LA/Gulf Coast bouncing back from this mess

Too much uncertainty.

We dont know the ecological ramifications and wont know for a year or two.

There might be tremendous food chain complications. The marshes might be too heavily coated in oil and die off.

Unless the levies are removed and the Mississippi is allowed to naturally redeposit sediments naturally we will get increased subsidence and nothing will change. The oil could add to the problems with the marsh, but until the river is allowed to rebuild sediments it won't matter.

well they'll never allow the river to go where it naturally wants to. If that was the case NOLA would be dry. But they need to stop dumping sediment into the gulf and use it in diversions for marsh restoration. They have started doing that.

I am just more concerned about the rest of the country's perception. We take 100% of the risk and get little in return comparative to other states with O&G revenue like Texas, Montana, New Mexico, etc.

What I really think will happen is that BP and Big oil are going to buy more politicians and further ingratiate themselves to the ones they already own. The politicians will beat their chest about evils of Big Oil pollution etc. while doing little if anything constructive.
A window dressing clean up will be attempted, maybe a little grass planted etc. Time will hide most of the oil. Louisiana marshes are left in a worse state than ever and coast erosion picks up steam. MS and FL beaches will be clean up cosmetically but there will be a persistent problem with tar washing up for years to come.
Hate to say it but this may be the nail in the coffin for the LA marsh system.
I apologize for being so pessimistic, however I fear this will be the eventual reality. I hope and pray it isnt.

quote:

---

Unless the levies are removed and the Mississippi is allowed to naturally redeposit sediments naturally we will get increased subsidence and nothing will change. The oil could add to the problems with the marsh, but until the river is allowed to rebuild sediments it won't matter.

---

Will not work any longer because not enough sediment is in the Mississippi like there use to be. You would have to remove the levies on the whole Miss which would never happen.

htownjeep, those states are just a few examples on who gets more oil and gas revenues than LA. We hold the highest % of offshore drilling in the US. We should get alot more revenues than we do. Texas has little risk of this happening in relation to Louisiana. It does have alot more onshore but not nearly the amount of offshore drilling and the deepest water drilling is down in places like the Mississippi Canyon. 100% of the risk statement was just for drama sake.

quote:

---

I think I'd blame trying to reroute the Miss. River more than I would O&G for the erosion.

---

Its 50-50 in my book and in some peer review publications. Most peer reviewed scientific journals place it 60-40 or 70-30 on oil companies.

GIS data says 11% of land loss alone is due to carving canals and channels alone. Leveeing the Mississippi River did not cause channels to be dug. Look at some aerial photographs of wetlands and see how many straight cut through expansive marshes there are.

Another big factor which contributes 25-36% of landloss rates is when they dug the channels they piled the sediment on the bank esssentially creating levees and blocking water flow. The land behind the spoil banks compacted naturally and sunk and forming shallow water areas. This practice has changed but it was done by oil companies (70's and 80's)none the less.

Another 2-5% can be accounted for that the land sits on pillows of oil. The rigs acts like a giant mosquito and sucks the oil out causing the land above to sink and fill the void. Much of Terrbonne basin landloss is due to this.

All these numbers can be supported by peer reviewed scientific papers.

Levees on the Mississippi is also a large factor too and no denying that. But many assume the oil industry has no impact and that is simply not true.

they get 50% of the royalty money from mining and oil on federal lands, we get squat in comparison and the pipelines cut through our marshes adding to coastal erosion. That simple enough for you?

quote:

---

that was over 600 miles away from TX

---

I was mostly bringing that up in regards to the size of the spill. Much larger than this current one. Texas didn't get much from it as you know, but it didn't have any impact on La. at all.

I'm not the enemy here. Just saying that all of this "whoa is me" attitude is getting old. Every part of the nation always has something wrong with it and certain obstacles. The same goes in the positive direction.