by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
On April 20, 2010 an oil rig which BP (Beyond Petroleum) was leasing exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. This catastrophic event resulted in the deaths of nine BP employees who were working on the oil rig at the time. At first, the destruction of the facility was reported only as a human tragedy, which it was. However, since the explosion--which is now being reported on as an ecological disaster of monumental proportions--a number of questions have arisen which ultimately will have to be addressed.
Of course, at the moment, the primary concern--and rightfully so--surrounds the impact of what is now being called the worst oil spill in American history. With thousands of barrels of oil being released into the Gulf of Mexico each day, BP and the U.S. government must find a way to cap the wellhead, which is almost a mile beneath the ocean's surface. The platform was located 50 miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River, but the resulting spill will have a devastating impact on the environment and the industry of states in the surrounding area for decades to come.
To say the timing and cause of the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is suspect would be a leap across a conspiratorial threshold that many would view as inappropriate. Yet such concerns are--and should be--considered valid, due to a number of factors.
Recently, a high-ranking representative of BP did not dismiss the possibility the explosion at the drilling site could have been more than an accident caused by flawed technology or human error.
Could the BP disaster have been an act of terrorism? The response to this query is a resounding "yes!" and here's why. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama announced he would allow oil exploration in some coastal areas, including the eastern seaboard of the United States. It must be noted, the administration did not provide new drilling leases to oil companies. There is a misconception regarding Obama's announcement. Many believed a President who was hostile to the search, recovery and use of fossil fuels available in America--which most experts say our country could tap into, in order to lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil--was softening his position on the issue. But environmentalists, in virtual unanimity, were opposed to Obama's announcement.
The oil spill in the Gulf has also brought up some questions regarding negotiations between Democrats and Republicans concerning pending climate control legislation, including Cap and Trade--which is high on Obama's political agenda. We have learned some Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, were willing to sign on to this controversial alternative energy bill, due to Obama's pledge to members of the GOP that he would allow for expanded oil exploration.
But, again, many question whether new drilling leases would ever be issued. The Cap and Trade bill, which passed in the House of Representatives in 2009, was politically toxic and there was no way the legislation would have made it through the Senate without a conciliatory gesture, like Obama's edict regarding oil exploration in areas which were previously off the table. The mainstream media (MSM) was virtually silent about the negotiations between Republicans and the administration concerning support for Cap and Trade.
More important, the MSM has also been silent in its reporting on domestic eco-terrorism conducted by groups which believe the ends justify the means when it comes to "protecting" the environment. Subsequently, those who are against the utilization of non-renewable resources within the United States, both on land and water, might go to any lengths to sabotage such efforts. Already Governors in coastal states have voiced concerns about expanded exploration and the construction of facilities off of their coast lines, due to the tragic BP spill.
Most certainly, there will be time to investigate the cause of the explosion that destroyed the BP oil rig. Indeed, the sabotage of such facilities, like the drilling platform leased by BP would meet not only a domestic terrorist agenda, but a foreign one as well. After all, keeping America attached to the Middle East and the oil which comes from that region would essentially kill two birds with one stone.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
To donate to RFFM go to: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=5U5V8GAKCYTU8
Donations to RFFM.org are not tax deductible.
You've got to be kidding me ... even in light of the fact that BP is producing it's own internal documentation that this accident was caused by failure of it's own equipment you are willing to continue to further the BS notion that this was domestic terrorism on the part of a environazis? ala Rush Limbaugh? like a chain being no stronger that it's weakest link you should think twice about using 'ideas' from someone on the radio who barely made it out of high school. That is unless you want to be thought of as someone with the intellect of a middle school pimple faced moron.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I was not aware Rush Limbaugh had addressed the issue of possible domestic or foreign terrorism regarding the BP explosion and oil spill. Conservatives do have the ability to think for themselves. Posing the question of possible sabotage does not mean it happened. And, like I wrote, a BP executive did not rule this possibility. I usually do not post comments which include name-calling, as yours did, but, in your case, I made an exception which proves the intolerance many have for those who express independent thought. DTZ
Posted by: Frank Halstead | May 13, 2010 at 09:18 AM