Not to belittle the disaster, but it's unlikely to have any direct effect over here.
Not to belittle the disaster, but it's unlikely to have any direct effect over here.
A diagram of the undersea "top kill" equipment and operation. It's amazing to me that they can do this from a mile above the ocean floor. It's no wonder that it took awhile to pull this all together....and I'm sure there is alot of equipment on the surface ships to make this all happen.
I sure hope it works.
A sobering report, if you haven't seen it:
News is looking good:
Good news indeed!
Now for the clean up....
If anyone has a chance to get a small scoop of this crude floats, would they consider sending some to me?
I would like to do some photography with it.
Some inside info from Norwegian oil workers in the Gulf (as quoted from Swedish newspaper SvD, creative translation courtesy of Google):
"In an article in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet argues Norwegians who participated in rescue efforts in the Gulf of Mexico that both BP and the U.S. Coast Guard tried to cover up the extent of oil spills. Norwegian ships were among the first involved in the rescue work following the explosion on the oil rig.
- BP came to direct lies and propaganda, "says one of the Norwegians to the Times. They do not want to be identified.
The Norwegians said that video footage from the mini-submarines showed a completely different reality than the one described externally. Two days after the accident showed Norwegians see uploaded images directly on the leaking oil. Five days after the explosion it was said that the leaked 1000 barrels of oil per day, and three days later 5000, a figure that BP up to the last maintained. But the Norwegians could not get the official figures to match what they saw in the pictures of the leak.
- Everybody could see that there were large amounts flowing into. We only disagreed on was how much more it was than what was said, "one of the Norwegians."
FWIW, we don't refer to anonymous sources as "inside info". Did the "Times" verify the information from the anonymous person with two valid/credible sources? Probably not.
My gut feeling is the whole "leaking oil" thing is probably a whole lot worse than we are led to believe. Nonetheless, my gut feelings don't allow me to accept unidentified, unverified sources as fact. And you shouldn't, either.
Here is the original article. The newspaper claims that it spoke directly with crew from three named norwegian ships (Boa Sub C, Ocean Intervention III, and Skandi Neptune) that aided in the initial rescue and damage survey at the spill during the first 24 hours.
Why I find their statements relevant is that they are not controlled by US politicians, nor by BP.
Last edited by Lars; 30th May 2010 at 08:10.
But, I believe we CAN know the amount with reasonable accuracy.
I think we should boil the BP execs in oil ! And Halliburton as well.
1) the original 5,000 bbl/day estimate was from NOAA (not BP), based on surface observations. BP's original estimate was 1,000 bbl/day.
2) I don't think we can know the total amount of oil which has leaked into the Gulf with "reasonable accuracy", unless you think that NOAA's current estimate of 12,000 to 19,000 bbl/day meets that standard. If you assume those rates/day for the first 40 days....that leads to a range of 480,000 to 760,000 bbls thus far....which is a pretty big range.
Whatever the actual cummulative volumes spilled....it is likely to leave long term damage to the environment and economy of the Gulf, if the much smaller Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound is any indication of the damage done.
If this spill and the incredible difficulty of plugging the well one mile below the ocean's surface doesn't change the public's, government's and oil companies' view of risk vs reward re deep water offshore oil development then I don't know what will.
Uncertain if this site has been mentioned. Another interactive oil spill site. Type in where you live, & click. It overlays the spill to get perspective of size/where you are...
The news paper here mentioned 5000. Also they mentioned was probably 5X larger than such estimate...
Oops! All of Benelux is covered.
These, I find astonishing:
Nuclear option: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html
Hollywood director: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100603/..._spill_cameron
"Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing," Cameron said at the All Things Digital technology conference.
If this doesn't work.....I think they are running out of options, until the relief wells are completed in August.
Hey, the libtards in Washington knew the potential eviro damage within hrs of the "leak" but covered it up! This ain't gonna go well for the empty suit in the White House. See this from the Center for Public Integrity:
The leak is what it is. Nothing is going to change that. That said, the best we can hope for is maximum entertainment value from the empty heads/empty suits in Washington. So far, so good.
Hey Vivek -- when I want mental stimulation, I look to the idiots in Hollywood, too. Lord knows they are just sooooooo intellectual.
If it is not asking too much, might you please keep the political rhetoric and opinions to yourself for this thread. We already went a round or two on that, and although this is an "open forum" folks have been trying to keep this thread more for information sharing and updating, and not political activism and commentary. We all know there is plenty of blame on all sides, that things are not going well at all, that this is a true catastrophe, etc., so blaming feckless liberals or conservatives, and stuff like that does not make this get any better. If your perspective on this is reduced to entertainment value only, maybe it might be worth a trip down here to help with the clean-up, rather than just taking acerbic shots at how it is being handled....oh, and bring your own boots and waders to help mop things up, as they are needed ;-)
If it is not asking too much, might you please keep the political rhetoric and opinions to yourself for this thread."
Here are a few photos from East Grand Terre Island, LA posted on the Houston Chronicle's website. I'm afraid that this kind of damage will be with us for months to come. A disaster of this magnitude should NEVER happen again.
A NYTimes ineractive map showing the extent of the oil spread from the blowout until today. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...er.html?ref=us
Hard as it is to believe, this may only be the third worst spill in history. The worst, in 1980, took ten months to stop!
My perspective on this is exactly what I said it is. You would do well to re-read what I wrote -- I view the political posturing in Washington regarding this event as entertainment. I said absolutely NOTHING about the oil leak itself being entertaining. It is not -- it is a travesty. Again -- you really could benefit greatly from re-reading what I wrote in this thread. And if you want to share some kind of personal comment about it with me, again, there is a little button in the upper-right hand corner ... use it!If your perspective on this is reduced to entertainment value only, maybe it might be worth a trip down here to help with the clean-up, rather than just taking acerbic shots at how it is being handled....
This thread has political overtones since it was started. Think of it as a TV channel -- if you don't like what you see, don't watch it. Start your own thread about how to clean oil off a bird, or whatever you think the thread should be.
My reason for posting the link about Washington DC knowing the oil leak was worse than reported goes to something Lars said about not trusting the US gov't on this. We now know Lars is/was 100% correct with his point.
Last edited by Bob; 6th June 2010 at 07:47.
Oxide Blu. Thanks for the link to the article. I read it several times. I don't come to the same conclusions as you have however. Perhaps you should re-read it more carefully with particular attention to the difference between the meanings of "potential" vs "actual".
I guess for someone inclined to view the president as just another "empty suit" his public statement on April 22 (less than 48 hours after the rig exploded) urging agencies of the federal government to make the accident its “No. 1 priority” counts as nothing.
Here you go, Gary:
Seventy-three percent (73%) of Americans now predict that the Gulf leak will have a major or, worse, a devastating long-term impact on the environment. Voters remain critical of how President Obama and the companies involved are responding to the disaster, although they overwhelmingly think the oil companies should pay for the clean-up.
Yet voters strongly believe offshore drilling plays an important part in the country’s energy future, which helps to explain why 58% still support such drilling. But that support is down from 72% in March just after the president lifted the long-time ban on offshore drilling. He recently restored that ban, at least temporarily.
Note: Rasmussen is a Democrat. He (and fellow Democrat Zogby) are the two most respected political pollsters.
Here you go Gary; the popularity reality of the empty suit libtard in the White House, since he took office:
If you are following the political digest, real-world folks see this oil leak as being to the hollow Easter bunny in the White House similar to what Katrina was to Shrub when he was in the White House.
So, yes, Gary, your guess is correct; Obama making the oil leak his #1 priority, and then doing nothing about it, pretty much counts as nothing in the eyes of real-world folks. Btw, those "folks" are the ones that actually show up and vote.
Last edited by Bob; 6th June 2010 at 07:46.
Once I again I have to wonder why, when a president (any president), less than 48 hours after this accident occured, has directed the responsible federal agencies (presumably the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, NOAA etc) to make responding to this accident their number one priority, you think those are just empty words. Perhaps you have some suggestions for what more, specifically, the President should have done on that day to mobilize the resources of the federal government.
Regarding the article itself, it's interesting that the title is "Coast Guard Logs Reveal Early Spill Estimate of 8,000 bbls a Day". I'm guessing that most people would interpret that as an estimate of how much oil is actually spilling into the Gulf at the time (shortly after the rig exploded). Of course, that is NOT what the Coast Guard log is referring to at all. They estimated the potential for a spill of 8,000 bbls/day in the POSSIBLE event of a complete well blow out. There is much about the way this article is written which can lead people to jump to incorrect conclusions....particularly if they are predisposed to do so.
Last edited by bensonga; 5th June 2010 at 13:22.
Rick, if you want to discuss Obama's citizenship, start a new thread to do so. If I am interested I will respond there. If you have a query specifically for me, there is a button in the upper right hand corner labeled "Private Messages". It works, use it. If I am interested I will respond via a private message. This thread is about the oil leak.
This is a photography forum.
If you would like to cross political swords, please find a dueling field elsewhere.
I have decided, reluctantly, to close this thread.