It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


National Geographic: Oil-Spill Fears Subside at Rig-Explosion Site

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:15 PM
Hello everyone...

Doc Velocity posted an article about the Gulf Oil Spill being a hoax, which I began to suspect as I researched the material for my article on

Wouldn't ya know it... I discovered a smoking gun!...

I discovered a little mis-hap published 3 days after the Gulf Oil spill published by National Geographic that is every bit as reminessant as the 9-11 mishapps that originally popped up but later disappeared.

I thought everyone would enjoy getting a glimpse at this...

Oil-Spill Fears Subside at Rig-Explosion Site

Fears have lessened that the sinking of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon will cause a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,

according to the U.S. Coast Guard, which announced Friday that petroleum had stopped flowing from the seafloor drilling site

. But the incident provides new ammunition for environmentalists girding to fight U.S. government plans to expand offshore drilling.

With hopes for survivors fading, the Coast Guard continued to search Friday for 11 missing Deepwater Horizon crewmembers. Operated by the offshore-drilling company Transocean and leased by BP, the oil rig suffered an unexplained explosion Tuesday and burned until its sinking midday Thursday. The investigation into the incident could take weeks, Transocean said.

A remotely operated submersible is monitoring the deep-sea drilling site both for further oil leakage and for any risk that the Deepwater Horizon's debris might pose to nearby oil pipelines.

The initial Deepwater Horizon spill comprised about 200 barrels (8,400 gallons/31,800 liters) of oil, said Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Tom Atkeson on Friday. The spill caused a slick 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) wide and 8 miles (13 kilometers) long at the last flyover, Petty Officer Atkeson added.

That would make it a "minor" spill

, in the view of the U.S. federal response agencies. Spills greater than 2,381 barrels (100,000 gallons/380,000 liters) are characterized as major.

This accident occured on April 20. This article was published April 23rd... 3 days later!


I say we all go to the barn, grab out pitchforks, and storm Washington now!....

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
lmao!! and here you go with another article - a "LAUGH IN YOUR FACE' production!!

The Corporate Whistleblower Center Offers To Help Gulf Coast Fishing Industry & Property Owners From Massive Oil Spill

WOW - "Corporate WhisleBlowers" will help the victims... what is this article really telling us?...

[edit on 4-5-2010 by DarkspARCS]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

reply to post by DarkspARCS

wow, i hope you are right, for your sake

I see where you are coming from, and this also explains the events right from the start and the 3 hour delay?
Notice all those involved?

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:26 PM
Nice find.

That article is in direct contrdiction to every other headline. Yahoo says there's an oil slick 2k sq miles and is about to endanger the FL Keys.

But the article also says no one has found any oil on shore and that the cause of the sea turtles deaths are not clear being that no oil was found in or on their bodies.

It's not like Nat Geo is some alternative media outlet. So who knows bro...

[edit on 4-5-2010 by wylee]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:32 PM
The Coast Guard was wrong.

If you are going to cite one NG article then cite the follow-up article..

Oil Spill From Sunken Rig Site May Be Serious

The Coast Guard and BP thought they had it handled...they didn't.

BP also tried to BS about how much was being leaked until they realized they couldn't hide it..which also explains why NG initially thought the leak was minor and is what BP was telling people.

This from April 29th..
Oil spill off US coast is worse than we thought, BP admits

[edit on 4-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by maybereal11]

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:40 PM
yeah, soo thats just bad reporting. The reason Nat Geo, who is nothing more then entertainment magazine, 'thought" it was all good was because they were being told it was over. We are talking about a well 5000 ft down underwater, and then another 18k of digging, you would have to go down there and look at it to really know, which i assure you Nat Geo didnt. its simply a media cover up that is just to big to cover, like katrina. I feel you, there is def. something fishy, but i think its not fabrication, but the oposite, a lack of information. Look into haliburton, thoughs b@stards are always stinky to me.

posted on May, 4 2010 @ 02:53 PM
I just found this from the Washington Post by Ezra
hhmmmm now I'm starting to wonder

new topics

top topics


log in