Saturday, August 7, 2010

The BP oil disaster "that never materialised"

Posted by Kevin Allman on Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Remember all those faux-credulous national media reports last week claiming the oil in the Gulf of Mexico had somehow vanished or couldn't be found? While it's certainly true that many scientists say the ecological damage hasn't been as bad as expected so far, and that the surface of the Gulf is indeed cleaner in many places (due to evaporation and more than 1.8 million gallons of Corexit dispersant carpet-bombed across the slicks), it does not mean all the oil itself has vanished. So let's knock off the headlines and the TV captions like this one, OK?

click to enlarge Diane

Today's New York Times quotes both The Times-Picayune and the Blog of New Orleans on the subject, saying "Recent reports that much of the oil seemed to have disappeared from the surface of the gulf prompted fierce reactions in the region."

We may be fierce because of reports like this one from the Aug. 5 National Geographic online: "Much Gulf Oil Remains, Deeply Hidden and Under Beaches: New U.S. Gulf oil spill report called 'ludicrous.'"

We may also be fierce because of this photo from Alaska's Prince William Sound taken in February, where they have no trouble finding the oil, 20 years after the Valdez spill.

And we may be fierce because of photo sets like this one from photographer Julie Dermansky, who had no problem finding the oil that seems to elude so much of the national media (as well as Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen).

And we may be really fierce because the broad-brush reporting of the U.S. media leads, inevitably, to stories like this in the UK's The First Post:

click to enlarge uk paper

A "disaster that never materialised." An "over-hyped catastrophe."

Whatever, fellows; I'll bet you the oil is still here in a few months when you've packed up and moved on, and instead of asking "Where is the oii?," we'll be asking "Where are the media?"

Tags: , , , , ,

Speaking of...

Comments (5)

Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

If Corexit works so great to disperse oil, why don't they spray it all over Alaska to clean up what's left of the Valdez oil? Why didn't they do that a long time ago? Oh wait, could it be they had to wait for a spill in the part of the nation (The South) the most of the rest of the nation could give a flying flick about in the first place? Could it be... SATAN?

report   
Posted by justsayin on August 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Given my and my blog's past unbridled and sometimes vehement support for the man, I will be holding the door in Hell for Ivor van Heerden. Thank you, Kevin, for nailing this like a crucifixion. WHO'DAT SAY THEY GONNA PUNK THIS STATE?

report   
Posted by Editilla ~New Orleans Ladder on August 7, 2010 at 4:25 PM

justsayin, they did use Corexit on the Valdez spill, and the Herring have yet to come back. I'm not saying they're connected. I'm jus'sayin... Obama has been playing Ivy League Bridge with people who are very good Cheaters at Poker.

report   
Posted by Editilla ~New Orleans Ladder on August 7, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Wow, I'd love to set those commenters straight since they seem to think it's okay to take FP's report at face value but registering to their site (which is mandatory to comment) basically guarantees you'll get annoying British spam and I'd rather not.

report   
Posted by Karen on August 9, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Even if the oil is mostly gone there is still residue. It's like saying the gas in your tank disappeared.

report   
Posted by Bill on August 11, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

Submit an event

Latest in Blog of New Orleans

Top Topics in Blog of New Orleans

Music & Nightlife (63)


Food & Drink (60)


News & Politics (58)


Events & Festivals (57)


A&E (46)


Recent Comments

Top Ten

© 2012 Gambit
Powered by Foundation