Independent Investigative Journalism and Commentary from New Orleans, LA
The MODIS / Aqua satellite image above, taken at 2 pm Central time on July 28, shows oil slicks and sheen (encircled with orange line) that we think are likely attributable to the BP / Deepwater Horizon oil spill, spread out across 11,832 square miles (30,644 km2) in the Gulf of Mexico. We've marked the eastern edge of a persistent ocean-color anomaly with a dashed line; this anomaly may simply be related to the Mississippi River discharge, or could indicate an area where ocean chemistry has been affected by oil, dispersant, and/or dissolved methane from the spill and cleanup response. Three small slicks attributable to natural oil and gas seeps are also marked.http://blog.skytruth.org/2010/07/bp-gulf-oil-spill-curb-your-enthusiasm_29.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Skytruth+%28SkyTruth%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell#Oil_and_gas_reserves_recategorisationhttp://www.theoildrum.com/node/6415A hint on what the SEC investigation might be on. If they go after a reserves scandal now, it'd be a huge blow to BP and Tony would be shitcanned and they'd sue him to get back the golden parachute.
I've wondered about that. One theory among posters at Oil Drum is that the dispersant decision was a calculated risk - they weren't sure what the effects of the dispersant would be long-term but they knew that large amounts of oil in the coastal estuaries would be catastrophic. Time will tell.
I don't think their decision was based on large amounts of oil in the coastal estuaries. They didn't want people to "see" how much oil was gushing. And now we in the Gulf Coast have to live with this decision.
I've been following the discussion on The Oil Drum as well and I don't think it was a calculated risk. I think they didn't give a fuck as long as they could hide as much of the oil as possible. And per the piece in today's HuffPo on crab larvae, they've poisoned our food chain for who knows how long, or killed it off entire.If there's a massive die off and fishery lost, $20 billion won't begin to cut it. And I want Tony's head rotting on a fucking spike in Jackson Square.
"Tony Hayward's head on a pike", sure, I understand the anger. But blaming one guy alone, even a poncy, self absorbed guy who presided over real evil, who as we type is being allowed to get away with avoiding responsibility, is not going to fix things. Who in Sen. Landrieu's or Sen. Vitter's offices dealt with oil? What conversations do the Jindal people have with the oilmen?Political fundraisers and the access that money buys is something that people in Louisiana might be able to do something about, but it is easier to focus only on Tony. If that search for responsible parties started at home, it would implicate the family members, old high school friends, drinking buddies, and ex-lovers of half the state. Your father-in-law may golf with these oil men. Your alma mater (and its football team) gets funding from oil. If you have investments or are part of a pension fund, have you checked to make sure you are not the moral equivalent of a British citizen invested in BP with no thought about the looming environmental catastrophes as long as there was a good rate of return?
I'd like to thank John Amos for commenting above, 1st comment regarding the SkyTruth Satellite photo's Ashe posted in the next post: "To the Naysayers..."I believe he meant to leave this comment on that post because I contacted him to refute the obviously professional astroturfers working the comments section.Disgusted by this well-worn tactic employed to ReBrand the oil spill as "Quickly Dissipating" I became incredulous in the way they attacked Ashe's strong report, and attacked SkyTruth's valid Satellite interpretations. This is standard Professional AstroTurfer tactic. Trust me, these people are working from scripts. You can spot them by the rhetorical consistency of their attacks and the pat local references.Their job (and don't kid yourselves they are paid to do this)is to present the competing narrative in comment sections of blogs and other online media. This serves to influence not only congressional constituencies but jury pools too. This is important and bares directly on future court settlements as well as legislation and future oil leases. PR is the only fucking thing BP has done well in this entire crime. They have the money, manpower and financial incentives to pull it off. The most damning thing Ivor van Heerden has done by becoming the Mouth of BP, is open the door to such Scientific Ambiguity the way the Tobacco Cos did with Tobacco Science and others have done with Climate Science.The point of this tactic is Not to argue, but to dilute the argument. Whether or not Van Heerden is proven correct in his assessments of wetlands grass resilience is beside the point.The point is that his narrative is now (at my last count) on 30 different online news outlets around the world. Same story: "This catastrophe is no catastrophe. It has been overblown by news media. The oil well is capped now, and we are on the down slope."That is NOT the Reality. So Ashe, I thought I gave him the correct link, but you might want to move this comment over to the appropriate post.Thank you.
Post a Comment