Article+Annotation+Five

Bobby Schneider Kim Fortun Oil Politics BP Spill Annotation Five

“BP sued over dispersant used on spill” is an article written by Rowena Mason, a journalist for the Telegraph, whose primary focus is on energy. After obtaining a degree in English Literature at Oxford, Mason has work for the Yorkshire Post and the Press Association before becoming a member of the Telegraph. She has taken on interviews, business journalism, and took training courses to become an investigative reporter. In the past, Rowena Mason has worked on a variety of stories including nuclear energy, economics, carbon emissions, climate change, and has even written an article on the documentary, __Gaslands__.

In “BP sued over dispersant used on spill,” Mason discusses the central idea that the BP dispersant, Corexit, is facing lawsuits charges not only for the company’s excessive use of the product, but also because of the health concerns associated with exposure to it. Some people claim that BP was using incredible amounts of the chemicals in order to both reduce the cost of the cleanup process and create the illusion that the oil was cleaned up so that the situation looked better than it actually was (Mason, 2010, pg. 1). As far as human concerns go, Corexit could cause “chemical pneumonia” and other illnesses including nausea (Mason, 2010, pg. 1). A third problem seen with the use of this product is the damage it could cause the seafood supply to become tainted and also threatens to destroy the local wildlife and the environments in which they live (Mason, 2010, pg. 1, 2). Clearly, although the dispersant may be of some help in “cleaning up” the oil spill problem, it only creates an even larger array of news problems for society.

Some quotes within this article provide a good sense of what the entire document is trying to convey. “They [those involved in the lawsuits] are seeking compensation for ‘negligence and wanton misconduct, as well as nuisance, trespass, battery, and medical monitoring” (Mason, 2010, pg. 1). This quote clearly lays out the various complaints and suits being filed against BP and the makers of Corexit, which insinuates that while BP may have been using the chemical to save money, all of the new lawsuits could still cause them to lose more money. Another quote leaves questions lingering about how careful the American government is about protecting its people. “Corexit did not pass tests in the UK and was banned from being used to tackle oil spills in 1998. However, it was approved for use by the US Environmental Protection Agency, after BP argued that this was the only suitable chemical to help get rid of the oil” (Mason, 2010, pg. 1, 2). How could Corexit be the “only suitable chemical” to use? If it was banned by Britain, then what is used to clean up the oil spills over there and why can’t America use that? Also, could it be that the EPA simply lied and accepted the chemical, knowing it was toxic, because some of their funding might come from BP? A third quote, by Dr. Susan Shaw from the Marine Environmental Research Institute, explains the damage that the use of this product could cause. “‘We believe that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health, and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover’” (Mason, 2010, pg. 2).

The argument in this article is helpful to my research focus because by presenting all of the problems that this clean up dispersant can cause, a basis for lawsuits can be made. Furthermore, this document also shows how the government and other organizations, namely the EPA, manipulate the law and make exceptions to certain conditions when there is an opportunity for personal or business benefit involved.

Some ideas from this article that could be useful to other recovery research members are: • The fact that the dispersant was believed to be used to save the company money fits well into the economics of the recovery. • an excerpt from the article may also be of assistance to wildlife research: “. . . the substance [Corexit] has now ‘probably’ entered the food chain following tests on crab larvae.” • Also, the discussion about how Corexit could damage ecosystems and cause populations to die and fail to recover could also be of some help for wildlife research.

Mason, Rowena. “BP sued over dispersant used on spill.” __The Telegraph__. 7 Aug. 2010. < [|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/7931891/BP-oil-spill-] [|law-suit-looms-over-spill-dispersant.html] >.

Obtained Past Work and Credentials From: < [] >. < [|http://www.telegraph.co.uk/advertising/6767363/Rowena-Mason-on-working-for-The-]  [|Telegraph.html] >.