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.
Dr. Slarti do you think that after the sinking of the South Korean Naval Ship, raising the remnants and towing it to shore it would be immediately obvious that a torpedo sunk the ship. I would think so, but they are still investigating the incident.
Sorry, that didn’t work. To indent a long quote, use:
(less than) blockquote (greater than)
and to end it use:
(less than) /blockquote (greater than)
Where (greater than) = ‘>’
and
(less than) = ‘<'
Bdaman,
Don’t you think that the difference between an explosion (likely in the superstructure) and a torpedo hit (necessarily at water level or below) would be immediately obvious?
Bdaman,
Please fully quote what is a direct copy/paste so there is no confusion of who said what.
Thanks.
Buddha,
Are you sure that it wasn’t the Liberation Front of Aquatica?
FFLEO I did
http://www.eutimes.net/…/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/
You can always google for yourself.
Buddha,
I was unaware that they had deployed the unit of sharks with frickin’ lasers strapped to their heads. I stand corrected.
Bdaman,
Sorry, but your conspiracy theory article doesn’t really pass the smell test – why would a nuclear weapon be the only way to stop the wellhead? Why not conventional explosives? I doubt very much that you could be sure that explosives would collapse the wellhead (they would have to be placed outside of it since the oil gushing out would prevent actually putting the explosive inside the borehole). Remember explosives leave craters, not mounds. A detonation (of any sort) COULD collapse the borehole, but it could also make the problem much worse and it seems like an irresponsibly reckless action to me. It’s a sign of too much Hollywood ‘science’ to think that this kind of problem can only be solved with a nuke. Ockham’s razor points to an industrial accident and a ‘failsafe’ system that wasn’t. The government should (and I believe will) investigate all the possibilities, but wild speculation about improbable and impossible scenarios is pointless right now. And this conspiracy theory you posted doesn’t hold together when just a minimal amount of thought and reason are brought to bear on it…
I take that back. The image linked above is THE Deep Water Horizon, the ship that sunk.
Slarti,
SWAT surround the torpedo, drops in a radio, and puts a negotiator on the line. If that fails, they ride in on their sharks with lasers mounted on their heads and take no prisoners.
And how do we know it wasn’t the sea life itself that “sabotaged” the well? Perhaps the Aquatic Liberation Front, a school of malcontent dissident groupers allied with some subversive shrimp, known for their industrial espionage.
Bdaman and Byron,
I do not want to stifle conversation and I will write more later on. I just request that you fully attribute any copy/paste. Then, please qualify your comments with some statement; such as, this sounds like bunk, but…, or, I will live and die by my statement because I am sure of it given my 20 years as an oil field engineer or production manager (which I can verify), or, this sounds crazy to me, but do you think it is plausible?, et cetera.
Ideals and thought are important; unfounded fringe statements presented as fact are not.
Thanks.
Dr. Slarti to get a better idea of a floating rig here’s one being piggy backed to location.
http://acrigs.com/Nautilus-Dry-Tow.jpg
Maybe the sinking of the South Korean Naval Ship was a test run for the rig in the GOMEX. Never say Never.
How does a SWAT team prevent a torpedo attack on an oil rig?
They don’t my point is to FFLEO nothing is off the table yet. Lets not forget that a South Korean Naval Ship was sunk a few weeks ago and retrieved from the depths of the ocean. It was suspected that a torpedo sunk the ship. The Oil Rig that was sunk was a floating rig/ship. It was not moored in place. It was controlled by a gps system with thrusters.
Gyges:
“You’ve got your head pretty far deep in the sand there.”
Come on you mean up my a . . . 🙂
The Exxon Valdez was about 53 million gallons of that amount they speculate about 21,000 gallons still remain. The majority of the species have recovered. While this isn’t exactly a perfect scenario it is not the doom and gloom that everyone here seems to be predicting.
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/index.cfm
Bdaman,
How does a SWAT team prevent a torpedo attack on an oil rig?
Byron,
We should look at the costs (environmental and economic) of ALL industries in the light of day – as long as businesses can despoil assets that they don’t own in the name of their own profit we cannot have a truly free market. And we’re not talking about ‘capitalism defiles the beauty of the countryside’, we’re talking about ‘pollution destroys the viability of the ecosystem’. It is not out of the realm of possibility for pollution (and its secondary effects) to cause the collapse of modern society or reduce the ‘carrying capacity’ of the Earth (I think you would agree that damaging the Earth to the point where if couldn’t support more than, say, 1 billion people would be a bad thing).
No one knows with absolute certainty what happened. NO ONE
Byron,
You’ve got your head pretty far deep in the sand there. You want to play the oil seepage card? Fine, prove that the oil seepage in the area in question is greater than the spillage. THEN you can say “well the area’s used to it.” Right now you might as well be saying “you can’t die from an infected wound, because you have bacteria living on your skin.”