# Oil spill - major disaster



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

We are in for a MAJOR disaster with this oil spill, it is set to become one of the nation's worst ecological disasters. Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead. There are about 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons) of oil a day pouring into the ocean and this could go on for months. This spill could far exceed the 11 million gallons spilt from the Exxon Valdez tanker off Alaska in 1989. The oil has already reached the Louisiana coast, should begin coming in to the Mississippi coast in a few days and will probably reach Florida and Texas eventually too. 

The BP oil company was using remote operative vehicles to try and stop the leak, this proved to be too difficult. They are trying to set up a dome to caught the oil as it comes out, then they can dispense of it. They are now working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well to stop the flow, but this is experimental and do you know how long it could take? THREE MONTHS!! 

The scale of the operation to contain the oil spill is unprecedented, with the military and other government agencies collaborating with BP. Over 100 vessels are in the water to contain the spill, oil skimmers, tugboats barges and special recovery boats that separate oil from water, as well as five aeroplanes, working to spray dispersants and round up oil. But all these efforts are hampered by many things, the weather, and the sheer volume of the oil over a tremendous area.

Here on the MS coast they have opened an early emergency shrimp season to all shrimpers, so they can get as much out of the water as they can before the oil comes in. This could shut down shrimping, fishing and oyster beds for possibly years in all the waters off these states, which would be a major disaster for so many that depend on these industries for their livelihood. These people that will have to find new employment. The great deal of the economies of these communities are tied into these industries. This industry also provides 20% of the seafood for the rest of the US!

This is a huge catastrophe for the wildlife that lives in the fragile off shore islands and barrier marshes ecosystems. It is now closing in on the Mississippi River Delta. These areas are major spawning and brooding grounds for many species and migrating songbirds, ducks and geese use these areas to stop over on their long journey. Not to mention those animals that live permanently in these waters. Many cleanup crews are already setting up stations in these states for the wildlife they know will be coming in.

So as you can see this is going to be a far reaching disaster. Our country's economy is already on life support, what will this do to it?

Kathy from the MS Gulf Coast


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

from a prep stand point, I purchased several huge cans of chooped ocean clams, several tuna-sized cans of shrimp and crab... the price of seafood will skyrocket. My heart breaks for the Gulf..It does not appear anything will happen anytime soon


----------



## manygoatsnmore (Feb 12, 2005)

For years, people tried to tell us that these off shore drilling rigs were safe - that a major oil spill would never happen. Yeah, right. It makes me ill to think of thousands of miles of coastal lands being fouled. The loss of seafood, shorebirds and other wildlife is going to be horrendous, and the lands will not recover for many, many years. I believe they are still finding clots of tar on the beaches from the Valdez spill. We MUST find a way to become less reliant on oil in our society. Maybe this is the wake-up call that we need to focus efforts on producing energy from other methods. If so, that is the sole silver lining I can find in this disaster. Knowing how short our collective attention spans have become, though, I hold out little hope.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

This is troubling on a number of different fronts. There is no denying that this could very well be a major ecological disaster for the area. I'm sure the media will be quick to jump on that aspect.

As troubling, I have a strong feeling that between the massive - _and I mean massive_ - costs of cleanup that BP will have to shoulder, and the chilling effect on offshore oil well drilling, we are in for a major increase in oil prices again. If we have that, the economy may make another nose dive.

I would not be terribly surprised of the Federal government slipping into rescue mode yet again, this time to force stabilize the price of oil or to bail out "too big to fail" BP. On a more local level, if the slick impacts Mississippi, the state will be thrown into crisis financially.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Let's play a math game here to put things into perspective:

5,000 barrels of oil = 100,000 gallons of refined gasoline (average 20 gallons of gas per barrel). 

My truck (a 1991 Ford F-150) gets roughly 18 miles to the gallon. That's 1.8 MILLION MILES I could have driven. As a point of reference, the circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles. This means I could have driven my beat up farm truck completely around the world over 72 times with the amount of oil that is being lost in ONE 24 hour period.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

On the news they're calling it SWEET crude oil. I've never heard that term before, does anyone know what sweet crude oil is?

.


----------



## manygoatsnmore (Feb 12, 2005)

I think it just means it's lighter in viscosity. Still not gonna make the damage any less sour.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Sweet crude oil contains more of the chemicals necessary for refining into gasoline.

All oil is not created equal. Think of it like an apple. Notice how some apples are very sweet tasting and others are just plain bitter and dry? Some of them aren't even worth picking off the tree they contain so little sugars. 

Sweet crude oil is among the highest grades of oil. It's worth ... a lot.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks. Definitely not anything like the crude oil from the oil sands then.

.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_crude_oil
> 
> Sweet crude oil is a type of petroleum. Petroleum is considered "sweet" if it contains less than 0.5% sulfur,[1] compared to a higher level of sulfur in sour crude oil. Sweet crude oil contains small amounts of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide. High quality, low sulfur crude oil is commonly used for processing into gasoline and is in high demand, particularly in the industrialized nations. "Light sweet crude oil" is the most sought-after version of crude oil as it contains a disproportionately large amount of these fractions that are used to process gasoline, kerosene, and high-quality diesel. The term "sweet" originated because the low level of sulfur provides the oil with a mildly sweet taste and pleasant smell. Nineteenth century prospectors would taste and smell small quantities of the oil to determine its quality.


as i understand it, sour crude (the opposite of sweet) is much more expensive to refine into gasoline, and only a few of the refineries in the US are capable of doing it. sweet crude is becoming less available due to depletion.

--sgl


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703871904575216382160623498.html
> 
> *Experts: Oil May Be Leaking at Rate of 25,000 Barrels a Day in Gulf*


looks like ernie could drive a wee bit further than his original calculation.

--sgl


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

We have to have oil and the Gulf is packed with it.Drilling sounds good to me.

What I DONT like is not having a workable disaster plan on place with whatever it would take to control a blowout on the seabed.In place,ready to move at a moments notice,why isnt THAT required? If they can have the tech to tap this oil,they should be mandated to have the tech to contain a blowout before they are allowed to drill.

The cost is peanuts compared to the money oil brings in.

I fear this may be the death of our entire gulf coastline or even GULF in total,who knows?Thats a tragedy of unprecedented magnitude IMO.

Then people say NUKES are safe???? Hogwash,NO man made mechanical system is 100% foolproof ever. Think if this was a NUKE that had blown out????!!!!

Lets get our much safer renewables up and running and into the grid power mix,and countries power mix,they work.Solar plants in the west work.Windmills work.Neither will destroy the environment with a catastrophic failure.They are up and running providing affordable,and YES,reliable grid power.I know first hand,I live where we use em.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

More bad news, first reports said the oil leaking into the Gulf was standard crude oil, a type of oil that biodegrades pretty well. But sample testing has revealed that the leaking oil was a different type, one that contains a very high concentration of components that don't degrade easily, called asphaltenes. The concentration of these asphaltic components could be as high as 50 percent in this oil spill.

Also thousands of gallons of chemicals called dispersants that break the crude oil down into fine droplets for dilution and eventual breakdown by oceanic microbes, have also been sprayed thus far. This has used up 1/3 of the supply already. Here is info I found on this chemical dispersants.



> PROPUBLICA-
> 
> Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns
> by Abrahm Lustgarten
> ...


The winds over the next three days are moving the oil slick to the east and it is estimated it could be close to Florida by Monday. This would have a vast economic impact on the state's tourism, seafood and recreational boating industries. But even more troubling is the possiblity that this oil slick could be pushed around the tip of Florida and move up to effect the East Coast. The dare ramifications just keep growing with this thing.

Kathy


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

We ought to hear more from you, Kathyhere. 

What are people down in the Gulf saying about this thing? What's the general feeling and what are folks doing to prepare themselves for a potential loss of income?

I'm also curious as to what degree that fishing industry down there _feeds_ people. We tend to think of fish and shrimp and oysters as luxury foods (mostly due to the cost) but for a lot of people that's dinner every day because it's all they can afford.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

People are very uneasy here. They are out now in an early emergency shrimp season trying to get oout all that they can. Those that rely on seafood for theit livelyhood know that they will probably soon be out of work, for an indefinite amonut of time. they also know that they can for recover from being out of work for what looks like yrs. It's clear that this could have dire consequences for a lot of people in our area. Thankfully DH is employed by an industry not related to the seafood business.

The seafood industry contributes $450 million dollars to the Mississippi Gulf Coast economy, supporting an estimated 1,600 shrimp workers and 1,200 employees in seafood processing. Shrimp accounts for about half of the seafood market, contributing $250 million to the economy, followed by oysters, menhaden (a herring type fish) and crabs. Thirty-eight seafood processing plants are along the MS Gulf Coast. Local ports are Gulfport and Pascagoula, MS and Port of Mobile, AL. Louisiana Ports are New Orleans, Intracoastal City, Lake Charles, Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, Plaquemines Port, Port Fourchon. Florida's are Panama City, Pensacola and Port of Tampa.

People are buying up the available seafood in anticipation of it becoming scarce and these prices are already going up. Not sure about the percent of seafood we comsume, compared to other meats, my guess would be about 25% locally. We have a big seafood restaurant business here though, but this relies a lot on tourists that come here for the sand beaches, recreational boating on the 50 miles of barrier islands and fresh seafood. We are already having hotel cancellations from people reconsidering coming here in anticipated of not so pristine beaches. So tourism and coastal recreation are major economic factor in this area. The recreational fishing industry took more than 24.1 million trips (2008) catching 190 million fish from the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding waters. 

There will be a large ripple effect from people losing jobs that are directly related to the seafood industry and then it will begin to hit those that support that (trucking and ice co., etc.) and going on down to local businesses (hotels, restaurants, souvenir shops, bait shops, malls, etc.). So when you live on the coast, we use that resource a great deal.

Kathy


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Can anyone explain why the slick was not set on fire as was reported last week? I am thinking that would cause a tremendous amount of air quality issues but in comparison to what is happening I have to wonder if that isn't the lesser of the two evils.

I wonder how well this is really being reported. Various amounts keep getting thrown out and when it first happened it was leaking, then it wasn't, then it was. That was in the span of about two days on the same network. 

It seems like the ripple effects will be gigantic yet it really isn't getting the air time. This is much worse than Katrina and that got so much air time most of us still remembet the name.....


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

as i recall, the valdez accident resulted in hiring a lot of people for the nasty work of cleaning up the beaches. i don't recall whether it was local hires, or people brought in from outside the area. 

so perhaps the hiring of all the cleanup crews, and putting the out-of-town specialist cleanup crews in hotels, might offset some of the loss of other jobs?

of course, i'm sure most would much rather be fishing rather than wearing a hazmat suit and cleaning tar/oil off the beaches with pressure washers. and i doubt the fish will return immediately after the cleanup is done either. 

all in all, a pretty grim situation, and particularly so since i don't think much of that area completely rebuilt from katrina.

--sgl


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

The seas were too rough and the winds too strong and are squelching all efforts to contain the oil slick. The test burn off the oil only lasted about an hour on Wed., the choppy water makes it difficult to suck it up effectively with skimmer vessels, or hold it in check with the booms strung along the coast. The floating barriers broke loose in the rough water and waves sent oily water lapping over them.

In Louisiana, officials opened gates in the Mississippi River hoping a flood of fresh water would drive oil away from the coast. But winds thwarted that plan, too. High seas were in the forecast through Sunday and could push oil deep into the inlets, ponds, creeks and lakes that line the boot of southeastern Louisiana. With the wind blowing from the south and prevailing towards the east, the mess could reach the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida coasts by Monday. 

It seems they may be way underestimating the amount of oil being leaked. Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanography professor at Florida State University, said estimates from both Coast Guard charts and satellite images indicate that 8 million to 9 million gallons had spilled by April 28. "I hope I'm wrong. I hope there's less oil out there than that. But that's what I get when I apply the numbers," he said. 

The spill has come at an especially bad time for the region's bird life. The Mississippi Flyway is a key migratory corridor that runs through the area and there are certain songbirds and shorebirds that are going through their peak migratory period. We have other birds which this is a nesting and egg-laying period. We will be relying on teams of trained professionals, but many volunteers (that must be trained too) in capturing, transporting and rehabilitating animals injured by the oil spill.

This mess will certainly have far reaching implications that we just are not award of yet.

Kathy


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Sweet crude oil contains more of the chemicals necessary for refining into gasoline.
> 
> All oil is not created equal. Think of it like an apple. Notice how some apples are very sweet tasting and others are just plain bitter and dry? Some of them aren't even worth picking off the tree they contain so little sugars.
> 
> Sweet crude oil is among the highest grades of oil. It's worth ... a lot.



Sweet crude is lower in sulfur and poisons the catalysts less than sour.


----------



## ldc (Oct 11, 2006)

I have heard the same facts and numbers on our local news as kathyhere in Miss. Here 15,000 families solely make a living by fishing and processing. Everyone is extremely worried and concerned in our area. Once again (like Katrina) it's Plaqueman's and St Bernard's Parishes that are very hard hit. We are also still losing population, since the last round of hurricanes 2 years ago; Eliot Stonecypher, a demographer who lives locally was on the radio this a.m., explaining that LA is still losing people w skills, and/or formal education. The state is broke; no more rainy day fund money to spend on a clean-up, etc. ldc


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Not to diminish the bad effects of oil and water mixing but ... 

back in the early '70s a Panamanian tanker went aground on a reef near La Paguera in Puerto Rico. In an attempt to lighten ship the captain ordered the cargo (oil) dumped so that he could float off and get away without detection. Didn't work at all to his advantage as he did not float off and it cost him and his company a whole lot more.

I believe this spill cost around 5 million in 1970s dollars to clean up. The spill missed La Paguera (phosphorescent bay) fortunately and 6 months after the spill there was no external indication that there had ever been a spill in the part that had been affected. The estimate was that 24,000 barrels had stranded upon the beach.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...nIvDvu&sig=AHIEtbR8R0dVd9RzJlPCDDUiZj0z5ZQ-zA

But then again we are talking quite a bit more oil here and much more area.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

To update the situation here is some good news to start with. Winds are keeping most of the giant oil slick, looming off the coast, away from the shoreline so far. Winds and ocean currents are the determining factors in where this thing is going. It appears the spill could get into whatâs called the Loop Current within a day. This strong current loops up through the gulf from the Yucatan Strait, flows south along the Florida coast around the Florida Keys and up the Atlantic sea board. With this there is no need to explain how broad an area this disaster could effect.

And get this satellite imagery and Coast Guard aerial photos (with help of the oceanography department at FSU) have estimated that about 1.1 million gallons is spilling a day, that's 5 times the current estimate! If this is the case it is already worse than the Exxon Valdez. Maybe they are wrong.

Now they are continuing to work on drilling a relief well, applying dispersants at the source of the well to break up the oil, continue using the remotely-operated underwater vehicles that hasn't worked and they've got a concrete box topped by a dome that will be placed over the well to siphon the flow. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has closed off a large area of the Gulf to fishing, so BP has started hiring the local fishermen to help and that brings the total of boats working on this spill to about 130.

President Obama visited the area Sunday, just for show, what can he do? I guess it's better than his ignoring this like he did at first.

Here's the really bad news - 31 Loggerheads, Leatherheads and Kemp's Ridley (critically endangered sea turtle) have been found dead washed up on our beaches over the last few days. No oil was evident, but we rarely have even 1 dead trutle wash up. The gulf is a crucial habitat with 400 to 600 species, including sperm whales, bottlenose dolphins, loggerhead turtles and sturgeon. The longer the oil remains in the water, the more contaminated the food chain will get. This is just the beginning! This is a monster and growing bigger everyday. What will things be like in several months that is the estimated time it will take to stop the leak?

Kathy


----------



## Dexter (Sep 27, 2008)

Digging down 3" near Valdez still brings up fistfuls of oil.
They claimed to have cleaned up, but it is far from it.
Too bad lessons were not learned then.


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

One fix to catch the oil would be place a big dome over the well with a pipe on the top to pump the oil up. But I am only a lowly country boy. Hope they figure something out real soon. Sam


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Hi Sam, 

That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are working on a 98-ton concrete and metal box with a dome on top to be placed over one of the leaks to capture the oil and transfer it to barges. This will take another week to get ready, but at least it is something for now. The final fix is months away with their drilling sideways into the well to plug it with mud and concrete.

The oil slick is getting very close to the Southwest Pass where cargo vessels move millions of tons of fruit, rubber, grain, steel etc. in and out of the nation's interior. With long delays for vessels forced to wait to have their oil-coated hulls power-washed to avoid contaminating the Mississippi river or they might re-route and unload somewhere else in the U.S., but then they would have lost time and extra shipping cost, either way it could drive up food costs nationwide. With 60 percent of the grain exported from the U.S. going through the Southwest Pass and delays of barge traffic going down the Mississippi, prices for corn, soybeans and wheat could rise quickly on global markets. Actually grain prices within the U.S. could fall if shipments are unable to leave the U.S. and the grain begins piling up. But the price decreases would probably be small and with the slooowww trickle down to the consummer it wouldn't show up at the grocery store anytime soon, if at all. In the long run it would be higher prices for all of us.

Interesting the latest satellite image of the slick appears that it is actually smaller, but that only means some of the oil is sinking and is now under the water surface. We continue to brace for the worse and hope for the best. But there is no brite side to this, if it moves away from us it will just land on someones elses beaches









Kathy


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Someone mentioned it could be the death of the entire gulf coastline. In a few weeks it could be much more than that. The spill could climb up the coastline of the East Coast. 
So, if you like your seafood buy it now in any form and freeze it. 

So, it drys up the fishing industry, tourist industry, and then pulls the US into another deeper depression. We're talking about Billions of $$ of economy in the gulf alone. Let alone Florida and then up the Eastern Coastline. 

And from what i've heard on tv - BP is lonly lible for 75M $ of partial repayment to those small businesses affected.

A Democratic Senator is suggesting a bill that would increase this amount. My Q is why in the heck hasn't ALL of the Senators, Republican and Democratic and Independant followed suit and signed on to this bill to help small business in the gulf and make BP pay for this disaster?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

How do you make a foreign company pay for it if they don't want to?

They've said they'll pay for the cost of cleanup and pay for all legitimate losses to the fishing industry. BP has paid before when disasters have happened, so I'm inclined to believe they'll at least try to make good on this. If they don't, no country in the world will allow them to set up in territorial waters ever again and no country would allow their ships into port. Not without a fortune in bribes, anyway.

I'm guessing, as to the reimbursements to the fishing industry, it'd be like if a neighbor's dog kills a hen of mine. The neighbor would be liable for damage, but the judge is going to assess the value at the market price for a hen. I might get $3 for the bird and then (at best) the value for the number of eggs she would have lain over her lifetime (about 600 eggs at a nickel an egg).

What doesn't go into those values is the value of a breeding bird, or a good reliable layer, or a good forager, or the long term detriment not having her in the flock will have on my breeding program.

So BP might shell out the cost of a year's catch to a shrimp boat owner, but does that money necessarily filter down to his crew? Does it filter back out to the local economy that benefited from the shrimping fleet? Will they pay for the next 5 years of decreased catch as the population recovers from devastating losses in breeding adults?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm curious, how many gallons of SEAWATER is in the Gulf?


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gallons_of_water_are_in_the_Gulf_of_Mexico

5.3 X 10^17 USGallons


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

so is that 
5,300,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

is that a googleplex yet?

so at a total of 2.5 million gallons per day for 3 months for a total of 225 million gallons of oil("one unit"), you would have to have an additional 23,555,555,554 units of this spill to fill the Gulf of Mexico(displacing all seawater).

Isn't math fun? (I did this with pencil and paper so I can't garantee my work)


----------



## barnyardfun (Mar 26, 2005)

My FIL has a friend that owns a fuel station around here. He warned my FIL to buy fuel now as it is fixing to go up .15 a gallon. He blamed it on the oil spill. Don't know what info he gets or what it's worth but just thought I would pass on what was said.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Actually what they are saying is nearly 3 million gallons of oil have spilled into the gulf. It is currently spewing over 200,000 gallons per day and we can only hope that the wellhead doesn't blow or we could see a spill of over 2 million gallons per day! Penalties for these kind of accidents are based on spill volume, so underreporting of spill volumes is common and could save BP millions if not billions. Also itâs a foregone conclusion that BPâs promise to âdo everything we canâ to minimize the spillâs impact and stop the oil still hemorrhaging from the well will fade as its attention turns to minimizing its liability, including damaged public relations. 

We know the way they do things from the Exxon Valdez spill. As they leveraged the billions of dollars it spent on the cleanup to reduce its fines and lawsuit expenses, later recouped a large portion of the cleanup cost from insurers or writing it off as a business expense. BP's first quartely profits this year jumped to $6.08 billion, so I think it could afford the cost of this clean up.

Hopefully the spillage will not get worse and they will get that dome thing in place in a few weeks, if it works it could make a big difference if it works right. However for an oil spill at sea, typically only 10 to 15 percent of the oil is recovered. The thing is we already have a lot of contamination in the gulf, underneath the visible oil slick, there is an invisible cloud of toxic oil dissolved into the water column and this dissolved oil is deadly to shrimp and fish eggs and marine life. Okay enough for now.

Kathy


----------



## Wisconsin Ann (Feb 27, 2007)

BP did cap one of the three leaks over night. They've said it was the smallest of the leaks, but that it means what they're trying CAN work. (They were worried about being able to work at 5000feet deep. ) 

Also, there was a report this morning about the oil staying off shore longer than predicted..a GOOD thing  Still just a matter of time, tho.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

The dome thing that had been specially built and was our best hope for a quicker fix to the oil leak pouing oil into the gulf DIDN"T WORK ! ! ! ! Icelike crystals formed and did not allow the oil to flow up through the hose to a tanker. We were so hoping this would work and now we are back to waiting for them the drill the side wells and plug it up, many weeks for that and they are not even sure it will work :shrug:

Kathy


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks for the update Kathy. And now tar balls are washing up on Alabama shorelines. Here is the latest news plus explanation about the methane crystals causing a blockage. Now they're thinking of trying to heat that up - I sure hope that doesn't backfire on them and cause a different kind of explosion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6430AR20100509


And what's happening with the oil on the ocean floor:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100505/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

Such a sad thing. What a disaster.

.


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

Dexter said:


> Digging down 3" near Valdez still brings up fistfuls of oil.
> They claimed to have cleaned up, but it is far from it.
> Too bad lessons were not learned then.


The economy of that area is ruined, and because of the temps the oil will remain for decades, and probably centuries. The wildlife is still impacted, and no one really knows the long term effect.



Kathyhere said:


> Actually what they are saying is nearly 3 million gallons of oil have spilled into the gulf. It is currently spewing over 200,000 gallons per day and we can only hope that the wellhead doesn't blow or we could see a spill of over 2 million gallons per day! Penalties for these kind of accidents are based on spill volume, so underreporting of spill volumes is common and could save BP millions if not billions. Also itâs a foregone conclusion that BPâs promise to âdo everything we canâ to minimize the spillâs impact and stop the oil still hemorrhaging from the well will fade as its attention turns to minimizing its liability, including damaged public relations.
> 
> We know the way they do things from the Exxon Valdez spill. As they leveraged the billions of dollars it spent on the cleanup to reduce its fines and lawsuit expenses, later recouped a large portion of the cleanup cost from insurers or writing it off as a business expense. BP's first quartely profits this year jumped to $6.08 billion, so I think it could afford the cost of this clean up.
> 
> ...


Supposedly, the typical recovery isn't much lower than the best case recovery, which is about 20 percent of the spill. The rest just has to evaporate, or degrade slowly over time. No matter what happens, the area will suffer, and there is no way to predict what the impact will be on us humans.I know we need energy, but it seems to me that drilling in the ocean is just a risky idea. At least on land it is easier to recover the spilled oil, and cap a well when things go wrong.

There are a lot of folks hating the idea of wind farms and solar energy farms, calling them ugly and impractical. Same for individual power generation on your roof or in your backyard. But the one thing they are is safe. There are a lot of reports of oil well and coal mine disasters that cause deaths and horrible injuries, along with great damage to the environment. About the worst thing to happen from solar panels is you might fall off your roof. Your wind generator might fall over and damage your roof, or maybe your neighbor's, or maybe take out a few trees. Chances are these things aren't going to cause mass deaths and poison the ecology for who knows how long. And they don't pollute either.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I've been hearing on NPR today, that they're theorizing they hit a pocket of methane hydrates... think a supercompressed crystallized form of methane... when it is released from the massive pressure it's under, it expands quickly exerting 'bad' juju if the drillers aren't expecting it.

This accident should have zero effect on oil prices. The rig wasn't under production. Price of crude has dropped twice this week. Prices should go down down down. Course that don't mean it'll happen.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

The Deepwater Horizon was an exploration well for BP and was in the process of getting put into production. i have taken some excerpts from this article that gives a good picture of what this oil rig was doing and what happened.




> *Deepwater Horizon Rig Disaster Threatens Drilling *
> (Update1)
> By Peter Coy and Stanley Reed
> 
> ...


Full article at this link 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aHElyJ.bKpsw&pos=10


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2010)

Excerpts from an email newsletter I received tonight. I have not watched the videos yet. I'll try to get those downloaded tomorrow.

============================================

....if it gets into the Gulf Stream it will go around the Florida Keys and up the East coast of the US before heading across the ocean to Britain and Ireland.
<snip>

Several oceanographer's have stepped forward and admit that as the satellite images show, the Gulf Oil Spill is now in the Gulf Loop current...
<snip>

[video taken] May 4th.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHt7EZ460l8[/ame]
[video taken] May 7th. - looking worse
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG8JHSAVYT0[/ame]

The latest projection today from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls for oil to make landfall along Mississippi's barrier islands as early as today.
http://deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov/bookshelf/1944_TMF72-2010-05-08-1200.pdf
<snip>

St. Pete Beach in Florida is already smelling the fumes that is causing people headaches and nausea and they are still a long way from the oil.


----------



## Sarabeth (Sep 14, 2008)

This wOhole thing just creeps me out. It is sad beyond belief. Everyone, I think, can see the far reaching, negative, effect this will have on so many. 

To me, it is one of those things that you think about, seems sad and disastrous, but always so far away - until it happens here. Of course, I realize Valdez happened here, but for those of us who don't live in AK, it seems 'far away'. I don't know. It's just sad. Sad that it can happen, and that there was not an EFFECTIVE backup plan in place..


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

beaglebiz said:


> from a prep stand point, I purchased several huge cans of chooped ocean clams, several tuna-sized cans of shrimp and crab... the price of seafood will skyrocket. My heart breaks for the Gulf..It does not appear anything will happen anytime soon


Will the price of tuna also go up or salmon. I know oysters, crabs, shrimp will rise, but was wondering about the others?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Tuna is a Pacific product, mostly, so I don't think so. Salmon (the good stuff) either comes from fisheries in the Atlantic or the Pacific-Northwest. 

Most of the crab consumed either comes from the Chesapeake Bay or Alaska, with an exception being stone crab from Florida. I don't know if the stone crab is going to be impacted by this or not as I don't know which side of Florida it normally comes from.

I do expect prices to rise for all seafoods though, regardless of origin. If people go to a seafood restaurant and shrimp is unavailable then they'll simply turn to other products which may not be in sufficient quantity to fill that void.

I read a weather report a few days ago that talked about potential drought in the southern states bordering the Gulf. Something about how the weather pattern normally shifts evaporation from the Gulf up into those states as rainfall but the sheer amount of oil on the water will hamper that same evaporation. I don't know enough about weather patterns to say if that's just speculation or fact.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

texican said:


> I've been hearing on NPR today, that they're theorizing they hit a pocket of methane hydrates... think a supercompressed crystallized form of methane... when it is released from the massive pressure it's under, it expands quickly exerting 'bad' juju if the drillers aren't expecting it.
> 
> This accident should have zero effect on oil prices. The rig wasn't under production. Price of crude has dropped twice this week. Prices should go down down down. Course that don't mean it'll happen.


I've seen the comments about hydrates but they don't make much sense to me. Usually hydrates are a problem when you are actually drilling but they were way past that on this well, into the temporarily abandon phase. Even if the hydrates were warmed up enough that they gassed off they should still have been contained with no access to the casing ID.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2010)

Oil spill explained. 

NOW I understand what happened.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLiqvZOP8TY&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## RedneckPete (Aug 23, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Thanks. Definitely not anything like the crude oil from the oil sands then.
> 
> .


Sorry for jumping in so late. Oil sands crude, know as bitumen, is cracked to produce an absolutely lovely sweet crude. The cost of extraction may be high, but the finished product it absolutely fabulous.

Pete


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Who would have thought after this long they would still be fumbling around trying to get that leak stopped. It has nor reached the MS coasts yet, but it is like a looming monster out there growing larger every day. It is so frustrating to know that all that oil is just pouring out into the Gulf and the long term consequences there will be. Now they are saying that the government's estimate of 5,000 barrels a day may be greatly underestimated, as scientists believe it could be many times larger. 

They have dumped more than 400,000 gallons of chemical oil dispersant into the Gulf, with more on the way. This is more of a means to camouflage what it really looks like, as the dispersant doesn't get rid of oil, but sinks it. It is disquieting to note that the material safety data sheet warns: "Do not contaminate surface water" and "Component substances have a potential to bioconcentrate." I wonder if these chemicals won't be a worse long term problem we have to deal. I sure wouldn't want to eat seafood contaminated with the stuff.

Right now they are desperately trying whatever they can, I hope they get it stopped soon. What a nightmare!

Kathy


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder if these chemicals won't be a worse long term problem we have to deal.


They are 10 time less toxic than the untreated oil.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> > I wonder if these chemicals won't be a worse long term problem we have to deal.
> 
> 
> They are 10 time less toxic than the untreated oil.


BFF, could you provide some verifiable information to substantiate that claim? That would be very helpful for people who are concerned about that.


----------



## dirty (Oct 14, 2005)

Wisconsin Ann said:


> BP did cap one of the three leaks over night. They've said it was the smallest of the leaks, but that it means what they're trying CAN work. (They were worried about being able to work at 5000feet deep. )
> 
> snip



i wonder if stopping that one leak increased the pressure of the oil at the other two leaks.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Here is a good report that I found about this dispersant.



> *Fisherman question use of chemical dispersants in gulf oil spill*
> By Craig Pittman
> May 12, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## dirty (Oct 14, 2005)

Kathyhere said:


> Here is a good report that I found about this dispersant.


well that's the most i've seen about the dispersant yet. although i had read somewhere most of it was being pumped directly at the leaks.:shrug:


from the article. "Corexit 9500 has been approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"

there, see no need to worry.:baby04:


----------



## Slugmar (May 26, 2008)

So the BP oil exec calls the spoll "tiny" Compared to the ocean.

He also says "We will fix it. I guarantee it," he told the newspaper. "The only question is we do not know when."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/bp-exec-gulf-mexico-relatively-tiny-compared-big-ocean/

Statements like this just proves to me more and more each day that some of us in this world have lost touch with the whole system we have. We move to fast and don't look at the bigger picture the &#8220;what if's&#8221; for a lack of better terms.

If this does go up the east coast and causes problem we will definitely be hurting not only the seafood industry there, this will put more stress on other locations seafood production to increase which will lead to a decreases of reproduction in that area. It will put more stress on the pacific where it has already said you have go 20 miles out to do any sport fishing.

It will also hurt every job that is connected to that industry from mechanics, truckers, workers right on up to the top, putting more people into unemployment which is on overload as it is and this jack*** has the nerve to call it &#8220;tiny.&#8221;

We need to stop trying to use a band-aid to fix a problem that requires a tourniquet to resolve the issue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Paumon said:


> BFF, could you provide some verifiable information to substantiate that claim? That would be very helpful for people who are concerned about that.


Here you go:



> Early dispersants were solvent-based degreasing agents and were highly toxic to aquatic organisms. *Today's dispersants *are much more environmentally-friendly and are calculated to be *approximately 10 times less toxic than untreated dispersed oil.* According to the NRC report, the acute lethal toxicity of chemically dispersed oil now comes mainly from the dispersed oil, not the dispersants.



http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/May/07051001.asp


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

We know that this oil is doing a great amount of harm in the gulf, perhaps creating a huge dead zone. It will wash up on beaches and really cause problems there too. But it has also occurred to me as we will be entering hurricane season next month, with all that oil in the water, if a hurricane come through there and picks up all that oil mixed water and moves over the land... well this oil could then be drop over wide stretches for miles inland. We could have oil covered houses, trees, gardens, not to mention all the wildlife and our outdoor farm animals. Also consider that would pollute the fresh water rivers and lakes as well. The roads would be a hazard to drive on if they were slick with oil too. I really don't think we have any idea of the scope of this disaster and how far reaching it could be. It's a wait and see how much damage this will bring game we are in now.

Kathy


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2010)

Slugmar said:


> So the BP oil exec calls the spoll "tiny" Compared to the ocean.


He's either ignorant, or he's counting on the ignorance of the public.

It will take only a thin film of oil on the surface of the ocean to severely disrupt normal weather patterns.

Everyone saw how big the spill was in only 3 weeks. If it takes "months" to stop it (as some have suggested it may), that would be enough time for a film of oil to cover a significant percentage of the world's seas.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2010)

In today's Washington Post:

Challenge of cleaning up Gulf of Mexico oil spill 'unprecedented' at such depths


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> if a hurricane come through there and picks up all that oil mixed water and moves over the land... well this oil could then be drop over wide stretches for miles inland


It won't be any different than the 7-9 million gallons spilled during Katrina


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Everyone saw how big the spill was in only 3 weeks. If it takes "months" to stop it (as some have suggested it may), that would be enough time for a film of oil to cover a significant percentage of the world's seas


It could flow at this rate for 5 more months before it makes it into the Top Twenty largest oil spills


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It could flow at this rate for 5 more months before it makes it into the Top Twenty largest oil spills


The trouble is this isn't a leaking tanker. No one knows how long it is going to take to fix this. This is the first disaster of it's kind and I don't think anyone should go underestimating how much damage this could cause.


----------



## Slugmar (May 26, 2008)

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill vrs Ixtox I oil spill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I

Well I was looking up some oil spills on the web and found that there was anther oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on June 3, 1979 that lasted to March 23, 1980. I think Ixtox I was in shallower water and still took a little over 9 months to fix. I wonder how long Deepwater Horizon will go on for? Just some things to ponder.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2010)

Released today by NOAA (PDF):

*Deepwater Horizon Oil: Characteristics and Concerns*

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/OilCharacteristics.551475.pdf

You'll have to turn either your head or your monitor sideways to read the 2nd page.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The trouble is this isn't a leaking tanker


 I never said it was.
I just stated that as for as teh amount leaking, it will take months for it to make it into the top twenty



> This is the first disaster of it's kind


The only real difference is the depth of the water


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You'll have to turn either your head or your monitor sideways to read the 2nd page



Or you can click the tab on the toolbar that says "rotate"


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or you can click the tab on the toolbar that says "rotate"


Why didn't I know you could do that?


----------



## Dexter (Sep 27, 2008)

Maybe this is a blessing of sorts- in that regulations will change for the betterment of this industry?
LOL.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I believe this is the first time a situation like this has occurred. Regulations are a moot point. BP and other deep water drillers are going through a learning process... the last thing they want is to lose a half billion dollar drilling rig, and billions in lost revenue, cleanup costs, bad public relations, etc. Oh, and it's never good to lose 11 men on a rig...


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

*Giant Plumes of Oil Found Forming Under Gulf of Mexico*
_May 15, 2010_

Scientists are finding enormous oil plumes in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, including one as large as 10 miles long, 3 miles wide and 300 feet thick in spots. The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?hp

---
*Gulf Oil spill forecast: Oil heads toward Mississippi Delta*
_May 16, 2010_

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gul...oil_he.html?utm_source=API&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Dexter (Sep 27, 2008)

So much for 5000 barrels a day. And maybe this will quiet those laypersons unwilling to believe industry can not and will not police themselves.

BP (and all other oil companies) have scientists working for them. This was a known weakness. Finding a solution prior to an event would have simply cost too much.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

Dexter said:


> So much for 5000 barrels a day.


A lot of experts have been insisting that it's at least 5 times that amount. The higher-end estimate has been +1 million gallons a day, not 200,000.

But now it looks like even a million gals/day may be a low estimate.

But one thing I've been seeing the media playing down (virtually ignoring) is the big worry over the possibility that the pipe may blow out where it enters the actual hole in the seabed. If that happens, BP has no ideas at all on how to stop it. :help:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Dexter said:


> So much for 5000 barrels a day. And maybe this will quiet those laypersons unwilling to believe industry can not and will not police themselves.
> 
> BP (and all other oil companies) have scientists working for them. This was a known weakness. Finding a solution prior to an event would have simply cost too much.


This may qualify as a Black Swan event.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have trouble finding solutions to problems that don't exist. I try and peer into the future, and figure out what kind of problems I might run into, and work out solutions. But if I can't see the problem, I can't get any solutions worked out.

Yes, BP and others have scientists working for them... also quite a few more engineers. They had safety mechanisms in place. They failed, when hundreds if not thousands (every single one) have never failed. Can anyone remember the last time a drilling rig in the deep seas failed? I can't... could google and find out, but to my memory they haven't.

The more I think about this, the more I'm suspecting sabotage.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

texican said:


> The more I think about this, the more I'm suspecting sabotage.


Look to Russia.


----------



## crwilson (Feb 9, 2005)

actually there have been well over 30 rigs fail in the ocean including blowouts collapses and towing disasters. The loss of life is in the 1000's and the amount of oil released is well into the hundreds of millions


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

texican said:


> This may qualify as a Black Swan event.
> 
> I don't know about anyone else, but I have trouble finding solutions to problems that don't exist. I try and peer into the future, and figure out what kind of problems I might run into, and work out solutions. But if I can't see the problem, I can't get any solutions worked out.


it's hard to see a problem when your paycheck depends on not seeing it, which is what i think the problem is. all the major institutions have been corrupted.

why, supposedly, did no one in authority see the housing bubble coming? when anyone with a brain and a smattering of history could see it was going to end badly? because they were getting huge bonuses for not seeing it, and they figured they'd be gone when it blew up. 

in fact, the federal reserve just released their minutes from 2004, showing that while publicly they were saying there was no bubble and you could never see a bubble ahead of time, privately they were talking about it, but doing nothing. why was pres bush publicly saying the economy was fine, while caught on film telling major campaign donors that "wall street got drunk"? 

do you really believe that BP had no ability to see this coming, and spared no expense in trying to prevent it? there's some technology (can't remember the name) that is required in many other jurisdictions to prevent/contain blowouts for off-shore drilling, (and not just in the most environmentally sensitive developed countries, but including in south america). BP and the other oil companies complained was too expensive and didn't work, so they weren't required to use it by the US gov't. no way of knowing whether it would have made a difference, but i'm sure the "excessive cost" of that technology will pale in comparison to the total costs of cleaning this mess up. do you think that any BP execs will be giving back any of their stock options, bonuses, etc? i seriously doubt it. they've taken the money and run. 

so long as the public continues to believe the lame "whocoodanode" defense, and continues to allow complete non-accountability for all the decisionmakers in all arenas of our public life, we'll continue to sink, the middle class will continue to be wiped out. the fact that you believe that sabatoge is more likely that pure greed shows how unlikely it is that the public will become united in properly identifying which 'enemy' needs to be fought. keep the public divided and confused and misdirected, and the bankers and elites can continue to rob the american public blind. 

--sgl


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

So true sgl42. It's a game the politicians have been playing for a long time.


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2010)

Who saw the 60 Minutes segment? All I can say is: :shocked: and :grumble: @ BP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Who saw the 60 Minutes segment? All I can say is: and @ BP.


Don't believe everything you see on CBS ( Or any other network)

They go for ratings moreso than accuracy


----------



## turtlehead (Jul 22, 2005)

Ladycat, thanks for those links. In those articles:

Scientists studying video of the gushing oil well have tentatively calculated that it could be flowing at a rate of 25,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day. The latter figure would be 3.4 million gallons a day.

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.


Some more quotes for you...

The leak, which is said to be spreading ten times faster than had been estimated, has already eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, as the worst environmental disaster in the United States. Source

This guy estimates 330,000 barrels per day, minimum. He's a bit out there but his foundation seems sound. And it makes sense that BP and others would want to cover up how bad this thing is.

Lest you be tempted to believe ANYTHING BP says at this point, check out this article about all the lies and misrepresentations.

Mike Adams, of Natural News, is worth following. I've seen him quoted many places.


----------



## turtlehead (Jul 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't believe everything you see on CBS ( Or any other network)
> 
> They go for ratings moreso than accuracy


I believe an eye witness who barely survived the explosion and a professional investigator of disasters over the BP execs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I believe an eye witness who barely survived the explosion and a *professional investigator of disasters *over the BP execs.


That's your choice.
It doesn't make them more credible.

"Professional" simply means he gets paid.
It doesn't mean he's good at it, or honest about what he's found.

He says what whoever PAYS him wants to hear, or you'd never hear the report at all


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Here is a couple of excerpts from news articles. 



> *Gulf Oil Spill Estimates May Be Off By Over A Factor Of Ten*
> Alex Knapp | Friday, May 14, 2010
> 
> NPR received a tape from BP showing video of the oil spill in the Gulf and consulted several experts in the field about the rate of oil spilling from the pipe. There were three scientists. Using three different methods. And they all came up with the same result: the official estimate of 5,000 barrels a day is off by a factor of ten. At least.
> ...





> *Oil Hits Current Bound for East Coast, Scientist Says (Update1)*
> May 17, 2010, 4:29 PM EDT
> 
> Part of the oil slick from BP Plc&#8217;s leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico has entered the current that carries water toward the U.S. East Coast and Europe, according to satellite observations and computer models, a Florida scientist said.
> ...


----------



## turtlehead (Jul 22, 2005)

Am I the only tin foil hat wearer that thinks this could be an extinction level event?


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2010)

turtlehead said:


> Am I the only tin foil hat wearer that thinks this could be an extinction level event?


Probably not. 

But I don't think it's going to wipe out everything. I do think it has the potential to drastically change weather patterns, and it may have a devastating economic impact, for years to come.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2010)

Just got the latest updates, the oil has reached the shorelines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

turtlehead said:


> Am I the only tin foil hat wearer that thinks this could be an extinction level event?


Believe me, you have company. I also think that the Iceland volcano eruption is only the first of several volcanoes there that will erupt within the year. I think there are multiple ELEs going on right now. In my lifetime I don't recall this many events happening all at the same time. The E-15 volcano is still erupting with an unknown ending date. Major amounts of ash are being thrown into the atmosphere and it can't help but effect the global weather patterns. And if any of the other 3 Icelandic volcanoes decide to erupt, then watch out and get plenty of dust masks ready.

As for the oil spill, I don't think they'll ever tell the public the truth about the amount of oil that's gushing out. For me, the ocean suddenly looks small and unable to handle that kind of wound in its floor.


----------



## Guest (May 18, 2010)

soulsurvivor said:


> In my lifetime I don't recall this many events happening all at the same time.


I've noticed that since the South Asian Tsunami of December 26, 2004, the weather and other natural events have gone haywire.

This oil leak is caused by man, and it's sure not going to help matters.


----------



## bee (May 12, 2002)

excuse my ignorance, but I thought they were making progress in containing the well??

And why would this oil "spill" qualify as an "ELE"?? Unless the extinction you are talking about is the local marine life?? Heard where massive amounts of oil is being consumed by bacteria..and I thought "Wow!! this is good; until it was also reported that this consumtion is depleting the oxygen in the water...but ELE, please 'splain???


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

turtlehead said:


> Am I the only tin foil hat wearer that thinks this could be an extinction level event?



Not even close
I can leak like this for 5 months before it makes the top twenty worst oil spills


----------



## Sarabeth (Sep 14, 2008)

OK - don't mean to sound dense, but what's an ELE??

Edited to add - OOPS - I think it must mean extinction level event?


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

ladycat said:


> Just got the latest updates, the oil has reached the shorelines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.




:Bawling:

My heart breaks....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't believe everything you see on CBS ( Or any other network)
> 
> They go for ratings moreso than accuracy


The allegation that BP ordered the removal of mud is pretty specific. I don't think it will take much to verify whether it's true or not. If it's true that BP compelled the driller to do something against their will then it's negligence, and BP possibly takes criminal responsibility for the incident.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

it's not hard for me to imagine that this oil spill could have a serious negative effect nationally, as this could have an economic ripple effect extending beyond the Gulf coast. Sure the immediate effects will be the consequences for the marshes, sea life, wildlife and the overall environment of the gulf coast, but it is bound to also affect the nation as well. Prices will go up because of limited availability of Gulf seafood, which will increase demands on other seafood and meats, so their prices will go up. We may be getting more jobs in the area right now to help with the clean up, but it will be less jobs in this region in the long run and put that on top of an already national high unemployment rate. We already have an incredibly unstable economic, all this together is not good.

So there are several major natural disaster events happening at this time (Gulf oil and Iceland volcano) and we had several major earthquakes recently. There is major economic problems all around the globe, so how many more hits can we take? I know that the human race is very resilient, but in the pass we have always had an unlimited amount of natural resources to turn to. We are in a world that is under stress form every angle, food sources and raw material, we have been raping the earth for a long time. I believe that God will not allow the destruction of the human race, but we will have to endure the consequences of horrible decisions made by so many that have wanted to take what they felt was rightfully theirs from this earth regardless and at great cost. I think we will have to hang on, because we are in for a rough ride for quite some time.

Kathy


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2010)

*Heavy Oil Now in Louisiana's Wetlands*

Governor Jindal said, &#8220;We saw some heavy oil stranded in the wetlands. The oil is no longer just a projection or miles from our shore. The oil is here. It is on our shores and in our marsh. 

http://emergency.louisiana.gov/Releases/05192010-oil.html


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I am also wondering if the release of all this gas and oil might trigger more earth quakes etc. sis


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

It is good to feel that I am not the only one who fears this may be the beginning of some serious problems world wide. I do not know if this will be an ELE or not though I do believe it will not happen as fast as I thought an ELE would happen.. I pictured black hole or comet hitting the earth or something. But I tell you what, I have a real bad feeling about what is happening in the world right now! sis


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2010)

sisterpine said:


> I am also wondering if the release of all this gas and oil might trigger more earth quakes etc. sis


I don't see a connection. :shrug:



sisterpine said:


> It is good to feel that I am not the only one who fears this may be the beginning of some serious problems world wide. I do not know if this will be an ELE or not though I do believe it will not happen as fast as I thought an ELE would happen.. I pictured black hole or comet hitting the earth or something. But I tell you what, I have a real bad feeling about what is happening in the world right now! sis


It has the *potential* of having a negative impact on the weather, and it will definitely impact the environment and wildlife for at least a while, maybe even for a few years.

But I don't think it's the end of the world.


----------



## cnichols (Jan 5, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can leak like this for 5 months before it makes the top twenty worst oil spills


Actually, according to the History Channel it would make it into the top 10 worst oil spills. The tenth worst being Oddessy. 

http://www.history.com/topics/oil-spills



> 10. Odyssey
> Tons spilled: 132,000
> In November 1988, the American-owned Odyssey drilling rig burst into flames and split in two off the coast of Novia Scotia. The accident killed one person and poured 43 million gallons of oil into the sea.


And that's only if you calculate the oil being spilled by the number of gallons that BP is currently giving of 210,000 gallons per day.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill



> The exact spill flow rate is uncertain â in part because BP has refused to allow independent scientists to perform accurate measurements[5] â and is a matter of ongoing debate.


The "estimates" go all the way up to 4,200,000 gallons a day. (Which btw if correct would make this the third worst oil spill AS OF TODAY)

If you take a "conservative" average between what BP is saying and the high end, that gives you 2,100,000 gallons per day. Which would make it th 9th worst oil spill AS OF TODAY.

Of course, this really only uses the number of gallons being dumped into the ocean on a daily basis. It doesn't add in the ecological damage, the financial/economic damage or the possible weather pattern changes that could occur due to this spill.

Even if they were to stop the spill this very second, with the weak economy as it currently stands, the impact of this event will still be crippling. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the light at the end of this tunnel is a very very long way off. (As in a decade or more).


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

cnichols said:


> Actually, according to the History Channel it would make it into the top 10 worst oil spills. The tenth worst being Oddessy.
> 
> http://www.history.com/topics/oil-spills
> 
> ...


Well BP admitted their 5000 barrel a day claim was way low , which some of us had already figured . 
of course the slick is a bit like an iceburg with more that 2/3s of it under water . then you have the nasty fact that we have know way of tracking how much is being moved deep by thermal layers and currents .
The thing is this was simply an accident it wasnt some conspiracy .
My brother worked on this rig since it was built. He'd have been one of those lost if he hadnt just rotated home . The rig had just been federally inspected, they had just passed their coast guard safety inspection. as far as safety goes BP did everything they could. A blow out preventer failed , sad to say but it was bound to happen some time. It happens on land as well but there its fairly simple to fix, at 5000 ft its not so simple. if you sit down and look at how many deep sea wells have been drilled and how many blowouts have happened , you have to admit its a very safe record.
Sadly None of that past record means thing when you have tens of thousands of barrels of oil being dumped in a fragile food chain .
Rather than playing cover your butt the companies and government need to stop worrying about whos fault it is and figure out what its going to take to stop it . 
They need to give those with an idea on how to clean up the mess a chance to prove themselves rather than over look something that might work


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2010)

On the NOLA website: *WARNING! *some of these pics not for the faint of heart!

Keep clicking *Next* to see the oil and dead wildlife washing up on the Grand Island beaches.

Captions are underneath the photos (Under the bylines).

http://photos.nola.com/tpphotos/2010/05/dead_wildlife_found_on_beaches.html


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

PyroDon - you are blessed and your brother too!

I see that bff is still spouting some of his brain farts, saying "I can leak like this for the next 5 months...." Give it up already man! You don't have proof that it's only leaking 5000 barrels a day -like you like to say....it's hearsay, it's an estimate only.....you're believing that like it's been proven!

Ladycat, I think what sisterpine was saying was once the oil and gas is removed it leaves a void under the ocean floor, which can collapse or shift, which can cause the crustal plates to shift also. The shifting is what causes the volcanos to erupt and earthquakes to happen.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

Sanza said:


> I see that bff is still spouting some of his brain farts, saying "I can leak like this for the next 5 months...." Give it up already man! You don't have proof that it's only leaking 5000 barrels a day -like you like to say....it's hearsay, it's an estimate only.....you're believing that like it's been proven!


It's BP who says 5000/day. Yet they won't let anyone close enough to the spill to get an actual measurement.

Independent scientists, NOAA, NASA, universities and others have all done their own calculations and gotten figures many times higher than BP's propagandic carp.

Who are ya gonna believe? Finger-pointing BP who is trying to cover it's butt, or the scientists? 



Sanza said:


> Ladycat, I think what sisterpine was saying was once the oil and gas is removed it leaves a void under the ocean floor, which can collapse or shift, which can cause the crustal plates to shift also. The shifting is what causes the volcanos to erupt and earthquakes to happen.


Ummm, it doesn't actually work that way, although that's a common misconception.

Here's an educational film at the internet archives explaining how it works. Although it's from the 1950's, the information is easy to understand and timeless.

*Part 1:*
Science in Action: Drilling for Oil (Part 1) - California Academy of Sciences
http://www.archive.org/details/Sciencei1956_3

*Part 2:*
Science in Action: Drilling for Oil (Part 2) - California Academy of Sciences
http://www.archive.org/details/Sciencei1956_4


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

*What Oil Does To A Salt Marsh*

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/05/22/GR2010052203964.html?tid=grpromo


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Nice comics ladycat, that's all speculation!:grin:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I see that bff is still spouting some of his brain farts, saying "I can leak like this for the next 5 months...." Give it up already man! You don't have proof that it's only leaking 5000 barrels a day -like you like to say....it's hearsay, *it's an estimate only*.....you're believing that like it's been proven!


LOL 
I've said all along *NONE *of it's been proven, and there's a LOT of misinformation
Read what I actually SAY instead of what you want to hear


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> Nice comics ladycat, that's all speculation!:grin:


Ok, you have totally lost me. :huh: What comics and what speculation? :shrug:


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I was messing with ya. Trying to sound like another board member. I haven't really commented [like anyone cares] on the topic because it's a disaster. Especially for the gulf coast fisherman and the wildlife who's homes are being polluted and possibly destroyed. I hope they get a handle on this thing soon.


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> I was messing with ya.


Oh, ok. :doh: I can be a little dense sometimes.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

ladycat said:


> Ummm, it doesn't actually work that way, although that's a common misconception.


I stand corrected....I should have said it _might_ cause the shelves to shift. 
I know (without googling anything) first hand from experience how much land can settle when the gas is pumped out from under it. I was thinking the same thing could possibly happen under the ocean.....

My information of the plates shifting comes from the late FRANK DEBENHAM O.B.E.,M.A., D.SC. (HON.) EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY, Cambridge University


----------



## Guest (May 24, 2010)

Sanza said:


> I stand corrected....I should have said it _might_ cause the shelves to shift.
> I know (without googling anything) first hand from experience how much land can settle when the gas is pumped out from under it. I was thinking the same thing could possibly happen under the ocean.....
> 
> My information of the plates shifting comes from the late FRANK DEBENHAM O.B.E.,M.A., D.SC. (HON.) EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY, Cambridge University


I am absolutely no expert, no way no how, but I assume that there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. And I assume that geologic conditions will vary from one region to another.

So it very well could be that plates would be subject to shifting after the oil is pumped out from beneath them.

To reiterate, I'm no expert, but my logic tells me that removal of the gas might have more impact than the oil itself (and I believe they tend to go together).

Which is scary to think about all the gas being pumped in N. TX where I am. Hopefully the plates won't be shifting beneath me. :shocked:

But to get back to the original point, the oil is not in "lakes" down there under the ground (or ocean).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *It's BP* who says 5000/day. Yet they won't let anyone close enough to the spill to get an actual measurement



It's seems more that NOAA and the Coast Guard have had access to it all since Day One

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14oil.html



> *The 5,000-barrel-a-day estimate was produced in Seattle by a NOAA unit* that responds to oil spills. It was calculated with a protocol known as the Bonn convention that calls for measuring the extent of an oil spill, using its color to judge the thickness of oil atop the water, and then multiplying.





> *Coast Guard *officials were on a boat with BP contractors who stopped CBS News cameras from viewing an oily beach, and the Coast Guard - which is in charge of the investigation - *admits it's had access to live video since Day One *but wouldn't let Congress or the public see it, Attkisson reports.


----------



## hengal (Mar 7, 2005)

Kathyhere said:


> it's not hard for me to imagine that this oil spill could have a serious negative effect nationally, as this could have an economic ripple effect extending beyond the Gulf coast. Sure the immediate effects will be the consequences for the marshes, sea life, wildlife and the overall environment of the gulf coast, but it is bound to also affect the nation as well. Prices will go up because of limited availability of Gulf seafood, which will increase demands on other seafood and meats, so their prices will go up. We may be getting more jobs in the area right now to help with the clean up, but it will be less jobs in this region in the long run and put that on top of an already national high unemployment rate. We already have an incredibly unstable economic, all this together is not good.
> Kathy


This is what I wonder about myself. Not about how many barrrels a day are spilling out, etc...we all know its a lot. But what about the short term and _long_ term effects on the different sectors of the economy from all this mess? Its bound to be huge, don't you think??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But what about the short term and long term effects on the different sectors of the economy from all this mess?


No doubt it will be devastating for some, but for others it will mean an INCREASE to their incomes.

Shrimp and oyster prices have gone up about 40%.
Those in the affected areas won't benefit, but fishermen in other states will make larger profits

Tourism will be lower in some areas, but will INCREASE in others.

Like everything in life, it has *both *good and bad effects


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No doubt it will be devastating for some, but for others it will mean an INCREASE to their incomes.
> 
> Shrimp and oyster prices have gone up about 40%.
> Those in the affected areas won't benefit, but fishermen in other states will make larger profits
> ...


Spin baby spin. Who do you work for anyway? BP?

This is a horrible disaster. Horrible. Google some pics for goodness sake. Talk to some oystermen, fishers, tourist areas/resturanours. _There isn't a Benefit to this. _


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

according to this blog entry by mish/mike shedlock/global economic analysis blog, which references several stories from the wall street journal and bloomberg, the spill is larger than BP originally admitted (they gave the lowest estimate, not their best estimate; the spill is now estimated at higher than their earlier highest estimate). also there was major disagreements between BP and the drilling company shortly (hours) before the well blew. and a couple folks pleading the 5th amendment to boot. no excerpts, i'll let you follow the link and read the blogger's excerpts instead:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-admits-crucial-mistake-big-spat-on.html

--sgl


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Here is the latest efforts to stop the oil leak.



> *BP: Too Early To Know Whether Top Kill Will Succeed*
> By Angel Gonzalez
> HOUSTON (Dow Jones)
> MAY 26, 2010, 9:15 P.M. ET
> ...


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2010)

ladycat said:


> Who saw the 60 Minutes segment? All I can say is: :shocked: and :grumble: @ BP.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't believe everything you see on CBS ( Or any other network)
> 
> They go for ratings moreso than accuracy


So... BP has owned up to the whistleblower's accusations.



sgl42 said:


> according to this blog entry by mish/mike shedlock/global economic analysis blog, which references several stories from the wall street journal and bloomberg, the spill is larger than BP originally admitted (they gave the lowest estimate, not their best estimate; the spill is now estimated at higher than their earlier highest estimate). also there was major disagreements between BP and the drilling company shortly (hours) before the well blew. and a couple folks pleading the 5th amendment to boot. no excerpts, i'll let you follow the link and read the blogger's excerpts instead:
> 
> http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-admits-crucial-mistake-big-spat-on.html
> 
> --sgl


More info at Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575265701607603066.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/27rig.html?th&emc=th


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2010)

*Gulf leak nation's worst spill; far bigger than Exxon Valdez *

New oil flow estimates by scientists studying the blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico would make leak the worst in the nation's history, far bigger than 11 million gallons that spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster. U.S. Geological Survey Director Dr. Marcia McNutt says the results are preliminary, but two teams using different methods determined the well that exploded April 20 and sank two days later has spilled between 17 and 39 million gallons. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052700563.html?hpid=topnews


----------



## barnyardfun (Mar 26, 2005)

More info....

*Scientists: Gulf spill far bigger than Valdez 
Leak worst in nation's history; new giant sea oil plume seen in Gulf*


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37353392/ns/gulf_oil_spill


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Spin baby spin. Who do you work for anyway? BP?


Which of those FACTS can you refute?



> (they gave the lowest *estimate*, not their best *estimate*; the spill is now *estimated* at higher than their earlier highest *estimate*)


Substitute "guess" and you'll see it makes no difference which number you use.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2010)

This corroborates the whistleblower's story extremely well:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37363106/ns/gulf_oil_spill/


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

ladycat said:


> This corroborates the whistleblower's story extremely well:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37363106/ns/gulf_oil_spill/


why you know better than that you cant believe anything on MSN just watch BFF will tell you whats fact and fiction with his all seeing expertise , spinning and denial


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> just watch BFF will tell you whats fact and fiction with his all seeing expertise , spinning and denial


LOL This isn't GC
Go back there and let's finish the *physics* discussion *you* wanted to have but bailed out on


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

you can only listen to so much snorting before you get tire of trying to teach a pig to sing
Got sick of your snorting 
Since the experts are agreeing with me and disproving you theres little point


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2010)

I expect this WILL drive fuel and heating oil costs UP!

*Obama orders halt to operations at all 33 deep-water rigs in the Gulf*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701172.html?hpid=topnews



PyroDon said:


> Well BP admitted their 5000 barrel a day claim was way low ,


Well, now BP is saying that they've been "capturing" 5k bbl a day. And since they're only capturing a fraction of what's coming out, it stands to reason that much more than 5k bbl a day is going into the ocean.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2010)

From the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center:

Based on three separate methodologies, outlined below, the independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical Group has determined that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day. 

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/

If you convert that into gallons, you get about 504,000 to 798,000 gal/day.

Since BP has been capturing 5k bbl/day (so they say), that leaves about 7,000 to 14,000 bbl/day staying in the ocean (and spreading into the marshes). This works out to 294,000 to 588,000 gallons a day.

If the rate of flow has been steady from day one, then some 11M - 22M gallons is in the oceans and marshes. <--- (MY calculation, NOT official calculations).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> you can only listen to so much snorting before you get tire of trying to teach a pig to sing
> Got sick of your snorting
> Since *the experts are agreeing with me *and disproving you theres little point


"Experts" did *ALL *the estimates, not just the ones you happen to believe
If you want to have a FACTUAL discussion, take it back to GC and finish the one that was started.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

I'm afraid there is no good news on this issue. On to the next attempt to stop this massive disaster that is quickly ruining our Gulf 



> *FACTBOX-Developments in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill*
> 
> *(Reuters) - Here are developments in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the largest in U.S. history:*
> 
> ...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> Government scientists estimated that cutting the riser pipe coming out of the blowout preventer to prepare for the next containment option could result in a temporary oil flow increase of up to 20 percent.


I was talking to a fellow today who explained to me why there would be an increase in flow when they cut the pipe. Apparently that riser pipe is bent from damage, it has quite a narrow kink in it, and the kink is what's stopping even more oil from flowing out at a greater rate now. (Imagine when you fold or kink a rubber garden hose, how less water comes out of the hose). When they cut the riser pipe they will have to cut it below the kink and that will allow the oil to suddenly rush out at full pressure unimpeded. I sure hope it will only be temporary and I hope no further damage or accidents will occur when they cut that pipe.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I wonder if they considered just folding the pipe over the rest of the way?


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

So if the next fix fails and they have already cut the pipe we will have an ever greater amount of oil coming out for who knows how long.

I can't believe we have allowed these companies to drill oil without the ability to control a leak such as this. It was bound to happen sooner or later.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

BP is asking for suggestions fromanyone as to how to stop the leak...

That inspires a lot of confidence in them....


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> BP is asking for suggestions fromanyone as to how to stop the leak...
> 
> That inspires a lot of confidence in them....


Ahh now companies should be allowed to regulate themselves even if they have no clue


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Sad NEITHER of the two parties thought any oversight was necessary...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ladycat said:


> From the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center:
> 
> Based on three separate methodologies, outlined below, the independent analysis of the Flow Rate Technical Group has determined that the overall best initial estimate for the lower and upper boundaries of flow rates of oil is in the range of 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day.
> 
> ...


I've read that about 40% evaporates off. They are also burning quite a bit of it. Plus the dispersants. Haven't seen any estimates of how much of the oil is actually in the gulf.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I read an article today (don't remember where, might be NOLO.com), that said the moratorium on drilling is really going to cripple the US oil industry. The deep water rigs will be moved to other countries and the boats used to transport the rigs will also move and reflag. Once these rigs and ships are under contract in foreign countries, they may not be able to come back to the gulf for a long period of time.

I know in S Louisiana there are hundreds of small shops dependent on the oil i and seafood industries. Welders, machine shops, engine repair, electrical repair, etc. will go out of business.

Unless they can keep that oil out of the marshland, I can see thousands leaving Louisiana looking for work.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Well now we have the Russians and some 'experts' suggesting that we should nuke the oil leak shut :shocked:



> *Energy expert: Nuking oil leak âonly thing we can doâ*
> By Daniel Tencer
> Saturday, May 29th, 2010 -- 7:18 pm
> 
> ...





> *Nuke the Gulf Oil Gusher, Russians Suggest*
> By Jeremy Hsu, LiveScience Senior Writer
> posted: 12 May 2010 12:04 pm ET
> 
> ...


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Oil could hit Florida Panhandle by Wednesday:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/oil-could-hit-florida-panhandle-by-wednesday-720986.html

Seems BP gave the state of Florida $25 million to promote tourism, but there's great difficulty getting funds for clean-up equipment.

Are there any here on this forum that will be directly effected by the oil leak, as in, are there any here that live near the beach/coastline or have property that borders same?


----------



## ~taylor~ (Jul 16, 2009)

We live in central MS and have close friends and family that vacation in Orange Beach Alabama every summer. One group is leaving Saturday morning for a week long stay and they were assured by the management of the condo they rent that the beach there was as beautiful as ever. 
While eating lunch at a local restaurant yesterday we overheard a lady saying that her son was working the clean up and that as of yesterday morning they had changed the timing of when they expected the oil to reach Biloxi (MS) beach. She didn't say when, only that it would be sooner than previously expected


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

I live on the MS coast, but not directly on the water, a few miles inland. Our family does not work on the water and depend on seafood for a living.

A strip of emulsified oil washed ashore on Mississippi's Petit Bois barrier island Tuesday and a 5-acre oil slick was spotted about 6 miles southeast of Pascagoula. The current, wind and tide and it's moving in different directions of course will effects exactly when it makes landfall. There has been a strong south to north current all week carrying the oil toward shore at a noticeable rate. They have thermal-imaging camera surveys being conducted by Mississippi officials that can reveal oil plumes underwater. When oil is detected the waters will be closed.

Fisheries Service closed federal waters to fishing off much of Mississippi on the eve of red snapper season, but the inshore waters are still open in the Mississippi Sound. Shrimp season opens tomorrow, but any areas where oil is detected will be immediately closed.

It is a gradual thing, first comes the sticky oil tar ball blobs that begin washing ashore. Then the strips of emulsified oil starts coming in, of course more and more. The clean up crews are doing a good job right now, but that's a lot of oil out there how can they possibly keep up as this keeps coming in more and more month after month?


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

They have the top hat in place, but there is still a LOT of oil coming out around it. They say it will take a day or so to get everything working on it. But every little bit that they can catch is better than nothing.



> *BP Successfully Deployed LMRP*
> 
> BP Oil Spill Live Feed Deployment of LMRP &#8211; BP confirmed that they have successfully completed their Top Hat procedure and the LMRP is now working properly and as planned, we can expect to reduce the oil leak within the week as all of their Remotely Operated Vehicles or ROVs are already being utilized to expedite the process.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> BP is asking for suggestions fromanyone as to how to stop the leak...
> 
> That inspires a lot of confidence in them....


Send them a link to this forum.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I hope I get a commision or kickback of some type if they use my "fold over" idea.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I emailed them earlier.

"Dear BP executives,

Why don't you use that same team that blew up the comet? You know, the one with Bruce Willis and his bunch of misfits. I know he died, but most of the misfits made it back home. I bet they could go down there in deep sea suits and drop a nuclear warhead down the hole."


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

My suggestion: Chuck Norris. One round house kick is all it would take


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2010)

*Oil spill may be twice as bad as earlier thought*

...the worst peacetime oil spill, 1979's Ixtoc 1 in Mexico, was about 140 million gallons (530 million liters) over 10 months. The Gulf spill hasn't yet reached two months. The Exxon Valdez, the previous worst U.S. oil spill, was just about 11 million gallons (41 million liters), and the new figures mean Deepwater Horizon is producing an Exxon Valdez size spill every five to 13 days.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37636151/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Love how they cannot ever seem to say what it is...but it is ALWAYS getting worse.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

a long comment at The Oil Drum about the blowout, and what they suspect is happening. 
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967

i can't vouch for any of the technical details, as i don't have the expertise, but it seems knowledgable, and there are links to more sources at the end of his comment.

gist of the argument is: the actions they've taken so far seem to be clues that the equipment has so hopelessly failed, that there is virtually no chance of capping the well. given the debris in the oil flowing out now, it's only a matter of time before the piping in place now will be worn out, and the flow-rate will increase. that attempts to suck up the oil are barely keeping up now, and that with higher flow rates it will be impossible to keep up. hence, a massive on-going oil-flow into the gulf until the billions of barrels of oil reserve are exhausted. 

again, i can't vouch for how accurate the analysis is, but seems plausible to my limited understanding. 

but always nice to rip my mind away from the financial system collapse enough such that i can lose sleep for a completely different reason. ;-)

--sgl


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2010)

sgl42 said:


> a long comment at The Oil Drum about the blowout, and what they suspect is happening.
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967
> 
> i can't vouch for any of the technical details, as i don't have the expertise, but it seems knowledgable, and there are links to more sources at the end of his comment.
> ...


Wow, that's some scary stuff.

It's a bit over my head, too, but I can get the gist well enough to be worried. Looks like the situation is far worse than what they are telling the public.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2010)

sgl42 said:


> a long comment at The Oil Drum about the blowout, and what they suspect is happening.
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593#comment-648967


For those who don't want to read the entire page, use your browser "Find" feature to find this: *TOP KILL - FAILS:*

It's about halfway down the page. Here are some excerpts from that section:

This was probably our best and only chance to kill this well from the top down. This "kill mud" is a tried and true method of killing wells and usually has a very good chance of success.....It didn't work, but it did create evidence of what is really happening. First of all the method used in this particular top kill made no sense, did not follow the standard operating procedure used to kill many other wells and in fact for the most part was completely contrary to the procedure which would have given it any real chance of working. 

<snip>

The mud they were pumping in was not only leaking out the "behind" leaks...it was leaking out of someplace forward...and since they were not even near being able to pump mud into the deposit itself, because the well would be dead long before...and the oil was still coming up, *there could only be one conclusion...the wells casings were ruptured and it was leaking "down hole*"....the "bridging materials" which also failed *and likely made things worse in regards to the ruptured well casings*. 
<snip>

(etc etc)


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2010)

That well was a disaster waiting to happen, and plenty of people knew that, read the letter to Tony Hayward written by Congress:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6604

Somebody needs to have criminal charges filed against them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2010)

Has anyone seen this video? It was taken by one of the ships that's out there around the spill. It very clearly shows oil leaking from cracks in the seabed:

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/79/41...d_to_Be_Leaking_from_Cracks_in_Sea_Floor.html

And I'm not going to read a hundred news articles to find one that mentions this, but on TV this morning, it was reported that when the well first blew, BP's initial calculation was that it was leaking 60K barrels/day, yet they reported the smaller number to the media (didn't they first say 1000/day then changed that to 5000/day?)

In view of the postings at the Oil Drum, I'm getting really, really worried. The longer this oil is gushing, the more devastating the effect will be on climate and environment. 

My understanding is that a significant amount of oil in the Gulf WILL cause a severe drouth in the states bordering it, due to the fact that evaporation will be hampered, thus reducing the amount of rain that can form.

But it could be even worse- if the wildlife and algae is negatively affected, it will begin affecting the balance of nature. If the spill continues on and on, and hits the right(wrong?) currents, it's going to be travelling to other parts of the world.

Is there an estimate of how much oil might be in that well? Granted, it might be a "drop in the ocean" compared to amount of water in the seas, but if significant amounts of oil is pushed by currents into relatively small areas, it could devastate other areas around the world. This is assuming that the spill can't be stopped.

We can only hope it WILL be stopped soon.


----------



## rj_in_MA (Apr 27, 2004)

Although the amount of oil is technically a 'drop in the ocean', its effects are multiplied by a billion according to http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-is-60K-cubic-miles--by-Frish-100612-917.html?show=votes.
Of course, there are other processes at work (bacteria, evaporation) that will probably lessen the impact somewhat, but I doubt by that much.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

It's interesting what Matthew Simmons, Energy Adviser to George W. Bush has just now reported.



> Matthew Simmons, Energy Adviser to George W. Bush: It hasn&#8217;t gotten out, but we now know a whole lot of better information from the scientists who are totally, totally disputing what BP&#8217;s story has been.
> 
> The best reports all have come from the Thomas Jefferson, which is America&#8217;s largest research vessel, which got directed on June 6&#8230; [to] get to where this enormous fire was coming that was miles away from the riser.
> 
> ...


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Oh come on Kathy, we all know that's just speculation!:gaptooth:


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

There is a lot of speculation out there on the spill, it's who is doing the speculation that makes a difference. I would think that our last presidential Energy Adviser saying this gives it more credence. He also has access to information that a lot of people would not.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Ever wonder what would happen if the leak can't be plugged....


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

If it can't be plugged it would continue to spill oil until the pressures equalized. There is no telling exactly how long that would take though.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

That would certainly be interesting....


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

that is exactly what Simmons is saying that it can not be plugged due to structural problems with the pipe. Thus the only thing left is to fuse rock over it with a nuke.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Kathyhere said:


> that is exactly what Simmons is saying that it can not be plugged due to structural problems with the pipe. Thus the only thing left is to fuse rock over it with a nuke.


I had thought this a while back...because the thing is,not EVERYTHING can actually be fixed....


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

When the Russians used nukes it was to put out fires on natural gas wells on land, not on leaking oil wells a mile under water.

.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

The whole nuclear idea is quite preposterous at this time. Hopefully it will never get to a point that something like that is considered, because then we really would be in trouble. Here is and article in the New York Times that gives info on any thought of nuking it http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Ever wonder what would happen if the leak can't be plugged....


Yes I have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is a lot of speculation out there on the spill, *it's who is doing the speculation that makes a difference*. I would think that our last presidential Energy Adviser saying *this gives it more credence*. He also has access to information that a lot of people would not.


Speculation is GUESSWORK no matter who says it.
His statements don't match OFFICIAL Govt statements

His story *isn't even logical *if you pay attention to what hes saying



> because *they couldn&#8217;t get within 3 miles of it*, there was too much fire,


So he's saying there was a fire SO LARGE that they couldn't get within 3 MILES of it?

Where's the video evidence? Why didn't someone else notice this fire and report on it?

There are also conflicting reports on those underwater "plumes"


> WASHINGTON &#8211; *The government says *water tests have confirmed underwater oil plumes from the BP oil spill, but that *concentrations are "very low."*
> 
> NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said that the tests conducted at three sites by a University of South Florida research vessel confirmed oil as far as 3,300 feet below the surface 42 miles northeast of the well site. *Oil also was found in a sub-surface sample 142 miles southeast of the spill, but further tests showed that oil is "not consistent" with oil from the spill*.





> Lubchenco said the water analysis "indicate there is definitely oil sub surface. It's in *very low concentrations" of less than 0.5 parts per million*


.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gulf_oil_spill_plumes


I'm beginning to think most of the Bloomberg report is completely wrong

It also seems Simmon's credibilty is not too good. Seems he wrote a book that distorted a lot of facts and made fantastic claims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Simmons



> "Twilight in the Desert" has been criticized for *"turning benign technical matters into crisis-level evidence*" and making "numerous technical gaffes", such as misinterpreting fuzzy logic as meaning "fuzzy numbers" (his use of the computer science term was proper but it did not really advance his argument), "dew point" as meaning the pressure that a well stops producing, citing obsolete data on water cuts, and assuming that a pressure drop in a vertical wells has the same implications as in a multilateral well. *He is also accused of ghost references and misrepresenting sources*


It's REALLY not that hard to find out the facts BEFORE you believe what people say


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's REALLY not that hard to find out the facts BEFORE you believe what people say


That's easy for you to say. I do searches and try in find relevant info, but the facts are very hard to decipher. Maybe it takes someone who already has expertise in this area to find these "facts," not to mention that I believe that many of the facts are being hidden from the public. 

I live on the Gulf coast and I know that this situation is changing day to day, but I will continue to search and try to find what I need to know about what is going on with this, so that I can be as prepared as much as possible.

Kathy


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

Kathyhere said:


> That's easy for you to say. I do searches and try in find relevant info, but the facts are very hard to decipher. Maybe it takes someone who already has expertise in this area to find these "facts," not to mention that I believe that many of the facts are being hidden from the public.


It's hard to decipher because there's so much contradictory information out there.


----------



## ~taylor~ (Jul 16, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Speculation is GUESSWORK no matter who says it.
> His statements don't match OFFICIAL Govt statements
> 
> His story *isn't even logical *if you pay attention to what hes saying
> ...


 
We live 130 miles inland of the Gulf. All day long there is a steady balmy breeze coming right off those waters. I am, and have been (for several weeks) spending a lot of time considering 'what will we do' scenarios. Maybe that seems paranoid or premature but like Kathy said, I don't feel comfortable that we are getting all the facts from either the government or especially from BP. 
Searching the internet for facts isn't as simple as you suggest. The internet gives you what you're looking for. You can find all kind of facts that aren't. The fact is, at one time, it was a FACT (according to all the leading experts at that time) that the earth was flat.
Matt Simmons IS one of the EXPERTS in this field. His opinions and thoughts IMO should be thoroughly considered. 

More than anything, I really wanted to say this: I have spent a lot of time scouring the internet for both facts and opinions as I feel it is my duty as a parent to protect my child. I always thought that in a SHTF situation we had the perfect place/set up/doomstead right here where we are and now I am faced with the possibility that that might not be feasible. In forum after forum and the comment section of article after article I see the discussion of the oil spill turn in to an argument about facts - when the truth is, we really don't know the facts because this has never happened before. 
This forum is almost always (or at least seems to be) close-knit, family/friendly oriented with loads of support and advice for each other in all types of both real life and what if scenarios. I would hate to see this turn into another arguement about facts when I know that you guys have so much more potential. 
Maybe you can use this as a starting place - I am scared. My family is most likely already breathing these toxic chemicals and that is before any storms/hurricanes have even formed. My SHTF place is now (most likely) or very soon will be compromised. My daughter wants to go swimming in the pool and I have to wonder how safe that is. Will we have to move? Will I have to sell this place? Will anybody want to buy it? What if I wait too long and when will that be? Where will we go? How far away from this is going to be safe in the long run? Facts are hard to find!!! Rather than argue about facts please please please try to put yourself and your family in the situation that all of us (esp. Kathy who is right there on top of it) are in and be supportive rather than condescending


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Kathyhere said:


> It's interesting what Matthew Simmons, Energy Adviser to George W. Bush has just now reported.


This is complete nonsense. I know people that are directly involved in dealing with this thing and it never ceases to amaze me how utter garbage is being pumped out by some sources. Don't believe this dreck.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

If we were to believe those directly involved...we would have to be continually changing what we believe.

How many times has BP/fed gov. 'revised' their figures now?

And before people jump in and say well they just didn't know...they are the ones who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!!

We are being lied to by BP/fed gov. neither of them I think knows how to fix this....


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

Looks like Tony Hayward got fired (though they express it in different terms):

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bu...s_Adviser_To_Collate_Portfolio_To_Sell_Assets


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Matt Simmons IS one of the EXPERTS in this field. His opinions and thoughts IMO should be thoroughly considered


Simmons is an INVESTMENT BANKER.
He's no real "expert" on oil spills, and his credibility is questionable


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> be supportive rather than condescending


I am being "supportive" 
I'm trying to find the *truth* instead of buying into the misinformation being passed around.

Simmons statements defy logic, and don't deserve to be taken as truth

Facts are NOT hard to find if you only look for them, and THINK about what is being reported.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Looks like Tony Hayward got fired (though they express it in different terms):



Looks to me like they are just using a new spokesperson.
It's doesn't say anything about him losing his job.
It's all about PR right now, and he's not doing so well


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Looks to me like they are just using a new spokesperson.
> It's doesn't say anything about him losing his job.
> It's all about PR right now, and he's not doing so well


Well, he at least got demoted.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2010)

*Internal BP Document Shows Worst Case Scenario for Spill Could Be 100,000 Barrels Per Day*

http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0272#main_content


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ladycat said:


> *Internal BP Document Shows Worst Case Scenario for Spill Could Be 100,000 Barrels Per Day*
> 
> http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0272#main_content





> In the document, BP stated: *If BOP and wellhead are removed *and *if we have incorrectly modeled the restrictions *â the rate could be as high as ~ 100,000 barrels per day up the casing or 55,000 barrels per day up the annulus (low probability worst cases)


But they aren't going to remove the BOP or the well head, so it's moot.

http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scenario

"Scenario":


> a sequence of events especially when* imagined*


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> But they aren't going to remove the BOP or the well head, so it's moot.


Of course they're not going to remove it on purpose. But how about if it blows? It's damaged and it's undergoing severe stress.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

ladycat said:


> Well, he at least got demoted.


And like all good CEO's, he then took a walk to the bank with a big bag of money. He's probably thinking about resigning and moving to New Zealand where his winter home is. LOL!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But how about if it blows?


It's already "blowing".

I don't know of ANY well that ever totally washed away the bore casing to become a gaping hole spewing oil endlessly, as Simmons is describing.

If it had ever happened before, I feel it would be easy to find a referrence to it.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I recently listened to a science pundit on the radio whose credentials seemed somewhat shaky but he proposed a hypothesis I hadn't yet heard discussed. It was the ultimate worst case scenario.

The government lowers a nuclear device into the damaged wellhead and detonates it. The large undersea oil pocket contains a high degree of explosive vapor and an area approximately 20,000 square miles suddenly explodes at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, like detonating a large firecracker inside a watermelon. After the resulting tidal waves destroy our coast as far inland as Dallas, Atlanta, and Tulsa, the large chasm blown in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico begins draining the ocean down into deeper chasms in the Earth. Within a decade, half of the world's oceans have now dried up and steam resulting in the water's contact with molten magma covers the skies, ushering in a new global warming scenario that over the next 300 years turns the Earth into Venus.

Despite the clear craziness of such a scenario proposed by Doctor Strangelove there on the radio, I think some thought and consideration ought to be put into the possible results of any attempts to stop this thing.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ernie - that's scarey. (and would make a great "Deep Impact" or "Day After" type of movie)


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2010)

Ernie said:


> I recently listened to a science pundit on the radio whose credentials seemed somewhat shaky but he proposed a hypothesis I hadn't yet heard discussed. It was the ultimate worst case scenario.
> 
> The government lowers a nuclear device into the damaged wellhead and detonates it. The large undersea oil pocket contains a high degree of explosive vapor and an area approximately 20,000 square miles suddenly explodes at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, like detonating a large firecracker inside a watermelon. After the resulting tidal waves destroy our coast as far inland as Dallas, Atlanta, and Tulsa, the large chasm blown in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico begins draining the ocean down into deeper chasms in the Earth. Within a decade, half of the world's oceans have now dried up and steam resulting in the water's contact with molten magma covers the skies, ushering in a new global warming scenario that over the next 300 years turns the Earth into Venus.


I'd rather take my chances with letting it spill. :shocked:


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Me too ladycat. That scenario is maybe the worst one I've ever read. I've been trying to keep up with everything on this spill, but there's a lot of information out there to keep up with. 

I watched a home video yesterday that someone took of Ft Walton Beach, FL area. I thought maybe some who live in FL would respond on what they're seeing too.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3854102-breaking-newsoil-hits-fort-walton-beach-fl-azure-resort-cnn-ireport


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

That beach use to be so white and would squeak as you walked along the edges, and the white foam of the waves coming in. It's been awhile since I've been there, but YUCK on that oil blob mess. and what I saw in the water


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

soulsurvivor said:


> Me too ladycat. That scenario is maybe the worst one I've ever read. I've been trying to keep up with everything on this spill, but there's a lot of information out there to keep up with.
> 
> I watched a home video yesterday that someone took of Ft Walton Beach, FL area. I thought maybe some who live in FL would respond on what they're seeing too.
> 
> http://vodpod.com/watch/3854102-breaking-newsoil-hits-fort-walton-beach-fl-azure-resort-cnn-ireport


I guess some of the speculation just came ashore.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3bzypjTIWg[/ame]


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2010)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3bzypjTIWg


Dang, it's almost 80mb, too big for me to get from youtube.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Sorry for that,her name is Kindra Arnesan,perhaps you can find it somewhere else?


----------



## SLD Farm (Dec 19, 2007)

Gas prices here jumped $.10 in 24 hrs. This is just the beginning I think. What a lot of people don't get(at least around here) is that this is going to affect EVERYTHING not just gas. Heating fuel, petro by products, tires, fertilizers, food. I say stock up on as much food stuffs and other items as you can. Prices are going to start skyrocketing. If you use heating fuels to heat your home look at an alternative. We installed a wood burner last year and switched to an electric furnace over oil 2 yrs ago. The woodburner saves us a lot and will be in overdrive this year I think.
For we commuters, car pool. My husband I have have started to do so more. It is a little inconvenient but the savings are real.
Heard a radio commentator say that this oil spill is our armageddon. Could be if we are not very, very careful.


----------



## bee (May 12, 2002)

if even half of what she says is true, we can kiss our gulf coast good-bye; "balloons and ponies" my -----!!

"They" are not telling us the truth because they can't stop,control or clean up the spill AND the chemicals already used on it.

We may see the next chapter with the first gulf hurricane..yes it can get worse than it is already.


----------



## fostermomma (Feb 26, 2007)

I think this is the event that takes the US out of the picture in the end time prophacy. I also think things will take a very nasty turn on or after the 4th. I hope I am wronge.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

The oil washing ashore at Ft. Walton is kinda typical of what's happening all along the coast fron Destin FL which is a bit further to the east of Ft. Walton and back west to the area around Mobile Bay. One day it's there, some folks come and clean it up, and two days later its back again. But what you see in the Ft. Walton Beach video is just the beginnings of what's yet to happen. 

Right now there's a tropical disturbance which will probably enter the Gulf before next weekend. There are millions of gallons of that crude floating out there and more every day. When/if that storm meets that crude you'll have a little better idea of what's happening. Yesterday at Pensacola they had cleaned up Casino Beach and it sure looked nice until a scientist showed up and dug down into the sand and showed the news people what lies underneath which was a layer of oil about 6 inces down from the top. 

We who have lived along the coast all our lives hate to see it go. Not just the pretty sand and the caribbean sea in hues of every pastel green. It's the people too, and not only we who have lived here, but all those friends who come every year and stay for awhile. But who knows, they say that true happiness is derived only by meeting adversity successfully and living to tell about it. Life in these parts has always been full of adversity, if it ain't the tropical weather when a big one makes landfall, it's something else........... what's really the dagger in all this is the great fishing, shrimping, oystering, or walking along the sandy shallows at night with a light and a gig looking for some flat fish (flounder), crabbing, etc., that we think may all be going away for a very long time.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

We have been escaping the mess up to now, but Mississippi's oil free breaches appears to be coming to an end, yesterday large plumes of oil were seen drifting into the Mississippi Sound and likely to make landfall on mainland beaches over the next few days. Mississippi along with Alabama and Florida having oil washing ashore will add greatly to the miles of coastline being tainted with the oil. For some time we've only seen Louisiana getting it's coast mucked up with the oil, much more will soon be appearing in news stories. There has been a flurry of activity initially in the Miss sound to stop the incoming oil (boons put out and skimmers coming in), but it is way to much to contain. 

I'm beginning to think the clean up is all a PR show anyway, with their efforts not really putting a dent in the amount of oil out there. We are hearing from those beach clean up crew workers that they are being instructed to only get the surface oil that is visible and not to bother with any that the sand is quickly covering over. They are also keeping the workers in front of the news camera, so it 'looks' like there is a lot of clean up going on.

I am thinking that the reason BP has taken charge of the clean up from the beginning was more to cover up as much of what is actually happening as possible, other than it being anything like consideration and concern for the damage. And the money being paid out is to keep people quite as long as possible, not so much an act of generosity. If we ever get some of our scientists to go in an evaluate this situation I think there is going to be some shocking revelations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If we ever get some of our scientists to go in an evaluate this situation I think there is going to be some shocking revelations.


Govt scientists have been involved since the first day.
Who do you think is making all the estimates and collecting data?


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Well between BP and the gov I think we have been getting just the reports they want us to get. I still think there is a lot of info that's being kept hidden and maybe our gov is just as involved in the cover up as BP.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2010)

Kathyhere said:


> Well between BP and the gov I think we have been getting just the reports they want us to get.


That's what I think.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Here's a couple of links where you can go to check out what's happening in two of the communities that are about to be slammed with millions of gallons of oil. What's going on now is all for show as far as prevention / cleanup is concerned. It's kinda like when a person is lost at sea, first the coast guard begins a search, then the search is called off, and instead......only a recovery effort is put forth. 

www.wkrg.com
www.wala.com

hope those work.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2010)

foxfiredidit said:


> Here's a couple of links where you can go to check out what's happening in two of the communities that are about to be slammed with millions of gallons of oil. What's going on now is all for show as far as prevention / cleanup is concerned. It's kinda like when a person is lost at sea, first the coast guard begins a search, then the search is called off, and instead......only a recovery effort is put forth.
> 
> www.wkrg.com
> www.wala.com
> ...


The first link gives popups and I don't know what the heck that is that the second link goes to.


----------



## Kathyhere (Sep 27, 2009)

Hi foxfiredidit,

I recognized your links as local tv stations. Here are the links I think you were referring to.

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/gulf_oil_spill/bp-won't-let-panel-talk-to-employees

(Second link for WKRG.com would not work)


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'm about as pro-conspiracy as you can get, but I can't see any upside in controlling the information (downplaying the spill). 

If the govt. told us the world was coming to an end next week, there's nothing that we could do about it.

If it's leaking 10K or a 100K, does it matter? Bad spill vs. badder spill vs. mega spill vs. worst all time spill? There's nothing any of us can do to stop it.

I have noticed the price of natural gas is slowly rising... can't imagine why, unless it's traders trying to make some profits... The administration tried to get a moratorium, and a judge blocked it, and read today he blocked a moratorium while the appeal process was going on also.

The administration should be very very careful... the reason why George Bush lost the last election (oops, seems he wasn't running) is that the economy took a dive after 4$/gallon gas and 5$/gallon diesel hit. I read yesterday somewhere that it could get to 7$/gallon... shut down all offshore oil production and exploration, and it could easily happen. It would be a death sentence for the current powers that be.

Personally, I'd rather have cheap diesel. But, if they make hay out of this disaster, hopefully natural gas will double or triple in price also (as that's how I make my living).


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

I dont think it has anything to do with conspiracy and everything to do with avoiding public panic . The same way the public wasnt told of japanese balloon bombs or mini subs in the Mississippi, Or german U boats sinking ships off the east coast.
Mentioning such things would cause panic, its better to down play.
Lets face it there are enough doomsayers calling any and everything a step to the end of times . There are also plenty claiming out ragious prices if drilling is stopped or some other regulations. fact is the oil companies already pushed the limits the markets would bare a couple years ago and demand dropped rather quickly as a result


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2010)

texican said:


> I read yesterday somewhere that it could get to 7$/gallon... shut down all offshore oil production and exploration, and it could easily happen.


Agree, it very well could happen. But we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Thanks Kathyhere



ladycat said:


> The first link gives popups and I don't know what the heck that is that the second link goes to.


Sorry. 

Maybe this link will work.
http://www.wkrg.com/alabama/mobile/


----------



## ~taylor~ (Jul 16, 2009)

Interestingly, when you pulled up this video on youtube there were several several other videos on the right hand side that were related to or recommended - Kindra Arnesan's name was in all of them either in title or description. 
The video has been pulled, and if you go to youtube and search for Kindra Arnesan you get a message that there are no video results.
For those who missed the video, you can google Kindra Arnesan and find copies of it but as of now youtube has notta.
I thought it was fabulous and felt that she was 110% sincere. Very much worth the time to watch IMO and kudos to her for standing up to TPTB.





oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Sorry for that,her name is Kindra Arnesan,perhaps you can find it somewhere else?


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

There might be a pop-up to "x" off but the video is here, down about a third of the page from the top. The video is a little over 15 minutes.

Kindra Arnesan-Quoted on PBS Newshour 6/23/2010:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread587020/pg1


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

It's my opinion that the federal government will not issue a mass evacuation of a possible 40 million people along the gulf coast that will be effected by this spill. It they did, there would be an instant stock market crash and they won't do that. 

If I lived on the coast right now, I'd be packing and leaving to beat the rush that is certain to come when the methane clouds begin on land and killing people without a prior warning. I'd go as far northwest as I could and plan on staying there for the rest of my life. 

Hopefully the west to east jet stream will continue. If it goes back to its natural movement of south to north, then I will be in danger too from the clouds of methane and benzene.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's my opinion that the federal government will not issue a mass evacuation of a possible 40 million people


Of course they won't since there's no reason to



> Hopefully the west to east jet stream will continue. If it goes back to its *natural movement of south to north*, then I will be in danger too from the clouds of methane and benzene.


The Jet Stream's natural flow has always been West to East.
There are no "clouds of methane"
Where do you come up with this stuff?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+stream



> jet stream
> n.
> 1.
> A high-speed, meandering wind current, generally moving from a westerly direction at speeds often exceeding 400 kilometers (250 miles) per hour at altitudes of 10 to 15 kilometers (6 to 9 miles).


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

This 10 minute clip of a flyover was filmed June 21st, shows the true catastrophic state of affairs out there on the gulf. The video is something that might not be shown on the news media.

This is heart breaking and perhaps not to be viewed by the sensitive hearted. Get your hankies ready before viewing. You will see miles and miles of oil, the fires burning and pods of dolphins trapped and dying in the oil slicked water and a sperm whale covered with oil.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxDf-KkMCKQ[/ame]

:awh:


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

I stand corrected on the "normal" jet stream as being west to east, but in years of El Nino, the Ohio Valley does get significant weather systems from south or southwest heading to north or northeast. 

Rephrase "methane clouds" to "methane bubbles" for that correction. 

Methane Health Advisory
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGxGVGiD3yk[/ame]


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

> If I lived on the coast right now, I'd be packing and leaving to beat the rush that is certain to come when the methane clouds begin on land and killing people without a prior warning. I'd go as far northwest as I could and plan on staying there for the rest of my life.


LOL, that's what we who live near the coast wish many of the well named personalities associated with this spill would do. As for me, that short intervention of the resulting calm would be worth it before facing the deadly methane cloud.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the Ohio Valley does get significant weather systems from south or southwest heading to north or northeast.


That's the normal weather pattern any time of the year due to the counterclockwise rotation of low pressure systems.

It has nothing to do with the oil spill, and there's *no* danger of oil reaching any farther inland than it can *float*


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Here's the link:

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/Kindra_Arnesan_-_Quoted_on_PBS_Newshour_6232010

She certainly has a lot of passion and I don't think the world has heard the last from her. Sounds really awful down there in Louisiana and she's right, if this is not stopped, there will be grave consequences for all the world's oceans, since all are interconnected.

Note what she says about the 60 minutes video being pulled - this is near the end of the video.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2010)

The United States will accept offers from a dozen countries and international agencies to help contain and clean up the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the State Department said on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2916120620100630


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

ladycat said:


> The United States will accept offers from a dozen countries and international agencies to help contain and clean up the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the State Department said on Tuesday.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2916120620100630



while that sounds good, all it seems to mean is that the offers are being accepted, put on a list, and labeled "Under Consideration". Many offers have been on this list since April/early May.


----------



## ~taylor~ (Jul 16, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ...and there's *no* danger of oil reaching any farther inland than it can *float*



http://www.naturalnews.com/029082_Gulf_Coast_oil_spill.html

Health Ranger Mike Adams has a different opinion. A sobering look at what could happen


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

~taylor~ said:


> http://www.naturalnews.com/029082_Gulf_Coast_oil_spill.html
> 
> Health Ranger Mike Adams has a different opinion. A sobering look at what could happen



He has very little understanding of science, and he's counting on his readers having little also

The various components of crude oil turn to vapor at different rates, and do NOT magically recombine into oil.

His entire premise is a fantasy. If it were even REMOTELY possible, most of the Gulf would have already "exploded" 

He's saying a storm can bring those chemicals in, and when they "reevaporate" they will be a fire danger, while ignoring the fact they are already *more concentrated *NOW , and yet nothing is burning except what they PURPOSELY burn

*THINK!!!!* before falling for this kind of garbage.


----------



## barnyardfun (Mar 26, 2005)

Here is an article about nuking the well.........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38096586/ns/us_news-environment


----------

