36
   

Spill baby spill, slippery politics

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 09:07 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

But essentially he was correct


No, he wasn't correct. The ocean doesn't 'self-clean.' The oil spreads out and either kills or harms tremendous amounts of life within it.

The ocean doesn't clean itself, but there are microbes which will use the oil for food.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

"Where is the oil?" is a question many have been asking recently


WTF are you talking about? The oil is dispersed into the Gulf. It didn't disappear; it's spread throughout the ecosystem. Nobody who knows one thing about how this works is asking 'where is the oil.' We know where it is. It is doing exactly what the scientists thought it would do - when you put toxic dispersant in the oil, it disperses. Not a surprise.

They've seen a drop in oxygen levels, because those microbes use up oxygen when the metabolize the oil.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0804/Gulf-oil-spill-not-gone-close-to-half-may-still-lurk-in-Gulf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/science/earth/05microbe.html?src=me

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 09:24 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
this is the biggest environmental disaster in US history.


CBS News last night downgraded that statement. I can't remember the exact words but they nearly reached an outright dismissal of the idea.

I gather the top man was replaced after last night's show. Whether it was for his part in burying the pot (turtle) egg in the sand for the camera team to find I don't know. Maybe it was for allowing Ms Courich to cross and recross her 53 year old thighs whilst interviewing the mother of a dead soldier.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2010 11:08 pm
A question? Who here can take BP's word that they have permently capped the leaking well considering that they have lied about how much oil has leaked out of the well and their refusal to let others inspect the well.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 12:05 am
@rabel22,
I understand what you are saying. The original sucker they had going was announced to be capturing almost double the amount they had stated to be leaking. And that was a fairly small percentage of what they then conceded to still being blown out.

Well, if they've got a column of mud from top to bottom, it is probably stable. Hey, even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day -- though it's hard to tell when it's right and when it isn't.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2010 08:51 am
@roger,
Probably helps that there are 10 cameras watching the well 24/7 now, with live internet feeds - the well might not be fixed, but it sure ain't gushing out the top like before.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ecodoer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2010 08:04 am
@rosborne979,
There's nothing funny about the spill, but I found this amusing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MejRMxgx_N0
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 02:17 pm
Halliburton strikes again!

I am embarrassed that I continue to be surprised when ever I learn that this company has done shoddy work.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Halliburton knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday.

In the first official finding of responsibility for the blowout, which killed 11 workers and led to the largest offshore oil spill in American history, the commission staff determined that Halliburton had conducted three laboratory tests that indicated that the cement mixture did not meet industry standards.

The result of at least one of those tests was given on March 8 to BP, which failed to act upon it, the panel’s lead investigator, Fred H. Bartlit Jr., said in a letter delivered to the commissioners on Thursday.

Another Halliburton cement test, carried out about a week before the blowout of the well on April 20, also found the mixture to be unstable, yet those findings were never sent to BP, Mr. Bartlit found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/us/29spill.html?_r=1&hp
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 03:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
According to the article, the government was caught asleep at the wheel,
as usual. I wonder who gave the OK to let BP handle the spill instead of the Coast Guard? Does our military work on our behalf or theirs? Obama missed the train, on this one. Very badly handled. BTW: My son is there, handling claims on behalf of businesses directly affected and employees laid off because of the drop in tourism because of the spill.

Louisiana gets screwed twice! First, by the effects of Katrina on the poor when they got one-way tickets out and no way to return, then by the Feds taking their oil and natural gas, federalizing their natural resources, making the City and State dependent on whatever crumbs from the Treasury's table.

Bush mistakenly thought New Orleans was totally Black, when the reality was
over 60% minority due to "white flight" in the mid 50's to the late 60's.
That, paved the way for the City to elect their first Black Mayor, Ernest
"Dutch" Morial. When I was a kid growing up there, the State was the "Sportsman's Paradise" and New Orleans was the "Crescent City". Big Easy
was a new, cool nickname, for a history rich and multifaceted, predominantly
Roman Catholic City.

IMHO, Obama has done little or not enough! It's the residents resiliance in
overcoming the adversity that faces them. They are slowly returning to the
New Orleans, I once knew, on their OWN!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 04:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Do you mean it wasn't entirely BP's fault hawk?

That would make some posters on this thread look pretty bloody silly I must say.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 04:50 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
That would make some posters on this thread look pretty bloody silly I must say.
to include me, for while we were told that Halliburton had recommended a more expensive process and BP turned it down, we were never told that Halibburton knowingly supplied suspect concrete. We also knew that Halibuburton had recommended testing the concrete, that the guys were actually on the rig to do that, but that BP sent them away because they did not want to take the 1/2 day the test would take to complete....so it did look like a bad concrete job was all BP's fault.

Now it is all up in the air.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 05:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
for while we were told that Halliburton had recommended a more expensive process and BP turned it down


That says very little hawk. These are not theoretical events.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 10:41 am
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/18/1084285/--We-ve-Never-Seen-Anything-Like-This-Mutations-and-Deformities-in-Gulf-Seafood-Post-BP-Spill

Scientists are finding mutations and big-time ecological damage in the Gulf after the BP oil spill - likely due to the dispersants that they liberally dumped into the water.

Cycloptichorn
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 10:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
And on a side note (because nobody should be surprised that the oil spill damaged wildlife), why is Al Jazera producing more probing and informative reports than local news organizations. Why are our large new networks more focused on politicians drinking beer and starlets getting boob jobs.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 11:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
The impact of the Deepwater Horizon spill is going to be felt in the Gulf for a generation. We should be doing everything possible to ensure there is no repeat of this nightmare.


As we are incapable of doing everything possible to ensure there is no repeat of this nightmare perhaps we should cease drilling altogether. Which is probably impossible as well.

We might learn to take less risk but we can't eliminate the risk.

If the cause is the dispersants then the panic generated by Media would be in the frame as at least a contributory factor. The Media coverage leading to rash decisions in the search for a quick fix for the eye. And loss of nerve in the face of the hysteria generated by Media in its eagerness to find a scapegoat for its own generation of demand for cheap oil.

Many were saying at the time that the oil would disperse itself fairly quickly.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 11:19 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
And on a side note (because nobody should be surprised that the oil spill damaged wildlife), why is Al Jazera producing more probing and informative reports than local news organizations.


Presumably because oil rich countries have an interest in reducing oil production in the gulf or increasing the cost of it.

Quote:
Why are our large news networks more focused on politicians drinking beer and starlets getting boob jobs.


To take our minds off this sort of puzzle of course.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2021 at 07:44:08