Visualizing the Oil Spill

If It Was My Home is a mapping tool for visualizing the oil spill. Viewers can “relocate” the spill over their own location to see how big it is. For example, if centered in New York City, the spill would currently blanket the east coast from about Philadelphia to Boston. (HT: FP Passport)[%comments]

Frank Truecost

Why do you and most media persist in calling this a "spill?" A spill is something that was previously contained, as in a cup, or a tanker. This is a gusher, a geyser, an out-of-control blow-out. Please call it that. Otherwise you are thoughtlessly or cowardly capitulating to what most of the other thoughtless or cowardly media is doing. I read you because you think independently and don't usually repeat the standard, unquestioned and surprisingly often incorrect media line.


If it WERE My Home.

Ben D

Apparently the creators never graduated from grammar school.


Well, living in Texas makes an otherwise heinous spill look like a fairly easy commute.

Also, @Frank Truecost: Is "spill" too polite for you, or not polite enough? I'd vote for "unmitigated and sloppy disaster," myself.

Paul Revere
Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes
Monday, June 21, 2010

RELATED: States Need To Launch Criminal Investigation Into BP, Federal Government's Role In Oil Spill
Following the rise of sufficient indicators that BP knew about the conditions of its Gulf oil assets prior to the April 20 leak & explosion- and may have allowed the incident to occur, Alex Jones has called for criminal investigations of key figures at BP, inside the White House administration and elsewhere.
Why did current CEO of BP Tony Hayward dump approximately one-third of his BP stocks before the oil crisis? Why did Goldman Sachs dump a hefty 44% of its BP stock prior to, particularly given that Peter Sutherland was formerly CEO of both BP and Goldman Sachs at the same time? What are the odds that former Vice-President Dick Cheney's firm Halliburton would purchase a company which "focuses on oil spill prevention and blowout response," just weeks before the so-called 'biggest environmental crisis' of all time would strike?
These telling transactions at the highest levels of business, politics and finance coincidence very meaningfully with the multiple accounts from inside BP, the oil platforms in the Gulf, and the related lawyers that demonstrate a willful negligence towards the conditions of the oil assets which would later explode and spill
. These telling transactions at the highest levels of business, politics and finance coincidence very meaningfully with the multiple accounts from inside BP. Thus, Alex Jones is urging activists and concerned citizens everywhere to take a proactive approach to dealing with the looming consequences of the massive oil leak that started 62 long days ago. He suggests calling on Governors and State Legislators !




Hey the spill covers Houston and East Texas. Which, come to think of it, might be an improvement this time of year.

But serious, this is a pointless exercise. The spill on the Gulf is a couple millimeters thick. If it were on land, it would cover a couple acres a few feet deep. Not nice, but not the catastrophe it is at see.

Dear #1 above -- speaking of gushers...


It's roughly the size of Ohio...


For heaven's sake, the site FAQ even mentions the was/were thing. I think they regard it as a little beside the point.


At last, a solution to the oil spill that puts money in people's pockets!
Great idea guys!

Jon Jost

On the other hand an article in the last day claimed that the entire "spill" would not fill the sports dome in New Orleans. Which to me is clearly some kind of propaganda being spit forth by hidden powers. #1 is correct, the continued usage of the word "spill" is itself a kind of spin, and one which falsifies as spin is supposed to do. This is a deluge in the Biblical sense, it is a hemorrhage of the earth's guts into the sea, it is a catastrophe, a scourge.. It is not "a spill."


Frank #1: What is going on may legitimately be called a spill. We drilled into the ocean bed to reach the reservoir and then the expectation was that the oil coming out will be contained within the pipes and brought to the shore in a tanker. Since that expectation has not been met, the oil is now spilling into the ocean. A geyser or gusher does not describe it precisely because we do not expect containment in these cases. However, your expression,
"out of control blowout" is probably the most decsriptive term I have heard.


This just fuels what's already a big problem with our oil policy. If this were on land the well would have been much safer. The odds of a catastrophe of this magnitude in a land-based rig are minuscule. But since we think "Oh no, this can't happen by MY home." We push the drilling farther and farther out to locations where it is least understood and the most dangerous.


"Out of control blowout" is repetitive. All blowouts are out of control by definition. It is a blowout, no more no less.

Of course when you describe it as a blowout you ought to mention that it is a massive one, and worse, the blowout is happening a mile under the surface of the sea. Those two qualifiers actually impart information about why this is such a major problem.

Eric M. Jones

I think it is important to be able to visualize how much oil we are talking about. It is roughly a square mile ankle deep.

A friend of mine spells out the problem: UPS or Fedex are well run businesses with great expertise. But if you ask them to build an interstate highway...the job would never get done. Same with BP.

I stand by my earlier pronunciamento that preserving the viability of the well is what BP want to do...and the right way to approach the problem is :

1) Get LeTourneau to build a big mechanical device to crimp the well pipe flat. This would have taken them a week.

2) Drop a bunker buster desigbned for hundreds of feet penetration to crimp the pipe. Now the standard complaint is "But we don't know what would happen...!" My standard reply is...Find out what would be likely by first testing on any number of abandoned well. Several could be used in succession.

3) Nuke it. The Russians have done this. Testing on a well, as above, can be done. No, neither the oil nor the shrimp would become radioactive.

It is BP's attempts at trying something they only vaguely understand, trying to preserve the viability of the well, that continues the disaster.


Stone Caster

Nice interactive map. If you haven't heard of GIS software and its applications, it's time to get on the bus.


Someone wrote about a similar tool by Paul Rademacher on the Environmental Defense Fund's Coastal Louisiana blog, Restoration and Resilience:

John Galt

This is stupid unless your town in under water.

Joshua Northey

The funny thing is that actually makes the spill seem smaller to me. I have lived in 3 towns 2 hours apart and it doesn't even cover all three. None of this is nearly as important as the media is making it out to be anyway. There are much larger issues on the US plate.


Eric @14 is correct. They are trying to contain the leak instead of destroying the point of exit. Surely the navy has the munititions to block the well head. Let's blow this thing and get on with the clean up. They can drill a new hole later and do it properly next time.

Rummy Dummy

Placed the disaster over LA. Still didn't cover enough.

I'm no expert, but detonation probably carries the high risk of breaking any containment and greatly increasing the spread of oil. And how does denoting a nuclear device NOT irradiate everything within an enormous radius? BTW, if the Russians do something, that's a fairly large black mark against from the start (see: Aral Sea)