Now that's a howler.
Subsidence "associated" with wetlands losses caused by hydrocarbon extraction. Pretty slick way of saying "maybe." At least the author had the intellectual honesty to admit that others believe that natural geological processes might be the cause of subsidence and therefore also responsible for part of the loss of wetlands.
The head of the UNO delta plain geology group, who was my expert witness, will have a hell of a laugh when I show him this piece. And yeah, he's a Green, has a ponytail and everything.
The USGS's official position, as far as I know it to be, is that the subsidence is caused by natural geological processes, though it admits that wetlands loss is caused in part by human activity, which is the truth. Morton is off the reservation, I think.
And how the oil-drilling "associated" subsidence led to wetlands loss is not clear though the topside oil drilling obviously did.
But how exactly did this dynamic, which is both natural and man made, lead to NO's flooding in the face of a 145mph hit? If pristine wetlands and no geologically induced subsidence would have reduced K's landfall speed to 135 mph, would the levees have failed?
I don't think it would have made any difference. But that is only my opinion.
And about those cypress trees logged 80 years ago: good grief, it was a diffferent age then. |
