No Oil Spills? Let's Have Some Truth, Please
Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 12:00Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: "You know, that's one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, those awful storms, no major spills."
Bill O'Reilly: "Remember when Katrina hit, none of the oil rigs spilled in Louisiana."
Wall Street Journal: "Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill."
McCain spokeperson Nancy Pfotenhauer: "We withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and didn't spill a drop."
John McCain: "not even Hurricane Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston."
Now, let's have some facts:
Houston Chronicle: "A Houston Chronicle review of data from the National Response Center shows that the two storms caused at least 595 spills, incidents that released untold amounts of oil, natural gas and other chemicals into the air, onto land and into the water. The quantity and cumulative magnitude of the 595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and inland, rank these two hurricanes among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history."
MSNBC: "More than 500 specialists are working to clean up 44 oil spills ranging from several hundred gallons to nearly 4 million gallons, the U.S. Coast Guard said in an assessment that goes far beyond initial reports of just two significant spills." (these are spills on land, not offshore - Wes)
US Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service: 52 spills from offshore rigs, 72 spills from offshore pipelines. Total spillage estimated at 17,652 barrels, or 741,384 gallons.
MMS followup: "MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. [Eugene Island Block 51 is 20 miles offshore from Lousiana - Wes] A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater."
(Note: The US Coast Guard defines a "medium spill" as 238 barrels/10,000 or more; a "major spill" is 2380 barrels/100,000 gallons or more.)
I don't think you can say "no major spills" when, in fact, MMS acknowledges a major spill from an offshore pipeline (the Eugene Island spill). They're also pushing the envelope when the <b>total spillage</b> is of disaster-level proportions ("major spill" is 100,000 gallons - total offshore spillage 741,000 gallons). I also think it disingenuous to separate pipeline spills from rig spills when the pipelines are a necessity in offshore drilling; they're all part of the same picture. Offshore rigs = pipelines, so why separate them?
Why can't we debate offshore drilling without truth-bending and outright lies?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
I guess that means it's o.k. to drill off the California coast since they don't have hurricanes (or rarely). The technology has improved a hundred fold since 1969 and even since the 90's with the Exxon Valdez (absent what you can do when a Capatin gets drunk). I know the 1969 spill off Santa Barbara is like the enviromental Woodstock to environmentalists. They live in the past and won't accept reality. The libs can ride this one to defeat in November.
I give you a raft of folks bending the truth and lying outright, and you say that environmentalists "won't accept reality?" Amazing.
Nonetheless, I suspect that this decision will eventually become a state-by-state thing. Some years ago, a plan was floated to allow the states veto power over drilling within 125 miles of shore, but to grant the Federal government authority over locations further offshore. At first glance, that idea might have some merit.
Aren't most oil 'spills' natural? It seems to me that most oil that leaks into the ocean comes from natual (i.e. non-drilled) sources.
Wes;
We all know enviromentalists won't lie. See global warming.
Notice how quickly Tom changes the subject on his way to accusing the non-liars of being people who "won't accept reality"? Lawdy, it'd be comical if only the consequences weren't so serious.
The Lousisana Governor, a cable loudmouth, the Op-Ed Page From Wingnut Street Central, the GOP nominee-presumptive's spokeswoman and the GOP nominee-presumptive Hisself--all, at roughly the same time, saying something demonstrably untrue at the top of their lungs.
Hmmmmm. Something tells me we got us a dishonest talking point going on here, and it's being systematically parroted, and I wish Tom would address himself to, um, you know, THAT, instead of "Doncha unnerstand how much better we are at containing oil spills?" or "I think climate change proponents lie, so lying about oil spills is OK and peachy-keen witch me."
This is how these people poison the discourse. They tell untruths. Then they repeat them, and have others repeat them, often enough to give 'em legs.
If representatives of the press (which mostly only reports that two parties disagree and here's what each side says) actually print what's true, they lambaste them for "liberal bias", (you skipped that box, Tom), change the subject entirely, and/or re-attack.
What a racket