The right-wing begin to rehabilitate offshore drilling, the disaster and themselves

It’s as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Once exposed and embarrassed, once pushed into the spotlight for being horribly, perfectly wrong, somebody’s got to start repairing the facade of Conservative philosophy. It can’t be as stupid and reckless as we say it is.

So, one by one, the brave and the callow and the fearless crawl out from the woodwork to come up with whatever excuses they can to rehabilitate the brand and its brilliant proponents.

So, here we go again. There are almost no sea animals dead — have you seen any? It’s not so bad, c’mon . .

Oil Spill Reality Check
Posted by Vladimir
Monday, May 3rd at 6:31PM EDT

Hmmm. Seen any more pictures? Me either. .

What gives? . .

1. Natural wave action will aerate and break up the slick. Chemical dispersants are being applied to speed up the process.
2. The oil is lighter than the Alaskan crude from the Valdez spill, and hence is more prone to evaporate.
3. The source of this spill is in open water some 50 miles from the nearest land, so the dispersants, the responders and Mother Nature have some time to do their thing before landfall.

If we apply a few calculations, we can figure out how dispersed the oil might be.

BP’s estimate is that the well is making some 5,000 barrels of crude oil per day. For convenience, we’ll say the well has been […] foot per acre. Spread uniformly over the entire 50 mi x 50 mi area, that would equate to a layer of oil 0.00007 inches thick.

And that’s if none of the oil has evaporated, which it has.

SEE? It’s nothing, pffft.

Hey – by the way — if we stop offshore drilling, the spilling of oil and the environmental damage will only get worse . .

Monday, May 03, 2010
We’re Not Quitting Oil
Steve Hayward

Judging from the triumphant tone of the e-mails I’m getting from indignant environmentalists about the oil spill in the Gulf, I’d have to say they are having the most fun since the ExxonValdez. After all, the greens were slowly losing ground to expanded domestic oil and gas production, and now they have a catastrophe to reinvigorate their philosophy of No. As many have observed, this spill is the Three Mile Island/Chernobyl of offshore drilling, and will likely set back further offshore drilling for decades, unless we find out there was some truly extraordinary human error, negligence, or unprecedented equipment failure. Even sabotage wouldn’t get Big Offshore Oil off the hook; after the 1984 chemical catastrophe in Bhopal, India, was determined to have been an act of sabotage, the political hysteria over chemical plants was unabated.

Absolutely perfect timing. This ‘sabotage’ gambit about Bhopal is something right wingers love to pull out of their asses. It has never been substantiated and neglects to admit that the chemical plant was in wretched condition and dangerous as hell.

What is clear is that the overall risk of environmental harm will likely increase from the reaction to this. Why? In the first place, it means we’ll import more oil — by tanker. Over at that other conservative magazine, I offer some thoughts on how the risk of oil spills from tankers is still much larger than the risk from offshore drilling . .

Accepting offshore drilling and its spills is better for the environment. See? It’s all so easy to understand, you people are upset for nothing.

Lastly: let’s face it, let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? I bet you liberals just blew the rig up . .

May 3, 2010
Was the BP oil platform explosion an accident, or…?
By JR Dieckmann

Maybe it’s just me, but I find the devastating explosion of a BP oil rig, and resulting oil spill, in the Gulf of Mexico at this particular time somewhat suspicious. These kinds of explosions are extremely rare. In fact, there have been only two similar incidents in recorded history as far as I can determine . .

Next up: the rig itself was liberal, and it failed exactly as they predicted . .