# Oil Rigs' Environmental Concerns



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_louis...jA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNvaWxyaWdibGFzdHA-



> "If it gets landward, it could be a disaster in the making," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director for the environmental group Gulf Restoration Network.





> "It's going to be a god-awful mess for a while," he said. "I'm not crying doomsday or saying the sky is falling, but that is the potential."


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

drill, baby, drill!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *No oil *appeared to be *leaking*


Seems the quotes in the OP are worthless hype, given that the above quote is the first line in the story


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Luckily, I heard on the radio today that it's not leaking from the well-head.

I just checked Google and confirmed it, so it has to be true.



> There is no crude oil spilling from the sunken oil rig off the Louisiana coast, an official told ABC News today, easing fears of a massive environmental disaster.
> 
> No new oil spilling from sunken rig, Coast Guard says."We've been able to determine there is nothing emanating from the well-head," Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said. "That being said, we have positioned resources to be ready to respond should a spill occur... We will continue to monitor 24/7 for the next several days."


http://abcnews.go.com/WN/oil-rig-explosion-caused-spill-coast-guard/story?id=10459072

It's still sad. There is an oil slick that's going to end up somewhere. And the lives of 11 workers lost.

Something to think about when you're fueling up the buggy.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

ROV recon has confirmed that there is leaking from both the riser and the well itself.

Drill, Baby, Drill!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> ROV recon has confirmed that there is leaking from both the riser and the well itself.
> 
> Drill, Baby, Drill!


These are serious problems that need to be dealt with by professionals. No call for drilling jokes.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

says you. besides, one would think you of all people could understand a little political sarcasm.

if i must...i feel drilling off shore poses a great threat to the environment and the neighboring fisheries, and consequently, the economies of various areas. it seems like such a good idea until you have a problem like this one. it only takes one accident to foul up a fishery for a decade or two.

so, let's stick to drilling in areas where it poses less of a risk to pristine waters and landscapes while we also strive to conserve and seek alternatives as best we can with an honest effort instead of relying on drilling for oil every chance we get. i'm no professional, but an accident like this on land would seem a bit easier to contain.

so there...i totally geeked out. feel better?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MELOC said:


> so there...i totally geeked out. feel better?


I do. :grin: Yay oil sands! :thumb:

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i'm no professional, but an accident like this on land would seem a bit easier to contain.


Yes, it would be easier to contain on land, but they still have options. Those are difficult decisions though. Those decisions have to be made without regard to emotion or politics, somewhat analogous to a doctor making the decision to amputate.

Basically when you have an oil spill on water you're already out of good options. The decision has to be made which will do the least harm.

The one thing that they must not do is what was done after the Exxon Valdez spill. They basically did nothing. The people in charge after that spill were unquestionably the wrong people to be in charge. They blocked all distasteful options until the oil slick beached, which was the worst possible scenario.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The one thing that they must not do is what was done after the Exxon Valdez spill.


There's no comparison to these two spills.
In one you're talking about nearly 11 million of gallons in a remote region, and this current one is HUNDREDS of gallons on relatively calm, accessible waters.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

This is from the U.S. Geological Survey puts this into perspective:



> *Abstract* Recent global estimates of crude-oil seepage rates suggest that about 47% of crude oil currently entering the marine environment is from natural seeps, whereas 53% results from leaks and spills during the extraction, transportation, refining, storage, and utilization of petroleum. The amount of natural crude-oil seepage is currently estimated to be 600,000 metric tons per year, with a range of uncertainty of 200,000 to 2,000,000 metric tons per year. Thus, natural oil seeps may be the single most important source of oil that enters the ocean, exceeding each of the various sources of crude oil that enters the ocean through its exploitation by humankind.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

deaconjim said:


> This is from the U.S. Geological Survey puts this into perspective:


but doesn't killing one ant kill them all?

It's like banning cell phones, stopping the 1700 deaths per year from cell phone caused accidents will stop the 60,000/yr that die in car accidents doesn't it?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

blooba said:


> but doesn't killing one ant kill them all?
> 
> It's like banning cell phones, stopping the 1700 deaths per year from cell phone caused accidents will stop the 60,000/yr that die in car accidents doesn't it?


This is totally off topic, but isn't it true that you can't stop any deaths? You might change the cause and timing of the death, but none of us are leaving this world alive.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no comparison to these two spills.
> In one you're talking about nearly 11 million of gallons in a remote region, and this current one is HUNDREDS of gallons on relatively calm, accessible waters.


It's a 20 mile wide oil slick, leaking at around 40,000 gallons each day.

Interestingly, clam water is an enemy to oil spill management. The fact is that oil skimmers don't work fast enough to do much good for a spill this size, in even the calmest waters. This spill is already way beyond the capabilities of oil skimmers, and also way too large for pontoon containment. Calm accessible waters won't help, and will actually work against them.

The hope is that wave action will dissipate the oil by making an emulsion. That's fighting nature (Stoke's law, if you're keeping track of the science) but it's still the best solution if you have the waves to do it.

I don't know enough about the spill to know what their course of action might be, but if the waters are calm and it's headed for shore they'll have to sink it with surfactant. If the oil is light enough they can also consider torching it to reduce volume, but people don't like to see the resulting black plume.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> This is totally off topic, but isn't it true that you can't stop any deaths? You might change the cause and timing of the death, but none of us are leaving this world alive.


Not true. The HC Bill has saved 45,000 peope who were dying from lack of insurance. They were on the Insurance Transplant list, and it wasn't looking good. Now, they will live forever. :goodjob:


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> This is from the U.S. Geological Survey puts this into perspective:



apples and oranges. natural oil seeps happen in areas where oil seeps happen. they are a part of the environment where they occur naturally. an oil spill is a whole different animal. 

following your sense of perspective...arsenic is present naturally around the world, so you would have no problem with someone dumping a truckload of it in your garden?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

MELOC said:


> apples and oranges. natural oil seeps happen in areas where oil seeps happen. they are a part of the environment where they occur naturally. an oil spill is a whole different animal.
> 
> following your sense of perspective...arsenic is present naturally around the world, so you would have no problem with someone dumping a truckload of it in your garden?


The point being that it will only cause localized problems, if it reaches shore. Otherwise, it will eventually be dispersed by wave action.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> The point being that it will only cause localized problems, if it reaches shore. Otherwise, it will eventually be dispersed by wave action.


Actually, I used to work with people in California who were around before the Wilmington Fault Block oil field was fully exploited. That would have been back before the 1950s. Before the shallow oil in that field was pumped out for the most part, at least taking the pressure off, oil seeps within the LA Harbor breakwater were a real problem to locals. People used to rinse off with gasoline after swimming at Long Beach because they got so much oil on them. Of course that's a thing of the past now.

But let's not trivialize the damage that can result from an oil slick beaching. Even if they're successful in sinking it before it beaches, it could take a decade or more for good fishing in the area to return. On a global scale it might not mean much, but a local economoy can be badly trashed by an oil spill.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, I used to work with people in California who were around before the Wilmington Fault Block oil field was fully exploited. That would have been back before the 1950s. Before the shallow oil in that field was pumped out for the most part, at least taking the pressure off, oil seeps within the LA Harbor breakwater were a real problem to locals. People used to rinse off with gasoline after swimming at Long Beach because they got so much oil on them. Of course that's a thing of the past now.
> 
> But let's not trivialize the damage that can result from an oil slick beaching. Even if they're successful in sinking it before it beaches, it could take a decade or more for good fishing in the area to return. On a global scale it might not mean much, but a local economoy can be badly trashed by an oil spill.


I'm not denying that an oil slick can be very serious on in localized areas. Obviously, they can be very serious and damaging if they beach.


----------



## Lyra (Sep 15, 2009)

I lived on the gulf. Man is doing more damage to the gulf shores from inland pollution and dams than oil rigs ever will. The media never rails on that one.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

MELOC said:


> apples and oranges. natural oil seeps happen in areas where oil seeps happen. they are a part of the environment where they occur naturally.


ummm..... it would be pretty fair to suggest that most natural oil seeps happen where there is oil.

And for some odd reason they drill for oil where there is oil also.....weird aint it?

Please refer to DJ's posts for more info...lol


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I'm not denying that an oil slick can be very serious on in localized areas. Obviously, they can be very serious and damaging if they beach.


Allowing the oil to beach was the big mistake of the Exxon Valdez spill. It didn't have to happen. The problem was that people who were too sensitive to the environment were in charge, and they couldn't detach themselves enough from the situation to make the difficult decisions that had to be made.

Containment was out, since the spill was too big. Torching wasn't an option, since the oil was too heavy to burn on its own. There was no hope of the spill going out to sea to be dissipated, since Prince William Sound is virtually surrounded by land.

If nothing was done the spill was going to beach. The only hope was to drop surfactant (an industrial detergent) from aircraft to sink the oil. But if they sank the oil the fishing industry in the Sound would be trashed for a decade or more. Exxon was well aware of what it would do to the fishing industry, and they were fully prepared to pay-off the fishermen. In effect, the fishermen would get a 10-year paid vacation in return for Exxon sinking the oil.

The people in charge didn't like any of the options, including dropping surfactant, since serious environmental consequences would result. They continued to hold meetings and look for new decisions until the oil eventually beached. Of course the beached oil created even a bigger problem, and surfactant had to be used in the cleanup anyway. The fishing industry was still trashed, but now the beaches were covered in oil.

As you know, I'm a big advocate of accountability. While I don't dispute that Exxon was financially responsible for the consequences of the spill, the local powers-that-be had a great deal of responsibility in making things worse. Somehow they escaped accountability.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Lyra said:


> I lived on the gulf. Man is doing more damage to the gulf shores from inland pollution and dams than oil rigs ever will. The media never rails on that one.


Well, give ELF time, and maybe, just maybe the "media" will start to rail against "THAT" one too.
Strange "conincidence" isn't it - Barack Hussein Obama says it might be okay to drill and a "rig" goes awry - Hmmmmm ?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Allowing the oil to beach was the big mistake of the Exxon Valdez spill. It didn't have to happen. The problem was that people who were too sensitive to the environment were in charge, and they couldn't detach themselves enough from the situation to make the difficult decisions that had to be made.
> 
> Containment was out, since the spill was too big. Torching wasn't an option, since the oil was too heavy to burn on its own. There was no hope of the spill going out to sea to be dissipated, since Prince William Sound is virtually surrounded by land.
> 
> ...


Given the number of oil rigs around the world, I would hope there are already procedures in place to handle these situations. In every industry I have been involved with, spills and other accidents were planned for, and people were well trained to implement them. I'm sure the oil industry is no exception.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Given the number of oil rigs around the world, I would hope there are already procedures in place to handle these situations. In every industry I have been involved with, spills and other accidents were planned for, and people were well trained to implement them. I'm sure the oil industry is no exception.


That's true, regulations normally require certain emergency equipment to be present, but oil spill cleanup often involves complicated engineering decisions. Following set procedures isn't really appropriate for an oil spill, outside of an attempt at initial containment. Dropping surfactant carries with it serious consequences, so someone has to make the decision and give the order.

But emergency equipment was yet another blunder of the Alyeska pipeline. It was mandated that oil operators purchase and maintain oil skimming boats, which was really the extent of the disaster plan. It sounded like a great idea at the time, but the regulators weren't aware that oil skimming boats don't work for the size of spill they anticipated. Oil skimmers were deployed after the Exxon Valdez accident to putter around the oil spill, but they didn't pick up enough oil to make a difference.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's a 20 mile wide oil slick, leaking at around *40,000 gallons each day*


All the *sources given *say there is no large leakage, so where are you getting your
"40,000 gallons a day"?

The "width" of a slick is meaningless rhetoric, since you can see a layer of oil on water when it's only a few *thousandths of an inch *thick

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36683314/



> At the *worst-case figure of 336,000 gallons a day*, it would take more than *a month *for the amount of crude oil spilled to equal the 11 million gallons spilled from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound.


Even at the rate you used, it would take* 8 months *for it to equal the amount in the Valdez spill


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Aw, fuzz bunnies. I hadn't checked in a while.

But, now the well is leaking 42,000 gallons of oil a day.

Not good.



> NEW ORLEANS â Officials say there will be no shoreline impact from an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico for at least another three days.
> 
> Crews were ramping up Monday to protect the coastline after an oil rig exploded off the Louisiana coast nearly a week ago. A remote sub is trying to shut off an underwater oil well that's gushing 42,000 gallons a day from the site of the wrecked drilling platform


From: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6976672.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

They're considering torching it now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/

While the plume of black smoke looks bad, it doesn't hurt fishing the way surfactant can and it reduces the volume of the oil. Here is a link for those who prefer a clip.

[ame]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/36812219#36812219[/ame]


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> They're considering torching it now.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/
> 
> ...


It sounds as though torching it might be the best approach.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> It sounds as though torching it might be the best approach.


I think so. The oil is light, so it's spread out very thin, covering hundreds of square miles now. I don't think there's a practical way to drop surfactant on an area that large. They'll probably try some surfactant ahead of the oil beaching, but again the beaching will be on hundreds of miles of shoreline.

Torching won't get rid of it all (heck, it's still leaking), but it will reduce volume if the oil will support combustion.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think so. The oil is light, so it's spread out very thin, covering hundreds of square miles now. I don't think there's a practical way to drop surfactant on an area that large. They'll probably try some surfactant ahead of the oil beaching, but again the beaching will be on hundreds of miles of shoreline.
> 
> Torching won't get rid of it all (heck, it's still leaking), but it will reduce volume if the oil will support combustion.


I believe they are only planning to torch the oil that has been contained by the dams. If that is the case, there is still a potential for oil reaching shore.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> If that is the case, there is still a potential for oil reaching shore.


I think there is no way to avoid oil reaching the shore this time. It's just too wide-spread to get it all when you have 500 square miles to cover.


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Lyra said:


> I lived on the gulf. Man is doing more damage to the gulf shores from inland pollution and dams than oil rigs ever will. The media never rails on that one.


Might want to read this one. 



ttp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Eco/oil-spill-gulf-mexico-severe-estimated-bp-confirms/story?id=10506409

Huge disaster in the making here. If you love your coast might want to get on a slicker and start with helping in the clean up.

Some bible scholar might want to look up the verse about 1/3 of the waters being poisoned.......
We - Man - our worst enemy


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

they just bumped up the leak estimate to 200,000+ gallons per day.


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

MELOC said:


> they just bumped up the leak estimate to 200,000+ gallons per day.


I have heard, per the news, that exxon my put a cap over the whole thing, or side drill to stop the leaking. Anyone in oil know how long that might take?
This is a real disaster. Much bigger in potential than Valdez imo. I know nothing about the oil industry but it looks really, really horrible.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> I have heard, per the news, that exxon my put a cap over the whole thing, or side drill to stop the leaking. Anyone in oil know how long that might take?
> This is a real disaster. Much bigger in potential than Valdez imo. I know nothing about the oil industry but it looks really, really horrible.


If Exxon were able to cap it off, it would have already been done. That may be a near future effort, but so far, not much progress. Side drilling would take several months, and that may be the only solution. The latest leak (of 3) was detected just above the blow out protector, another problem. 

It is gonna be tough. All kinds of fish and water mammals use the hundreds of thousands of acres of salt marsh along the coast to spawn. Tactical use of booms may only temporarily protect some of the most critical habitat. They're asking for volunteers already on our local news. A huge segment of the economy along the coast is in dire straits.

...........and the high pressure system that was helping with a north wind has moved further east, now the winds today are out of the southeast, which means Louisianna may get it first. 

I guess the safety record of the oil platforms was one of the best. I guess it only takes one disaster to change that. I was a "drill here, drill now" advocate. Now I'm reserving that sentiment for on-shore drilling only.


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

It's just so very sad for everyone involved. The next hrs will be the big news item on all the networks and it will go on for months if not years and years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

foxfiredidit said:


> If Exxon were able to cap it off, it would have already been done. That may be a near future effort, but so far, not much progress. Side drilling would take several months, and that may be the only solution. The latest leak (of 3) was detected just above the blow out protector, another problem.


What they're considering is a canopy. That's a dome-shaped structure that can catch oil as it rises from the well head area. They'll go to work on that if short-term efforts to plug the well are unsuccessful. They'll try to have a canopy in place when they try side drilling.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> they just bumped up the leak estimate to 200,000+ gallons per day.


To put this into perspective, if this leaks for two months the oil volume will exceed the Exxon Valdez spill.


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Nevada said:


> To put this into perspective, if this leaks for two months the oil volume will exceed the Exxon Valdez spill.


Exxon is going to have to dig those side holes very quickly if 2months = Valdez. 

I hope and pray they can do it. Until then vacations for Americans may mean going down to the gulf to do volunteer cleanup of land and animals.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

Well, I wonder if this mess will wake the world up - but probably not. Seems nobody was too aweful worried about the spill up here since "nobody lives there" so they just keep on "drillin' baby, drillin". All you have to do to find the Exxon oil 20 years later is simply turn over a rock. From the get-go my gut's been telling me this is going to be an ecological disaster. We are SO destroying this planet! makes me sick


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GrammasCabin said:


> Well, I wonder if this mess will wake the world up - but probably not. Seems nobody was too aweful worried about the spill up here since "nobody lives there" so they just keep on "drillin' baby, drillin". All you have to do to find the Exxon oil 20 years later is simply turn over a rock. From the get-go my gut's been telling me this is going to be an ecological disaster. We are SO destroying this planet! makes me sick


Why should this be a wake-up call? Despite the Valdez disaster, the governor of Alaska told us to "drill baby drill", even in her own state. American don't mind a few oil spills.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why should this be a wake-up call? Despite the Valdez disaster, the governor of Alaska told us to "drill baby drill", even in her own state. American don't mind a few oil spills.


Spills will happen
We can't just stop the world because it sometimes gets messy


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Spills will happen
> We can't just stop the world because it sometimes gets messy


Bull, them baby shrimps are trying to survive in the salt marshes right now. With them, my jambalaya ain't gonna be the best there is, cause I use only Gulf Of Mexico wild shrimp. I got a feeling the world of many folks will stop on account of this, and they ain't that many jambalaya eaters out there. 

Has anyone heard or seen FEMA sticking it's head up yet?


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> I have heard, per the news, that exxon my put a cap over the whole thing, or side drill to stop the leaking. Anyone in oil know how long that might take?
> This is a real disaster. Much bigger in potential than Valdez imo. I know nothing about the oil industry but it looks really, really horrible.


A relief well is going to take something like three months. The mechanical cap thing will take two or three weeks but is pretty problematic. Essentially you've got 5,000 feet of riser on the sea bed with oil flowing out the end that is away from the BOP stack, also some oil coming out of the drill pipe that's inside the riser and a leak in the riser that's close to the BOP/well head. At least that's my impression from the limited details being supplied. Not going to be easy to get some kind of dome over all that. It is BP though, not Exxon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

foxfiredidit said:


> Bull, them baby shrimps are trying to survive in the salt marshes right now. With them, my jambalaya ain't gonna be the best there is, cause I use only Gulf Of Mexico wild shrimp. I got a feeling the world of many folks will stop on account of this, and they ain't that many jambalaya eaters out there.


It's going to hurt us more than it's going to hurt you.

_"Shrimp consumption in Las Vegas is more than 60,000 pounds a day -- higher than the rest of the country combined!"_
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NV-NevadaFacts.html


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> Exxon is going to have to dig those side holes very quickly if 2months = Valdez.


Since when does Exxon clean up after BP?

Here's a link you should investigate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research


> Main Entry: reÂ·search
> Pronunciation: \ri-&#712;s&#601;rch, &#712;r&#275;-&#716;\
> 
> : the collecting of information about a particular subject


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Since when does Exxon clean up after BP?


Hey, chill out. We've been going back and forth between this spill and the Exxon Valdez spill. You know what she meant.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I wonder where are all the comments of those oh so snotty folks in the first few posts.

Of course, we're working this one too. Haiti, the Haiti Low, This...argh. I hate being a scientist in the oceans and air sciences since somehow that makes me Mr. Spock for all natural sciences. All the bad stuff happens.

And yes, this is as bad as it seems. Such a fine line of actions too.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> I wonder where are all the comments of those oh so snotty folks in the first few posts.
> 
> Of course, we're working this one too. Haiti, the Haiti Low, This...argh. I hate being a scientist in the oceans and air sciences since somehow that makes me Mr. Spock for all natural sciences. All the bad stuff happens.
> 
> And yes, this is as bad as it seems. Such a fine line of actions too.


Well, when we look at these things it has to make us wonder if industry is capable of policing itself. So the question is whether additional regulation would have avoided this.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Well, when we look at these things it has to make us wonder if industry is capable of policing itself. So the question is whether additional regulation would have avoided this.


So you think that we should have more regulations so that it takes long to cleanup? The delays and approvals are whats slowing things down and making things worse.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

A Texas compay announced today it wants 500 folks to go to work for them as early as tomorrow. They're gonna be paying $10 to $18 dollars an hour. The positions they named off weren't for just labor either. They said the jobs would last from 10 to 18 months. So I guess that's a good indication of a time line on when they think this catastrophe will end.

Only thing is, June starts hurricane season and that area of the Gulf sees a lot of storms. I think they have until the first big one crosses through there to get their ducks in a row on the leaks, or what?.........would a big storm hinder or help, I have no clue.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> So you think that we should have more regulations so that it takes long to cleanup? The delays and approvals are whats slowing things down and making things worse.


I have pretty strong opinions about regulating the oil industry. In the first place regulation doesn't necessarily mean supervision, so it's not necessary to create delays.

Regulation shouldn't dictate to professionals how to do their jobs, particularly by people who don't know what they're doing. That's what happened after the Valdez spill. Good intentions are not a substitute for education and experience.

Regulation should leave enough room in operating procedures for the company to have responsibility. That's because if every move a company makes is dictated by regulation, when something goes wrong it isn't their responsibility. If a company did exactly what the regulators compelled them to do then you can't logically find them at fault for anything.


----------



## Sheripoms (May 17, 2008)

Wow this is so horrible! 
So what happens if they CAN'T stop it. Does it just keep on spewing? All I can think of in my mind is those beautiful beaches down there and over by Mobile and even on over by Destin, FL. All mucked up in oil.
:Bawling::Bawling::Bawling:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Sheripoms said:


> Wow this is so horrible!
> So what happens if they CAN'T stop it. Does it just keep on spewing? All I can think of in my mind is those beautiful beaches down there and over by Mobile and even on over by Destin, FL. All mucked up in oil.
> :Bawling::Bawling::Bawling:


In 1910 the oil company that I made my career with drilled a well near Taft, CA. That well came in with a gusher so powerful that it couldn't be controlled. It gushed an estimated 378 million gallons over the next 18 months.

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

During it's peak production, it gushed 90,000 barrels per day, nearly 20 times the estimated flow of the leak in the Gulf.

The short answer is that it's capable of gushing for years, but I don't think that will happen.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

blooba said:


> So you think that we should have more regulations so that it takes long to cleanup? The delays and approvals are whats slowing things down and making things worse.


Wonder why Drudge Report says that Barack Hussein Obama sent a swat team out to the oil rig ... ? I mean, right after he says it "might" be okay to drill "out there" and voila, the thing blows up - wow, what a coincidence ... right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So the question is whether additional regulation would have avoided this.



Yes , I'm sure one more law would have stopped the explosion


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes , I'm sure one more law would have stopped the explosion


You never know. Let's wait for the cause to be investigated.

I recall a fire in the crude tower at one of our refineries that turned out to be avoidable through a change in procedure. You might be surprised at the accidents that could have been avoided through regulation.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know if this is true or not but they're saying on the late TV news up here tonight that this has already exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/



> The oil slick could become the nation's worst environmental disaster in decades, threatening hundreds of species of fish, birds and other wildlife along the Gulf Coast, one of the world's richest seafood grounds, teeming with shrimp, oysters and other marine life. Oil was thickening in waters south and east of the Mississippi delta about five miles offshore.
> 
> Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal pleaded for federal help and declared a state of emergency.


:awh:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You might be surprised at the* accidents *that could have been avoided through regulation.


ACCIDENTS are not stopped by regulations, and more than drug laws stop drugs.

There seems to be a lot of variation on the reported amounts of the leakage too, since CBS TV tonight said more than once that it was *5000 gallons per day *now

And that although the area is large, in most places it's less than 1/10th of an inch thick on the surface


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know if this is true or* not *but they're saying on the late TV news up here tonight that this has already exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill.


There's a LOT of misinformation being spread


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Nevada said:


> It's going to hurt us more than it's going to hurt you.
> 
> _"Shrimp consumption in Las Vegas is more than 60,000 pounds a day -- higher than the rest of the country combined!"_
> http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NV-NevadaFacts.html


Naw, it ain't gonna hurt you that much, people in Vegas can eat cake and do just as well. Shrimping in Mobile Bay, I go down a couple times a year with a 14 ft. johnboat and my own net and get enough shrimp to last all year for me and my entire family and their kids. But even that's child's play when it comes to a town like Bayou La Batre, where the entire community has existed for generations on the strength of it's fishing fleet, which is the only game in town. Shrimp is only a small part of the issue. As an item of focus it serves us well, but the millions of animals of the other species about to be in danger is way too complex for our brilliant minds to comprehend.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's a LOT of misinformation being spread


Maybe, maybe not. You can believe or disbelieve what you want. I'm watching this on the live Canadian news right now, they have reporters on the spot reporting live at this late hour and I don't believe they have any reason to be biased or to report false news. 

They're showing a 3rd leak has now been found. Already 4 grey whales have been found to be effected wallowing in the oil slick. A special emergency season has been declared for all shrimpers and oyster catchers to take whatever they can within the next 24 hours. The governor of Louisiana has declared a state of emergency and called for 6,000 national guard to come in to help. They're saying it's the worst oil disaster in the history of America.

I believe it to be true. I'm overwhelmed with grief over this, not only for all the animals but also for all the people whose livelihoods will be drastically effected by this disaster. This is terrible.

.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I have pretty strong opinions about regulating the oil industry. In the first place regulation doesn't necessarily mean supervision, so it's not necessary to create delays.
> 
> Regulation shouldn't dictate to professionals how to do their jobs, particularly by people who don't know what they're doing. That's what happened after the Valdez spill. Good intentions are not a substitute for education and experience.
> 
> Regulation should leave enough room in operating procedures for the company to have responsibility. That's because if every move a company makes is dictated by regulation, when something goes wrong it isn't their responsibility. If a company did exactly what the regulators compelled them to do then you can't logically find them at fault for anything.


Immigration is also regulated......well you see how good that is doing.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

naturelover said:


> I don't know if this is true or not but they're saying on the late TV news up here tonight that this has already exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well maybe they said it on LibTV but that link you posted says no such thing.
This is what it says:



> Government officials said the blown-out well 40 miles offshore is spewing five times as much oil into the water as originally estimated &#8212; about 5,000 barrels, or 200,000 gallons, a day.
> 
> At that rate, the spill could eclipse the worst oil spill in U.S. history &#8212; the 11 million gallons that leaked from the grounded tanker Exxon Valdez in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989


 Which WAS 2 decades ago.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Doesn't matter at this point if it is 20 gallons or 2 million, there is a lot of wildlife that will be affected. And THAT is sad.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe, maybe not. You can believe or disbelieve what you want. I'm watching this on the live Canadian news right now, they have reporters on the spot reporting live at this late hour and *I don't believe *they have any reason to be biased or to report false news


.

With so many DIFFERENT amounts given RE the leakage rates, SOMEONE* is *lying
You can "believe" whichever reprt you choose, but they cannot all be true


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Immigration is also regulated......well you see how good that is doing.


No. The government doesn't regulate immigration. The government administrates immigration itself.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

foxfiredidit said:


> Has anyone heard or seen FEMA sticking it's head up yet?


I avoided that comment because I wasn't sure how to reply, but I don't think we can avoid the issue of the federal government involvement any longer. The fact is that this spill has obviously reached a magnitude that is beyond the capabilities of BP to deal with. I think we can expect full federal government involvement in the mitigation and cleanup effort from here on out.

This will politicize the spill. There will be questions about whether the administration should have recognized the magnitude of the disaster earlier. The administration will judged on how quickly and comprehensively the government responds. To some extent, the administration will even be judged on how much damage results.

This will be Obama's Katrina. The next few weeks will show us what he's made of.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> .
> 
> With so many DIFFERENT amounts given RE the leakage rates, SOMEONE* is *lying
> You can "believe" whichever reprt you choose, but they cannot all be true


Wow...so you're saying that 

1) The complete tards that either don't know the difference between a gallon and a barrell of oil or don't read close enough to see that are as trustworthy as say...oh, I dunno...the guys drilling the oil in terms of numbers;

2) That you are just so sure that seeing down 5K feet in the dark ocean to a BOP that is still capping it and a mile of pipe which is leaking at more than one spot is somehow easy to figure out in terms of volume coming out?

Give me a break. Go look at the setup down there. The BOP is in place but not fully functional. That means it is capping the hole, per se, but not completely stopping the flow. Do you have ANY concept of what kind of volumes we're talking here? That whole layer is under INTENSE pressure. 

It's like saying you have 3 pinholes in your garden hose and you buried in in your pool but since it is putting out colored water anyone standing around your pool should be able to tell you how much is leaking out. Seriously.

Why are people so gullible and yet so very narrow and angry? Everyone is working as hard as they can to fix this. Hey...my weekend is shot. why doesn't one of you help and come mow my lawn for me while I do this all weekend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Why are people so gullible and yet so very narrow and angry? Everyone is working as hard as they can to fix this. Hey...my weekend is shot. why doesn't one of you help and come mow my lawn for me while I do this all weekend.


Don't worry. Now that Obama has to take ownership of the leak Bearfootfarm will have to change his tune. By this time next week Bearfootfarm will be saying, "How could anyone NOT see what a huge disaster this was?" Bearfootfarm would have defended the oil company to the end, but now that Obama has taken charge of the effort conservatives have no choice except to accuse Obama of delivering too little too late.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Well, they told my relatives today that as soon as the wells (2) that they are working on are complete, to cap them off and go home. They're gonna move the wells overseas. When they do that, they give the employment to those of the country they're drilling in. 

It's think going to be a huge wait and see game before there's new work in the Gulf of Mexicao oil fields. I also suspect the oil companies may be using the same technology in their blow out protectors as the Deepwater Horizon had in the one that failed. 

I saw the FEMA person today on the tube. As I noted earlier in O'bama's address, she reinterated that this entire problem is BP's. I could never grasp exactly what the FEMA agency's role was to be, other than to make sure BP attends to this mess. Hopefully they will pull some national guard troops down to help.

Another thing I've noticed is that like Katrina, the attention is initially focused on New Orleans and the the coast of Louisianna. That is appropriate at this time, however I wonder how much attention will be paid to other areas of the gulf coast as the disaster spreads.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Don't worry. Now that Obama has to take ownership of the leak Bearfootfarm will have to change his tune. By this time next week Bearfootfarm will be saying, "How could anyone NOT see what a huge disaster this was?" Bearfootfarm would have defended the oil company to the end, but now that Obama has taken charge of the effort conservatives have no choice except to accuse Obama of delivering too little too late.


Yeah, well we learned from Katrina that pointing a finger and calling names really does a lot of good huh? Especially by those who can't tell the difference between a foghorn and a bull with a bugle up his butt. By the time we're really into this, I trust everyone will "hire American" because the jobless refugees will need a place to be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bearfootfarm would have defended the oil company to the end


LOL I'm not "defending " anyone.

I merely stated the there are conflicting reports on the amounts, and they range from "no oil leaking" to 200,000 gallons a day in this one thread

I think CBS's MISTAKE was they kept SAYING and SHOWING a figure of "5000 GALLONS" when they meant BARRELS.



> Now that Obama has to take ownership of the leak Bearfootfarm will have to change his tune


BO isn't taking ownership of anything. He's already said *BP *is responsible for ALL COSTS, but the Feds would provide " any help needed"

Your saying he's "taken charge" is just one more *false report*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> BO isn't taking ownership of anything. He's already said *BP *is responsible for ALL COSTS, but the Feds would provide " any help needed"
> 
> Your saying he's "taken charge" is just one more *false report*


Whether Obama likes it or not, he has assumed ownership of managing the oil spill. Sure, he'll bill BP for the work, but stopping oil from reaching shore is Obama's responsibility now.

Why? Because no one else has the resources to deal with it. He has to, and he's doing it. As I said, this is Obama's Katrina.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Whether Obama likes it or not, he has assumed ownership of managing the oil spill. Sure, he'll bill BP for the work, but stopping oil from reaching shore is Obama's responsibility now.
> 
> Why? Because no one else has the resources to deal with it. He has to, and he's doing it. As I said, this is Obama's Katrina.


I don't see the oil being stopped.

It's probably to much to expect from anyone.

All we can hope is that the damage in minimized.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> I don't see the oil being stopped.
> 
> It's probably to much to expect from anyone.
> 
> All we can hope is that the damage in minimized.


Hopefully Obama will be judged on how good the response is and not but the results.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL I'm not "defending " anyone.
> 
> I merely stated the there are conflicting reports on the amounts, and they range from "no oil leaking" to 200,000 gallons a day in this one thread
> 
> ...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Hopefully Obama will be judged on how good the response is and not but the results.


Isn't a good way to see how good he responded is to look at the end results?

Or are you talking about how good he responds in his speech about it? 
He better not forget his speech writers and teleprompters.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

No way to minimize the damage now.
If the pipe erodes out, the 5000 barrells a day could go as high as 10 times that.
BP is trying to fabricate an "unbrella" or "hood" to encompass the blowout due to the extremely high pressure, which would hopefully give them enough time to drill an adjacent well to relieve some of the pressure on this one. 
Baldwin County, yesterday isssued a "state of emergency" in order to give them power to ask for volunteers, get resources, etc. to fight the oil slick coming ashore. The feds told them in no uncertain terms to "back off". Today the state issued the state of emergency. No response from the feds as yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bearfootfarm - Does it really matter how much is spewing out?


Evidently it matters to *the media*, since they keep throwing out figures without REALLY knowing anything .

My point is, if they don't KNOW, they should just say so instead of giving out conflicting reports based on speculation


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Isn't a good way to see how good he responded is to look at the end results?


Sure, if you can judge the Bush administration on results. How did Katrina and the economy work out for you under Bush?



blooba said:


> Or are you talking about how good he responds in his speech about it?
> He better not forget his speech writers and teleprompters.


Obama will be judged on who is there are what they are doing. I recall watching CNN during the Katrina aftermath. It was clear that a humanitarian crisis was unfolding in New Orleans, yet no one seemed to be on the ground. That made very bad press.

If the press covers oil beachings and no one seems to be around, it will look bad. Obama needs to get people on the ground in the Gulf coast area who will tell the press about how they're making intelligent decisions. If Obama doesn't get people on the ground, it will be another Katrina-style public relations disaster.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently it matters to *the media*, since they keep throwing out figures without REALLY knowing anything .
> 
> My point is, if they don't KNOW, they should just say so instead of giving out conflicting reports based on speculation


Bearfootfarm...have you read my response to you on the amount. That pretty much sums it up. 

So, if you happen to have any spare ultra deep diving rov's with excellent cameras that are self cleaning when they get fouled with oil...oh, and a the deployer and controller ship for one of those right there...you could speak up and improve the situation.

Given those ships can go about 10 knots on flat seas and considerably less in the raised seas there now and that there are only a few in the world and they don't just sit around, they're doing pretty good.

I get the impression that you're very bitter and perhaps not very deep thinking. Otherwise, I can't see how you can't recognize the common sense part of all of this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bearfootfarm...have you read my response to you on the amount. That pretty much sums it up.


Yes I read it.



> I get the impression that you're very bitter and perhaps not very deep thinking. Otherwise, I can't see how you can't recognize the* common sense *part of all of this.


Common sense would be for the media to stop throwing out numbers if they have to keep making them up.
Suddenly everyone is an "expert" on TV, so they spout their figures and there's no way to verify them.



> It's like saying you have 3 pinholes in your garden hose and you buried in in your pool but since it is putting out colored water *anyone standing around your pool should be able to tell you how much is leaking out*. Seriously.


That comment simply proves my point.
If they don't know they should just say so.



> Everyone is working as hard as they can to fix this. *Hey...my weekend is shot*


Sounds to me like you're the one who's bitter.
And I bet you're getting paid overtime


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes I read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Disgusting.

I work between 55 and 100 hours a week.

I'm military. I don't get overtime.

You're a (edited to take out calling someone a jerk).

You get my drift.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Disgusting.
> I work between 55 and 100 hours a week.
> I'm military. I don't get overtime.
> You're a (edited to take out calling someone a jerk).
> You get my drift.


LOL It's not my fault you have to do your job.

My ONLY comments have been directed at how the* MEDIA *is handling it, and not about any of the other things you've brought up.

Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

naturelover said:


> I do. :grin: Yay oil sands! :thumb:
> 
> .



you been over too see the tar sands!? makes sudbury look like a green space!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ford major said:


> you been over too see the tar sands!? makes sudbury look like a green space!


I haven't a clue what Sudbury is like. I would be really interested to hear your first-hand personal perspective and description of Sudbury though. Seriously, I'd like to know as I'm very interested in learning more from other Canadians about all parts of Canada. 

I have however seen my fair share of Alberta and around Edmonton and somewhat north of there and in my estimation (compared with what I'm accustomed to on this side of the Rockies) it's a dismal, soul-sucking moonscape. (No offense intended to any fellow Canadians that live around there). I haven't seen the tar fields either, and I know there's problems but I don't think they outweigh the utter catastrophe of what's happening with the oceans right now, in particular this man made disaster that's just happened in the Gulf.

Anyone who's spent any time debating with me or reading my posts about how I feel about the destruction we're wreaking on nature and what we're doing to the oceans will know that it's my opinion if we kill the oceans and marine life we will consequently destroy most life on the whole planet. The oceans are the life-blood of this planet and what happens with the oceans influences the balance of absolutely everything else on earth. That being the case, if we must take oil from somewhere (which I would prefer we didn't have to do at all), I would much rather see the oil taken from the earth and from dismal tar sands than from anywhere beneath the oceans. We have more control of what happens on solid land than we do on water. The oil spills are undeniable evidence of that.

.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

naturelover said:


> ............. the destruction we're wreaking on nature and what we're doing to the oceans will know that it's my opinion if we kill the oceans and marine life we will consequently destroy most life on the whole planet. The oceans are the life-blood of this planet and what happens with the oceans influences the balance of absolutely everything else on earth. That being the case, if we must take oil from somewhere (which I would prefer we didn't have to do at all), I would much rather see the oil taken from the earth and from dismal tar sands than from anywhere beneath the oceans. We have more control of what happens on solid land than we do on water. The oil spills are undeniable evidence of that.


.......bump


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I would much rather see the oil taken from the earth and from dismal tar sands than from anywhere beneath the oceans. We have more control of what happens on solid land than we do on water. The oil spills are undeniable evidence of that.


Maybe so, but strip mining for oil is an expensive way to go. It's a lot less expensive to drain light oil out of a formation.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but strip mining for oil is an expensive way to go. It's a lot less expensive to drain light oil out of a formation.


Expensive? Tough, too bad. I couldn't care less about the expense. If it's too expensive then we can do without. What price and what justification do we put on the destruction of the whole earth and every living thing on it to save ourselves from the additional expense of acquiring a luxury? We're committing suicide for the sake of greed.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If it's too expensive then we can* do without*


Sure.
We can stop using oil and just let 3/4ths of the world starve to death.
Then the survivors can feel all warm and fuzzy inside


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure.
> We can stop using oil and just let 3/4ths of the world starve to death.
> Then the survivors can feel all warm and fuzzy inside


Get real. 

Who do you think the non-survivors would be? The people who already desire and use the most oil or the people who already don't desire or use the most oil? 

The only nation that would really suffer from lack or less consumption of oil is USA since USA is the biggest consumer. Do you really think the rest of the world is going to suffer so much if you stop consuming some of your oil? 

This is from 3 years ago, lists of the 212 top consumers who use oil - per day. 
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

This is from 2 years ago:
http://business.rediff.com/slide-sh...orlds-10-biggest-oil-consumers.htm#contentTop

Top 10 Rounded up:

USA ...... 20 million barrels per DAY
China ...... 8 million 
Japan ...... 5 million
India ....... 3 million
Russia ..... 3 million
Germany .. 2.6 million
Brazil ....... 2.4 million
Saudi ....... 2.4 million
Canada .... 2.3 million
S. Korea ... 2.2 million

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

A visual perspective - a pie chart.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> If the press covers oil beachings and no one seems to be around, it will look bad. Obama needs to get people on the ground in the Gulf coast area who will tell the press about how they're making intelligent decisions.


So your definition of properly handling this would be a press conference? 

I got an idea, why doesn't Obama load up all his planes with his 14 speachwriters and 12 teleprompters and make a speech down there himself. That would stop the oil from gushing and magically make it all disappear right?


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

Consumption is up for sure.........the size of the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico has tripled in size over the last 24 hours.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> So your definition of properly handling this would be a press conference?
> 
> I got an idea, why doesn't Obama load up all his planes with his 14 speachwriters and 12 teleprompters and make a speech down there himself. That would stop the oil from gushing and magically make it all disappear right?


I don't understand how you got from the press finding a federal presence in a disaster area to a press conference. Disaster workers will either be on the job or they won't, but that has nothing to do with press conferences, teleprompters, or speech writers.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't understand how you got from the press finding a federal presence in a disaster area to a press conference. Disaster workers will either be on the job or they won't, but that has nothing to do with press conferences, teleprompters, or speech writers.


"people on the ground in the Gulf coast area who *will tell the press* about how they're making intelligent decisions"

You said nothing about them actually doing anything, but hey its all about the speech. Thats how Obama got elected!!!


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

ford major said:


> you been over too see the tar sands!? makes sudbury look like a green space!


LOL ford major.... is this a east vs west opinion? .
Naturelover I agree I live just a couple hours south of Ft Mac and the tar sands, and most of that north region is muskeg and sloughs and just plain dismal, and was basically uninhabited by anyone other then a few natives before the oil boom started up there in the 60's. My son is an environmental supervisor (just a small ant in the big sandhill) and has worked up there quite extensively. Reclaimation is big business.
This gulf oil gusher is making the losing of 1500 ducks in that tailings pond up here look like small potatos now. 
Unfortunately disasters do happen and the earth is paying the price for mans pillage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The only nation that would really suffer from lack or less consumption of oil is USA since USA is the biggest consumer


So it won't hurt if we stop exporting all food to other countries?
And are you proposing that the US stop using oil but let other countries continue?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You said nothing about them actually doing anything, but hey its all about the speech


Didn't he already say BO should be judged on his *response*, and not his *results*?


----------



## Daddyof4 (Jan 5, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Don't worry. Now that Obama has to take ownership of the leak Bearfootfarm will have to change his tune. By this time next week Bearfootfarm will be saying, "How could anyone NOT see what a huge disaster this was?" Bearfootfarm would have defended the oil company to the end, but now that Obama has taken charge of the effort conservatives have no choice except to accuse Obama of delivering too little too late.


Ahhhh...one of your preemptive strikes. Trying to head off blaming Obama's inaction by putting it out there before it gets widespread on here. Newsflash! Just like with Katrina, the fed needed to monitor this closely and empower the states and BP to work together to do their jobs but be ready to step in on a second's notice. Once the leak got out of control as it appears to be now, then the feds needed to step in quickly and decisively. 

This IS his Katrina but the media is laughable in their reluctance to put the same kind of negative press on their god as they heaped on Bush almost instantly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Top 10 Rounded up:
> 
> USA ...... 20 million barrels per DAY Pop: 307,006,550
> China ...... 8 million Pop: 1,324,655,000
> ...


 Pop: 48,607,000


If you take out the ones who's population is LESS than that of many of our* states*, and then take out those that have LESS than HALF our number of people, it becomes obvious your comparison is as unrealistic as the idea that we can just stop using petroleum


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Top 10 countries - barrels of oil used per DAY:
> 
> USA ...... 20 million Pop: 307,006,550
> China ...... 8 million Pop: 1,324,655,000
> ...


Sorry Bear, I'm not understanding what it is you're saying, none of that quite made sense to me. 

Are you saying the numbers for the amounts of daily oil consumed by each of those industrialized countries are unrealistic based on their populations? If so, how do you figure? What's your reasoning? 

The daily oil consumption statistics for each country are correct - the populations you listed for each country are correct. What is unrealistic about it? It is the way it is.

And nowhere in any of my posts have I said we can just stop using petroleum.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you saying the numbers for the amounts of daily oil consumed by each of those industrialized countries are unrealistic based on their populations? If so, how do you figure?


I'm saying *COMPARING* them to the US is unrealistic

Japan only has a couple of thousand of miles of highways TOTAL
How is it fair to compare us to them? Just ONE of our Interstate Highways is probably equal to ALL the miles of road in their country.

If you want to FAIRLY compare those relatively TINY countries, pick ONE of our* states *that's more equal to their size




> And nowhere in any of my posts have I said we can just stop using petroleum


Sounds like it to me:



> If it's too expensive *then we can do without*. What price and what justification do we put on the destruction of the whole earth and every living thing on it to save ourselves from the additional expense of acquiring *a luxury*?


Everyone is all hyped up over this spill like it's monumental, but reality is it will have to leak for over 6 months to make it into the TOP TEN worst spills ever.

The entire world runs on oil, and that's not going to change significantly for DECADES


http://www.financialpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2971866



> If the well continues to flow unabated at 5,000 bpd for two months until BP can cap it, the Deepwater Horizon spill could surpass the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill of 270,000 barrels as the biggest in U.S. history. But to keep things in perspective, this spill would have to continue gushing at this rate for *200 days to break into the top 10 worst spills *ever, and for more than a year to enter the top five.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sounds like it to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And again you're missing the entire forest for staring at one termite on one tree.

It isn't the actual quantity of the oil that makes this so impactful.

You are looking at what is worst strictly by the volume.

Not a very bright comparison, really.

The oil is coming out continuously. The currents in that area are an alterating eddy of the Gulf Loop current. They shift somewhat with the winds. They are strong sometimes. They generally feed into a surface current that will run eastward and then shift north, curve along the entire northern coast of the Gulf and then get sucked back in, with Miss River runoff, into that circulation.

When the winds change, that joining point shifts quite a bit and that is where you can get connection with the Loop. That loop will send it south, hit the northwester tip of Cuba and then split, sending a good portion east, right through the keys and around florida and then north along the coast. The other portion peels off west and re-enters the Loop.

When you have it continuously leaking out, you can't just get to the business of cleaning it up. You're constantly chasing the dragon. And it is impacting not just one spot, but everyone has to keep all equipment on a swivel to catch the next place. And exactly how many thousands of miles of boom would we need to protect the coast entire?

This is catastrophic. I really don't see why you're so set on stamping your foot and saying, no no no.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is catastrophic. I really don't see why you're so set on stamping your foot and saying, no no no.


Because *realistically* , it's no worse than hundreds of other spills over the last 20 years.
This one gets more attention due to it's location
I haven't heard anyone reacting to those the way they have to this one



> Kazakhstan, for one, had no comprehensive environmental laws until 2007, and *Nigeria has suffered spills equivalent to that of the Exxon Valdez every year since 1969*. (As of last year, Nigeria had *2,000 active spills*.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02margonelli.html

I'm not saying it's "not bad".
I'm saying it's not unusual


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Expensive? Tough, too bad. I couldn't care less about the expense. If it's too expensive then we can do without. What price and what justification do we put on the destruction of the whole earth and every living thing on it to save ourselves from the additional expense of acquiring a luxury? We're committing suicide for the sake of greed.
> 
> .


Why don't you start now? You can set a good example for the rest of us and reduce consumption all at one blow.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Why don't you start now? You can set a good example for the rest of us and reduce consumption all at one blow.


I beg your pardon??? Would you please explain that comment? Are you telling me to go away and stop using internet? If so then you're being rude and ignorant.

I'm a conservationist and environmentally aware person living in an environmentally aware region along with 4 million other environmentally aware people. It's a way of life for us here. I reduced my personal impact (footprint) and consumption of petroleum and other oil based products starting more than 40 years ago. 

How about you?

.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

It's not educational to anyone without a problem. Hopefully this problem will have a high tide of waves that wash all the inland communities with as much reality as the communities on the coast now have. The cost of oil went up to a new plateau that not many Americans will be willing to climb up for, nor will the residents of the coast be willing to stand for. If BFF intends to say that because this one is in our own backyard instead of in another country that there's really no difference, then he will want to save the ticket to his ringside seat.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I started looking around for the science of how nature deals with oil(which it made itself). Here's a link
http://www.itopf.com/marine-spills/fate/weathering-process/
I know it comes from tanker people(and a bunch here will poo poo because it had "tanker" in it), but it's a bunch of science to credit or discredit as you will. I'll keep poking around.

PS< actually that website has a lot of interesitng stuff. Good place to start. I'm guessing by far, in the looooong run, the impact will affect humans far more than nature. Just a speculation, I could be wrong of course


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Wyld Thang, that was good, even heartening, information. According to that, we should all hope for lots of bad weather with choppy waters and high winds to disperse it and break it up thoroughly then, since this is light sweet crude oil with less asphaltenes in it.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If BFF intends to say that because this one is in our own backyard instead of in another country that there's really no difference, then he will want to save the ticket to his ringside seat.


Oil spilled is oil spilled.
I don't recall anyone even mentioning ONE of the 2000 spills last year in* Nigeria alone
*

Where was all the angst when it was somewhere else?



> The cost of oil went up to a new plateau


There's no reason it *should* have. Since the well *wasn't in production*, it can't possibly be causing a shortage.

We are 3 weeks from Memorial Day weekend. It would have gone up anyway, since it always does at the beginning of Summer


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

BFF, I just want to say that I think you do yourself a lot of unselfish credit to be so concerned about Nigeria. Good for you. :goodjob:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> BFF, I just want to say that I think you do yourself a lot of unselfish credit to be so concerned about Nigeria. Good for you. :goodjob:
> 
> .


I'm not concerned with Nigeria
I'm more concerned with just keeping it all *in perspective*.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not concerned with Nigeria
> I'm more concerned with just keeping it all *in perspective*.


Oh, too bad. I thought perhaps you were exhibiting a moment of compassion for Nigeria. My mistake, should have known better. 

.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Wyld Thang, that was good, even heartening, information. According to that, we should all hope for lots of bad weather with choppy waters and high winds to disperse it and break it up thoroughly then, since this is light sweet crude oil with less asphaltenes in it.
> 
> .


Yeah, here's the thing, crude oil comes from nature itself, it's made from natural processes, it's a "natural" thing. And being a thing of nature, nature has in place ways of breaking it down, because nature is all a cycle of making and breaking. There are pockets of oil off the coast of Oregon under the ocean which crack and burp up oil into the environment when the faults shift(and do we ever hear about it?!). A heck of a lot more oil than we realize is spilled every year around the world. This spill is shocking because it's so near a lot of hot real estate--tourism, seafood industry, development. People are panicking with oil fogs and oil rain and flash ignition of oil films(do our roads spontaneously combust with the summer oil buildup? there was a ship that busted up off the coast of Oregon here 10 years ago full of diesel and they couldn't get it to ignite with NAPALM). Shrimp and fisheries are going to be raped to "get all they can" before the oil KILSKILLSKILLS everything--what will that do for recovery populations?!

On that link I gave they have some statistics over the last 30 years or so, the number and volume of spills each year has gone drastically down(meaning there was a heck of a lot MORE oil spilled years ago, and what effect has it had in the grand scheme of things, as opposed to say unchecked development? the paving of wetlands? the culvertization of salmon spawning streams? the runoff of hormones in the water from all the BC pills adn antibiotics?) This whole thing goes straight down the Al Gore line--more damage will be done all around because of knee jerk germaphobic voodoo panic. I do NOT want to poopoo the scale of this or the human impact, just say I hope the people who know their poop in all this get to take the reins and do their thing. Otherwise it will indeed be a huge mess.

And if there are mass relocations of people away from the Gulf coast because it's "ruined", I'll just bet the wildlife/environment will make a huge renewal.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

PS, a huge reason why I DON"T take birth control pills is because of the environmental impact(I know, peeing in the ocean...). Screwing with nature that way and feminizing males is very very bad juju to me. I will NOT participate. (my other reason is I just HATE to take pills).


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Well, when we look at these things it has to make us wonder if industry is capable of policing itself. So the question is whether additional regulation would have avoided this.


From what I've read, BP is self insured... so they're going to eat billions. Believe me, after several billions have been spent, they'll do their own policing, and make sure this doesn't happen again.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> There are pockets of oil off the coast of Oregon under the ocean which crack and burp up oil into the environment when the faults shift (and do we ever hear about it?!).


There's a difference with the gulf situation though. When oil gets 'burped' because of a fault shifting off the west coast, it's over and done within a matter of 2 or 3 days and then everything settles back into place again. It's not a man-made occurrence such as this where the oil is continuing to spew out of the earth from a man-made well that isn't capped and doesn't look like it's going to get capped any too soon.

I won't say anything more about the shrimpers and other fishers in the gulf, I've already said plenty before about how their dredging and scraping of the sea floor is destroying the natural balance and the marine life there and causing dead zones.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's not a man-made occurrence such as this where the oil is continuing to spew out of the earth from a man-made well that isn't capped and *doesn't look like it's going to get capped any too soon*.


Or they could cap it tomorrow.
The problem is everyone wants to talk about "worst case" instead of just letting it play out.

There was as much oil spilled during Katrina as there is coming from this spill, but no one worried a lot about it them because of the focus on NOLA



> Speaking of oil spills, SkyTruth images revealed significant spills covering a large area of the northern Gulf of Mexico in the wake of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. At the time, nobody was talking about what had happened to the 4,000 offshore oil platforms - and 34,000 miles of pipeline on the seafloor - when Katrina ripped through the Gulf as a Cat 5 storm, followed a few weeks later by Hurricane Rita. Attention was rightly focused on the unfolding human tragedy, as well as the *7-9 million gallons of oil spilled *from damaged pipelines, refineries and storage tanks onshore.


http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hurricane-katrina-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html



> ...for months after the storms, officials from government and industry repeatedly claimed that there were no "significant" spills in the Gulf. That line is still heard even now. Yet in May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service published their offshore damage assessment: 113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

naturelover said:


> There's a difference with the gulf situation though. When oil gets 'burped' because of a fault shifting off the west coast, it's over and done within a matter of 2 or 3 days and then everything settles back into place again. It's not a man-made occurrence such as this where the oil is continuing to spew out of the earth from a man-made well that isn't capped and doesn't look like it's going to get capped any too soon.
> 
> I won't say anything more about the shrimpers and other fishers in the gulf, I've already said plenty before about how their dredging and scraping of the sea floor is destroying the natural balance and the marine life there and causing dead zones.
> 
> .


I realize the scale is different between leaking faults and a blown drill hole. But my point remains that nature has processes in place to break down oil. Personally I think "more" damage may be done by over harvesting the shrimp etc before the tide to get as much $$$$ out before they can't get any more(follow the money, always). Again, it might be a blessing in disguise for that seafood/habitat to be "tainted" and left alone. Harsh, but there it is.

(ANd don't forget all the fertillizer runoff from the Mississippi )


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> I realize the scale is different between leaking faults and a blown drill hole. But my point remains that nature has processes in place to break down oil. Personally I think "more" damage may be done by over harvesting the shrimp etc before the tide to get as much $$$$ out before they can't get any more(follow the money, always). Again, it might be a blessing in disguise for that seafood/habitat to be "tainted" and left alone. Harsh, but there it is.
> 
> (ANd don't forget all the fertillizer runoff from the Mississippi )


Tainted and left alone? Have you see the recent reports from Ak? Turn over a rock and find oil from the Valdez spill 20 years later. This oil spill will make that look like a drop in the perverbal bucket in a few days. 
Buy your shimp and seafood now. BTW that's where most of what you eat in the way of seafood comes from here in the US. Because you won't get it for another 10+.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> Tainted and left alone? Have you see the recent reports from Ak? Turn over a rock and find oil from the Valdez spill 20 years later. This oil spill will make that look like a drop in the perverbal bucket in a few days.
> Buy your shimp and seafood now. BTW that's where most of what you eat in the way of seafood comes from here in the US. Because you won't get it for another 10+.


Actually we import about $12 BILLION/yr from other countries. 

The 2nd most caught seafood worldwide,behind anchovies, *Alaska* pollock, guess those are gonna get decimated from this oil spill right?

The 2nd most caught fish in the world is caught in the same waters as the Exxon Valdez spill so guess that blows your theory outta the water...lol


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

blooba said:


> Actually we import about $12 BILLION/yr from other countries.
> 
> The 2nd most caught seafood worldwide,behind anchovies, *Alaska* pollock, guess those are gonna get decimated from this oil spill right?
> 
> I mean they fish for these herring in the same waters as the Exxon spill so guess they are decimated right?


We're talking about the fisheries in the Gulf and it's desimation at the lack of oversight by BP. If you don't believe this will affect the amount of Fish and Seafood that you eat then believe what you will. You will pay more for less. 
(I guess I'll stay on topic even if you won't.)


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> We're talking about the fisheries in the Gulf and it's desimation at the lack of oversight by BP. If you don't believe this will affect the amount of Fish and Seafood that you eat then believe what you will. You will pay more for less.


I eat *Maryland* Crabs,*Freshwater* Crawfish,*Thailand* black tiger shrimp and *Alaskan* Pollock . It's gonna effect me alot.....lol


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

blooba said:


> I eat *Maryland* Crabs,*Freshwater* Crawfish,*Thailand* black tiger shrimp and *Alaskan* Pollock . It's gonna effect me alot.....lol


I hope you develop a taste for that oily sheen. :thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This oil spill will *make that look like a drop in the perverbal bucket in a few days*.


More UNINFORMED hype

It will have to leak at this rate for over 6 MONTHS to equal the amount of the Valdez spill


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We're talking about the fisheries in the Gulf and it's desimation at the *lack of oversight by BP*


More unsubstantiated misinformation. It was an ACCIDENT
You have NO credibility


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More UNINFORMED hype
> 
> It will have to leak at this rate for over 6 MONTHS to equal the amount of the Valdez spill


And how long will it take for them - BP - to put a dome over that well head?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/noaa-warned-interior-was_n_561615.html

http://www.alternet.org/news/146669...ldez_is_going_to_pale_in_comparison_to_this'_

Exxon Valdez spill going to pale in comparison to this spill

Just a few of the articles i just read. Might want to inform yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And how long will it take for them - BP - to put a dome over that well head?


No one knows yet, so you're speculating



> Just a few of the articles i just read. Might want to inform yourself.


Just more of the same speculation and dire PREDICTIONS you parroted
No new facts were given


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> Tainted and left alone? Have you see the recent reports from Ak? Turn over a rock and find oil from the Valdez spill 20 years later. This oil spill will make that look like a drop in the perverbal bucket in a few days.
> Buy your shimp and seafood now. BTW that's where most of what you eat in the way of seafood comes from here in the US. Because you won't get it for another 10+.


Sure, TRAPPED under a rock where sun can't break it down, where sea water can't wash it away and bacteria munch it. What about AROUND the rock, where the elements have done their thing? Did you read my link? have you done any reading about the SCIENCE of spills, statistics of how much is spilled and the effects of cleanup? 

Sheesh, all we ever hear about is the immediate disaster and TEOLAWKI(something like that), and yet, 20 years later even, life goes on. Like I said before, it's the decimation of habitat by devlopement and screwing with the natural order because we think there's something wrong or we think we can improve it--we take our theories to the land and apply them, instead of observing the land as it is and was and will be and then understanding. 

I get my seafood from the PNW waters thanks, or Norway herring.

BTW, in the right conditions you can turn over a rock and find just about anything well preserved that should have decomposed years ago. 

I'm not saying the huge spill is not without effect--just there is a LOT WORSE things going on right now that get no press and threaten the planet RIGHT NOW--follow the money. We need oil to facilitate a peasceful switch to other energies when it's gone, hopefully it can be used prudently. Otherwise buckle in and wear protection.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This oil spill will make that look like *a drop in the perverbal bucket in a few days*.


The Exxon Valdez spill was 11 million gallons on Prince William Sound, which is 
*11,000 Sq miles of COLD water*

The BP spill won't reach that volume for MONTHS in an area of *600,000 Sq miles of TROPICAL water*.

Stop the hysteria and stick to scientific facts


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

another way to look at that is that there are 600,000 square miles of slick filled with marine mammals that are being affected right now. they aspirate oil every time they try to breathe. i wonder how many marine mammals there are in that 600,000 square mile area compared to the 11,000 square miles in prince william sound? how did hundreds of miles of estuary in the prince william sound fare? oh yeah...not so much there. 

you can spin this with numbers that are irrelevant as much as you like, but each spill is unique and cannot really be compared to another.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

So the slick covers 600,000 square miles now? how many manatees get free lobotomies by a fish/ski boat prop? 

maybe some one can do the math of how many gallons of oil it will take to evenly cover 600,000 square miles with say 1/10th inch of oil(how thick can oil sit on top of water btw?)?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

one gallon contains 231 cubic inches
231 cubic inches covers 16 square feet 1/10th of an inch deep
1 sq mile contains 27,878,400 sq feet
27,878,400/16=1,742,400 gallons required to cover to a depth of 1/10th of an inch deep
600,000 square miles would require 1,045,440,000,000 gallons of oil to cover to a depth of 1/10th of an inch deep. (that's TRILLION)
yeah. (i'm tired, feel free to check my math and tell me I'm wrong. But it's still a googleplex).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> another way to look at that is that there are* 600,000 square miles of slick*


The slick doesnt cover the entire Gulf. Not even close.



> you can spin this with numbers that are irrelevant as much as you like


The Gulf is *55 times bigger *than the sound

The numbers aren't "irrelevent"
If you think they are , pour a quart of oil in a washtub full of water, and a quart in an Olympic size pool, and tell me there's no difference

Also the oil itself is much lighter, so more will simply evaporate.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

no, the slick does not...but those are the numbers we are squabbling about and i didn't provide them. 

the numbers really are irrelevant because, like i said, each case is unique. 

put on a snorkel and hop in that pool for a few days and then tell me you can't taste the oil. i'll join you in a little while. just remember...the oil doesn't cover the entire pool, so our chances are pretty good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> put on a snorkel and hop in that pool for a few days and then tell me you can't taste the oil


You're still pretending the slick actually covers the entire area, when in reality it's covering a minute portion so far



> each case is unique


That's my point also, yet many keep trying to say this one is "worse", while ignoring the DATA


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still pretending the slick actually covers the entire area, when in reality it's covering a minute portion so far


Maybe, but that's not to say that more fish won't die in the Gulf spill. The fact that the Gulf is large does not make this any less of a disaster.

Fishing will be ruined in some areas far from the oil slick for many years as a result. Time will tell what the beaches will look like, and this will effect beaches from LA to FL. If you are trying to minimize the magnitude of this disaster I think you are fighting a losing battle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's my point also, yet many keep trying to say this one is "worse", while ignoring the DATA


I have serious doubts that you understand what's going on out there. This isn't political, this is facing the realities of dealing with an oil spill.

First, they will be dumping air tanker loads of surfactant into the water to try to sink the oil. Surfactant is an industrial detergent that kills fish on contact. The volume of surfactant they'll drop will have an immediate impact on fishing.

Next is the oil sinking to the bottom. That's the intended purpose of dropping surfactant; to sink the oil instead of letting it beach. While sinking oil is preferred over letting it beach, it still carries consequences. That oil on the bottom will kill off life on the Gulf floor, so slugs that make part of the food chain will die-off. That will continue for years, maybe as long as 10 years, before life as we've known it returns to the Gulf.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

any stats on kill rates of applied surfactant versus letting it break down by sun/bacteria/wave action, using physical barriers, picking up the emulsified tar, ?

(I bet I know which one is worse)

and again, how much sea floor life is altered because of chemical and sediment/topsoil runoff from the Mississippi?

and what is the main reason of not letting the oil beach? REAL ESTATE VALUE. Better to dump tons of chemicals to make the oil sink and smother an ALREADY comprimised sea floor, out of sight, out of mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have serious doubts that you understand what's going on out there. This isn't political, this is facing *the realities *of dealing with an oil spill.


I understand all of that.
I also understand the media is hyping it at every opportunity.
THEY need to stick to realities too

When you look at JUST the data, it's not much worse YET than many other spills that haven't gotten this much airtime




> That oil on the bottom *will kill off life on the Gulf floor*, so slugs that make part of the food chain will die-off. That will continue for years, maybe as long as 10 years, *before life as we've known it returns to the Gulf*.


See? There's a perfect example of emotional HYPE vs reality.

It's NOT going to have any long lasting effects on the ENTIRE Gulf, as you're implying

IF it *is *as you say, there's NO LIFE there *now*, since 7-9 million gallons were spilled during Katrina, just 5 years ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> any stats on kill rates of applied surfactant versus letting it break down by sun/bacteria/wave action, using physical barriers, picking up the emulsified tar, ?
> 
> (I bet I know which one is worse)


That's not really the choice. If they could let the oil break down on its own then they would. The problems is that the currents will beach it before that happens. The choice is really between letting it beach and sinking it with surfactant.



wyld thang said:


> and again, how much sea floor life is altered because of chemical and sediment/topsoil runoff from the Mississippi?


In the area where the oil is treated by surfactant you have a complete kill. In the immediate area of the delta it may come back sooner, maybe even a lot sooner. I really don't know.



wyld thang said:


> and what is the main reason of not letting the oil beach? REAL ESTATE VALUE. Better to dump tons of chemicals to make the oil sink and smother an ALREADY comprimised sea floor, out of sight, out of mind.


Beaching creates a terrible clean-up problem. It's the worst case scenario.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

complete kill vs "terrible" clean up

yup, sounds like a wise choice to me


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> complete kill vs "terrible" clean up
> 
> yup, sounds like a wise choice to me


An oil spill at sea is very bad news. There aren't any good answers. That's why things got out of hand after the Valdez spill. All of the options were so bad that the local regulators refused them all, allowing the oil to beach.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

from wikipedia
Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to _displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, _but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal; 98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.[12]

I wonder how things would be if people hadn't been so hot to "clean"? hopefully the bacteria can build up again and natural cleanup of the oil can be exponential. How much damage was done by scouring that bacteria etc which acted as food and little cleaners? Take away food and stuff doesn't live long. Take away water and your compost don't perk.

PS, I've been reading around now on reports of the effects of Valdez. The thing is, (which is not surprising), I have not been able to find yet statistics presented of numbers as a part of a whole--like how many seals out of a population died, not just x number of seals dies. Lots of "not recovered"--with no explanation or perameters. HInts of effects causing death that come from sources outside the Valdez(or the populations were already at risk and the oil was the straw that broke the camel's back). Everything stated in general terms that make it sound like every single unit of wildlife experienced catastrophic(has the sound been moonscaped, are there no birds? fish? n-o-t-h-i-n-g? Why is it so hard to get hard numbers? 

Just goes to show that the agenda wins in the end and nature gets screwed--just as it will get OVERLY screwed in the Gulf by people demanding something to be done. It's easier to "do something" to win a vote, than do the right thing and lose the vote.

Meanwhile other insidious ongoing environmental disasters keep on keeping on. The glamorous stuff gets the grease.


----------



## foxfiredidit (Apr 15, 2003)

I really don't know if the spill in the gulf could be called glamorous, that is, if you look just a little north of it and view the type of people who will be hurt the most. It's not the real estate developers, who can clean up one of those sugar white beaches overnite, or the casinos whose people are really not there for the beach. It is really about the mom and pop fishing industry that supplies 30% of all the seafood. Hurricanes wipe them almost out, the govt. regulates their catch on faulty data, and now this. It ain't glamorous, it ain't pretty, and it ain't mainstreet glitter, it's real life. 

.......and the eleven folks who died, have faded from all concious memory. Just 11 less ducks on the pond I reckon.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> And how long will it take for them - BP - to put a dome over that well head?
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/noaa-warned-interior-was_n_561615.html
> 
> ...


You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?



> Energy company BP has stopped one of the leaks, and the latest hope, the concrete container, *should be deployed today *once it arrives over the leaking wellhead aboard a drilling ship


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-blowout_N.htm


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

blooba said:


> You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?
> 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-blowout_N.htm



http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=351846

I started a thread about the dome. I hope it works and yes, I know that One of the three leaks has been stopped. 

Like many people I have friends and family on the Gulf Coast that will and are being affected by the spill. Their lives and businesses rely on the health gulf and coastal region. 

Nothing funny about this. We all hope and pray it is capped and the oil doesn't affect their way of life.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

QuiltingLady2 said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=351846
> 
> I started a thread about the dome. I hope it works and yes, I know that One of the three leaks has been stopped.
> 
> ...


Was I laughing? It's just you can speculate all you want....oh its gonna take years for them to cap it........ when you really don't know whats going on. Although you yell at others when they speculate.


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

blooba said:


> Was I laughing? It's just you can speculate all you want....oh its gonna take years for them to cap it........ when you really don't know whats going on. Although you yell at others when they speculate.


And yet you speculate that it's going to take years.....

I certainly hope it doesn't take years. I hope it is capped today by that big ol' box. That would be wonderful news. Don't you think?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wyld thang said:


> complete kill vs "terrible" clean up
> 
> yup, sounds like a wise choice to me


Like I said, the surfactant they use is bad news. However, I didn't know that they were getting away with telling us that the composition was none of our business.

Poisonous chemicals used to fight Gulf oil slick
Dispersants&#8217; ingredients &#8212; &#8216;proprietary recipes like Coca-Cola&#8217; &#8212; are secret

Nalco should really be compelled to tell the regulators what's in it. I can understand them wanting to keep it a secret from their competitors, like Coca-Cola for example, but if the FDA wants to know what's in Coke they will either tell them or they won't be allowed to sell it. Nalco should have to do the same with their recipe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nalco should really be compelled to tell the regulators what's in it


The "regulators" arent asking



> *Like the United States *and Britain, many countries* test and approve the products before they are used*, determining how toxic they are when administered in low doses to marine animals like shrimp.


The GOVT isn't asking for the ingredients.
It's " *some environmental groups* " according to YOUR SOURCE

Just one more example of hype over substance to ramp up the melodrama

Do you even read your sources, or do you just stop when you see an exciting headline?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "regulators" arent asking
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can I throw hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical agent in the ocean and tell everyone that it's none of your business what I'm putting in the water? You have to admit that it's pretty bold to claim rights to keep something like that secret.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can I throw hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical agent in the ocean and tell everyone that it's none of your business what I'm putting in the water? You have to admit that it's pretty bold to claim rights to keep something like that secret.


You're dodging the fact that YOUR SOURCE said the Govt has *tested and APPROVED *it's use
YOU *as an individual *have no "right" to know the exact ingredients

It's not "bold" its business.
You are also aware that they have put out MSDS sheets *as REQUIRED by OSHA*, so to keep claiming *no one *knows what the chemicals are is not totally honest


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're dodging the fact that YOUR SOURCE said the Govt has *tested and APPROVED *it's use


Our government?

I'm reminded of a time when Bush was explaining that he would love to see us save money by legally buying prescription meds from Canada, but he didn't know if they were safe. In other words, he didn't even trust Canada's word. Why is Brittan's word worth a dime all of the sudden?


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

I haven't read every post and this may be a little off the well in the gulf. Here the drillers want to dump their waste water into the river running it through one cities water treatment plant and they refuse to tell what is in the water. Now they don't have to use liners in their pits at the well site. The creek across the road from our house used to have fish and frogs in it. After a few gas wells have been put in upstream there is no fish frogs or even what I call water spiders in it. Most of the time it has an oily film on it and no one is interested in even coming and looking at it. 
The drillers did find a small city that lets them dump [I think] it is something like 12,000 barrels of waste water a day into their waste water system. Wonder what those folks are getting in their water downstream. People have even caught trucks parked along creek banks in the area at all hours of the night and it almost appears that they are dumping into the creek. If you have ever been around a drilling rig for a few days when it is raining you can see what a mess they can make. Our creek used to never get muddy when we had heavy rains and now a light rain turns it muddy. I will hush for now. Sam


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Our government?
> 
> I'm reminded of a time when Bush was explaining that he would love to see us save money by legally buying prescription meds from Canada, but he didn't know if they were safe. In other words, he didn't even trust Canada's word. Why is Brittan's word worth a dime all of the sudden?


YOUR source had the information.
If you're now saying your source isn't reliable, then the whole thread is moot
And you lose points for talking about Bush


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> YOUR source had the information.


My source? You forgot that I spent a lifetime career in the oil business? This might shock you, but some consider me to be an expert in some corners of petroleum knowledge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My source? You forgot that I spent a lifetime career in the oil business? This might shock you, but *some consider me to be an expert *in some corners of petroleum knowledge.


And that's why you SHOULD* know *this story is a load of crap.

You KNOW they have to provide MSDS documents to anyone who requests it. 
You KNOW any "hazardous" materials have to be labeled as such.

They arent telling the *ENVIROMENTALIST groups *who are whining, but anyone who NEEDS to know , already does.

To claim they arent telling what's in it is a distortion of reality, as any *"expert"* would already know


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And that's why you SHOULD* know *this story is a load of crap.


I don't know that it's a load of crap. If you don't believe that industrial surfactants kill fish, try putting a few drops of dish washing detergent in your fish tank and see how long it takes for your tropical fish to go belly-up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *I don't know that it's a load of crap*. If you don't believe that industrial surfactants kill fish, try putting a few drops of dish washing detergent in your fish tank and see how long it takes for your tropical fish to go belly-up.


You're dodging again:


> I didn't know that they were getting away with telling us that the composition was none of our business.


No one *said* it wasn't dangerous
The PREMISE of the article ( and your claim) was they wouldn't TELL what the chemicals were. 
No one said anything about if it would "kill fish", so that's just your diversionary babbling now that you can't defend your original claim

It's no more likely to kill anything than the oil itself, and will HELP more than it hurts .


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't know why people are arguing over this issue. Seems we should ALL agree that it is a MAJOR disaster!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're dodging again:
> 
> 
> No one *said* it wasn't dangerous


I said surfactant was dangerous to marine life and the environment. 



Bearfootfarm said:


> *It's no more likely to kill anything than the oil itself*, and will HELP more than it hurts .


I disagree, but you are welcome to back that up with a reference.

Industrial surfactants are basically hydrocarbons (oils) treated with SO3 gas (sulfuric acid). You would be hard pressed to convince me that untreated oil is as hard on marine life as surfactant is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Industrial surfactants are basically* hydrocarbons (oils) treated with SO3 gas (sulfuric acid). *You would be hard pressed to convince me that untreated oil is as hard on marine life as surfactant is.



Why dont you just say "SOAP", since that's what youre' describing.
Or does that not sound ominous enough?



> I said surfactant was dangerous to marine life and the environment


Again, no one said it wasn't.
BUT your claim in the beginning was that they *weren't telling *anyone what was in it.
Now you're on a different tack since you failed to prove that claim at all.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I also heard on the radio this morning that they are trying to round up as many earthworms as possible to be sent down to the gulf.

Because everybody knows, "The oily bird gets the worm."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't know why people are arguing over this issue. Seems we should ALL agree that it is a *MAJOR* disaster!!


"Major" is a relative term. 
In terms of the amount of oil spilled, it's not even in the top 20 yet

Hyping things to MAKE it seem worse is dishonest


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why dont you just say "SOAP", since that's what youre' describing.
> Or does that not sound ominous enough?


Because "soap" doesn't accurately describe what we're talking about. Soap is not a hydrocarbon that has been treated with SO3 (has been sulfonated). Soap is a hydrocarbon that has been treated with sodium hydroxide. It's the difference between a soap and a detergent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I disagree, but you are welcome to back that up with a reference.


It only took a few minutes to find a source that refutes the article you posted as well as your claims of " highly toxic surfactants"


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



> When deciding to *approve the use of dispersants *on the ocean surface, the *Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other government agencies had to calculate the environmental trade-off*, Charlie Henry, NOAA scientific support coordinator said during a press conference on 3 May.
> 
> *The chemicals are low in toxicity*, but spread the oil further potentially exposing more sea life, said Henry. The agencies decided that using chemicals at sea was *preferable to allowing the oil to come ashore *where it would have a more devastating effect on wildlife and fisheries, he explained.





> *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*.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> JMD_KS said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why people are arguing over this issue. Seems we should ALL agree that it is a *MAJOR* disaster!!
> ...


In other words, Bearfootfarm doesn't agree that it's a major disaster.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The agencies decided that using chemicals at sea was *preferable to allowing the oil to come ashore *where it would have a more devastating effect on wildlife and fisheries, he explained.


I agree with that statement. But treating surface oil with surfactant is still a serious step. I've been saying all along that sinking the oil is better than letting it beach, but it still kills marine life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> In other words, Bearfootfarm doesn't agree that it's a* major *disaster.


Again "major" is a relative term
This spill is a lot smaller than many others that didnt get all this airtime.

It's "major" due to it's location, but in reality , it's no worse than literally THOUSANDS of spills that happened that didn't make any headlines at all

A lot of the coverage has been speculation about "worst case SCENARIOS" which some seem to confuse with what is actually happening.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> My source? You forgot that I spent a lifetime career in the oil business? This might shock you, but some consider me to be an expert in some corners of petroleum knowledge.


Oh really? What don't you enlighten us as to your areas of expertise? I'd be really curious given your remarks so far.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Oh really? What don't you enlighten us as to your areas of expertise? I'd be really curious given your remarks so far.


While I worked in both production and refining, my particular niche is more associated with refining (catalysis in particular). But in 24 years in the oil industry I have obtained a broad base of knowledge about petroleum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But in 24 years in the oil industry I have obtained a broad base of knowledge about petroleum.


And yet a poor old sheep farmer has been able to *refute* most of your claims AND provide reliable sources.

So far YOUR "source" has been your own testimony as to your "expertise".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet a poor old sheep farmer has been able to *refute* most of your claims AND provide reliable sources.
> 
> So far YOUR "source" has been your own testimony as to your "expertise".


They why hasn't the leak been pinched-off yet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And yet a poor old sheep farmer has been able to refute most of your claims AND provide reliable sources.
> 
> They why hasn't the leak been pinched-off yet?


That has nothing to do with what I stated, or the fact that most of your claims have been proven false.

It's just your normal tactic of going off on a new tangent when cornered by reality.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has nothing to do with what I stated, or the fact that most of your claims have been proven false.
> 
> It's just your normal tactic of going off on a new tangent when cornered by reality.


What I mean is, if they have the technology to pinch-off a leak at 5,000 foot depths then why haven't they already done it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

A former co-worker at Chevron emailed this to me today. It contains some photos of the Deepwater Horizon platform. Some of you may find it interesting.

http://windowrock.com/Horizon.pdf


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> While I worked in both production and refining, my particular niche is more associated with refining (catalysis in particular). But in 24 years in the oil industry I have obtained a broad base of knowledge about petroleum.


So that means your knowledge of drilling and exploration is just hearsay. Downstream is a completely different world and has zero relevance to the issues associated with this incident.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wanderer0101 said:


> So that means your knowledge of drilling and exploration is just hearsay. Downstream is a completely different world and has zero relevance to the issues associated with this incident.


Evidently you don't know the jargon. Production includes drilling and exploration, not just watching pump jacks going up and down.

Do you act this way at work?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What I mean is, if they have the technology to pinch-off a leak at 5,000 foot depths then why haven't they already done it?


Because they want to try the other methods first.
They have already stopped one of the leaks


----------



## ejagno (Jan 2, 2008)

First of all, I am very disappointed in the horrible behavior I've witnessed on this thread. None of you with the nastiest attitudes has a clue what is going on down here; the livlihoods at stake, the contamination risks to our land, drinking water and homes, the environmental impact it is having or the fact that we've heard nothing but very grim reports for the 2010 hurricane season that begins in 20 days. Hurricane force winds, tidal waves and oil= massive widespread contamination. Oh, and did I mention that NONE of this damage is covered by your homeowners policies? Try that on for size.

I thought that this board was to share the wonderful wisdom, support and commaradarie of like minded folks seeking the homesteading lifestyle. What's wrong with sharing opinions, news sources and having a sensible adult discussion without all this bickering and back-biting. Some of your own members here who live along the Gulf Coast might really be needing some encouraging words of support and prayers right now. Granted, I haven't posted much since joining with one arm and hand in a cast, but I felt that I really needed to speak up here because this is not typical HTer behavior and it needs to stop.

I do apologize for this thread interruption and off topic post.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

ejagno, thank you for setting this thread straight! I too have been appalled at the behavior of some here and I am SO SO SORRY for what is happening to all you folks down there in the gulf. I cried a lot when the oil companies fouled our waters and beaches....with this one, I just have the sickest feeling in the pit of my stomach.

So many questions and so little truth coming from BP. Why won't they let anyone see the videos of what is happening down there??? They released one tinybit of video showing the oil pouring into the gulf early on when the "accident" first happened but refuse to release any further video shots showing current state of the leak to the news media. What are they hiding?!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> refuse to release any further video shots showing current state of the leak to the news media


What would you be able to tell from a video?
How COULD they do much video a mile underwater?


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm, your whole attitude in this thread has been rude, argumentative and condesending so I'll respond to you only this once then get outta this thread. 

According to what I've read and heard in the news, video cameras are rolling 24/7 down there and have been since this thing happened. Every major news media has submitted written and verbal requests for copies of recent footage, BP is refusing. Now, that should tell most of us there is something they don't want us to see. Like maybe just how much oil is spewing out of that hole.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because they want to try the other methods first.
> They have already stopped one of the leaks


It's clear from watching the senate hearings today that they were operating in deep water without adequate technology to deal with an emergency. It seems that their plan was to hope that nothing went wrong, and they've been getting away with that plan for quite a long time now. They only reason they were allowed to operate with no real emergency plan is because regulators let them get away with it, which is nothing short of scandalous.

From the reaction of the senators, I'm suspecting that we'll get a whitewash job. The fallout from this incident will be whatever is politically expedient. This is a good issue to avoid for those in congress fighting to keep their jobs.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What would you be able to tell from a video?
> How COULD they do much video a mile underwater?


Oh good heavens. The same way we do it when we survey at 2000 feet. You drive your ROV from the ship or you drive your submersible from inside. You TURN ON THE LIGHTS and then turn on the camera.

See how easy that was?

You know, I'm pretty sure I'm close to the only oceanographer and meteorologist on here. I gotta say, you're pretty strident on topics of which you know nothing and are 100% wrong in on a constant basis.

I'm having doubts that you are actually having these opinions. I'm wondering if you're not a troll or someone who just like to start fires. Do you like to start fires? Make prank phone calls? That sort of thing?

You know nothing. You are wrong. You are off base and you're not making sense half the time. Please just leave the topic for those who have some cogent arguments. Please.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yay Christie! Post of the day award. :bow:

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

GrammasCabin said:


> So many questions and so little truth coming from BP. Why won't they let anyone see the videos of what is happening down there??? They released one tinybit of video showing the oil pouring into the gulf early on when the "accident" first happened but refuse to release any further video shots showing current state of the leak to the news media. What are they hiding?!


They probably don't want us to see the destruction and the extent of the heavier oils and tar that are collecting on the floor of the ocean. It's only the light oils that are rising to the surface.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Bearfootfarm, your whole attitude in this thread has been rude, argumentative and condesending so I'll respond to you only this once then get outta this thread.


If you call sticking to the facts and ignoring the hype "rude" them maybe I am.
You're entitled to your opinion, as am I

Reality is a video won't show you how much oil is coming out, so it would be a waste of time


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's clear from watching the senate hearings today that they were operating in deep water without adequate technology to deal with an emergency.


The have the technology.,

It's just not foolproof


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

naturelover said:


> They probably don't want us to see the destruction and the extent of the heavier oils and tar that are collecting on the floor of the ocean. It's only the light oils that are rising to the surface.
> .


Sure there maybe some tar, but look at our roadways, Tar is everywhere now. Heavy oil and light oils only refer to viscosity, not density. Would you please refer me to which element in crude oil is denser than water?

I'll help. Here's a density list.

http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh good heavens. The same way we do it when we survey at 2000 feet. You drive your ROV from the ship or you drive your submersible from inside. You TURN ON THE LIGHTS and then turn on the camera.
> 
> See how easy that was?
> 
> You know, I'm pretty sure I'm close to *the only oceanographer and meteorologist on here*. I gotta say, you're pretty strident on topics of which you know nothing and are *100% wrong in on a constant basis*.


Then you should know a lot of the reports are speculation and NOT fact
And just HOW does watching it flow out give anyone any *useful *information?



> You know nothing. You are wrong. You are off base and you're not making sense half the time. Please just leave the topic for those who have some cogent arguments. Please





> I'm wondering if you're not *a troll *or someone who just like to start fires. Do you *like to start fires*?* Make prank phone calls*? That sort of thing?


Go back through all the posts and see who's doing the name calling and *not *providing sources. I think you'll see it's you rather than me


Funny how you keep saying that I'm wrong, and calling me names, but you haven't shown and DATA to refute the DATA I've shown

I've *backed my claims *with reliable sources while all the "experts" keep giving *opinions*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They only reason they were allowed to operate with no real emergency plan is because regulators let them get away with it, which is nothing short of scandalous.


LOL I love your feigned indignation

They had safety devices in place. NO technology is 100%


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

no tech is 100%...well then, i guess they will pay their $75 million in damages, suck the government teat for the rest and drill, baby, drill some more. that probably means billions in government handouts for "research" into how to drill a mile deep safely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The have the technology.,
> 
> It's just not foolproof


Like what?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Like what?


Like the BOP that failed, or the baffles that blew out in the methane explosion.
Those SHOULD have prevented the whole thing, but you af all people should know it's not a perfect world.

They have also used the "junk shot" and "tophat" methods in numerous blowouts, so you can NOT say 'they don't have the technology", and be honest at the same time,


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like the BOP that failed, or the baffles that blew out in the methane explosion.
> Those SHOULD have prevented the whole thing, but you af all people should know it's not a perfect world.


That's counting on everything working correctly. Equipment failures are bound to happen.



Bearfootfarm said:


> They have also used the "junk shot" and "tophat" methods in numerous blowouts, so you can NOT say 'they don't have the technology", and be honest at the same time,


OK, then let's just say that they have no "effective" technology to deal with emergencies. Even BP admits that the emergency methods they are trying haven't been done at those depths before. They simply aren't prepared to deal with this.

As I said, if alternate technology is mandated then the financial incentive to develop answers certainly exists. That's what needs to be done.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

blooba said:


> Sure there maybe some tar, but look at our roadways, Tar is everywhere now. Heavy oil and light oils only refer to viscosity, not density. Would you please refer me to which element in crude oil is denser than water?
> 
> I'll help. Here's a density list.
> 
> http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm


Roadways are irrelevant to this particular situation. They are harder and on land surface, not under water, plus they have been processed and further refined before being laid down. 

I wasn't referring to viscosity, I was referring to density in terms of lightness and heaviness. It's unrefined fluid, you and I have no idea how much heavy, tarry crud and sludge and god knows what other 'stuff' is bursting out of that hole along with the lighter oils. Do you think all of that sludge and tar balls and 'stuff' is going to rise to the surface with the less dense oils? I don't. I think the oils on the surface are just the tip of the iceberg. I think the crud would stay suspended much lower below the surface and a lot of it would accumulate, adhering and clinging to all the corals and other parts of the sea floor. It's undeniable that anything that is oily or tarry sticks to whatever it comes in contact with and smothers it. On the sea floor it would be sticking to plants, rocks, corals, sand, crustaceans, tube worms, barnacles, fish, etc. etc. 

The density list isn't really helpful to me, maybe somebody else will understand it better (I'm mathematically challenged). It specifies *pure* water at 4 degrees centigrade and the other fluids at around 20 degrees centigrade. I have the feeling that can't equate as a comparison in the case of fluids a mile down under *salt* water where it's cold enough to freeze methane and create frozen methane crystals. I'm a cook and I know that if I thoroughly chill olive oil or coconut oil it will solidify and sink in cold water then stick to whatever solid thing it comes in contact with. I would use that as a comparison with chilled crude oil that has tar in it. I don't know what the temperature is down there but I'm sure it's not 20 degrees centigrade. I do know that when warm liquid tar and sludge becomes suddenly cooled it contracts and becomes lumpy, heavy and more solid. I figure that's whats rolling around down there.

Certainly this is all speculation though. The only way we'll ever know for sure what is happening on the sea floor is when we see documented video evidence of it but I'm certain it can't be all good and healthy.


Edited to add they're saying on the late Canadian news tonight that there is now more natural gas coming out of there than crude oil, and that the junk stop technique may be more successful in stopping the natural gas than it would crude. They didn't explain why.

.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

blooba said:


> Sure there maybe some tar, but look at our roadways, Tar is everywhere now. Heavy oil and light oils only refer to viscosity, not density. Would you please refer me to which element in crude oil is denser than water?
> 
> I'll help. Here's a density list.
> 
> http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm


We've already provided them with the information that it is in the column. We can't map it for them though. The currents are just to varying in that are subsurface.

The density of the gulf, particularly near the area the Miss comes out, is actually pretty varied. Fresh water with temps influenced by land and very warm salty water meet and the packets change in the water column to achieve balance.

For oil, it isn't pure oil. It is filled with gunk. Oil weathering is a term you're likely to start hearing. Once it comes up from very high pressure it can achieve neutral buoyancy before reaching the surface until that balance is disturbed again. Pilots were seeing it below the surface in April.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

naturelover said:


> The density list isn't really helpful to me, maybe somebody else will understand it better (I'm mathematically challenged). It specifies pure water at *4 degrees centigrade* and the other fluids at around 20 degrees centigrade. I have the feeling that can't equate as a comparison in the case of fluids a mile down under salt water where it's cold enough to freeze methane and create frozen methane crystals.
> .





> In deepwater provinces such as Angola and the Gulf of Mexico, seabed temperatures are very cold &#8211; near to freezing at around *4&#730;C.*


http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9013612&contentId=7021452
The oil coming from the earth is warmer than the water temperature. It is about 60 F.
Any numbers below 1000 will float in water!
Crude oil, 48Â° API	60 F _790_
Crude oil, 40Â° API	60 F _825_
Crude oil, 35.6Â° API 60 F _847_
Crude oil, 32.6Â° API 60 F _862_
Crude oil, California 60 F _915_
Crude oil, Mexican 60 F _973_
Crude oil, Texas 60 F _873_

Why do you think they pump water into the cavity when the natural oil pressure goes down? OIL FLOATS!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> We've already provided them with the information that it is in the column. We can't map it for them though. The currents are just to varying in that are subsurface.
> 
> The density of the gulf, particularly near the area the Miss comes out, is actually pretty varied. Fresh water with temps influenced by land and very warm salty water meet and the packets change in the water column to achieve balance.
> 
> For oil, it isn't pure oil. It is filled with gunk. Oil weathering is a term you're likely to start hearing. Once it comes up from very high pressure it can achieve neutral buoyancy before reaching the surface until that balance is disturbed again. Pilots were seeing it below the surface in April.


The reason pilots saw oil being neutrally bouyant right away is because oil naturally has about 4ppm of pure H2O. Coming into contact of the 4 degrees down there freezes it making "oil balls" once those "oil balls" mix with saltwater they will unfreeze and float once again.

There was an oil spill up in a Canadian lake that had this problem although it was freshwater and the water was cold all year long so it was never able to fix itself.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> The reason pilots saw oil being neutrally bouyant right away is because oil naturally has about 4ppm of pure H2O. Coming into contact of the 4 degrees down there freezes it making "oil balls" once those "oil balls" mix with saltwater they will unfreeze and float once again.


I'm not sure of the significance of 4 ppm water in oil, but your 4 degree figure must be centigrade. Water will not freeze at that temperature. But even if it was cold enough to freeze water, 4 ppm isn't even enough to see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As I said, *if alternate technology is mandated *then the financial incentive to develop answers certainly exists. That's what needs to be done.


You can "mandate" all the technology you can imagine, but until it's tested under real world conditions, it's just theory.

If the explosion and subsequent sinking of the rig hadn't *damaged the hydraulics *on the BOP, this story would have been over a couple of weeks ago

They had tested it just shortly before the explosion and it passed the tests


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But even if it was cold enough to freeze water, 4 ppm isn't even enough to see


And if the water DID freeze, it would become MORE bouyant, not less


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Thank you Dick Cheney!

http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/04/dick-cheney-caused-gulf-oil-disaster.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can "mandate" all the technology you can imagine, but until it's tested under real world conditions, it's just theory.


You also mandate testing under real-life conditions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And if the water DID freeze, it would become MORE bouyant, not less


I don't think you appreciate how small 4 ppm is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You also mandate testing under real-life conditions.



How do you "test" stopping a blowout at 5000 ft underwater?

And yes, I realize how small an amount 4ppm is.

The fact remains that ANY amount of water is less dense when frozen, and therefore more bouyant

Oil droplets wouldn't NOT float because of frozen water mixed in with the oil, which is what I was referring to, although, as you said, the amount is negligible



> they will *unfreeze and float once again*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How do you "test" stopping a blowout at 5000 ft underwater?


Let that be a challenge to you.

HINT: Try pretending that you're an oil company trying to convince a regulator that you have the technology to drill at 5,000' safely.



Bearfootfarm said:


> And yes, I realize how small an amount 4ppm is.
> 
> The fact remains that ANY amount of water is less dense when frozen, and therefore more bouyant
> 
> Oil droplets wouldn't NOT float because of frozen water mixed in with the oil, which is what I was referring to, although, as you said, the amount is negligible


Compared to the density of oil, 4 ppm of water isn't even noticeable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Compared to the density of oil, 4 ppm of water isn't even noticeable


I agree with that.
I wasn't the one who said frozen water keeps oil from floating.
I just pointed out it's more bouyant when frozen



> HINT: Try pretending that you're an oil company trying to convince a regulator that you have the technology to drill at 5,000' safely.


Evidently the regulators thought it would work.
There have been well drilled even deeper than 5000 ft underwater


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have been well drilled even deeper than 5000 ft underwater


I don't think there's been very many Bear. There's the Perdido Spar at 8,000 feet and the Cajun Express at 8,000. Now Chevron Canada has just started drilling a well in the north Atlantic off shore of Newfoundland at 8,530 feet. Most other existing off shore wells (from what I've found doing a search) are 3,000 feet deep or less. Oddly, it hasn't been easy to find a lot of information on internet about how many rigs there are and how deep they are.

.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

blooba said:


> The reason pilots saw oil being neutrally bouyant right away is because oil naturally has about 4ppm of pure H2O. Coming into contact of the 4 degrees down there freezes it making "oil balls" once those "oil balls" mix with saltwater they will unfreeze and float once again.
> 
> There was an oil spill up in a Canadian lake that had this problem although it was freshwater and the water was cold all year long so it was never able to fix itself.


Yea, sorry about that. I misspoke. 

The water contained in crude oil which is mixed with paraffin wax ,found naturally in crude oil, gels, not freezes, at that temperature. Which entraps oil molecules in the gel. Once it mixes with the saltwater, the gel point raises which liquefies the oil once again. 

Sorry for saying freezes, I'm no scientist I just play one on TV. :gaptooth:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Yea, sorry about that. I misspoke.
> 
> The water contained in crude oil which is mixed with paraffin wax ,found naturally in crude oil, gels, not freezes, at that temperature. Which entraps oil molecules in the gel. Once it mixes with the saltwater, the gel point raises which liquefies the oil once again.
> 
> Sorry for saying freezes, I'm no scientist I just play one on TV. :gaptooth:


Just a couple of general comments here.

First, 4 ppm water in oil is pretty dry crude. When I was producing oil in Kern County, California, we had to drop the water out so that it had no more than 3% water or the oil buyers wouldn't accept it. Heavy oil that is approaching the density of water can contain a lot of water. I've dewatered oil that had up to 20% water.

Second, the water normally found in produced crude is saltwater, and much of it is in fact ancient seawater. We were acutely aware of that fact, since the high salt content made for a disposal problem. Most of that water had to be reinjected into the formation through poorer performing wells.

Finally, you are correct that oil spirits (oil collected in a boiling range) do not freeze. That's because "waxed-up" oil is not technically a solid. Oil spirits, being a mixture of compounds if many boiling points, does not have a freeze point. Instead it has a pour point. In other words, as it cools it gets thicker and thicker, until finally it won't move any longer. That's the pour point.

It might interest you to know that a number of solid materials that we normally think of as solids are really liquids. For example, glass is a liquid. Glass has no freezing point. Like oils, glass has a pour point. While glass at room temperature may seem like a solid, that's just because it happens to be below the pour point. Glass is still in motion, albeit slowly, so it is classified by scientists as a liquid.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It might interest you to know that a number of solid materials that we normally think of as solids are really liquids. For example, glass is a liquid. Glass has no freezing point. Like oils, glass has a pour point. While glass at room temperature may seem like a solid, that's just because it happens to be below the pour point. Glass is still in motion, albeit slowly, so it is classified by scientists as a liquid.


Yep, you don't have to tell me that...lol. My house (@200 yrs old) has REALLY old windows. The tops are sagging and getting really thin while the bottom has about doubled in thickness.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

naturelover said:


> I don't think there's been very many Bear. There's the Perdido Spar at 8,000 feet and the Cajun Express at 8,000. Now Chevron Canada has just started drilling a well in the north Atlantic off shore of Newfoundland at 8,530 feet. Most other existing off shore wells (from what I've found doing a search) are 3,000 feet deep or less. Oddly, it hasn't been easy to find a lot of information on internet about how many rigs there are and how deep they are.
> 
> .


Quite wrong actually. For starters you're ignoring Brazil which has more deep water wells than anyone else in the world, then there's West Africa, the Mediterranean, Asia Pac, etc. The reality is that 5,000 feet is not considered particularly deep anymore when work is being done in the vicinity of 10,000 feet with a couple over 10K I think. If I had access to my library I could give you actual numbers but I'm traveling. Certainly we're talking dozens and probably hundreds. Petrobras will add 52 rigs capable of drillin 6500 feet of water or greater from 2009 to 2017. They added seven in 2009 and will add six this year.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i just saw an abysmal report on CNN where an engineering expert watched the newly released video of the oil spill, used a widely accepted method of calculating the flow and stated that the spill is really gushing at 70,000 barrels per day...give or take 20%. normally the estimation is accurate to 1%, but he gave himself a margin of error of 20%. that makes the spill 2,940,000 gallons per day @ 70,000 barrels per day. if one drops the amount to 50,000 barrels per day, that makes it 2,100,000 gallons per day. i forget the actual date of the explosion, but at 22 days, that means @ 46,200,000 gallons have been spilled. gee...it's a good thing it is lighter crude and the gulf is much bigger than prince william's sound because this leak has already dwarfed the exxon valdez fiasco with no end in sight.

there is talk of bringing in the navy and turning this over to an admiral of the navy instead of relying on those good hearted folks from BP. now that that the video has finally been released...in such a timely manner (cough), it is not so hard to see why people of good conscience don't trust the private sector to fix their foul-ups. BP has done nothing but delude the public the entire time this has been going on. i hope they are held accountable for their deception.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Here's an article with that information and also that video of the oil gushing out of the ground.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291975



> ....... They (Federal officials) say there's never been an oil spill this big and this deep before. Nor have authorities ever used chemical dispersants so widely. Some scientists suspect that a lot, if not most, of the oil is lurking below the surface rather than on it, in a gigantic underwater plume the size and trajectory of which remain largely a mystery.
> 
> According to scientists interviewed by the Huffington Post most major oil spills occur right at the surface but this one is entirely different.
> 
> With a spill this deep, the oil starts off extremely dense and under pressure. Some of it breaks up or dissolves into the water on the way up, and some of it makes it all the way to the surface. But some will stabilize in the water column maybe as low as 200 to 300 metres off the seabed, then it starts drifting with the current,.....


.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

LOL Naturelover...I wonder where Bearfootfarm is now to argue this? That would be us dumb military scientists giving that info.

It really is super awful.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder where Bearfootfarm is now to argue this?
> 
> That would be us dumb* military scientists *giving that info.






> *Some *scientists suspect





> The volume of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon oil rig* may *be at least 10 times higher than previously *estimated*


Sounds like guesswork to me

They found ONE scientist who said what they wanted to convey,and offered no other opinions
And the ONLY *miltary* scientists mentioned in the article gave a much lower figure

HuffPO is pretty slanted in their views.
Let's see some corroborating sources

Here's one that disagrees, from the same site as the first article:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291979



> While some scientists have determined the oil spill to be anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels, *BP continues to assert, backed up by the Coast Guard, that it hasn't established the spill as any more than the 5,000 daily barrels *estimated earlier.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sounds like guesswork to me


Sure, but there's nothing wrong with making educated guesses.

I look at it this way. If the leak is 5,000 barrels/day then it's leaking at a rate of about 145 gallons per minute. Knowing that a garden hose runs at about 10 gallons per minute, we have to ask ourselves if the video of the leak is realistically 15 times what a garden hose produces. In all honesty, I'm seeing a lot more -- maybe several times more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sure, but there's nothing wrong with making educated guesses


That's correct.
It's PRESENTING them as FACT that is wrong



> *In all honesty*, I'm seeing a lot more


In all HONESTY, you don't really know what you're seeing, since a lot of that could be mud mixed with water, along with the methane, which is why I've said all along there's no USEFUL information to be gained by* looking *at a video of the leak

Remember saying this earlier in the thread?:



> Heavy oil that is approaching the density of water can contain a lot of water. I've dewatered oil that had up to 20% water.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In all HONESTY, you don't really know what you're seeing, since a lot of that could be mud mixed with water, along with the methane, which is why I've said all along there's no USEFUL information to be gained by* looking *at a video of the leak


Sure, I know what I'm seeing. The white froth is gas, and the black cloud is oil. There isn't much mud coming out of the pipe.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> there's no USEFUL information to be gained by* looking *at a video of the leak


Knowing the diameter of the pipe, we can estimate the size of the hole in the pipe. We can also estimate the diameter of the leak stream and the velocity. I think we can learn a lot by that video.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The white froth is gas, and the black cloud is oil. *There isn't much mud coming out of the pipe*


So you say.
Those who have BEEN THERE have different estimates than those who saw a video


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you say.
> Those who have BEEN THERE have different estimates than those who saw a video


Well, I'm all ears. How about some info?

I know that there is some mud coming from the well. As high velocity oil & gas comes out of the well the well bore becomes eroded. But that's bad news. As the well bore erodes that oil flow will increase -- by a lot. Look for the oil flow rate to triple at it's peak.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Well, I'm all ears. How about some info?


It's already been posted



> As the well bore erodes that oil flow will increase -- by a lot. Look for the oil flow rate to triple at it's peak.


There's no sign it's eroding, or it would be coming out AROUND the pipe instead of through it.
You already said you "determined" the flow by the size of the "hole in the pipe".

I think you've gone back to prediction and speculation


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no sign it's eroding, or it would be coming out AROUND the pipe instead of through it.
> You already said you "determined" the flow by the size of the "hole in the pipe".
> 
> I think you've gone back to prediction and speculation


It's kind of too bad that you are on dial up as you stated, otherwise you would be able to look at that video of the oil boiling out of that pipe. If you could see that you might change your tune.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/spill+Arctic+might+intractable+Canada+head+says/3026897/story.html




> In the Gulf yesterday, BP was preparing for a make-or-break bid to stop oil from spewing by inserting a tube into the main leak and siphoning the crude up to a tanker on the surface.
> 
> Remote-controlled submarines will perform the delicate operation to insert a narrow 15-centimetre (6 inches) diameter tube into a thick riser pipe in inky depths 1,500 metres below the surface.
> 
> "There will be a set of gaskets attached to the tube and they will help seat it in the riser pipe,"


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been posted
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's fairly simple, all you need is to measure the diameter of the hole.

Then you determine the rate of flow(two snapshots at one second and second 2)

Then determine how far the oil moved in that time, now you have a cylinder, find the area of that cylinder, compare to a barrel of oil and that should tell ya how much is being lost in one second. The rest would be simple.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's kind of too bad that you are on dial up as you stated, otherwise you would be able to look at that video of the oil boiling out of that pipe. If you could see that you might change your tune.


I saw it on TV.
Theres still no way to LOOK at it and judge how much *oil *is coming out.
The Coast Guard still estimates 5000 barrels per day.
ONE scientist from Perdue gave his OPINION, and all the media parroted it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> ....The rest would be simple


If it were that simple, the figures wouldn't vary as much as they do.
It would be impossible to be off by a factor of 10-15


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i used to watch 3000 gallon dairy tanks get filled with a 3 inch supply line in a few hours tops. the broken oil line is @ 22 inches. come on...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Sure, but there's nothing wrong with making educated guesses.
> 
> I look at it this way. If the leak is 5,000 barrels/day then it's leaking at a rate of about 145 gallons per minute. Knowing that a garden hose runs at about 10 gallons per minute, we have to ask ourselves if the video of the leak is realistically 15 times what a garden hose produces. In all honesty, I'm seeing a lot more -- maybe several times more.





Paumon said:


> http://www.vancouversun.com/news/spill+Arctic+might+intractable+Canada+head+says/3026897/story.html
> 
> 
> > In the Gulf yesterday, BP was preparing for a make-or-break bid to stop oil from spewing by inserting a tube into the main leak and siphoning the crude up to a tanker on the surface.
> ...


ok, 15 times the volume of a garden hose would be 10.5 inches, 5,000 barrels a day. IF there was any more volume than this why would they be using a 6 inch pipe? I wouldn't be surprised if its less than the states 5,000 barrels a day


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> ok, 15 times the volume of a garden hose would be 10.5 inches, 5,000 barrels a day.


10.5 inches? What's that?



blooba said:


> IF there was any more volume than this why would they be using a 6 inch pipe? I wouldn't be surprised if its less than the states 5,000 barrels a day


I'm guessing that they're using a 6" pipe for easy insertion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the broken oil line is @ 22 inches. come on


And the deeper sections are closer to 8"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 10.5 inches? What's that?


15 times the diameter of a LARGE garden hose


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And the deeper sections are closer to 8"



the broken section is being reported as 22 inches in diameter.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

if the diameter of a garden hose was 1 inch (a large hose), the square inch measurement of the opening would be .785 square inches. if a pipe were 22 inches in diameter, the square inch measurement of the opening would be 380.132 square inches. so the pipe would be 484.24 times the size of a large garden hose.

a 5/8 inch diameter garden hose has an opening of .308 square inches. a 22 inch pipe would have an opening that is 1234.19 times the size of a standard garden hose.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MELOC said:


> if the diameter of a garden hose was 1 inch (a large hose), the square inch measurement of the opening would be .785 square inches. if a pipe were 22 inches in diameter, the square inch measurement of the opening would be 380.132 square inches. so the pipe would be 484.24 times the size of a large garden hose.
> 
> a 5/8 inch diameter garden hose has an opening of .308 square inches. a 22 inch pipe would have an opening that is 1234.19 times the size of a standard garden hose.


That's correct. The flow rate through an orifice is proportional to its cross-sectional area.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the broken section is being reported as 22 inches in diameter.


And the pipes that extend into the well itself are MUCH smaller.
It has to come through the small pipe to get to the large pipe


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And the pipes that extend into the well itself are MUCH smaller.
> It has to come through the small pipe to get to the large pipe


How do you know that? Are there diagrams of the smaller pipe that extends into the well?

If that is true then that would mean there is even more tremendous pressure on the smaller pipe where it extends into the well, greater than there is on the large pipe if the video of the oil and gas boiling out of the large pipe is anything to judge by. 

Can you imagine what would happen if the small pipe extending into the well was to burst from all that pressure? The leak would then be unstoppable for a certainty.

.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i think the entire purpose of this pipe size discussion is just to refute any attempt to judge the flow...or at least to cast doubt on the estimation that said it could be gushing at 70,000 barrels per day. the big bear is bobbing and weaving on this one...much like some in other threads say liberals do frequently. 

for the purposes of the estimation, it really doesn't matter whether or not there is a smaller pipe upstream. there is a 22 inch pipe leaking oil at a certain rate that is estimated by calculating the speed the oil is moving and considering the size of the orifice it is leaking from. as stated before, this type of estimation is usually done with a 1% margin of error. the scientist gave himself a 20% margin of error and the amount is still huge. the numbers i gave were even less than the 20% margin of error...and still huge. even if the flow was 50% gas, the remainder would still be huge. at 23 days, the amount would be more than double the exxon valdez spill...assuming the flow adjusted from 70,000 barrels to 50,000 barrels per day (more than 20% to be nice) and then adjusted to 50% gas (to be nice). the valdez leaked @ 11 million gallons and the gulf leak has already leaked over 24 million gallons (adjusted to be nice  ).

i hope the insertion fix works. there are 10's to 100's of billions of dollars to be lost by fisheries, sporting outfitters, restaurants, hotels, realtors, homeowners, processors and who knows who else? i left out the other real losers in all of this...the animals of that environment, because i doubt anyone really cares.

shame on BP and anyone else involved who may have taken shortcuts on safety to save money. if it is still en vogue to "drill baby drill" off shore, i certainly hope those who do take it a bit more seriously.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

MELOC said:


> shame on BP and anyone else involved who may have taken shortcuts on safety to save money. if it is still en vogue to "drill baby drill" off shore, i certainly hope those who do take it a bit more seriously.


Well the day that you and all your other bleeding hearts friends hang up your keys and start walking and biking everywhere we can stop the need to drill. In the mean time, Drill, Baby, Drill.

By the way, taxing Electricity(made by COAL) will not fix our need for OIL!!! :hysterical:


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

blooba said:


> Well the day that you and all your other bleeding hearts friends hang up your keys and start walking and biking everywhere we can stop the need to drill. In the mean time, Drill, Baby, Drill.
> 
> By the way, taxing Electricity(made by COAL) will not fix our need for OIL!!! :hysterical:


I believe MELOC was addressing the _past and future safety efforts_, but please proceed with your ridicule if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Well the day that you and all your other bleeding hearts friends hang up your keys and start walking and biking everywhere we can stop the need to drill. In the mean time, Drill, Baby, Drill.


I don't think the issue is a question of whether to drill, or even whether to drill offshore. We're going to continue to drill. The issue is drilling responsibly. What we need to do is find ways to avoid spills, and to develop technology to deal with spills when they happen.

One thing's for sure, the answer isn't making excuses for BP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How do you know that? Are there diagrams of the smaller pipe that extends into the well?


It's *standard procedure *to use progressively smaller pipe as the wells get deeper

Google is your friend


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What we need to do is find ways to avoid spills, and to *develop technology *to deal with spills when they happen


You keep saying that like there isn't technology already.
There is no "miracle" technology that will instantly work in ALL situations


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying that like there isn't technology already.
> There is no "miracle" technology that will instantly work in ALL situations


There's probably no miracle technology, but clearly their deep water technology is lacking. That's evident by the number of unsuccessful things that they've tried so far that they claim normally work well at shallower depths. I think there is no question that they need to invest in some deep water technology development for oil spill management.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

blooba said:


> Well the day that you and all your other bleeding hearts friends hang up your keys and start walking and biking everywhere we can stop the need to drill. In the mean time, Drill, Baby, Drill.
> 
> By the way, taxing Electricity(made by COAL) will not fix our need for OIL!!! :hysterical:



i don't have any friends...so there!


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's *standard procedure *to use progressively smaller pipe as the wells get deeper
> 
> Google is your friend



So the answer to the question is no and the remainder is
a guess! I am impressed with your ''facts'' that you are so proud of using.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> *So the answer to the question is no *and the remainder is
> a guess! I am impressed with your ''facts'' that you are so proud of using.


It IS a fact that wells are drilled using smaller pipe as the depths increase, and this well is around 18,000 ft deep.

Feel free to post any FACTS that show this well is any different than thousands of others drilled around the world, and why they chose to do *this one *DIFFERENTLY.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It IS a fact that wells are drilled using smaller pipe as the depths increase, and this well is around 18,000 ft deep.
> 
> Feel free to post any FACTS that show this well is any different than thousands of others drilled around the world, and why they chose to do *this one *DIFFERENTLY.


 You made the claim so you should be the one to show your facts. Are the thousands of others around the world leaking oil underwater? Are you still guessing about the well that we are discussing or do you have FACTS to back your claims. You are sounding very much like the news media that you were complaining about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Wanda said:


> You made the claim so you should be the one to show your facts. Are the thousands of others around the world leaking oil underwater? *Are you still guessing about the well that we are discussing or do you have FACTS to back your claims*. You are sounding very much like the news media that you were complaining about.



Here's your facts that you didn't bother to look for yourself, even though I told you where to look

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=352938

Go to post #19 and look at the *pictures*

It clearly shows, AS I STATED, that they use progressively smaller pipes as the depth increases.

I was never *"guessing"* at all


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> they use progressively smaller pipes as the depth increases.


Yes, there are practical reasons for doing that, but there's no reason to cop an attitude. You could educate people about the technology rather than ridicule them. It was just a question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, there are practical reason for doing that, but there's no reason to cop an attitude. *You could educate people about the technology *rather than ridicule them. It was just a question.



I did educate her, *and* even told her *where* to look for the info.
Read back over the last few posts to find where the attitude was *first* introduced


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I did educate her, *and* even told her *where* to look for the info.
> Read back over the last few posts to find where the attitude was *first* introduced


I did read it. That's why I made the comment.

You know, I could make some pretty pointed comments about fluid mechanics in another thread right about now. But I'm not going to do that. You understand why, don't you?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I think you guys are funny.

The bickering adds a bit of levity to an otherwise serious topic.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Just so it doesn't clog up the other thread, taking so long to load, here is a _thumbnail_ of what the situation looks like on the sea floor. Linked to a much larger picture provided by BP. Well, this was actually a view of what it would have looked like when they were trying the containment dome, but it should help to visualize what's happening down there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I think you guys are funny.
> 
> The bickering adds a bit of levity to an otherwise serious topic.


LOL Yep It's good entertainment, and we all learn things


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

OK Forgive me if I'm late in wholly understanding this whole fiasco. I'm reading that the *9"* inch drill pipe which is inside the 21" inch casing is what is actually leaking. That would explain the capped drill pipe in the picture above. So if it is actually a 9 inch drill pipe (still not understanding where the 7" pipe comes into play - couldn't find anything about that other than an unofficial chain email being circulated) then it's a maximum 9 inch drill pipe hole inside a 21 inch casing that we're looking at. That's if the damaged drill pipe has thoroughly eroded/split in half, especially since it was already damaged when it was capped and put that much more pressure on the damaged portion inside the casing. Think I heard that this leak from the casing was small to begin with (est. 1000 barrels a day) then to est. 5000 barrels a day shortly thereafter. So that would make better sense. Then we still have the damaged portion (leaking drill pipe or just backflow from the casing?) leaking in the crimp at the BOP?? Does that sound about right? So basically it would do absolutely no good completely stopping the flow directly inside the 21 inch riser because it would more than likely start forcing itself out in the crimp at the BOP and possibly make it all much worse. What do you think? So theoretically, the dome would have been a much better alternative, if it would have worked.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

How Do I said:


> OK Forgive me if I'm late in wholly understanding this whole fiasco. I'm reading that the *9"* inch drill pipe which is inside the 21" inch casing is what is actually leaking.


Here's the rundown as I understand it:

The well casing varies in size with depth, with the top of the well bore being 36" and the bottom of the well bore being 7". The well head, located to the ocean floor, was connected to the surface with a 21" riser pipe. The riser has fallen to the ocean floor, and oil is leaking from the riser pipe. The leak rate from the 21" riser pipe has been reported to be 5,000 barrels per day.

An insertion pipe, reported to be either 4" or 6" depending on your source, has been installed into the riser pipe to take some of the leaking oil to the surface. BP says that about 1,000 barrels per day, or about 20% of the leaking oil, is being recovered with that insertion pipe.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Nevada thanks for the info. If this is true and BFFs theory on size being the determining factor on the amount of oil escaping. Why would an oil co. go to the expense of installing a 22inch riser instead of a 7inch one Something just does not make any sense.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Wanda said:


> Nevada thanks for the info. If this is true and BFFs theory on size being the determining factor on the amount of oil escaping. Why would an oil co. go to the expense of installing a 22inch riser instead of a 7inch one Something just does not make any sense.


Because they start out with bigger pipe on top and end up with smaller pipe on bottom. It goes something like 36 inch, 20 inch, 13 3/8 inch, 9 5/8 inch, 7 inch on many wells (these are all outside diameters). On a well of this type some of the intermediate casing would have been heavier. The riser has to accomodate all pipe sizes installed after the BOP is put in place. That's why it's 21 inch outside diameter. Risers are standard pieces of equipment that are used repeatedly, being moved from one well to the next. The riser is designed to interface with the BOP. The riser is not designed as a pressure containing vessel, it has very limited capacity for that sort of thing, it's just designed to hold fluid.

The comments that the drill pipe is 9 inches are erroneous. They would have probably been running something in the 5 or 6 inch range until the 7 inch casing was in place, then you have to drop down to 3 1/2.

So, the restriction to flow is going to be at the 7 inch casing on bottom which will have someithing like a 6 inch inside diameter and which has some kind of hole or split in it which will of course be smaller than the actual casing size, or possible a leak in the casing seal at the well head which will be even more restrictive. 

This is all standard oil field stuff and no mystery. If you think of the casing in the well as looking something like an old fashioned extendable telescope with the small end down, that will be about right. There are a whole bunch of reasons for decreasing the pipe size as you go deeper. mostly having to do with the pressure rating on the pipe.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Wanderer0101 said:


> The comments that the drill pipe is 9 inches are erroneous. They would have probably been running something in the 5 or 6 inch range until the 7 inch casing was in place, then you have to drop down to 3 1/2.





> "We've said all along that there's no way to estimate the flow coming out of the pipe accurately," said *Bill Salvin, a BP spokesman*.
> 
> Instead, BP prefers to rely on measurements of oil on the sea surface made by the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Those are also contentious. Salvin also says these analyses should not assume that the oil is spewing from the 21-inch pipe, called a riser, shown in the video.
> 
> *"The drill pipe, from which the oil is rising, is actually a 9-inch pipe that rests within the riser," Slavin said.*


I'm just going by what BP is saying.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Nevada said:


> How Do I said:
> 
> 
> > OK Forgive me if I'm late in wholly understanding this whole fiasco. I'm reading that the *9"* inch drill pipe which is inside the 21" inch *casing* is what is actually leaking.
> ...


Sorry Nevada. I actually meant *riser* there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If this is true and BFFs *theory* on size being the determining factor on the amount of oil escaping. Why would an oil co. go to the expense of installing a 22inch riser instead of a 7inch one Something just does not make any sense.


They use bigger pipe to begin with since a LOT of equipment is transported down to the well head THROUGH the larger pipe
There are valves and safety devices that wont fit inside the smaller pipes that are used ONLY to let oil flow from deeper parts of the well.
There are OTHER pipes used to pump "mud" and concrete to flush out drilling materials and to keep the bore sealed.

There is no "theory" involved. It's all physics


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

AT PASS A LOUTRE, La. -- A chocolate-brown blanket of oil about as thick as latex paint has invaded reedy freshwater wetlands at Louisiana's southeastern tip for the first time, prompting Gov. Bobby Jindal to step up calls Wednesday for building emergency sand barriers.

Story here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/20/jindal-day-weve-fearing/

Does this now make the spill a "major disaster" Bearfootfarm? 

Or do you require more FACTS to substantiate the story such as actual photos of wildlife, fish, crabs, shrimp covered in oil?

I have been here a long time and never have I seen anyone be more argumentative than yourself regarding what experts in the oil, conservation, environmental and engineering fields considers a MAJOR disaster.

Are you sure you aren't on BP's payroll?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have been here a long time and never have I seen anyone be more argumentative than yourself regarding what experts in the oil, conservation, environmental and engineering fields considers a MAJOR disaster.


I'm just sticking to the FACTS vs the hysteria and half truths.

"Major" is a relative term.
In ACTUAL terms, this is still a small spill compared to many others 

It's a disaster LOCALLY, of course, but it's no worse than thousands of other spills that never got this much media attention or hysteria.

I've never said it wasn't a bad situation. 
I've just refuted some of the details reported with actual data.

http://www.financialpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2971866



> If the well continues to flow unabated at 5,000 bpd for two months until BP can cap it, the Deepwater Horizon spill could surpass the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill of 270,000 barrels as the biggest in U.S. history. But to keep things in perspective, *this spill would have to continue gushing at this rate for 200 days to break into the top 10 worst spills *ever, and for more than a year to enter the top five.


Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2971866#ixzz0oU6d0TQU


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

You can keep using the numbers that BP gave you, if you like.

But you might want to know that even they now believe that far more oil than that is leaking.



> NEW ORLEANS â BP conceded Thursday that more oil than it estimated is gushing into the Gulf of Mexico as heavy crude washed into Louisiana's wetlands for the first time, feeding worries and uncertainty about the massive monthlong spill.
> 
> Mark Proegler, a spokesman for oil giant BP PLC, said a mile-long tube inserted into a leaking pipe over the weekend is now capturing 210,000 gallons a day â the total amount the company and the Coast Guard have estimated is gushing into the sea â but some is still escaping. He would not say how much.
> 
> ...


From: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9FQKKFO0


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> even they now believe that far more oil than that is leaking.


That's not what he said:



> He would not say how much...
> 
> there is *no way of measuring *how much is gushing from the seafloor.





> the numbers that BP gave you


Those numbers were verified by the Coast Guard. What reason would they have to lie about it?

Reality is NO ONE KNOWS

Pick whichever numbers make you happy


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

lol..."relatively speaking", "locally" is all that really matters.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Oil Spill Before and After video. :stars:

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/05/18/n_bp_oil_leak_before_after_intervention.cnnmoney/



> Latest news:
> The volume of oil and gas being collected by the riser insertion tube tool (RITT) containment system at the end of the leaking riser is estimated to be about 3,000 barrels a day (b/d) of oil and some 14 million standard cubic feet a day of gas. - BP


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I don't see much difference in the before and after video.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't see much difference in the before and after video.


That's because no one can* look *at it and determine how much OIL is really coming out, since it's not ALL oil.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

More than a few folks are tired of BP's cover-up and public relations job.



> The video shows a large plume of oil and gas still spewing next to the tube that's carrying some of it to the surface.
> 
> Several members of Congress had pushed BP to make the video available to the public. It was posted Thursday on the website of the House Select Committee on Energy Independent and Global Warming.
> 
> ...


From: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7vkPPClc0lhglDZGwYrrcVS185QD9FQQMSO1


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's because no one can* look *at it and determine how much OIL is really coming out, since it's not ALL oil.


Well, if any oil at all is still going into the ocean you know for sure that the leak rate has been more than 5,000 barrels per day. After all, if they are recovering 5,000 barrels per day with the insertion pipe and it's still leaking, it HAS TO BE more than 5,000 barrels per day.

That means I've been right all along, while you and BP have been wrong.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Pssssst, Nevada.

Don't say anything about the dispersants.



> The US Environmental Protection Agency reversed course in the Gulf oil spill cleanup effort Thursday, telling BP that had three days to stop using a chemical dispersant that the EPAâs own data suggests is unnecessarily toxic.
> 
> As recently as last week, the EPA said it had no power to force BP to use a certain dispersant. All it could do, Administrator Lisa Jackson said, was provide a list of approved dispersants from which BP could choose.
> 
> But the EPA essentially overruled itself Thursday by forcing BPâs hand. The company has 24 hours to âidentify a less toxic alternativeâ and 72 hours to begin using it.


From: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0...f-oil-spill-dispersant-is-too-toxic-change-it


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That means I've been right all along, while you and BP have been wrong


LOL Nope. The GOVT may be wrong, but I can't be since I don't do the estimates
NOAA and the Coast Guard came up with the 5000 barrel figure

You said yourself there could be as much as 20% water in the oil, and no one seems to be allowing for the HUGE quantity of natural gas coming out WITH the oil


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Pssssst, Nevada.
> 
> Don't say anything about the dispersants.


Yeah, don't mention those or I'd have to point out that *thousands of gallons *of those were being pumped into that pipe when those GUESSES were made by your "experts"

CBS mentioned it last night and had video.
You said "the white stuff is natural gas", but it was really the dispersents, and they pointed out the pipe being used to pump it in


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Here is a live video feed of the oil leak for anyone interested: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/wkrg


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As recently as last week, the EPA said it had no power to force BP to use a certain dispersant. All it could do, Administrator Lisa Jackson said, was provide a list of *approved dispersants *from which BP could choose.


Approved, just like the ones they are using NOW


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The video shows a large plume of *oil and gas* still spewing next to the tube that's carrying some of it to the surface.



Just because you *see* a lot still coming out doesnt prove how much is *oil*

There's a *lot* (possibly MILLIONS of gallons) of natural gas and hydrates/ice crystals mixed in with the oil and water


----------



## QuiltingLady2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just because you *see* a lot still coming out doesnt prove how much is *oil*
> 
> There's a *lot* (possibly MILLIONS of gallons) of natural gas and hydrates/ice crystals mixed in with the oil and water


OMGoodness - You are soooo right.....

That oil on the beaches, in the tideland marshes, washing up the ol'miss, flowing into the gulf stream... it's not *That* bad. Heck, I'll bet you're going to vacation there next week right? Stick your toes in that ol' slick water, eat a few oily shell fish, go ahead drink the tea baby. 

And keep standing up for BP. They didn't mean to disregard safety measures. No


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That oil on the beaches, in the tideland marshes, washing up the ol'miss, flowing into the gulf stream... it's not That bad.


I *never *said it wasn't bad.

If you'd READ what I say, you'll see I said much of the information being put forth is* false*
and in most cases I've shown something to back my claims

I'll leave the melodrama to you


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm just sticking to the FACTS vs the hysteria and half truths.
> 
> "Major" is a relative term.
> In ACTUAL terms, this is still a small spill compared to many others
> ...


I think you should just quit while you're ahead bff. You sound like a gusher yourself spewing words just for the sake of argument. 


THIS IS NOT A "SPILL" and cannot be compared to spills because this "gusher" is still spewing oil and there is no end in sight! 

This is going to end up contaminating the whole world - this is my opinion and not something I looked up because I don't have the time to sit on the computer all day.
Here's something to google since you seem to have time on your hands.....there was a crude oil spill from a derailed train into Lake Wabamun Alberta 5 years ago and the oil and tar balls are still surfacing after 5 years!
Don't tell me that's not going to happen with this one too. This is a catastrophe like the world's never seen before because there is no end in sight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> THIS IS NOT A "SPILL" and cannot be compared to spills because this "gusher" is still spewing oil and there is no end in sight!


Yes. it CAN be compared, since it's no different than many other incidents.



> This is *a catastrophe like the world's never seen before *because there is *no end in sight*.





> This is going to end up *contaminating the whole world*


Like I said to QL, I'll deal with facts, and let others handle the melodrama


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

You'll be eating your words yet. Go back to your early posts on this thread where you claim that it's nowhere near the size of valdez and that everyone's over-exaggerating 

Melodrama my a**! 

So you deal in facts..... I want facts!! Name another example of the exact same thing so it can be compared! Give me facts about another well out of control and how much oil was lost until they brought it under control, and also how long it took to bring it under control. 

Again I will repeat slowly so you can comprehend.....
THIS IS NOT A SPILL!!!! This is not a finate amount of oil spilled! This is an out of control well that is spewing an infinate amount of oil into the water. IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC AMOUNT THAT CAN BE MEASURED! No one knows how much longer it will take to contain it and no one knows exactly how much damage it is doing or will do to the water and the shores and their inhabitants because nothing of this magnitude has ever happened before. To say that it is no worse then any other is just plain stupidity!

I notice you have no comment about the Lake Wabamun spill and the facts about what's appearing 5 years after the spill.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Sanza said:


> Again I will repeat slowly so you can comprehend.....
> THIS IS NOT A SPILL!!!!
> 
> I notice you have no comment about the Lake Wabamun spill and the facts about what's appearing 5 years after the spill.


lol, if this is not a spill and cannot be compared to a spill why are you wanting to compare it to one?

For one, Lake Wabamun was a refined oil product.
Secondly, the water temperature is DRASTICALLY different. Oil congeals when cold and is "pourable" in warmer temps. Also the gulf is able to maintain a bacteria count that eats oil.
Third, You are comparing a lake to an ocean. I would like you to take a small bass boat out on that lake then go take it out on the ocean and let me know the differences. The oil will and is breaking down with the water movement and not tarring up like the Lake Wabamun SPILL for numerous reasons.

We could all sit here and say " this is the end of days" although that will not help anything. It's best to deal with the FACTS as they come. And I highly doubt this will ever pollute the entire planet.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL Nope. The GOVT may be wrong, but I can't be since I don't do the estimates
> NOAA and the Coast Guard came up with the 5000 barrel figure
> 
> You said yourself there could be as much as 20% water in the oil, and no one seems to be allowing for the HUGE quantity of natural gas coming out WITH the oil


Well, it's BETTER to over react than to under react to a disaster.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You'll be eating your words yet. Go back to your *early posts *on this thread where you claim that it's nowhere near the size of valdez and that everyone's over-exaggerating


A *MONTH *ago when that was posted, it WASN'T anywhere near the Valdez totals, and unless the lowest estimates are less than HALF the amount of OIL calculated, it STILL isn't as large in *GALLONS OF OIL*



> IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC AMOUNT THAT CAN BE MEASURED!


And yet you are trying to tell me how big it is. Do you see the contradiction?



> So you deal in facts..... I want facts!! Name another example of the exact same thing so it can be compared!


The facts have been posted, but I guess you missed them:



> If the well continues to flow unabated at 5,000 bpd for two months until BP can cap it, the Deepwater Horizon spill could surpass the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill of 270,000 barrels as the biggest in U.S. history. *But to keep things in perspective, this spill would have to continue gushing at this rate for 200 days to break into the top 10 worst spills *ever, and for more than a year to enter the top five.





> *The worst spill ever to hit the Gulf of Mexico*, and *the second-biggest of all time*, was the 1980 blowout of the Ixtoc I exploratory well drilled in Mexican waters by Petroleos Mexicanos. *It took nine months to cap*, during which time the well spewed more than 3 million barrels into the gulf, or *more than 10,000 barrels a day*. Two months after the blowout, the oil started washing onto Texas shores.


http://www.financialpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2971866



> THIS IS NOT A SPILL!!!!


You'll have to argue that point with the media. I didn't make up the terminology



> To say that it is no worse then any other is just plain stupidity!


Unless you can show some *data* to prove it's "worse", you're just showing ignorance of the fact that there have been many spills larger than this



> I notice you have no comment about the Lake Wabamun spill and the facts about what's appearing 5 years after the spill.


I'd be happy to comment now that I've had time to find some facts about it, but you won't be happy with reality:



> *Lake Wabamun won't suffer any long-term damage *from a train derailment that dumped 1.3 million litres of heavy bunker fuel oil and wood preservative nearby, according to a new report commissioned by CN Rail


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/01/02/report-wabamun.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Well, it's BETTER to over react than to under react to a disaster


Spreading hysteria is not a *logical reaction*, and serves no purpose at all
It's mostly just a waste of time and effort


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

VERN in IL said:


> Well, it's BETTER to over react than to under react to a disaster.


only on the cleanup and capping response, not doom and glooming over what might happen. An asteroid may wipe the planet out tomorrow but you don't see me doom and glooming over it. I deal with what IS happening and don't worry about what MIGHT happen until the threat of it becomes worthwhile.

Until you are forced to go down and deal with the cleanup effort and capping it off, all this worrying about what MIGHT happen is nonsense.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Sanza said:


> . This is a catastrophe like the world's never seen before because there is no end in sight.


See usually the government quashes mass hysteria like this because it does noone any good unless it plays into their agenda. Now they are playing it up so that they can pass their cap & tax bill and you all are being played just like they want so that they can reduce our dependence on oil by putting the coal companies outta business. (Still don't see the logic there). Before you all know it you'll be bowing down to Obama also. :bow:

You think Bush manipulated the price of oil, just wait. If Obama has his way gas will be $8/gal and you'll be receiving a $1000/mth electric bill.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

:shocked: Bowing to Obama? What for? I live in Alberta CANADA...you know the place that has lots of oil and gas and sells it to the states...And like our premier told bush a couple of years ago "if you don't want our "dirty oil" there's other countries that do". :nono:

But now who's got the dirty oil? :teehee:

This is not over reaction or hysteria....this is another mark against your country from the rest of the world....... You guys are in denial about the destruction your country is causing, and you're like a broken record repeating "this isn't bad" :doh:
I'm done reading the BS on this thread.....time will tell how wrong you are!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is not over reaction or hysteria....


Yes this is:



> I'm done reading the BS on this thread.....time will tell how wrong you are!





> you're like a broken record repeating "this isn't bad"


Please show where anyone has said that.
Otherwise it's more of the same misinformation and emotional rhetoric


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Sanza said:


> You'll be eating your words yet.


Ahh you dont know barefoot very well he is incapable of admitting hes wrong and would rather defend lies that accept facts .
I see in this thread hes claiming water adds to the volume , in other threads its been the methane .
He keeps grasping desperately for anything to attempt to save face and just makes himself look more the fool .
Its really quite sad but you would have better luck teaching a pig to sing than you will of ever getting him to admit hes been defending liars


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I see in this thread hes* claiming water adds to the volume *, in other threads its been the methane .


And I see you rambling and name calling and *not proving* me wrong.

Go ahead and explain how water *in the pipe* and methane *in the pipe*
and ice crystals *in the pipe* don't take up any SPACE *in the pipe* 

And be sure to include some *sources* to back it all up.
Here's your big chance to show how stupid I am with *YOUR EVIDENCE*

I'm betting you won't show anything at all, and you'll just do more of the same juvenile ranting as in the post above.
It seems to be all you've got , or you would have *shown* it by now, much like BO's Birth Certificate LOL


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Im not the one that follows others around the net


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Im not the one that follows others around the net


LMAO 
You followed me over to THIS thread just to make an off topic remark *about me*, when you hadn't posted on it before, although it's been active for a month

Why not go back to the John Wayne thread, and finish your "point" about the methane hydrates?
YOU wanted to talk *physics*.
SHOW me what you've got


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

just a bit full of yourself among other things


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> just a bit full of yourself among other things





> Im not the one that follows others around the net


LOL Sure you don't. 

Since you obviously can't and won't continue the *physics* discussion, OR stay anywhere near the topic of this thread, I have to assume you can't dispute anything I stated, so now you're just trying to divert attention from it.

Better luck next time.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no comparison to these two spills.
> In one you're talking about nearly 11 million of gallons in a remote region, and this current one is HUNDREDS of gallons on relatively calm, accessible waters.


I guess you're right, there's no real comparison between the two spills.

The Valdez was a contained, defined amount.

The gulf spill goes on, and on, and on.

BP is going to end up making Joseph Hazelwood look as though he could be a recruiter for Greenpeace.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL Sure you don't.
> 
> Since you obviously can't and won't continue the *physics* discussion, OR stay anywhere near the topic of this thread, I have to assume you can't dispute anything I stated, so now you're just trying to divert attention from it.
> 
> Better luck next time.


Its already been disputed by everyone with half a brain only you remain in denial .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm
> There's no comparison to these two spills.
> In one you're talking about nearly 11 million of gallons in a remote region, and this current one is HUNDREDS of gallons on relatively calm, accessible waters.





> Posted by Oggie:
> I guess you're right, there's no real comparison between the two spills.


At the time of my post, *about 6 weeks ago*, there *was *no comparison


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Its already been disputed by everyone with half a brain only you remain in denial


I haven't "denied" anything. I just don't believe that one estimate is any more accurate than another, since the GOVT is doing them all.

And "disputing" is not "disproving". None of my *FACTS* have been disproven at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> At the time of my post, *about 6 weeks ago*, there *was *no comparison


Not exactly. You could have used my estimates. Remember the garden hose analogy I made?


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> At the time of my post, *about 6 weeks ago*, there *was *no comparison


hmm a date and time stamp on many of the posts say it was a lot less than 6 weeks ago that you were still making such claims .
and 5000 barrel a day recovery blew a hole right through your It cant be more than a 5000 barrel a day leak, So yeah facts have dispoven your claim not just disputed them .
But go a head keep back peddling .
I predict a "Thats not what I meant " excuse coming quickly


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> hmm a date and time stamp *on many of the posts *say it was a lot less than 6 weeks ago that you were still making such claims


We aren't talking about "many of the posts"
We are talking about the ONE post quoted

Try to pay attention


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not exactly. You could have used my estimates. Remember the garden hose analogy I made?


Even with your "estimates", *AT THAT TIME* what I stated was a FACT.

Many are complaining about my *opinions*, and yet no one has *disproven *any of the *FACTS *I've posted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It cant be more than a 5000 barrel a day leak, So yeah facts have dispoven your claim not just disputed them .
> But go a head keep back peddling .
> I predict a "Thats not what I meant " excuse coming quickly


LOL
You're just repeating the same old lines while fullfilling MY prediction that you couldn't post anything to back up the claims YOU made

It's tiresome


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Even with your "estimates", *AT THAT TIME* what I stated was a FACT.
> 
> Many are complaining about my *opinions*, and yet no one has *disproven *any of the *FACTS *I've posted.



I'm having trouble finding all these "facts."

The main one that you posted and have defended almost to the point of embarrassment is the original BP / Coast Guard estimate.

Well, that estimate was way off.

Subsequent sentiments by other experts prove it wrong. BP's admits that it's wrong. The very fact that BP could not pump drilling fluid down the pipe with enough pressure to decrease the leak proves it wrong. The fact that oil is fouling the marshes and beach in Louisiana proves it wrong. The plumes of oil floating in the gulf prove it wrong.

The simple truth is that this is an ever-expanding man-made disaster.

So far, your "facts" have been extraneous, and your opinions have been wrong.

Yet, you continue to ridicule those who point that out.

Keep on being BP Bob. In such a depressing situation, it sometimes good to have a little comic relief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm having trouble finding all these "facts."
> 
> The main one that you posted and have defended almost to the point of embarrassment is the original BP / Coast Guard estimate.
> 
> Well, that *estimate *was way off.


If you can't find the facts I've posted, you aren't READING

I haven't "defended" any ESTIMATE.
That's your terminology.

I've said all along they are ALL estimates (guesses) and NONE of them seem to be *accurate*, since NONE agree.
And they were* ALL *done by "Govt experts"



> The very fact that BP could not pump drilling fluid down the pipe with *enough pressure* to decrease the leak proves it wrong


That proves *nothing *about the quantity of *OIL*
It's only evidence of *pressure* and volume of MATERIAL



> So far, your "facts" have been extraneous, and your opinions have been wrong.
> 
> Yet, you continue to* ridicule *those who point that out.


LOL First you say you "can't find" the facts I've posted, then you say they are "extraneous". It can't be both ways

So far, no one has shown any error in the FACTUAL DATA I've posted.

I don't care if you *disagree *with my "opinions". That doesn't make mine "wrong" and yours "right. It just means they are not the same.

I've only "ridiculed" those making false *factual* statements they can't ( and won't attempt to ) back up. 

Would it be more "noble" if I were copying and pasting these posts on another site to RIDICULE them there?


Here are some more facts many won't like, but won't attempt to disprove.
You'll complain about the source, but that *data* is real

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060110/content/01125118.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I'll take you back to QuiltingLady2's original post in this thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_louisi...xyaWdibGFzdHA-



> "If it gets landward, it could be a disaster in the making," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director for the environmental group Gulf Restoration Network.





> "It's going to be a god-awful mess for a while," he said. "I'm not crying doomsday or saying the sky is falling, but that is the potential."



And your response:



> No oil appeared to be leaking





> Seems the quotes in the OP are worthless hype, given that the above quote is the first line in the story



So, you come out of the box saying that there would be no environmental impact.

Then you switch to saying that it won't be worse than the Exxon Valdez. Then you say, well, it's still not the worst oil-related ecological disaster, ever.

That sort of logic is similar to saying, heck the 9/11 attacks weren't so bad, look how many people died in the Civil War or World War II.

You seem to be so busy suckling at BP's teat and getting upset when anyone points out that your mommy screwed up, big time, that you've lost all sense of logic or reality.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Goldman sachs, now this is getting telling.http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0602/month-oil-spill-goldman-sachs-sold-250-million-bp-stock/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So, you come out of the box saying that there would be no environmental impact


Once again you're *NOT READING*
*HER source *had the comment that "no oil appeared to be leaking"
Based on THAT source at THAT time, there could have been no environmental impact
The two quotes you used as an example were both pure speculation



> Then you switch to saying that it *won't be worse *than the Exxon Valdez. Then you say, well, it's still not the worst oil-related ecological disaster, ever.


I never said that at all.
When I said it wasn't *as bad*, it WASN'T, based on *current* estimates and the time frame

It's nowhere near being the "worst ever" or even the worst in the Gulf of Mexico

I showed a graph that proved that. Show me a SOURCE with DATA that disproves it, and I will say you're right. Until then, you aren't.




> That sort of logic is similar to saying, heck the 9/11 attacks weren't so bad, look how many people died in the Civil War or World War II


When the TOPIC is "*gallons of oil*" it's PERFECTLY logical to make FACTUAL comparisons



> You seem to be so busy suckling at BP's teat and getting upset when anyone points out that your mommy screwed up, big time, that you've lost all sense of *logic or reality*.


LOL 
I'm not "upset" at all.
You have failed to prove your points with either LOGIC or REASON.
All you've done is taken the statements out of *context*

You just need to* read more carefully *and stop trying to spin it so much


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

yeah yeah 
well shoot BFF according to you most of its evaporating anyway right .
guess the folks along the coast are just getting up set over nothing 
spray the marshes down with vinegar and they can open a salad bar .
You seem to be the only "expert" claiming its not the worst but hey we all wish someone would die and make us god so we could be as enlightened you .
Not !!!!

hey tell us again how it will never reach florida 
come on show off your extensive knowledge of water currents in the gulf .
Im sure they will be just as impressive as you inability to accept reality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> well shoot BFF according to you *most of its evaporating *anyway right


Just more *false* spin from you.
Unless of course you can SHOW where I ever said that.
We both know *you won't even try*, since I never did



> You seem to be the *only "expert" claiming its not the worst *but hey we all wish someone would die and make us god so we could be as enlightened you .
> Not !!!!


LOL You must be getting dizzy now
It's being called the "worst" in *US *history, but in reality it's nowhere near the "worst" spill ever. 
A more accurate term would be "largest" since "worst" is subjective
You just don't want to accept *data over hype*, do you?



> hey *tell us again *how it will never reach florida


*Prove *that I ever said it the first time.
As usual, all you've got is spin, falsehoods, and childish taunts

Here's some REAL data for you to deny:



> Landfall Predictions:
> 
> &#8226; Currently, there have been *no confirmed oil impacts *to Florida&#8217;s more than 1,260 miles of coastline and 825 miles of sandy beaches.
> 
> ...


http://www.beachesleader.com/articles/2010/06/02/beaches_leader/news/doc4c06c18f0e112516482480.txt

So there's still *NO* oil in FLA from this spill, and currents should move it AWAY


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

> =Bearfootfarm;4463856]Just more *false* spin from you.
> Unless of course you can SHOW where I ever said that.
> We both know *you won't even try*, since I never did


actually its from your post in the other thread a post you made today


Bearfootfarm said:


> I read an article that said an amount TWICE as much as the Valdez spill seeps NATURALLY into the Gulf* every year*.
> 
> The estimates are I think 30-40% of this will evaporate, and a LOT already has


But I'll conceed you didnt say most of it only 30-40%







> LOL You must be getting dizzy now
> It's being called the "worst" in *US *history, but in reality it's nowhere near the "worst" spill ever.
> A more accurate term would be "largest" since "worst" is subjective
> You just don't want to accept *data over hype*, do you?


The economic costs alone will make it the worst trying to down play the disaster is pathetic on your part




> Here's some REAL data for you to deny:
> http://www.beachesleader.com/articles/2010/06/02/beaches_leader/news/doc4c06c18f0e112516482480.txt
> 
> So there's still *NO* oil in FLA from this spill, and currents should move it AWAY


two words for you 
Gulf Stream

http://news.discovery.com/earth/gulf-loop-current-oil-spill.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But I'll conceed you didnt say most of it only 30-40%


Which means you *made it up* 



> The *economic costs *alone will make it the worst trying to down play the disaster is pathetic on your part


That's speculation. Any money SPENT, is money PAID to someone else.
Any money "lost" to tourism and fishing will be PAID to someone else in other locations.
It's just money changing hands



> two words for you
> Gulf Stream


LMAO

The *Gulf Stream* is nowhere NEAR the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
It's in the Atlantic Ocean.

So in the end, you *haven't shown anything *to back *ANY *of the claims you made (and made up), just as I said you couldn't


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The *Gulf Stream* is nowhere NEAR the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
> It's in the Atlantic Ocean.


Maybe he meant El Nino.:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

> =Bearfootfarm;4464472]Which means you *made it up*


No it just means you said it with slightly smaller figures 



> That's speculation. Any money SPENT, is money PAID to someone else.
> Any money "lost" to tourism and fishing will be PAID to someone else in other locations.
> It's just money changing hands


What a crock, The shrimp and shellfish industries shut down for who knows how long possibly for good from contamination and you have the gall to claim its speculation  Are you realy that foolish or are you just dug in so deep in your denial you;d rather be seen as a total loon than admit your wrong ? 




> LMAO
> 
> The *Gulf Stream* is nowhere NEAR the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
> It's in the Atlantic Ocean.


You are joking right "No where near " are you blind or just an idiot .
BTW where does the gulf stream get its name ?
Here smarty notice the loop currents, notice the prevailing currents , then pull your head out of where ever you have it and look at the reality of this instead of trying to live in denial.





















> So in the end, you *haven't shown anything *to back *ANY *of the claims you made (and made up), just as I said you couldn't


What Ive shown was that you cant teach a pig to sing nor educate one who prefers stupidity over ignorance


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No it just means *you said it *with slightly smaller figures


You claimed I said "MOST", *admitted* I didn't really say it, and then made the same *false* claim again? 
Do you even read your *own* posts? LOL



> What a crock, The shrimp and shellfish industries shut down for who knows how long *possibly for good *from contamination and you have the gall to claim its speculation Are you realy that *foolish* or are you just dug in so deep in your denial you;d rather be seen as a *total loon* than *admit your wrong *?


More fabricated hype
You've yet to PROVE any of my *facts* wrong:

http://www.newsmax.com/US/US-Oil-Spill-Shrimp/2010/06/01/id/360742



> Wildlife scientists think *shrimp can survive *the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
> Martin Bourgeois of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries says brown shrimp spawn offshore in January, February and March. Once the eggs hatch, the larva count on prevailing winds and currents to carry them to the Louisiana marsh, where they grow until it's time for them to swim back offshore to spawn.
> 
> May is the peak fishing season for brown shrimp. White shrimp season begins in August and continues until December. Bourgeois said Tuesday that white shrimp, spawn closer to shore, but otherwise the one-year life cycle is mostly the same.





> Here smarty notice *the loop currents*, notice the prevailing currents , then pull your head out of where ever you have it and look at the reality of this instead of trying to live in denial.


The *Gulf Loop Current* is not the "Gulf Stream"

http://coastalguide.com/bearings/gulfstream2.shtml



> *The Gulf Stream is not born in the Gulf of Mexico as its name suggests*. Rather, its waters have traveled across the Atlantic as part of an ocean-wide system. *Along the Equator*, the elements of the Gulf Stream begin to take shape. Flowing from the east, the South Equatorial Current splits in two when it hits the tip of Brazil. One-half of the current moves north along the coast of South America where it is joined by the full force of the North Equatorial Current.





> You are joking right "No where near " *are you blind or just an idiot*


According to *YOUR *map, the *Gulf Stream *is hundreds of miles from the site of the spill

Unless of course you think "*Yucatan Current*" and "*Loop Current*" is how you *spell* "*Gulf Stream*"



> What Ive shown was that you cant teach a pig to sing nor educate one who prefers stupidity over ignorance





> Foolish, idiot, total loon, stupid, ignorant


What you've shown is you're good at name calling and not so good at *reading* and *comprehending* your own sources.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

well its already made it to Florida feel free to explain how it wont enter the Gulfs loop stream mister expert.
seems your not very good at predicting the out come of things 
of course they are now recovering over ten thousand barrels a day , likely still losing more than 5000 but hey if the facts dont work for you just deny them right !


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> well its already made it to Florida feel free to explain how it wont enter the Gulfs loop stream mister expert.


The Florida PANHANDLE has nothing to do with the Gulf Loop
Go back and look at *your* map



> seems your not very good at predicting the out come of things


I never *said *it wouldnt reach Florida. 
That was your *false claim *that you *never attempted to prove*, and I DID predict that correctly

Post #320:


> Unless of course you can SHOW where I ever said that.
> *We both know you won't even try*, since I never did





> of course they are now recovering over ten thousand barrels a day , likely still losing more than 5000 but hey if the *facts *dont work for you just deny them right


The amount they are recovering *may* be a fact. I haven't heard the latest reports
The amount still leaking is still a* guess*. The hole is larger now than it was before, and they stated the total flow would increase.

4 or less


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

you back peddle faster than the average politician :clap:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nope. 
It's all still there in those posts you *predicted* would be "purged"
No need to back peddle when you stick to realities.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The amount they are recovering *may* be a fact. I haven't heard the latest reports


Let me help you out here. BP reports that they recovered 15,800 barrels from the cap yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37622825/ns/us_news-washington_post/

That means that I was a lot closer than BP or you were on your estimated 5,000 barrel per day rate. As of today the scientists have upped their estimate to 25,000 to 30,000.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That means that *I was a lot closer *than BP or you were on *your estimated 5,000 barrel per day rate*. As of today the scientists have upped their estimate to 25,000 to 30,000.


I never knew you made an "official" estimate. I'm pretty sure you were just repeating the *GOVT *estimates, just like I was.

If they've raised the "estimate" again, it merely proves what I stated, and that is *estimates are NOT ACCURATE*.

It's in the Govt's interest to inflate them, since that's the basis of any fines imposed
But you pick any *estimate* you like, because they are all still GUESSES.


That's still in the range of the last estimates they gave, since there was such a wide spread


This is from May 2:


> Independent scientists estimate that the renegade wellhead at the bottom of the Gulf could be spewing up to* 25,000 *barrels a day. If chokeholds on the riser pipe break down further, *up to 50,000 barrels *a day could be released, according to a *National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration *memo obtained by the Mobile, Ala., Press-Register.


http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/...flow-of-oil-may-be-just-a-drop-in-the-bucket/

Reality is nothing is "new" but the headlines.
They repeat what they said *a month ago*, and tell everyone it's "new".


----------

