- “Worst environmental disaster in US history” – Reporters may want to wait until all of the data are in before making those kind of statements. Largest oil spill doesn’t necessarily equate to the worst environmental disaster. Some very large spills have had minimal long-term environmental damage, while the effects of some smaller spills have been quite serious. The extensive long-term monitoring program will give us the answers.
- Loss of wetlands – Louisiana has experienced serious wetland losses for years with little attention from the national media. The barrier islands, which were approved by Admiral Allen, have been on the drawing board for some time and are primarily for wetlands restoration purposes. Ironically, these islands may not have been approved and funded were it not for the oil spill.
- BP employees – I’d like to see some reporting from the standpoint of typical BP employees. Their lives have also been shattered. The very existence of their company, which has lost 1/4 of its market value, is threatened. While few BP employees had anything to do with the Macondo disaster, they are all working hard to set things right and continue their domestic and international operations. It must be frustrating to realize that no matter how hard they work, it won’t be good enough to satisfy the critics.
- Will the national reaction do more damage than the spill? US production is threatened in the Gulf and elsewhere, and jobs are already being lost. Preventing offshore drilling and production doesn’t prevent oil consumption. As long as we consume oil, there will be a risk of spilling it during the production and transportation process. We need to better manage those risks. We didn’t eliminate tanker transport after Valdez, and we shouldn’t eliminate offshore exploration and production in the wake of Macondo. Let’s not boycott ourselves and make OPEC the primary beneficiary of this disaster.
- “Nationalize BP”- Just when you thought the commentary couldn’t get any sillier, you hear this kind of nonsense. Hugo Chavez must be smiling.
Thursday Morning Commentary – 3 June
June 3, 2010 by offshoreenergy
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Bud, just to clarify, the “berm plan” is not a restoration project, and none of the parts were included in previously-proposed and approved coastal restoration projects. The “sand booms” are intended to wash away, “naturally erode.” The borrow sites possibly are already oiled to some extent. You can read the proposed plan, comments from stae, fed, NGo agencies, the responses to those comments, and then the revised proposal, here:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/news/view.asp?ID=341
Though the media hasn’t reported much, a number of scientists have a number of concerns about potential effects of the “berrm plan” and also its effectiveness. That’s one reason why the CG authorized only a prototype.
Thanks for the clarification. Bud