"Oils well that ends well"--by Horatio Algeranon
The license for the offshore drilling,
Required no plan for unchecked "spilling."
The oily palms made sure of that
In Washington, where our leaders sat.
"Oil rigs generally don't cause spills"
Our leader said, to pass his bill,
"They're technologically very advanced"
(Of an oil "blow-out" there's little chance.)
Our scientists sang a different song--
"If it can go wrong it will go wrong,"
"One must consider a major spill" --
But they had no ear on Capitol Hill.
A short time later, the "Deepwater" blew
Off Louisiana's coast and began to spew
An endless stream of toxic crude.
The "advanced technology" had come unglued.
The "spill" was more like a volcanic eruption
That even caused a bit of disruption
In the halls of Congress, where our leaders sit.
Offshore drilling took a major hit.
Or so it seemed on first impression,
From comments of those up for re-election,
But pay close attention to what they mean,
Because oily hands are hard to clean.
Added May 17
To sell his recently released plan for more offshore drilling, President Obama said just 3 weeks before the BP blowout:
That is made clear by the assessment of the Obama offshore oil drilling plan that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists did last year. NOAA criticized the Obama plan for flawed and unsupported claims made regarding both spill occurrence from rigs and potential impacts of such spills.
Based on Obama's own statements, it appears that NOAA's criticisms were largely (if not completely) ignored. On offshore oil drilling, at least, it would appear that the pattern that was so prevalent under Bush has continued under Obama: ignore the advice of scientists in the interest of business as usual.
A recent article by Ian Urbina of the NY Times ("U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits") basically says it all:
We ignore at our own peril the advice of our scientists, on oil drilling, climate change and every other scientifically related issue that has a potential bearing on our own health and well being and on that of future generations.
"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore."Unfortunately, Obama's "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills" essentially ignores the potential impacts of a large "spill" like the blowout now occurring in the Gulf -- something that no legitimate risk analysis would do. And the latter part of Obama's statement -- "Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore" -- is simply false.
That is made clear by the assessment of the Obama offshore oil drilling plan that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists did last year. NOAA criticized the Obama plan for flawed and unsupported claims made regarding both spill occurrence from rigs and potential impacts of such spills.
Based on Obama's own statements, it appears that NOAA's criticisms were largely (if not completely) ignored. On offshore oil drilling, at least, it would appear that the pattern that was so prevalent under Bush has continued under Obama: ignore the advice of scientists in the interest of business as usual.
A recent article by Ian Urbina of the NY Times ("U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits") basically says it all:
"The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf."
"You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact,” said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. “If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you."
******************************
The New Orleans Ladder and Sky Truth offer a slightly different take on the BP blowout and its likely impacts on the Gulf of Mexico and its coastal inhabitants than one is likely to find in mainstream media reports.
Among other things, the New Orleans Ladder has been highlighting BP's use of chemical dispersants on a scale that dwarfs that for any previous spill.
Many scientists have expressed concern about injection of chemicals such as Corexit* directly into the undersea oil flow -- as BP has been doing. ( According to marine conservationist and oil spill expert Rick Steiner, Corexit has actually been dubbed "Hidez-It by its users "because its purpose is not to correct but deceive".)
Scientists are worried that undersea use of dispersants will result in suspension of the oil in the "water column" (ie, underwater) with largely unknown (though potentially detrimental) long term consequences. Already, scientists have discovered giant undersea plumes of oil that may be the result of the use of such dispersants.
Based on a scientific analysis of surface oil slicks shown in satellite images, John Amos at Sky Truth has indicated for some time now (since late April) that the flow from the BP blowout is probably much (at least 5 times) larger than the "official" US Coast guard estimate of "5000 barrels per day".
The recent analysis of the BP video of the primary leak by independent scientists indicates that the actual flow may even exceed Amos' estimate (minimum of 1.1 million gallons a day) by a factor of 3 or more. But even in the "best case" -- assuming the minimum scientifically-based estimate (coast guard estimate is not among the latter!) -- the BP disaster has likely already far exceeded the Exxon Valdez disaster with regard to total oil spilled.
Among other things, the New Orleans Ladder has been highlighting BP's use of chemical dispersants on a scale that dwarfs that for any previous spill.
Many scientists have expressed concern about injection of chemicals such as Corexit* directly into the undersea oil flow -- as BP has been doing. ( According to marine conservationist and oil spill expert Rick Steiner, Corexit has actually been dubbed "Hidez-It by its users "because its purpose is not to correct but deceive".)
Scientists are worried that undersea use of dispersants will result in suspension of the oil in the "water column" (ie, underwater) with largely unknown (though potentially detrimental) long term consequences. Already, scientists have discovered giant undersea plumes of oil that may be the result of the use of such dispersants.
Based on a scientific analysis of surface oil slicks shown in satellite images, John Amos at Sky Truth has indicated for some time now (since late April) that the flow from the BP blowout is probably much (at least 5 times) larger than the "official" US Coast guard estimate of "5000 barrels per day".
The recent analysis of the BP video of the primary leak by independent scientists indicates that the actual flow may even exceed Amos' estimate (minimum of 1.1 million gallons a day) by a factor of 3 or more. But even in the "best case" -- assuming the minimum scientifically-based estimate (coast guard estimate is not among the latter!) -- the BP disaster has likely already far exceeded the Exxon Valdez disaster with regard to total oil spilled.
