- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:13 pm to TH03
quote:
how exactly would it be the fault of the oil companies?
you can quantify the effect in 2 ways: direct removal which would be direct digging of channels and intrusion/erosion/habitat loss that was precipitated by the construction of those channels. the Houma Navigation Canal, Calcasieu Ship Channel, and MRGO are all large scale examples of what thousands of small oilfield canals have done to ecosystems. they create direct pathways for saltwater to kill off brackish and freshwater plant species, which held together the soil...they also introduce much higher energy (waves) and velocities (currents) of water to areas which used to be 'calm.' since those areas now have nothing holding their soil together, they erode and disappear. the low end of estimates from several studies of land loss caused by oil companies are in the range 10% of all land loss since 1930s or so. thats what is easily directly provable. high end estimates are up to several times larger.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:13 pm to TH03
Someone can correctly if i'm wrong, but in a nutshell, the lawsuit against the oil companies is regarding, in large part, the canals they created that criss-cross the wetlands (can be seen clearly on a New Orleans to Houston flight) that have increased in size over several decades due to wake, resulting in salt water intrusion. Broadly, oil companies are mandated by law to environmentally fix what they destroy. I don't think anyone can argue that these wetlands canals have contributed to coastal erosion. The murky part is putting a price tag on what oil companies' environmental responsibility is, since there are a multitude of factors contributing. The lawsuit basically says, "You owe us SOMETHING. We're not sure what yet you owe. But we need to get to the table because as of now, you're getting off scott-free."
ETA: post above mine probably says what i'm trying to say a little bit better.
ETA: post above mine probably says what i'm trying to say a little bit better.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:16 pm to man in the stadium
I would think that trying to move a large body of water in ways it does not want to be moved would have a much larger effect.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:17 pm to TH03
Larger, yes.
But to say they did not have a major effect is plain wrong IMO
But to say they did not have a major effect is plain wrong IMO
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:18 pm to jimbeam
true but you can't say it was only their fault
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:21 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
agreed. i thin the lawsuits were always aimed at creating settlements. if they would have went further, it could have been a circus if the oil companies would have said, "ok how much loss have we created and what's that cost us?"
the other principle which the suit referenced was the old legal idea (and i am no lawyer so i will butcher this) that a landowner/stakeholder upstream cannot implement changes on a landscape that would increase his downstream neighbor's flood risk (at least not without compensation). it was my understanding the levee board was going to try and argue that the o&g companies increased the flood levels seen by the levees through their alterations of the environment (through digging channels or through lack of maintenance) between the levees and the gulf.
the other principle which the suit referenced was the old legal idea (and i am no lawyer so i will butcher this) that a landowner/stakeholder upstream cannot implement changes on a landscape that would increase his downstream neighbor's flood risk (at least not without compensation). it was my understanding the levee board was going to try and argue that the o&g companies increased the flood levels seen by the levees through their alterations of the environment (through digging channels or through lack of maintenance) between the levees and the gulf.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:25 pm to man in the stadium
The lawsuit wasn't withdrawn, was it?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:29 pm to TH03
quote:
I would think that trying to move a large body of water in ways it does not want to be moved would have a much larger effect.
no doubt. i think O&G companies are only fractionally to blame. i dont think anyone, including the legal proceedings claimed they were solely to blame.
to be honest, i really dont have an opinion on the lawsuit. i think it was a bit misguided, would have created legal nightmares and opened way more cans of worms than anticipated, but i also think the o&g companies have largely been held unaccountable for the changes (in whatever amount) they have caused.
to give an example of why the lawsuit was misguided and not well thought out:
currently, when the state wants to restore some area of marsh or a barrier island, chances are an oil company owns it. the oil companies, up to this point in history, have always been very accommodating to restoration efforts on their property (free right of access, right of ways, no legal hurdles for land rights etc.). should this suit have gone through, restoration would have gotten exponentially more expensive overnight because every project on private o&g land would be paying out the arse for land rights or to forcefully acquire access because every oil company would have gone and told the state CPRA to frick themselves in retaliation for the suit.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:31 pm to TH03
You're right you can't blame coastal land loss solely on the oil companies, but their digging of canals and pipelines have not helped, and have sped up the natural coastal erosion processes already taking place.
Basically what happens is they create fresh water intrusions carrying a lot of nutrients from fertilizer run off. The nutrient rich fresh water causes marsh grasses to have shorter roots and weakens there protection from storm surge. Then you also have salt water intruding with fresh that kills fresh water plants and essentially having the same effect. There really seems to be no correct way to fix it right now.
As for the law suit, it is looking to hold the oil companies responsible for damages they have caused. When they are permitted to dig they are legally responsible for mitigating their damage up to the ecological value of the wetland, meaning it's not just and acre for acre mitigation. Up to now a lot of oil companies have not been doing that.
I'm not a lawyer, so some of my info could be a little off. but I do have a good bit of background in environmental regulations.
Basically what happens is they create fresh water intrusions carrying a lot of nutrients from fertilizer run off. The nutrient rich fresh water causes marsh grasses to have shorter roots and weakens there protection from storm surge. Then you also have salt water intruding with fresh that kills fresh water plants and essentially having the same effect. There really seems to be no correct way to fix it right now.
As for the law suit, it is looking to hold the oil companies responsible for damages they have caused. When they are permitted to dig they are legally responsible for mitigating their damage up to the ecological value of the wetland, meaning it's not just and acre for acre mitigation. Up to now a lot of oil companies have not been doing that.
I'm not a lawyer, so some of my info could be a little off. but I do have a good bit of background in environmental regulations.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:36 pm to man in the stadium
Serious question: If oil and gas companies are fractionally to blame, how can a lawsuit be misguided in principle? I admit that i'm a layperson on the subject, but I've supported the lawsuit in a broad sense. One of the arguments I've heard from opponents of the suit is that oil companies will desert Louisiana in retaliation. But a) that sounds like more bark than bite (if Louisiana is where the product is) and b) is that threat of relocation really grounds for taking it up the tailpipe from these guys?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:41 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
O&G companies will not desert Louisiana as long as there is oil and gas here. That is the biggest argument against the suit though, and the main reason why people are against it.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:46 pm to cosmicdingo
Nature gonna do what nature gonna do. Eventually, the Mississippi going to change course because, you guessed it, nature gonna do what nature gonna do. When this happens, the coastline is going to be tremendously impacted because....nature gonna do what nature gonna do.
There's no stopping it.
There's no stopping it.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:48 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
maybe misguided was wrong word. i think that from the highest levels to the lowest levels, nobody thought about all the implications or talked to each other before hand. Barry (SLFPA E) claims to have alerted Graves (CPRA) before the suit was filed, but its clear form the rushed nature that the two agencies never had detailed talks about all the cans of worms they would open, as i described in a previous post. they should have at least had a serious joint plan of action and accompanying legislation to address to future hurdles they were creating for themselves by filing the suit. i also dont understand why they couldnt use state AD rather than private lawyers (but i am no politician or lawyer). also, should it have gone to trial, i dont even think the top scientists could pinpoint an exact value for land loss or the amount of mitigation required for that loss. it would be a very broad range at best. all these factors contributed to make it look like a money grab. they should have had all their ducks in a row first, then filed.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:48 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
Another big catch is yes the oil companies benefited from the canals but so did the state and any other royalty holder, laborer, supplier,banker and so down the line. Where do you stop when looking for someone to pay for this? Once this can gets opened you will nevet put all the worms back. Trying to"save" NO instead of building a port somewhere between Natchez and Houma 125 years ago would have avoided all this but was not politicaly possible at the time. I am sure our current leadership will do nothing or try to kick it down the road a while to avoid doing anything or offending anyone.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:52 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
they should have had all their ducks in a row first, then filed.
This couldn't be more true. I support the lawsuit in principle, but they just seemed so not ready for what they were getting into with it. They went about it wrong IMO
Posted on 5/28/14 at 8:16 pm to cave canem
Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. We can't go back a couple of centuries and redo what's been done.
But I completely agree, and fear, that the can will be kicked down the road far enough to where the powers-that-be of today can pass along a bigger problem to the leaders of the future. I mean, i'm 39 and I've been hearing about coastal erosion since I can remember. People much older than me can probably say the same. Yet it seems like we're always in the midst of "studies" and nothing much seems to get done.
But I completely agree, and fear, that the can will be kicked down the road far enough to where the powers-that-be of today can pass along a bigger problem to the leaders of the future. I mean, i'm 39 and I've been hearing about coastal erosion since I can remember. People much older than me can probably say the same. Yet it seems like we're always in the midst of "studies" and nothing much seems to get done.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 10:37 pm to Fontainebleau Dr.
the main problem is the greenland ice melt. you cant stop that and it will raise all the sea levels. once the sea levels raise you really cant rebuild something that is under water.
Posted on 5/29/14 at 8:01 am to Fontainebleau Dr.
quote:
So this state is tasked with the challenge of controlling nature in perpetuity, it seems. I'm pretty sure that never ends well.
One day the Old River Control Structure will fail, and the Mississippi River will take the most direct route to the Gulf.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News