King, North TX Posted June 19, 2010 Author Posted June 19, 2010 What happens when these clouds of heavy gases come ashore and kill and entire town...? Wouldn't burning it create cloud banks of CO2? *I repeat, the total devastation of this much oil in the Gulf is no where near realized.
jackson33 Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 King; No, CO2 the primary gas after burning this oil quickly disperses into the atmosphere, does not form into clouds and in short distance will drop to whatever area concentration might be, somewhere under .04 % (400 parts per million). While some insects in the immediate area might be killed, animals including humans can easily handle 5.% (50Kp/m), which often happens in enclosed builds, major highways (lack of wind/heavy truck/auto traffic) even surpassed on occasions in submarines. Methane, can get involved with moisture, forming with clouds and causing what's called 'acid rain', but that's a different issue. Carbon dioxide is colorless. At low concentrations, the gas is odorless. At higher concentrations it has a sharp, acidic odor. It will act as an asphyxiant and an irritant. When inhaled at concentrations much higher than usual atmospheric levels, it can produce a sour taste in the mouth and a stinging sensation in the nose and throat. These effects result from the gas dissolving in the mucous membranes and saliva, forming a weak solution of carbonic acid. This sensation can also occur during an attempt to stifle a burp after drinking a carbonated beverage. Amounts above 5,000 ppm are considered very unhealthy, and those above about 50,000 ppm (equal to 5% by volume) are considered dangerous to animal life.[7][/Quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide *I repeat, the total devastation of this much oil in the Gulf is no where near realized.[/Quote] We really have no idea what to expect, since we have no idea how long this leak will continue or what amount of oil is leaking. I sincerely believe a great deal more could have been done (clean up & just starting to happen), and possible 99% of the spilled oil will dissipate (Breakdown), be skimmed or separated from the seawater, before getting (guess) 30 miles from the leak site. Much of what's going on, has been media driven, politically exploited and exaggerated, (IN MY OPINION).
King, North TX Posted June 20, 2010 Author Posted June 20, 2010 King; No, CO2 the primary gas after burning this oil quickly disperses into the atmosphere, does not form into clouds and in short distance will drop to whatever area concentration might be, somewhere under .04 % (400 parts per million). While some insects in the immediate area might be killed, animals including humans can easily handle 5.% (50Kp/m), which often happens in enclosed builds, major highways (lack of wind/heavy truck/auto traffic) even surpassed on occasions in submarines. Methane, can get involved with moisture, forming with clouds and causing what's called 'acid rain', but that's a different issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide We really have no idea what to expect, since we have no idea how long this leak will continue or what amount of oil is leaking. I sincerely believe a great deal more could have been done (clean up & just starting to happen), and possible 99% of the spilled oil will dissipate (Breakdown), be skimmed or separated from the seawater, before getting (guess) 30 miles from the leak site. Much of what's going on, has been media driven, politically exploited and exaggerated, (IN MY OPINION). Thanks for the CO2 info. --- However, I doubt so very seriously that "99%" of the spilled crude is going to be removed. The subsurface use of dispersants has insured that a large fraction of the oil will remain under the surface, beyond the reach of surface skimmers. I think this spill is iceberg-like, in that we are only seeing the visible tip of the devastation. It will take months before we begin seeing the rest of the damage.
jackson33 Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 I think this spill is iceberg-like, in that we are only seeing the visible tip of the devastation. It will take months before we begin seeing the rest of the damage.[/Quote] King; I personally believe, most problems for potential clean up could and should have been avoided if addressed, from the second the Titanic (Rig) sank (it wasn't suppose to happen). I'll leave who to blame for this, down in politics but a great deal of work has been done on this potential and actual problem/experience, elsewhere around the World. As for the magnitude, yes if live on the Gulf Coast and this leak continues and the massive skimming efforts planned don't work as I expect them to work (both surface and at various depths (plumes), it's going to be tough. The following should relief some of your worries or frustrations; Crude oil and natural gas seeps naturally out of fissures in the ocean seabed and eroding sedimentary rock. These seeps are natural springs where liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons leak out of the ground (like springs that ooze oil and gas instead of water). Whereas freshwater springs are fed by underground pools of water, oil and gas seeps are fed by natural underground accumulations of oil and natural gas (see USGS illustration). Natural oil seeps are used in identifying potential petroleum reserves. As pointed out by the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "natural oil seeps contribute the highest amount of oil to the marine environment, accounting for 46 per cent of the annual load to the world's oceans. -- Although they are entirely natural, these seeps significantly alter the nature of nearby marine environments. For this reason, they serve as natural laboratories where researchers can learn how marine organisms adapt over generations of chemical exposure. Seeps illustrate how dramatically animal and plant population levels can change with exposure to ocean petroleum". NOAA describe a natural seepage area in California: "One of the best-known areas where this happens is Coal Oil Point along the California Coast near Santa Barbara. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of crude oil is released naturally from the ocean bottom every day just a few miles offshore from this beach". [/Quote] http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/natural-sources.htm To put this into some kind of perspective, 3000g/d = 26,071 Barrels/year off the Santa Barbara Coast and I'm not aware of anything being done to clean up anything. A 2003 study by the National Research Council and a 2009 report by oil spill expert Dagmar Schmidt Etkin indicate that between 560,000 and 1,400,000 barrels per year (1,534 to 3,835 barrels per day) seep into the Gulf of Mexico from natural sources. Dozens of natural seeps have been identified off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, some in the region of the Deepwater Horizon site. [/Quote] http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552 Two points; Oil seeps into Sea/Ocean waters all the time, probably a great deal more before humans started relieving pressures. Oil naturally dissolves/breakdown into other elements over time and has been doing so since the oceans formed, evaporates into the atmosphere or becomes food. Basic elements of sea water; H2O 53.6 Cl− 0.546 Na+ 0.469 Mg2+ 0.0528 SO2−4 0.0282 Ca2+ 0.0103 K+ 0.0102 CT 0.00206 Br− 0.000844 BT 0.000416 Sr2+ 0.000091 F− 0.000068 Oil is food; http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-05/926359264.Mi.r.html
King, North TX Posted June 21, 2010 Author Posted June 21, 2010 King; I personally believe, most problems for potential clean up could and should have been avoided if addressed, from the second the Titanic (Rig) sank (it wasn't suppose to happen). I'll leave who to blame for this, down in politics but a great deal of work has been done on this potential and actual problem/experience, elsewhere around the World. As for the magnitude, yes if live on the Gulf Coast and this leak continues and the massive skimming efforts planned don't work as I expect them to work (both surface and at various depths (plumes), it's going to be tough. The following should relief some of your worries or frustrations; http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/natural-sources.htm To put this into some kind of perspective, 3000g/d = 26,071 Barrels/year off the Santa Barbara Coast and I'm not aware of anything being done to clean up anything. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6552 Two points; Oil seeps into Sea/Ocean waters all the time, probably a great deal more before humans started relieving pressures. Oil naturally dissolves/breakdown into other elements over time and has been doing so since the oceans formed, evaporates into the atmosphere or becomes food. Basic elements of sea water; H2O 53.6 Cl− 0.546 Na+ 0.469 Mg2+ 0.0528 SO2−4 0.0282 Ca2+ 0.0103 K+ 0.0102 CT 0.00206 Br− 0.000844 BT 0.000416 Sr2+ 0.000091 F− 0.000068 Oil is food; http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-05/926359264.Mi.r.html GREAT info! That said, I remain both frustrated and frightened. While I'll concede that crude oil is a naturally occurring substance, that has been in the environment long before we have, meaning that life has probably learned to deal with 'some' amounts of it. Like everything else...in moderate amounts, life can deal, evolve, and cope. This has not EVER been a seep. We've got a gusher of the top magnitude. This disaster could, and likely WILL overwhelm nature's abilities to deal with small or moderate amounts of crude. The simple fact that we DO have animals washing up dead, or covered in oil as evidence of this. And this is the damage we 'see'... The dispersants used have left LOTS of the oil beneath the surface- out of sight out of mind. However, the largest migration happens each night, as deep-water organisms ascend to feed. There are now several subsurface layers of oil clouds blocking this movement, covering over HUNDREDS of square miles. We have no idea what the impact result even is to these migrations. I know you know this, but I am going to say it anyway. "Evolution is a SLOW process." Extinctions happen when disasters overwhelm the living thing's ability to cope with the environmental changes. Until we can count the number of dead stuff on the bottom of the Gulf, I don't think we'll truly understand the whole impact here. Now, if anyone has genetically engineered or developed crude consuming krill...I think we might have a way out of this mess. On the other hand if the krill living in the Gulf now CAN'T deal with this much oil...we could be witnessing the death of a huge section of our marine environment. --- *So, how about we test each type of Gulf organism for maximum crude oil in their environment, before expiration... Enclose a habitat and start pouring in crude until everything is dead. Once everything is dead, we'll know how much the environment can't take. After that it is just math to see whether or not the Gulf will survive.
TheJack Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Insured enough - forget it. It will take many years and many $$$ of legal battles before an inssurance company will pay. It will take even longer to determine the exact event which caused the issue. BP and their contractors, the piping contractor, the piping manufacturer, the rig contractor and their contractors, forced majure just to name a few? How about a half-moon cuppling over the spill with a pipe to the surface fed through a hydrocarbon-water separator? Even if you can't separate in the field, dump the emulsion into oil carriers and separate on-shore. It may not capture all of the crude but surely it will significantly reduce the estimated 1.5M to 2.5M gallons per day pumped into the sea? Oh yeah, that's right - cost and blame. Who is to blame for the leak and who's cost is it to bare. IE, insurance companies and lawyers must first decide before the ecology, the environment and hence life, is saved. Arn't you just proud to be a human being in this day and age? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCrude is made up of mostly long-stringed hydrocarbon based molecules. Jackson33, I assume that you don't believe that a hydrocarbon based molecules can be broken down into other 'elements' ? That is, the ocean can't perform some fusion/fission miracle to convert carbon atoms into sodium, or hydrogen atoms into magnesium? You put into perspective that 26,000 barrels per year are seeping from into the Santa Barbara coast. Rememer, this current spill is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per DAY ... not per year! Thats up to 842 times the magnitude of the Santa Barbara leak, alone. How can crude seapage be considered food? If anything, I would consider a nitrate based substance to be potential plant (or algae) food further providing potential food for other organisms but not CxHy (plus benzines, 'ols' and the like) based molecues. Are you suggesting that I no longer need to purchase expensive food for my aquarium but instead, feed my plants and fish with a few mL's of engine oil per day?
jackson33 Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 This information is for you! I hope you find this extremely useful. OIL-EATING MICROBES and bioremediation is a tested and proven solution to clean up oil spills. Microbes and bioremediation have historically been used to clean many major oil spills worldwide, both in the water AND on land. The 1990 Mega Borg oil tanker spill near Texas and the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska are examples of successful bioremediation using oil-eating microbes. This information-packed list contains a diverse choice of the world's best bioremediation companies, including detailed information, media sources and all the contact info you'll need to bring OIL-EATING MICROBE TECHNOLOGY to your coastlines.[/Quote] http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124237440942194 King; This was demonstrated on a Huckabee show a couple weeks ago and I believe the Company Representative said they had 1.4 million TONS available, had submitted it to the Administration two months and has received no reply. The impressive thing to me, was it not only dissolved the crude, but other toxic's in sea water and DID NOT need to be removed. Hay, hair and other absorbers of oil, would be best used by removing and properly handling the waste product. I'm not sure what percentages of weights dissolved are to the weights of the product, or how much could be added to the ON HAND 1.4M tons or the time element, but normally it's at least twice as much and 2.8M tons of oil is a BUNCH (134 Million Barrels, if my math is correct). Since this is in "News", I believe the US Legal System/Political Advantage/Media, is driven by making things seem bigger than they really are. I'll concede this is no small matter, but trial lawyers do stand to make billions on this and reporting has long got out of hand. I understand your thoughts on anecdotal loss of life and really don't want to expand this discussion, however life on the earth or in the oceans is always subject to virus/germ or other adverse infestation. Humans of course die off each year by the millions around the world from Influenza Virus alone, every so often swarms of microbes roam the oceans killing much of life and any plants life is subject to being infected by some plant decease. Oh yeah, that's right - cost and blame. Who is to blame for the leak and who's cost is it to bare. IE, insurance companies and lawyers must first decide before the ecology, the environment and hence life, is saved. Arn't you just proud to be a human being in this day and age? [/Quote] Jack; I'd be more than happy to argue your points down in politics (couple threads already open), which are your arguments. Some of this I did address in the above post to King, and frankly I am *very* proud of "humans, this day and age". Oop's, just noticed you can't, their policy, but reply and I'll help you get the 30 needed post... Administration; This was not a programmed event, but AFAIC some previous discussions have just been validated and I feel 'The Jack', would fit in well here.
truedeity Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I did end up getting a letter back from the white house BTW.
mooeypoo Posted June 23, 2010 Posted June 23, 2010 I did end up getting a letter back from the white house BTW. Did they accept your idea?
King, North TX Posted June 27, 2010 Author Posted June 27, 2010 (edited) http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124237440942194 King; This was demonstrated on a Huckabee show a couple weeks ago and I believe the Company Representative said they had 1.4 million TONS available, had submitted it to the Administration two months and has received no reply. The impressive thing to me, was it not only dissolved the crude, but other toxic's in sea water and DID NOT need to be removed. Hay, hair and other absorbers of oil, would be best used by removing and properly handling the waste product. I'm not sure what percentages of weights dissolved are to the weights of the product, or how much could be added to the ON HAND 1.4M tons or the time element, but normally it's at least twice as much and 2.8M tons of oil is a BUNCH (134 Million Barrels, if my math is correct). Since this is in "News", I believe the US Legal System/Political Advantage/Media, is driven by making things seem bigger than they really are. I'll concede this is no small matter, but trial lawyers do stand to make billions on this and reporting has long got out of hand. I understand your thoughts on anecdotal loss of life and really don't want to expand this discussion, however life on the earth or in the oceans is always subject to virus/germ or other adverse infestation. Humans of course die off each year by the millions around the world from Influenza Virus alone, every so often swarms of microbes roam the oceans killing much of life and any plants life is subject to being infected by some plant decease. ... While I appreciate oil eating microbes and all, but if they work, they aren't now 'working'. Sea life is dying, and we don't truly know in what numbers unless we could scan the Gulf floor with microscopes... Seriously, if we kill off the small deep dwelling ocean life on its nightly migration to the surface to feed by the existing 'plumes', this could mean a much much broader loss of life. Or at the very least a migration out of that water by life, creating a literal dead zone. What I am suggesting is that we have not yet seen the full scope of this disaster yet... --- *Questions: Why isn't this an 'all hand on deck' situation? Why aren't ALL the fishermen re-outfitting their boats to skim and or otherwise capture oil, and BP buying it back at punitively high rates? Why is anyone in America unemployed, when there is a big ass job to do and BP is willing to sign checks??? I DON'T understand why fishermen are sitting on their asses with their boats at dock, complain that their way of life is over... Edited June 27, 2010 by King, North TX
jackson33 Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 King; Quickly on the 'dead zone', here is a list of recorded forest fires around the world. While going over the US list keep in mind, each square mile is equal to 640 acres and those that burned 3M acres involved about 4,688 square miles. I've listed a couple of larger ones in Africa. To put this into perspective, the entire State of Maryland USA, is just short of 10,000 Sq. miles and there are 8 smaller States than Maryland. 1982 and 1983 - Massive forest fires in Kalimantan and East Sumatra. 36,000 km2 (14,000 sq mi) of forest burned down. There are other forest fires in Java and Sulawesi on the same year. In 1987, 1991 and 1994, there were large scale forest fires in Kalimantan and East Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi in Indonesia. More than 3,300 km2 (1,300 sq mi) of forest were destroyed by forest fire. 1997 and 1998 - Jamal Narangnaha Nhelioua Lee, unprecedented forest fires in Kalimantan and East Sumatra. 97,000 km2 (37,000 sq mi) of forest were destroyed, more than 2.6 gigatonnes of CO2 was released to the atmosphere. The underground smouldering fire on the peat bogs continue to burn and ignite new forest fire each year during dry season. There are other forest fires in Java and Sulawesi on the same year.[/Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires Keep in mind, I'm not trying to justify any wrong doing, by Government or Corporations or any combination of the two, in this one case, but I'd bet many of these fires, were likely started by one human, whether accidental or intentional. Seriously, if we kill off the small deep dwelling ocean life on its nightly migration to the surface to feed by the existing 'plumes', this could mean a much much broader loss of life. Or at the very least a migration out of that water by life, creating a literal dead zone. What I am suggesting is that we have not yet seen the full scope of this disaster yet...[/Quote] Sure and it's not pleasant to watch, or hear about these things, but try and keep it in proportion to all other events that have happened and will happen on a daily basis around the world. Can you imagine the probable loss of animal/human/plant life with in the perimeters of a 37,000 square mile fire. On the real effects of the diluted plumes and/or surface areas, outside the spill area itself, its probably not that serious to sea life, that has in all likelihood, moved on or already died off. Of course that's my opinion. Food for thought; This drilling and blowout was 5000 foot below sea level and 40 miles from massive infrastructure to handle emergencies. Mobile's (JackII and using the same Transocean Drilling Rig -Horizon-, used by BP here) was nearly 200 miles from shore, the hole 7000 foot below sea level. To drill the test well, called "Jack 2," Chevron and two other companies had to plunge 7,000 feet below the warm surface waters of the Gulf, and then pierce several miles below the sea floor for a total depth of 28,175 feet. Nearly 150 years ago, when petroleum first intruded on the era of whale oil and candles, the first well in Titusville, Pa. was only 69 feet deep. Chevron estimates that the 300-square-mile region surrounding Jack 2 could hold between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas.[/Quote] http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p03s02-usec.html *Questions: Why isn't this an 'all hand on deck' situation? Why aren't ALL the fishermen re-outfitting their boats to skim and or otherwise capture oil, and BP buying it back at punitively high rates? Why is anyone in America unemployed, when there is a big ass job to do and BP is willing to sign checks??? I DON'T understand why fishermen are sitting on their asses with their boats at dock, complain that their way of life is over...[/Quote] Your getting knee deep on the political issues involved, media and several 'what ifs'....While I have my own ideas on these issues, there are questions of the authorities involved, State/Federal/Corporation as this well is off shore and the 'blame game' began almost immediately after the 'Rig' sank, that in itself was not supposed to happen. I'll give you a couple legal points to ponder and let you figure out the answers; If a shrimper or any related field company, accepts a contract with BP or one of the Governments involved, recourse for both actual and PUNITIVE damages can and will get involved. (Punitive, are basically arbitrary punishment (liabilty/neglect) cost to the Business (in this case hundreds of sub-contractors) involved and often far exceed the actual damages, which can themselves be for generations to come (check out Tobacco Company law suits or lead/asbestos or today certain lawn mowers). There is really little incentive to assist in preventing what you may be involved in the prevention of. The fishermen or guess women (workers) in this, or more importantly the tens of thousands of workers laid off for lack of business (related fields, tourism etc) are already eligible for State/Federal Unemployment, in many cases additional welfare and any acceptance of a job, would diminish or cut off those benefits.
King, North TX Posted June 28, 2010 Author Posted June 28, 2010 King; Quickly on the 'dead zone', here is a list of recorded forest fires around the world. While going over the US list keep in mind, each square mile is equal to 640 acres and those that burned 3M acres involved about 4,688 square miles. I've listed a couple of larger ones in Africa. To put this into perspective, the entire State of Maryland USA, is just short of 10,000 Sq. miles and there are 8 smaller States than Maryland. ... Your getting knee deep on the political issues involved, media and several 'what ifs'....While I have my own ideas on these issues, there are questions of the authorities involved, State/Federal/Corporation as this well is off shore and the 'blame game' began almost immediately after the 'Rig' sank, that in itself was not supposed to happen. I'll give you a couple legal points to ponder and let you figure out the answers; If a shrimper or any related field company, accepts a contract with BP or one of the Governments involved, recourse for both actual and PUNITIVE damages can and will get involved. (Punitive, are basically arbitrary punishment (liabilty/neglect) cost to the Business (in this case hundreds of sub-contractors) involved and often far exceed the actual damages, which can themselves be for generations to come (check out Tobacco Company law suits or lead/asbestos or today certain lawn mowers). There is really little incentive to assist in preventing what you may be involved in the prevention of. The fishermen or guess women (workers) in this, or more importantly the tens of thousands of workers laid off for lack of business (related fields, tourism etc) are already eligible for State/Federal Unemployment, in many cases additional welfare and any acceptance of a job, would diminish or cut off those benefits. Forest fires are NOT comparable to oceanic oil spills, period. --- So, unemployed people AREN'T getting paid to clean up BP's mess by "BP", but rather they are getting paid to do NOTHING by our government...!?!? And you think this is a 'good' thing??? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI could have expounded upon the differences between forest fires and oil spills, as to their affect on life and the environment. I didn't because this is a science forum, and I'd think it would be obvious as to the benefits of forest fires... Whereas for the life of me I can't imagine the benefit(s) of this much oil in the Gulf at one time. Call me short sighted if you will, but the only good thing that could possibly come of this, is that it convinces mankind to abandon fossil fuels.
jackson33 Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 King; If I hadn't felt you were sincerely *concerned*, believe me I wouldn't have spent the time I have getting the appropriate links, for you and/or anyone else that was interested. The BP issue today is driven IMO by a 24/7/365 news media, an over politicized Federal Government and in my opinion, more responsible for loss tourist business along the entire Gulf Coast, than anything the actual spill may actually result in. I say this with a little experience, owning a Motel and other business in Kingsville Texas, during the 1970's and early 80's, going through two Hurricanes and YES an oil spill. Ixtoc I was an exploratory oil well being drilled by the semi-submersible drilling rig Sedco 135-F in the Bay of Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in waters 50 m (160 ft) deep.[2] On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout resulting in the third largest oil spill and the second largest accidental spill in history.[3][4]... Aftermath Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Pemex spent $100 million to clean up the spill and avoided paying compensation by asserting sovereign immunity.[10] The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp's Ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save the rare species. Long-Term Effects Despite over 3.3 million barrels of oil ending up in the environment after the cleanup, the beach fauna or beach populations were back to where they were before the spill within two to three years. [11] After 6 years, it was difficult to find any evidence of oil.[12] Today, after more than 30 years, there is little sign of the oil spill.[13] [/Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill List of recorded spills; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills Keep in mind, while your feeling some kind of Ocean Armageddon, MAY be happening or inevitable, the figures being thrown out there are not necessarily accurate. Gushers, to the extent this spill is being portrayed are extremely rare and those figures may be off, regardless what your seeing television, again streamed 24/7. As to your 'The Dead Zone'; I'll respectfully disagree with you on the differences, in fact in my mind they are not only similar but identical in many ways. I've never followed up after a larger forest fire, but did have the opportunity in see Mount. St. Helens, shortly after it's 1980 eruption (wife then, was from the area) and feel I could guarantee you the was no life over a very large area, whatsoever. As in the recent Iceland eruptions, ash could be found over an extensive area. One last thought on my legal points; What you or I think is right/wrong is not the point. We probably agree that people from the area should be out there trying to help, being paid or not and I'm sure many are. But there are ALREADY currently well over 4000 suits that have been filed against BP, Transocean (Rig owner)or other Contractors (not directed at the 20B$ BP Escrow Fund), a good many that are class action (involves many people), while in reality they could have no idea the extent of the harm done to themselves or a business, OR WHO OR WHAT may actually be the cause/blame. On this both Transocean (RIG, NYSE) and BP (NYSE) are today valued (market cap) at around 48% of there recent highs and both must be in financial trouble... Call me short sighted if you will, but the only good thing that could possibly come of this, is that it convinces mankind to abandon fossil fuels.[/Quote] Finally your point; If your not implying AGW, mankind has always wished for the cleanest, most efficient, practical, economical and convenient source for it's energy and will pursue this into the future. I'll try to post a thread on this in politics later or bring back an older one, but for now leave this comment alone.... 1
King, North TX Posted June 29, 2010 Author Posted June 29, 2010 ... Finally your point; If your not implying AGW, mankind has always wished for the cleanest, most efficient, practical, economical and convenient source for it's energy and will pursue this into the future. I'll try to post a thread on this in politics later or bring back an older one, but for now leave this comment alone.... No. My 'point' is that we have not yet seen or felt the full impact of this disaster yet. Also, this isn't a 'spill', but rather a deep below the surface 'gush', where dispersants are or were being employed. "Oil on the beaches" isn't what we should be worried about. It's the affect that the subsurface oil will have on the krill and other migratory feeder fish, that 'I' am worried about. *Oh and Mt. St. Helens was a "volcano" not a mere forest fire. It is also not comparable to an crude gusher at 5,000 ft.
Moontanman Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 "Breaking News: ABC News just reported that BP replaced the oil well cap with a wedding ring and it immediately stopped putting out. More news at 11". Too good not to tell.....
King, North TX Posted July 2, 2010 Author Posted July 2, 2010 "Breaking News: ABC News just reported that BP replaced the oil well cap with a wedding ring and it immediately stopped putting out. More news at 11". Too good not to tell..... What, no link???
King, North TX Posted July 6, 2010 Author Posted July 6, 2010 It looks like the oil is still flowing, AND there's talk that the relief well might not even work... I am still working on my "white paper".
J.R.H. Posted July 21, 2010 Posted July 21, 2010 Update: As of July 15, 2010 the gushing was plugged deep within the ocean, ongoing efforts are in place to clean-up
Recommended Posts