NOAA incident report refers to explosion in Gulf as ‘Oil Spill’

Published: November 16th, 2012 at 6:07 pm ET


Title: IncidentNews: Rig Explosion
Source: NOAA
Date: 2012-Nov-16

Published: November 16th, 2012 at 6:07 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Oil Spill Expert: I remain skeptical they found source of BP crude in Gulf October 19, 2012
  2. NOAA: Mystery sheen near BP’s relief wells from Gulf disaster — Silvery streamers up to several miles long — “Crude Oil Likely” (MAP) October 6, 2012
  3. Oil reported at BP’s Macondo Well in Gulf could be coming from “fissures or cracks in sea floor” — NOAA covering up? October 4, 2012
  4. Newsweek: Excruciating, bizarre, grotesque ailments after working BP oil spill in Gulf April 24, 2013
  5. TV: University’s research “is so disturbing” — Large spike in deadly flesh-eating bacteria after BP oil spill in Gulf — Expert: Take it very seriously — It’s “in their bloodstream… affects all organs” (VIDEO) November 12, 2013

10 comments to NOAA incident report refers to explosion in Gulf as ‘Oil Spill’

  • ftlt

    The Coast Guard reports on the BP spill were useless even for TP… All half truths at best and mostly outright lies…
    The individuals who got the truth out last time are going to have to do it again this time.. TIA
    I remember reading during the last spill, somewhere, there are over 20,000 abandoned well heads rusting and corroding away in the greater Gulf and nothing is being done about them – to include even monitoring them… Excepting adding and adding new ones to that list all the time and drilling new ones too…
    We are pigs

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      There isn't any money to fix those wells. There isn't any money for anything else either. We are spending it all on undeclared wars by the Executive Branch (that is to say we are paying .47 cents for each dollar borrowed to finance the U.S. government's undeclared wars and the military).

  • michellemamarn

    Why on earth should WE pay to maintain these wells? I would assume the cost is covered at the gas pump; like my groceries. We don't worry about the state of the grocery store- or pay for it's upkeep, we just buy the product and expect them to take their costs out of their profits. Oh, wait, I forgot…corporate welfare is so ingrained in us, we think we are responsible for the oil storage facilities. Remember, privatize the profits and socialize the costs; including the damage. And of course, I think we're all aware why our troops are overseas- if you don't know ask any one of them. They'll tell you- oil and greed.

    • Maggie123

      Michellemamrn – Sometime I'd like ENE'ers to tackle the whole "must be paid for" concept as it's explained by TPTB. So far as I've been able to learn, for decades "prosperity" has been built on an expansionist scheme that relies on debt.

      When I step back far enough to sense an overview of current and historical developments, I 'see' everyone from poorest through to 'upper middle income' "used" by a system that works so well for "the system". Not only nationally, but globally. "Schmoozy" marketing is used to sell all kinds of stuff, (including pricey stuff like homes and vehicles). So long as people can be coaxed to borrow, they will pay interest. So long as "borrow money to be your own boss" is promoted, small business people become part of the "populace to be stripped clean". To make it all work, 'planned obsolescence' was necessary, and earth had to be torn apart for raw materials.

      Now raw materials are only avail in extreme and finally destructive ways. And still – the now 'hooked' citizen participant is told "worse will befall you" if you don't take on debt to pay for "fixing" the whole mess.

      I'm at risk of going off topic and am not best person to lead the discussion on financial system but I'd sure like to read what analytical thoughts ENE's would exchange on this! (I guess if we got a discussion underway – it would definitely need to be in the 'off topic' section.)

  • jump-ball jump-ball

    "NOAA…refers to explosion…as ‘Oil Spill’ ":

    Yes, and give the petroleum engineer-braniacs in the Gulf BP disaster a 'pipe problem' (poor pipe cementing and testing) and they then insist on portraying, analyzing and treating the Macondo blow-out as a "leak" in search of a "seal". I call it professional, "trained incapacity", which prevented the oil drilling experts in charge from seeing the immediate need for a 'capture and containment' plan that would have prevented the months of contamination and the resulting "Gulf of Toxico" seafood and public health disaster.

    Jump to 3/11 for a very similar repeat with Tepco and related nuclear experts treating the Nukushima disaster as an 'exposure' and 'overheating' problem in need of a 'cooling' solution, instead of a capture and containment plan, to see what will become a much more serious and tragic repeat of the same BP-type professional incapacity, in conjunction again with corrupt financial and media constraints.

    The 'professional incapacity' disaster is ubiquitous: see our democratic 2 party dictatorship portraying a $1.2 trillion/year impending deficit disaster as a deferrable tax and spend negotiation.

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      j-b, i really agree with you. This is very insightful. How a problem is originally framed makes THE difference in how it's handled and allowed to happen again or not.

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    M123, that one's deeper than the well. Anyway, if an explosion happened because of sparks flying cutting pipe, then, yes, folks, once again, methane had to be accumulating somewhere or someone had a gas or oxygen tank left open in the tool room and were cutting with the tool room door open, which is a no no. Is this workers' not following safety procedures or gas showing up again where it isn't expected? I am heartily sorry for the fellows who lost their lives and to their families and friends, and let's all keep a thought to the injured, some very seriously, and to the missing. If there's oil floating, they can't get to it until daylight, so a thought for the sea and her creatures, too.

  • PurpleRain PurpleRain

    Are they just mincing words trying to confuse the public? What is the difference between, "the platform was not actively producing oil," AND "the platform was for oil and natural gas production." I'm not seeing any clear distinction here…. unless turning a valve on and/or turning a valve off IS the only distinction?

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Top Global Warming Denialists Funded By Corporations; via @AGreenRoad

    Bernie Sanders on Why Big Media Shouldn’t Get Bigger; via @AGreenRoad


      I've always respected Bernie. He's consistent in his vision and deserves serious consideration. Doubtless, we wouldn't agree on every issue; but then…who does?