BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Spill Killed No Gulf Fish Says NOAA

NOAA reported good news recently, as not only has there been no fish from the Gulf found to be contaminated, but no evidence any fished were killed from the oil spill has been found.

Fisherman confirm the fishing in the Gulf is as good as it has ever been, with more numbers of fish and larger fish. That's because during the oil spill the fishing was off limits, leaving the fish with no fishing pressure on them.

Although there are always fish kills in the ocean, none of them that have been tested have been found to be caused by Gulf oil in federal waters. The same conclusion has been drawn by those investigating state waters as well, according to NOAA spokeswoman Christine Patrick.

Testing has been done across a number of different government agencies, and all have come up with the same results for fish kills and fish not being contaminated.

Unfortunately, even with the complete clean bill of health for Gulf seafood, the public still has the perception food isn't safe from the region, when test after test proves it is safe.

Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI) Still Waiting for EPA Decision on Spruce No. 1 Mine

The expected recommendation to the EPA by its Region 3 administrator was received concerning the Spruce No. 1 Mine of Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI), but the agency refused to disclose what it was, according to a spokeswoman, saying it'll be some time before a final decision is made.

At issue is whether to allow Arch to proceed with their mountaintop-removal coal mining operation at the site, which will be the largest in the region.

Now the recommendation will be sent to the EPA's Office of Water to be reviewed. The EPA said a decision on the matter will be made this fall.

The mine, located in Logan County, West Virginia, is the first in the history of the EPA to be put on hold after a permit was issued by the Corp of Engineers to go forward with a project like this.

The EPA is empowered to veto the permits if they choose.

EPA Wants BP (NYSE:BP) Report on Steps it Took in Texas City

In relationship to the release of chemicals by BP (NYSE:BP) at their plant in Texas City, the Environmental Protection Agency they are in the middle of investigating the situation.

The EPA released a written statement saying they have requested BP to give them information on the steps they took in response to an incident that "resulted in the flaring of chemicals that could have reasonably resulted in a catastrophic release of a hazardous air pollutant."

Approximately 500,000 pounds of a variety of chemicals were released from the plant, with about 17,000 pounds of that being benzene, of which a lawsuit has been filed by those alleging they may have been affected by it.

EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz said, "It is important the EPA, state officials and public know what happened at the plant, and that BP is held accountable to prevent incidents like these from happening in the future."

BP has 30 days to provide the information the EPA requested.

EPA Tells Enbridge (NYSE:EEP) to End Leak by Noon Monday

The EPA has directed Enbridge Energy Partners (NYSE:EEP) that they have until Monday noon to stop the leaking oil from their pipeline in a Chicago suburb.

Terri Larson, a spokesman for Enbridge, said, "The leak site itself is contained but oil is continuing to drain out of the pipeline. As that oil drains out crews are cleaning it up."

Crews have been working day and night to clean up the draining oil.

The leak was discovered on Thursday in Romeoville, a Chicago suburb, and the pipeline the leak was coming from was shut down in response.

According to Terrance McGill, President of the Partnership, no new oil is "reaching the roadway, the nearby ditch or the retention pond."

BP (NYSE:BP) Disperant Not Toxic Says Environmental Protection Agency

Although environmentalists have dishonestly said Corexit, the dispersant used to battle the oil in the Gulf of Mexico spill, the Environmental Protection Agency found in tests it is no more toxic than the oil itself in the ocean.

The EPA also tested eight other dispersants, and came to the same conclusion.

Paul Anastas, EPA assistant administrator for research and development, said the oil remains "enemy No. 1, not the dispersant used to combat it.

"I have not seen any evidence, any data, that has shown wildlife sickened or killed because of dispersants," Anastas said Monday.

Democrat Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, you know, the same one that called the unproven theory that BP was behind the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and calling it "blood money," even though the British government and politicians have all said there is absolutely no connection.

Now Markey, trying to remain in the public eye by mentioning outrageous claims that the EPA ignored a federal directive to use dispersants only occasionally it dire circumstances. The EPA and BP have both claimed the use of the dispersants did decrease afterwards.

Markey is evidently a radical conspiracy theorist, who sees bogeymen behind every situation there is out there. The Democrats need to rein this guy in, or the Congress in general needs to have him step down from chairing the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, which is giving him the platform to spew his bile.

So what is it? Did the Environmental Protection Agency and BP collude together against the Federal Directive or not? Is the EPA lying about it? That's what Markey contends.

Now I'm waiting for him to release the new information on the aliens in Area 51. Come on Ed, let's hear about it!

The EPA did say that ultimately the decision lied with government representative Thad Allen. So if the government put Allen and charge and he gave the okay for dispersants in certain circumstances, what is Markey talking about?

It seems what Markey and others are really angry about is the disperants worked, and made it easier for the microbes to eat the oil after it was broken down.

Now there is little oil to be found in the Gulf and Markey and those of his ilk don't have a big oil presence as a platform to show their faux outrage over the poisoned Gulf, which didn't come about.

It also seems Markey and others are outrage the Gulf of Mexico is great a healing itself. This wasn't supposed to interrupt the wanted narrative which never occurred.

The bottom line is the EPA found Corexit was helpful and worked well to do the job it was intended to do. That's too much for environmentalists and their political allies to accept.

Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE:ADM) Ethanol Push

Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE:ADM) is attempting to use the negative sentiment against oil companies at this time as a result of the Gulf spill to push their ethanol agenda of increasing the mix of ethanol and gasoline to 12 percent to run in cars.

This isn't because they care about alternative energy, as corn-based ethanol is harsh and hard on the environment, rather it's because of the drop in price of corn which will generate better earnings because of higher margins.

To that end they're pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to make the increased change to benefit themselves solely by selling more corn.

Meat producers are strongly resisting ethanol subsidies and other measures like this as it puts strain on their margins because of the ethanol industry being artificially propped up by the government.

I agree with the meat industry that ethanol subsidies should be completely abandoned and the industry should be left to stand or fall on its own, like it should have been all along.

With ethanol causing all sorts of problems for small engines and lack of evidence as to how hard it is on some cars, it would be foolish and irresponsible to allow this increase in ethanol-gasoline blend at this time, or any time in the future.

Let people decide if they want to buy ethanol to run their vehicles, not anyone else.

Commodities: EPA Wants to Charge Fees Livestock

Livestock as a commodity will suffer under asinine EPA initiative

The nuts are definitely running the asylum if the proposed, moronic, federal initiative to charge huge fees to farmers or ranchers for each animal they have actually passes.

Parameters for the fees would be farms with over 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200hogs. The price tag for each one: $20 for each hog; $87.50 per beef cattle; and $175 for each dairy cow.

A significant number of livestock owners have said if the proposal were to go forward, it would effectively bankrupt them, which is evidently what some of the nutty environmentalists want.

Not only would it bankrupt numerous farmers and ranchers, but the costs would raise consumer prices so high it would be extraordinary.

This is of course of the human-haters and earth worshippers want. They want to ram their vegan/vegetarian lifestyle down the throat of the rest of the citizens in the U.S.

The reason given behind this potential atrocity is the animals pollute the air with the belches and gas. I'm not kidding, that's what's behind this idiocy.

According to Ken Hamilton, executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, the average cost to just a medium-sized cattle ranch would be from $30,000 to $40,000 a year.

According to EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield, the fee would fall under the federal Clean Air act. With a straight face he added they're reviewing the comments of the public before any further steps are taken.

Comments of the public? Let's see. Do we want to pay higher prices for our meat? Do we want to resort to less safe meat from foreign countries? How about importing our milk from China? No? Ok. The public has spoken.

As a matter of fact, the energy and time I've had to take to waste my time writing about this drivel should be charged to the EPA. Where can I send them my invoice?

It looks like the EPA needs to be abolished if it's going to punish commodites, and ultimately people, through these horrible ideas.