GULFPORT WAS RIGHT ABOUT OFFSHORE DRILLING!
When we think our City council is wrong, we’re quick to point out the mistake in the interest of avoiding similar mistakes in the future. Often, when they do something right, we neglect to give proper credit for making the right move. The current oil leakage disaster in our Gulf of Mexico raises the question of what we, here in Gulfport can do to protect our shores from such a disaster happening here.
Obviously, we need to be prepared to do our part in helping to clean up oil spills on our shores and to try and save as much wildlife as possible when disasters happen. Our current disaster is helping us to examine our readiness and, hopefully push us toward being better prepared.
On September 15, 2009 the Gulfport City Council exhibited great leadership in getting out ahead of similar problems by passing a resolution opposing oil drilling off Florida’s coast. The resolution was spurred by 2009 House Bill 1219 in the Florida Legislature which would allow oil drilling just 3 miles off Florida’s coastline. The then Vice Mayor Bob Worthington, the City Council’s representative on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the Agency on Bay Management and the Florida League of Cities Energy and Environmental Quality Committee led the charge in favor of the resolution. It passed unanimously.
While many reasons for the resolution were cited in its many “Whereases,” such as the citing of prior disasters, the threat to tourism, and the erosion of the environment of shoreline communities, the major concern was the potential for disasters such as the one we are currently experiencing. We quote from the September 15, 2009 resolution, “…..it is our belief that despite technological advances in oil drilling technology, there is no positive assurance that catastrophic damage to our coastline, beaches, plant and fish life could be avoided during normal operating conditions or during storm situations.”
The Gulfport resolution reads, “The City Council hereby encourages all elected officials at the County, State and Federal levels to oppose legislative attempts to allow offshore drilling expansion in the eastern Gulf of Mexico past the areas already approved for pre-leasing, leasing and oil production activities and to take immediate steps to encourage and assist in the development of alternate sources of energy.”
Armed with this strong resolution, then Vice-Mayor Worthington carried the fight against House Bill 1219 to all the agencies in which he had membership and beyond. In a letter in response to a series of questions submitted to the city by Attorney Adam Blalock, General Government Policy Counsel in Tallahassee, he said, in part, “Gulfport is strongly opposed to any consideration of exploration and production and has so stated in a resolution and in prior correspondence. From our perspective, none of the policy questions merit positive response. The questions themselves could be interpreted as assumption on the part of the State that we are about to embark on oil and gas projects regardless on the impact on habitat and citizen quality of life.”
Kudos to Mr. Worthington and our City Council for their prescience, their strong stance against off-shore drilling and for taking the fight to the County, State and National level. It is encouraging to know that our elected representatives were out there fighting for the health and welfare of all of us. We trust the fight will continue under our new Council.
…and in the big scheme of things, who is it that really cares about what Gulfport has to say? Just sayin’.
Mr. Worthington’s letter to Attorney Blalock is a significant turning point in the fight to reverse the position of Governor Crist and to counter the false assurances of the lobbyists and attorneys for the energy industry. The WatchDog might publish that document in its entirety as a means to present fully the points made to the state government on the unintended risks involved. Mr. Worthington also put forth correspondence on clean water which directly countered the specious, but ongoing, attempt by the Association of Florida Industries supported by SWFWMD and FLDEP to reduce Florida water quality standards, to deny EPA imposition of numerical nutrient standards and to impose yet another layer of government with a proposed “Water Tzar” accountable to no one but predictably a pawn of industry, development and commercial agriculture with the objective to divert scarce drinking water to industrial us. A complex issue which Mr. Worthington has brought to the attention of several agencies and legislators in order to put the health and well being of citizens and habitat before the demands of industry. If Council
action on the environment depends on three votes which would require at least the support of the mayor, the Vice-mayor or the Ward 4 guy, I suspect Gulport leadership position on water and enegy under Mr. Worthington will be a thing of the past.
Bob, while I’m delighted that Gulfport voted against drilling, they did not lead the way, they followed others who stood alone in 2008, like Redington Beach, Redington Shore, and Indian Shores. Other Cities like Safety Harbor, St. Petersburg, Pensacola, Panama City, and on and on voted before Gulfport in 2009.
http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=106172446447503097421.000480838fe1fe5d92709&z=6
Gulfport voted 2 months before the Bill went to the floor in Tallahassee, I’d say they were cutting it close, wouldn’t you?
A city council vote on a proclamation is less substantive than the work done to directly affect the decision process through preparation of the oil DVD, point papers and position papers developed by Worthington for the City and presented personally to legislators and boards over an extended period. Not to take away from the other folks, but I suspect if you went to City hall and asked for copies of the DVD and of the public record submissions going back at least to November of 2009, you will be favorably impressed.
Not a big deal anyway since The Gabber’s Hard Candy person indicates that oil is OK for fish; heck, we extract fish oil from them and then fry them in oil so what’s the big deal about a whole Gulf full of oil. If you read it in The Gabber, it must be true.
Aardvark said. If you read it in The Gabber, it must be true.
Speaking to this issue did you happened to read our local (Neo-Conservative) Tea Bagger Bill Northrop’s perspective on Drill Baby Drill? Fortunately for the planet his dangerous myopia is about to go the way of the dinosaur. An ever-increasing population living on a non-sustainable planet is OK by Bill as long as money flows. Let’s see Bill Northrop turn his money into something eatable, a greenback stew perhaps? Squeeze your money until it gives you clean water or clean air. Nothing that will be caught in the Gulf will be safe from scrutiny, we will trade imported oil for imported food, unemployment and a mass exodus.
The population is growing and the issue will only become more dyer unless we move to renewable fuels with expediency. I could go on but we’re past the point where Northrop would take us, it’s time for folks like him to join the 21st century. We need oil but we don’t need Deepwater Gulf oil. We need to spend R&D money on renwables rather than subsidizing oil companies.
Oh, by the way Cap–an–trade worked to stop the acid rain (sulfur dioxide) problems in the Northeast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program and I’m sure it will improve the quality of our environment if only the defenders of tyranny would get out of the way.
On Thursday I flew over the north end of the Gulf oil gusher and along the wetlands west of the mouth of the Mississippi River. The oil was evident at sea and clots of various colors were evident in the bayous and estuaries. There is no good news in this event..complicated by the introduction thus far of more than 600,000 gallons of toxic dispersants prohibited under the federal mandates on oil and chemical pollution in CFR 33. For years the use of dispersants, intended only to hide, not fix, a spill have carried greater fines for use than for the spilled oil product itself. The impact on all living things in the water column will be exacerbated by the dispersants. Other catagories of prohibited additives are termed sorbents which attach to the oil products and cause them to sink…another action intended to deceive observers as to the extent of a spill with no curative affect. Government approval of the dispersants could open a legal out for BP by raising doubt as to proportionate harm done by the government promotion of chemical additives v. the oil itself. The combinant affects are unknown and government approval of use may lower BP financial risk. Really smart. The FWC meeting on the 19th spent a lot of time telling the public that Governor Crist (remember him; the guy with a nice haircut “formerly known as” a Republican, who originated the push for shallow near shore drilling right up until the highly predictable Gulf blowout?)was now doing everything he could along with the ever popular Secretary of FLDEP to halt any thought of more offshore drilling. Heartening discourse; however, history is replete with examples of why you should trust everything politicians and their experts tell you…just ask any Navajo or Hopi! No matter how bad the stuff I saw appeared, it should really turn out O.K. because The Gabber indicated it was no big deal. I’m amazed that at least three of our Council members did not personally have the whole thing cleaned up before I got there. They must have been busy with something important like using your tax money to help FLDEP and SWFWMD figure out how to escape accountability under proposed science based EPA numerical nutrient standards. Regardless of their words, council votes on non-permeable surfaces and the Nitrogen Consortium indicate several on Council seem to believe clean water is highly over rated. Was it Marie Antoinette who said “Let them drink sewage,” or something like that? All this writing has made me thirsty. Can’t decide if I should pour a glass of regular or high-test.
Aardvark
Cathy Sulustri of the Gulfport Gabber is incapable of writing accurately on subjects that do not affect her personally. She can move some readers with stories about what hurts her, or what makes her feel good but beyond that narrow scope she fails miserably, which is witnessed time and time again. Not unlike most of the City Council and their Rubber Stamp Committee on the Planning & Zoning board Ms. Hard Candy (Cathy Sulustri) is Lazy and or a Shallow thinker. I’m Not surprised that members of the Council were also on the P&Z Board prior to their sElection to Council and have brought that mindset and work ethic with them.
You should be aware of how the industry is segmenting information. They will say that a Major Blowout has not happened in the US for 41 years, as if the oceans recognize our national boundaries, but be aware that there were Oil covered beaches in Texas from a spill a thousand miles away around 1979-80. I noticed the oil when I flew over the Bay of Campeche on my way to Oaxaca and the Sierra Madre’s. Because the incident happened in Mexico it was hardly reported on in the US.
The use of surfactants in oil spills are not so well documented, and it begs the question, why not? The use in the Gulf now is no more that an experiment, calling on the Academy of Sciences to study the affects of Coexit on the microbial population.
It is obvious to me that they are trading some species for others in this Gulf Experiment and what I suspect is that the surfactants will add to the problem at a microbial level where the water will be unsafe for years. I also suspect that the food chain will be disturbed and cause food born illnesses beyond our scope. The Gulf will be turned into a huge oil well and the population will migrate to the northern states as the methane clathrates begin to dissolve. Darker, pigmented water raising the temperature, which will release methane and accelerate the Greenhouse effect exponentially. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/frozen-methane-from-the-gulf-oil-spill-to-climate-change.ars
Some look at who was called to help, I look at who was not.
Richard Camilli of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution told the committee that he and a colleague had offered to put together an instrument for BP that uses sound waves to measure underwater oil flow. He said BP was interested for reasons related to broken equipment, not the environmental consequences. Camilli said he got an e-mail from BP at 3 a.m. May 5 essentially giving the thumbs up, but at 1 p.m. the next day, BP sent a message putting the project on hold.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126975907
What to expect.
WEST FALMOUTH — Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist Chris Reddy rammed a plastic cylinder into the sticky mud of the Wild Harbor salt marsh and extracted 6 inches of muck. “Smell this,’’ he said, taking a whiff. There, faint but unmistakable, was the stench of oil. It’s been more than 40 years since the oil barge Florida ran aground on a foggy night in Buzzards Bay, spilling close to 200,000 gallons of fuel. Some of it is still there. At the time of the 1969 spill, lobsters, clams, and fish died by the thousands, but most people thought the harm would be temporary, reflecting what was then the conventional wisdom. Now, as the first tendrils of heavy oil from the leaking BP well begin to suffocate Louisiana marshes, Wild Harbor’s muck shows that damage can persist for decades in fragile marshes.
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/05/21/gulf_oil_spill_revives_capes_1969_nightmare/?rss_id=Top+Stories
An optimist is a poorly informed pessimist.
2iview
I concur on each point. Well said.
I recall in my memory banks something about Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela being constantly covered in oil from all the drilling there. And while that is not true now, it was in the twentys.
But I came across an interesting article on the oil industry regarding oil spills. You might find it interesting, it is not real long.
http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05032010.html