NYTimes.com reporting totally contradicts NYTimes editorial from last week.

Do they not think we remember anything we read?

From an article on NYTimes.com today:

While BP tries various short-term efforts to plug a leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, the company is preparing to drill a relief well as a backup plan. BP hopes to drill that well diagonally to intersect the original one below the seabed and then flood it with mud and concrete to stop the uncontrolled flow.

Although the idea sounds simple, the experience with a similar spill last year near Australia shows just how difficult it can be to execute the maneuver.

But hey, wait a minute! "A similar spill last year"??  Like I blogged the other day, a NYTimes editorial from April 28, 2010 claimed:

The Gulf of Mexico accounts for one-third of America’s domestic oil production and one-fourth of its natural gas. There are 90 exploratory rigs working there and about 3,500 oil-producing platforms. Despite all of that activity, the federal Minerals Management Service says there have been no major spills — defined as 1,000 barrels or more — in the last 15 years, a period that includes Hurricane Katrina. In that context, the blowout — while tragic and destructive — can be seen as a freak occurrence.

A freak occurrence that happened just last year in Australia?

Oh and it's such a freak occurrence that just moments ago, I saw reported that a crude oil tanker has exploded in the Malacca Strait! (The Malacca Straight is in Malaysia, I believe.)

It's true, I can't blame the NYTimes for the tanker explosion, but I can blame them for cherry-picking the facts to fit their opinion that pursuit of oil should be continued. And phooey on fate for raining on their parade! Poor NYTimes! It's like they're under attack.

Maybe they are! (Look out for those exploding manhole covers NYTimes reporters!!)

Posted via web from thepete's posterous