BP oil spill: law suit looms over spill dispersant - Telegraph

BP oil spill: law suit looms over spill dispersant - Telegraph


BP sued over dispersant used on spill
BP has been hit by the first personal injury lawsuit which claims that its "toxic" chemicals in the Gulf of Mexico are causing health problems - a move that could lead to a new slew of litigation against the company.

The energy giant has sprayed 1.8m gallons of Corexit into the sea to break up the oil released when its Deepwater Horixon rig exploded and sank, killing 11 men.


But the practice was strongly criticised over a lack of scientific studies into it effects and the manufacturer's reluctance to reveal the product's chemical make-up.

The class action suit related to Corexit could potentially unleash a new wave of litigation, as BP already faces more than 300 claims over economic hardship, environmental damage and alleged safety breaches.

It has been filed in Alabama against BP and the chemical's maker, Nalco, by Glynis Wright and Janille Turner, two Gulf Coast residents, alleging that Corexit 9500 is "four times more toxic than sweet crude oil".

They are seeking compensation for "negligence and wanton misconduct, as well as nuisance, trespass, battery and medical monitoring".

The claimants also argue that "the toxic dispersants were used deliberately to lessen the financial burden on the defendants and lessen public reaction to the oil spill".

Scientists from the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory last week found that the substance has now "probably" entered the food chain following tests on crab larvae.

However, little is known about the consequences of releasing the chemical on such a large scale.

A safety sheet produced by Nalco concludes that Corexit's "human hazard potential is low" but also admits that "no toxicity studies have been conducted on this product".

The same document notes that while ingestion is "not a likely route of exposure" the chemical "may cause nausea and vomiting [and] can cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into lungs".

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.

The class action suit is being handled by Beasley Allen, the law firm that extracted $11.8bn (£7.4bn) from ExxonMobil over its Alaskan oil spill – later reduced to $2.5bn.

The firm has also filed a number of suits in Alabama, Florida and Louisiana seeking compensation for economic hardship caused by the spill, including businesses losing revenue and homeowners who have lost value on their properties.

"BP is using these dispersants at an unprecedented rate not seen in other oil disasters," said Rhon Jones, head of Beasley Allen's toxic torts division.

"What you are seeing is a company that is doing anything to keep the oil out of sight and out of mind. They are using these chemicals close to the shore, and predictably, people are starting to feel the effects."

A group of scientists led by Dr Susan Shaw of the Marine Environmental Research Institute has opposed the use of the chemical on the grounds that its effects are unknown.

"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," she said.

A BP spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit, but emphasised that the use of all dispersants was approved by America's National Incident Command and the EPA.

The latest controversies over BP's use of dispersants has put a dampener on government scientists' declaration that 75pc of oil in the Gulf is now gone. And it is another headache for the oil giant's lawyers as they fight a tenfold increase in legal action following the spill.

BP was also hit with an unrelated $10bn suit in Houston last week linked to the alleged leak of chemicals at its Texas City refinery in April and May.

Local media in Texas reported on Friday that 3,400 people queued round the block of the Houston law firm handling the case to join the 2,200 existing claimants in the action.