Community | April 29, 2010 | 130 comments

Disaster: Oil Washes Ashore in Louisiana

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/louisiana-oil-spill-gets_n_556444.html

Image
jeffissleeping
An oil spill that threatened to eclipse even the Exxon Valdez disaster spread out of control with a faint sheen washing ashore along the Gulf Coast Thursday night as fishermen rushed to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes.

The spill was bigger than imagined – five times more than first estimated – and closer. Faint fingers of oily sheen were reaching the Mississippi River delta, lapping the Louisiana shoreline in long, thin lines.

"It is of grave concern," David Kennedy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press. "I am frightened. This is a very, very big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just mind-boggling."

The oil slick could become the nation's worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world's richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life. Thicker oil was in waters south and east of the Mississippi delta about five miles offshore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/louisiana-oil-spill-gets_n_556444.html
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Progressive America,   3 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Green,  Wildlife,  17 more
  3.     
    |

130 comments // Disaster: Oil Washes Ashore in Louisiana

  • captainplanet71
  • newsrelease
    • +2
      newsrelease  

    • THE CLOUD OF DEAD, THE POISONOUS LIQUID TO ALL,
      NEARLY ALL OUR PROBLEMS COME FROM THIS LIQUID…
      PETROLEUM...
      BUT ALSO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF OIL, SINCE IS PART OF THE ECOSYSTEM.
      BUT IS POISON TO US AND TO ALL ONCE IS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND AND BURNED.
      WHAT IS THE NATURAL PURPOSE OF OIL? PERHAPS SOMEDAY KEEP THE CORE OF THE PLANET BURNING? KEEP THE HEAT CONTROLLED?
      WHO KNOWS?
      BUT NO MATTER WHO PAYS, THEY WILL NEVER PAY THE HARM THEY HAVE CAUSED.

      IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT THE USE OF THIS LIQUID…
      SAVE THE PLANET GROUP

    • 2 years ago
  • Kurta
  • Animal_Chin
  • jeffissleeping
  • Lulubird
    • +1
      Lulubird  

    • I hate oil companies. They are greedy and committed to making a buck at the expense of the the environment, animals, and our health. Hey how about being responsible and using SOME of your profits to prevent disasters like this? Or Maybe not lie about the gravity of the situation so the people who are willing to help can adequately assess the damage and fix it. Their behavior is reprehensible, selfish and disgusting.

    • 2 years ago
  • courage
    • -1
      courage  

    • I cant believe the president was too busy promoting his class envy and race baiting for votes in november to concentrate with his lazer like focus on this disastor.Thit will make katrina seem like nothing but a public housing snafu

    • 2 years ago
  • navider
    • +1
      navider  
    • courage:

      First of all this is big oil and BP's mess and they need to be hung out to dry.

      Second of all this thing will not be able to be controlled for atleast another month because Bush deregulated the rule for automatic shut off vales on these rigs no matter what the government tries to do.

      Third, if Obama would have jumped in full bore you would be complaining that Tax payers are paying to clean up a corporations mess.

      Fourth maybe this will prove that offshore drilling has bad consequences!

    • 2 years ago
  • Follow_me
  • internationalnews
    • 0
      internationalnews  

    • THE OIL FLOATS:

      1) USE THE "TOP" NETS TO GATHER THE OIL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CURRENT OF THE WATER.

      2) VACCUM THE TOP AND PLACE IT INTO HUGE SHIPS OF OIL CONTAINERS,

      3) THEN VACCUM THE BOTTOM OF THE CONTAINER, TO REMOVE THE WATER,

      AND ACT FAST

      FIGHT THE PROBLEM BEFORE IT KILLS...

      SUGGEST SOLUTIONS AND SPREAD THEM, MILLIONS OF SPECIES MAY DIE SOFOCATING.

    • 2 years ago
  • Kurta
    • 0
      Kurta  
    • internationalnews:

      Good idea but that would be a lot of ships. I think the oil dispersants would be faster. Supposedly it's safe for the ecosystems. I'm not totally conviced though. I hope something works, fast.

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • Futuregen-----thanks for the comment.

      You present what I consider to be a legitimate concern about chemicals used in the fracking process. It may be a difference in point of view however between yourself(and the people involved in the interview). And I share your point of view up to a certain point.

      The crux of the problem is trust. I've analyzed every method commonly advanced to meet our energy needs. Biofuels and natural gas are head and shoulders superior to any other proposal. I looked long and hard at natural gas extraction. Historically(and we have over 100 years of use history judge from) natural gas has proven to be the cleanest, safest and most environmentally benign major fuel source we have. The worst cases we have of ground water pollution with natural gas is dissolved gas. And even that is easily manageable. Just like a cold soda pop left open over night loses its "fizzie" overnight due to diffusion of the gas out of the soda and into the atmosphere---groundwater with methane in it will lose the methane after a short period due to diffusion also. Much faster than a soda in fact, methane is far less soluble in water than CO2. This is the only documented problem.

      The second problem is trust. You, the people in the interview, myself to a certain extent and others are not trusting what they(drillers) are telling us. They want to keep the chemical mix they use secret. They won't tell EPA what they are putting into the ground.

      Well, no matter how you slice it, the "secret" just doesn't cut it. If I were the head of EPA---I am certain that I could tell you exactly what chemicals they use, and how much they use. There is NO WAY that such information could be kept secret. They have to order the chemicals from somewhere. They have to be delivered somehow. If they are hazardous materials, they have to be registered on the bill of lading and tracked whether delivered by train, truck or barge. Even if they are mixing witches brews at the site---it would not be hard to figure out what they are making if the ingredients are known.

      So, what POSSIBLE motive could there be to try to hide what is used?

      Natural gas is produced by and large as a by product of petroleum production. The same amount of energy(BTUs) sold as petroleum costs 3 to 4 times as much it does with natural gas. And anything that can be done with petroleum can also be done with natural gas, including powering vehicles.

      I suspect that these "corporate secrets" are an effort to stave off competition to petroleum by natural gas. In effect, an attempt to manipulate market demand(and keep natural gas out of the vehicle power picture).

      This is my conclusion based on history, chemistry, and following the money. I still do not have an entirely satisfactory explanation for the role
      of the EPA. Perhaps, the oil companies are hoping the EPA will close the natural gas wells? That way----their petroleum business is given a foot up---and environmentalists do all the screaming and work.

      The short version---I don't think there IS a secret witches brew. It would be easy enough to test for with water samples and a mass spectrometer, and it would only take minutes. Although the secret witches brew may not in fact exist---the hysteria and manipulation of public opinion by creating and fostering the myth of the secret witches is very real.

    • 2 years ago
  • ab222
  • nmsamanda
  • olddogdaddy
  • hunzedog
  • samantha420
  • hunzedog
  • carmalite
    • +1
      carmalite  
    • hunzedog:

      Our drilling regulations are very weak compared to the EU and other countries. We did not even require a certain valve that might have prevented this, and what was there failed.
      Halliburton's faulty cement had something to do with it too.
      Corporate greed.............anything and anythiing destroyed to save a few cents.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • navider
  • Vierotchka
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  

    • Reaper 26--------" time to switch to hybrids and electric and even hyrdogen should be real soon."----------

      How long will it take to replace 240 million vehicles with electric vehicles? We can not replace our current fleet of vehicles with electric vehicles that do not exist. And the manufacturing capability to make them does not exist And where are you going to charge them? And where are you going to get the electricity to charge them? And who is going to buy them? The only electric
      vehicle commercially available right now is the Tesla at over $100,000 each--a lot of money to spend on a car that can't go 100 miles from home before it has to turn around and go back to recharge overnight.

      Hybrids still use petroleum. Your Toyota Prius or any other hybrid isn't going anywhere until you put gasoline in the tank. They are much more expensive and mechanically complicated---and only get marginally better mileage. The efficiency of hybrids are about the same as diesels, that do not require expensive and complex batteries, electrical motors and systems controls.

      Biofuels are not limited to long recharging times or short operating ranges. Biofuels can support high compression ratios that make them efficient to use.
      Biofuels do not require any major changes in design, manufacturing or service infrastructure. We can use what we already have.

      Methane,(natural gas) is both a fossil fuel and a biofuel. It is cheap(methane is the cheapest form of consumer available energy). Methane is abundant, there is more easily extracted natural gas available than coal, and it causes no environmental damage to extract. You can't strip mine a gas.

      Almost any internal combustion engine made can be converted to run on either petroleum or natural gas at the flip of a switch. And the cost of running a vehicle on natural gas is about 1//2 the cost of running with petroleum.

      Running internal combustion engines on biofuels or methane is much cleaner than using petroleum. They produce almost no toxic emissions.

      We can make all the biofuels and methane we need.

      And when we make the biofuels----carbon is removed from the atmosphere. The end result is that when biofuels are burned, they do not put new CO2 into the atmosphere.

      CalgarC-------" we need to do something about this problem ourselves."------

      If you buy a flex fuel vehicle, it costs the same as a conventional gasoline only powered vehicle. It performs the same. It has all of the same features. If you use ethanol, you can cut your petroleum consumption 85%.

      If you have a diesel powered vehicle, you can use biodiesel with no modifications at all to the engine. Diesel engines can use mixes of biofuel up to 100% bio without modification----that is what they were originally designed for.

      You could buy a vehicle with a bi-fuel engine that uses either petroleum or natural gas at the flip of a switch. You will probably want to use natural gas as much as you can. You can go almost twice as far for the same amount of money that petroleum would cost you.

      To see what ethanol can do as a fuel, watch the Indianapolis 500 on Memorial Day. The fastest, most advanced race cars in the world all run on 100% ethanol.

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
    • +1
      artemis6  
    • Wetdog:

      Biofuel , it helps the Earth and there can be a plant , in every town , home sized versions too . Corporations do not want this . They cannot let this energy cash cow fall into our hands , were it rightfully belongs . Individuals get too empowered and start thinking they are in charge of the country or something !

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
    • +1
      futuregen  
    • Image
    • Wetdog:

      Thank you so much wetdog. I'm glad you blog on this site. Take a look at this info on fracking and natural gas. Not so good. Biofuels are the way. Non-GMO biofuels. Our water supply can't withstand fracking chemical contamination.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      April 14, 2010

      World-Renowned Scientist Dr. Theo Colborn on the Health Effects of Water Contamination from Fracking
      The Environmental Protection Agency has begun a review of how the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” can affect drinking water quality. We speak to Dr. Theo Colborn, the president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange and one of the foremost experts on the health and environmental effects of the toxic chemicals used in fracking. [includes rush transcript]
      Dr. Theo Colborn, zoologist and president of the the Endocrine Disruption Exchange

      AMY GOODMAN: Right now, we’re turning to a health issue here in this country. Sharif?

      SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right. We’re going to look at the health impacts of natural gas drilling. As the Environmental Protection Agency begins its review of how the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” can affect drinking water quality, the gas industry is raising new objections. The Independent Petroleum Association of America told the EPA its intended research, quote, “goes well beyond relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.” The findings could lead Congress to repeal an exemption that shields the fracturing process from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

      AMY GOODMAN: Well, as the debate over shale gas drilling heats up, we’re joined here in New York by Dr. Theo Colborn, zoologist and president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange. She’s one of the foremost experts on health and environmental effects of the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid.
      Welcome to Democracy Now!, Dr. Colborn.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Amy, it’s great to be here with you.

      AMY GOODMAN: Well, it’s great to have you in our studio. Start off by explaining what fracking is. What is hydraulic fracturing?

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Well, you know, you first have to drill a hole. And fracking goes one step beyond drilling the hole. In other words, the gas comes up out of the hole, but eventually you want to get more gas. And to facilitate that, there’s a now technology called fracking. Actually, industry calls it “stimulating.” And that’s to make it more, you know, citizen-, public-wise acceptable.
      But basically, it causes many earthquakes underneath the ground. They put chemicals in large amounts of fluids. Basically, if you’re going to be drilling in the New York City watershed, say, you’re going to be using between three and eight million gallons of water, which may be carrying tons of toxic chemicals that eventually—no one really knows where they’re going to go.
      Now, when they fracture, as they go down in the hole, the chemicals are added over a sequence of time, because they’re put in there for various purposes. But when the little mini-explosion takes place underground, that may extend as far as 2,000 feet out from the borehole. And consequently, that extends then this ability of this fracturing process to work. Now, that’s from a direct drilled pipe, and we’ve been using that process for years. More recently, they’ve gone into what they call horizontal fracturing, where as they drill the pipe down in, they bend the pipe, so that the pipe then goes off horizontally below the ground. And that can extend another 2,000 feet.
      So the beauty of fracturing, of course, is that you don’t have to make as many perforations on the ground, above, where the people are living, but you also have this access to maybe a radius of a mile or more around where each borehole goes into the ground.

      SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, let’s turn to a clip from this documentary Split Estate that investigates fracking. This clip features Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer in the EPA’s Denver office. In 2004, Wilson openly questioned an EPA study that declared fracking poses little or no threat to drinking water.

      WESTON WILSON: The former chairman, CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, within a few months of coming into office, and as vice president, he was pressuring the administrator of EPA, Christie Todd Whitman, to exempt hydraulic fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act regulation.
      From my own view as a technician, I just thought it very alarming that EPA technically had described how toxic these materials are—toxic at the point of injection—and still come out with a summary that says they don’t need to be reported or regulated. And that led me, in the fall of ’04, to object on technical grounds. Then the inspector general of EPA began an investigation of my complaints.
      And several months into that, Congress took the report from EPA saying that fracking did not present a risk, along with other information, and exempted hydraulic fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. That leaves you and I, as the American public, in this position: we cannot know what the industry injects in our land. It is exempt from being reported.

      SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer in the EPA’s Denver office, speaking in 2004. Dr. Theo Colborn, your thoughts on what he was saying on this issue of disclosure?

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Well, exactly. It’s very interesting. We’ve been trying to get information on the chemicals that are used to fracture—well, actually, drilling and fracturing. Drilling has its problems, as well. We must not overlook that. And over the years, with the help of government datas and then also information that we’ve basically collected because of accidents and spills, we’ve been able to put together a database in which we have 944 products listed now that are being used in the states where natural gas activity is taking place.
      Now, out of those 944 chemicals, we know between 95 and 100 percent of about 14 percent of the chemicals that are being used. We know what they are in those products. But we also have 43 percent of the products that are being used, we know absolutely nothing. We have no idea what’s in those forty-two-gallon drums or the 350- or 360-gallon totes. So we’re dealing with—the information that we’re working with is only based on a very small percentage of the products that are being used. And then—

      AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about the health—go ahead.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: But the problem here is, what Wes is talking about is, 70 percent—30 to 70 percent of that water that’s injected underground can possibly come back up to the surface. No one knows exactly how much stays underground and how much is going to be coming back up to the surface. So you worry about the long-term effect of that material that’s staying underground, that could appear later coming up in rivers and streams, at people’s well sites, that sort of thing, because we don’t understand the geology underground. But then all that—the rest of that has to come back up. And what people don’t realize is that gas doesn’t come up out of the ground dry, either; it comes up wet. So we have the water we’re taking off of the gas that is not clean, and we have the water that’s coming back up from fracturing.

      AMY GOODMAN: We don’t have much time, but we want to talk about the health effects. You are the president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: That’s right.

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • Wetdog:

      Continued:

      AMY GOODMAN: Explain what endocrine disruption is and how that relates to these chemicals that you are beginning to identify.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Well, it’s amazing, Amy. We were really stunned when we began breaking out the chemicals by their major health effects, and we found that 43 percent of the chemicals in Colorado, in those that are used there, are endocrine disruptors. Now, and in our national survey, it’s 37 percent.
      But what endocrine disruption does, basically, these are the chemicals that we now understand better—by the way, that are made from natural gas, believe it or not—the plastics that—and pesticides and other industrial chemicals. These are the chemicals that can get into the pregnant woman and enter the womb, while her baby is developing in her womb, and alter how those children are born. And this is our big concern today, because we’re facing major pandemics of endocrine-driven disorders—simple things like ADHD, autism, diabetes, obesity, early testicular cancer, endometriosis. These are all endocrine-driven disorders that we’re very concerned about.
      And these products are being injected underground, for centuries, maybe, to stay before they surface, and also coming back up. So the big problem is—with natural gas, is dealing with the water when it comes back up.

      SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And the EPA now is conducting a national study looking at natural gas drilling. What do you think is the significance of the study, and is it funded well enough?

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Well, I’m concerned about the funding, actually, and the time limit on it, too. It’s been given to the Office of Research and Development. Dr. Paul Anastas is now running that division of EPA, which was a great appointment by Obama recently, and I have a lot of faith in him. But there is—you know, it’s easy to go into a laboratory and set up some test tubes and run an experiment. But you’re working with undefined geology that shifts. Every single place you go, the geology is different, the hydrology is different. And for them to be able to get out there, and in two years, with only $2 million, try to resolve this problem, I don’t think they can do it.
      And I did sit in on their day-and-a-half meeting that they had in Washington about the plans they’re thinking about and how they’re going to move forward to do this study. And I’m afraid they’re going to get into what is called the stakeholder process. They’re going to bring in people who know nothing about it, representing all the stakeholders, just like they did with the endocrine disruption panel that they put together in 1996.

      AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Five seconds, OK.
      But when you give it to the stakeholders, and you don’t give it to the scientists, you’re—we’ve got to separate the research that we’re doing behind all of this work that’s going on from those—the corporate-controlled decision makers.

      AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, we’re going to continue to follow this, because, well, under the guise of energy independence, this whole issue of natural gas drilling is really coming to the fore in this country. Dr. Theo Colborn, thank you so much for being with us.

    • 2 years ago
  • Kurta
  • CalgarC
  • Reaper26
    • 0
      Reaper26  

    • sad thing is were not gonna do anything but keep pumping gas in our cars. and more of these incidents could possibly happen even worst a terrorist group could target these places and boom gas prices will be up to 4 or 5 dollars. time to switch to hybrids and electric and even hyrdogen should be real soon.

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
    • +3
      futuregen  
    • Image

    • http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/27/headlines

      Here it is- the culprits. I knew I smelled a NEOCON. F U Dick Cheney and the Bush brigade.

      Excerpt:
      "Eleven workers remain missing since the explosion and are presumed dead. The wife of one of the missing workers, Natalie Roshto, has filed a lawsuit accusing BP of negligence in operating the rig. The suit also names the oil services giant Halliburton, which performed work on the well before the explosion."

      Sue them for all they are worth. Halliburton and the NEOCONS continue to ruin our country and our planet. Prison for all of you! Are there no lawyers who will stand up to these criminals for past crimes? By not investigating and prosecuting, they are just able to complete more of their evil stunts, like this oil disaster to make it look like the End Times. The next thing on their agenda is an offensive, illegal nuke strike on Iran and leading to WWlll. America is full of sucky people who want to blow off the heads of Muslims and 'intelligent' people who sit back and do nothing to stop it. GET INVOLVED before it is too late. WAKE UP PLEASE!

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  

    • In case anyone gets the wrong idea about the "high tech" oil boom technology being deployed to "contain and capture the oil spill" actually is----it is basically straw stuffed into cloth tubes, and strung together like sausage links.

      The oil is supposed to be absorbed into the cloth and straw. Water also is absorbed. A few minutes in the water, and nothing is absorbed.

      They are basically trying to blot up 210,000 gallons a day of oil by throwing toilet paper into the ocean.

      So much for high tech environmental protection and clean up.

      The truth is, once this oil reaches the shore, or settles to the bottom----that is it. The environment is destroyed. And there isn't diddly squat any one can do about it. No matter what they try to tell you otherwise.

      Beaches and shores in Alaska are still fouled with oil from Exxon Valdez.

    • 2 years ago
  • noephoto
    • +1
      noephoto  

    • There are now worries that the wellhead and pipe leading to the rig could collapse. This would allow the oil to gush into the Gulf at a much faster rate. The "experts" have no idea how fast an open well would dump oil. A typical well can produce 30,000 barrels a day (120,000 gallons). That is under controlled pressures. A wide open well to an underground reservoir is a different story.
      This catastrophe will eclipse Exxon Valdez. It will make Katrina and Rita distant memories.
      One can hope for a positive outcome. Maybe this will push more people to renewable energies. Too bad it takes such devastation to wake people.

    • 2 years ago
  • noephoto
  • CaptB
    • +2
      CaptB  

    • Sarah Palin and John McCain went on and on about, "Drill baby Drill" concerning letting the oil companies drill off shore. Look what happens when they recklessly go drilling. The cutting edge technology they supposedly have is no better than back in the 70's.

      I say we make shirts that say, "Spill baby Spill" with an out of control oil rig spewing oil everywhere.

      Rush Limbaugh is saying it is Obama's fault for not responding quicker. I don't even know how to respond to such an outrageous statement. Bush's actions during Katrina were inept. Obama has done everything he can, Coast Guard on scene immediately after it happened. In touch with BP as soon as it happened. Sect of Interior there the next day (15 hours later). Bush did a fly over and waved. Obama is actually engaged.

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • CaptB:

      Obama is guilty of not putting the NEOCONS in jail, not investigating 911 and trying to be "bipartisan" with criminals . See above on Halliburton. They "conveniently" worked on the oil rig right before the explosion.

    • 2 years ago
  • Seraphina76
  • carmalite
  • jeffissleeping
  • butch3651
    • -9
      butch3651  

    • If any country can fix this problem, it is the US. We have the expertise to do almost anything that has to be done to fix anything, as long as we stay away from socialist ideals. The company will do what needs done to save the well and the environment. The sooner it is fixed and put into operation the less money is wasted and more profit made. Also we get more oil to use to keep our industries working. This wasn't done on purpose, no matter what goes wrong people complain. When you want us to go to wind power, we do, then you complain that birds are getting killed running into the blades. You want the windmills built offshore then you complain it will ruin the scenery. Make up your damn minds!

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • Kurta
    • 0
      Kurta  
    • butch3651:

      I think you're oversimplifying the issues and you had to somehow sneak socialism in there, didn't you? This is the kind of situation that goes beyond politics. Do you really understand the ramifications of a spill like this? Value does not always equal currency. I would think that would go without saying but...

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • butch3651:

      British Petroleum is not a US company. That is why it is called BRITISH Petroleum.

      If you can't figure that out----then it is not surprising that you believe all the other things in your post I suppose.

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
  • Blind_Watchmaker
    • 0
      Blind_Watchmaker  
    • Kurta:

      Don't you see? Left to it's own devices a Free Market will solve everything, i think i finally see the light...

      No need to worry America, return to your homes, big oil has this under control, drilling another hole will solve everything, return to your homes, there is nothing to worry about...

      Seriously though, i hope BP and Haliburton foot the bill for this one, too bad the average motorist is probably going to have to pay through the nose as BP will just jack up prices to cover the cost.

    • 2 years ago
  • Kurta
    • 0
      Kurta  
    • Blind_Watchmaker:

      Oh, what the hell was I thinking?! I'll bet those damned book-reading liberals blew it up to give some credence to that whole global warming hoax.

      I'd like to see them not only foot the bill for the cleanup but also be made to make a fucking astronomical donation to conservation agencies. A guy can dream right?

    • 2 years ago
  • Tyr
    • +7
      Tyr  

    • Where are all the cheerleaders for unlimited off shore drilling? C'mon guys you've been running your mouths for years about how those opposed to it are exaggerating the dangers...speak up and explain how none of this is really a problem, tell us how the oil industry is ever vigilant and nothing like this can happen because of the "safeguards" in place....this is a prime example of the danger of letting corporatists set national policy...they just don't give a damn about anything except money....if this doesn't wake you up to the foolishness of condemning those who seek to protect the environment we live in what in Hell will it take?

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • crob80227
    • +3
      crob80227  

    • The best thing the citizens can do at this point (imho) is to demand that the government treat this crisis with the speed and urgency it would se as if it were a terrorist attack!

      We don't want another Katrina foul-up!

      We don't want another situation where the President sits around twiddling his thumbs thinking that someone, somewhere will take care of it. This is a major, major ecological disaster and we need FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers and every major player and resource we have brought to bear on this problem right now.

      The real test of Obama's Presidency will be how quickly and effectively he deals with this ecological crisis.

      Will he be effective....or just another bumbling Bush with no clue how to handle a crisis? Hopefully Obama's up to the challenge.

    • 2 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  
    • crob80227:

      The USCG was on it immediately. They did not wait like Bush and attend a party with McCain and then fly over. The USCG and the Federal Gov. and the state of Louisiana are on it and were on it as soon as possible.
      BP HID THE FACT THAT THEY HAD THE DISASTER AS LONG AS THEY COULD. IF WE HAD THE SAME REGULATIONS ABOUT DRILLING AS THE EU, WE WOULD BE SAFER BUT NEVER COMPLETELY SAFE.

    • 2 years ago
  • Still_Falling
    • +3
      Still_Falling  

    • Come on guys it is just a little oil it will eventually wash off.
      Why are you people so sensitive, in the old days our ancestors used to drink a tablespoon of oil or eat a few servings of petroleum jelly for what ailed them.

      So please stop overreacting the GOP is already on a the case, coming up with ways of blocking any legislation that will require the oil industry to strengthen their safety ... and operation standards.

      The GOP's argument is that any industry left up to it's own devices will be able to police itself.
      So far these industries' are doing a swell job don't you think?

    • 2 years ago
  • dharmadogpictures
  • Logos51891
    • +1
      Logos51891  

    • I can't help but notice that a few comments make stabs at the government; please stop it! This isn't some political clout or controversy! This is a horrible accident that will affect my state's beautiful and fragile marshes and swamps for years to come. So what if Obama approved more offshore drilling. Who gives a crap if Sarah Palin isn't saying anything? Everyone is so wrapped up with establishing themselves and blaming others that they cannot solve the problems which we face such as a disastrous war, a flawed healthcare system and now this. Stop pointing fingers! Offer a plausible solution, or shut the hell up.

    • 2 years ago
  • Seraphina76
    • +3
      Seraphina76  
    • Logos51891:

      I blame all the people and processes that keep us hooked on oil and alternative fuel and energy sources out of reach. Too many oil disasters and too much greed. Louisiana is my state too.

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • +6
      crob80227  
    • Logos51891:

      You need to first ackowledge that some disasters require the efforts, resouces and logistical capabilities of GOVERNMENT. Yeah, its cute and makes us feel good to pretend that a few dedicated citizens who work as cashiers and landscapers can somehow leave their jobs and come tgether to "fix" a thousand mile oil disaster...but this is real life and not a Disney movie. Volunteers are nice, but this is a problem that only the resources and logistical capabilities of several governments can fix.

      Also, let's not pretend this isn't the direct RESULT of political philsophy. The oil rig exploded. There isn't anything that ordinary citizens can actully do right now at this moment to "fix" an exploded oil rig...it's like seeing a hurrican coming toward you and then asking, "What are we going to do to stop it?" The disaster at this point is beyond simple "volunteer" efforts. Yes, we could all go down (those of us that can afford to take time off work in this economy) and scrub the seagulls....but that is just cleaning up after the fact, isn't it? And even those efforts really don't amount to much. It's like when a nuclear power plant contaimates 500 sq miles...but the citizens spend the next year shoveling/decontaminating a whopping 2 miles.

      Elections matters, is the point.

      As for "rolling up our sleeves" to fix this disaster, well, not to be Mr. Negative but we have to realistically acknowledge that some disasters require massive GOVERNMENT RESOURCES to work with.

      The Dust Bowl wasn't "fixed" when the farmers all rolled up their sleeves and decided to mae it rain.

      Toxic Superfund sites aren't fixed by volunteer efforts.

      This massive oil contamination is going to require the coordinated efforts of both Mexico and the US (mostly the US) in order to manage.

      Do you agree or disagree?

      Do you really think this disaster isn't the direct result of a political philsophy of no government regulation?

      Do you really think a bunch of volunteers is really going to amount to anything?

      Again, I'd love for a Disney ending where the music swells and the town comes together and they save the day. This is reality though. The environment is deeply fucked now and at best all we can do is bring the full force of the Army Corps of Engineers to the scene and mimize the damage as best we can.

    • 2 years ago
  • Seraphina76
  • artemis6
    • +1
      artemis6  
    • Logos51891:

      Yes , it's horrible . People have different ways of dealing with tragedy . The expression of Words and ideas help some process it . Do you think we are being unpatriotic by talking about how this came about ? Perhaps free speech or thought bothers you ? This is a public forum . You do not have to read it . This was preventable . It will happen again , if there is not a BIG change . Before change , comes DIALOGUE . Dialogue creates some consensus . Then change comes . Do you want it to stay the same , or do you want it to be different ?

    • 2 years ago
  • Logos51891
    • 0
      Logos51891  
    • crob80227:

      You're right, of course. Perhaps I did not develop my argument well enough. I do realize that frivolous government regulation is at fault here, as well as the lax standards of BP. I also agree with you that volunteers will not be able to fix this situation alone. As you said, massive efforts must be coordinated by the US, Mexico, and other Caribbean nations if any part of the fragile ecosystems in the Delta Reserves are to be saved. I apologize for my hastiness in my previous comment. I get angry at finger pointing; blaming someone never fixes anything and since this is close to my home (25 miles in fact) I admit I was a angry. Thank you for setting me straight.

    • 2 years ago
  • Logos51891
    • 0
      Logos51891  
    • artemis6:

      Not at all. My problem is all the finger pointing at shadows. I have read some comments and interpret them to be self-declarations of allegiance to one side of the line or the other. As a journalist (I write for a newspaper) freedom of speech is paramount to me. But if you have a problem with my comments, well, as you said: you don't have to read them.

    • 2 years ago
  • Maitereya
  • Seraphina76
    • 0
      Seraphina76  

    • there was a large group of local fishermen in my parish that volunteered their services, since they are very familiar with the waterways, and BP has failed to respond. Oil will make landfall at this parish sometime early Saturday.
      First bird with oil has been rescued offshore.

    • 2 years ago
  • Logos51891
  • Seraphina76
    • 0
      Seraphina76  
    • Logos51891:

      that depends on if they can keep it out of Lake Pontchartrain...it's already starting to effect shipping. At least when we had that oil spill in the river it washed out pretty fast. It's really going to mess up the beaches along the coast that had just finally returned to normal, no more glass, nails, and debris, and they are rebuilding the piers.

    • 2 years ago
  • Seraphina76
  • crob80227
    • +7
      crob80227  

    • So far having too little government regulation has created:

      1) The biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression

      2) Potentionally the biggest environmental disaster since The Great Dust Bowl

      The Republicans love to party like its the 1930's!

      Maybe we should round up all the registered Republicans and force them into oil cleanup crews to repair some of the damage? The reality is that their philosophy of no government oversight, no regulations, free markets and over all "fuck the environment" attitude are directly responsible for this disaster.

      Sometimes one political party really is to blame. So what's wrong with coming right out and saying "Republican Philosophies Did This!" so we can create better awareness among voters and possibly prevent future disasters both economic and environmental?

    • 2 years ago
  • Logos51891
  • crob80227
  • Kurta
    • 0
      Kurta  
    • crob80227:

      I think we should send all the Hummer owners and boat owners down there and tell them they can keep what they clean up. We could have it back to normal in 6 weeks.

    • 2 years ago
  • mcjk
  • remanns
  • insaintity
  • remanns
  • dharmadogpictures
  • claybird121
  • Ares
  • Kurta
    • 0
      Kurta  
    • Ares:

      I suppose if wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, methane, geothermal, coal, natural gas, hydrogen, biofuel, and solar power disappear that would be a good caption.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  
    • Kurta:

      Petroleum accounts for approx. 40% of our energy resource in the states. I'm not saying those technologies shouldn't be pursued, but it's a long fucking way off.

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • +9
      crob80227  

    • If there is any good news to come out of this tragedy, it's that it will most likely provide a huge promotional boost to ALTERNATIVE ENERGY such as wind farms and solar.

      Wonder how much this environmental disaster is going to cost to clean up?

      And, more importantly, how do the tax cut loving small government Republicans plan on dealing with environmental disaster?

      How are tax cuts for billionares going to solve this problem?

      How is "reducing government" going to address this massive environmental disaster that is directly impacting huge sections of our nation?

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • +2
      Mark701  
    • crob80227:

      BP's stock drop has already cost them 25 billion and Obama isn't cutting them any slack when it comes to clean up. He's already stated that BP will be footing the bill.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • remanns
  • bailey78
  • dharmadogpictures
    • +2
      dharmadogpictures  

    • This Video Mashup by the Stimulator, is a very timely piece. It was released on the internet prior to this most recent acccident but is a very powerful message on the current day events. If you watch closely you will see there was just a recent spill from Chevron in the same general area just weeks ago. Spread the video.

    • 2 years ago
  • lsantiago35
  • Seraphina76
    • +2
      Seraphina76  

    • I would like to give my big F@$% You of the Century Award to British Petroleum, Sarah Palin, and the rest of Big Oil and their politician f@$% buddies. You can all kindly go to hell.

    • 2 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • futuregen
  • Seraphina76
    • +3
      Seraphina76  

    • As the oil creeps into our lakes and waterways, I smell the scent of petroleum death in the air. It reminds me of the smell of my hurricane lamp filled with kerosene. I weep for the plants, animals, fish, and land that is home to me.

    • 2 years ago
  • Blkwdw
    • +7
      Blkwdw  

    • This is a sign that we need to stop drilling in the Ocean for oil, a huge disaster waiting to happen oh wait it did already! The risk was so high but money always trumps life on this planet doesn't it. so sad. I see so many things so wrong and wonder how did we let this happen. One day we will have to regain control over our lives and this planet from a few select people who feels this planet and her resources belongs to them. Their entitlement has left them feeling just, that their most crude and evil ways are actually attributes to gain power and control, while the majority of life suffers or perish in the process.

    • 2 years ago
  • bocky10
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • bailey78
    • +1
      bailey78  
    • BrushwithDeathToothpaste:

      Yes they can install a remote controlled actuator on the B.O.P's. However just try to tell big oil that it will save countless lives and the ecosystem when a major accident happens. the current operateing system is a nitrogen over hydraulic system that has no fail safe plan. When nobody can get to the controls of the B.O.P.'s to close it in when shit goes wrong then we have a major disaster like the one we have now. The least they could do is put in a automated system that when this happens it then shuts the well in on it's own. But hey that would add another four or five thousand to the price of the B.O.P.'s. Who can afford that?

    • 2 years ago
  • Xenzaka
  • claybird121
  • Still_Falling
    • +1
      Still_Falling  

    • The official GOP response to this will be:

      You tree hugging liberals need to calm down, this is just a little oil nothing to worry about.
      What we need is to do is get into our helicopters and shoot all those oil covered creatures while we are flying over.
      This way we can accomplish two task at once, kill innocent animals while destroying the environment.

      Oh yeah while we are at it, we should fly a banner behind our helicopters blaming Obama and his Czars for this environmental catastrophe.

      Let us also start a grass root movement to stop any kind of government intervention into this disaster, because it is quite evident that private industries can police and handle any catastrophic occurrence.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
  • futuregen
  • JanforGore
  • tenletterz
  • futuregen
  • futuregen
12
1 - 100 of 130
more from Community:
from the community

top videos