Breaking News:

Tanker Traffic Resumes at Beleaguered Freeport LNG Terminal

The Black Sea Oil Spill Is Worse Than Originally Thought

BP To Take Final Hit On 2010 Disaster

  1. Home
  2. The Environment
  3. Oil Spills

Government Insiders: Get Ready for the Gulf "Dead Zone"

By Wayne Madsen - Jun 23, 2010, 5:50 PM CDT

Bad news concerning the Gulf oil disaster continues to come from WMR's federal government sources in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Emergency planners are dealing with a prospective "dead zone" within a 200 mile radius from the Deepwater Horizon disaster datum in the Gulf.

A looming environmental and population displacement disaster is brewing in the Gulf. The oil dispersant used by BP, Corexit 9500, is seen by FEMA sources as mixing with evaporated water from the Gulf and absorbed by rain clouds producing toxic precipitation that threatens to continue killling marine and land animals, plant life, and humans within a 200-mile radius of the Deepwater Horizon disaster site in the Gulf.
Adding to the worries of FEMA and the Corps of Engineers is the large amounts of methane that are escaping from the cavernous grotto of oil underneath the Macondo drilling area of Gulf of Mexico.

On a recent visit to the Gulf coast, President Obama vowed that the Gulf coast will "return to normal." However, federal officials dealing with the short- and long-term impact of the oil disaster report that the "dead zone" created by a combination of methane gas and Corexit toxic rain will force the evacuation and long-term abandonment of cities and towns within the 200-mile radius of the oil volcano.
Plans are being put in place for the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Mandeville, Hammond, Houma, Belle Chase, Chalmette, Slidell, Biloxi, Gulfport, Pensacola, Hattiesburg, Mobile, Bay Minette, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Crestview, and Pascagoula.
The toxic rain from the Gulf is expected to poison fresh water reservoirs and lakes, streams, and rivers, which will also have a disastrous impact on agriculture and livestock, as well as drinking water, in the affected region.

FEMA officials also claim that the $20 billion compensation fund set aside by BP is not nearly enough to offset the costs of the disaster. The FEMA sources say the disaster will cost well in excess of $1 trillion, and likely closer to $2-3 trillion.

By The Wayne Madsen Report for OilPrice.com the no.1 source for oil prices

Back to homepage


Loading ...

« Previous: Secret Footage from the BP Boardroom of Devastating Coffee Spill

Next: The First OilCane? What Happens if a Hurricane Rides over the Oil Spill »

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for The Village Voice, The Progressive, Counterpunch, Online Journal, CorpWatch,… More

Related posts

The World's Most Polluted Countries Revealed

Transit Trade Growth Complicates Pollution Problem in Caucasus

Scientists Warn Gulf Stream Slowdown Could Begin as Early as 2025

Most Popular

Israel Claims to Have Dealt a Serious Blow to Hezbollah

Large Crude Inventory Build Rocks Oil Prices

Breakthrough in Sodium Battery Chemistry Promises Lower Costs

Russia's LNG Expansion Plans Hit the Wall

Is Copper Heading to $15,000?

Comments

  • Anonymous - 23rd Jun 2010 at 10:03pm:
    I hope your wrong. If you are, I will delete you as a rumor monger/sensationalist.If you are right, god help the people of the gulf and this will have knock-on effects all over the world.I am an Aussie and know we live in a global village.
  • Anonymous - 24th Jun 2010 at 10:33am:
    Just print $2-3T to wipe up the gulf with all that money.
  • Anonymous - 24th Jun 2010 at 4:29pm:
    the gulf has dead zones that big every summer from the runoff from the farms and dairies that use fertilizer up north that travel down the Mississippi River. Also a bigger spill happened from a Mexican Well and we did not have to evecuate and towns, etc. Why do you think thwe drinking water in New Orleans is poisonous.
  • Anonymous - 24th Jun 2010 at 7:46pm:
    Reuters have also covered the story - "Dead Zone" listed again. This is going from bad to worse:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622
  • Anonymous - 24th Jun 2010 at 8:54pm:
    What is this world coming to. Anyone could see those toxic chemicals were not going to solve the problem, I think they just had a stock of them and wanted to put them to use. Just make it worse, It would be better just to take it off the top and wherever it forms underwater by itself then try to turn the ocean into a dishwashing machine
  • Anonymous - 24th Jun 2010 at 9:41pm:
    Acid rain, a shrinking ozone layer, and man-made global warming (a theory now discredited) were all going to destroy the planet. Let's all pray this is more left-wing fear mongering. For FEMA to be right is just too horrible to contemplate.
  • Anonymous - 25th Jun 2010 at 1:37am:
    Using toxic dispersants just made a horrible situation worse. Now they are going to have to deal with health problems of the clean-up workers and residents withing hundreds of miles. Why they aren't using Bio-remediation to clean up this disaster is criminal.
  • Anonymous - 25th Jun 2010 at 5:25am:
    The oil spill is bad sure. There have been many bad spills. A lot of which you have never been told about. Why do you think this is being handled in a manner that is guaranteed to cause concern and panic? Do you think they are hiding how bad it is or the fact that it is a distraction? Whenever something big hits the news and gets as much attention as this spill has you need to ask yourself one question, what is going on that I am not hearing about. I assure you there is worse being done and you are not hearing about it. This is an old game. You have to look deeper. We are coming to a time when we have to know what the traitors are up to in order to survive,
  • Anonymous - 25th Jun 2010 at 10:44am:
    The Reuters story is about methane mixed with the oil coming up from the leak. The dispersant isn't mentioned.
  • Anonymous - 25th Jun 2010 at 7:32pm:
    BP was using corexit to diperse the oil so that they wouldn't have to pay a fine of $3,000.00 per barrel. If you cant find the oil you cant get a accurate count, why else would they inject it at the well head as well as on the surface. Get your spare rooms ready for all of your relatives should they survive this.
  • Anonymous - 26th Jun 2010 at 2:18pm:
    :sigh: The dispersants have been injected with the oil at the oilhead, look at NASA's time lasped sat images. The dispersent and oil has creating a grey milky color over 3/4 of the gulf as well as into the lower regions, where the Gulf Stream currents are formed. These currents flow through the keys, up the eastern seaboard past Virginia, and out into the North Atlantic, where a menagerie of Ocean currents combine, to continue outward flow dispertion. May God have mercy on those guilty of this crime of Humanity and on Nature.
  • Anonymous - 26th Jun 2010 at 9:38pm:
    Toeser,I hate to tell you this, but climate change in not a discredited theory. The most recent research (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf and http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html) show about 97% or climate scietists believe global warming is occuring and is man made. Most of the ones the disagree have done the most limited research into the area. If you are talking about the stink about the scientist that fixed his data. Well he noticed that the estimate of tempature based on tree growth was varying farther and farther from actual in more and more recent years. So he fixed it by inputting actual tempature. Actually weakening the warming effect.
  • Anonymous - 27th Jun 2010 at 11:33pm:
    Hey StonebearBefore writting about your " studies", find out who finance these fellows....:):) Case solved.
  • Anonymous - 27th Jun 2010 at 11:36pm:
    Global warming has been totally discredited. Temperatures have been cooling for the past decade.
  • Anonymous - 29th Jun 2010 at 10:32am:
    Hey Stonebear maybe if you understood English usage and could spell your posts may carry a little more weight. NAW!
  • Anonymous - 29th Jun 2010 at 6:23pm:
    Stonebear, What kind of "scientist" discards the RAW data they used to arrive at proving their theory? None that I am aware of, unless that data disproves that which they were HOPING to bolster their hollow theory.Observable, objectively Testable, REPEATABLE. Hmmm mayhaps my science teacher was wackey too!
  • Anonymous - 30th Jun 2010 at 7:26pm:
    I'll bet those peak oil guys feel pretty silly right now. How many dinos had to die in that particular location at that great depth under the sea and sea bed to produce that much oil under that much pressure?The abiotic theory of oil creation is looking pretty good right now.They won't capture the oil because there's so much of it spewing out the price would fall drastically. I would practically be free.They won't fix it because it's way too profitable to the owners of the corporation that clean up that produces the very toxic Corexit (right Mr. Gore?) and the other corporations that specialize in cleaning up oil spills recently acquired by certain parties immediately before the oil spill. Business as usual for the corporations - death, illness and destruction for the rest of us.As Rahm Emmanuel said "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (or words to that effect).
  • Anonymous - 5th Jul 2010 at 2:34pm:
    How many of you still think this is an accident? You'd be foolish to think otherwise.