The number of spills from offshore oil rigs and pipelines in U.S. waters more than quadrupled this decade, a trend that could have served as a warning for the massive leak in the Gulf of Mexico, according to government data and safety experts.
The spills — and the amount of oil that leaked — grew markedly worse even when taking increases in production into account, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data shows. The leaks came as the oil industry repeatedly claimed that offshore drilling was never safer.
The same Louisiana officials who now whine about government response to the BP oil spill being inadequate – led the march of political lemmings backing the Gulf drilling industry. They all got their slice of the contribution pie.
From the early 1970s through the ’90s, offshore rigs and pipelines averaged about four spills per year of at least 50 barrels, according to the Minerals Management Service (MMS)…The average annual total surged to more than 17 from 2000 through 2009. From 2005 through 2009, spills averaged 22 a year.
The company with the most spills from 2000 through 2009 is BP, which leased the well spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf since April 20, according to the data. The oil giant and its affiliated companies reported 23 spills of 50 barrels or more, not including the latest blowout. Oil firm Shell was next with 21, according to MMS spill reports…
Richard Charter, a marine expert with the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, said the smaller spills should have foreshadowed bigger mistakes were on the way.
“Carelessness is usually a sign of impending disaster,” he said.
“Carelessness” is a sign of chickens getting ready to come home to roost.
spsffan #1, “Katrina was: An act of nature with no responsible party.”
There has been some discussion of Katrina causing the damage. Especially with the Army Corp of Engineers and the NOLA Levee Board “inspecting” levees in restaurants for years.
Sound familiar?
“What the thread actually says: “From the early 1970s through the ’90s, offshore rigs and pipelines averaged about four spills per year … …The average annual total surged to more than 17 from 2000 through 2009. From 2005 through 2009, spills averaged 22 a year.”
Meaningless statistics unless the total number of operational rigs per year is factored…
Imagine citing average auto accidents per year without considering the number of cars on the road per year…
#17–theNaySayerOne==So, you think I don’t hate it when I read too fast and get my facts wrong? Ok. I agree. Hate is too strong a word. I avoid it when possible and don’t like it when I make that error. Is that what you wanted Bunky?
actually, it was just a compliment to Guyver. Too few here are honest enough to admit to simple error and making non-quibbling apologies/explanations when revealed. I admire that.
I hardly EVER make such apologies. But then that is because I hardly ever need to. Ain’t being open to recognizing honest error a great thing?
#14 Right, because the sheeple rant you write is considered prime insight. Sheeple!
#24 Ah but you appreciate what I write is fact and logical insight. I just deliver it in a bitter wrapper to poke a stick in the eye of you hypocrites.
You never argue the facts because facts are facts. You just squeal at the poke in the eye which basically validates my point!
If this increase keeps up, pretty soon they will catch up to Mother Nature in oil spills.
Hmm… Look who’s been paying for Rahm’s D.C. apartment. ROFLMAO at O-bots.
Maybe it’s just a symptom of better reporting. Analogy: no-fault air incident reports.
I sure wouldn’t want President Clingstone or Presidents Butch to be unjustly maligned.
Will we be seeing a mid-term cabinet purge?
17, Theone,
The point was HOW the mainstream media and liberals apply a different standard. While the oil spill was going on, the President found the time to enjoy his Memorial Day weekend in Illinois. His administration has also not allowed others with compelling ideas to make an attempt to fix the problems. The president didn’t even want to talk to the CEO of BP because he felt the CEO would just give him lip service by telling Obama what he’d want to hear. Strangely this never crossed Obama’s mind when he talked with Ahmadinejad.
But I suppose you do have a point. After 49+ days of essentially doing little else other than trying to maintain his image of “kicking ass”, I’m sure the problem is much more complex than it could have been had they tried to nip things in the bud.
If you’re consistent and intellectually honest, you would also say trying to conclude global warming is man-made (especially in the absence of empirical evidence) would be equally “astounding”.
I fear that the current administration is taking a Machiavellian approach by allowing for more environmental damage there than needs to be. Doing so would be an opportunity for this administration to kickstart legislating more radical environmentalism down the throats of the American people. That seems a lot more plausible than trying to explain away his lack of effort is due to a complex system.
19, TCC3,
Perhaps, but that’s what the administrators of this site want. The potential solutions are not without merit regardless of whose show it was on. To disqualify the ideas because of your partisan preference shows your lack of interest in actually trying to fix the problem.
21, Mextli,
A lot of the liberals here don’t care about that detail. Regardless of the steps that got us to the point of failure, the liberals only cared to say it happened under Bush’s watch.
Now that the tables are turned, it seems the liberals are flip flopping. It’s a double standard.
22, Anon,
Yes and no. I agree the statistic does not put overall impact into consideration, but the focus of the statistic is to gauge the norms of the accidents themselves.
The danger is the statistic can be misused to distort perception amongst people to believe the statistic implies overall impact when it really doesn’t…. which is what I think your point was about.