Tar Balls

In his first posting of the week on the Southeast Texas Political Review, Philip R. Klein writes (I use the term loosely):

This past week is another example of how things can get out of control - being the same thing the media accuses this web site of doing from time to time. Which is? Well - this past week there were reports that there were tar balls on the beach. And then with that report government sprung into action. And then government said - it was the BP spill.

And then the media went really gaga until about 24 hours later when......oh......no......it was not BP oil and it was really just regular seepage from oil seeping into the ocean from the ocean floor.

And we all giggle.

No - no BP oil on Texas soil kids. Just natural leakage ..... and as we all giggle a little because of the media gaga - we step back and take a look at why?

Compare Philip's version with reality (emphasis is mine):

HOUSTON July 9 (Reuters) - Additional testing on tar balls that began appearing on Texas beaches over the July 4 holiday indicates only some of the crude may be linked to BP Plc's (BP.L: Quote) (BP.N: Quote) blown-out Macondo oil well, a state official said on Friday.

[edit]

Some tar balls collected in Jefferson County closer to the Texas/Louisiana border continued to match oil from the BP well, Suydam said.

According to statements made by The US Coast Guard and Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson during a press conference in Galveston yesterday, authorities are still not sure where these spurious tar balls  originated:

The U.S. Coast Guard and Patterson said definitive test results should be back Monday or Tuesday indicating the source of the two different substances found along Texas' coasts since July 3 — whether all or some of it came from the BP spill.

Over the last week, conflicting test results from the two labs — one in Louisiana, the other in Connecticut — have created confusion as to how much of the Texas samples is from the BP spill. Testing produces an oil fingerprint, determining where it's from, Brahm said.

Typically, Klein misrepresents the facts: 

No - no BP oil on Texas soil kids. Just natural leakage ..... and as we all giggle a little because of the media gaga - we step back and take a look at why?

We want you to remember what has happened to BP. Remember BP and its executives supported the Obama administration. Not only did they support them during the campaign - they (and get this) were the ones that signed off on the permit to drill the well.

Thus.....meaning?

Well nothing. You see BP - who provides millions of dollars (now billions) to the gulf coast area in Jobs has been shut down. As well - with the hyper sensitivity - Obama shuts down all drilling putting more people on the public unemployment line.

The Obama Administration followed the National Energy Policy, enacted as the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Congressional Budget Office determined that the Act would increase direct spending by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 period. The Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 period and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 period. 

At the same time in 2005, the Minerals Management Service of the US Department of Interior surrendered regulatory responsibilities to the oil industry, arguing they were in the best position to determine the environmental impacts of their operations. As an example, environmental impact statements were no longer required for deepwater drilling, 

The final domino fell into place in 2008, when the Bush administration removed the deep-water drilling moratorium in the eastern Gulf of Mexico established in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush.

The real factors that contributed to this disaster are apparently more complex than Klein's limited comprehension skills can grasp. Neither the Obama or Bush Administrations had anything to do with BP's decision to replace the heavy drilling fluid with lighter seawater, which is what ultimately caused the blowout.

Instead, Philip R. Klein simplistically argues that this has to do with campaign contributions without explaining why. I suspect it's something that PRK accepted from the internets without verification.