"Government scientists studying the BP disaster are reporting the best possible outcome: Microbes are consuming the oil in the Gulf without depleting the oxygen in the water and creating "dead zones" where fish cannot survive." REFEPA failed to test dispersants in the 20 years since Exxon Valdez, so restricted BP's usage by 75% because it "might" hurt something. Unknown to EPA, apparently, the Brits had tested it and approved unlimited usage outside of 10 miles of coast. After EPA restriction, the oil came ashore.
Is EPA more responsible for the damage ashore than BP?
Greenies opposed any use of dispersant because they wanted all the oil to come to the surface so it could be seen. Instead of minimizing damage to the environment, they apparently wanted to maximize it to make points. With friends like them, the environment doesn't need enemies.
The plumes of underwater oil thought so horrific turn out to be so diluted one could swim through a plume without realizing it. Seems it takes mass spectrometry or other sophisticated chemical analysis to detect the oil in the plumes. Most just failed to mention this little fact. Wonder why?
These criticisms in no way should be interpreted as exonerating BP of the shoddy engineering practices in their attempt to save money. They blew it and we all will pay for it--including BP--but not including the EPA and greenies. I just wanted to assure EPA and greenies got their full and just credit. They did so much.
