Spill here, spill now

Whoopsies.

Crews to set fire to oil leaking in Gulf of Mexico

By KEVIN McGILL and CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer Kevin Mcgill And Cain Burdeau, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
NEW ORLEANS – Crews geared up to set fire to oil leaking from the site of an exploded drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before it reaches environmentally sensitive marshlands on the coast.

A 500-foot boom will be used to corral several thousand gallons of the thickest oil on the surface, which will then be towed to a more remote area, set on fire, and allowed to burn for about an hour, the Coast Guard said. Such burns will continue throughout the day if they are working.

The slick was about 20 miles east of the mouth of the Mississippi River.

About 42,000 gallons of oil a day are leaking into the Gulf from the blown-out well where the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank last week. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead. The cause of the explosion has not been determined.

Greg Pollock, head of the oil spill division of the Texas General Land Office, which is providing equipment for crews in the Gulf, said he is not aware of a similar burn ever being done off the U.S. coast. The last time crews with his agency used fire booms to burn oil was a 1995 spill on the San Jacinto River.

"When you can get oil ignited, it is an absolutely effective way of getting rid of a huge percentage of the oil," he said. "I can't overstate how important it is to get the oil off the surface of the water."

He said the oil will likely be ignited using jelled gasoline and lit rags soaked in oil. What's left afterward is something he described as a kind of hardened tar ball that can be removed from the water with nets or skimmers.

"I would say there is little threat to the environment because it won't coat an animal, and because all the volatiles have been consumed if it gets on a shore it can be simply picked up," he said.

Authorities also said they expect no impact on sea turtles and marine mammals in the burn area.

A graphic posted by the Coast Guard and industry task force fighting the slick shows it covering an area about 100 miles long and 45 miles across at its widest point.

Louisiana State Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham told a legislative committee Wednesday morning that National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration projections show a "high probability" oil could reach the Pass a Loutre wildlife management area Friday night, Breton Sound on Saturday and the Chandeleur Islands on Sunday.

As the task force worked far offshore, local officials were mobilizing in case the oil reaches land.

In Plaquemines Parish, a sliver of Louisiana that juts into the Gulf and is home to Pass a Loutre, officials hoped to deploy a fleet of volunteers in fishing boats to spread booms that could block oil from entering inlets.

"We've got oystermen and shrimpers who know this water better than anyone," said Plaquemines Paris President Billy Nungesser. "Hopefully the Coast Guard will embrace the idea."

The parish's emergency manager planned to meet in Houma on Thursday with a Coast Guard official to discuss whether volunteers can help, Nungesser said.

"We don't want to just sit by and hope this (oil) doesn't come ashore," Nungesser said.

The decision to burn some of the oil comes as the Coast Guard and industry cleanup crews run out of other options to get rid of it.

Crews operating submersible robots have been trying without success to activate a shut-off device that would halt the flow of oil on the sea bottom 5,000 feet below.

Rig operator BP Plc. says work will begin as early as Thursday to drill a relief well to relieve pressure at the blowout site, but that could take months.

Another option is a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but that will take two weeks to put in place, BP said.

Winds and currents in the Gulf have helped crews in recent days as they try to contain the leak. The immediate threat to sandy beaches in coastal Alabama and Mississippi has lessened. But the spill has moved steadily toward the mouth of the Mississippi River, home to hundreds of species of wildlife and near some rich oyster grounds.

The cost of disaster continues to rise and could easily top $1 billion.

Industry officials say replacing the Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean Ltd. and operated by BP, would cost up to $700 million. BP has said its costs for containing the spill are running at $6 million a day. The company said it will spend $100 million to drill the relief well. The Coast Guard has not yet reported its expenses.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/..._rig_explosion

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am generally against offshore drilling for things like this, that inevitably happen, despite the best efforts of oil industry propaganda and apologists to claim otherwise.

As long as the companies that want to drill FULLY compensate and make all efforts to clean up, I can live with the drilling generally.

Exxon is still trying to weasel out of the costs of the Valdez spill, though and that kind of thing really irks me.

Given many corporate polluters' past efforts at being weasels when it comes to dealign with the ramifications of their actions, I find people leveling sweeping blame at environmentalists for being "anti-job" as being a bit ignorant/untruthful of the real costs of pollution.

Spill, Baby, Spill!

WC: "it was due to employees violating procedures. Like all corporations, BP is completely innocent, even if they fight inspections and tough regulations." :lol

Get that bicycle horn fixed boutons.









and quit being racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Spill, Baby, Spill!

WC: "it was due to employees violating procedures. Like all corporations, BP is completely innocent, even if they fight inspections and tough regulations." :lol

---

It is sad that being "pro-business" has to blind one to the obvious failings of some businesses.

BTW, the spill is getting worse.

Wheee.

I seem to remember saying that spills were inevitable part of drilling for oil, and that increasing oil production offshore would necessarily involve sacrificing coastal property values/rights, tourism, and fishing industry jobs.

R.I.P. to the eleven oil workers missing and presumed dead that were from Louisianna, Mississippi, and Texas.

Haliburton is in on this too? Nice.

A federal class-action lawsuit was filed late Wednesday over the oil spill on behalf of two commercial shrimpers from Louisiana, Acy J. Cooper Jr. and Ronnie Louis Anderson.

The suit seeks at least $5 million in compensatory damages plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages against Transocean, BP, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp.

How did Obama fall for these Oil Scammers a month ago with the offshore approval? We expect that from the Wingnutts.

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strol...08/10/blow.jpg
Drill baby, drill!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It is sad that being "pro-business" has to blind one to the obvious failings of some businesses.

BTW, the spill is getting worse.

Wheee.

I seem to remember saying that spills were inevitable part of drilling for oil, and that increasing oil production offshore would necessarily involve sacrificing coastal property values/rights, tourism, and fishing industry jobs.

---

Are you gonna stop driving?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Are you gonna stop driving?

---

Because BP, Halliburton-Bush-Cheney and Massey Coal Mines spend top dollar on preventative measures. :lmao

STFU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Are you gonna stop driving?

---

Unfortunately, no. Travel is part and parcel of my job.

The implication of your question is, by the way, a logical fallacy, ad hominem, variety.

Do you have a quota of logical fallacies you have to meet on a daily basis?

I mean are you working towards some kind of conservative scout Logical Fail merit badge?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...-spill-web.png

I wonder if tea bags would make a good oil absorber?

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...

Quote:

---

Wow, these idiots complain about big government and government take over of everything! And now this fool is asking the Federal Government to help with the oil spill! And down the road he will complain about how intrusive the government is in his states business.
What a joke this guy is!

Governor Jindal spoke with Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano this evening to request additional resources from the federal government as the state prepares for the potential impact of the oil spill.

---

Link

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...

Quote:

---

Wow, these idiots complain about big government and government take over of everything! And now this fool is asking the Federal Government to help with the oil spill! And down the road he will complain about how intrusive the government is in his states business.
What a joke this guy is!

Governor Jindal spoke with Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano this evening to request additional resources from the federal government as the state prepares for the potential impact of the oil spill.

---

Link

Economic costs of spill begin to be tabulated

Quote:

---

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- As the massive spill from an offshore oil-drilling operation spreads ever closer to Gulf Coast shorelines, the region is bracing for economic fallout that could last years and potentially cost untold millions -- or even billions -- of dollars in lost revenue for the fishing, tourism and other industries.

---

Quote:

---

If Alaska is any guide, it could last for quite a while. In its latest report on after-effects of the spill, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council noted that lingering oil remains on beaches and at least one commercial fishery -- herring -- is essentially gone.

"Commercial fishing, as a lost or reduced service, is in the process of recovering from the effects of the oil spill, but full recovery has not been achieved," the group said. The same goes for other uses as the council "finds recreation to be recovering from the effects of the spill, but not yet recovered."

---

Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

The Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989, by the way. They are STILL cleaning it up AND this spill has a good possibility of being not only worse, but MUCH worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

The Exxon Valdez spill was in 1989, by the way. They are STILL cleaning it up AND this spill has a good possibility of being not only worse, but MUCH worse.

---

WC: I'm pertty sure it was the fault of the workers.

Yoni: Hey, you just have to accept species-endangering, economic destruction sometimes. Besides, who cares about a few animals?

Palin: When I, uh, talked about drilling for oil, also, I knew safety would be across our heads too, and really, it's very sad about these animals, that might have been hunted otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

I wonder if tea bags would make a good oil absorber?

---

:lol
attached to the board tea bag supporters. :toast

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabbs

Because BP, Halliburton-Bush-Cheney and Massey Coal Mines spend top dollar on preventative measures. :lmao

STFU

---

You know Boutons, you should be less obvious, and get informed.

If I recall correctly, there are only two companies in the world that can handle such an oil maintenance endeavor. Halliburton is one. Can you name the other, and what country they are based out of?

Didn't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

After bitching about taxes, now Jindal wants the U.S. govt to come to its rescue...

---

Too bad some people don't understand there is a time and place to actually spend lots of money.

This is a disaster. Something we shouldn't worry about spending money on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Economic costs of spill begin to be tabulated





Yoni? WC? Anyone from the "drill here, drill now" camp want to keep chanting about how great everything would be if we just did more offshore oil drilling?

---

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WC: I'm pertty sure it was the fault of the workers.

---

I'm pretty sure it's not smart to assume what I think.

RandomGuy,

This woman is your soulmate.



Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in Mississippi?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...do.html?cat=49

Quote:

---

The Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion on April 20, 2010 has resulted in 42,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf every day. One of many negative affects of the Gulf Oil Spill may have already been seen. Just four
days after the oil rig explosion, a massive tornado almost a mile wide and another reportedly 1.75 miles wide hit Mississippi. Other tornadoes and severe weather conditions were also reported in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama.

The oil rig sank after the explosion and it could take months to stop the Gulf oil spill from leaking out of two pipes that are now well below the ocean's surface. Amazingly, only 11 of the 126 oil rig workers are presumed dead. The cleanup is set to resume now that the weather has calmed after the massive tornado in Mississippi and severe weather has subsided.

Tornado season is off to a rough start this spring. According to CBS News, nearly 1,000 homes and businesses were destroyed after approximately 50 tornadoes hit the southeast on April 24, 2010, tearing through 17 counties in Mississippi. The massive tornado in Yazoo City, Miss., was an F4 with winds of as much as 170 mph; killing at least five. The death toll has risen to 12, but more bodies could be found in the wreckage.

Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in MS?

My first reaction to hearing about the massive tornado in Mississippi was that it was an affect of the gulf oil spill. I am far from a scientist but did find supporting evidence to back my atmosphere theory.

According to Wikipedia, "an increase in the sea surface temperature of a source region (e.g. Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea) increases atmospheric moisture content. Increased moisture can fuel an increase in severe weather and tornado activity, particularly in the cool season."

A study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates the primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' is the increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Based on the noted evidence, the Gulf oil spill 'fueled the fire'. The burning oil caused an increase in carbon dioxide levels, which increases atmospheric moisture thereby causing or contributing to massive tornado
strikes that hit the Southeast. The study from Academy of Sciences supports my initial reaction that oil spills cause tornado and severe weather conditions. As we know, water and oil do not mix. The Gulf oil spill is either responsible for the massive tornadoes or exacerbated an already brewing storm.

The negative effects of the Gulf oil spill and burning of fossil fuel will continue to hurt the economy and ecology. We can only hope alternative energy will soon take hold and that this is not a predictor of future massive tornadoes to come.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

Pink ponies?

Ramma lamma ding dong?

Are you still trying for that Logical Fail merit badge?

Can you explain for us libtards just what the implications of this are?

Use small words, so I can understand it. Do enlighten me.

This is an interesting tidbit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field



The Coal Oil Point seep field offshore from Santa Barbara, California is a petroleum seep area of about three square kilometers adjacent to the Ellwood Oil Field, and releases about 40 tons per day of methane and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas (ethane, propane, butane and higher hydrocarbons), about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in the county in 1990.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.

---

There was an automatic shut-off valve attached at the sea floor. It failed, and repeated attempts to manually activate it have also failed.

As (I think) the Louisiana governor put it: "where was the plan B, should this thing fail?"

(heard the quote and seem to remember it was the gov)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RandomGuy,

This woman is your soulmate.



Did Gulf Oil Spill Cause Massive Tornado in Mississippi?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...do.html?cat=49

---

:rolleyes

GMAFB

Can we go back to talking like adults now?

If all you have is "Randomguy and crazy woman sitting in a tree..."

YOU FAIL.

Don't get me wrong though, I actually like it when you post things like this, because of how badly you might hurt your cause when it comes to anybody who might be a fence sitter who stumbles into the conversation.

It makes the job of painting "right-wingers" as being either underhanded or incapable of rational, adult argument that much easier.

By all means, continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

:rolleyes

GMAFB

Can we go back to talking like adults now?

If all you have is "Randomguy and crazy woman sitting in a tree..."

YOU FAIL.

Don't get me wrong though, I actually like it when you post things like this, because of how badly you might hurt your cause when it comes to anybody who might be a fence sitter who stumbles into the conversation.

It makes the job of painting "right-wingers" as being either underhanded or incapable of rational, adult argument that much easier.

By all means, continue.

---

You environmental hysterics are very sensitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

You environmental hysterics are very sensitive.

---

Meh, I am all about cost-to-benefit. I am hardly "hysterical" when it comes to such topics, but if you want to keep up with that strawman, as I said before, keep it up. :tu

I'm still waiting on you to tell me what the implications are of your sniglet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

This is an interesting tidbit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Oil_Point_seep_field



The Coal Oil Point seep field offshore from Santa Barbara, California is a petroleum seep area of about three square kilometers adjacent to the Ellwood Oil Field, and releases about 40 tons per day of methane and about 19 tons of reactive organic gas (ethane, propane, butane and higher hydrocarbons), about twice the hydrocarbon air pollution released by all the cars and trucks in the county in 1990.

---

Santa Barbara is not a large county in population, and the seep is pretty much the second largest in the world.

I don't know why Darrin is trying to use this as support for his pro oil spill position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Santa Barbara is not a large county in population, and the seep is pretty much the second largest in the world.

I don't know why Darrin is trying to use this as support for his pro oil spill position.

---

Because Fox News said so?

I guess he somehow wants to intimate that El Capitan Beach is permanently covered in oil just as if it came from the Valdez or a platform disaster.

Trust me, it isn't.

Look at all that oil that seeped up and washed ashore!

It happens every day!

http://www.chilltravelers.com/chill/...tanBeachSB.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Look at all that oil that seeped up and washed ashore!

It happens every day!

http://www.chilltravelers.com/chill/...tanBeachSB.jpg

---

You'd never know it by looking at it now, but the Santa Barbara coastline was covered in oil 40 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

You'd never know it by looking at it now, but the Santa Barbara coastline was covered in oil 40 years ago.

---

Was that because of daily natural seepage, Darrin?

Yes or no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Was that because of daily natural seepage, Darrin?

Yes or no.

---

No.


Did I ever say natural seepage ended up on shore? Yes or no.

[email protected] yes or no!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

No.

---

What was it from?

Quote:

---

Did I ever say natural seepage ended up on shore? Yes or no.

---

No.

But it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What was it from?


No.

But it does.

---

It was from a massive blowout on and oil platform. Did a lot of damage, none of which is visible now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It was from a massive blowout on and oil platform. Did a lot of damage, none of which is visible now.

---

So we can pretend it did no harm according to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So we can pretend it did no harm according to you?

---

Did I say it did no harm? Yes or no.


I just don't think it's the end of the world, as RG apparently does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Did I say it did no harm? Yes or no.


I just don't think it's the end of the world, as RG apparently does.

---

It's clear you are very pro oil spill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's clear you are very pro oil spill.

---

No, I'm pro human.


So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.

You are also very comfortable trying to compare the current spill with one 40 years ago, conveniently leaving out the fact that the total amount spilled in the Santa Barbara disaster in over a week is being spilled in the Gulf every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

No, I'm pro human.


So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.

---

Ah, so you don't care at all about the environment.

Or the money spent dealing with this.

And you don't think any more humans will be affected by this.

No problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

No, I'm pro human.

---

Those whose livelihoods depend upon the shrimp, oysters, crabs, and fish within the gulf are humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

So far, the only people that have been hurt by this are the oil workers and their families.

---

Firstly, the "so far" is kind of an important bit, there.

And secondly, I find it hard to believe that someone who claimed to be pro-human would, within the same post, make a statement suggesting that the oil workers and their families were acceptable casualties.

It's no big deal. Learn from the mistakes and keep DRILLING BABY! The world will keep going round and round.

This oil spill is pissing me off to no end.

I'm amazed theres no way for them to simply shut the fucking pipeline down. 200K gallons a day they say right? The ecological cost will be monumental

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

It's no big deal.

---

According to whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What I don't understand is why wasn't there an automatic shut-off valve on it? Is it such an old rig, it was before such safety features were implemented?

What caused the explosion? Is this possibly another environmentalist whacko attack to show such dangers, knowing this one had no automatic shut off valve, and only a manual one a mile down?

Think such a design would be allowed today? Technology changes. I will keep open the possibility this was effectively an environmentalist terrorist attack, planned because of the lifting of offshore development bans.

---

Yes, it could have possibly been an environmentalist whacko.
Are you also open the possibility that BP and their suck ups simply failed to take the proper and expected precautions?
Article in part, bolding and underlining mine:

Document: BP didn't plan for major oil spill

MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER – British Petroleum downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore rig that exploded, causing the worst U.S. spill in decades along the Gulf coast and endangering shoreline habitat.

In the 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries.

BP's plan filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well, dated February 2009, says repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."

And while the company conceded that a spill would "cause impacts" to beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."

Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs, Miss.-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document that suggests BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.

"The point is, if you're going to be drilling in 5,000 feet of water for oil, you should have the ability to control what you're doing," he said.

Many of the more than two dozen lawsuits filed in the wake of the explosion claim it was caused when workers for oil services contractor Halliburton Inc. improperly capped the well. Halliburton denied it.

According to a 2007 study by the federal Minerals Management Service, which examined the 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 2006, cementing was a contributing factor in 18 of the incidents. In all the cases, gas seepage occurred during or after cementing of the well casing, the MMS said.

For days, crews have struggled without success to activate the well's underwater shutoff valve using remotely operated vehicles. They are also drilling a relief well in hopes of injecting mud and concrete to seal off the leak, but that could take three months.

At the rate the oil is pouring from the sea floor, the leak could eclipse the worst oil accident in U.S. history — the 11 million gallons that spilled from the supertanker Exxon Valdez off Alaska in 1989 — in just two months.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he pressed the chief executive of BP to "work harder and faster and smarter to get the job done." He said the government will not rest until BP seals the well and "they clean up every drop of oil."

As for the cause of the accident, he said: "I am confident we will get to the bottom of what happened here. Those responsible will be held accountable."


Dr. Moby Solangi, the nonprofit center's director, said this is birthing season for the roughly 5,000 dolphins along the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts.

"It's very bad timing," he said. "We're looking at a colossal tragedy."

Ten sites that the American Bird Conservancy considers globally important bird areas are directly in the path of the oil slick, the group said.

"This spill spells disaster for birds in this region and beyond," said ABC President George Fenwick. "It is ironic that next weekend is International Migratory Bird Day. At a time when we should be celebrating the beauty and wonder of migratory birds, we could be mourning the worst environmental disaster in recent U.S. history."

Volunteers converged on the coast to offer help.
___

Associated Press writers Michael Kunzelman, Chris Kahn, Allen G. Breed, Vicki Smith, Janet McConnaughey, Alan Sayre and Brian Skoloff contributed to this report.

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, but, like Exxon in Alaska, BP will fight in courts for years, even decades like Exxon, and finally the pro-business courts, 20 years later?, will reduce damages to a wrist slap compared to BP's profits.

It's just like BigPharma, writing off the fines from 10s of 1000s killed and sickened by their shitty drugs, as simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. AstraZeneca just got hit with $500M+ fine for corrupting doctors. A wrist slap. Business as Usual, and the corruption will continue unabated.

Did anyone catch the snippet yesterday that Obama had sent SWAT teams to other rigs/platforms in the gulf.

SWAT teams ?

They still don't know how this explosion happened.

- SpeakEasy - http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy -

Agency Postpones Awards Ceremony Celebrating Offshore Oil Drilling Safety

Posted By Amanda Terkel On May 1, 2010 @ 3:15 pm In Uncategorized | No Comments

Cross-posted from Think Progress.

Since the offshore oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) have been coming under increasing scrutiny for whether they were negligent in overseeing the rigs owned by BP and others. At a press conference this morning, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) compared it to the SEC’s failure to enforce regulations leading up to the financial crisis. Ironically, MMS was all set to hold its annual “2010 Annual Industry SAFE Awards Luncheon” on May 3. Perhaps recognizing that now is not the time to applaud the oil industry for safety on the job, MMS postponed the event. From the agency’s website:

The LA Times notes that last year, BP “was among the luncheon’s winners, cited for ‘outstanding dedication and leadership in promoting improved medical care and evacuation capabilities for offshore facilities.’” During the Bush administration, MMS was embroiled in scandal over its employees being in bed (sometimes literally) with the oil industry it was supposed to be regulating.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...illing-safety/

=======

oops! :lol :lol :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, ....

---

You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. Damages, probably. Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

They still don't know how this explosion happened.

---

Well, acertaining how it happened will be difficult after the massive damage. I brought up the possible eco-terrorist aspect of it because I can't imagine how such materials would be normally there to cause the degree of explosion in the first place.

Ideas how? Sure, there is likely natural gas as well picked off and used for power, but that was a huge explosion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Quote:

---

Since the offshore oil rig spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal regulators at the Minerals Management Service (MMS) have been coming under increasing scrutiny for whether they were negligent in overseeing the rigs owned by BP and others.

---

---

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

---

Heaven forbid people try to avert disaster.

Heaven forbid a corporation actually be responsible for the welfare of their employees.

Mining disasters, and now the oil platform, prove that corporations criminally violate safety regulations, because security costs money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Heaven forbid people try to avert disaster.

---

Left all on their own, corporations don't screw up. First the Massey mine explosion and now this: obviously, government regulation has failed us again.

Still waiting on you to explain this one. I have asked you 3 times to explain this, but haven't got an answer.

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. Damages, probably. Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

---

Lawsuits will go for the "deep pockets". BP will be named as a defendant in the suits over the deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

---

Yes, yes I do.

Because corporations have only one real aim:

To provide returns for shareholders.

This is not always compatible with public good.

It might benefit a corporation's quarterly profits to skimp on pollution controls, or endanger worker's lives, but in the end, society ends up subsidizing that through economic losses to others.

It is that pesky negative externality problem again.

Free-market systems require referees, just like basketball games. The referees have to be able to enforce penalties.

This thing is getting out of control. What a huge disaster. It's fuckin crazy to think about.

They're saying at least 3 months until they can stop it by drilling another well.

And some are saying the rate of the spill can be increasing, we might be looking at even 50K barrels a day. Mindblowing. Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

---

They should just put a cork in it! Or a giant dome.

This better not fuck with Texas shores or I will be pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

This better not fuck with Texas shores or I will be pissed.

---

It will. Count on it.

210,000 gallons/day.

It's really no big deal. It will all work itself out. Obama needs to continue his fight on offshore drilling.

You Lie

Current Timeline to Shut Down Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Three Months

http://www.truthout.org/current-time...ths59096?print

.

AlterNet

Here's How Exxon Tried to Avoid Paying for Its Massive Oil Spill -- Let's Not Allow BP to Do the Same

By Riki Ott, Reuters
Posted on May 3, 2010, Printed on May 3, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/

I remember the words, “We’ve had the Big One,” with chilling clarity, spoken just over 21 years ago when a fellow fisherman arrived at my door in the early morning and announced that the Exxon Valdez had run aground in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and was gushing oil.

For the small fishing community of Cordova, Alaska, where I lived and worked as a commercial fisherma’am, it was our worst nightmare.

That nightmare is reoccurring now with BP’s deadly rig blowout off the Gulf Coast – with haunting parallels to the Exxon Valdez.

I was not at all surprised when officials reported zero spillage, then projected modest spillage, and then reported spill amounts five times higher than their earlier estimates.

As the spill continues, I imagine that even the newly reported amounts will continue to vastly underestimate the actual spillage.

Underreporting of spill volumes is common, even though lying about self-reported spill volume is illegal – and a breach of public trust.

Still, penalties are based on spill volume: Exxon likely saved itself several billion dollars by sticking with its low-end estimate of 11 million gallons and scuttling its high-end estimate of 38 million gallons, later validated by independent surveyors.

Sadly, it’s a foregone conclusion that BP’s promise to “do everything we can” to minimize the spill’s impact and stop the oil still hemorrhaging from the well nearly one mile under the sea off Louisiana’s coast will fade as its attention turns to minimizing its liability, including damaged public relations.

BP will likely leverage the billions of dollars it will spend on the cleanup to reduce its fines and lawsuit expenses, despite later recouping a large portion of the cleanup cost from insurers or writing it off as a business expense as Exxon did.

Such tactics saved Exxon billions of dollars in the civil settlement for damages to public lands and wildlife (in which damages were estimated at up to $8 billion; but for which Exxon paid just $900 million) and in the class action lawsuit filed by those whose livelihoods were curtailed by the spill (for which the original jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages; but which Exxon fought for 20 years until the Supreme Court lessened its burden to just $507 million).

That Supreme Court decision strictly limited corporate liability and essentially removed the ability of future oil spill victims to hold corporations accountable to the people and the law.

A friend in New Orleans is concerned about the oil fumes now engulfing the southern part of town. He says it “smells pretty strong–stronger than standing in a busy mechanics shop, but not as bad as the bus station in Tijuana.”

State health officials are warning people who are sensitive to reduced air quality to stay indoors, but anyone who experiences the classic symptoms of crude oil overexposure–nausea, vomiting, headaches, or cold or flu-like symptoms–should seek medical help.

This is serious: Oil spill cleanups are regulated as hazardous waste cleanups because oil is, in fact, hazardous to health. Breathing oil fumes is extremely harmful.

After the 2002 Prestige oil spill off Galicia, Spain, and the 2007 Hebei Spirit oil spill in South Korea, medical doctors found fishermen and cleanup workers suffered from respiratory problems, central nervous system problems (headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc.), and even genetic damage (South Korea). I have attended two international conferences the past two years to share information with these doctors.

During the Exxon Valdez spill, health problems among cleanup workers became so widespread, so fast, that medical doctors, among others, sounded warnings. Dr. Robert Rigg, former Alaska medical director for Standard Alaska (BP), warned, “It is a known fact that neurologic changes (brain damage), skin disorders (including cancer), liver and kidney damage, cancer of other organ systems, and medical complications–secondary to exposure to working unprotected in (or inadequately protected)–can and will occur to workers exposed to crude oil and other petrochemical by-products. While short-term complaints, i.e., skin irritation, nausea, dizziness, pulmonary symptoms, etc., may be the initial signs of exposure and toxicity, the more serious long-term effects must be prevented.”[1]

Unfortunately, Exxon called the short-term symptoms, “the Valdez Crud,” and dismissed 6,722 cases of respiratory claims from cleanup workers as “colds or flu” using an exemption under OSHA’s hazardous waste cleanup reporting requirements.[2]

Sadly, sick Exxon cleanup workers were left to suffer and pay their own medical expenses. I know of many who have been disabled by their illnesses – or have died.

I have repeatedly warned Congress in letters and in person to strike that loophole because it exempts the very work-related injuries–chemical induced illnesses–that OSHA is supposedly designed to protect workers from.

Remember the “Katrina Crud” and the “911 Crud?” Standby for the “Gulf Crud” because our federal laws do not adequately protect worker safety or public health from the very real threat of breathing oil vapors, including low levels typically found in our industrial ports, our highways during rush hour traffic, and our urban cities.

Oil is not only harmful to people, it is deadly to wildlife. I am sickened to think of the short-term destruction and long-term devastation that will happen along America’s biologically rich coastal wetlands – a national treasure and a regional source of income.

In Alaska, the killing did not stop in 1989. Twenty-one years later, buried oil is still contaminating wildlife and Prince William Sound has not returned to pre-spill conditions – nor, honestly, will it. The remnant population of once-plentiful herring no longer supports commercial fisheries and barely sustains the ecosystem.

While local efforts to boom Louisiana’s fragile coasts to keep the oil out will help people feel productive and empowered (and this is important), it is an unfortunate truth that the booms have limited utility and effectiveness. In even mild sea conditions, oil will wash over and under boom. Further, underneath the visible oil slick, there is an invisible cloud of toxic oil dissolved into the water column and this dissolved oil is deadly to shrimp and fish eggs and marine life.

Still, the Gulf spill has one advantage over the Alaska spill – hot weather and the relatively warm ocean will speed the work of bacteria to degrade the Louisiana crude. Even so, the initial toxic hit is likely to harm generations of wildlife, similar to what happened in Prince William Sound.

The oil industry has had over 40 years – since the 1967 Torrey Canyon tanker spill in England – to make good on its promise to cleanup future oil spills. This latest spill highlights the harsh truth that the industry has failed to live up to its promise. It is time for Americans to demand of our leaders accountability and closure of fossil fuel industries – as we transition to new energies.

[1] City of Cordova Fact Sheet, 1989 1[29]: Robert Rigg, MD, Letter to Cordova District Fishermen United, 13 May 1989.

[2] U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA 29 CFR Part 1904.5(b)(2)(viii): “Colds and flu will not be considered work-related.”

Riki Ott, PhD, is a community activist, a former fisherm'am, and has a degree in marine toxicology with a specialty in oil pollution. She is also the author of Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
© 2010 Reuters All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/

=======

Heavily taxpayer-subsidized/tax-break corps and the conservative-packed/pro-institution courts conspire to protect the corps and fuck over the taxpayers, in the very same way the Catholic Church bureaucracy conspired within itself to protect itself while fucking over victims of priests' pederasty.

While the Conservatives and their teabagging dupes keep blowing the smokescreen that government is the sole problem with civilization (unless the govt is transferring taxpayer wealth to conservative recipients)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Lawsuits will go for the "deep pockets". BP will be named as a defendant in the suits over the deaths.

---

You're right about BP being one named, but they will be one of several named. I'll bet when the dust settles, blame will be places on TransAtlantic. I think that was the name of the platform owner. If the information I gathered thus far is accurate, I don't see how BP will be found at fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The coal mine investigation for bribes of payoffs, now this, and you liberals want more government oversight over corporation...

---

Yes, yes I do.

Because corporations have only one real aim:

To provide returns for shareholders.

This is not always compatible with public good.

It might benefit a corporation's quarterly profits to skimp on pollution controls, or endanger worker's lives, but in the end, society ends up subsidizing that through economic losses to others.

It is that pesky negative externality problem again.

Free-market systems require referees, just like basketball games. The referees have to be able to enforce penalties.

---

Wow...

I see that went right over your head.

The solution is to enforce the regulations already in place. Not make more. If inspectors can be "paid off," then what what makes you think more regulations will help?

If anything, the penalty for such crimes need to be increased to the point it will happen less.

U.S. Law Limits Oil Company Liability — Will BP Weasel Out of Its Debt?

Posted By jedlewison On May 3, 2010 @ 7:40 am In Environment | 1 Comment

This post originally appeared on Daily Kos.

Matthew Wald of The New York Times reports the details of the previously obscure Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a $1.6 billion fund financed by a minuscule tax on oil — eight cents per barrel, which Wald says is roughly 0.1%. According to Wald, the fund is designed to pay damage claims resulting from oil spills, though not cleanup and containment costs. But that’s not all it does. It also limits the liability of oil companies like BP.

Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government, although they are responsible for the cost of containing and cleaning up the spill.

The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 (boutons: REAGAN!!) but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.

The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.

According to Wald’s report, there have been 51 instances in which damages under the $75 million liability cap has been exceeded. That figure will certainly be exceeded with BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill. Up to $1 billion from the fund can be used for any single accident, but in this case, $1 billion is likely to be peanuts.

In other words, it was a pretty sweet deal for oil companies: they agreed to a tiny tax which they can pass on to consumers, and in exchange their liability is limited to $75 million. Because they can pass the oil tax along to consumers, it’s like they got the liability caps for free.

If this law does indeed carry the final word, and there isn’t another way to hold BP accountable for the damage it has caused, then you can chalk up another victory for corporate socialism. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the right won’t shed a tear over it.

Update (6:56AM): Today’s NYT reports that there is a push to amend the law:

Mr. Obama met with Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana upon the arrival of Air Force One in New Orleans. Then he went to Venice for two hours — by road, rather than helicopter, because of inclement weather — to look at the response.

He stopped to speak to several fishermen, assuring them that BP would reimburse them for lost earnings. But reimbursement may be one of the largest battles to come, given that federal law sets a limit of $75 million on BP’s liability for damages, apart from the cleanup costs.

“It’s going to be extremely tricky” to reimburse fishermen and others if economic damages tally above $75 million, said Stuart Smith, a New Orleans-based lawyer who is pushing for Congressional action to amend the law. “They may not be obligated to pay more than that unless they agree to do it.”

There is a federal fund, generated from a tax on oil, that may cover as much as $1 billion in damages.

Obviously, at the moment, much of the focus on the ground is stopping the spill and cleaning it up, but dealing the economic damages resulting from it will be a huge deal. And it’s enormously important that the administration and Congress do everything within their power to ensure that BP is held accountable. It’s not just politics, though the politics of this are obvious. It’s also policy: if oil firms can ‘earn’ unlimited profits without accepting responsibility for the damages caused by their operations, there will be an endless cycle of environmental disasters like the one unfolding in the Gulf.

Article printed from SpeakEasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...-cleanup-debt/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You kidding?

Just proving your lack of information again. [BP will be sued for] Damages, probably[, but] Deaths, no way. The platform was a leased one and operated by employees of the owner. I forget the owners name at the time. I'll let you look it up.

---

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...xico-oil-spill

Quote:

---

families of workers killed in the explosion have sued not only Transocean, the company that operated the rig, but BP as well.

---

Toldja.

If things off shore run anything like the industry I work in, I'd bet that BP is indemnified by Transocean and is also named as additional insured per their subcontract/lease agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

This thing is getting out of control. What a huge disaster. It's fuckin crazy to think about.

They're saying at least 3 months until they can stop it by drilling another well.

And some are saying the rate of the spill can be increasing, we might be looking at even 50K barrels a day. Mindblowing. Unbelievable in the year 2010 they don't have a reliable system of shutting the motherfucker off.

---

Relax, it's BP's responsibility. Nothing for us to worry about. Let me be clear, BP is responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

BP will obviously be sued for deaths and damages, but, like Exxon in Alaska, BP will fight in courts for years, even decades like Exxon, and finally the pro-business courts, 20 years later?, will reduce damages to a wrist slap compared to BP's profits.

It's just like BigPharma, writing off the fines from 10s of 1000s killed and sickened by their shitty drugs, as simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. AstraZeneca just got hit with $500M+ fine for corrupting doctors. A wrist slap. Business as Usual, and the corruption will continue unabated.

---

If I were you, I would teach them, BigPharama, just don't take anymore
that the doctor orders for you. You just show them.

If BS was money, you would be a rich person. I was going to say man
but I don't think you fit the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Wow...

I see that went right over your head.

The solution is to enforce the regulations already in place. Not make more. If inspectors can be "paid off," then what what makes you think more regulations will help?

If anything, the penalty for such crimes need to be increased to the point it will happen less.

---

No, it didn't go over my head, I just chose to ignore the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

"government inspectors can be bribed, so why have gov't inspectors for mine safety?"
"brakes can fail, so why have them in a car?"
"lifeboats can sink, so why bother putting them on cruiseships?"
"sneezegaurds can fail, so why bother with putting them over the buffet table?"
"cutoff valves on underwater drilling rigs can fail, so why bother putting them there to begin with"?

I am not arguing per se for more regulation, but I would like the rules we have to be enforced a bit more strictly. My understanding is that current regulation appears sufficient, but that it wasn't enforced as it probably should have been to prevent the accident.

If some new mine safety regulation would have a fair chance at preventing deaths, I would be for that howeverm, if it were not too unreasonable.

I would also note that the investigation into bribery is in the very beginning stages apparently. There is no data yet to say one way or another if there actually was any bribery.

Still waiting on Darrin to explain this one. I have asked you 3 times to explain this, but haven't got an answer.

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

I think it means that Darrin gets his talking points from Fox news, and doesn't really do his own thinking about what those talking points mean, because anyone who does more than a few seconds worth of thinking about this statistic realizes it is pretty fucktarded.

Since Darrin chose to regurgitate that, I would say that is prima facia evidence of a lack of any such thinking on Darrin's part.

Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is bad — no one would dispute it. But just how bad?

Some experts have been quick to predict apocalypse, painting grim pictures of 1,000 miles of irreplaceable wetlands and beaches at risk, fisheries damaged for seasons, fragile species wiped out and a region and an industry economically crippled for years.

President Obama has called the spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” And some scientists have suggested that the oil might hitch a ride on the loop current in the gulf, bringing havoc to the Atlantic Coast.

Yet the Deepwater Horizon blowout is not unprecedented, nor is it yet among the worst oil accidents in history. And its ultimate impact will depend on a long list of interlinked variables, including the weather, ocean currents, the properties of the oil involved and the success or failure of the frantic efforts to stanch the flow and remediate its effects.

As one expert put it, this is the first inning of a nine-inning game. No one knows the final score.

The ruptured well, currently pouring an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the gulf, could flow for years and still not begin to approach the 36 billion gallons of oil spilled by retreating Iraqi forces when they left Kuwait in 1991. It is not yet close to the magnitude of the Ixtoc I blowout in the Bay of Campeche in Mexico in 1979, which spilled an estimated 140 million gallons of crude before the gusher could be stopped.

And it will have to get much worse before it approaches the impact of the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, which contaminated 1,300 miles of largely untouched shoreline and killed tens of thousands of seabirds, otters and seals along with 250 eagles and 22 killer whales.

No one, not even the oil industry’s most fervent apologists, is making light of this accident. The contaminated area of the gulf continues to spread, and oil has been found in some of the fragile marshes at the tip of Louisiana. The beaches and coral reefs of the Florida Keys could be hit if the slick is captured by the gulf’s clockwise loop current.

But on Monday, the wind was pushing the slick in the opposite direction, away from the current. The worst effects of the spill have yet to be felt. And if efforts to contain the oil are even partly successful and the weather cooperates, the worst could be avoided.

“Right now what people are fearing has not materialized,” said Edward B. Overton, professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State University and an expert on oil spills. “People have the idea of an Exxon Valdez, with a gunky, smelly black tide looming over the horizon waiting to wash ashore. I do not anticipate this will happen down here unless things get a lot worse.”

Dr. Overton said he was hopeful that efforts by BP to place containment structures over the leaking parts of the well will succeed, although he said it was a difficult task that could actually make things worse by damaging undersea pipes.

Other experts said that while the potential for catastrophe remained, there were reasons to remain guardedly optimistic.

“The sky is not falling,” said Quenton R. Dokken, a marine biologist and the executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation, a conservation group in Corpus Christi, Tex. “We’ve certainly stepped in a hole and we’re going to have to work ourselves out of it, but it isn’t the end of the Gulf of Mexico.”

Engineers said the type of oil pouring out is lighter than the heavy crude spilled by the Exxon Valdez, evaporates more quickly and is easier to burn. It also appears to respond to the use of dispersants, which break up globs of oil and help them sink. The oil is still capable of significant damage, particularly when it is churned up with water and forms a sort of mousse that floats and can travel long distances.

Jacqueline Savitz, a senior scientist at Oceana, a nonprofit environmental group, said that much of the damage was already taking place far offshore and out of sight of surveillance aircraft and research vessels.

“Some people are saying, It hasn’t gotten to shore yet so it’s all good,” she said. “But a lot of animals live in the ocean, and a spill like this becomes bad for marine life as soon as it hits the water. You have endangered sea turtles, the larvae of bluefin tuna, shrimp and crabs and oysters, grouper. A lot of these are already being affected and have been for 10 days. We’re waiting to see how bad it is at the shore, but we may never fully understand the full impacts on ocean life.”

The economic impact is as uncertain as the environmental damage. With several million gallons of medium crude in the water already, some experts are predicting wide economic harm. Experts at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Corpus Christi, for example, estimated that as much as $1.6 billion of annual economic activity and services — including effects on tourism, fishing and even less tangible services like the storm protection provided by wetlands — could be at risk.

“And that’s really only the tip of the iceberg,” said David Yoskowitz, who holds the endowed chair for socioeconomics at the institute. “It’s still early in the game, and there’s a lot of potential downstream impacts, a lot of multiplier impacts.”

But much of this damage could be avoided if the various tactics employed by BP and government technicians pay off in the coming days. The winds are dying down and the seas are calming, allowing for renewed skimming operations and possible new controlled burns of oil on the surface. BP technicians are trying to inject dispersants deep below the surface, which could reduce the impact on aquatic life. Winds and currents could move the globs of emulsified oil away from coastal shellfish breeding grounds.

The gulf is not a pristine environment and has survived both chronic and acute pollution problems before. Thousands of gallons of oil flow into the gulf from natural undersea well seeps every day, engineers say, and the scores of refineries and chemical plants that line the shore from Mexico to Mississippi pour untold volumes of pollutants into the water.

After the Ixtoc spill 31 years ago, the second-largest oil release in history, the gulf rebounded. Within three years, there was little visible trace of the spill off the Mexican coast, which was compounded by a tanker accident in the gulf a few months later that released 2.6 million additional gallons, experts said.

“The gulf is tremendously resilient,” said Dr. Dokken, the marine biologist. “But we’ve always got to ask ourselves how long can we keep heaping these insults on the gulf and having it bounce back. As a scientist, I have to say I just don’t know.”


Leslie Kaufman contributed reporting from New Orleans.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/us...er=rss&emc=rss

---

Finally.

Sooooo this spill isn't anything to worry about?

It would help me understand what you are trying to say if you would actually come out and spell it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by your article

we’ve always got to ask ourselves how long can we keep heaping these insults on the gulf and having it bounce back.

---

Some of the fish popultions killed in the Valdez spill never came back. Entire fishing industries in the area were wiped out.

Some natural seepage is normal, and absorbed easily by the environment. That isn't questioned by anybody.

But using that fact to somehow imply that dumping massive amounts of petroleum into the environment in concentrations and amounts hundreds of times larger than what naturally occurs is fucktarded.

You are fucktarded for implying that.

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

The implication that "we have always polluted before and never really had anything truly catastrophic happen" is not only fucktarded, but dangerously fucktarded.

You only have to be wrong once, and then the entire strategy of not being concerned with damage to the environment looks really bad.

"I've put the revolver to my head and pulled the trigger a few times, and nothing happened. Some hysterical idiot tried to tell me there is a bullet in the gun, but since nothing happened, I'll keep pulling the trigger to win money from bets."

Prudent risk management would be to look for other ways of making money than Russian roulette.

If you think this analogy is bad, answer these questions conclusively Darrin:

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

If you can't answer them, then your implied argument here is total bullshit, and dangerous bullshit to boot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

But using that fact to somehow imply that dumping massive amounts of petroleum into the environment in concentrations and amounts hundreds of times larger than what naturally occurs is fucktarded.

You are fucktarded for implying that.

How many spills are safe, Darrin? Just how much damage can we do and have everything bounce back to normal?

The implication that "we have always polluted before and never really had anything truly catastrophic happen" is not only fucktarded, but dangerously fucktarded.

---

Damn, you really went all boutons on me.

I'm just not willing to say that this spill is the end of the world, that's all. A much worse spill in the 70's was largely cleared up in a few years time (according to that article).

Quote:

---

After the Ixtoc spill 31 years ago, the second-largest oil release in history, the gulf rebounded. Within three years, there was little visible trace of the spill off the Mexican coast, which was compounded by a tanker accident in the gulf a few months later that released 2.6 million additional gallons, experts said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

No, it didn't go over my head, I just chose to ignore the logical inconsistencies in your argument.

"government inspectors can be bribed, so why have gov't inspectors for mine safety?"

---

Are you being ignorant or just making things up? You read into what I say incorrectly. Like I said. It went over your head.

I am saying whoult good will more regulations do is the current system is corrupt. The system has to be fixed first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"brakes can fail, so why have them in a car?"
"lifeboats can sink, so why bother putting them on cruiseships?"
"sneezegaurds can fail, so why bother with putting them over the buffet table?"
"cutoff valves on underwater drilling rigs can fail, so why bother putting them there to begin with"?

---

Wow... You usually aren't such a blabbering idiot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I am not arguing per se for more regulation, but I would like the rules we have to be enforced a bit more strictly.

---

Good...

And to do so, they have to be reasonable rules. When stupid things are to be enforced, when some stupid rules start getting ignored, so do the important ones. When non-experts on the subject are deciding which ones are OK to ignore and which ones aren't, we have problems. We need rules that make sense, and are 100% enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

My understanding is that current regulation appears sufficient, but that it wasn't enforced as it probably should have been to prevent the accident.

---

That was my point, but I don't know yet that it would have prevented an accident. Not everything is foreseeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

If some new mine safety regulation would have a fair chance at preventing deaths, I would be for that howeverm, if it were not too unreasonable.

---

"IF!" is a small word with a big meaning. Tell me. What do you think would have prevented this accident, other than not mining?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I would also note that the investigation into bribery is in the very beginning stages apparently. There is no data yet to say one way or another if there actually was any bribery.

---

I agree. For the coal mine accident, they are looking into all aspects of the possible failure, looking to assign blame. They haven't yet. Until I see something more relevant, I am under the assumption this was not a preventable accident.

This accident at the oil rig, I will say should have never happened. Engineering wise, this has few unseen circumstances to deal with. Anyone know yet why the fire started to begin with? Was it set intentionally maybe? An act of sabotage is the only thing that makes sense to me so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Is it because you don't know what this fact means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

RG would hate to know how much oil seeps naturally each year.

As much as two Exxon Valdez' worth each year just in the Gulf of Mexico.

---

What exactly are you trying to say here? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

What does this fact mean?

---

I know what he's talking about, and it is a weak case. Darrin... You let us down with that one.

Oil does naturally seep out of the ocean floor, as does methane. However, the rate is low enough, the ocean sea life that can metabolize it, does consume most of it. I It is actually healthy for the ocean, and sea life flourished with a small amount of seepage. The world wide rate is probable greater than this spill, but I don't have numbers. It is simply dilute enough not to be a problem. I would doubt that 2 x Exxon seeps into the gulf, but it could be. At a slow enough rate over a large enough area, it can be consumed. I would be curious to see this data myself.

There are times however when a natural oil sheen is seen on the southern California coast from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are no oil rigs out there. The biological component cannot quite metabolize it all, at all times.

Think of it like trace elements that are necessary for our life, but toxic in any larger quantities.

You can also think of it like Carbon Dioxide in the air. We have around 0.039% in the air, and it is necessary for life to thrive. However, is we had about a 10% mix, most air oxygen breathing life would not exist. In small quantities, it is part of the ocean nutrients. It's the concentration that kills life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's the concentration that kills life.

---

Not to mention where the concentration occurs. There are organisms that can metabolize and break-down seepage, but they exist where the seepage does: at the bottom of the ocean. Spills like these not only move the buffet to where not only are there no diners, but to places where diners haven't adapted to exist.

AP report on this corporate black shit fouling the bottom of the Gulf:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Dee...ing_havoc.html

The corps are fucking up us, the water, the land, the air, the planet.

the "dispersants" are proprietary secrets, not event the govt is allowed to find out what this shit is, so corporate profits remain protected, just like the mysterious shit they pump down fracking holes and into groundwater and aquifers.

I assume the disperants are extremely aggressive, concentrated solvents to be able to dissolve up this black corporate shit even, and also dissolve any naturals oils in plant and animal life.

BP should be banned from operating in US lands and waters. Bankrupt the fuckers, to "encourage the others".

BP is "too oily slimy to trust". BP's "green" PR is a total lie, has been forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Damn, you really went all boutons on me.

I'm just not willing to say that this spill is the end of the world, that's all. A much worse spill in the 70's was largely cleared up in a few years time (according to that article).

---

Would it have killed you to actually spell that out?

One spill is not the end of the world, and I can accept and agree with that.

One large spill can easily wipe out fish populations in some areas permanently, though. That is something that the Valdez spill taught us.

I have been unable to find any long-term studies of the area off the coast of Mexico showing the ultimate damage done to that locality from the Ixtoc spill.

That particular spill occured from from US shores, and most of the studies that I could find concerning the impact were rather limited, short-term studies.

What I have seen regarding this particular spill is that the damage to Louisiana's fishing industry has a good possibility of being catastrophic.

We have little data as to:

How much damage we can do with spills and still have viable fishing industries.
What long term property value impact this will have.
What long-term tourism value impact spills would have.

We are drilling more wells, farther offshore, and deeper than we ever have. This has geometrically increased our risks of spills.

We don't really know how long it ultimately takes for localities to fully recover from massive spills like this. Given that the area affected by the Exxon-Valdez spill is still recovering decades later, we have some fair idea.

If it takes 50 years to recover from a nasty spill and they happen once every 10 years, you have the potential for some real, genuine, irreversable collapse.

Modern wells are safer than in the past by some measure, but there are vastly more of them than there have been in the past, resulting in a pretty high possibility you have more overall risk.

The question is:

How do we manage that risk?

Quote:

---

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash


While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

---

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0nAE1fbJv

Quote:

---

The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

----

Politicians keep failing.

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.

And then there are the numbnuts who think we should do nothing.

"Politicians keep failing."

Corps/capitalists keep buying politicians, even the ones teabaggers might be lucky enough to elect.

and yet the conservatives keep saying we should not regulate corps and capitalists

(Even Hank Paulsen is saying today in Congress that fanny/freddy were under-/un-regulated).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I know what he's talking about, and it is a weak case. Darrin... You let us down with that one.

Oil does naturally seep out of the ocean floor, as does methane. However, the rate is low enough, the ocean sea life that can metabolize it, does consume most of it. I It is actually healthy for the ocean, and sea life flourished with a small amount of seepage. The world wide rate is probable greater than this spill, but I don't have numbers. It is simply dilute enough not to be a problem. I would doubt that 2 x Exxon seeps into the gulf, but it could be. At a slow enough rate over a large enough area, it can be consumed. I would be curious to see this data myself.

There are times however when a natural oil sheen is seen on the southern California coast from this. Correct me if I'm wrong, there are no oil rigs out there. The biological component cannot quite metabolize it all, at all times.

Think of it like trace elements that are necessary for our life, but toxic in any larger quantities.

You can also think of it like Carbon Dioxide in the air. We have around 0.039% in the air, and it is necessary for life to thrive. However, is we had about a 10% mix, most air oxygen breathing life would not exist. In small quantities, it is part of the ocean nutrients. It's the concentration that kills life.

---

(feints)

Quote:

---

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.

---

Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

---

Don't you see it's regulation that flirts with fascism? The Orwellian state was much less threatening. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yup, all those dirty liberals trying to give the executive more power...

(Ahem warrantless wiretapping, military commissions, enhanced interrogation, state secrets exemptions, arguing about whether miranda rights should be read to American citizens cough cough)

---

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

---

Is this still in reference to regulation? Puta, guey... me estas matando :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

All those are examples of statist decisions. I'm not the hypocrite who doesn't like measures that propel the expansion of the power and scope of the government and politicians when they come from one party but defends it when they come from another party.

Are you?

---

I don't quite see how those are "statist" decisions when they're all used explicitly by the federal government.

And if you see me being hypocritical, feel free to call it out. I've long stated I'm very libertarian regarding civil rights, and trend liberal on economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I don't quite see how those are "statist" decisions when they're all used explicitly by the federal government.

---

It's not "statist" in that sense. I'm all for state rights. I abhor statism though and the pinnacle of statism in the US is the federal government (hence why I'm for state rights - decentralization of power helps to promote liberty).

Quote:

---

Statism (or etatism) is an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. Economic statism, for instance, promotes the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.[1][2]

The term statism is sometimes used to refer to state capitalism or highly-regulated market economies with large amounts of government intervention. It is also used to refer to state socialism or co-operative economic systems that use the state, through nationalization, as a means of running industry.


Statism reached its highest point in the centrally planned fascist (Nazi Germany) and communist (Soviet Union) countries, but exists in varying degrees in every country in the world.[5]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

And if you see me being hypocritical, feel free to call it out. I've long stated I'm very libertarian regarding civil rights, and trend liberal on economics.

---

I just made a question. I'm sure I don't support/oppose laws that share the same underlying philosophy because of the political party that advocates them. I defend the supreme value of individual liberty against all its enemies and obstacles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

- decentralization of power helps to promote liberty).

---

...unless of course you were of african decent living in the south under Jim Crow laws.

or under the political machines of the early 1900's...

Care to qualify that a bit more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

...unless of course you were of african decent living in the south under Jim Crow laws.

or under the political machines of the early 1900's...

Care to qualify that a bit more?

---

A bit yeah, but not a lot. It's basically the principle of subsidiarity, which is part of the Western philosophy since Aquinas, with his concepts of city, province and empire. (but can be traced back to Aristotle).

Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Jefferson and pretty much every one of the Founding Fathers addressed this issue. The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers address this issue very well. Even the Federalists were extremely wary of the centralization of power - see papers #45 and #51 from Madison, for example.

Basically, it's more difficult to abuse the power if the authority t authority should be exercised at the lowest necessary level and as close to the people as possible. This gives the individual more protections against abuses of authority, it's way more difficult to for the authority agents to coerce individuals and makes it easier to prevent/overrun abuses of power. Concentration of power is dangerous because it's way more difficult for the individual to survive against potential abuses of power and to fight back. If nobody is able to hold a big amount of power in his own hands, the perils coming from the abuse of that power are less dangerous. When the power is centralized at the top, individuals become very small things down there, easy to abuse. Centralized power leads to absolutism and despotism.

Intermediate powers - formal ones like the states governments in the US or the nobility in the middle-age Europe or informal ones like Churches/clergy - are vital in preventing the surge of despotism. The American Republic was built around this concept (this is why guys like Woodrow Wilson distrusted the American constitutional system so much and loved the centralist Prussia, for example).

The fact that every level of power can be misused, even the local ones, doesn't imply centralization is a better alternative. There's an excellent counter-argument in To Kill a Mockingbird re: the Jim Crow laws point: how successful would Hitler be if he was born in Alabama? Ah, or in The Plot Against America from Roth - what's the excuse Lindbergh uses to explain to the nazi powers why it's being so difficult to implement their program in America?

Actually, the pro-slavery states tended to be pro-central government more than the anti-slavery states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0nAE1fbJv




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

----

Politicians keep failing.

And yet the socialists keep saying we should give them more power.

---

So you are upset that BP was not more stringently regulated by the government.

Nice.

"UL would have prevented this."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

Basically, it's more difficult to abuse the power if the authority t authority should be exercised at the lowest necessary level and as close to the people as possible.

---

Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.