos from the building will be accomplished by EPA Emergency Response staff and EPA contractors. The asbestos remediation follows the discovery, in the fall of 2009, of asbestos-containing materials, or ACMs, in the building's siding, floor tiles and mastic, in some of the plaster coating the interior walls, and in a few areas of pipe wrapping.
The ACMs will be removed and then sent to an on-site landfill designated to accept asbestos. Once that is completed, the EPA can deconstruct the building, but only after consulting an archaeologist in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act to determine if the building has any historical value, since it is more than 50 years old.
Source: http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mar201024a.htm
(05-02-2010)
While there is never a charge to post information to this page, the Webmaster will gratefully appreciate any nominal donations from time-to-time to cover the ongoing costs of Website Maintenance. Any donations in the form of cash or permanent Website content will be acknowledged on the yamsite.info Acknowledgements page unless otherwise requested.
Robert A. Boyce Sr, Webmaster
Yamsite.info
% Tribal Support, LLC
PO Box 238
Burney CA 96013-0238
Pho: (775) 224-4325 / Fax: (530) 335-4765
SCHEDULED MEETINGS
YERINGTON COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP
May 25, 2010 - 6:00 PM
Lyon County Library - Yerington
GROUNDWATER ISSUE SURFACES AGAIN!
The issue of contaminated groundwater and migration off of the Yerington Anaconda Mine Site came to the forefront again at the September 19, 2006 Public Meeting held in Yerington. After many months of relative silence while ongoing scientific investigations have been proceeding, it now appears that improper shutdown procedures during the 1978 shutdown of the mine may have led to offsite migration of contaminated groundwater to the north of the mine site.
Data recently evaluated from 15 montoring wells north and along the perimeter of the site points to contamination from the mine. But, Jim Sickles, EPA Region IX's Project Manager for the site, was quick to say that the information is preliminary and indicates that more data is needed. Accordingly, BP/ARCO has agreed to place up to 24 additional monitoring wells at various depths and locations.
One of the main chemicals used in processing ore at the mine was sulfuric acid, and there is a high level of sulfates in a well located immediately north of the site adjacent to an active alfalfa farm. However, sulfates, such as nitrogen sulfate, are used extensively in farming activities, and this factor "clouds the issue."
Contrary to previous assumptions, there are four levels, (not three), of water below the mine. It is still unknown how they interact with each other and with the predominant aquifer system. There are alluvial fans in the area and a great deal of historical water activity at the site, which sits atop old water spring beds. But, Sickles said that it will not be surprising if the mine has contributed to off-site migration of contaminated groundwater. There was a question as to whether or not domestic wells to the East of the mine could be contaminated, and Sickles said that the Walker River would probably prevent that. (Webmaster's note: Previous well testing, done under the NDEP administration, bear this theory out. As I recall, only one well East of the Walker River and near the heart of downtown Yerington, tested higher than normal for uranium content; it was surrounded by wells that tested low in uranium. Further, it is widely known and accepted that underground water flows basically from SSW to NNE through the mine area, on a centerline roughly drawn from the northwest side of the site toward the towers at Churchill Power Plant,).
While there are several methods that could be used to identify or determine whether or not groundwater contamination north of the site is coming from the mine, Sickles feels that a better understanding of the hydrogeology of the area is necessary first. (October 1, 2006)
MINE TRESPASSERS FACE LIFELONG HEALTH PROBLEMS
 There's a reason that BLM has taken the lead by declaring it's
portion of the Yerington Anaconda Mine Site to be closed and off-limits.
In addition to the physical dangers from broken glass, sharp metal and
unexpected drop-offs, there is a very real and high danger from radiation, wet
chemicals, and polluted dust on
some portions of the YAMSite. High radiation doses in even short times can
cause cancers and other long-lasting adverse health effects. The fact that
BP/ARCo has not properly installed adequate fencing and warning signs means that
the public has to beware, and to train its children to beware. This
picture of trespassing children was taken in October of 2005. (Photo
distorted to protect identification) |
NEVADA'S LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH BY COUNTY - 2003
| COUNTY | POPULATION | CANCER | HEART DISEASE | RESPIRATORY DISEASE |
| CARSON CITY |
52,547 |
.284% | .333% | .078% |
| CHURCHILL | 23,982 | .254% | .187% | .079% |
| CLARK | 1,375,765 | .200% | .221% | .053% |
| DOUGLAS | 41,259 | .174% | .206% | .033% |
| ELKO | 45,291 | .117% | .172% | .035% |
| EUREKA | 1,651 | .363% | .121% | N/A |
| HUMBOLT | 16,106 | .155% | .173% | .043% |
| LANDER | 5,794 | .138% | .293% | .034% |
| LINCOLN | 4,165 | .168% | .168% | .144% |
| LYON | 34,501 | .307% | .298% | .088% |
| MINERAL | 5,071 | .350% | .298% | .138% |
| NYE | 32,486 | .313% | .400% | .107% |
| PERSHING | 6,693 | .224% | .179% | .074% |
| WASHOE | 339,486 | .194% | .226% | .070% |
| WHITE PINE | 9,181 | .185% | .152% | N/A |
Note that, according to this chart, Lyon County ranks 4th in Cancer, 3rd in Heart Disease, and 4th in Respiratory Disease. Statistics in small counties may be unreliable due to the small number used for statistical sampling. (Information provided from Nevada Health Board courtesy Peggie Pauly, CAGY.)
This website continues to be dedicated to providing objective news of interest regarding the mine site. For a recent opinion, please refer to the Opinions page.
You have a one-in-three chance of having elevated Radon in your home!
If you would like to test your home or have it tested, free kits are available through the EPA Radon Test Program. They can also be accessed through the Yerington Paiute Tribe Environmental Office. Call 1-866-29-radon, (1-866-297-3866), for information.