Well, so far, it seems to me that the strongest sensationalist/emotional arguments in the article are also the weakest links.
The article outlines some methane explosion research by a Gregory Ryskin. Looking at the links, you'll see that what Ryskin has proposed is a theory, one which hasn't had much testing or evaluation as of yet.
For instance, see here:
Erupting Seas : "This spectacular story will be tested against the geologic record' which tells me that while Ryskin may have a compelling theory, there isn't much science behind it yet to prove it up.
Completely un-confirmed in the article is this line about the warning signs of the impending disaster: "All three warning signs are documented to be occurring in the Gulf."
This line is the line that provides all of the dramatic tension for the article. The article author paints this increasingly dim picture of mass extinction, and all of the warning signs. Then he drops this little line in that makes everyone reading say to themselves: "OMFG! It could happen RIGHT NOW!" But, unlike most of the claims in the article that are sourced, this claim has no attribution. The author points to no news article, scientific journal, or any other publication that actually says that "all three warning signs" are occurring. That makes it very suspect to me. We don't know if these alleged warning signs are actually present, or to what extent, if they are.
The methane levels in the gulf are also exaggerated, as well as oxygen depletion numbers. The article author focuses on the largest number from his quoted article, while dismissing entirely the more moderate tone of his source.
""At some locations, we saw depletions of up to 30 percent of oxygen based on its natural concentration in the waters. At other places, we saw no depletion of oxygen in the waters. We need to determine why that is."
Another unattributed claim "Areas of dead zones devoid of oxygen are driving species of fish into foreign waters, killing plankton and other tiny sea life that are the foundation for the entire food chain, and polluting the air with cancer-causing chemicals and poisonous rainfalls." i see no mention of these events in the authors sources.
In addition, this "huge gash" that the article talks about that NOAA's Thomas Jefferson found seems to not be in the ships actual report:
http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions..._responsemissionreport_june3_11_2010final.pdf
So, throw in exaggerated, invented, and unattributed claims. Throw in a dash of conspiracy theory ("The government won't let us in. What are they HIDING..hmm?"), throw in a sensationalist doomsday predition/opinion, and it smells of yellow journalism to me.