VIDEO: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: 22-mile oil plume lurking beneath the Gulf of Mexico’s surface
Despite the unprecedented environmental disaster that the BP Oil Spill is, the U.S. Congress is no closer to passing clean energy legislation that transitions the United States from depending on oil, which is a nonrenewable and dirty energy resource, mostly derived from hostile foreign sources, to cleaner domestic forms of energy sources that aren’t carbon intensive.
Furthermore, if we’re to continue to evolve as a modern democratic society, then we’ll need to find cleaner forms of energy that are renewable. Additionally, we must balance environmental interests with development goals, since our future well-being is intimately bound up with the availability of natural resources and an access to clean environments.
On the Net:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Via io9
And more on this video via the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
These images are from “James Duncan Davidson, TED’s conference photographer, [and he] is among a crew of five photographers and videographers reporting on the Gulf of Mexico for the TEDxOilSpill Expedition.” You can find more photos from the TEDxOilSpill Expedition on the Flickr page of duncandavidson, and you can follow TEDxOilSpill on Twitter or read their blog. TEDxOilSpill is also conducting a poster competition.
Surface oil:
Oil burning on the ocean’s surface:
Oil in the marshes and islands of Barataria Bay, Louisiana:
Shrimp boats skim the ocean’s surface around Barataria Bay, Louisiana:
The Deepwater Horizon accident site showing controlled burns being conducted and ”one of two drilling rigs drilling the releif [sic] wells“:
The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Here’s a collection of disturbing but oddly comical oil company advertisements from the past—some are eerily prophetic while others are blatantly misleading:
Print:


Video:
BREAK
Via NBC New York
More on oysters and disease from the Maryland Department of the Environment:
Shellfish are filter-feeding organisms; they strain the surrounding water through their gills which trap and transfer food particles to their digestive tract. If the water they are housed in is contaminated with disease-causing organisms, these organisms are also trapped and consumed as food. Because shellfish pump large quantities of water through their gills each day, even low concentrations of harmful organisms from the waters can reach dangerous levels in the shellfish. If shellfish containing these organisms are eaten raw or partially cooked, illness may result.
Shellfish are bivalve mollusks such as clams, oysters, and mussels. [The term shellfish does not include crabs, lobsters, or shrimp.] Therefore, to protect public health, it is mandatory that shellfish be harvested from approved shellfish waters where protective standards have been met.
More on oysters and poor water quality from the Chesapeake Bay Program:
How do diseases and poor water quality affect oysters?
In addition to harvest pressure, the Bay’s oysters face a number of other challenges. One of these is disease. Since the 1950s, the oyster diseases MSX and Dermo have decimated the Bay’s remaining oyster population.
The Bay’s oysters have also been impacted by poor water quality.
- Changes in land use over the past century—more agricultural and urban and suburban areas and fewer forested areas—have increased the amount of nutrients and sediment that enter the Bay.
- Excess nutrients fuel the growth of algae blooms that deplete oxygen in deeper waters and can hinder the development of oyster larvae.
- Oysters that are under stress from poor water quality or burial by sediment are likely more prone to disease.
Spoofs & irony:
Greenwashing:
BP or British Petroleum campaigns on the idea that BP is synonymous to “Beyond Petroleum.” However, the use of beyond petroleum to describe BP’s energy strategy and policy is contradictory or even misleading. More from Slate.com:
So what’s with this “Beyond Petroleum” stuff? BP has a huge investment in an intensively competitive commodity business. By and large, you’ll get virtually the same performance, price, and customer experience at Sunoco as you will at BP. Cars don’t develop tastes for brands of gas the way humans develop tastes for brands of soda or potato chips. Neither, by my own unscientific polling, do people. Oil retailers differentiate themselves by offering premium coffee in the stores or providing ease of payment through gizmos like Mobil’s Speedpass or, in BP’s case, by projecting a favorable brand image.
Highlighting environmentally friendly products has emerged as a popular way for retailers and consumer-product companies to strengthen bonds with discerning customers. Think Home Depot’s rainforest-free lumber, McDonald’s biodegradable Big Mac wrappers, and the entire Body Shop. Ford briefly aspired to eco-friendliness with its drive for greater fuel efficiency but canned it when the financial going got tough.
By running these ads and by doing things like powering gas pumps with electricity generated by photovoltaic cells, BP sends a message to conflicted SUV drivers—I’m one of them—who sleep better after filling the 14-mile-per-gallon Jeep from an energy-efficient pump. What’s more, it obtains what no global oil conglomerate can buy: positive coverage in the media. (The New York Times in particular seems to have a soft spot for anything that smacks of renewable energy.)
BP’s campaign inspires no small amount of cognitive dissonance. The company proudly notes that it will invest $15 billion in oil properties in the next 10 years. But while a release notes that “BP holds a leading share in the global market for photovoltaic modules, which turn sunlight into electricity,” you’ll search far and wide on its Web site without finding any dollar figures attached to it. You can be sure that “leading share” is a lot closer to $15 million than $15 billion.
More significantly, the Beyond Petroleum campaign seems to argue for the disappearance of the company’s core product. If our kids should be so fortunate as to live in a world beyond petroleum, one in which cars, factories, and electricity plants are powered by an alternative power source—hydrogen, fuel cells, electric batteries, ethanol, fission, or fairy dust—it’s a virtual certainty BP won’t be the one to get us there.
Big players in industries—especially dominant ones—can survive and even profit from dramatic inflection points. IBM adapted from the mainframe to the PC, and Microsoft has survived the transition to the Internet. But giant companies in competitive, capital-intensive businesses, which are owned by shareholders with short time horizons, have difficulty mustering the will to develop a new product that will render existing ventures obsolete.
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen argued that established players are constitutionally disinclined to develop disruptive technologies on their own. Why? Incumbents spend too much time and resources satisfying their customers’ current needs—in BP’s case, the need for cheap oil and gas. As a result, they fail to latch on to new technologies that may turn into products that customers might need or don’t even know they need.
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
BOULDER—A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer. The modeling results are captured in a series of dramatic animations produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and collaborators.
Via NCAR & UCAR News
The costs of malfeasance are too great to ignore. The negative externalities that result from burning fossil fuels are too great to ignore. As fossil fuels continue to dwindle and world governments continue to lack prudent energy policies, environmental disasters will continue, so the true cost of “cheap” fossil fuels will continue to be passed to governments and their citizens, while private corporations bank mammoth amounts of money every day.
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::

Images: AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
From April 30 to June 1, there have been 29 dead dolphins verified within the designated spill area. So far, one of the 29 dolphins had evidence of external oil. Because it was found on an oiled beach, we are unable at this time to determine whether the animal was covered in oil prior to its death or after its death. The other 28 dolphins have had no visible evidence of external oil. Since April 30, the stranding rate for dolphins in Louisiana has been higher than the historic numbers for the same time period in previous years. This may be due to increased detection and reporting and the lingering effects of the earlier observed spike in strandings.
On the Net:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Image via NASA
Criminal. Via The New York Times:
More than a month has passed since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, operated by BP, blew up, spewing immeasurable quantities of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and frustrating all efforts to contain it. An inspector general’s report to be released this week said that federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil, and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports.
Video: Oil Washes Ashore on La. Island:
Video: Jeffrey Brown talks to Admiral Thad Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard for the latest on the spreading contamination and the government’s role in the response:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::

The BP oil spill is one-month old today, and according to an engineering professor “oil is escaping at the rate of 95,000 barrels — 4 million gallons — a day, nearly 20 times greater than the 5,000 barrel a day estimate BP and government scientists have been citing for nearly three weeks.” More via McClatchy:
The figure of 5,000 barrels a day or 210,000 gallons that BP and the federal government have been using for weeks is based on satellite observations of the surface. But NASA’s best satellite-based instruments can’t see deep into the waters of the Gulf, where much of the oil from the gusher 5,000 feet below the surface seems to be floating.
Federal officials testified in hearings on Tuesday that they were putting together a crack team to get to the bottom of big the spill really is. That effort comes a month after the April 20 explosion that triggered the unprecedented oil spill in deep waters of the United States. Experts say knowing that amount is crucial for efforts to cap the broken wellhead and to monitor and clean up the oil.
Steve Wereley, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, earlier this month made simple calculations from a video BP released on May 12 and came up with a flow of 70,000 barrels a day, NPR reported last week. Werely on Wednesday told a House Commerce and Energy Committee subcommittee that his calculations of two leaks that show up on videos BP released on Tuesday showed 70,000 barrels from one leak and 25,000 from the other.
He said the calculation could be off by 20 percent — meaning the spill could range from between 76,000 to 104,000 barrels a day. But Wereley said he would need to see videos that were not compressed and showed the flow over a longer period so that it would be possible to get a better calculation of the mix of oil and gas from the wellhead.
The low-ball estimates by BP, and the failure of the U.S. government to determine official estimates could save BP millions in court. More via McClatchy.
Legal experts said that not having a credible official estimate of the leak’s size provides another benefit for BP: The amount of oil spilled is certain to be key evidence in the court battles that are likely to result from the disaster. The size of the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, for example, was a significant factor that the jury considered when it assessed damages against Exxon.
“If they put off measuring, then it’s going to be a battle of dueling experts after the fact trying to extrapolate how much spilled after it has all sunk or has been carried away,” said Lloyd Benton Miller, one of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers in the Exxon Valdez spill litigation. “The ability to measure how much oil was released will be impossible.”
“It’s always a bottom-line issue,” said Marilyn Heiman, a former Clinton administration Interior Department official who now heads the Arctic Program for the Pew Environment Group. “Any company wouldn’t have an interest in having this kind of measurement if they can help it.”
The size of the spill has become a high stakes political controversy that’s put the Obama administration and the oil company on the defensive. In congressional testimony Wednesday, an engineering professor from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., said that based on videos released Tuesday he estimated that the well was spewing at 95,000 barrels of oil, or 4 million gallons a day into the gulf.
The BP oil spill is unprecedented. The image below reminds me of looking down at a puddle with a huge oil sheen in the middle of it. Instead, the Gulf of Mexico is the puddle, and the oil sheen is the result of poor federal government oversight of natural resources. The situation is extremely disheartening.
The BP oil spill illustrates how humanity can impact the environment on a large scale. If the environment is negatively impacted, then our well-being is negatively impacted. As a result, in order to preserve a future environment that bears fruit or resources (or a healthy economy) for our children to use (or capitalize from), it’s in everyone’s best interest to be an environmentalist.
Furthermore, it’s easy to visualize the BP oil spill and become disgusted by the impacts that are easily observed. However, some anthropogenic activities aren’t readily observable. For example, the anthropogenic release of trapped carbon into the atmosphere and the subsequent changes to the climate are too abstract for some individuals to grasp. Also, all the oil leaking from our automobiles every second into the environment on an aggregate scale impacts the environment negatively—just like the BP oil spill. Therefore, we must be cognizant on how our everyday activities might impact our human environment and make changes accordingly. The federal government has a responsibility to drive these changes too.
Image via NASA’s Earth Observatory
Video: Congressman: Oil Leak Estimate ‘Dead Wrong’:
Video: Politicians, Scientists Fear Spreading Oil Slick:
On the Net:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
BP leak video 1
BP leak video 2
BP leak video 3
BP leak video 4
Videos via Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida and E&ENews PM
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Satellite image by NASA/Goddard/MODIS Rapid Response Team

The growing oil slick is “now estimated to be at least 130 miles by 70 miles, or about the size of the state of Delaware, [and is still] threaten[ing] shipping, wildlife, beaches and one of the United States’ most fertile fishing grounds.” Yesterday, it was reported that “winds so far are keeping most of the Gulf oil spill away from shore, and chemicals are doing a decent job dispersing the giant swath of slick crude oil looming off the coast.” However, the oil slick will likely spread further than the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists are saying that “oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico could enter the Gulf Stream, [drag] oil through the Florida Keys and up . . . [Florida's] Atlantic coast to Palm Beach County.” Consequently, Florida and other states are worried about their shrimping industries. As a result, BP “gave Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida $25 million each so the states have cash in hand to pay cleanup workers and mitigation efforts.” The oil spill and the subsequent fisheries closures will impact seafood prices.
BP sent a litigation team to the Gulf Coast area to offer compensation to fishers and businesses impacted by the oil spill, but “the damaged individuals and businesses would be required to sign BP paperwork.” Signing these documents might “require [signees] to forfeit their right to sue in the future.” Apparently, BP also asked fishers that it hired to “cleanup . . . the Gulf oil spill to sign waivers that would limit the company’s liability.” Obviously, under these circumstances, getting people to waive their right to sue is a nefarious practice. More from CBS News:
Alabama Attorney General Troy King said Sunday night that he has told BP they should stop circulating settlement agreements among coastal Alabamians, the Mobile Press-Register reports. King reportedly said the agreements stipulate that residents will give up their right to sue the company in exchange for a payment of up to $5,000.
“People need to proceed with caution and understand the ramifications before signing something like that,” said King, who noted that he is prohibited from giving legal advice to private citizens. “They should seek appropriate counsel to make sure their rights are protected.”
Yesterday, BP CEO Tony Hayward said, “The drilling rig was Transocean’s drilling rig, it was their equipment that failed, its their systems, their processors that were running it.” Hayward has also said, “We are responsible, not for the accident, but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up.” There’s certainly enough blame to go around with claims against BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. However, one rig worker has claimed that BP was drilling much deeper than its federal permit authorized. More from the Seattle Times:
Meanwhile, lawyers representing environmental groups, rig workers and fisherman hurt by the explosion levied fresh accusations against BP, as well as Transocean and Halliburton. BP was operating the doomed Deepwater Horizon rig, which it leased from Transocean. Halliburton was providing several services on the rig, including cementing, a method of capping the well to control pressure from oil and gas.
At least one worker who was on the rig when it exploded April 20 and who handled company records for BP said the rig was drilling deeper than 22,000 feet, even though the company’s federal permit allowed it to go only to 18,000 to 20,000 feet, the lawyers said.
BP strongly denied that it was drilling deeper than allowed.
Apparently, some legislators thought it was a good idea to cap “any company’s liability for economic damages” at $75 million. However, there is “new legislation would raise the cap to $10 billion.” More from NYTimes.com:
Up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion reserve could be used to compensate for losses from the accident, as much as half of it for what is sometimes a major category of costs: damage to natural resources like fisheries and other wildlife habitats.
Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government.
The fund was set up by Congress in 1986 but not financed until after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989. In exchange for the limits on liability, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed a tax on oil companies, currently 8 cents for every barrel they produce in this country or import.
The tax adds roughly one tenth of a percent to the price of oil. Another source of revenue is fines and civil penalties from companies that spill oil.
The result is a rainy-day fund, which over the years has been used mostly for spills that exceed the liability caps by relatively small amounts. But the trust fund managers have warned that a single big spill could make a sizable dent in the reserve.
Personally, I don’t understand how expanding offshore oil drilling is supposed to lead to energy security or lower prices at the pump, since the world’s economic health is measured by continued growth and the world’s economy is so intimately bound up with oil—a nonrenewable resource. Also, there’s another problem with “the ‘energy security’ argument for US oil production: oil is fungible and it is traded widely.”
If there’s one good thing that will come from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is that the disaster has certainly shocked the conscious of any human being with a soul and able to exhibit empathy. For example, yesterday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “withdrew his support for a plan he championed to allow new offshore oil drilling off Santa Barbara County, citing the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.” The recent push to expand offshore drilling by the Obama Administration may be reversed, and “dozens of environmental groups are urging the Senate to reject efforts to expand offshore drilling in light of the massive oil spill in the Gulf.”
Of course, unlike Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has seen the light, other Republicans and conservative pundits are making silly statements that don’t make any sense. Texas Governor Rick Perry characterized the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an “act of God.” Rush Limbaugh said that environmentalists sabotaged the oil rig and caused the Gulf Coast oil spill. Limbaugh also downplayed the oil spill’s effects on ocean and coastal ecosystems, but “scientists and environmentalists scoffed at Rush Limbaugh’s suggestion that the ocean would clean up itself following a devastating accident in the Gulf of Mexico that has resulted in a miles-wide oil slick slowly making its way to fisheries and beaches along the coast.”
Let’s hope that BP’s plans to seal the leak prove successful and that any economic and environmental damage is easily mitigated and minimized.
Image: NOAA Closes Commercial and Recreational Fishing in Oil-Affected Portion of Gulf of Mexico

Video: Oil Spill = Ecological Chaos:
Video: Oil slick: Fishermen waiting for help from BP:
Video: Valdez Victims: Gulf Coast Has Long Road Ahead:
Video: BP: Weather ‘Significantly’ Impacted Containment:
Video: Worries Grow Over Spill’s Impact on Marine Life:
Video: Jon Stewart Satirizes the Gulf Coast Oil Spill Issue
On the Net: Consider these sites for updates on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Image by DigitalGlobe
Yesterday, President Obama described the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill as “‘a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster’” and pledged a “‘relentless response’” to remedy and mitigate economic and environmental damage. The President also stressed, “BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill.” The total cost to clean up the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is estimated at over $14 billion dollars. Undoubtedly, this figure doesn’t include litigation costs or costs associated with economic loss in addition to costs associated with environmental damage. So far, BP and Transocean “face at least 36 lawsuits, including group cases with potentially thousands of plaintiffs, over environmental damage and personal injuries caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. . . . [and] 31 proposed class-action suits have been filed in courthouses from Texas to Florida.” Under the Oil Pollution Act, “‘the fact that it was BP’s oil is enough’ . . . [so] plaintiffs ‘don’t have to show they were negligent or grossly negligent.’”
In order to contain the spill, BP “will place huge containment boxes over the well as the next available short-term strategy in fighting the Gulf oil spill. . . . [and] the concrete-and-steel chambers could be in place at the leak site in six to eight days.” Methods such as skimming the oil, burning the oil, or dispersing it have done little to stop the oil spill from spreading outward from the spill.
States along the Gulf Coast are preparing to tackle the oil spill. The Governor of Alabama “has called in the National Guard to begin preparing barriers against the oil slick drifting toward his state, as well as shoreline areas of Mississippi and Louisiana.” Also, the “attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas want BP PLC to sign an agreement spelling out exactly what “legitimate expenses” they’ll cover from the spill.” In order to contain the oil slick, miles of boom have been deployed to protect Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi coastlines, but strong winds are hindering the effectiveness of the boom. States on the east coast might be impacted from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, since the Gulf Loop Current could send oil up the east coast.
Fisheries have already been impacted by the oil spill, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) closed some waters in the Gulf of Mexico to both commercial and recreational fishing. More updates on the oil spill via NOAA:
Oil continues to flow into the Gulf of Mexico at an estimated to 5000 barrels (210,000 gallons) per day from three leaks in damaged piping on the sea floor. This afternoon NOAA tested a new technique to apply dispersants to oil at the source – 5000’ below the surface. Another test and follow-on analysis of the effects of dispersant and dispersed oil in the water column are necessary before the technique is operational, but if successful it could reduce or prevent an oil plume from forming at the surface. Preparation for drilling of a relief or cut-off well is underway – one drilling rig is on site and one should arrive this weekend, but the process will not be complete for several months. Work also continues on a piping system designed to take oil from a collection dome at the sea floor to tankers on the surface; this technique has never been tried at 5000’. High winds and seas curtailed surface skimming and application of dispersant by air today, but production of dispersant has ramped up to 70,000 barrels per day.
Hundreds of thousands of feet of boom have been deployed to contain the spill, with hundreds of thousands more assigned. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries announced the closure of both recreational and commercial fishing in areas of likely impact and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals closed molluscan shellfish (oyster) harvesting areas in the coastal parishes of Plaquemines and St. Bernard.
Dead sea turtles are also washing ashore in record numbers. More via the Mississippi Press:
On Saturday the sea turtles started washing up on shore. On Sunday, the turtles were joined by dead catfish, horseshoe crabs, and birds — a duck, a pelican and a seagull.
Before the April 20 rig explosion and oil started pouring into the Gulf, the city might see a small turtle wash up every six months — one that got caught in a net, or died from some natural cause, said Holliman, a City of Pass Christian patrol officer, who works the harbor.
“But we’ve never seen this many,” he says, shaking his head. “Something’s going on; we just don’t know what.”
The animals don’t appear to be coated in oil, but some of the turtles have damaged shells. Though sea turtles can be seen out near the barrier islands, no one is sure where these dead ones are coming from.
Image: Deepwater Horizon Cumulative Trajectory Map via NOAA:

Video: The oil leak seems impossible to stop: Oil Spill Priority One: Seal the Leak
Video: Fears grow over oil spill disaster: Fishers blame the government for a slow response and Halliburton sued
Video: Dead Sea Turtles Washing Up Along Gulf Coast:
Video: Obama says BP must pay
Video: Gulf Oil Spill Swiftly Balloons, Could Move East:
On the Net: Consider these sites for updates on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
After some ten years of what some folks would call shenanigans and poppycock, Cape Wind was finally approved by the Obama Administration.
However, one of the more serious claims against Cape Wind came from Cape and Vineyard Native American tribal members, since there’s the possibility that construction of the offshore wind project “will interfere with important sunrise ceremonies and potentially damage ancestral burial grounds in what was once dry land now submerged beneath the Sound.” Both the Massachusetts state government and federal government are attempting to compensate Cape and Vineyard Native American tribes for the potential disturbance to cultural resources and are attempting to offer plans to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. No formal deal has apparently been reached.
If Cape Wind is constructed, there will be 130-turbines, and “Cape Wind will produce 468 megawatts (MW) of electricity, about the same as a medium-sized coal-fired power plant.” Direct-drive technology could propel offshore wind turbines, which is “a technology that could help address concerns over cost and reliability of offshore wind.” However, Cape Wind is contracted to use use the gearbox and rotor technology.
Opponents of the offshore wind farm argue, amongst other things, that the turbines would ruin the scenic beauty of Nantucket Sound and harm aquatic wildlife and seabirds. However, Nantucket Sound receives heavy commercial traffic in addition to heavy touristic-type traffic. The anthropogenic footprint on the area is undoubtedly already huge. Furthermore, research shows that impacts to seabirds are minimal.
Given the United States’ need for energy and reliance on polluting nonrenewable fossil fuels (not to mention the recent Gulf of Mexico offshore oil rig disaster, a Brobdingnagian-sized environmental disaster, which will cost that region billions of dollars in economic loss due to the devastation done to ecosystem services), Cape Wind is an important step in the right direction that should have begun many years before.
Video: New Bedford may become wind farm’s HQ:
Video: Wind farm gets mixed reaction on Cape
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Image via NASA/MODIS Rapid Response Team
In 1969, a major offshore oil spill occurred off the Santa Barbara Channel. The environmental disaster off California’s coastline prompted a series of state and federal environmental laws to be passed (via the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development):
On January 28, 1969, Union Oil’s Platform A experienced an uncontrolled blowout in the Dos Cuadras field that lasted for approximately eight days. The spill of approximately 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of crude oil affected over forty miles of coastline. Several environmental laws were passed at the federal and state levels following the blowout, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Future OCS and state tideland leasing would require a formalized environmental review process.
Fast forward to today: Soon after the Obama Administration announced plans to expand offshore drilling, an oil rig, owned by BP, in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire and sank, prompting the release of thousands of barrels of oil a day. According to the “National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)[,] experts now estimate that 5,000 barrels a day of oil are spilling into the gulf – far more than the previous estimate of 1,000 barrels a day.” Consequently, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been characterized as being “equal or even eclips[ing] the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill off the southern coast of Alaska, the worst oil spill in U.S. history and one of the worst environmental disasters in decades.” In fact, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could be worse than Valdez and Katrina. According to the Associated Press, “Oil from a massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico was starting to ooze ashore, threatening migrating birds, nesting pelicans and even river otters and mink along Louisiana’s fragile islands and barrier marshes.” Furthermore, wildlife are already being affected.
Given the environmental impacts, the Gulf of Mexico spill will negatively impact fisheries, local economies, local livelihoods, and the health of local populations. In fact, local shrimpers have already filed a lawsuit seeking damages caused by the spill. More from the Houma Courier:
Two shrimpers from Louisiana are among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in connection with the oil spill related to the sunken oil rig Deepwater Horizon.
Acy J. Cooper Jr. anmd Ronnie Louis Anderson are among the litigants. Cooper is from the Venice area and Anderson is from Montegut.
The class action suit filed in New Orleans federal court seeks $5 million in specific damages and an unspecified amount for punitive damages against Transocean, which owned the ill-fated platform, BP, for whom exploration was being done off the Louisiana coast, and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. and Cameron International Corp., who performed contract work for the rig.
In order to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the U.S. Coast Guard is poised to burn off the oil slick–if it hasn’t started already, and BP “is [also] constructing a 100-tonne steel funnel but warns the technology has never been tried below a few hundred metres – the Deepwater well is 1,500m down.” Also, “emergency workers in the Gulf will use booms to contain the oil spill and tow it away to a remote area.”
The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is reminicient of the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill–another costly environmental disaster. While the coal industry was peddling coal as a clean energy source, over one billion gallons of fly ash spilled over Roane County, Tennessee. The Kingston fly ash spill was “100 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989[, and] the cleanup of the river, which will take years to complete, is expected to cost as much as $1 billion.”
As a nation, we must realize that relying on fossil fuels isn’t prudent energy policy, especially since alternatives exist. Furthermore, fossil fuels aren’t cheap, since significant costs, associated with environmental damage and public health, are passed off to consumers and governments. These externalities aren’t immediately reflected in the price we pay at the pump. Consequently, the “Drill, Baby, Drill” philosophy is shortsigted and reckless or not completely thought out. Bill Maher put it best: “Every asshole who ever chanted ‘Drill baby drill’ should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty.”
Video: Oil spill reaches Gulf Coast, threat of worst US environmental disaster
Video: The Legacy Of Exxon Valdez
CBS News Video: Oil Spill Creeping Toward U.S. Coast
On the Net:
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
Recent Comments