Notwithstanding the increased area of the slick, I still stand my comment above to the effect that this does not equate to ecological catastrophe.

As you say, Jim, we agree to disagree on what Greens actually like to see. Bear in mind I’m mainly talking about subconscious motivations, and of course am generalising grossly.

I have been an active member in the Victorian Greens for 6 years now, and I know no one in the party who would want to see the environment hurt just to win some more votes. In fact, I have sat through many a meeting where we lament at things that are happening (the double dealings of Peter G in the Labor Party for example), and we realise they such things increase out vote, but we actually verbalise how we would prefer it not to happen that way. And such feelings are heart felt.

We would rather not have seen Port Phillip Bay dredged, than to win some votes from angry locals; we would rather not see Gunns destroy more old growth forests in Tassie, than win some votes from concerned Tasmanians; we would rather not see a new uranium mine opened up, than win some votes by angry Labor voters, or locals whose health will be at risk. We would rather not see climate change and extremes in weather conditions, than win some votes from people as they see things changing….. the list is long and horrible. I really can assure you that we don’t want the West Australian coast line to suffer under an oil slick, just to say “I told you so, now vote for us”.

Of course, some suggest that if and when the Greens grow and become a major player on equal status with Labor and Libs, then the Greens will become more hardened and corrupt and willing to compromise for expediency. Some say that growth and influence will cause the Greens to attract the Peter G’s of the world: people who seem to have our ideals but who are happy to change once they are sitting in power with nice salaries. I still have hope for the Greens despite the history of other parties. The Greens have a rule: they do not accept politicial donations from any coporations. The Greens only accept donations from like minded groups that have no agenda to change the parties policies. And despite that financial “sacrifice” the Greens have replaced and outgrown the old Democrats (gaining more votes now than they did even in their hay-day).

If the Greens ever dump that rule about political donations, then I would get worried about them.

And I’m afraid I don’t have as high a conception of the Greens’ motivations as you. Vested interest is the main reason. In the end, they’re in the business of politics. Which scenario (miss vs hit) would result in the greater boost to their electoral stocks? Together with their penchant for apocalypse porn, I suspect there’s a dark corner in their heart of hearts that wouldn’t mind seeing the worst happen.

Liz45, I can’t work out what on earth you’re on about. ‘Move the proposed drill to a safer site’? The gas is where it is, so that’s where the gear to extract it has to be; no amount of government petitioning will change that. Why are you so exercised about this area in particular? Why not Bass Strait, or Brunei, or West Africa, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, or any other of the dozens of areas around the globe where offshore hydrocarbon extraction takes place, and has done for several decades? Sure, like everything else it’s a calculated risk, and whatever can reasonably be done to mitigate it should be. But are you seriously saying that all offshore oil and gas drilling should cease forthwith?

I imagine she hopes she is wrong too. The Greens would rather see this slick miss the coastline, than win a point.

Much more likely that the Senator was misled by one or more of the confounding factors suggested by AMSA. Or, more to the point, the Senator went looking for signs of the apocalypse and duly saw what she wanted to see.

The AMSA needs to stop spinning selectively cropped sat pics and start explaining what they’re doing with a few pretty obvious questions:

1. Why did the blowout preventers fail? Those who remember the heady days of Red Adair and offshore blowouts might wonder what changed to end all that. The answer is these high tech, ultra powerful wellhead valves that can shut off a well when the mud doctor stuffs up.

2. What are they doing to stop this happening again, particularly in the seriously deep water at Gorgon where plugging will be no six week exercise?

3. This was a brand new rig from a major operator. Did it perhaps also come with a brand new, inexperienced crew?

4. If so, how good was their well survey on an incomplete well? Do they actually know where the target well is, to hit and plug it? And what will you do when they fail?

5. At what point will the obvious fix of igniting the leaking well be considered?