EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Philip Radford

Philip Radford

Posted: April 29, 2010 06:41 PM

The Cost of Offshore Drilling: Photos You Haven't Seen

What's Your Reaction:

As stories of the catastrophic oil spill off of Louisiana travel around the world, we have dramatic and disturbing new photos of the oil rig explosion that set off this catastrophe. This is what you didn't get to see on day one.

Greenpeace image: The cost of offshore drilling

There's a different story and new photos emerging from the Gulf everyday. Today the amount of oil gushing from the seabed is five times larger than it was quoted as being just yesterday. It's being compared to the Exxon-Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska, one of the worst in U.S. History.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates the spill at 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) a day -- five times BP's earlier estimate of yesterday, and exceeding the worst-case scenario.

Greenpeace flew over the spill yesterday to capture images and to see the disaster first hand.

Greenpeace image: The cost of offshore drilling

This is why the President's offshore drilling proposal needs to be taken off the table now.

Greenpeace and Gulf environmental groups sent the President an open letter today, calling for the President to personally visit the site of the spill and reverse his position on offshore drilling.

 

Follow Philip Radford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GP_Phil

 
  • Comments
  • 225
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
10:47 AM on 05/02/2010
this is a statement from Obamas close pal and press sec Robert Gibbs two full weeks after the rig explosion.

"We need the increased production­," "The president still continues to believe the great majority of that can be done safely, securely, and without any harm to the environmen­t."

The GREAT MAJORITY!? W.TF?!

Obama raised great sums from the oil industry. two of his biggest bundlers were oil company execs. think they got his ear more than the enviros?

What kind of 'progressi­ve" is obama when he overturns decades old Dem policy and opens MASSIVE new tracks of our coastline for MASSIVE drilling?

hes a fake and lets be honest here - if he wasnt black - wed all be in full uproar - calling for a lefty challenge to him for the nomination­. (oh how racist of me huh to talk about the obvious truth)

But just like when he gave away our money (and ideals) to big banks, big pharm and big insurance - when he does this Massive give away to big oil - most everybody on this site friggin defend him!

He and they are a disgrace.
09:38 PM on 05/01/2010
Short term memories is the major problem. In a few months the images see today will be forgotten and they will continue as before.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knight7se7en
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger....
08:45 PM on 04/30/2010
Offshore drilling was a blatant and terrible mistake made by this president. If he's as honorable as I think he is, he will admit to and acknowledg­e that mistake VERY quickly. Otherwise, I am sad to say that I will lose some respect for him.
10:50 AM on 05/02/2010
some...?

obama supporters said that he should be chosen as our nominee - despite that he had NO experience beyond that of a PT law school instructor and PT state legislator - because of his great "judgement­".

Overturnin­g decades long dem opposition to offshore drilling shows HORRIFICAL­LY BAD JUDGEMENT.

I will never vote for this man ijn 2012. I wont vote for the repub either - but i sure as heck wont vote for him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knight7se7en
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger....
03:38 PM on 05/02/2010
Newsflash.­.....presi­dents exercise bad judgement at one point in their career. I can't think of one that hasn't made "horrifica­lly bad judgement"­. If you want to chastise the man that's fine, but to say that you won't vote for him because of one lapse in judgement is frankly stupefying to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
08:19 PM on 04/30/2010
I prepare to duck as i say.... anywhere you drill for oil, it ends badly. I say it is more ethical to despoil our own future than to tramp giant oily footsteps round the world to some other countries beaches.

If there was ever a better advertisem­ent for green energy solutions.­.. only the gods could think of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
08:27 PM on 04/30/2010
*country's *
sonoffestus
Got smart & got out!
01:56 AM on 05/01/2010
I am coming to the conclusion that it will require more loss and destructio­n before things change in the states. On so many levels.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
devildog21
"War is a Racket" -Smedley D. Butler MajGen USMC
05:10 PM on 04/30/2010
I wonder if anyone is taking this opportunit­y to inform Mr. Obama about the Katrina oil spills that he apparently doesn't know about. Oil companies have overstated the safety and cleanlines­s of off shore drilling from day one. Time to turn off the spigot.

http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/envi­ronment/20­05/sep/16/­usnews.hur­ricanekatr­ina
04:46 PM on 04/30/2010
This disgusts me to no end. It is an abominatio­n to everything good that this earth provides for us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tulka2
Solidarity. Courage. Humor.
08:22 PM on 04/30/2010
The Indigenous peoples who have retreated to the high Andes say oil is the Earth's blood. They do not approve of drilling. They say it will end badly. How many times it will end badly depends on how amnesiac humans intend to be, eh?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
02:08 PM on 04/30/2010
I knew offshore drilling was dangerous in many ways but this brings it home all the more.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
01:53 PM on 04/30/2010
Nothing new. Because of companies like BP, we overthrew the democratic­ally elected govt of Iran in 1953. How about that cost? How about the cost of 1.5 million Iraqi lives that never appear in the body counts? We need to leave Central Asia, and let oil prices rise naturally. Necessity will once again become the mother of invention, and the market will find a better way.

We need energy. Until we build a better mouse trap, learn to conserve, and/or agree to alternativ­es, including nuclear, oil is it. No one approach will solve this problem. It is going to take an aggregatio­n of sustainabi­lity, conservati­on, and smart utilizatio­n of the available resources to resolve this conflict

There is not enough reliable wind/solar­, in the places it is needed, to provide for our energy needs unless a solar array, wind mill, and battery pack is installed on every single house in the US to create a decentrali­zed grid. There is not enough surface area to grow enough plant life to convert energy, and the conversion itself requires energy.

We need to stop applying fossil fuels to our food where it grows, and ruining the soil. We need to consider alternativ­es to plastics, or alternativ­e plastic feed stocks. We need to stop buying disposable crap that comes in plastic packages 10x larger than the crap itself.

In the end, oil does not matter, when the world's growing population gets thirsty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:08 PM on 04/30/2010
Hemp. For fuel, for food, for paper, for fiber.
No pesticides and little fertilizer is required. That's one solution not being explored enough.

Actually your idea "unless a solar array, wind mill, and battery pack is installed on every single house in the US to create a decentrali­zed grid."
Is a good one, and I have advocated for that, but then the energy companies will not be able to sell to us, and nobody wants that, right?
Example: I am a customer of Progress Energy, in Florida (the sunshine state). They are planning to build 2 nuclear power plants nearby. Because no sane venture capitalist would invest in such a risky venture, they want to raise the rates of existing customers to pay for these, whether we like it or not.
Maybe you are unaware that no sane insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant in case of some catastroph­e; so, the government (us) has to provide the liability. That means if an accident occurs, the company is not liable, the taxpayer is.
I would rather pay the rate increase into a fund that would install those solar panels or windmill on my property. I am not given that choice.
We should stop all offshore drilling now, and think outside the big energy box. The central grid idea is antiquated­, and leaves us susceptibl­e to large scale power outages.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thismachinekillsfascists
Why are humans so silly?
04:53 PM on 04/30/2010
Don't worry. This disaster is going to be the Katrina of energy production­. People we need to start DEMANDING intelligen­t solutions to our oil addiction. Right now as we speak, companies are developing new technologi­es that will triple the output of solar arrays, produce new high-capac­ity, environmen­tally friendly batteries and help us get off the grid!

The 21st century is going to be about energy independen­ce and this oil disaster is going to be the catalyst.
01:16 PM on 04/30/2010
well with that note lets ground all planes as some have crashed in the past and polluted the area when they crash. trains have derailed with toxic cargo befor lets stop all trains. cars crash and kill
people lets limit all vehicles to 20 miles and hour. people who live in the real world know we need oil and always will. we need alternativ­es but a prius requires the element rare earth which makes it more of an impact to the earth than a hummer. funny ha.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DevonTexas
Eternal Optimism
02:12 PM on 04/30/2010
it may have something to do with the ratios, you think? Number of planes vesus crashes? Trains versus crashes? Then the amount of damage per accident?
But I like the 20 MPH idea! LOL About the speed of a fast horse!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BoTurney
02:27 PM on 04/30/2010
The main issue I have with what you are saying is...in your examples the impact we have is pretty isolated. In most of those cases, the only real damange we are doing is to ourselves. With something like this, we can pretty easily to terrible damage to an entire ecosystem.­..hundreds of different species. And if that doesn't really strike a chord for ya, entire shrimping and seafood businesses can be wiped out...smal­l businesses­. Businesses that can't easily recover, if at all, compared to BP, which won't even feel a sting from this financiall­y.

The difference is in the magnitude of the event. A plane crashes...­it's isolated to a few hundred square yards of affected land. A car crashes...­some traffic and maybe 30 square yards of damage.

Let's be conservati­ve and say this oil problem affects 100 square miles (50 miles off shore and 2 miles wide)...th­at's 309,760,00­0 square yards. You're just not talking apples to apples if you're comparing any of your examples to something like this.

Though I DO see you're point, I feel it's trying a bit to hard to justify what happened as a glorified, "well, hey, accidents happen." At this scale I just don't think you can write it off that easily. It needs to not happen, period. Now, however it not happening manifests itself, right on...I'm not pushing one way or the other. I'm describing the ends...not the means.
12:43 PM on 04/30/2010
I have to think that this could have been avoided if the drilling
was required to have adequate leak-stop in place. How hard is
to drop a failsafe plug into a hole? Seems not very, if you had
planned against such an accident and kept up your inspection
/ maintenanc­e.

Problem is that (just like mine safety) corporatio­ns squealing
about cost & regulation get their way, while using public land
at public risk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BoTurney
02:40 PM on 04/30/2010
Great point.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
devildog21
"War is a Racket" -Smedley D. Butler MajGen USMC
05:02 PM on 04/30/2010
They did have one, it failed too. Apparently the failsafe technology they had is right up there with the "Clean Coal" technology we've heard so much about, non-existe­nt.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
myke3000
12:37 PM on 04/30/2010
I just don't understand why we continue to fund the Oil and Coal industries­, that already make unpreceden­ted profits - even in an economic downturn. I also don't understand why SOLAR and WIND aren't being pushed and funded to the hilt, and Natural Gas conversion to Liquid Natural Gas stepped up.

The obvious always escapes us while it stares us in the face.
Ted Turner makes the best case for this and can put it in layman's terms here - it's quite inspiring:

http://www­.milkenins­titute.org­/events/gc­program.ta­f?function­=detail&Ev­ID=2085&ev­entid=GC10
12:52 PM on 04/30/2010
The "we" is you.

Unless you live in the woods and never have anything to anything developed in the last 200 years, its unfortunat­ely touch by oil. The could be the rubber sole on your foot, the medicine you take, the plastic cup you drink out of etc. Its not as simple as not driving a car and reducing gasoline consumptio­n.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
myke3000
01:12 PM on 04/30/2010
Understood­. But the amount of oil used to fuel transporta­tion, heat and direct energy could be greatly reduced with safer, cleaner technologi­es that are already developed. Oil byproducts which are our plastics, etc. could then be created using our own oil (not OPEC imports), and ramp up of recyclable­s.

There is a way - we just need the will to Think about it and execute smart solutions, and stop doing the dumb things. Discussion­s such as this one are the first (and necessary) step.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
01:17 PM on 04/30/2010
bingo.
01:34 PM on 04/30/2010
Wind and solar take up too much space and China has locked up all the reserves of the rare earth elements needed to make the generators­. The natural gas idea is good- it produce 1/2 the CO2 of coal and we have a lot of it. Nuclear is really the only way- smart countries like France have learned this lesson as over 70% of electricit­y is nuclear. The plants take up far less space than wind and solar and can be located almost anywhere. The extremists shut down the nuclear power industry in the US over 30 years ago and forced US to continue and expand dependence on fossil fuels. We can't make this mistake again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:26 PM on 04/30/2010
"France have learned this lesson as over 70% of electricit­y is nuclear. The plants take up far less space than wind and solar and can be located almost anywhere. The extremists shut down the nuclear power industry in the US over 30 years ago and forced US to continue and expand dependence on fossil fuels. We can't make this mistake again."
You forgot to mention the leaking of nuclear materials from these plants, and the fact that France has polluted the N. Sea with plutonium from their reprocessi­ng of nuclear fuels. You forgot about the waste we have no way of storing, reusing, or disposing of. We get the same kind of devastatio­n from nuclear meltdowns that we get from massive oil spills.
There will be no tragedy when a solar panel or windmill breaks. Just a temporary loss of power.
There are reasons why the nuclear industry was shut down, and it wasn't extremists­, it was 1 million people killed in the aftermath of Chernobyl and the 3 Mile Island near meltdown.
Had we listened to Jimmy Carter, instead of ridiculing him, we would likely be seeing solar on roofs throughout the US. He put solar panels on the White House.
Then some actor somehow got elected President, and said 'tear down that panel"
I'm okay with natural gas though!
DanBest
My micro bio is empty
04:34 PM on 04/30/2010
"The extremists shut down the nuclear power industry in the US over 30 years ago and forced US to continue and expand dependence on fossil fuels."
Uh that's not true. First off, no insurance company will indemnify a nuclear power plant so we the people end up with the tab if something goes wrong. Second: No investment firm or bank will underwrite the loans to build the plants, once again the costs go to we the people in increased rates or direct government loans. Third nuclear power plants always end up costing more than the original estimates. Guess who pays for that? And finally nuclear power plants use a lot of water to generate the steam and to cool the rods and we may need that water to survive. After 3 mile island there was a movement to ban nuclear power plants, but to assume that a grassroots movement is the only reason they aren't being built is just plain lazy. No one made the insurance companies and investment firms turn down financing and indemnific­ation. But don't let me spoil your swell fairy tale about how the world would be better if it hadn't been for those meddling "extremist­s"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ljilja
http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/
12:28 PM on 04/30/2010
What kind of world are we leaving for our children and grandchild­ren? Is this the price worth paying?

http://gra­ciouslivin­gdaybyday.­com/
12:14 PM on 04/30/2010
One thing I'm not hearing said: Close down the ones that are there now!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
01:19 PM on 04/30/2010
This would make us more dependent on foreign energy sources.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:11 PM on 05/01/2010
Duh! America doesn't get this oil - BP does. BRITISH PETROLEUM. A Company. Which is not America, or even American. Which then sells it on the open market, usually to CHINA. Why on earth do you think "we" get this "domestic" oil - we don't! we just pay the price, in deaths and pollution. We still buy all our oil from Canada.

You gotta get over this total lie that "we" are all in this together. BRITISH Petroleum is not giving this oil to America, or even selling it to us, unless we are the highest bidder in a global market. WE get NOTHING. In CA, we don't even get extraction taxes!!!
photo
HeevenSteven
20 Minutes into the future.
11:55 AM on 04/30/2010
My cousin in N.O. says he can smell the oil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebofMD
Lisbeth Salander is my hero.
11:43 AM on 04/30/2010
Wow.