# Oil Slick and Vacation Planning [merged]



## pgnewarkboy (Apr 29, 2010)

The growing and as of  now unstoppable oil slick is very wide, long, and generally large.   Inasmuch as more oil is flowing than previously thought it is unquestionable that all the kings horses and all the kings men will not be able to put this out and save the coast.  It is a sure bet it will hit the La coast but may hit Fla as well.  I was thinking of planning a Fla vacationing but will wait and see what happens.  This is a disaster of epic proportions.


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 29, 2010)

I just read that at current rate, it would take months to equal the amount dumped in Prince Williams Sound. Still, if you are one whose oyster bed or scenic beach is despoiled, it's an epic disaster. To be sure, the great minds of engineers with vast experience in such matters are working 24/7 to stem the flow. They will succeed. The question is _when_.

Am I the only one who has noticed a distinct silence from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" contingent? The gas price was up another nickel or so around town. I have my bicycle tires all aired up.

Jim Ricks


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Apr 29, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I just read that at current rate, it would take months to equal the amount dumped in Prince Williams Sound. Still, if you are one whose oyster bed or scenic beach is despoiled, it's an epic disaster. To be sure, the great minds of engineers with vast experience in such matters are working 24/7 to stem the flow. They will succeed. The question is _when_.
> 
> Am I the only one who has noticed a distinct silence from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" contingent? The gas price was up another nickel or so around town. I have my bicycle tires all aired up.
> 
> Jim Ricks



The epic part of the disaster is the guaranteed, at this point, damage to the Miss. Delta which is important to the U.S Seafood industry as well as to the delicate food chain supported by that Delta.  If you like shrimp, buy what you can freeze tomorrow morning.  By afternoon, it may be too late.  The ecological damage is guaranteed to be worse then the Exxon Valdize spill because of the importance of the wetlands being harmed. That damage will occur even if the well "leak" was stopped immediately.  Of course, what I read and see from various resources is that this will take months.  

As far as vacationing goes, the entire gulf coast will be problematic for some time to come.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 29, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> Am I the only one who has noticed a distinct silence from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" contingent?



You are not the only one.
A lot of folks, even in Florida, had become complacent, marking those opposed as wacko-environmentalists.
Nothing like a disaster to turn on lightbulbs.


----------



## logan115 (Apr 30, 2010)

Deleted this post as it's too much of a political topic.

Apologies for not realizing this until Kurt's post.

Chris


----------



## ScoopKona (Apr 30, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> Am I the only one who has noticed a distinct silence *hypocrisy* from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" contingent? The gas price was up another nickel or so around town. I have my bicycle tires all aired up.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## PigsDad (Apr 30, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> Am I the only one who has noticed a distinct silence from the "Drill, Baby, Drill" contingent?


Maybe because it is against the board's policy to talk about political topics (obviously a policy that some people in this thread have forgotten about...  ).

Kurt


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 30, 2010)

PigsDad said:


> Maybe because it is against the board's policy to talk about political topics.... Kurt



Nothing political at all. Just an observation that since the oil rig blew up and the well blew out- so far unrepairably, there seems to be a pronounced quieting (in the media) of the pro-drilling faction. This has nothing to do with whichever side of the aisle one lines up behind and more to do with how we feed our addiction to SUV's and 4000 sq. ft. houses for 2 occupants. 
Jim


----------



## Clemson Fan (Apr 30, 2010)

Drill baby, drill!  This disaster hasn't silenced me!

How do you all propose we solve our energy needs going forward?  Conservation, wind and solar will only take us so far and by even the most unrealistic estimates will only meet about 1/3 of our energy needs.  I'm all for developing those sources, but there's always some environmental group against it b/c they kill birds or whatever. 

I for one would also like to see our dependence on oil go down, but I think it's MUCH more important to decrease our dependence on foreign oil first.  Our dependence on foreign oil is effectively handing over a lot of our wealth to powers that would frankly like to see our demise.

I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy.  In Hawaii we burn imported coal for most of energy.  Our energy costs are super high.  I would love to see Hawaii go nuclear.  When I mention that to people they scoff at me and tell me we're an island at "what if there's an accident?"  Of course they get silent when I point out we have 20 or so nuclear reactors sitting in Pearl Harbor at any one time.  BTW, the US Navy hasn't had a single nuclear accident in over 50 years of use and including 2 sunken nuclear subs.

Disasters can happen and they are very unfortunate.  However, there are a lot of "silent" disasters that go unnoticed.  Take the DOE for one which was formed in 1977 by President Carter to "end the United States dependence on foreign oil."  It now has an annual budget of close to 25 Billion and how much closer are we to ending that dependence on foreign oil?  There's a disaster for you.  If we spend 2 weeks of the DOE's annual budget towards fixing this current disaster it would probably get fixed a lot faster.

How about all those hybrid cars that are being made now.  How are we going to dispose of all those batteries when they lose their usefulness?  They're pretty toxic and nobody really thinks about that long term problem that will emerge.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Apr 30, 2010)

*oil slicks, offshore windmills, impacts vacations*

There is no question, in my mind at least, that timesharing vacations are greatly impacted by environmental issues.  People who vacation don't want to go where the shoreline, or water, or natural surroundings, have been degraded.  That is why some people are against windmills in the water.  Ruining the view or other possible environmental impacts.

As I posted earlier, I will not be booking anything along the gulf coast until I understand the impact of this latest catastrophe.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 30, 2010)

*Oil spill on Gulf Coast beaches? [merged]*

We are booked for Siesta Key Beach, May 15-22.  Wondering if the oil spill has affected / will affect the Sarasota/Tampa area.  I read some stories about a heavy smell, and possibly oil getting to the beach area within the next days/weeks.  Wondering if I should change my vacation plans!  Does anyone live in the area / know anything more about how this could affect the air/beach?  Thanks.


----------



## SherryS (Apr 30, 2010)

Nothing near the beaches here now, and the news stations here say that the oil may get into "the loop current".  The loop current would take the oil slick off-shore from the west coast and swing it around to the keys and Miami area.  I'll post if there are any changes to this report.

P.S. Just reread your post....No smell here either!  I live on the south end of the key near Turtle Beach.  No change in forecast for oil yet.


----------



## ada903 (Apr 30, 2010)

Thank you Sherry, please do keep us posted, and we are hoping for the best!  Not so much for our vacation, but for the beautiful Florida coast and wildlife.


----------



## annettewink (May 1, 2010)

*Well said Clemson Fan*

I couldn't agree more. Your nuclear argument is especially thought provoking.





Clemson Fan said:


> Drill baby, drill!  This disaster hasn't silenced me!
> 
> How do you all propose we solve our energy needs going forward?  Conservation, wind and solar will only take us so far and by even the most unrealistic estimates will only meet about 1/3 of our energy needs.  I'm all for developing those sources, but there's always some environmental group against it b/c they kill birds or whatever.
> 
> ...


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 1, 2010)

Any honest, sane, person will recognize that the world we now live in barely resembles the world our ancestors left to us.  The beautiful forests, wildlife, abundant soil, clean air,clean water, etc that once was the norm for north america is gone - forever.  WE have poisoned our planet in every way imaginable and wasted our planets resources.    

The process, started hundreds of years ago with industrialization and population growth is only accelerating.

If you read the book "Eaarth" you will see that the world is between a rock and a hard place as far as degradation of life as we know it on this planet.  Every step we take at this point has substantial negative impact on the environment.  

For example,  the melt down at Chernobyl is estimated to have killed one million people.  We of course know that the nuclear facilities built today are better - but not failsafe.  Also, nuclear power is extremely expensive to obtain and will take a very long time to develop to meet our economic needs and creates extremely toxic waste that nobody wants "in their backyard".

Dependence on foreign oil is the least of our problems.  We focus on it because of the price of fuel at the pump.  The biggest problem causing environmental degradation is the burning of coal.  Neither the U.S or China is doing anything to stop burning coal because our economies are dependent on it.  Pumping dangerous carbon from burning coal into the ground or "clean coal" is in its infancy, unproven, and extremely expensive.  This will also take decades and cost trillions of dollars.

Our problems will not be solved by chanting slogans. Pointing fingers, denying pure science, wishful thinking, ignorance, lies, greed, and plain stupidity, have gotten the world where it is.  

Environmental degradation has begun and is guaranteed to continue for hundreds if not thousands of years.  The polar ice caps are melting and they will not re-freeze.  The consequences are already devastating and will only get worse as sunlight is absorbed by the ocean that used to be reflected back out of the atmosphere by snow.

Melting "frozen tundra" will release even more carbon into the air.  More than anything we currently emit from burning coal etc.  

Somehow, we will have to find a way to live in our new world - if that is even possible.


----------



## Tia (May 1, 2010)

It's so sad that this happened and worse that they were not prepared, so it continues to grow and will damage so much of nature.


----------



## dioxide45 (May 1, 2010)

I just don't get why they can't stop the spread of oil. Okay, so they can't turn it off. Are there no other options than turning it off?

Say the pipe is a foot across, can't they take a two foot across pipe and go down and surround the one foot pipe? It doesn't even have to seal to the original well. Oil only goes one way in water, UP. So the oil would float to the top of the one two foot pipe, they could then just pump it off from there, and perhaps even use it. I am no engineer, but if they can send a one foot pipe down a mile in water, I would think they could do it with a two foot one.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 1, 2010)

dioxide45 said:


> I just don't get why they can't stop the spread of oil. Okay, so they can't turn it off. Are there no other options than turning it off?
> 
> Say the pipe is a foot across, can't they take a two foot across pipe and go down and surround the one foot pipe? It doesn't even have to seal to the original well. Oil only goes one way in water, UP. So the oil would float to the top of the one two foot pipe, they could then just pump it off from there, and perhaps even use it. I am no engineer, but if they can send a one foot pipe down a mile in water, I would think they could do it with a two foot one.



They claim they are trying everything they can think of.  I don't doubt it.  Geological forces are so strong that it is even to hard to imagine their power.  They never had a chance of quickly stopping the flow from an accident like this.


----------



## logan115 (May 1, 2010)

Folks -


We're talking about 5000 ft below the surface, so roughly a mile worth of pipe in Dioxide's example.  Trust me, they're doing all they can.  And while the recent articles said they doubted there could be a leak like this does NOT mean that they didn't have any plans about what to do if something catastrophic happened.

And while the damage to the environment is potentially devasting, can we please not lose sight of the HUMAN lives lost.  I love the fish, birds, and other animals too, but there are 11 families out there that will never see their loved ones again.

Chris


----------



## dioxide45 (May 1, 2010)

logan115 said:


> Folks -
> 
> 
> We're talking about 5000 ft below the surface, so roughly a mile worth of pipe in Dioxide's example.  Trust me, they're doing all they can.



If they were able to put a mile worth of pipe down once, I think they could figure out how to do it again...

The impression I get is that they are trying to contain the spill at is farthest reaches and stop the flow that is coming from the damaged well.


----------



## billymach4 (May 1, 2010)

Dioxide,

I am sure they are considering a fix similar to what you are proposing. However at those depths and the lack of an oil platform that BLEW up  needed to support the facility and manpower and equipment it is not possible to perform this task quickly. 

These sites take years of preparation before any oil production take place. Now they have to start all over, with the additional stress of this disastrous scenario. 

It just is not that easy.


----------



## Tia (May 1, 2010)

Well this just does not read well, but what do I know sadly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36870222/ns/us_news-environment

"BP didn’t plan for major spill"


"...In the 52-page exploration plan and environmental impact analysis, BP repeatedly suggested it was unlikely, or virtually impossible, for an accident to occur that would lead to a giant crude oil spill and serious damage to beaches, fish, mammals and fisheries. ..."


----------



## jamstew (May 1, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Drill baby, drill!  This disaster hasn't silenced me!
> 
> How do you all propose we solve our energy needs going forward?  Conservation, wind and solar will only take us so far and by even the most unrealistic estimates will only meet about 1/3 of our energy needs.  I'm all for developing those sources, but there's always some environmental group against it b/c they kill birds or whatever.
> 
> ...



 Couldn't agree more.


----------



## logan115 (May 1, 2010)

Tia said:


> Well this just does not read well, but what do I know sadly.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36870222/ns/us_news-environment
> 
> ...




Full disclosure at the risk of becoming an outcast here on TUG which would be incredibly disappointing for me - I work for Big Oil, and while I'm not an engineer perhaps I can shed some light on the subject although the only thing I can share is what I've read in the same articles you have.


There were safety features in place - but they failed - unfortunately it's just that simple.  The BOP (blow out preventer) that was designed, built, and tested failed.  It is not as if there were no safety features involved.  The reason that a catastrophic event was not expected was because of the safety features involved.  Unfortunately, if parts of your safety feature is blown up it isn't going to be of much use - I'm assuming this is why it was felt that any spills could be contained prior to reaching land.

Imagine installing a sprinkler system in your home to save it in case it catches fire.  You've done your research and install the state of the art system which has been tested over and over.  Your house then catches fire, and the sprinkler malfunctions.  You didn't expect to lose your entire house because you had the sprinkler, but you did because the sprinkler failed.

If we work of the premise that I'm used to hearing about Big Oil just being greedy and only caring about money, why would we be jeopardizing a major revenue stream capable of generating $500K/day ?  Clearly if all we cared about was money we'd make sure we were doing all we can to protect it, right ?  We care about money obviously, but it's not the only thing.

The fact is we have to take safety much more seriously than do other industries, and with good reason.  Not only is the potential for disaster to the environment, but also to the people that work with these products.

If you don't think that we in the industry are devasted by the loss of HUMAN life (which seems to be secondary in the media to the lost shrimp harvest) you're wrong.  If you don't think that we're devasted by the impact on the Gulf you're wrong too - and it's NOT because we're losing money or the fact that it's going to potentially cost billions to clean this up.  Call BS as I'm sure many of you will, but we respect the environment and take every precaution we can, but sadly ACCIDENTS happen.

I apologize in advance if this is taken the wrong way or if you think I'm just a shill, but am just trying to lay out the "other side" of the story - the one that no one in the media will dare print.  I hope that the information and viewpoint I've provided is informative, as I'd like to provide some good information to fellow TUGGERS as you've all provided me in the past.

Chris


----------



## swift (May 1, 2010)

logan115 said:


> Full disclosure at the risk of becoming an outcast here on TUG which would be incredibly disappointing for me - I work for Big Oil, and while I'm not an engineer perhaps I can shed some light on the subject although the only thing I can share is what I've read in the same articles you have.
> 
> Chris



Chris, you are not an outcast here.   I for one always appreciate hearing the other point of view.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 1, 2010)

*Lets stop posturing and get real.*



logan115 said:


> Full disclosure at the risk of becoming an outcast here on TUG which would be incredibly disappointing for me - I work for Big Oil, and while I'm not an engineer perhaps I can shed some light on the subject although the only thing I can share is what I've read in the same articles you have.
> 
> 
> There were safety features in place - but they failed - unfortunately it's just that simple.  The BOP (blow out preventer) that was designed, built, and tested failed.  It is not as if there were no safety features involved.  The reason that a catastrophic event was not expected was because of the safety features involved.  Unfortunately, if parts of your safety feature is blown up it isn't going to be of much use - I'm assuming this is why it was felt that any spills could be contained prior to reaching land.
> ...



No need to apologize for any post IMO.  The greed of big oil or lack of greed by big oil is not the issue to me at this point.  I couldn't tell you how concerned big oil is about safety vs. money or anything else because I dont sit in on their meetings when decisions are made about safety measures and their relative cost.  I will say that it is very clear that in many industries profits are more important than safety.  That is why safety regulations have to be put in place by various governments throughout the world.  In this instance, however, I cannot say that greed or a lack of concern for safety had anything to do with this accident.  We may eventually find out but it is likely we will never know.

What we do know, is that the business of oil drilling is inherently risky. Period.  The business of moving oil is inherently risky.  Period.  Furthermore, the consequences of accidents are extremely serious because of the damage they do.  The damage to human life at the scene is horrific.  The consequential damage to those who rely on the environment to make a living such as the fishing industry and food industry is horrific. The subsequent damage to consumers who need food is horrific.  The general degradation of life on this planet is horrific.

Slogans and politicking do not trump facts and science.  We all live in a world that is significantly worse than our ancestors.  Forests have disappeared.  The air and water is polluted.  Our food is contaminated.  Wildlife and the eco-systems they are part of have disappeared.  These are observable facts.  Just ask your parents or your grandparents.

The question is whether we will continue politicking and sloganeering in the face of reality.  We are hooked on oil.  We are hooked on coal.  We are hooked on pesticides.  All of this is destroying our ability to continue to survive on this planet - now.  Nuclear power is inherently dangerous and creates toxins that have already killed over one million people and that has already polluted the earth and what we eat.  The toxins from Chernobyl covered most of the planet and entered the food chain through the soil.  Same for the toxins spread from ww2 and subsequent nuclear testing.  

Are we or are we not going to do something about this?  It doesn't matter who is good and who is bad and who is greedy and who is american and who is chinese.  The environment does not know or care.  The planet does not know or care.

It is too late for wake up calls.  It is time to make decisions to save humanity if it is still possible.


----------



## chellej (May 1, 2010)

pgnewarkboy;904143
For example said:
			
		

> Your figure of one million deaths from Chernobyl I assume is based on the recently published book by the New York academy of science and I have seen no reviews that substantiate the claims.  Previous numbers have been much lower so I wouldn't take that one as fact just yet.
> 
> US reactors are not the same type as Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor with NO, I repeat NO containment building.  Once the rector caught on fire, the graphite burned and carried the radioactive particles with it.  There are no commercial US reactors that use Graphite as a moderator.
> 
> ...


----------



## jamstew (May 1, 2010)

logan115 said:


> Full disclosure at the risk of becoming an outcast here on TUG which would be incredibly disappointing for me - I work for Big Oil, and while I'm not an engineer perhaps I can shed some light on the subject although the only thing I can share is what I've read in the same articles you have.
> 
> 
> There were safety features in place - but they failed - unfortunately it's just that simple.  The BOP (blow out preventer) that was designed, built, and tested failed.  It is not as if there were no safety features involved.  The reason that a catastrophic event was not expected was because of the safety features involved.  Unfortunately, if parts of your safety feature is blown up it isn't going to be of much use - I'm assuming this is why it was felt that any spills could be contained prior to reaching land.
> ...



Thank you Chris! My family has worked in the oil field for a long time, and I actually know all that but didn't know a good way to explain it. If things fail, they fail. It was a tragedy, especially for the families of the folks who were killed but certainly for the environment as well. Hopefully they will be able to contain it soon. My own disclaimer: My sole source of income is oil and gas royalties, so I'm much more likely to be the outcast


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 2, 2010)

*Gulf stream likely to carry oil along east coast*

Scientists are now saying the oil will eventually hit east coast beaches.  Nobody seems to know if it is even possible to stop the underwater gusher.


----------



## Passepartout (May 2, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Scientists are now saying the oil will eventually hit east coast beaches.  Nobody seems to know if it is even possible to stop the underwater gusher.



Very sad. It will be a long-lasting reminder of the *real* cost of America's oil fueled lifestyles. My heart goes out to those whose lives have been lost, and livlihoods, beaches and wetlands have been and will be affected.

Jim Ricks


----------



## wcfr1 (May 2, 2010)

So far it looks like the Gulf Beaches might be safe for a while. Long term?

Short term doesn't look as good for the Panhandle. 

The Gulf Stream Loop Current is expected to bring the oil first to the Keys and then up the entire US East Coast. 

Is everyone still good with Drill Baby Drill? I mean our politicians said drilling is safe and the chances of a spill were negligible right?

And the oil companies said they could handle any spills that occured right?

Every day the amount they think is leaking changes... for the worse.

Every day we hear how their plans such as Burning, Absorption and Chemical Dispersion to control the situation are failing. 

Did these guys learn to lie like this becasue they used to be timeshare salesman or what?


----------



## LisaH (May 2, 2010)

wcfr1 said:


> Did these guys learn to lie like this becasue they used to be timeshare salesman or what?


LOL! 
I also wonder whom this oil rig belongs to? I sure hope they have a deep pocket or insurance that tax payers can go after.


----------



## Goofyhobbie (May 2, 2010)

LisaH said:


> LOL!
> I also wonder whom this oil rig belongs to? I sure hope they have a deep pocket or insurance that tax payers can go after.



The rig "Deepwater Horizon" was owned by Transocean and leased by British Petroleum. (BP)  Both companies, have deep pockets and are probably insured by Lloyd's of London. But, this disaster will, no doubt, far exceed the cost endured by Exxon when they suffered what was then probably the worst oil leakage anywhere near the United States coastline. The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24 , 1989.

The investigation into the cause of the accident of "Deepwater Horizon" could take months and maybe years. The investigation will probably center on why the blowout preventer failed and caused rig operators to lose control of the well. Unfortunately, however, the rig itself is some five miles deep on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico so getting needed information will be difficult and acquistion of that information is now overwhelmed by the need to clean up the mess.

By the way: A blowout preventer is a large safety valve that can seal off at the wellhead to stop the explosive release of pressurized oil and gas.


----------



## easyrider (May 2, 2010)

*Happy Year of the TIGER*


----------



## logan115 (May 2, 2010)

wcfr1 said:


> Did these guys learn to lie like this becasue they used to be timeshare salesman or what?



You hit the nail on the head, a bunch of former timeshare salesman decided to start drilling in 5000 ft water  

From the beginning BP has said they will be the cost to make this right - not the taxpayer.  Sadly, given the scores of lawyers heading into the area I'm sure they'll get more than anyone else.

Chris


----------



## glypnirsgirl (May 2, 2010)

*what can we each do?*

Originally Posted by Clemson Fan  
​Drill baby, drill! This disaster hasn't silenced me!

How do you all propose we solve our energy needs going forward? Conservation, wind and solar will only take us so far and by even the most unrealistic estimates will only meet about 1/3 of our energy needs. I'm all for developing those sources, but there's always some environmental group against it b/c they kill birds or whatever.​
​I for one would also like to see our dependence on oil go down, but I think it's MUCH more important to decrease our dependence on foreign oil first. Our dependence on foreign oil is effectively handing over a lot of our wealth to powers that would frankly like to see our demise.​

Who caused the problem of the major oil spill? In the end, it is almost all of us. It is our insatiable need for energy. 



Clemson Fan said:


> .
> 
> How about all those hybrid cars that are being made now.  How are we going to dispose of all those batteries when they lose their usefulness?  They're pretty toxic and nobody really thinks about that long term problem that will emerge.



The exact reason that we did not buy a hybrid. The actual costs to the environment (due to retooling as well as the battery disposal) than a regular car. My husband and I decided to go a different way - we bought a Compressed Natural Gas car. Very fuel efficient, uses existing technology, approximately 90% of the car is traditional and no batteries to dispose of. The US produces most of the natural gas that is used here, so there is less reliance on foreign oil and off-shore oil. Still, it is not perfect. 

We try to make as many small steps as we can: walk to the grocery store, bring our own bags, grow some of our own food, eat lower on the food chain, just consume less. 

This oil spill is a disaster. 

And Chris, I understand that you are in the oil industry and were concerned about being an outcast for announcing it, but to then turn around and cast aspersions at lawyers is a low-blow. 

I am not concerned about becoming an outcast because I am an attorney. The reason that Shakespeare said, "First, let's kill all of the lawyers" is because of the check that lawyers are to injustice. In a play that was about the desire to perpetuate injustice.

elaine


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 2, 2010)

wcfr1 said:


> Is everyone still good with Drill Baby Drill? I mean our politicians said drilling is safe and the chances of a spill were negligible right?


 
And your solution to our energy needs are???

Drill, baby drill!


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 2, 2010)

logan115 said:


> You hit the nail on the head, a bunch of former timeshare salesman decided to start drilling in 5000 ft water


 
Actually, it was our politicians who made that decision.  I agree that there's not much of a difference between politicians and timeshare salesman.

Oil companies are forced to drill for oil in the most inhospitable places like in 5000 ft of water since god forbid any vacationer actually sees which would ruin their nice ocean view timeshare.

The blame for the difficulty in capping a spill in 5000 ft of water belongs to all of us.  It would be much easier to cap a spill if the drilling were done on land (Alaska) or in shallow water.


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

logan115 said:


> I apologize in advance if this is taken the wrong way or if you think I'm just a shill, but am just trying to lay out the "other side" of the story - the one that no one in the media will dare print.  I hope that the information and viewpoint I've provided is informative, as I'd like to provide some good information to fellow TUGGERS as you've all provided me in the past.



Counterpoint: I found your post to be thoughtful and informative. OTOH, I suggest that pro-driller contingent has been a bit too suceessful in lulling the public and politicos into a false sense of security, so successful that folks who opposed drilling off Florida's beaches _were_ being laughed off the stage.

Its been reported that certain safety measures were not installed, the result, no doubt of successful lobbying in Washington. There is a consisitant dynamiic between those who favor strict regulation and those who would have governemt take a "hands off" approach... except of course, to clean up the mess we make in the sandbox.

Whether it be a nuclear accident at Three-Mile Island, dead miniers in West Virginia and Kentucky, ecoomic melt-downs by mega-banks, or blow outs like this, occasional disasters serve to remind us that, while "government" rightly deserves plenty of criticism and doesn't always serve the public well, there is a downside to a "hands off" approach. IOW, this may help reset the pendulum.


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 2, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> Whether it be a nuclear accident at Three-Mile Island, dead miniers in West Virginia and Kentucky, ecoomic melt-downs by mega-banks, or blow outs like this, occasional disasters, as devastaing as they may be, help to remind us that, while government doesn't always serve the public interest well, there are trade off for "hands off" approach. IOW, this may help reset the pendulum.



For the most part, I don't disagree with some government regulation.  However, I disagree that drilling in 5000 ft. of water was due to a "hands off" approach from the government.  In contrast, I believe it was very much a government "hands on" approach that forced to drilling to move into 5000 ft. of water.


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 2, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Any honest, sane, person will recognize that the world we now live in barely resembles the world our ancestors left to us.  The beautiful forests, wildlife, abundant soil, clean air,clean water, etc that once was the norm for north america is gone - forever.  WE have poisoned our planet in every way imaginable and wasted our planets resources.
> 
> The process, started hundreds of years ago with industrialization and population growth is only accelerating.
> 
> ...



OK, if I get your gist right your solution to our energy needs would be to go back to a pre-industrial age before we started using fossil fuels or “poisoning” the planet.  No thanks!

I’d like to think I’m a sane and reasonable guy and I personally think we’re at the pinnacle of human history and that we’re far better off then we were 50, 100, 200 or however far you want to go back.  I have a very positive outlook on our and the Earth’s future and believe there’s a greater then 90% chance things will be even better in the next 50-100 years and beyond.  My parents believe things are better now then they were when they grew up and I’m pretty hopeful that things will be better for my kids when they grow up.  I believe humans have done marvelous things in the past and will in the future and our impact on the Earth has been far more positive then negative.

I’m not a big believer in global warming.  I honestly don’t know where the Earth is heading climate wise.  I do think it’s ludicrous for somebody to take 100-150 years (over 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s age) worth of data points and come up with a computer model and claim that they can accurately predict what’s going to happen with the climate in the future.  There are so many variables (some of which are known and many more of which we don’t know of yet) that I think it makes any models predictive powers essentially random and worthless.  To say that the debate is over and that humans are causing climate change to me is the definition of insane and unreasonable.  

You say that the ice caps will melt and never come back again.  How do you then explain the many cooling (ice ages) and warming cycles the Earth has gone through before humans became industrialized?  Again, there are so many variables that we just don’t understand or know about yet.

I actually have a science background with an engineering degree and I’ve been published several times in peer reviewed scientific journals during the 3 years I spent working at one of our nations national labs.  Global warming has been the hot topic recently which causes a lot of research dollars to flow that way.  In my relatively short career both in engineering and medicine I’ve actually seen several things spoken about with such fervor that in the end turned out to be completely wrong.  We do know a lot, but there’s far more that we don’t know then we know.  I’m sure there are things we talk about today with absolute certainty that we’ll find out in the future are totally wrong.

Do I know the answer on global warming - nope.  Do I think anybody else knows the answer - nope.  Am I worried about global warming or my house that sits 5 feet above sea level - not in the least.  Do I think things are horrible now - absolutely not!  Do I need to lose some weight - yes.  That being said, I think conservation and being good stewards of the environment is a good thing, but I certainly don’t think humans are “poisoning” the earth.  Do I think we have a great future - absolutely!

Here’s a question for everybody - What would happen to sea levels if the whole northern polar ice cap were to completely melt?


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Here’s a question for everybody - What would happen to sea levels if the whole northern polar ice cap were to completely melt?



Sneaky. As I'm sure you know, most ice is elsewhere and other aspects of climate change affect sea levels.
Snippits from an article in www.howstuffworks.com..
------------------------------------------
*Antarctica* accounts for about 90 percent of the world's ice. The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 7,000 feet thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 200 feet. But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole.
The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted, sea levels would not be affected.

Icebergs could play a small role in the rising ocean level. Icebergs are chunks of frozen glaciers that break off from landmasses and fall into the ocean. The rising temperature may be causing more icebergs to form by weakening the glaciers... As soon as the ice falls into the ocean, the ocean rises a little.

Greenland would add *20 feet* to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

A less dramatic reason than ice melting is that water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases. So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

According to the EPA, the sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches in the last 100 years... In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which estimated that the sea will rise ~20 inches by 2100. The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches could have a substantial effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.
----------------------------------------
As I live 155' above sea level, I figure I'll die B4 Antartica melts, so I ain't gonna lose any sleep about it. Likewise, I'm 90 minutes from the Gulf coast, so a few blackened beaches don't bother me much. <hyperbole>


----------



## Passepartout (May 2, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> Here’s a question for everybody - What would happen to sea levels if the whole northern polar ice cap were to completely melt?



If you are referring to the portion that is frozen water on a liquid sea, nothing would happen. For the same reason as your Big Gulp doesn't overflow as the ice melts. HOWEVER, as ice melts from the Antarctic continent and over the land mass of Greenland, it will have an effect on sea levels. AND as the ice melts, exposing more dark colored surface area to sunlight instead of reflective, white ice and snow the amount of sunlight absorbed by the earth as heat will increase instead of the heat being reflected harmlessly into space, resulting in even faster heating.

To say that I disagree with Clemson Fan's assertion (of disbelief in climate change) is gross understatement. There is just too much evidence of change to ignore it.

Jim Ricks


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

*BP defends record as spill grows* By CAIN BURDEAU and RAY HENRY, AP

VENICE, La. – BP's chairman defended his company's safety record and said Sunday that "a failed piece of equipment" was to blame for a massive oil spill along the Gulf Coast... 

BP PLC chairman Lamar McKay told ABC's "This Week" that he can't say when the well a mile beneath the sea might be plugged. But he said he believes a 74-ton metal and concrete box... could be placed over the well on the ocean floor in *six to eight days*.

McKay said BP officials are still working to activate a "blowout preventer" mechanism meant to seal off the geyser of oil. Company spokesman Bill Salvin said Sunday that the first of three boxes is nearly done. It's being built in Port Fourchon, La., by a company called Wild Well Control... 

BP did not build the containment devices before the spill because it "seemed inconceivable" the blowout preventer would fail, Rinehart said. "I don't think anybody foresaw the circumstance that we're faced with now," he said. "The blowout preventer was the main line of defense against this type of incident, and it failed."
-----------------------------
_As the Challenger and Columbia Shuttle disasters show, not even NASA is immune from overconfidence in mechanical systems. Such faith is the hobgoblin of little minds. _ -- Me.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 2, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> For the most part, I don't disagree with some government regulation.  However, I disagree that drilling in 5000 ft. of water was due to a "hands off" approach from the government.  In contrast, I believe it was very much a government "hands on" approach that forced to drilling to move into 5000 ft. of water.



   The way I understand the business of oil exploration and drilling is that oil companies spend quite a bit of money to try and determine where there is oil in quantites large enough to make it worthwhile to extract the oil.   Everything I read from many sources, none of them politicians, is that the "easy oil" is pretty much gone from the world.  Oil companies regularly tout that the "end of oil" has not been reached because of their more technologically advanced methods of reaching previously hard to get oil.  I am sure that BP and every other oil company goes where they think there is oil.   I find no support for your theory that the government is forcing drilling in 5000 feet of water.

Melting ice caps, glaciers, etc is not simply a cause for alarm because of rising sea levels.  Glaciers provide stable water supply for much of the worlds population.   When they are gone so is the water.  Further, melting ice caps and glaciers changes the salinity of ocean water thus making it an inhospitable environment for many varieties of sea life which ultimately disrupts the interdependent food supply for the entire planet.


----------



## logan115 (May 2, 2010)

glypnirsgirl said:


> And Chris, I understand that you are in the oil industry and were concerned about being an outcast for announcing it, but to then turn around and cast aspersions at lawyers is a low-blow.
> 
> I am not concerned about becoming an outcast because I am an attorney. The reason that Shakespeare said, "First, let's kill all of the lawyers" is because of the check that lawyers are to injustice. In a play that was about the desire to perpetuate injustice.
> 
> elaine



I apoligize for that Elaine, I was referring to the resources that would be tied up in court instead of fixing the problem.  

In my haste I forgot that others face similar challenges (lawyers, bankers, etc).

I do apologize and have no excuses.

Chris


----------



## ScoopKona (May 2, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> To say that I disagree with Clemson Fan's assertion (of disbelief in climate change) is gross understatement. There is just too much evidence of change to ignore it.




I lived in Key West for 20 years. Sea levels are rising. Anyone who lives near the coast and pays attention for some years can SEE that sea levels are rising. (And that coastlines are eroding, storms are getting more intense, and weather patterns are becoming weirder.)

If people want to debate WHY sea levels are rising, go ahead. I have my theories, you likely have yours. But the people who put their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la la there is no climate change" annoy me to no end.

Nearly half the planet's population lives within 200 km of shore. If sea levels continue to rise, that is going to be a big, big problem.


----------



## Courts (May 2, 2010)

Just thought I would add some reading on the subject of Arctic Sea Ice;


> *Barring an about face by nature or adjustments*, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
> 
> NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News.  It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice.  Last month’s news led with this sentence.
> 
> ...




.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 2, 2010)

So whats up with that?  I don't know.  First time in 9 years that sea ice is at "normal level" whatever that means.  Climate change is all about averages.  On any given day in the winter it can be very cold in my neighborhood.  What up with that?  In fact, might neighborhood may be freezing all winter long but your neighborhood may be hotter than hades in the middle of winter, and the same for 20 other neighborhoods.  What up with that?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 2, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> I believe humans have done marvelous things in the past and will in the future and our impact on the Earth has been far more positive then negative.




You probably stand alone in the above statement.  I mean really alone.  I don't think you will find climate change deniers in agreement with that statement.   A short tour of books on the subject of our environment will quickly disclose that our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our ground is polluted, dams have destroyed rivers and eco systems, our forests are disappearing,drought grows world wide, and more land turns to desert every decade.  North America used to be teaming with verdante forests,  wildlife and plantlife and clean water.  It no longer does.  The answer is clear - human activity.  We have replaced forests with junkyards and landfills.  We have replaced clean air with pollutants from smokestacks, and clean water with chemicals released from factories and with human excrement.  We have built dams and levies to protect human settlement that have ultimately resulted in flooding and the destruction of rivers.  

This destruction of our habitat is not limited to north america.  It is found all over the world.  We have decimated our natural resources.   There really is no debate on this issue.  Let me make this clear - nobody is debating this except you.


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 3, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> There really is no debate on this issue.  Let me make this clear - nobody is debating this except you.



On this board, you are probably right, but in the population at large I assure you I don’t stand alone.

My statement didn’t come out as well as I would have liked.  What I was trying to say in that the standard of living and lifestyle for humans is better then it has ever been in human history.  Is it perfect - certainly not.  However, I think there’s a greater then 90% chance things will continue to get better.  I think our affect on the environment is really quite negligible and more importantly despite what people like to claim - unpredictable.

I have a very positive outlook on the human race and the great things we’ve accomplished and will continue to accomplish.  Advances in technology and medicine are just amazing.  I find folks like you who are always so disparaging and negative regarding whatever humans do to be very curious.


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 3, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I find no support for your theory that the government is forcing drilling in 5000 feet of water.



There's a ton of untapped oil in Alaska that the government will not let oil companies to go after.  The government in most states will also not allow oil platforms to be visible from the shore forcing them into deeper and deeper waters.


----------



## DeniseM (May 3, 2010)

Folks - This thread is becoming political and controversial - we need to get back to the original topic:  Oil Slick and Vacation Planning.  You can always finish your discussion by pm.  Thank you.


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 3, 2010)

ScoopLV said:


> But the people who put their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la la there is no climate change" annoy me to no end.



I’m not saying there is no climate change.  Just by the pure definition of climate means it’s going to change.  

I’m just saying that the science behind predicting climate change and the human effect on it is in its infancy at best.  There are way too many assumptions made and too many uncontrollable and unknown variables that I think any research or computer model that claims to be able to predict long term future climate trends is just ludicrous. 

I’m not putting my fingers in my ears and going “la la la” and in fact I’ve thought and read about the issue quite a bit and have been for many years.  Whenever people start talking in absolutes I really begin to question them.  There are many examples in the history of science and medicine where people spoke in absolutes about something that later turned out to be completely false.

Here’s a good speech given by Michael Crichton.  Granted he was mainly an author, by he’s no dummy as he graduated from Harvard Medical School.  He was a very good critical thinker who was very well spoken IMO.  He was actually demonized for his stance on climate change.  I was very sad when I heard of his passing.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html


----------



## Clemson Fan (May 3, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> People who vacation don't want to go where the shoreline, or water, or natural surroundings, have been degraded.  That is why some people are against windmills in the water.  Ruining the view or other possible environmental impacts.



It’s exactly this sentiment which is why these platforms are in such deep water.

I ask you again what’s your solution to our energy needs?  I still haven’t gotten a real answer and just a lot of hyperbole on how humans are destroying everything which makes me think you would like to see us go back to the stone age.  Your only answer is no to everything including windmills b/c they’ll ruin your view.


----------



## DeniseM (May 3, 2010)

Clemson Fan - please see my post #53.


----------



## Talent312 (May 3, 2010)

DeniseM said:


> Folks - This thread is becoming political and controversial - we need to get back to the original topic:  Oil Slick and Vacation Planning.  You can always finish your discussion by pm.  Thank you.



Let's break bread together and sing "Kumbaya."
Perhaps not on Gulf Islands Nat'l. Seashore, though.  

I just want the thing to be capped and oil cleaned up, somehow, some way, ASAP.


----------



## easyrider (May 3, 2010)

The earths climate has always been in change. Ocean water levels have been rising for thousands of years. These changes have always been more noticeable on coast lines because land disappears. Did the ancient Egyptians and Greeks build temples 30 feet under water ? Nope. The water level level rose. 
When a habitat is lost for one species another species will take its place. This process is called ecological succession. 

The oil that is polluting the Gulf of Mexico is a real bummer. If you figure in the cost of clean up and lost revenue into a gallon of gas the real cost exceeds the $15.00 a gallon estimated true cost per gallon.

Vacationing on the Gulf of Mexico beaches in some areas will be a real mess for years to come. Especially this summer.


----------



## Talent312 (May 3, 2010)

easyrider said:


> When a habitat is lost for one species another species will take its place. This process is called ecological succession.



One theory is that cockroaches will be taking our place.
I know there's a few ready to move in to mine.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 3, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> On this board, you are probably right, but in the population at large I assure you I don’t stand alone.
> 
> My statement didn’t come out as well as I would have liked.  What I was trying to say in that the standard of living and lifestyle for humans is better then it has ever been in human history.  Is it perfect - certainly not.  However, I think there’s a greater then 90% chance things will continue to get better.  I think our affect on the environment is really quite negligible and more importantly despite what people like to claim - unpredictable.
> 
> I have a very positive outlook on the human race and the great things we’ve accomplished and will continue to accomplish.  Advances in technology and medicine are just amazing.  I find folks like you who are always so disparaging and negative regarding whatever humans do to be very curious.



I applaud having a positive outlook.  I agree that humanity has the ability to do much good because of advances in science and technology.  We must, however, not let a positive outlook distort reality.  Only when we understand the enormity of the damage being done to our habitat, will we undertake the tremendous task ahead of us.  When that happens, and it needs to be soon, I am confident we will find solutions.  If you ask me for solutions, I have none other than lowering my carbon footprint, living smaller, creating less waste, and supporting research and development of clean energy.  I can do that on the personal level and I act on it because of my understanding of the severity of the problem we face.  The big picture solutions are beyond my knowledge.  We can find them if we act knowing the urgency of the problem.  If we continue to deny the problem  - we will not act.


----------



## Passepartout (May 3, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> We can find them if we act knowing the urgency of the problem.  If we continue to deny the problem  - we will not act.








From Walt Kelly, for the first Earth Day, 1970


----------



## Bigbird130 (May 4, 2010)

I'm at Hoilday Beach Resort in Destin Florida for the next 2 weeks.
So far the oil has stayed over in La due to the weather and water flowing into the Gulf.
From what the latest forecast is the weather is getting better and the oil will be staying farther out in the gulf for a while giving them more time to work on containg it and treating it.
They have declared emergencies everywher down her just to get perpared for whatever may happen but for now the gulf coast of Florida is ok.


----------



## wcfr1 (May 4, 2010)

State of Emergency has been declared for the whole Gulf Coast of Florida from Pensacola to Sarasota. 

Thankfully no sign along Florida beaches though. Just saw aerial news video from Mississippi with apparant first oil on shore. Video from Louisiana of lots of dead fish and oil soaked birds now showing up.

Fishing in the Northern Gulf is being closed. No shortages of Gulf seafood reported yet but if closings last too long or area is enlarged things may change.

Fish hatcheries and grass beds along the coast are an integral part of our food chain and they cant just be cleaned off. 

So... if you have a Florida beach vacation planned for the short term you are still OK. 

Big controversy over the official Visit Florida tourism bureau. These morons got ahold of a Government Emergency Responce Plan intended for responders to a beach clean up. Had instructions on Personal Protection Equipment, cleaning techniques for oil fouled birds and cleaning tar balls from humans exposed on the beach etc.

These dopes forwarded this in one of their e-mail blasts to European Tour Operators. What do you think those tour operators are thinking when they get that?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 5, 2010)

It is just a matter of where and when.   The "landfall" is inevitable.  They cannot clean the entire spill.   I read recently that when it gets into the gulf stream it will go as far north as north carolina.  There will be great damage to the Gulf Coast, and East Coast, tourist industry.  Damage to habitat will be even greater.  Thats it.  Nobody - not BP, the governments or anyone else is saying anything different.  The 'news' is making a little drama out of the mess.  Is it getting bigger?  Will the winds keep it offshore?  Total nonsense.  The configuration of the continuing to grow slick will change depending on many factors.  It is still coming onshore and in to the wetlands and the beaches.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 5, 2010)

Clemson Fan said:


> I’m not saying there is no climate change.  Just by the pure definition of climate means it’s going to change.
> 
> I’m just saying that the science behind predicting climate change and the human effect on it is in its infancy at best.  There are way too many assumptions made and too many uncontrollable and unknown variables that I think any research or computer model that claims to be able to predict long term future climate trends is just ludicrous.
> 
> ...



Since you don't deal in absolutes you surely recognize that there is evidence in support of climate change caused by human pollution.  You won't say there is absolutely no support for the argument.  You know there is.  You say that computer models are inadequate and climate is unpredictable but you you don't deny that the computer modelling is getting better all the time and that the predictions could be absolutely or even just partially correct.

Given the above you must consider what is the appropriate response to the scenarios we face.  To me, the severity of even a small threat requires action proportionate to the severity - even if you think the likelihood is small.  The oil company BP apparently thought that the liklihood of a blown gusher was almost nill - so they failed to have a clean up plan in place or adequate safety measures in the first place.  Their calculation did not take into account the severity and damage of a blow out.  If BP took this into account they would have acted in foresight with greater prudence.  The risk was small but the severity of the damage required more action than was taken.

Even if you discount the likelihood of a worst case scenario for climate change, you cannot eliminate the possibility entirely because there is real scientific evidence to support it.  Given the severity of the possible damage which is the destruction of human life on this planet for thousands of years if not forever, appropriate action must be taken in proportion to the SEVERITY of the risk.  We don't have to talk in absolutes to come to this rational conclusion.


----------



## ada903 (May 5, 2010)

This link helps monitor the oil / beaches situation:

http://coolgate.mote.org/beachconditions/


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 8, 2010)

*Containment Dome Not Working - Moved*

Latest news is the dome had to be moved off of the gusher because of some problem with ice crystals.  Any delay in this matter is awful.

Friends just cancelled their vacation  rental in Fla and got a place in Myrtle Beach instead because of the BP oil calamity.   Fla will miss their spending because they have "alot of dough " to spend. Multiply that a few million times and that is a big, big, hit for the entire region.  

Everyone and everything from restaurants, waiters, taxi drivers, car rental, planes, hotels, fishing boats and one thousand cascading impacts I can't possible think of are headed for economic devastation. 

As I posted earlier, I will certainly not be booking anything in that entire region and then some.  I was planning to go to the keys.


----------



## wcfr1 (May 9, 2010)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Friends just cancelled their vacation  rental in Fla and got a place in Myrtle Beach instead because of the BP oil calamity.   Fla will miss their spending because they have "alot of dough " to spend. Multiply that a few million times and that is a big, big, hit for the entire region.
> 
> Everyone and everything from restaurants, waiters, taxi drivers, car rental, planes, hotels, fishing boats and one thousand cascading impacts I can't possible think of are headed for economic devastation.




And that is what everyone here has feared from the first moment anyone mentioned drilling off our coasts. Local hotels are now reporting limited cancellations because of the perception of oil on our beaches. We are hoping to keep this limited. State CFO Alex Sink is trying to get BP to agree to a marketing blitz to keep people from cancelling.

Again, at this time the oil is in the Louisiana, Mississippi area. 

The rig was in the deep part of the Gulf. The loop current that may carry the oil south and up the East coast is in the deep part of the gulf. The Eastern part of the gulf is shallower and preventing that current from moving the oil this way. 

So far the winds have been easterly preventing much oil movement this way and pushing it towards Louisiana and Mississippi.

I pitty those people in that area. In shore drilling that resulted in a similiar spill would be much much worse. But for now we are being optimistic it will stay offshore, that the leak will be stopped and clean up efforts will be successful.


----------



## Tia (May 21, 2010)

The news is _not good _on stopping it. I heard yesterday it could move up the east coast d/t currents.


----------



## bogey21 (May 21, 2010)

We need to seperate our views regarding the overall impact of the oil discharge and whether it should impact our vacation decisions.  

Without being overally simplistic I would like to point out that I grew up spending Summers on the Jersey coast during World War II.  We had a lot of oil on the beach from tankers being sunk at sea.  It didn't deter our use of the ocean and beach.  We took bacon grease with us and used it with water to clean the oil off our feet (where most of it ended up) before going home.  

George


----------



## pgnewarkboy (May 21, 2010)

bogey21 said:


> We need to seperate our views regarding the overall impact of the oil discharge and whether it should impact our vacation decisions.
> 
> Without being overally simplistic I would like to point out that I grew up spending Summers on the Jersey coast during World War II.  We had a lot of oil on the beach from tankers being sunk at sea.  It didn't deter our use of the ocean and beach.  We took bacon grease with us and used it with water to clean the oil off our feet (where most of it ended up) before going home.
> 
> George



With all due respect and having spent some considerable time at the Jersey shore as a "ute", the situations are not comparable.  This is being called the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country by many.  Many scientists are already saying there will be considerable environmental damage to Europe and Antartica because of the way birds and other wildlife migrate - making stops in the gulf of mexico.  It is understood that there is a chain of life and that the destruction or disruption of habitat for one species will have impact on others.  It is more than just oil on the beach.  People go to enjoy the fishing and other wildlife.  It is a way of life that is more than just oil free beaches.

Like most, I hope that this matter has not already become a catastrophe.  I hope the water "disperses" the oil somewhat or that the oil doesn't do too much damage to sea life or marsh life. The facts, however, seem not to be on the side of hope.  

Oil takes the oxygen out of water.  We already have huge dead zones in the oceans where there is no life that have been caused by human refuse and chemicals dumped into the oceans.  It is likely that this oil will create humongous dead zones wreaking havoc with the ocean eco systems.


----------



## Kal (May 21, 2010)

bogey21 said:


> ...We took bacon grease with us and used it with water to clean the oil off our feet (where most of it ended up) before going home.
> 
> George


 
Ahhhhh, I wonder if BP has looked into bacon grease as a remedial action technique for the Gulf.  ORDER UP! 1 million gallons of bacon grease!


----------

