Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Admiral Thad Allen Carol Browner and Dr. Lubchenco August 4 2010

8/9/2019 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Admiral Thad Allen Carol Browner and Dr. Lubchenco August 4 2010

1/32

Prepared for: Zimvi.com

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate ReleaseAugust 04, 2010

Press Briefing by Press Secretary RobertGibbs, Admiral Thad Allen, Carol Browner,and Dr. Lubchenco, 8/4/2010

James S. Brady Press Briefing RoomResources that were mentioned in the briefing can be found below.

To view the Inter-Agency Oil Budget Report click HERE

Click HERE to find additional information on the calculation methods available in theDeepwater Horizon Gulf Incident Budget Tool Report.

Click HERE for details on EPAs Release of the Second Phase of Toxicity Testing Data for Eight Oil Dispersants.

See below for a clarification to a question(marked with an asterisk) posed in the briefing thatrequired follow up.

*The number is just under 400,000 barrels (8% of 4.9 million = 392,000).

1:20 P.M. EDT

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Joining us in todays briefing to walk through the developmentsof the last sort of 24 to 48 hours down in the Gulf are some familiar faces to you all by now:Carol Browner; Admiral Thad Allen -- Retired Admiral Thad Allen; as well as NOAA

Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who will walk us through and update us on where we are inthe federal response, walk through an interagency scientific report on where the oil is and the process that its gone through.

I think you all heard the President discuss today that -- and Ill have these guys discuss sort of where we are in the static kill, which is good news, and it is sort of the beginning of the end of the sealing and containment phase of this operation. I want to be, though, very clear, as thePresident was, that our commitment to those families, to those communities in and along the
http://www.zimvi.com/http://www.zimvi.com/http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdfhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdfhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdfhttp://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdfhttp://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdfhttp://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdfhttp://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/839935/http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/839935/http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/839935/http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/839935/http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/DeepwaterHorizonOilBudget20100801.pdfhttp://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Oil_Budget_description_8_3_FINAL.844091.pdfhttp://www.zimvi.com/


2/32

Gulf Coast remains the same as it always has been. We are transitioning and will transition to agreater focus on cleanup and damage assessment. There is still lots of work to do, and thisgovernment will be here every step of the way to do that work.

Thats an important message from the President. Its important that it is heard here, and, as

importantly, if not more so, heard in the Gulf.So this gives us a chance to look back at what has happened, where we are, as well as to discusswith you guys where we are heading. And with that, I will turn this over to Dr. Lubchenco if Ican get -- oh, look at that. The gizmo worked.

DR. LUBCHENCO: Thanks, Robert. Hello, everyone. Today, the federal government isreleasing a new scientific analysis that addresses the question: Where did the oil go? Thisanalysis uses the recently released calculation of 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus 10 percent,and includes both direct measurements as well as the best estimates where direct measurementswere not possible.

The report was produced by scientific experts from a number of different agencies, federalagencies, with peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists.

The conclusions -- key conclusions of the report is that the vast majority of the oil has eitherevaporated or been burned, skimmed and recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed. And muchof the dispersed oil is in the process of relatively rapid degradation.

A significant amount of this is a direct result of the very robust federal response efforts. WhatId like to do is just walk you through the pie chart that you see behind us and illustrate whats in

each of these different categories.A quarter of the oil, about 1.2 --

Q We cant hear you.

DR. LUBCHENCO: Does somebody want to point while I do this? (Laughter.) Or can I pointup here? How can we do this?

MR. GIBBS: Here, Ill be your professional pointer and you can --

DR. LUBCHENCO: Okay, thank you.MR. GIBBS: Ill be Vanna White.

DR. LUBCHENCO: Okay, Vanna. (Laughter.) About a quarter of the oil has been evaporatedor dissolved. This is about 1.2 million barrels. That happens naturally. Thats a natural process. And much of that happened as the oil was being released day to day.


3/32

Moving around, lets g o to the upper right, Robert. About 17 percent, or -- Im sorry, 827,000barrels were recovered directly from the well site. So we know weve got that number measureddirectly. An additional 5 percent was burned. Another 3 percent was skimmed.

In addition to that, 8 percent of the oil that was released has been chemically dispersed both with

dispersants at the surface, as well as subsea. And so if you total up those five pie charts -- directrecovery, burned, skimmed and chemically dispersed -- that gives you a sense of what the resultsof the federal effort have been. And it totals about a third of the total amount of oil that has beenreleased.

Naturally dispersed oil is also -- accounts for 16 percent. As oil was being released from thewellhead or from the riser pipe, it naturally becomes mixed in turbulent conditions and broken upinto small, microscopic droplets that remain -- if they are small enough, they remain below thesurface of the water. And so 16 percent naturally dispersed; 8 percent chemically dispersed.That oil is in very, very dilute clouds of microscopic droplets beneath the surface. That is in theprocess of being very rapidly degraded naturally. And so Mother Nature is assisting here

considerably.So the pieces of the pie chart that we have looked at directly now account for those things thatwe can measure directly or have very good estimates for.

The residual, which is the upper left part of the pie chart, is 26 percent. And thats a combinationof oil that is in light sheen at the surface, or in tar balls, or has been washed ashore. And muchof that has been recovered by federal cleanup efforts and state cleanup efforts.

About 37,000 tons of material have been removed from the beache s already and well continueto do so. So I think the bottom line here is that the -- we can account for all but about 26

percent. And of that, much of that is being -- in the process of being degraded and cleaned up onthe shore.

I think its important to point out that at least 50 percent of the oil that was released is nowcompletely gone from the system. And most of the remainder is degrading rapidly or is beingremoved from the beaches.

I want to also point out simply that we continue to have a very aggressive effort to understandmore about where the oil was and what its fate has been. A large number of research vesselscontinue to be active in the Gulf, and theyre underway to understand the concentrations of subsurface oil and exactly what -- the rate at which it is being biodegraded.

Well continue to monitor and sample this oil and report new results as they emerge.

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Thank you, Jane. Good afternoon. The last 24 hours have been fairlyconsequential in the life cycle of this response. Id like to go over a couple of things that havetranspired.


4/32

After a successful injection test yesterday allowed us to understand the path at which liquidswould go down the well, the amount of volume we could put in the well and the pressurereadings that we could take at the various places where the gages were placed gave us confidencewe could go ahead. And we directed BP to proceed with the static kill.

That began yesterday afternoon and went on throughout the evening and into the night andresulted in the well being filled with mud. We now have equalized the pressure -- the hydrostaticpressure of the seawater with the pressure inside the capping stack, and basically have reached astatic condition in the well that allows us to have high confidence that there will be no oil leakinginto the environment. And we have significantly improved our chances to finally kill the wellwith the relief wells when that does occur.

The discussions that are going on today between the science team down in Houston and the BPengineers are regarding whether or not we should follow up the mud that has been put into thewellbore with actual cement. And the discussion around that revolves around what we think thestatus of the drill pipe is: Is it still where we thought it was? Because where that drill pipe is, is

consequential in how you put the cement in and the success of cementing it.Those discussions are ongoing. We will not make a decision on that until weve reached aresolution on our best estimate of what the condition of the drill pipe is inside the casing.

Once the decision has been made on cementing, whether to cement or not, then the next step willbe to finish off the relief well. As you know, we are about 100 feet away from where we wouldintersect the well and about four and a half feet horizontally away from it.

We would proceed forward in anywhere between 10- and 20-foot increments, drilling and thenbacking out and putting what we call a ranging tool in that will allow us to understand to exact

detail through a measurement of the magnetic field of the casing how close we were coming.We will continue to do that. This job will not be complete until we finish the relief well and havepumped the mud in and cemented it from the bottom, or the bottom kill, if you will.

So this is a very significant step. Its told us a lot more about the well itself. We will learn morein the discussions today about whether or not we need to move to have cementing as the finalportion of the static kill. But the static kill is only the preliminary portion to what ultimately willbe the bottom kill.

Regarding response operations, we continue to aggressively pursue the oil thats onshore and in

the marsh areas, some of the more heavily impacted areas around Barataria Bay to the west of the Mississippi River, the Chandeleur Islands, Breton Sound, Pass a Loutre, some areas in theMississippi Sound. We are resolute in our commitment to continue that response and cleanup.Our forces are standing by.

While we look to have an end to the source of the oil and containment, we are redoubling ourefforts to make sure that the oil thats out there is being cleaned up and being disposed of aseffectively as possible.


5/32

We will continue to do that, and we will resolutely hold BP accountable until all the oil iscleaned up and we start moving into the recovery phase and the assessment of damage to theenvironment.

MS. BROWNER: As youve heard, its been an interesting 24 hours, I think making real

progress in terms of getting this well finally closed. The fact that we are not going to have anymore leaking in the near term is certainly good news for the Gulf of Mexico and thecommunities.

I think we also have good information now from our scientists in terms of where the oil went,how the oil is behaving. But we want to be very, very clear that this does not mean there isntmore to be done. There remains a lot to be done. While sort of the first phase of closing the wellmay be coming to an end, theres another phase, which is the restoration. Its making sure thatthese communities, the individuals in these communities, are made whole.

We are going to continue to ensure that BP is held accountable for the damage that they did, for

the economic losses, and ultimately for the natural resource damages and all of the restorationthat will take place in the Gulf communities and in the Gulf at large.

MR. GIBBS: With that, Ms. Loven.

Q Yes, this would be I guess both for Carol and for Dr. Lubchenco. As I understand it, someoutside scientists have some concerns about such a sort of neat and tidy conclusion to where theoil has gone. And Im wondering whether its -- whether that definitive of a conclusion is reallywarranted with science, and why you wouldnt release the pag es of scientific backup to showhow it was arrived at.

DR. LUBCHENCO: We believe that these are the best direct measurements or estimates that wehave at the moment. We have high degree of confidence in them. If new information comes tolight, we will continue to upgrade the estimates, as is always the case in science.

The numbers that went into the calculations are posted on the website. Anyone can readily seehow the budget calculator was -- how the tool was developed, whats in it, what went into eac hof those different categories, how they are defined, how it was calculated. So we would certainlywelcome others using that tool and fact-checking, running the numbers. And Im pretty suretheyll come up with the same estimates.

Q Will you seek new estimates or is this sort of your last attempt to look at where this amount

of oil has gone?DR. LUBCHENCO: Well, some of the numbers are clearly not going to change. The amount of oil that was captured from the wellhead we know.

Q Right --


6/32

DR. LUBCHENCO: The amount that has been skimmed and burned is not likely to change.Theres just very little oil on the surface now. Theres not much oil that is visible other thanright along the shore and on some of the beaches. So those numbers are not going to change.

The amount that was chemically dispersed is not likely to change; were not using dispersants

anymore. The amount that was naturally dispersed is a result of direct calculations of how muchturbulence there was and what we know about how oil behaves at different depths underpressure. The amount that was evaporated or dissolved is I think a pretty good estimate.

So the one piece of the pie that is left after you sum all those others is what were calling theresidual, and thats a comb ination of things that we cannot measure directly or estimate withconfidence.

MR. GIBBS: Just to add to that, I mean, I think, to mention this -- Dr. Lubchenco justmentioned on the residual -- some of this is oil that, in tar balls, has, as she said earlier, washedup on the beach. Its been removed but isnt measurable because youre removing it -- you may

remove this with sand. Thats the 37,000 tons. So some of the 26 is immeasurable orunknowable.

DR. LUBCHENCO: I also want to point out one thing, and that is that there are three categorieson your pie chart that have a little asterisk by them -- residual, naturally and chemicallydispersed. And its important to recognize that each of those categories is being -- the oil inthose categories is being degraded, naturally degraded. And so some of the residual that mightbe in marshes, for example, or tar balls is being biodegraded. The oil that is beneath the surfaceas a result of dispersion and these microscopic droplets is in the process of rapid degradation.And so what you see on this pie chart, as Robert indicated, is a sum total of where the oil wentover time. But it doesnt necessarily represent whats there at this moment.

Q All right. And just to follow up really quickly, if any of you all could speak to what youthink the level of NOAAs credibility should be on a conclusion this dramatic -- potentiallypivotal, when there were points in the process when NOAA was insisting the amount of oil thatwas leaking or that there wasnt any under the surface that turned out not to be right.

MR. GIBBS: Let me take that question because it would be unfair to say that NOAA had comeup with one number during this process, or that NOAA alone bears responsibility, because Ithink its clear that -- look, throughout the process of this response, we have had the benefit of greater insight and greater technology. So at the beginning of this event, the explosion, the flowrate was measured by taking pictures of what had floated to the surface, okay?

I think by all accounts -- that happens in the first couple days. I think by all accounts even wewould tell you thats not the best way to measure the flow rate. But that was the best way wehad at that point to measure the flow rate.

We know that as a result of adding remotely operated vehicles to the site, we had the benefit of somewhat cloudy, two-dimensional video. Throughout the process, that video was enhanced and


7/32

upgraded to the point where we had, as you all remember, we went from the cloudier to the muchclearer two-dimensional video.

But, again, even the two- dimensional video is hard to estimate because you just simply dontknow the depth of that plume. Lastly, based on the pressure test that we required BP to take, we

were able to add instrumentation on -- at the point at these caps that allowed us to measure thepressure both inside and directly outside of the caps and the blowout preventer, which gave us,quite frankly, a better scientific measure.

Ive used this analogy before, but I think I want to take one more time to do this. It is importantto understand that this event happened 5,000 feet below the surface at a well that was severalmiles below that 5,000-foot point. It is measuring -- we were measuring the flow rate basicallyof an opened Coke can 5,000 feet below the ocean using the best available technology that wehad at the time without the benefit of knowing how big the Coke can was.

Q Right, but youre now measuring something --

MR. GIBBS: Thats always --

Q -- very complicated again --

MR. GIBBS: Right.

Q -- and saying that you have a definitive answer now.

MR. GIBBS: Using -- but -- and I dont think any of us would sit up here and tell you that wereusing the same instrumentation or information that was available to us on day one on day 106

because that simply hasnt been the case with the flow rate, and it hasnt been the case with anyof this.

I will say this, to build off of the last question that you had, Jennifer, NOAA will continue tomake measurements of the water and monitor what is happening in the Gulf, just as the EPA willcontinue to monitor air and water for dispersants and for air quality as its related to burns. That-- the testing will continue, but our information and our instrumentation has at each step in this

process gotten better simply because when we started this, we didnt have a picture of what wasgoing on down 5,000 below the ocean. We added pictures. We added enhanced pictures. Weadded pressure readings. All of that allows you to get a much clearer and much more precise

picture of whats going on.

MS. BROWNER: Can I just add another point? This has all been -- as Dr. Lubchenco said --been subjected to a scientific protocol, which means you peer review, peer review and peerreview. You look at what the inputs are. You look at what the models are. All of this has beenmade available.

And so this has been a government- wide effort, but it wasnt just government scientists wholooked at this. You reached out to the academic community, had them look at this as the models


8/32

were being developed. And as Robert just said and as Jane said herself, we may get moreinformation, for example, about the residuals such that some of that may fit into another part of the pie chart.

But what we have tried to do from the beginning is as we have numbers make them available

knowing that they may change. I think in this instance there could be some change -- thelikelihood of large-scale changes is very, very small because we have so much certainty in someof the numbers.

MR. GIBBS: Look, I dont think you can -- we wouldnt -- and I dont think you could certainlydismiss the role that Mother Nature has played. And you can see the role that its played in thispie chart.

And, look, would we be talking about a fundamentally different scenario in Alaska than wewould in the warm waters of the Gulf? Absolutely. But that has to be taken into account in thenatural degradation and evaporation process that is a result of an environment, quite frankly, that

is not the same as Prince William Sound in Alaska.Yes, maam.

Q For the oil thats been dissolved or dispersed, I understand that youre saying its degraded. But how can you be sure that it really isnt a threat any more to the wildlife?

DR. LUBCHENCO: No one is saying that its not a threat any more. The oil that has beencompletely degraded isnt because when it is biodegraded it ends up being water and carbondioxide. So if it has been biodegraded, if its gone, then its not a threat.

Oil that is in microscopic droplets that is still there may be toxic to any of the small creaturesunder the water that are encountered -- that it encounters. And even in very small droplets it is --can be toxic.

We do remain concerned and are actively studying the overall impact that both the oil at thesurface and the oil subsurface has had on the entire ecosystem of the Gulf. The oil that isbeneath the surface is in the process of very rapid degradation. Its disappearing very quickly. Itis very dilute. As you go farther and farther from the wellhead, the small microscopic droplets of oil are very quickly diluted into parts per million -- parts per million, thats very, very dilute. And farther away from the wellhead, its even more dilute.

But diluted and out of sight doesnt necessarily mean benign. And we remain concerned aboutthe long-term impacts, both on the marshes and the wildlife, but also beneath the surface, and areactively studying that, both as part of our federal response and in partnership with much of theacademic community that is also very interested in the overall long-term impacts of this.

MR. GIBBS: And Caren, again, to mention, again, the EPA will -- has done two rounds of toxicity tests. They will continue to monitor and do testing, as will NOAA, in order for us tocontinue to monitor and get a better understanding.


9/32

Yunji.

Q Robert, back in May, Tony Hayward said, The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocea n; theamount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total watervolume. After he said that, the President said that he would have fired Mr. Hayward since he

said those comments. Now it appears that Mr. Hayward may in fact have been right. Does theadministration owe him an apology?

MR. GIBBS: No. (Laughter.) I dont think he was right.

Q You dont think he was right?

MR. GIBBS: I mean, lets understand that a third of what is captured was based on -- directly ona containment strategy that had to be constructed. And Ill say this, a containment strategy thatwe pushed BP forward on, that we pushed BP to accelerate in order to capture the oil that wasleaking.

Nobody owes Tony Hayward an apology. BP has responsibilities and obligations as theresponsible polluting party in this instance. Our government will ensure that the obligations andresponsibilities that BP has continue to be met to our satisfaction.

The apology that is owed by -- any apology that is owed is to the disruption to the lives of families, fishermen, hotel owners, people that grew up in and understand the beauty that is theGulf of Mexico. Thats the apology.

Q How much of the successes today that youre laying out for us is attribu table to BP, and howmuch to the federal government? Do you think that you had to push BP to get here? I see youre

nodding your head.MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- again, I think if you go back and look at the directives signed byAdmiral Allen to various people in the corporate structure at BP, we asked for and demandedthat particularly their containment strategy be accelerated. We asked for and demanded that notone relief well be drilled, but two, in order to ensure an amount of redundancy in the system thatwould allow for a mistake or an error.

I think that the response as it is would have been different had Admiral Allen and others -- Carol,Jane, the scientific team, Secretary Chu -- not pushed at every step of the way for BP to do thingsmore comprehensively and faster.

Q I think all of you mentioned the last 24 hours have been eventful. We havent yet heard howthe President was informed of this. I know if maybe, Carol, you briefed him. Was this a phonecall to him? Was there something in person? What was the moment where the President sawthat maybe this part of the -- this phase had succeeded, and what was his reaction?


10/32

MS. BROWNER: The President is briefed virtually every day and has been from the beginning.I speak to him virtually every day, either through a memo, or most days I actually meet withhim.

MR. GIBBS: Today was actually the first day he was happy to see her. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWNER: He thanked me for his birthday present. Last night after I got off the call withour scientists and Admiral Allen, I suggested to the President that it would be important to talk toour scientific team that was in -- that are in Houston. He got on the phone with Dr. Chu, withDr. Hunter, who walked him sort of through where the static kill was and what might occur.

I then briefed him again this morning. But he has been kept informed and up to date at everyturn.

Q What time was that call?

MS. BROWNER: The call was approximately 6:30 p.m., 7:00 p.m. We released a photo fromit. So approximately 6:30 p.m. or 7:00 p.m.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, and again, we met with him at 10:00 a.m. this morning to give him anupdate. Im sure that --

MS. BROWNER: And the Admiral saw him at about 10:30 a.m.

MR. GIBBS: 10:30 a.m., yes. And Im sure he wil l continue to get updates throughout the day,as Admiral Allen said, as the scientific team continues its meetings -- Secretary Chu and othersdown there talking directly with the President.

Chip.

Q Its still a lot of oil. I think that the residual -- I think thats still about four to five times theamount that leaked from the Exxon Valdez --

MR. GIBBS: Absolutely.

Q So, I mean, youre still talking -- is it still possible that it could get into -- and I know someof its in the 37,000 gallons -- right, right, right -- but its still a monumental amount of oil. Is itstill possible that it could --

MR. GIBBS: Lets be clear, Chip, this is the largest release of oil into water in the United Statesin the history of our country.

Q But could we still have a scenario where it gets into the Loop Current, hits Florida beaches,goes around Florida, or in a hurricane gets driven ashore --


11/32

MR. GIBBS: I think the original scenario was off the coast of Delaware and halfway to Englandby September, if Im not mistaken. Ill let scientists discuss -- except youre the only scientist. (Laughter.)

DR. LUBCHENCO: There is a negligible amount of oil still at the surface. The Loop Current is

currently not in the Gulf. It is going pretty much directly -- it comes up between the YucatanPeninsula and Cuba. And it goes pretty much directly into the Florida Strait. So it is not in aposition to transport any oil, number one.

Q Its going to stay where it is?

DR. LUBCHENCO: It may connect eventually, but the real point is that theres no oil for it tobe picking up. The oil that was at the surface has pretty much either been naturally degraded orremoved.

Q Are there subsurface currents, too?

DR. LUBCHENCO: There are -- pardon me?

Q Arent there subsurface currents too?

DR. LUBCHENCO: The Loop Current does have both a surface expression and a subsurfaceexpression. But the oil that is -- we do not expect the Loop Current to become in its classic form,i.e., going into the Gulf, for a number of weeks, if not months.

And the rate at which the oil that is subsurface is being naturally biodegraded is such that theresvirtually no threat to the Keys or to the East Coast remaining.

Q And hurricane danger? Of it being pushed ashore?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Again, because there is so little oil at the surface and the oil beneath thesurface is so highly dilute, the largest concern from a hurricane would be the hurricane itself, thepower of the winds, the power of the storm surge, should that happen.

In most hurricanes that happen in coastal waters, there is some leaking of oil as a result of fueltanks being breached, ship docks being impacted. So the likelihood that a hurricane would beaffecting coastal areas with petroleum contamination is part of what FEMA and states normallyhave to deal with as part of a hurricane response. There is no additional, at this point, real

concern with respect to any of the Deepwater Horizon oil relative to any hurricanes.MR. GIBBS: Wendell.

Q Doctor, whats the difference between naturally dispersed oil and that that is dissolved? Onequestion.


12/32

And two, what do all of these findings mean for shrimpers and fishermen? When can they getback to work?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Dissolving simply means taking something that is in a more solid form andmaking it liquid. So if you put a teaspoon of sugar into your coffee or your teacup, it dissolves.

And thats what happens naturally to some of the oil. It is dissolved, meaning that it is -- it stillis hydrocarbon --

Q And thats different than being dispersed?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Dispersed means broken up from large chunks into smaller chunks, if youwill. So the dispersed oil is just little tiny droplets that then remain beneath the surface.

Q One less threatening than the other?

DR. LUBCHENCO: No, theyre pretty comparable.

Q So what does this mean for fishermen and shrimpers?

DR. LUBCHENCO: As you know, part of the federal response has been to make protecting thequality of seafood that gets to American consumers one of the highest priorities. To do that, ourfirst line of defense has been to close federal waters to fishing where there has been oil, or wherewe anticipated it might be as it was being moved by currents and by the winds.

At one point, about 36 percent of the Gulf was closed -- of the federal waters in the Gulf wereclosed to fishing. Last -- was it last week that we announced -- recently, we announced openingof a third of that area, so there is still a sizeable area that is closed to fishing in federal waters.

To determine whether areas are safe to reopen, we have a very specific protocol that NOAA andthe Food and Drug Administration and the Gulf States have all agreed upon. That involvesactively testing seafood for contaminants and only when they pass those tests is an area -- can anarea be reopened. So the first goal here is to protect the quality of the seafood, make sure that nocontaminated seafood gets into the markets, to restaurants or whatever.

The consequence to shrimpers and to fishermen remains to be calculated. Clearly, there has beenvery significant disruption to them, to their livelihoods. And our hope is to get them back fishingas soon as possible, but only when its safe for them to be doing so and for the seafood thattheyre catching to be edible.

Q So theres really no reassurance for them in todays findings?

DR. LUBCHENCO: I think the reassurance is that most of the oil is gone from the surface. Andso we can proceed with following the reopening protocols as rapidly as possible. We will do thatcarefully and in partnership with the states.


13/32

The states regulate what happens in state waters. I want to be clear about this. The federalgovernment is only responsible for federal waters. And the impact to fishermen is obviouslyquite considerable and is of serious concern to all of us. And thats part of the federal effort toaddress and to hold BP accountable for the consequence of this to those -- to the fishermen.

MR. GIBBS: Chuck.Q Only 8 percent chemically dispersed. Are you going to revisit the use of these chemicaldispersants considering that, A, it only accounted for 8 percent of getting rid of it, and B, theconcerns that are out there among some health organizations and some scientists about theeffects of these dispersants?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Thanks, Chuck. As you know, this has been a topic thats been discussedextensively over the last couple of months. As we got into the spill, we were using preexistingprotocols that are authorized under law for the use of dispersants, so the use of dispersants is notillegal. It is consistent with schedules that are put out by EPA.

But it became very apparent early on that the amount that we were using was far more than wasever anticipated. And we had to start to move into the subsea category to try and control the oilat the source. There was extensive consultation between myself and Lisa Jackson. JaneLubchenco has been involved in it. That resulted in a 25th of May agreement to reducedispersant use by 75 percent; as of the time the well was capped, we had reduced it 72 percent.

We didnt know that there would have to be exceptions where you had oil that was going to havea dramatic impact should it come ashore, that you could not burn or skim -- there was no otherway to deal with it. On the 22nd of June, I agreed with Lisa Jackson we would put somebodyfrom EPA into the review process down at the Unified Area Command. And we continue to

work this problem going forward.Just prior to the capping stack being put on, I convened a conference call with Jane, LisaJackson, Marcia McNutt and some other folks to talk about the interplay between skimming,burning, use of dispersants and the tools that are available to our commanders that are out there.

We have never had to use these tools on the order of magnitude they were employed during thisresponse. I think a very thoughtful analysis of how they were employed, the effectiveness thatwas achieved, is going to be necessary going forward. And we, in fact, had started to engage inthat discussion while the spill was going on.

The well has been capped. Theres no oil out there right now. The questions remain. And Ithink any commission work or any follow-on work needs to take a look at the relativeeffectiveness of all those tools and should guide future policy.

Q But it sounds like the idea of maybe chemical dispersants, considering what they accountedfor, maybe can easily be avoided?


14/32

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, I dont think we ought to jump to that conclusion because oil is verytoxic. And there are times when you cannot skim and you cannot burn, and you have to make adecision on how youre going to deal with that. And those are tactical decisions ourcommanders make on the scene.

MR. GIBBS: Let me just add a little context to this because, Chuck, we spend a lot of time inhere and you all spend a lot of time covering not enough skimmers, right? So its almost threetimes the amount of oil was chemically dispersed as was skimmed, despite the fact that we were-- and we now have I think on the order of, probably in the region somewhere between 700 and800 skimmers, right? So 8 percent may not sound like a lot. The amount -- again, we wereusing this also at a subsea -- at the wellhead in a way that hadnt been used before.

In terms of the toxicity, Ill reiterate what I said earlier -- and well send this around toeverybody. On Monday, the EPA put out the second of its toxicity tests on oil dispersants. Thetests showed that what they found was no more toxic than the oil.

So the notion that you didnt have huge amounts of it washing up at Port St. Joe, or --Q Yes, but there has been a concern that dispersant and oil together actually can -- theres beensome -- and I know that its not been government scientists that said this concern that thecombination actually could be more --

MR. GIBBS: And that concern has -- is why EPA tested before, tested and released those resultson Monday, which showed that despite a hypothesis that that plus the oil might increase thetoxicity, that was found not to be true. And EPA will continue to monitor the area as we goforward so that we have a better understanding of whats going on.

ADMIRAL ALLEN: And Chuck, that test specifically focused on mixing the oil with thedispersants and found out that it was the more greater toxicity.

Q And the moratorium, the drilling moratorium. Considering where we are now, anyconsideration being given by the administration to speed up the lifting of this moratorium?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we talked about this this morning, and I think it is -- I think we should beclear about this. The President -- this is a -- the President put in place a temporary deepwaterdrilling moratorium. Ive said, and he has said, this was not and is not intended to be apermanent ban on deepwater drilling. But the President I think has laid out a series of fairlycommon-sense tests that he believes have to be met. What happened? Do we have a full

understanding of what in this well went wrong? How do we ensure, understanding that, that itnever happens again? In other words, was this a one-off event based on circumstances at thiswell? Was this a problem with technology that exists on wells throughout the Gulf? How do weunderstand that?

And then thirdly, ensuring that companies that are undertaking what we know is a risky venture5,000 feet below the ocean, making sure that these companies have a containment plan thatscommensurate with the type of activity theyre undertaking.


15/32

Q So, in short, no plans to speed up any --

MR. GIBBS: Hold on, let me finish. So once all three of those can be met, the President will liftthat moratorium. And if those conditions can be met before th e end of November, wed certainlyhappily do that. We just want to ensure, from a very common-sense standpoint, that those

conditions and those tests are, to the best of the ability of those involved, understood andaccounted for.

And, again, I think -- Id go back to -- all the weeks now tend to blur together -- but the oilcompanies with drilling permits in the Gulf have discussed and made mention of both a fund anda more comprehensive series of plans to contain the oil. Thats a good step in the rig ht direction.

I will say this. Remember, when we were discussing this in the very beginning, the advent of theoil moratorium would be, every one of these rigs would go somewhere else. That also, in thenumbers in which those predictions were made, those numbers have not come to fruition.

Q I have a non-spill question. You want me to wait?MR. GIBBS: Yes, well go ahead.

Q Thanks. Id like to get to how this report will be used as the basis for the legal case againstBP. For example, the 827,000 barrels of oil recovered at the well site, will that form the basis of the fines? Will BP be fined for that oil?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say -- Im going to leave -- we only have one scientist and we have nolawyers that I know of -- are you a lawyer? Im sorry. (Laughter.)

Q I went to law school.MR. GIBBS: Im sorry. Well, are you a lawyer or an attorney?

Q Im not a Justice Department attorney. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: Ill leave the legal questions up to the Department of Justice. Understand that thelaw provides for and Justice will go through the process of adjudicating -- the law calls for a per-barrel fine I think of up to -- I think its $4,300 per barrel per day that BP could be -- that BP willbe liable for. Theyll get a -- they are getting bills from us on -- for cleanup activities now. Theywill get a bill and a penalty for the amount of pollution emitted into the Gulf. They will also be

on the hook for natural resource damage assessments for the damage thats been done, as well asthe $20 billion thats in the escrow fund to compensate for the economic claims of the damage.

Q You cite a variety of scientists who participated in preparing this report. Did some of BPsown scientists or any from the oil industry participate?

DR. LUBCHENCO: The names of all of the people who participated in the report and thecalculations that went into it are listed in the report, so you can actually look at them. There


16/32

were individuals from the oil industry who did some of the peer review, but they were notinvolved in the original calculations.

MR. GIBBS: Do you have some numbers you want to --

MS. BROWNER: Ive been doing math back here.

DR. LUBCHENCO: So the question was the amount that was chemically dispersed, which isthe 8 percent figure thats here, is a little over 400,000 barrels. Thats what that equates to. Andthats about twice the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, just to give you a sense, just to put that incontext.*

MR. GIBBS: Mark.

Q Admiral Allen, are you able to an swer Roberts question about what went wrong at thewell? Do you yet have an understanding of what happened that caused all this and how other

drillers can avoid it?ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, most of that will be the result of the Marine Board of Investigationthats currently being convened in New Orleans. Thats jointly by Homeland Security andDepartment of Interior. That is ongoing and I would refer any questions to that.

Obviously, as we look at controlling the well itself, were going to find out where the drill pipe isat and what the condition of the pipe is. We dont know exactly where its at, and thats kind of the subject of some of the discussions today about how the cementing should proceed. We dontknow exactly the condition of the annulus. We are going to have to take the blowout preventeroff and take a look at it.

So I think its all a story thats still unfolding. By the time we finish the static kill and the bottom kill, well know more about it. But Im not sure well have a definiti ve answer untilthose other actions are taken.

Q Do you have an idea?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: I wouldnt want to speculate.

MR. GIBBS: Roger.

Q Yes, early on in the spill, government scientists said that the effects of the spill would lingerfor I think it was around 10 years or something like that -- some big number. As a result of theevaporation and the collection and stuff that you have today, has that assessment changed or is itstill 10 years?

DR. LUBCHENCO: I think the common view of most of the scientists inside and outsidegovernment is that the effects of this spill will likely linger for decades. The fact that so much of the oil has been removed and in the process of being degraded is very significant and means that


17/32

the impact will not be even worse than it might have been. But the oil that was released and hasalready impacted wildlife at the surface, young juvenile stages and eggs beneath the surface, willlikely have very considerable impacts for years and possibly decades to come.

The research investigations that are underway now are designed to get a better handle on exactly

what that impact is, but thats not something that is easy to determine. For example, bluefintuna, who spawn at the time -- this time of year, have eggs and young juvenile stages calledlarvae that would have been in the water column when the oil was present. If those eggs orlarvae were exposed to oil, they probably would have died or been significantly impacted. Andwe wont see the full result of that for a numb er of years to come.

This is one of the challenges of getting a handle on the impact of a spill like this. The totalamount of oil was immense, and the impact is likely to continue to be considerable, even thoughMother Nature is helping assist the federa l effort and were aggressively removing as much aspossible and it is degrading rapidly. But the impact of the oil that was released is likely to beconsiderable.

MR. GIBBS: Ari.

Q Looking at the residual 26 percent, I know its impossible to measure exactly how much of that has been scooped up, but can you give us any idea of whether its a small fraction of that, amajority, somewhere in the middle?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, I think we know weve covered I think 36,000 or 37,000 tons of debris. Some of that, if its just sand and oil, its going to have a higher concentration of sandthan if it was on wood -- could be marsh grass and some other areas.

So this is not going to be an exact science in how we try and figure out exactly what theimplications of that oil is.

We can anecdotally understand -- try and understand what it is from what we recoveredmechanically, but its going to take us a while to actually get our arms around this.

Q And also, is there any re-evaluation of the use of skimmers, given that so much effort wasput into the skimmers and it was 3 percent of the total oil?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, I think this gets back to the discussion we had earlier. I think thereneeds to be an evaluation of all the interventions that were used. And even among the skimmers

themselves, there are different types of skimmers. There are skimmers that basically collect theoil then have it vacuumed. There are skimmers that are called oleophilic skimmers where youhave material that oil actually sticks to and then you scrape it off. And I think when were alldone were going to have to go back and say, moving forward, as we create an inventory of response tools, what really served us best in this response.

MR. GIBBS: But, again, just to do the math with these guys.


18/32

Q Three percent is a lot.

MR. GIBBS: Three percent is almost an Exxon-Valdez. So you can be the judge of the --

DR. LUBCHENCO: Robert, could I just clarify that the residual category is a combination of

things that cannot be easily measured or estimated. Its whats left over when you can measureand estimate all those other categories. And then to make a total to 100 percent, theres that 26percent. So this should not be interpreted as oil that is still out there necessarily. Some of it maybe. Some of it has already been degraded. Some of it has already been collected. So its not stillout there. Twenty- six isnt still out there.

MR. GIBBS: Ann.

Q I know youre not actually putting out a Mission Accomplished banner on thi s, but,Admiral Allen, is today a day that marks a change in what this incident is, a change in whatyoure doing? How different does today make the entire incident?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, as I think Robert said, this is the beginning of the end of a phase. Idont want to get caught up in semantics. Its a consequential day. Weve significantly reducedthe threat of hydrocarbons into the environment that have plagued us for a long, long time, andwe took a major step on the 15th of July when we put the capping stack on. This is an insurancemeasure and it will bring the whole thing home when we actually kill the bottom of the well.

But I think everybody needs to understand there is a continuum of activities. We want toreassure the people in the Gulf Coast and the people of the nation that this is just one phase of what you have to do to respond when you have an oil spill, because its not just the on -the-waterand the source control. It has to do with the beach cleanup, and it has to do with the long-term

environmental damage. Theres still a lot of work to do, but the nature of the work will change. And therefore, the type of resources, how were approaching it, will have to change, too, becausewe have a different set of activities we have to deal with.

Q Should we take great encouragement from whats happened today?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, given the fact this is such a -- the magnitude of this event, I think wecan have some optimism that were not going to deal with oil that was indeterminate. You heardme say it was indeterminate, omni-directional. We didnt have a way to bound it. Its boundednow. It is bounded.

Q Whats the timeframe from today? MR. GIBBS: And I would just say this, Sam. Let me just -- theres a r eason why -- well, theresa lot of reasons why theres no Mission Accomplished banner -- because theres a lot of work to do.

And I think its important -- and I would go back, direct you not to what I said but direct you towhat Thad just said and more importantly what the President said. The reason why we are


19/32

moving to focusing on a different phase is because we have -- we are nearing the completion of the killing of this well, which was our foremost priority since the leak began. But were notleaving the area. And more importantly, were not leaving behind any commitment to clean upwhats been -- the damage thats been done and repair and restore the Gulf as an ecosystem of great importance to, obviously, that region of the country, but to the country as a whole.

Q Robert, most of you have repeatedly said that the 26 percent is unknowable, itsimmeasurable at this moment, and the estimate of the 4.9 million barrels of what emanated fromthis well is also an estimate. So couldnt the actual am ount of oil out there that has leachedthrough the coast or is still somewhere under the surface, couldnt it be considerably more thanthe 26 percent? And isnt that number -- youve been accused before of initially rosy estimates -- isnt the 26 percent , which seems particularly reassuring --

MR. GIBBS: I want to refer you to the fairly lengthy answer I gave on this about 30 minutesago.

Q No, no, but the number -- the 26 percent number is a reassuring number, its meant toreassure folks.

MR. GIBBS: No, its an actual number about where the oil is. Its not -- this isnt a reassurancedocument. This is a compendium --

Q This is a statistically significant --

MR. GIBBS: Its a compendium of where the oil is. And, again, I want to be clear, the flow rate-- we have a greater understanding and greater access to information based on directives that wehave issued, based on instrumentation that is 5,000 feet below the ocean that allow us to measure

the flow rate now far better than we did on day one with photographs of overflights.ADMIRAL ALLEN: Look, maybe I can summarize here. Sorry. As this incident has evolved,we have come up with great clarify and organizational structure on how we want to measureflow rate. Let me just tell you some of the major component parts because this is not arbitraryand capricious and Marcia McNutt has done a great job leading her group.

There are about three or four pieces to determining the flow rate. The first one is created bywhat we call the mass balance team. Thats trying to understand exactly how much oil is outthere that we can see and measure on the water. This is everything from satellite imagery tosome very sophisticated NASA aircraft that actually look at the reflectivity of the surface of the

ocean. And it varies whether or not you have oil or water and actually give you a thicknessestimate related to that.

The second one is the plume analysis. And there are two different ways to look at that. AsRobert said, its moving from two -dimensional to three-dimensional. We also had acoustictesting done on that stream by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. We have a reservoirmodeling team. As the reservoir has been depleted, that changes the pressure coming up and we


20/32

know now that there was nt a linear -- there wasnt the same amount of flow every day. Itchanged based on the pressure that was coming up from the reservoir.

And finally, we had a nodal analysis team that looked at where the oil was at at differentparticular stages as it came forward. And so we had different ways to look at this and bring it

together.We started out -- I think it was 12 to 25 and 19 to 25; based on better information, we went from35 to 60. We bracketed it. And then lately weve been able to get the better pressuremeasurements as the capping stack went on. And we continue to refine this.

It doesnt mean were going to stop. It just means were getting better and better at getting theinformation and putting that together and creating a picture.

MR. GIBBS: April. You want to add something to that?

DR. LUBCHENCO: The flow rate of 4.9, which is what Admiral Allen has been talking about,has the plus or minus 10 percent, so that would be between 4.4 and 5.4. And the -- if we focuson the residual part of the pie chart, the 26 percent is at the intermediate number. So thats at the4.6 million barrel number.

If you want to know what the percent of the residual is for the full plus or minus 10 percent, itranges from 24 percent to 28 percent. And the reason for that is that some of the numbers aredirect -- in the pie chart -- are direct measurements such as the oil that was recovered from thewellhead. So that number is an absolute number. It doesnt change. And so when you do thecalculations to come up with the percentage, the amount that is residual, we feel quitecomfortable saying that it is most likely around 26 percent. It might be as low as 24 percent; it

might be as high as 28 percent. But its not going to be significantly different from tha t.MR. GIBBS: April.

Q Whats the certainty theres not an oil coating on the ocean floor, with all your charts andinformation?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Weve had a lot of research vessels that are out on the water, imaging or using remotely operated vehicles or gliders to determine exactly where the oil is subsurface andwhat its doing where it is.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no oil that is accumulating on the seafloor. We have noevidence that there is any oil that is sitting on the bottom or sinking down to the bottom. The oilthat did not rise to the surface, that was not light enough to make it to the surface, is the oil thathas been dispersed, either naturally or chemically. And that is in very small, microscopicdroplets. And its prima rily between 3,300 and 4,300 feet as a very diffuse cloud that is inconcentrations that diminish as you go away from the wellhead. And that is the oil that is in theprocess of being naturally degraded.


21/32

So thats the oil that is beneath the surface. Its microscopic. Its dilute.

Q Now, in your talking, you gave an example earlier about blue tuna, the larvae of this bluetuna. Does that mean, with that example and others, does that mean that you will be testing --the federal government will be testing for decades the seafood out of the Gulf?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify that. Fish metabolizehydrocarbons relatively rapidly. And so if an adult fish or a fish that would be the size thatfishermen would catch and bring to market, if that fish is exposed to oil, it might becontaminated initially, but it metabolizes. It naturally breaks down the oil. And so after a periodof time on the order of weeks, that fish is no longer unfit for human consumption. It has brokendown the hydrocarbons, and it is safe to eat.

Thats what we are testing to make sure that that process -- that natural process has happened,and that the seafood is safe.

The example that I gave you for bluefin tuna was to illustrate that our interest is not only in thefish that are recognizable as fish that are out there now, but that there are very small microscopic juvenile stages that will -- would have grown up to be a fish many, many years from now. Thoseare the ones that are of potential concern. Those are more vulnerable than are most of the fishthat are live and out swimming around in the Gulf.

Q How long are you expecting to test?

DR. LUBCHENCO: We will continue to test as long as is needed and we will be following this-- we will be following the impacts of the oil in the Gulf for years, if not decades.

The seafood testing that we have already done is telling us that it is being degraded naturally andthat areas that we are opening have seafood that is safe to eat.

MR. GIBBS: Margaret.

Q Thanks. I have two questions. The first one follows all of this, both in terms of food safetyand also in terms of whats going on with subsurface plumes. You mentioned that the testingwill continue. Can you tell us precisely and explicitly how often you will continue to monitor it,whether the monitoring mechanisms will change, whether the pace or the duration of themonitoring will change?

I know youre continuing to do it, but will you do it slightly less frequently? Or are you puttinga mandate on it now? Or will things continue exactly as they have been pro forma until someother pronouncement is made?

DR. LUBCHENCO: So are you asking specifically about the monitoring for seafood safety?

Q Im asking about both the monito ring of seafood safety and the monitoring of theenvironmental effects in the subsurface plumes.


22/32

DR. LUBCHENCO: Okay, so lets keep those in separate categories because the answer isdifferent. For monitoring for seafood safety, we have a very extensive protocol. First of all,when the oil spill first happened, we went out and got a lot of samples of fish and shellfish fromaround the Gulf to have baseline samples against which we could compare any changes, shouldthey happen. So we have those. Theyve been processed.

We have a very specific protocol for monitoring and testing areas that we think are the nextlogical places to be opening -- or to be considered for opening. If an area was only lightly oiledonce, then we would consider that a more likely candidate for targeting our testing effort than anarea that was repeatedly oiled. So we are going to be monitoring areas where we think itslogical that there would be a possibility of reopening. When the testing shows it is safe, we willopen those areas according to those protocols.

Q These findings in and of themselves dont change the schedule or the form or the pace of testing in any way?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Thats exactly right. Todays findings just help us understand what hashappened in the big picture. It does not modify our efforts to monitor and test for seafood safety,or to monitor and do research on the impacts of the spill on the Gulf at large.

Q So that continues at exactly the same pace until something else says that that should change?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Thats correct.

Q My second question is, you talked a little bit about the bluefin tuna. Is there any evidencethat the dispersed oil has -- as this point, is there any evidence that it has damaged the food chainin any ways that could ripple up or affect endangered creatures? I understand why you would

sort of -- expect sort of to get bad news to some degree on those fronts, but is there yet anyevidence that you can talk about?

DR. LUBCHENCO: The impact on the Gulf will take time to understand and to evaluate withconfidence. We are actively doing research and monitoring the impact, but its premature to talk about any systemic, overall impacts at this point because there hasnt been enough time to do

justice to that very important topic.

MR. GIBBS: Sam.

Q Admiral Allen, you said today is a consequential day, but I think were wondering when is

the end date? When is the -- whats the timeframe for today for the bottom kill, for finishing therelief well?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Ill give you two answers based on when we make the decision on thecementing.

Q So right now -- I guess that answers my question. You dont know when --


23/32

ADMIRAL ALLEN: No, it depends on the status of the well. What were going to do is weregoing t o drill into the annulus, and were prepared to put mud and cement in and basically killthe annulus.

After that cement dries, then we have the option to drill back in and go into the pipe and do the

same thing there. It depends on the results of the static kill and the cementing decision for thestatic kill. If you have to do everything, the analogy Ive used is taking tree rings, hollow treerings, and filling one up and making a smaller tree and then going into the next tree. And weregoing to do that twice -- once is the annulus, the other one is the pipe itself.

And how much we have to do at the bottom depends on the effectiveness of the static kill and thedecision on the cementing. If we have to do it twice, it will be about probably anywhere fromfive to seven days for the first one, and maybe five to seven days after that for the second one.

Q So youre looking at, worst -case scenario, two weeks from today?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Towards the end of August, yes. If we have to do both, yes.MR. GIBBS: Bill.

Q To anyone there, I guess. We heard so much of the doomsday scenario in the beginning of this, the blackened beaches and oil coming up the East Coast, as Chip indicated, and fishermenand shrimpers being out of business forever, having to leave the area. Is part of the messagetoday that the long-term impact of the spill is really not as bad as we had anticipated?

MR. GIBBS: I think as Dr. Lubchenco said, were going to -- we have to evaluate what all of this means. I think it is fairly safe to say that because of the environmental effects of Mother

Nature, the warm waters of the Gulf and the federal response, that many of the doomsdayscenarios that were talked about and repeated a lot have not and will not come to fruition becauseof that. I think that is --

Q Its good news.

MR. GIBBS: It is very good news. And I think as Admiral Allen said, there were -- there havebeen many points along this that are important. I mean, again, as he said, we have not had anactive amount of hydrocarbon being emitted into the Gulf since the sealing cap went on the 15thof July. So there are many points along this that I think we can point to as being important days.

Obviously, the static kill is a step in the ultimate killing of the well. But, again, then well focus-- our focus will be off of containment and capture and more directly on damage and restoration.

Ken.

Q Since we appear to have moved into a new phase here, I was wondering if I can maybe ask aquestion moving forward about an assessment of the equipment that the Coast Guard and NOAA


24/32

has at this point. Have you folks found any evidence or need to perhaps go back and reviewwhether you have the proper equipment to assist in these kind of operations?

And to give it a little context, the reason I ask the question is, weve depended on BP for thevisuals, also the robotics beneath the surface, and I was wondering if you find that system to

have -- if that is the proper way to go? Or if the United States is to reconsider whether or notwere properly armed to deal with these sort of emergencies?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: I think youre asking a really good question. I think were going to haveto do a couple of things. First of all, I would say in the five years following the Exxon Valdez toabout the mid-1990s, we had a pretty robust R&D program, looking at oil spill responsetechnologies. Thats when we actually developed the protocols for in -situ burning and use of dispersants.

I was a field commander at the time that had to negotiate those protocols with the localstakeholders. The further we got away from that event, the investment in R&D kind of

tapered off. We had technology move into deepwater drilling. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990was directed at tanker-based oil traffic. I think its time for an assessment. I think there are a lotof technologies that were proposed that because of the capping we didnt get to test. I think thereneeds to be a very vigorous interagency process looking at R&D issues and at theeffectiveness of these tools moving forward. I think some of this may come out of thecommission.

But I think everything indicates a re-baselining of our tools, what should be in the governmentinventory, w hat shouldnt be. This is the time to do that.

Q If I could follow --

MR. GIBBS: And, Ken, I would just say that that is precisely why the President stood up thecommission. In the very beginning of this, I got asked I dont know how many times, doesntthe military just have something? Dont you have some submarine with giant mechanical armsthat can sustain pressure at 5,000 feet and somehow screw the bottle cap on top of the blowoutpreventer?

Q Its with the secret rocket, right?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, well, Captain Nemo was unavoidably detained. Look, I think that is what wehave to evaluate. And I think the question also -- when you get a permit to drill, and this is what

I talked about in terms of the deepwater drilling, the President wants to be assured that there is acontainment structure and a plan in place that matches directly what is being undertaken -- thesize, the scope of the well, the depth at which its being done at and what equipment needs to beon hand either from our perspective or from the perspective of a company thats making those.

Did you have another one?

Q You covered it actually in that.


25/32

MR. GIBBS: Okay, go ahead.

Q Whats the status of the berm project that Governor Jindal advocated? And is there any needfor that now?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Id refer that question to Governor Jindal. (Laughter.)

Q Can you discuss just a little bit the emotional response to this news within theadministration? You mentioned that the President -- that was the first time that he was delightedto hear from Ms. Browner.

MR. GIBBS: I was somewhat joking.

Q I assume. But this has cast a pall over the administration for weeks. Its dominated the newscycles at times Im sure you would have rather talked about other things like the e conomy. Wasthere a collective sigh of relief? How was this --

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think we have -- many of us up here have been working on this for now ahundred and some-odd days. I dont think anybody gets real high or real low because we haveon any number of occasions met timelines that werent going to get met as they originally were. And I would reiterate that I dont -- today is not an end. Today is not -- today does not mark somehow the dissolution of the energy and the effort in the Gulf.

It is a point along a journey toward -- that will ultimately end in restoring the Gulf to a place that,as the President said, isnt the way the Gulf was the day before this happened. But we have alltalked about what happened to the Gulf and to the natural barrier islands as a result of hurricanesthat have happened over the years and getting the Gulf back to -- and restore the Gulf back to the

health that it was before that.Q So is there at least a feeling that the oil clouds are parting?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I dont think theres any doubt that the static kill having worked is goodnews. The evaluation that will now happen about the bottom kill, the progress that weve madeon the relief well, the sealing cap thats been in place since the 15th of Jul y and the notion thatwe have a fairly accurate and scientific accounting of where the oil is represents a good dayamong those hundred or so that weve been dealing with this.

Yes, maam.

Q Is there a White House strategy going forward on natural resource damage assessments?Will those be done yearly? And will BP be billed for those?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Ill make the first comment and maybe Carol would like to comment.


26/32

The natural resource damage assessment is required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. It involvesthe federal trustees -- and that would be the Department of Commerce and NOAA, Fish andWildlife, Interior, Tribal Resources and so forth. And theres --

MS. BROWNER: And states.

ADMIRAL ALLEN: And states. Theres actually a government structure thats associated withthat with a lead federal trustee kind of a coordinator that kind of replaces the federal on-scenecoordinator for the response model, if you will, to take a look at how theyre going to do theassessment and move forward. And the steering committee for that group has already met acouple of times in the process of being stood up.

MR. GIBBS: Mike.

Q The President and the First Family are due to vacation down in the Gulf next weekend. Hasanything tha ts happened in the past 24 hours changed their plans? Is he going to have any sort

of public event or opportunity to get a firsthand assessment?MR. GIBBS: I dont have the schedule in front of me. There will be a public component to that.We discussed -- weve discussed that over the past several days. Well get more information toyou as we get closer to that.

Q There wouldnt be any chance of him going sooner?

MR. GIBBS: No, no.

Yes, sir.

Q Overall, what has the administration learned from this whole incident?

MR. GIBBS: How much time do you have? (Laughter.) Want to take a crack?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Actually, it relates to the earlier question. Ill just give you one facet of it. As Ive looked at the oil production infrastructure in the Gul f of Mexico as it relates to response,back when the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed, it was basically tanker-focused.Somewhere between 1984 and 1985, the drilling began to move offshore.

There were a couple of significant breakthroughs that were happening at the time we were

focused on tankers. One of them was we werent restricted to fixed rigs any more; we hadfloating rigs. And the production machinery and a lot of the stuff associated with the drillingsystems went to the bottom, including blowout preventers.

At the same time, the controls that control everything down there and the hydraulics benefittedfrom multiplexing and being able to send electronic signals down the hydraulics rather thantrying to press that stuff down a mile. That allowed them to move further offshore, where our


27/32

regulatory environment for response planning was focused on tanker-driven incidents, althoughwe knew it was going on.

What weve had to bring into the Gulf to effectuate the control of this well is a combination of technologies that are used in the Northern Sea and off of Angola, where they used vertically riser

-- that are suspended under the water. None of that preexisted in the Gulf of Mexico because allthe oil is transported by pipelines back to where it is embarked, so we actually had to puttogether -- I say we collectively, led mostly by the private sector -- pieces of oil containment andproduction structures that are used in different parts of the world and bring them for the first timeever into the Gulf of Mexico.

When the Helix Producer started producing, that was the first time a floating production platformhad ever operated in the Gulf of Mexico. I think weve learned a lot.

MS. BROWNER: I just want to add one thing -- I mean, as Robert said, how much time do youhave? But one of the things that I have found very interesting in this process is our ability to

reach out and really engage the entire federal government. This has been a very, very largeundertaking.

And so theres the obvious partie s that participate -- the Coast Guard who has the expertise interms of oil spill; NOAA, obviously; EPA. But also we brought in Dr. Chu. We brought in theNational Science Labs. And this really became a government-wide effort at every turn to sortthrough what was the best way to take the next step, to get this contained, to get it closed.

And now well be engaging even more agencies as we move into the next phase, which is thecleanup and then the restoration.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.Q Do you -- at this point, you say that the 8 percent represents the chemically dispersed aspectof the oil. Then how important was this decision on May 15th to do this unprecedented movewhere you actually took the oil from the surface and decided that you would disperse it on thefloor of the ocean, first time ever thats been done?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Correct. Actually, that was done after there was consultation withindustry. And I think ExxonMobil might have been the ones that actually recommended it toBP. It had bee n tried someplace else in the world, and forgive me if I dont know the exactlocation. They said this is something that may be applicable, but it had never been done at this

depth.The reason that was important to the overall dispersant strategy is that for dispersants to work,you have to have some agitation to be able to make it actually interact with the oil and disperse.If you just deliver it through an aerial platform to oil thats sitting on the surface, it has an effect,

but its not as effective unless you can get it agitated.


28/32

Applying a very small amount of dispersant into the column as it rises up that 5,000 feet and theenergy and the agitation that takes place greatly facilitates the dispersion, and then greatlyfacilitates the biodegradation that happens to the oil. So the decision to do that was one of thesteps that allowed us to say we can significantly reduce the amount of dispersants -- rightamount, right place, right time -- using the energy generated by the oil itself rising.

Q It had never been tried before; it was a gutsy move to do. Do you think it was the rightdecision?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, in retrospect, it is one of the conditions that allowed us to sit downwith Lisa Jackson, I think around the 25th of May, and said, w ere going to reduce dispersants by75 percent, and we got to 72 before the capping stack went on. But one of the reasons we wereable to do that is we were more able to effectively apply the dispersants we needed to apply atthe point where theyd have t he most effect.

Q I wanted to follow up on the food chain question. Some researchers at Tulane University

have found an oil and dispersant mix under the shells of blue crab larvae all over the Gulf of Mexico. Is there any concern that the dispersed oil is actually so small that it has a greaterchance of entering the food chain?

DR. LUBCHENCO: Oil that is dispersed is in smaller droplets and it would be -- smallerdroplets affect smaller creatures; bigger chunks affect bigger creatures. So I think the dispersedoil -- Im trying to figure out how to answer this simply -- oil that is dispersed is more likely tobe encountered by and affect the smaller life in the oceans, I think is the simplest way to put it.And this is true --

Q But bigger animals eat these crab larvae, though.

DR. LUBCHENCO: So what I said was true whether the dispersed oil was dispersed naturallyor dispersed chemically. It doesnt really matter how it got to be microscopic droplets. And sothere is likely to be some dispersed oil that affects various creatures in the ocean, and thats partof the long- term studies that we need to do to see what impact thats going to have on those foodwebs.

Now, lets say, for example, that a fish is eating some of those smaller creatures that had oil inthem. That fish will degrade that oil and process it naturally. And so it doesnt bio -accumulate,so its not a situation where we need to be concerned about that. Over time, it will be brokendown. The question is, what is the impact in the meantime.

Q Probably for the Admiral. Of the 27,000 rigs that are now in the Gulf, how many are activeand how many do you feel secure about in terms of their integrity, sir?

ADMIRAL ALLEN: Actually Im going to probably throw that to Carol.

MS. BROWNER: I think -- it changes. It changes as things move around. So we can get you --


29/32


30/32

MR. GIBBS: A vote of no legal significance in the midst of heavy Republican primaries.

Q I mean, what does it tell you, though, in terms of what --

MR. GIBBS: Nothing. (Laughter.)

Q The President of Mexico has -- oh, sorry.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, go ahead -- Ill come back.

Q The President of Mexico has just said that he is going to be open to hear proposals tolegalize drug consumption in Mexico. And some people in the federal government are sayingbecause the Merida Initiative is not working, he is looking for other option. What is the WhiteHouse reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen those statements. Let me get some guidance from NSC and well -

-

Q But what is the position of the President in terms of legalize the use of drugs?

MR. GIBBS: Not been for drug legalization.

Goyal.

Q As far as this BP accident is concerned, what message do you have for America as far as anyimpact on the gas stations prices are concerned -- short term, long term, or international market?

MR. GIBBS: This was an exploratory well and not a production well. In other words, this wasnot -- what happens is these wells are drilled and cemented and then they come back at somepoint for production. So this is not oil that is taken out of the larger scheme of the oil economy,as it was an exploratory well.

Q What about Bradley Manning? Could you tell us about Bradley Manning --

Q On the state aid bill --

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q You wont? Q On the state aid bill that the --

MR. GIBBS: I dont discuss active investigations.

Q Collins and Snowe of Maine voted for the state aid bill today and overcame the filibuster because they said it was an emergency, and theyre now saying since its an emergency the


31/32

House needs to come back and pass this thing. Is the White House trying to get the House tocome back to pass this? Do you consider it an emergency that needs to be --

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this. I think todays vote rep resents -- well, todays vote is animportant development as we head back into the school year and tens of thousands, probably

more than 160,000 teachers, as a result of this economy, were likely facing pink slips. And weknow what that means for -- any of us who have children in school, we understand what thatmeans. When you take that number of teachers out of the classroom, you increase the teacher-to-student ratios; it affects our long-term ability to educate our children and to compete in thiseconomy.

Senator Collins and Senator Snowe stood up and bravely joined 59 others in ensuring that wewould take some of those important steps. Let me check on the House. I know that this issomething that -- this was of great importance to the House and it is our hope that we can getsomething, having moved beyond this filibuster, to the Presidents desk that can prevent thosetens of thousands of teachers from being laid off.

Q And you think the President would like to see it this week, which would require the House --

MR. GIBBS: I think the President would like to see it as quickly as he can.

Q If I could on Iran, which said its gotten 300 antiaircraft missiles from Belarus after weconvinced the Russians not to sell --

MR. GIBBS: Belarus, I believe, has denied that, and I would point you to that report.

Q Thank you, Robert.MR. GIBBS: Ill do one more and then Ill go back to work.

Q Thank you, Robert. Senator McConnell and the President are meeting this afternoon, I guesson judicial nominations or nominations in general?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President and Senator McConnell are extending their -- thebipartisan meeting that happened here a week or so ago in which the President was and continuesto be frustrated by the pace at which the Senate deals with nominations for judgeships andnominations for service in this government.

Right now there are 12 federal judicial nominees that have passed the Judiciary Committee witha unanimous vote. There are other judges that have been through the process and approved bythe Judiciary Committee. There will be a direct discussion about moving those judges -- weheard a lot in the previous eight years about the importance of federal judges. I doubt they havegotten less important in the previous 18 months.


32/32

We have documented and talked about extensively in this room the downright delay and utterobstruction in getting nominees confirmed to important positions in this government. And Ithink the President was rightly frustrated, and has been, at a pace in the Senate that is unrivaledand unmatched in its slowness. That will be the topic of discussion, and it is our hope that theSenate in the time remaining before August will move quickly on many of those judgeships, the

ones that have passed unanimously and others, as well as the appointees that have been waitingfor months to be approved.

Q And prospects for recess appointments this weekend?

MR. GIBBS: Let me know how that meeting goes, and Ill tell you that. Thanks, guys.

Q Is this their first one-on-one?

MR. GIBBS: I think so, yes.

END2:50 P.M. EDT

Documents

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Admiral Thad Allen Carol Browner and Dr. Lubchenco August 4 2010