As the government deals with what may prove the worst oil disaster in the history of the country in the Gulf of Mexico, oceanographer and chemical engineer Rush Limbaugh has gone public with his theory that “enviornmental wackos” may be responsible and that pouring oil into the ocean is something that the ocean can handle naturally with intervention by the government. He also insisted that oil spills are natural and should not cause undo concern.
Limbaugh noted “The carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day” and “hardcore environmentalist wackos” were looking for ways to oppose Obama’s plans for more nuclear power and offshore drilling: “What better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just, I’m just noting the timing here.” So here is a glimpse into the mind of Rush Limbaugh: environmentalists fear an oil spill on the coast so, to avoid such spills, they blow up a rig to cause a spill on the coast.
Limbaugh also encouraged the public to stop fearing oil spills and learn to embrace them as natural as the ocean water they pollute: “The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.”
Presumably, Limbaugh made these statements from Costa Rica where he promised to go if the health care bill was passed, here.
In the meantime, Bill Kristol told Fox News that the problem is that we are not drilling close enough to shore, here.
For the full story, click here.
Elaine,
As primates, it’s all in the family so no apology required. 😀
“BP’s 52-page exploration plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the federal Minerals Management Service, says repeatedly that it was “unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities.”
I guess someone is going to be eating those words for a very long time.
BIL–
Now I suppose you’ll expect me to apologize for my “Irangutan” comment a few days ago at another post!
BIL.
I would like to take this opportunity to apologise fully and without reservation to all seagulls.
(Except the one that might be a re-incarnation of Rush).
Document: BP didn’t plan for major oil spill
By CAIN BURDEAU and HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writers Cain Burdeau And Holbrook Mohr, Associated Press Writers – Sat May 1, 2:38 am ET
Excerpts:
MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER – British Petroleum once downplayed the possibility of a catastrophic accident at an offshore rig that exploded, causing the worst U.S. oil spill in decades along the Gulf Coast and endangering shoreline habitat.
In its 2009 exploration plan and environmental impact analysis for the well, BP 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 and mammals.
***********
BP’s 52-page exploration plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the federal Minerals Management Service, 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 impact 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.
Although the cause of the explosion was under investigation, 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 — a process known as cementing. Halliburton denied it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_louisiana_oil_rig_explosion
Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Burning should have started a week ago, former NOAA official says.
MOBILE, Ala. — Federal officials should have started burning oil off the surface of the Gulf last week, almost as soon as the spill happened, said the former oil spill response coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Ron Gouget, who also managed Louisiana’s oil response team for a time, said federal officials missed a narrow window of opportunity to gain control of the spill by burning last week, before the spill spread hundreds of miles across the Gulf, and before winds began blowing toward shore.
He also said the heavy use of dispersants, which cause oil to sink, has likely knocked so much oil into the water column that portions of the Gulf may be on the threshold of becoming toxic to marine life. Add in the oil spreading into the water as it rises from the seafloor, and Gouget said he expected officials would have to think about limiting the use of the dispersants.
“There was a threshold of about 35 part per million for oil in the water. Above that, white shrimp larvae died in the laboratory. I don’t know where the levels are now in the Gulf, but that is something they will have to keep an eye on,” Gouget said.
Gouget, now an environmental consultant with Windward Associates in Seattle, was part of the group that created the 1994 plan designed to allow federal responders to begin burning oil as soon as a major spill occurred, without an approval process.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/burning_should_have_started_a.html
Following is an excerpt from an LA Times article. I wonder what Rushbo will make of Halliburton’s chief executive being called to testify.
Halliburton in spotlight in gulf spill probe
Investigators look at the company’s role in cementing the deepwater drill hole in the Gulf of Mexico. Transocean and BP also face questioning.
May 01, 2010|By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times
Investigators delving into the causes of the massive gulf oil spill are examining the role of Houston-based Halliburton Co., the giant energy services company that was responsible for cementing the deepwater drill hole, as well as the possible failure of equipment leased to British Petroleum.
Two members of Congress, Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), called on Halliburton on Friday to provide all documents relating to “the possibility or risk of an explosion or blowout at the Deepwater Horizon rig and the status, adequacy, quality, monitoring, and inspection of the cementing work” by May 7.
Halliburton Chief Executive David Lesar is scheduled to testify before Waxman’s energy and commerce committee on May 12, along with top executives Lamar McKay of BP America Inc. and Steve Newman of Transocean Ltd., which leased the drilling rig to BP.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-oil-spill-investigation-20100501
Lots of blame to go around.
Maaarrghk!,
That’s a terrible thing to say about seagulls.
video
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=813&subtopic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=1
Video Shows Feds Knew Of Potential Ecological Disaster Immediately After Rig Explosion
A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration video, shot as officials coordinated response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, shows that federal officials immediately worried that the oil well could leak up to 110,000 barrels per day, or 4.6 million gallons.
The video appears on a federal Web site.
It was filmed in Seattle, at NOAA’s Western Regional Center, as scientists and federal officials in Seattle, Houston and New Orleans engaged in telephone conferences, according to a companion document on the Web site.
It took President Obama 12 days to visit the disaster area today.
Yesterday, The New York Times reported that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was not aware the Defense Department had equipment for dealing with oil slicks. The White House defended their non-response today.
And then there’s this…
On April 29th, Ron Gouget, who once managed Gulf spill response teams, publicly pilloried the administration’s response to the tragic oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Gouget helped create the 1994 plan that allowed expedited burning of oil as soon as a major spill had occurred — without having to wait for permission or approvals.
Byron–
“how does that acoustic switch work if the BOP is blown apart or somehow incapacitated by the explosion?”
I guess we’ll never know if it would have worked or not because an acoustic switch was never installed. I didn’t claim the acoustic switch would have been able to shut off the spillage of oil into the Gulf. I posted the article because I thought it was something we could think about/discuss. The WSJ certainly isn’t considered to be the most liberal newspaper.
You’ll notice the following paragraph in the article I posted:
“The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort.”
Elaine:
how does that acoustic switch work if the BOP is blown apart or somehow incapacitated by the explosion? If the rams in the BOP have been damaged and cant be closed how is a back-up switch going to work?
If my TV is broken the remote control is not going to work.
From the WSJ (4/28/2010)
Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device
By RUSSELL GOLD, BEN CASSELMAN and GUY CHAZAN
Excerpt:
The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn’t have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.
The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives. On Wednesday federal investigators said the disaster is now releasing 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf, up from original estimates of 1,000 barrels a day.
U.S. regulators don’t mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn’t have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated.
The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort.
Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993.
The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn’t needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html
rcampbell:
it did have a shut off valve on the sea floor, it is called a Blowout Preventer (BOP). When I worked offshore 30 years ago they had them. Although we were only drilling in 400′ of water not 5,000′. They are also operated by hydraulics maybe something else now. the are called blind rams and shear rams. they cut the drill stem and theoretically cut the flow. You can operate them from the rig floor and probably from the rig control room as well.
As with so much that is wrong in our country, this is another legacy of unbridled greed that has infected this country for 30 years. BP and other oil companies successfully lobbied to prevent the regulation that would have required the automatic underwater shut-off valve that would have prevented this disaster and which is required by most other countries that permit off-shore drilling.
Over the past 18 months or so, we’ve been subjected to the unravelling of the brand of conservativism championed by Reagan and GWBush and exposing it as the failure it is. Conservative have zero credibility. We’ve seen the devastating impact in the mortgage markets, financial services sector, mining, oil, health insurance and the list goes on. This infection even affects Supreme Court decisions. When you give industries free rein, they WILL take advantage and America will suffer.
It most probably was not eco terrorism but it certainly is not outside the realm of possibility based on previous incidents.
he may have a point about possible ecoterrorism:
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/university_of_california_animal_rights_extremism.htm
http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/seeps1.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/bya6g7r7ceebanrl/
Natural Marine Oil Seepage
R. D. Wilson 1, P. H. Monaghan 1, A. Osanik 1, L. C. Price 1, and M. A. Rogers 1
1 Geology Function at Esso Production Research Company, Houston, Texas
The probable range of seepage into the marine environment is 0.2 x 106 to 6.0 x 106 metric tons per year. Within this range the best estimate for the present marine seepage worldwide is on the order of 0.6 x 106 metric tons per year. This estimate is based on the presumption that only a few other areas around the world are as seepage-prone as southern California. Measurements of seeps and seepage rates are too few to allow an accurate estimation by observation and measurement techniques alone. Seepage potential can, however, be related to geologic criteria, and these provide sound bases for marine seepage assessment.
On the basis of this estimate, areas of high seepage potential contribute about 45 percent of the worldwide seepage, areas of moderate seepage about 55 percent, and areas of low seepage less than 1 percent. The situation varies somewhat from ocean to ocean. In the Pacific Ocean, areas of high seep potential are by far the major contributors. In the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern oceans, areas of moderate seep potential are most significant because areas of high seep potential are relatively rare in these realnis. The circum-Pacific area is the area of greatest seepage; it contributes about 40 percent of the world’s total.
Dear Rush,
you’re funny.
But I really do hope that after you die, you come back as a seagull.
Yours,
Maaarrghk!