Obama's Interior dept. killing 10,000s of fish, destroying our food supply!!

[healthmyths]

Such a classic inept attitude and stupid actions by the totally inexperienced Obama administration!
Such concern for the environment while at the same time KILLING thousands of fish and their habitats... WHY???

A federal mandate to remove old, abandoned oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is blowing up a lot more than just the rigs.
Undercover video obtained by Local 15 shows thousands of pounds of dead fish, mostly red snapper, floating to the surface after one of the controversial demolitions in the Gulf.
“Good Lord,” marine scientist Dr. Bob Shipp said, when Local 15 showed him the video. “As a scientist, I think it’s abominable.”
Shipp said the demolitions are frequent, sometimes three a week in the Gulf, but are seldom video-taped. Shipp also sits on the Gulf Fisheries Management Council, and has been a strong opponent of the demolitions.

“It’s a double whammy,” Shipp said, “Not only are we killing a lot of snapper, but we’re also destroying their habitat.”

The old rigs are an eye-sore, but under the surface, they’ve developed into artificial reefs with rich coral habitats. On some of the older rigs, those habitats have grown over the course of 30 to 40 years.
“They tell us not to fish [red snapper] but they’re blowing them up,” charter boat Captain Jason Domange told Local 15, “It’s a cryin’ shame.”

The confidential source who provided Local 15 the video estimated 10,000 pounds of fish, mostly red snapper, were killed after that one demolition.

”That’s a year’s salary for a lot of people and that’s just going to waste,” Domange said.

Dr. Shipp said the killing of red snapper has both environmental and economical ramifications.


Explosive Fed. Mandate Killing Thousands of Red Snapper | Mobile AL, Pensacola FL News, Weather, Sports | WPMI-TV | Local15TV.com

This is the Federal Mandate from the...
Oil and gas companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico will have to permanently plug nearly 3,500 temporarily abandoned wells and dismantle about 650 production platforms that are no longer used, the Obama administration announced Wednesday.

The Interior Department says the policy aims to make energy production safer and prevent potentially catastrophic leaks at wells that in some cases have been abandoned for decades.
he Wall St. Journal cited one expert as saying the cost could total $1.4 billion to $3.5 billion. Mark Kaiser, R&D director at Louisiana State University's Center for Energy Studies, also estimated that companies, mostly smaller producers, would be giving up $6 billion to $18 billion in lost revenue from future production.
U.S.: 3,500 unused Gulf wells must be plugged - US news - Environment | NBC News

 

[OKTexas]

Not only does it kill fish but it also removes destinations for scuba divers. Many pay good money to be taken out to these rigs to dive, primarily because of the fish habitats provide allot to see and photograph.

 

[healthmyths]

So that means Obama's "good intentions" once again are costing jobs!

 

[Mr. H.]

This must be the kind of waste that rdean keeps referring to.

 

[asaratis]

Reminds me of Saddam Hussein's retreat from Kuwait...burning oil wells as he goes. Is Obama just trying to make sure these rigs are never used again? God forbid we should ever increase our own production of oil. We need to buying from our Muslim friends, regardless of the cost!

 

[Mr. H.]

Never let a good snapper go to waste.

 

[Care4all]

since when does decommission mean to BLOW UP?

1. 
   Decommissioned | Define Decommissioned at Dictionary.com
   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decommissioneddictionary.reference.com/browse/decommissioned
   to remove or retire (a ship, airplane, etc.) from active service. 2. to deactivate; shut down: to decommission a nuclear power plant.
   

Your second article linked from 3 years ago, says this:

The order requires operators to plug wells that been inactive for the past five years. Production platforms and pipelines must be decommissioned if they are not being used for exploration or production, even under an active lease.

why aren't they just taking the platforms apart? Why are they blowing them up? I don't get it?

 

[Political Junky]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

 

[Care4all]

So that means Obama's "good intentions" once again are costing jobs!

fyi, your last article said it was INCREASING jobs....so what is it?

 

[Mr. H.]

I wonder if Napoleon fished with dynamite.
Back in the day.

 

[OKTexas]

since when does decommission mean to BLOW UP?

1. 
   Decommissioned | Define Decommissioned at Dictionary.com
   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decommissioneddictionary.reference.com/browse/decommissioned
   to remove or retire (a ship, airplane, etc.) from active service. 2. to deactivate; shut down: to decommission a nuclear power plant.
   

Your second article linked from 3 years ago, says this:

The order requires operators to plug wells that been inactive for the past five years. Production platforms and pipelines must be decommissioned if they are not being used for exploration or production, even under an active lease.

why aren't they just taking the platforms apart? Why are they blowing them up? I don't get it?

These are not floating rigs, they are fixed to bedrock and that's the only way to get them loose.

 

[Oldguy]

Isn't' it interesting that some here would leave rusting, contaminated hazards to navigation with the potential to leak oil and other dangerous chemicals into the Gulf indefinitely in the name of protecting the environment? :roll eyes:

The environment isn't the issue in this thread. Barack Obama is....again.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

the epa unfortunately was started by a republican. but don't let the facts get in the way of perception

 

[Mr. H.]

Isn't' it interesting that some here would leave rusting, contaminated hazards to navigation with the potential to leak oil and other dangerous chemicals into the Gulf indefinitely in the name of protecting the environment? :roll eyes:

The environment isn't the issue in this thread. Barack Obama is....again.

If these structures had the potential to leak oil and other etc., I doubt they would be dynamited.

 

[Freewill]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

Everyone was up in arms. First it should not have happened and second Obama and company blotched the recovery.

The Spill, The Scandal and the President | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[healthmyths]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

DUH!!! That was an accident!
This is deliberate destruction of fish and their habitat!!

BIG BIG Distinction here IDIOT!

BP was BUILDING not destroying habitats as the article went on!

But being the idiot supporter of the Destructor-in-Chief you swallow any thing put out buy Obama!
I would think eating Obama's crap would have killed you by now!

 

[Freewill]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

DUH!!! That was an accident!
This is deliberate destruction of fish and their habitat!!

BIG BIG Distinction here IDIOT!

BP was BUILDING not destroying habitats as the article went on!

But being the idiot supporter of the Destructor-in-Chief you swallow any thing put out buy Obama!
I would think eating Obama's crap would have killed you by now!

If the left wing liberals are upset at the criticism of the Obama I think they should be venting at him for making it so damn easy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I laugh when I hear people bleat that oil wells are a scourge on marine life. It's not a coincidence that people fish around artificial objects in the water! Marine life grows on them. Fish feed on that. Bigger fish feed on the smaller fish. Bigger fish die & decompose. Marine life grows from the decomposing fish. And the cycle goes on...

Heck, SHIPS are regularly sunk as artificial reefs! Off the top of my head, the 40,000 ton aircraft carrier Oriskany comes to mind.

 

[healthmyths]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

the epa unfortunately was started by a republican. but don't let the facts get in the way of perception

Nixon did yes that's right! But the EPA today is by far MORE destructive of our economy primarily because under the earlier administrations the primary rationale was how much would it cost in either way, i.e. cost to the economy by DOING something versus Cost by NOT doing!
Not with this administration!
Everything favors the snail darter for example over the farmers needs for water!
Everything favors the management by EPA of ditch water much to the added burden of regulatory compliance of the farmer!!

BUT when it comes to a real practical cost benefit analysis of Keystone NEVER calculated that a pipeline with 300 barrels of oil traveling in one mile IS LESS DANGEROUS then a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile!

Where in creation's name is the environmental concern over that by the EPA???

 

[tyroneweaver]

Interesting to see cons take an interest in the environment.
BP sure did a lot of harm, killing countless fish and mammals. You must have been up in arms over that catastrophe.

the epa unfortunately was started by a republican. but don't let the facts get in the way of perception

Nixon did yes that's right! But the EPA today is by far MORE destructive of our economy primarily because under the earlier administrations the primary rationale was how much would it cost in either way, i.e. cost to the economy by DOING something versus Cost by NOT doing!
Not with this administration!
Everything favors the snail darter for example over the farmers needs for water!
Everything favors the management by EPA of ditch water much to the added burden of regulatory compliance of the farmer!!

BUT when it comes to a real practical cost benefit analysis of Keystone NEVER calculated that a pipeline with 300 barrels of oil traveling in one mile IS LESS DANGEROUS then a 1 million barrel tanker traveling one mile!

Where in creation's name is the environmental concern over that by the EPA???

There was a farmer in northern Utah that left his headgate open and it really flooded a field.
Out of sheer happenstance the epa and some waterfowl got into the area before he shut his headgate down and they declared it a wet lands area.
I guess he had a hell of a time getting his land back.