Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed "not one drop of oil was spilled" during Hurricane Katrina
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, Mike Huckabee falsely asserted, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." In fact, according to a report prepared for the federal government by an international consulting firm, damages related to Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552* barrels of oil and petroleum products.
During the June 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who recently joined Fox News as a contributor, falsely asserted, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." In fact, according to a 2007 report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas, damage related to Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 5,552* barrels of oil and petroleum products, including damage to 27 platforms and rigs that resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,843* barrels of petroleum products, including 2,252 barrels of crude oil and condensate. Damage to 43 pipelines resulted in the spilling of approximately 2,710* barrels of oil and petroleum products.
Further, regarding the combined impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on outer continental shelf structures in the Gulf of Mexico, the report stated, "124 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."
From the June 27 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Meanwhile, the guy whose ID is activated with Fox News -- it's former Arkansas governor, Fox News contributor, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Governor, what do you -- where do you think John McCain's going with his energy policy? I have a hunch that within two weeks, if he's gonna come off and say, "Let's drill here" -- come off one policy -- why not go the rest of the way and say, "Let's go to ANWR," because emergency is -- this is an emergency situation?
HUCKABEE: Well, I think the policy is emerged, and he realizes that we are in a crisis situation. When fuel gets this high, every -- it's not just the airline tickets, it's the jobs that go with it. It's the price of bread and milk --
KILMEADE: Yep.
HUCKABEE: -- and eggs on the shelf. Everything is going up. But people's wages aren't going up to meet it. And we've got to do something other than just wring our hands and say, "How much do the Saudis want for us to pay?" And so drilling in ANWR makes a lot of sense.
I've been to ANWR. That can be done without taking a major footprint out of the reserve and making a big dent. There's not the environmental passions --
KILMEADE: Did you tell him this, Governor? You guys are buddies.
HUCKABEE: Yeah, you know, I mean, I think it's a matter that there are a lot of people very passionate about not wanting to do anything in ANWR or the outer continental shelf. But I'll give you a great reminder. When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. So we know that the technology to drill offshore is extraordinarily safe and environmentally friendly. And it's not something that we have to be as worried about as we do a refinery on shore or some other type of issue.
DAVE BRIGGS (guest host): Governor, the strategy has been set for how they're going to go after Barack Obama. Paint him as a guy who makes decisions based out of political expediency, a guy that can flip-flop, a typical politician. Does the gun legislation, the ruling by the Supreme Court, really give the Republican Party an opportunity?
Huckleberry ain't the sharpest tool in the shed. He'd be a perfect running mate for John "I don't beat my wife anymore" McCain.
McCain: I appreciate his support. As you know, the lieutenant governor is our chairman.
Q: Why snub the governor?
McCain: I didn't mean to snub him. I've known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we've been good friends....I didn't intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.
Q: Maybe it's the governor's approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?
McCain: (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago . . .
That was 17,700 barrels, not gallons. Which would be more like 750,000 gallons.
your right ,we have to quadruple the number of wells so this loss is not a major significance--we need to drill now and drill more ,we have enough resources to to put gas back at 35 cents a gallon and still sell to the world market--I'm on your side
I'm thrilled and delighted that the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot like this.
They can echo all they want to if this is what they're going to do.
The electorate is fed up with their dissembling. I hope that the Republicans continue to be so disconnected from reality that they don't change their tune for many more election cycles.
And once again, the same lying talking point surfaces within days. Anybody surprised?
But, since you brought it up, would Jesus want his name stamped on Caesar's coin?
Hey Science, I think you should change your nick again. You're giving legitimate scientists an undeserved bad rap. :)
Try 'Caveman' or 'Neanderthal' or 'Dunderhead'.
He could always merge them - science and columbus = succubus. It works...
as always, you are absolutely wrong. the founding fathers saw themselves much as the hebrews leaving egypt, and sojourning to th epromised land.
sandss981580
Sands, you're not even slightly close to being right.
So some rich slave owners were arrogant enough to compare themselves with slaves freeing oppression and that's your argument? At least they were smart enough to put the separation of Church and State into the Constitution. By the way, for all those Christian values, how many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?
I think the Indians felt the same way....
"Seeing as how the country was founded on a mixture of jewish and christian principals, "In God We Trust" makes perfect sense to be used. This country encourages people of all types and beliefs to come here, but if you do, then adapt to the principals of the USA. Do not try to change it to be like the motherland you left. Simple really."
Ok, really, all I had to do was post your original statement to show you that you're contradicting yourself.
I'll post it again, with highlights so that you are more aware of your errors:
"Seeing as how the country was founded on a mixture of jewish and christian principals, "In God We Trust" makes perfect sense to be used. This country encourages people of all types and beliefs to come here, but if you do, then adapt to the principals of the USA. Do not try to change it to be like the motherland you left. Simple really."
So our Judeo-Christian nation encourages all types of beliefs to come here, as long as they adhere to our Judeo-Christian principles?
Sorry, that's just wrong.
The founding fathers were enlightenment thinkers. Some were Christian, but most were deists.
Thomas Jefferson, for instance:
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
That was to Dr. Benjamin Rush, in the year of our Lord, 1800.
Or even more scathing:
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."
That was to Richard Price, 1789.
In fact, one could take from Jefferson's re-working of the New Testament, that he truly brought out the correct moral philosophy of Jesus, one that stripped away all the miracles and mysticism.
Considering that we recognize the importance of separation of church and state in this country, no governmental reference to any specific deity is appropriate, since that is an endorsement of a specific religious viewpoint.
"Can you repeat propagandistic RNC talking points and still be considered a good Christian? WWJD? :-0)"
According to the lie sheets, er, the "bibles" of both the Republican Party and the Theocratic Faux Christian Conservative Right, the answer is yes.
"WWJD? :-0) "
Do you think Jesus would support killing babies after they were born, like O'bama does?
" I certainly cannot wait for The War Hero to join him on the morning of November 5."
You mean "Fixed" has a committement from the next president to have him on the day after he's elected?
These oil addicts are worse than drug addicts. They take the most simplistic "logic" - more drilling=more oil=lower gas prices - which is inherently false, but because it is so SIMPLE, they think they can sell it to the American public.
I'm beginning to think that the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil/Saudi Arabia.
The only word that applies is shameless. These people are incredible. It doesn't matter how often and how thoroughly some of their lies have been exposed, if they like the sound of it they will keep spewing it.
Utterly shameless.
Don't be so hard-on MikeY...
He's just getting started!! It takes a while to get your lies down sharp.
NO, Huckleberry's looking like a Fox regular. "one drop" was not spilled, several thousand barrels were.
I used to use that one on my little sister. "Go ahead & leave the room, I promise I won't take one of your cookies". Then I'd take two. Fiendishly clever.
At least we don't have all the same fools from the previous thread on this same topic.
They kept trying to change the subject and distract us from the lie that the Republican legislator told.
Of course this goes back to the GOP panicking about the possible demise of big oil...Just the idea that from within the midst of a world of facts about the ten year time frame to see a drop from ANWR, Florida and everywhere else, and the approximate $0.03 per gallon we will save then, they keep on blaming Democrats for prices. It can't be big oil. No, not those regular folks with their 8 digit salaries, no, never.
"...estimates for North America, where offshore oil and gas development was found to be responsible for only 2 percent of the petroleum inputs in North America’s marine environment."
"In the 2002 NRC report**, natural seepage was the largest single source of petroleum in the worldwide marine environment, contributing over 4 MMbbl/yr, 47-percent of total inputs. In North America, natural seepage is the largest input, contributing 63 percent of total inputs to the marine environment."
"Between 1971 and 2000, tankers and barges were responsible for 45 percent of the volume of oil spilled in U.S. waters. However, spillage from tankers and barges in U.S. waters has declined dramatically over the three decades, with their spillage during 1991-2000 having declined to one-tenth of the spillage during 1971-1980."
Yeah, we shouldn't drill and stuff...
Fact 1: Huckabee lied / didn't know the exact facts
Fact 2: His point stands. Drilling technology has increased exponentially to the point that you cannot claim that "big oil" is going to set the oceans on fire. Mother nature leaks 10 times more oil than oil rigs.
To quote Darth Vader, "so"?
That still doesn't change the fact that drilling in ANWR would lower the price of gas 5-7 cents, 10 YEARS from now.
That still doesn't change the fact that drilling of the Gulf Coast would do exponential damage to the tourism industry.
That still doesn't change the fact that even John McCain doesn't believe that off-shore drilling would be beneficial:
"I don’t see an immediate relief, but I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist — and in view of many experts that do exist off our coasts — is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial."
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/24/mccain-psychological-offshore/
I know it's ThinkProgress, but the video is right there for you to watch if you so desire.
So we should pursue off-shore drilling because it will make us feel better?
And they say liberals argue with their feelings!
drilling off*
my f gets stuck sometimes. ;)
"...drilling of the Gulf Coast would do exponential damage to the tourism industry."
And windmills are prettier than oil platforms? Ted Kennedy didn't think so. One goes round and round and the other goes up and down. You still see them...depending on how close they are to the coast. Can you see Cuba from Florida? And the oil platforms will de torn down when the oil is gone. The windmills will be there until you start complaining that they kill too many birds.
[McCain quote]
I match your McCain and raise you an Obama: "Our enemies [he mentions Nigeria, Iran, Sudan, et al.] are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror for a long long time.""I know it's ThinkProgress..."
Thanks for the clarification. :-) I mean that sincerely. People (liberal and conservative) who quote blogs like they are Gospel really boil my blood. You did well =)
"In unusually urgent tones, the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030." (+) And the US has 3 times the coal, natural gas, and oil than Saudi Arabia. = Future's Market-- need I explain what future supply and future demand will do to the future's market????
Look, the technology that we need isn't here yet and the oil we need hasn't reached the surface either.
The Chevy volt comes out soon. 40 miles on a charge, and that's great, but that doesn't help truckdrivers or those of us who need our larger vehicles to work or even get to work. GM is supposed to be coming out with a H-cell car in 2013. That will help immensely, but it won't help the people who can't afford to buy one.
Yes, we need to find alternative energie sources, but we can't put all of our eggs in one basket. America will still need a lot of oil ten years from now with or without solar panels and winmills. The ONLY smart thing to do is to invent AND drill.
You are suffering from typically conservative American tunnel vision.
You say that we need to develop new technologies, and drill.
You forgot "conserve." Conservation can save many more gallons of oil than drilling can produce.
We need a more robust public transportation infrastructure. We may need higher gas prices, to encourage conservation.
It's true that many conservation measures (redesign of some cities, as well as the aforementioned pub-transport) would take time. But you're arguing that we need to drill, drill, drill now in order to gain the benefit several years down the road. That's not the best use of our talents and financial capabilities. It'd be more prudent to work toward the necessary conservation.
You, sir, have liberal tunnel vision.
Liberals say "why don't you take public transportaion" because they live where public transportation is available. I'll let you use that argument when they have public transprtation on Township Rd 37, Commie!
Conservation doesn't get me from home to work every day. Conservation doesn't get your and my food from point A to point B. Higher gas prices can only harm everyone.
Really? That's truly psychotic. I guess I'd better run out and buy a Hummer to prove my patriotism.
Does that mean the FCC is communist too? You really need to get back in your bomb shelter and lock the door. Don't open it for anyone, they could be a commie!
Some conservation is acceptable. In the long run, it hurts the economy. If people don't travel, drive, sell, vacation we don't generate revenue and tax money (the left likes that part).
Off-shore drilling could be up in under a year, not 5 years as the left is claiming. It would also represent a major shift in policy that would take some of the spike out of the speculation bubble.
We need windmills, ethanol, natural gas liquification, batteries and a concerted effort to become energy dependent in the next 20 years.
We need to drill now. The false dribbles of energybabble such as what the oil leases dodge and the alleged environmental damage by off-shore drilling is nothing more than leftist defeatism. It is time to eliminate the ban and drill tomorrow.
Leather,
Let me get this straight, we need to waste our resources because that will help the economy,
And, we could produce oil from a new source in one year.
First, the economy might, and I mean might, suffer short term if we conserve, but in the long term, the economy would benefit greatly from reduced energy costs or a lack of a severe shortage or with the new industries born out of the new technologies developed. So please save your myopic, closed minded thinking for yourself and allow the liberal big picture people to save your foolish behjind.
Next, on what planet can you set a a drilling rig in a new area and pump oil in one year? It sure isn't on this planet.
You, sir, have liberal tunnel vision.
Liberals say "why don't you take public transportaion" because they live where public transportation is available. I'll let you use that argument when they have public transprtation on Township Rd 37, Commie!
Conservation doesn't get me from home to work every day. Conservation doesn't get your and my food from point A to point B. Higher gas prices can only harm everyone.
There are a few issues with that. First, not everyone can move to where public transportation is available, for obvious reasons. You wouldn't have anyone in rural areas (like me) at all. Second, sometimes people own houses further away from where they work because of economics. I have a five-bedroom house, and none of those rooms are empty. The same-sized house in town would cost twice as much, and I wouldn't have the acreage to boot. Third, being able to move for any reason depends on where you live and how much extra money you have. If you live in Michigan, for instance, good luck. Your house might sit on the market for four years. I sure as hell wouldn't buy a house and have money tied up in taxes and maintenance on my previous house just for the sake of less gas cost. It's all just much easier said than done.
It's more appropriate to point out that Glenn wasn't asked why he didn't take public transportation. The suggestion was that there needed to be a more robust public transportation system. Glenn's answer was fallacious, because saying that we need more public transportation and that anyone who can use it should use it isn't the same as saying everyone should be using it.
Glenn Jericho wrote:
>>Mother nature leaks 10 times more oil than oil rigs.
What is your source for this? I never remember seeing ducks dying from oil released by mother nature.
http://www.mms.gov/stats/PDFs/2002OilSpillFacts.pdf
Has everything you need to know.
And actually it is 11.75 times more. I just wrote 10 because I wasn't feeling as sardonic as I am now. If you look at just North America, though, Mother Nature leaks 31.5 times more than oil rigs and pipelines. And it is getting safer each year, despite there being more oil rigs and pipelines.
Shazzzam!
Glenn,
I guess you really don't understand the difference between a naturally occurring oil leak that allows tghe organisms to adapt over time and an un-natural spill that puts oil where animals, plants and the environment aren't conditioned to handle it causing widespread damage.
No, there is no difference there, right?
Oh, I forgot,
Shazzzam yourself!
I'll tell you the difference
47 - 4 = 43
Pun intended.
So, you don't know the difference. That's what I thought. This is why we need to improve our education system, so people like you can understand complex issues.
Otherwise, there is no use in having a discussion, because you simply don't understand the issue, as you've gone on to prove with some of your other comments.
It's great that it's safer.
Totally irrelevant to the lie that Huckabee told, but better for our environment.
It's true that there are naturally-occuring emissions of oil.
Totally irrelevant to the lie that Huckabee told, and totally irrelevant to the lie that the previous rightwing tool told, and totally irrelevant to the effects that a larger oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might have.
Why are you bringing up irrelevant facts? You wouldn't be trying to distract us from the lie that was told at least twice this week, would you?
I hate the Huckster. My point is that his point stands that drilling isn't doing the damage that you say it is.
Huckabee lied, fish didn't die.
Drilling isn't doing the damage I say it is doing?
Where did I say anything about damage? I didn't.
But thanks for bringing it up. Drilling for oil in the Gulf looks to be safer than it used to be.
The damage that can be done is so great though that it should not be expanded to ANWR or to the coasts of several US States.
It's because of that potential damage that we don't drill in those places now. A short-term small increase in the amount of oil we have 15-30 years from now is pretty invaluable when the risks are also considered. As many rightwingers, you are afflicted with tunnel vision. The only variables to consider when talking about where to drill are not that oil is there and any oil added to the overall supply is added supply.
Environmental potential disasters should be weighed. The potential cost savings should be considered. The fact that adding a little more to a finite supply, and how we should be concentrating our efforts in trying to conserve and find alternative sources since it is a finite resource is what we should be thinking about.
When you've got a finite resource, you should not increase the volume you're using which make you use that finite resource up even sooner!
Why is this so difficult to understand for some?
The damage that can be done is so great though that it should not be expanded to ANWR or to the coasts of several US States.
In case you didn't know, it's not a statistical anomily that it's safer now. It's called technology. I guess you won't be having brain surgery if you ever need it because it used to be dangerous.
The fact that adding a little more to a finite supply...
How often must I say the US has 3 times the oil of Saudi Arabia? Try a lot. (A lot of oil. Hopefully I don't have to say it a lot.)
You are refering to oil shale. A process that is only economical if you strip mine the entire region, and also a process that only has one or two test plants to do any form of refining. Drilling won't do anything to make shale abundant.
Please do some homework next time before you post.
You are refering to oil shale. A process that is only economical if you strip mine the entire region, and also a process that only has one or two test plants to do any form of refining. Drilling won't do anything to make shale abundant.
Please do some homework next time before you post.
The damage that can be done is so great though that it should not be expanded to ANWR or to the coasts of several US States.
In case you didn't know, it's not a statistical anomily that it's safer now. It's called technology. I guess you won't be having brain surgery if you ever need it because it used to be dangerous.
The fact that adding a little more to a finite supply...
How often must I say the US has 3 times the oil of Saudi Arabia? Try a lot. (A lot of oil. Hopefully I don't have to say it a lot.)
It used to be more dangerous than it is now. That does not mean that it's without danger now, stupid! And if something does go wrong, the damage that can be done is so great though that it should not be expanded to ANWR or to the coasts of several US States.
Drilling in ANWR or in the coastal regions of the southern states is drilling for a finite supply of oil. Adding a little more to a finite supply doesn't do much good, and the potential cost is too great.
You have no point.
Seeing as how the country was founded on a mixture of jewish and christian principals, "In God We Trust" makes perfect sense to be used.
What exactly are these uniquely Judea-Christian values that our country was founded on? I always thought we were largely influenced by French Enlightenment principles, but maybe my former history professor was a flaming liberal. =/
There was also some american indian input. Our governments form had many sources. Why the need to point to one and say its the whole of it?
OT: There are no drilling rigs availible to drill ANWR, won't be any availible for years. There is also no refinery availible to process the oil. At least one major company declined to build a new refinery do to its effect on the companies bottom line.
I get the feeling an energy crunch is not something big oil fears greatly. I see no efforts to engage with this as a major problem. Rather, a cheap way to deal with the immediate future in a profitable, short term way.
So 17,000 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, that's about 750,000 gallons of water. Here is the size of the Gulf
"the basin contains a volume of 642 trillion gallons" http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html
So that is about 0.000000000116822 of 1% of the whole of this body of water. The Love Boat probably drops more from it's poop deck than oil spilled during Katrina!
By the way, the cost of gas is still 19 cents above the 'algore' line in my locale, that's $4.19 for you eco-whackjobs.
So if it was a 6.4 trillion gallon spill, it would only be 1% of the total volume of the Gulf. That doesn't sound so bad, does it?
I can't believe anyone on this planet is dumb enough to honestly find that to be a compelling point. You define "troll".
barbarino,
But, we're not talking 6.4 trillion gallons now are we? The numbers show that the amount lost was insignificant and barely worth mentioning.
Now the amount of carbon-footprinting we have made used in the generation of electricity for this blog....now that's something of algoric proportions I'm sure!
I didn't say it was that much, I'm pointing out that even if it was it's only 1%, which sounds insignificant by your moronic reasoning.
It has nothing to do with destroying the entire Gulf, it still causes damage. If your neighbor takes a chunk out of your lawn, you can't complain because it's only .0045% or whatever of your entire yard. Or "OK so I dented your bumper, what percentage of all the metal on your car did I damage, exactly?" It doesn't quite work that way.
vinniebarbarino,
But you did hurt .00045% of the metal in my car it could first be still usable, I could still travel with other carbon-foot printers to an ozone algore rally for example. And secondly, eventually it could be repaired to near perfection.
Just like our country's need for oil, such a small amount of damage is hardly worth noticing. We need oil now and in the future to be secure economically. Secondly, the ability of our earth's environment to absorb such insignificant amounts of toxins and still be habitable is astounding!
I didn't say the car would be unusable. I said it would be damage, and you wouldn't be happy about it. The percentage is a ridiculous argument, period.
It's not an argument that we should be forced to ride bikes or anything either. Right now we need oil.
What part of "he said none spilled, and some spilled" do you not understand?
If he had said only a small amount spilled, and that the spills were only a tiny percentage of the volume in the gulf, we wouldn't be here discussing this.
bubbleblondie,
I'm not sure that small of a percentage utimately matters. So once again, media matters (for very little),
By the by, gas dropped 4 cents closer to the 'algore line' today. Saw gas selling for $4.15!
So, the fact that he lied doesn't matter to you?
Glad you cleared that up.
See, I care about the truth. I'm glad you're willing to admit that you don't care about the truth. Expose yourself as someone who condones lying all you want. I love it when rightwingers fail to recognize the hole they've already dug for themselves and they continue digging.
Bobbleblonde,
I suppose you are right. Obama should have said he only heard 0.000000000116822 of 1% of what Rev. Wright said from the pulpit instead of nothing during his 20 year membership in his church.
I like distractions like this almost as much as I like it when rightwingers admit they condone lying from those they support!
So, when you get confronted with an obvious fact that disproves what you've been saying, you can't/won't admit that you were wrong, but instead try to make a false comparison to an unrelated topic.
I love it when rightwingers do that! Just love it! Keep it up!
And keep ignoring the fact that the American public is so fed up with that kind of behavior that in every way imaginable, Republicans are sinking and Democrats are expanding their power and influence. Don't dare learn from the past.
Keep digging that hole!
quintissentialblondness,
This is why Media Matters, matters for so little. They, and the dupes they attract, are willing to trumpet this type of story as the next huge conspiracy that will uncover the true evil of anything that stands against their desire for a marxist utopia. Let me say that there was no intent to 'cover up' the destruction of the Gulf by Huckabee. Was there oil that was lost? Evidently but the amount was so insignificant that it was virtual zero. So if you want to say, "liar, liar pants on fire" go ahead. The point that MM(vl) was hoping to make was beyond trivial.
Now, if lying and truth tell is so important...What about the percentage of the amount of toxic waster spewed by Rev. Wright that Obama was exposed to during his 20 years of sitting under his ministry? Is he being truthful that it never happened? Or was it diluted vs. concentrated toxic preaching colonel?
PlowedCon, what nobody has explained to you (unless I missed it), is that it's about concentration and dilution(oil spills vs. natural oil leakage).
If I put 0.000000000116822 of 1% of the Earth's arsenic in your Kool-Aid, you probably wouldn't consider it insignificant.
buckingforprivatesanders,
But, if your 12 oz Mint Julip this morning contained 0.000000000116822 of 1% of arsenic, that would not be of any concern because of the insignificance of the amount, diluted or otherwise. You would not die of poisening.
well you forgot to mention what Interior Secretary Gale Norton said during a hearing on post-Katrina energy issues "One might have expected the entire Gulf to be blackened with oil,” . Instead, “there were no significant spills from any of our wells.”
also A 2002 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study entitled “Oil in the Sea III” states that “improved production technology and safety training of personnel have dramatically reduced both blowouts and daily operational spills.”
A lot of the crude oil was link to onshore holding tanks not the offshore oil rigs themselves. You might want to check more than one study, instead of just finding one that helps your propaganda campaign.