Media ignores Goldman Sachs' ties to Corexit dispersant
In a recent New York Times’ article “Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup”, journalist Paula Quinlan questions why BP is using the 100 % toxic, 54 percent effective dispersant Corexit to clean up the oil when twelve other dispersants proved more effective in EPA testing.
BP spokesman Jon Pack defended the use of Corexit, which he said was decided in consultation with EPA. He called Corexit "pretty effective" and said the product had been "rigorously tested."
"I'm not sure about the others," Pack said. "This has been used by a number of major companies as an effective, low-toxicity dispersant."
BP is not considering or testing other dispersants because the company's attention is focused on plugging the leak and otherwise containing the spill, Pack said. "That has to be our primary focus right now," he said.
Nalco spokesman Charlie Pajor said the decision on what to use was out of his company's hands. He also declined to comment on EPA comparison tests, saying only that lab conditions cannot necessarily replicate those in the field. "The decision about what's used is made by others -- not by us," he said.
Quinlan only looks at part of the picture. She associates BP’s investment in Nalco and oil industry representation on the board as the main reasons that Corexit was used instead of Dispirsit, which EPA testing shows to be twice as effective and a third less toxic. Yes, BP is hedging its losses with the profit it will make with its investment in Nalco, but who else benefits?
Follow the money...and the money goes to Goldman Sachs and friends. Instead, Quinlan (or her editor) goes after Exxon.
USFilter and Ondeo Nalco enter into a strategic partnership providing equipment, chemicals and service to industrial customers.
The Blackstone Group, Apollo Management L. P. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners buy Ondeo Nalco.
Nalco Company, a recognized symbol of strength around the world, unveils new logo.
Never mind item three, the logo change executives consider one of the three most important events in Nalco’s 2003 history, hence its prominence on the Nalco corporate history webpage. Look at item number two.
If for no other reason that Goldman Sachs is newsworthy, I think that their $4.3 billion purchase of Nalco in 2003 would be worth mentioning, especially in light of their short trade on TransOcean. The shorts are another missing item in the business section of The Times, as is any information on Goldman’s role in the 9-11 put options on American and United for that matter. “All the lies that are fit to print...” on their banner would be more apropos. Seems someone is treating the demon children at GS with kid gloves.
As for Goldman Sachs, I find it interesting that they have such a large stake in Nalco. It might be just another coincidence, like their short on TransOcean. I also question why the article singles out Exxon, which helped found the company that was bought out by Goldman Sachs, Apollo and the Blackstone Group. Why are the profits that Goldman Sachs is receiving from the sale of these toxic dispersants not part of the article? How much will GS lose if BP stops using Corexit? Is this not more relevant than Exxon?
Read the rest here
Maybe Letterman's joke wasn't so far-fetched.