Offshore drilling bill passes house - CONTACT YOUR SENATORS!

[LeFlaneur]

One of the things that everybody seems to agree upon is that there is a lot of hype, bad science and political agendas at play here. The result is that people become tired and cynical rather than informed.

But when I think about the mish-mash of bad science I remember this little current event nugget and it makes me furious:

Does the name George Deutsch ring a bell? He was the administration apointee placed in NASA whose sole job was to censor NASA's own scientic findings and strike out lines that posed too strong a case for global warming or were too critical of the oil industry. The man has no scientific background, not even a bachelor's degree (he forged it) yet he had the final word on what NASA was able to say on this subject.

What is the motivation for this? Is it because those hippie pseudo-scientists at NASA were churning out hype? What do you think? Did his efforts make the subject clearer? Did he help us understand where we need to go and how to get there?

Even if there is no hard and fast conclusion at this point. There is enough evidence (not only environemtal but also from a national security standpoint) to support a conserted effort toward developing viable alternative energy.

Yet, we are paying people to censor reports from the most moderate, methodical, and trusted scientific institutions in the country. Our efforts as a nation -- your tax dollars -- are going toward a campaign of disinformation. Someone tell me why.

 

[captain]

Silt-laden yes. Laden with ammonium nitrate, no.

The ammonium nitrate comes from fertilizer used by farmers growing your food not the oil industry.
It is the most common fertilizer used. Besides not driving an SUV may be you should also stop consuming food

 

[Divedoggie]

With Cuba and Mexico drilling very close to our shore lines...and with no US regulations, the risk for damage is huge. If we drill these areas first, at least we can have some measure of control.
And keep oil production domestic.

 

[LeFlaneur]

Well, yeah. Okay, I was speaking generally in terms of water quality.

I guess I should have said this too: The development of refineries in the Mississippi delta led to the chanelling of the river through canal systems rather than allowing it to fan out naturally. This causes the natural silt to plume further out into the deep waters of the gulf rather than precipitating in marshes as it once did. Added to that silt is ammonium nitrate, sewage, pesticide and whatever else. Prior to Katrina (I don't have any post Katrina figures) the petrolium refineries in ten delta parishes led the nation in toxic waste dumped into surface waters.

As for my stopping consuming food -- really that is so tired. Ammonium nitrate is not food nor is it required to grow food.

 

[TheRedHead]

There is still a lot of cotton grown in the Mississippi delta, along with soybeans and rice. In the rich farmland areas of the south, I don't think there is a single tree standing that is not a single specimen in a small town or shading a house. No one ever sees these places.

 

[deeper thoughts]

Well, yeah. Okay, I was speaking generally in terms of water quality.

I guess I should have said this too: The development of refineries in the Mississippi delta led to the chanelling of the river through canal systems rather than allowing it to fan out naturally. This causes the natural silt to plume further out into the deep waters of the gulf rather than precipitating in marshes as it once did. Added to that silt is ammonium nitrate, sewage, pesticide and whatever else. Prior to Katrina (I don't have any post Katrina figures) the petrolium refineries in ten delta parishes led the nation in toxic waste dumped into surface waters.

As for my stopping consuming food -- really that is so tired. Ammonium nitrate is not food nor is it required to grow food.

So true

 

[captain]

Well, yeah. Okay, I was speaking generally in terms of water quality.

I guess I should have said this too: The development of refineries in the Mississippi delta led to the chanelling of the river through canal systems rather than allowing it to fan out naturally. This causes the natural silt to plume further out into the deep waters of the gulf rather than precipitating in marshes as it once did. Added to that silt is ammonium nitrate, sewage, pesticide and whatever else. Prior to Katrina (I don't have any post Katrina figures) the petrolium refineries in ten delta parishes led the nation in toxic waste dumped into surface waters.

As for my stopping consuming food -- really that is so tired. Ammonium nitrate is not food nor is it required to grow food.

Again not correct. After the great Mississippi River flood of 1927 congress mandated the Army Corp of Engineers to control the river. The corp built levies that channeled the water straight to the Gulf of Mexico rather than spilling over into the surrounding delta as it had each spring for thousands of years to build more coastal wet land. Now the corp is cutting channels into the levies to again allow river water to flow into the coastal wetlands to rebuild them. That is the primary reason for loss of the wet lands. When oil exploration began canals were cut through the wet lands to access the drilling sites. This speeded up the loss but was not the primary cause. I live in one of those ten parishes and worked for 31 years in one of the chemical plants on the river and we had to jump through hoops to meet enviromental regulations. You have no idea of the lengths we went through prevent even one once of chemical being spilled in the river. Lake Ponchatrain for years was a polluted sewer, not because of oil refineries but because of the run off of dairy farms and dredging for clam shells to use as fill for road beds. Since regulation ended dredging and dairy farmer were required to treat run off the lake is now clean again.
I never said ammonium nitrate was food or needed to grow food although it has been the most common commercially used fertilizer. I said it did not get in the water from oil refineries. There are many sourcess of polution, to blame everything on big oil is like not seeing the forrest because of the trees

 

[LeFlaneur]

After the great Mississippi River flood of 1927 congress mandated the Army Corp of Engineers to control the river. The corp built levies that channeled the water straight to the Gulf of Mexico rather than spilling over into the surrounding delta as it had each spring for thousands of years to build more coastal wet land. Now the corp is cutting channels into the levies to again allow river water to flow into the coastal wetlands to rebuild them. That is the primary reason for loss of the wet lands. When oil exploration began canals were cut through the wet lands to access the drilling sites. This speeded up the loss but was not the primary cause.

Not sure I get it. That sounds like your agreeing with me. Congress wanted the levees, the army corps of engineers built them, the petrochemical companies set up shop. Okay, so maybe the first canal was not dug specifically with petrochemical companies in mind. The fact is, they were built to make the land profitable for industry and agriculture.

I live in one of those ten parishes and worked for 31 years in one of the chemical plants on the river and we had to jump through hoops to meet enviromental regulations. You have no idea of the lengths we went through prevent even one once of chemical being spilled in the river.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. The fact that you had to jump through hoops to follow certain laws does not change the statistics of that region in terms of toxic waste emissions.

 

[captain]

Not sure I get it. That sounds like your agreeing with me. Congress wanted the levees, the army corps of engineers built them, the petrochemical companies set up shop. Okay, so maybe the first canal was not dug specifically with petrochemical companies in mind. The fact is, they were built to make the land profitable for industry and agriculture.




I guess it all depends on your perspective. The fact that you had to jump through hoops to follow certain laws does not change the statistics of that region in terms of toxic waste emissions.

I guess you don't get it. The levies had nothing to do with enticing the oil companies to build there and everything to do with the loss of wet lands. The refineries were built there because of easy tranportation by ship and barge, the levies had nothing to do with it.. I believe you are confusing a levie ( an earthen hill that prevents a river from overflowing its banks and flooding the surounding land and peoples homes) with a canal. The levies blocked all the natural canals (channels) that had let the water flow into the wet lands and divertied it all directly into the Gulf of Mexico in basicly one place. Without the fresh water from the river the salt water started killing the marsh grass and erosion of the wet lands began. The solution is not getting rid of the refineries, it's letting the river do what it naturally wants to. do.

 

[LeFlaneur]

I guess you don't get it. The levies had nothing to do with enticing the oil companies to build there and everything to do with the loss of wet lands. The refineries were built there because of easy tranportation by ship and barge, the levies had nothing to do with it.. I believe you are confusing a levie ( an earthen hill that prevents a river from overflowing its banks and flooding the surounding land and peoples homes) with a canal.

I'm not confusing them; I'm lumping them together. Both were needed to make that area profitable for industry.

Refineries desired that land, as you say, for easy transportation by ship and barge but they could not have been built there (or at least not 300 or so) if the Mississippi were allowed to continue it's flood cycle and if the main channel of the river were allowed to change its course every so often as such rivers do. Enter the army corps of engineers.