Mitchell did not challenge Burr's false assertion that "there wasn't a drop" of oil "that was spilled in the Gulf" due to Category 5 hurricanes
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, responding to a comment by Andrea Mitchell about "the massive 1969 oil spill" in Santa Barbara, California, Sen. Richard Burr stated: "Well, Andrea, how technology has changed since 1969. It can take a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf that really came twice, and the technology made sure that there wasn't a drop that was spilled in the Gulf." In fact, a report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service stated that as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita "124 [oil] spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products."
On the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell failed to challenge Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) false assertion that "there wasn't a drop" of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico during "a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf that really came twice." Mitchell noted that Sen. John McCain was promoting his energy proposals, which include lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, in Santa Barbara, California, and said that "protestors won't let the senator forget about the massive 1969 oil spill that city suffered from a leak at the same type of offshore drills that John McCain is now supporting." Burr responded: "Well, Andrea, how technology has changed since 1969. It can take a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf that really came twice, and the technology made sure that there wasn't a drop that was spilled in the Gulf." In fact, in the case of the two most recent Category 5 hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, according to a 2007 report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas, "124 [oil] spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products." The report further noted that "about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs."
The report included the following chart of oil spill statistics for damage to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) structures related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
From the report:
Offshore environmental impacts as a result of hurricane events in the GOMR [Gulf of Mexico Region] have typically been minor due to the downhole safety valves at wells and operating practices conducted by the oil and gas industry with respect to platforms and pipelines in advance of approaching hurricanes, and the Oil Spill Response Plans that are developed by operators and submitted to the MMS.
The impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were typical of this historical experience. While cleanup was required. The volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from the offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor. Onshore impacts from localized tank failures resulting from flooding were more significant, but are not in the scope of the damage assessment carried out by DNV.
The summary analysis of oil spills was presented by the Region Response Team for the MMS and was the source of the data in Table 2. The data is categorized by storm and source locations, and captures all spills one barrel or larger from federal OCS facilities that resulted from damages related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs.
Pipelines were accountable for 72 spills totaling about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate spilled into the GOM. Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no onshore impacts from these spill events.
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: We'll get to all this, while John McCain is campaigning right now in one of the most environmentally sensitive cities in the country, Santa Barbara, California. He's pushing his energy plan in Santa Barbara, but protestors won't let the senator forget about the massive 1969 oil spill that city suffered from a leak at the same type of offshore drills that John McCain is now supporting. Here with us now, Senator Richard Burr, a John McCain supporter. Thank you for joining us. Senator, it does seem like not the greatest scheduling idea, to announce your change of position on offshore drilling, and then go the following week to Santa Barbara, California, where Republicans as well as Democrats are incredibly sensitive to what you see, you see the drills when you look out over that narrow channel, and everyone there remembers the 1969 oil spill, even those who weren't alive back then. It has become, you know, a huge symbol of environmentalism.
BURR: Well, Andrea, how technology has changed since 1969. It can take a Category 5 hurricane in the Gulf that really came twice, and the technology made sure that there wasn't a drop that was spilled in the Gulf. I think that it's the right place to go to announce the need for us not only to increase our supply, but to reduce our usage of petroleum products, and that's John McCain's message.
MITCHELL: Well you also, of course, represent North Carolina, a Gulf state, a coastal state. Very -- you know -- big investments in tourism. We've talked to Republicans and Democrats from a lot of these states, and this is a very big issue, this is a big change. Isn't this a huge risk for the Republican Party?
Dex,
Do you think he lies as much as Hannity and BOR?
I haven't seen a breakdown of provable "lies" amongst them to form an opinion on that. I do realize that supporters and detractors of each talking head term "lies" that are basically just different than their opinion. In that regard, no difference.
And please, don't think I'm trying to uphold the "journalistic integrity" of Hannity/Oreilly. I just don't think MSNBC's comedian-sportscaster is any better.
People on the right often are confused about opinion versus lies, that's true. Not so much on the other side.
Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are not equivalent. The latter two grossly distort reality much more often then KO does, and they especially distort their opponents' positions much more than KO does. KO makes fun of the truly ridiculous things that BO and Hannity do, for example. BO and Hannity distort what MSNBC does to try to make them look bad.
At least O'Reilly and Hannity have opposing opinions on their shows. Olbermann NEVER does, it's his side or no side.
Opposing views that they continually shout down. They're poster boys for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.
So, you think it's better to pretend to give both sides an equal hearing while actually skewing your presentation to the right than to stick with giving one side a fair viewing and not misleading people about the other side?
I think that pretending to be fair and balanced is much worse than being fair and unbalanced. BO and Hannity are neither fair, nor balanced although they pretend that they are. Pretense is highly offensive to anyone who cares about fairness.
BO and Hannity are neither fair, nor balanced....
And I suspect that they're both mentally UNbalanced. Especially Billy Boy.
Dex,
Until someone can come up with a sizable list of his lies, he is better than both BOR and Hannity, but he should engage in debate. I think that would make him a stronger pundit.
Oops...
There are sources in the story above that document that oil was spilled.
Why are you demanding a source for the photo? Do you doubt the source that Media Matters used that said there were oil spills? If not, why question the photo?
I don't know if your picture is true or not, but it would help your case if you confirmed your claim with pics/backup from a non-biased source.
You said "source". You did not say "support".
Dex, the picture is real, because it really happened.
http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/storms/katrina/24414295.jpg
that's from a government website. the oil slicks are in the bottom right.
I doubt that Mitchell knew that some small amounts of oil did leak into the gulf as a result of those storms. He didn't tell the truth, but I don't hold her responsible for not knowing it.
That having been said, the bigger issue that Democrats need to keep harping on is that finding a few more places where oil might be hiding is not what we need to be doing right now. That only postpones the inevitable. It doesn't lower prices now, although many on the right are claiming it would. It doesn't eliminate the need for us to find other ways to heat our homes and power our vehicles and make our plastics.
Just like our rightwing trolls here at Media Matters try to distract us from the real issues being discussed, all this talk about drilling in the Gulf and ANWR distract us from the very real problem of a finite supply of recoverable oil. It is not infinite. They distract us because it stops us from trying to work on Global Warming issues, for example. It stops us from having to tell US citizens to be more cognizant of their energy usage. If you have to have an SUV, then have one. If you don't, then stop using the oil your kids will need to have plastics, etc. and start driving a smaller car. It stops us from talking about how the risks of drilling in sensitive areas are too great to take lightly. Shortsighted idiots think that all we need to do is rape the world today and let our kids think about the consequences tomorrow.
17,700 barrels of oil equals 743,400 gallons. There are 1.5 million barrels pumped out of the Gulf every day - translates into just more than 1% of one day's total.
MMFA should have included this in their analysis for perspective.
Tommy, have you heard how many acres of ANWR they want to open up for drilling?
Out of the 18 million or so acres in ANWR?
Oh boy!
Hey guys, have you seen THIS?
(source)
The amount of oil that oil companies could ever profit from in ANWR is tiny compared to the amount we use. It's a drop in the bucket that would do little to drop the price of a barrel of oil.
As I said earlier, the issue is that they are trying to distract us from the real problem here. That's why the right keeps bringing this up.
Karl Rove knows that the finite amount of oil available in our world is a real issue that our generation should be addressing to help our descendents, and he knows that the right has no good plan for dealing with it.
It's because he knows that energy conservation is a losing argument for the right, that cooperation with the world in reducing energy usage (and the related issue of global warming) is a losing argument for the right, that concern for the environment and people versus concern for big business and their profits is a losing argument for the right.
Desperate for a distraction, they bring up drilling nearby our coastlines and in ANWR. They bring up China's cooperation with Cuba. They bring up Al Gore's big home. Anything to distract us from their failings on the real issues regarding oil.
I'll give you three reasons why that is a ridiculous, uninformed strawman argument:
1. Exploration activity and all the ancillary structures and development, such as air strips, roads, buildings, pipelines, would be much more extensive than the actual drilling areas. When oil company hacks talk about drilling footprints, they are being deceitful.
2. Arctic tundra is one of the most fragile and slow-recovering ecosystems in the world. There is still visible damage from USGS exploration from the '60's.
3. The areas where the drilling would take place is on the coastal plain, which is also the most critical habitat in the reserve. Exploration and drilling activities would have critically damaging effects on wildlife. For one, the drilling activites on other areas of the north shore have caused more animals to rely on the ANWR coastal plain. Second, more polar bears are using the plain for nesting because there is virtually no sea ice available anymore for nesting. Third, the coastal plain in ANWR is bigger than in other areas of the north shore, so it is a historically critical area for nesting habitat for caribou and many other animals. The coastal plain is the main reason why ANWR was blocked off in the first place.
here is some enviromentally sensitive energy developement to use as an example. Notice the small foot print of the pads but ancillary damage to the surrounding area. Unless you are willing to let "sensitive" energy developement like this in your public parks, stfu. Jawill is spot on here. Lott and the other big energy shills are using the high gas prices to push for a give away of US owned resources at bargain basement prices and with relaxed regulation.
http://www.airphotona.com/image.asp?imageid=7313&catnum=0&catname=All%20Categories&keyword=&country=&state=&pagenum=290
So we can rest assured that this is just a blip in the national supply chain?
Perhaps the comparison of 17,700 barrels to one drop was more relevant to the media item at hand than the comparison of 17,000 barrels to 1.5 million barrels.
17,700 barrels doesn't represent a lot to an enormous national supply chain, but it means a great deal to a marine ecosystem.
Well, considering that it essentially withstood an unprecedented and historic category 5 hurricane, definitely tells us how far technologically we have come.
Not one drop was inaccurate, granted, however comparatively speaking it was more like a couple drops.
Actually 17,700 barrels would be a significant amount. It's not like the oil rigs were in full production mode as the hurricane came through. Each rig was put in shutdown mode, not processing any oil and abandoned until after the storm passed.
comparatively speaking it was more like a couple drops.
Great logic, Tommy, and yet another convincing reason to crank up domestic oil production.Oil spills will look smaller and smaller as compared to the larger total amout being produced.
Yeeesh, have you just given up completely?
He said there was an absence of evidence. He said that technology today stopped any oil from leaking.
He was wrong. There was some that leaked.
It was a small amount. It wasn't none. Media Matters didn't exaggerate the amount.
"...the technology made sure that there wasn't a drop that was spilled in the Gulf."
Not true. Much more than a "drop" spilled. Media Matters didn't have to say what percentage it was of a day's production, because the percentage doesn't matter. He was lying when he said not a drop was spilled. That was their point.
-- MMFA should have included this in their analysis for perspective. -- Tommy
Of course they should have...but it doesn't fit their political agenda. It's funny how that perspective thing works.
mmfa has repeatedly run articles about Obama's tax plan...you know the one...the one that only raises taxes on 481,000 people...no big deal.
Yet spill 17,000 barrels of oil...
At least mmfa did their job by including info from the report that stated the leaks were minor.
-- While cleanup was required. The volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from the offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor...Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no onshore impacts from these spill events. -- US Minerals MS
While the statement "not a drop of oil was spilled" is incorrect...the underlying principle is that there is little risk to the environment with today's technologies...and that is correct.
Wesley,
Is a lie a lie here? Even a minor spill is a spill and with an "expert" claiming not a drop, his analysis is way, way off, isn't it?
Wesley,
I kind of retract my statement. Wouldn't the amount spilled, while not causing a huge dent in the supply of oil, hugely disrupt the environment? That volume of oil is huge!
I'm not making any reference to the impact on supply...but since you brought it up...you're correct...it's tiny.
The question is about ecological impact...and it was minor...backed up by the report that mmfa linked:
-- While cleanup was required. The volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from the offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor...Response and recovery efforts kept the impacts to a minimum with no onshore impacts from these spill events. -- US Minerals MS
We can and have produced oil in a responsible manner for years...the anti-oil production boogey men need a new play book.
Let me loan you my spectacles...while you read my earlier comment:
-- While the statement "not a drop of oil was spilled" is incorrect --
You said the underlying principle was that this amount of oil didn't hurt much.
Wrongo, bat guano breath.
The issue Media Matters raised was that this guy lied and said that not a drop was spilled when, in fact, a drop was spilled. Media Matters doesn't have to talk about how much it was relative to anything or how good technological innovations have become. Those things have nothing to do with this guy lying.
Whether or not that amount of oil was a huge environmental disaster or only a small blip is a distraction from the real point of Media Matters' posting. It doesn't matter what percentage of a day's production it is. It doesn't matter that the technology worked better, although that is a great advancement. He lied. That's the point.
Obama and taxes? The accusation against Obama is that it will affect many more people than it actually will. So, when confronting that distortion of his plan, they address how many people it will affect. This was an issue of someone saying that no oil was spilled. Any oil spilling proves him to be a liar. Apples and oranges, Wesley.
Maybe you can tell those 481,000 small business owners that Obama wants to raise taxes on that it's no big deal...like mmfa trumpets.
That darned ole thing called perspective always gets in the way of rational thought...your analogy is silly.
This is a distraction from the real point, and you likely already know that.
The Obama tax plan story was from people lying about how many taxpayers would be affected by it.
This story is about this guy saying that not a drop spilled.
Both lies got pointed out. Evidence on how both lies were untrue was given. In the tax case, a specific number of taxpayers who would be affected was the relevant data needed to prove the lie. In this case, any oil spilled proves the lie. There's no reason to give what percentage of our daily output that amount of oil is, or how little or how greatly that amount f oil hurts the environment. Media Matters points out the lies and distortions, and provides evidence as to why they are lies or distortions.
That is such a stupid argument. What difference does it make what percentage of the total was spilled? The only thing that matters is what is damaging to the environment.
Let me provide an examples of why it's such a dumb argument. It would take about 10 micrograms of lead to poison my child. However, I live in an old house and there are probably hundreds of grams of lead throughout. So, if he dies from lead poisoning, it's no big deal because he was exposed to far less than 1% of the total lead content of the house.
-- , I live in an old house and there are probably hundreds of grams of lead throughout -- jawill
And just what is it that you're doing to protect your child...besides nothing. That is another very poor analogy...complaining about oil spills in the gulf while exposing your child to death.
The report was very clear that the eco-impact was nill. Swimming in the gulf would appear to be safer than living in an old lead infested house.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. It is perfectly safe to live in an old house if the lead paint is properly contained and good practices are followed when renovating. My point was that the argument about the percentage of the total being small, so the huge amount spilled into the gulf is negligible is stupid. It takes a small amount to damage an ecosystem, and those oil covered marine life don't care that a small percentage of the total was spilled, all they know is that they are covered in oil. Just like my kid would not care that he ingested only a tiny fraction of the total lead in the house.
Also, this is not about people swimming in the gulf, it's about marine ecosystems. This complete lie is just more whitewashing in an attempt to portray offshore drilling as completely harmless. There are always potential consequences, and we should have all the facts when making any future decisions about more drilling operations.
This shows a downside to TV punditry that has nothing to do with the usual incompetence or bias. A news host simply can't have instantaneous command of the facts of any subject that can come up in an interview. A cable news show is not the right way to get information.
The "host vs spindoctor" format has no value even in a functioning media. There are better ways to get informed.
If MSNBC had done some research in their own archives, they would have learned that there were all sorts of oil spills post-Katrina:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
But what's your point, really? Oil is, indeed, a natural result of geologic processes of time, temperature and pressure. The refining of and combustion of petroleum, however is not a natural process. Your argument doesn't cut it.
As far as your point about the exploration of the oceans, it's true in as much as human beings haven't explored ocean floors. We do know the topography and the subsurficial structure of the oceans and seas, even if there was oil way down there, we're still decades away from being able to extract it. So why not start investing in a green economy now and start creating a better future today?
Even the white house concedes that there will be no short term relief at the pump if we started drilling here and now.
"...there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning...
...So the important thing that we need to do is continue on -- to continue the conservation measures, work on a way to send a signal to the market that we're serious about increasing domestic production here in environmentally sensitive ways, and in addition to that, find ways that we can continually express to the American people not to expect a short-term response. There's not going to be a short-term response, and it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be." Dana Perino
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080623-6.html
I sent Senator Burr a message on his website. I linked the report mentioned here to my message and asked him if he was misinformed or lying? Because it has to be one or the other. You can send him a message here (you will have to make up a North Carolina address, if you don't live there. I used one of the office addresses on the left side of his page):
http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home