M5-Guy
New member
+1.... When I saw the spill was heading into the Intracoastal water way.... I was and am still am furious...... I used to live in Ft Laurderdale, FL....
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
- Status
T
tokengirl
Guest
+2. I am here in Miami awaiting my tar ball delivery.+1.... When I saw the spill was heading into the Intracoastal water way.... I was and am still am furious...... I used to live in Ft Laurderdale, FL....
Not really sure just how bad it will become.....hoping not bad at all. Tar balls do not form from open water oil slick and deposits, but require contact with the seabed in order to form. It also requires much more severely biodegraded oils and of a higher viscosity than what is now being spewed from the BP well. I only mention this as a glimmer of hope that when stuff does start to arrive from the loop current, it might not be too damaging, since a lot of the oil is still in suspension, has had some dispersants applied already, and has not been in contact with the seabed to pick up sand grains and stuff that help weigh it down to form rolling balls to wash up on the beaches. Not saying it may not happen, but at this point, it may not be as ugly as the heavier oils that spilled from tankers and stuff. And those tar balls that washed up on the beaches in the Keys were NOT from oil from this BP disaster.
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that they can get this damn thing plugged by this weekend, and then do a lot more serious work removing the oil from the water before everything gets radically changed in the approaching hurricane season.
LJ
Let's all keep our fingers crossed that they can get this damn thing plugged by this weekend, and then do a lot more serious work removing the oil from the water before everything gets radically changed in the approaching hurricane season.
LJ
Probably as much of the oil in the water out there is from shipping tankers and boaters as anything else. I am sure some of it is coming from the rigs, but most oil in the water right now (except from a known leak like the BP thing) is coming from boat traffic, plus any fuel that gets dumped by airplanes where they still have to do that sort of thing. The majority of petrochemical derived stuff from oil rigs is mostly related to lubricants used in operations, and not from leaking oil reservoirs. Regardless, it is a dirty business that does pollute in all aspects of finding, recovery and use.
LJ
P.S. Might want to add that there is also oil and tar being released directly into the environment from natural deposits, like the stuff in the Santa Barbara area. You can go down the beach and see outcrops of rocks forming the cliffs in some places that have tar beds exposed. Just like the tar pits at La Brea. The stuff does get into the environment naturally also. Again, not defending anything about this BP disaster, just offering up information for folks so they can separate the truth from the hyperbole in much of the news. The situation is bad, but there are some glimmers of hope.
LJ
P.S. Might want to add that there is also oil and tar being released directly into the environment from natural deposits, like the stuff in the Santa Barbara area. You can go down the beach and see outcrops of rocks forming the cliffs in some places that have tar beds exposed. Just like the tar pits at La Brea. The stuff does get into the environment naturally also. Again, not defending anything about this BP disaster, just offering up information for folks so they can separate the truth from the hyperbole in much of the news. The situation is bad, but there are some glimmers of hope.
Last edited:
Yes, don't forget the Deepwater oil is light crude. As LJ mentioned there are constant natural 'leaks' into the ocean, and oil is in fact a natural biological substance. The oil leak sounds like a lot, but it's actually quite small compared to the volume of the Gulf.
There seems to be differing opinions as to how it will affect Florida:
"South Floridians can expect an occasional tar ball to wash ashore, but they probably will never see oil from the recent spill lapping onto beaches," said Florida Emergency Management Director David Halstead.
"If we look at two weeks in the Florida sun, most of that is going to be evaporated," Halstead said. "There is a possibility you'll see very little of any sheen ever even make it down all the way to the Keys."
Hopefully he's right.
There seems to be differing opinions as to how it will affect Florida:
"South Floridians can expect an occasional tar ball to wash ashore, but they probably will never see oil from the recent spill lapping onto beaches," said Florida Emergency Management Director David Halstead.
"If we look at two weeks in the Florida sun, most of that is going to be evaporated," Halstead said. "There is a possibility you'll see very little of any sheen ever even make it down all the way to the Keys."
Hopefully he's right.
V
Vivek
Guest
Robert, Along the same philosophical lines, us human beings, are also part of nature. I actually dislike some doodahs making discourses on "Humans vs Nature" and such.
Asbestos is a 100% natural material as well. Absolutely harmless as long as it is left untouched where it is.
V
Vivek
Guest
Here is a link to NASA and what they are observing (including IR imaging):
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oilspill/oil_spill_gallery.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oilspill/oil_spill_gallery.html
bensonga
Well-known member
Perhaps you meant to say oil (hydrocarbons) are a natural, organic substance....which would be correct.
Dfn: Any of numerous organic compounds, such as benzene and methane, that contain only carbon and hydrogen.
I think the usual interpretation of a biological substance is more along the lines of something that is part of a living organism.
In any case, I don't think we should underestimate the toxicity of hydrocarbons on marine life etc. The oiled birds are only the most dramatic examples.....the impact on plankton and the entire marine food chain could be worse and more long lasting.
Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez spill, the herring stocks in Prince William Sound have still not returned to pre-spill levels....and it's certainly not from over fishing, the herring fishery was closed for many years after the spill.
Gary
bensonga
Well-known member
Of course, we don't know what the true causes of this accident are yet, but......perhaps this is one example of a requirement that should be put into law (ie a new regulation) and which might have helped to prevent this accident, assuming that the BP, Transocean and Halliburton managers on the rig would have acted on the information accordingly. On the other hand, given what we've heard thus far about their actions in the hours and days preceding the explosion, I know that is a really big IF. Personally, I wouldn't leave them with any discretion in the matter (whether they "feel uncertain" as noted below, might be shaped by how anxious they are to finish the damn job and get on to the next one).
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/costly_time-consuming_test_of.html
Quoting from this article:
"Probert told a Senate committee last week that the cement bond log is "the only test that can really determine the actual effectiveness of the bond between the cement sheets, the formation and the casing itself."
"According to Probert, government regulators at the Minerals Management Service don't require a well owner like BP to order a cement bond log unless it feels uncertain about any of the earlier tests."
It would be interesting to know if a test like this is routine practice and required on the offshore oil rigs in Norway operated by Statoil.
Gary
apocolibri
Member
BP Accused of Cover Up
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6430AR20100520
"Scientists analyzing video of the oil gushing from the seabed have pegged the spill's volume at about 70,000 barrels (2.9 million gallons/11 million liters) per day.
"It's just not working," U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told CNN as she watched the BP video. The California Democrat denounced a "cover-up" of the real size of the oil spill.
U.S. Representative Edward Markey, who requested the footage, was also unimpressed."
This is just short of an Exxon Valdez oil spill every three days.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6430AR20100520
"Scientists analyzing video of the oil gushing from the seabed have pegged the spill's volume at about 70,000 barrels (2.9 million gallons/11 million liters) per day.
"It's just not working," U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told CNN as she watched the BP video. The California Democrat denounced a "cover-up" of the real size of the oil spill.
U.S. Representative Edward Markey, who requested the footage, was also unimpressed."
This is just short of an Exxon Valdez oil spill every three days.
M5-Guy
New member
I'm so MAD !!!!!:angry::angry::angry:
BP CEOs should go to Federal Prison and throw away the keys!! But, we all know no one will be held accountable except the "Corporation". because that's why it set up as a Corporation, to hold no individual personally accountable for its actions. As I understand it... Correct me if I am wrong..
Lars
Active member
BPs new chairman Carl-Henrik Svanberg did his first public appearance the other day at the Zeistgeist Europe event. Clip here, from a panel discussion with several CEOs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8v2tMJmeg0
Svanberg is on at the beginning of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8v2tMJmeg0
Svanberg is on at the beginning of the clip.
Lars
Active member
I'd like to point out that part of the blame goes to you (and me) as consumer, for not doing enough to curb demand, which leads to oil companies taking too much environmental risk. Sure, you can try to find individual scapegoats, but the whole industry (like most or all industries) is predictably driven by greed and quarterly earnings thinking. What we see now is at some level a consequence of that.
apocolibri
Member
Pretty sad interview imo, Lars. Here we have several clowns saying BP has done a good job, has a good record, is a green company and has not misinformed the public when the exact opposite os the truth. I don't know who they think they're fooling.
It would seem logical that damage control for a worst case scenario would be in place given the cost of such an event to the environment as well as those who depend on a "clean gulf" for their livelihood. Such is not the case.
BP has understated the severity of the spill by a factor of 20X, if current estimates are correct. This has the potential to foul beaches, marshes (in short the entire coastline) from Louisiana to Florida and up the Atlantic coast. No oil spill cleanup has ever resulted in recovery exceeding 15% to date, so if you consider that the flow is increasing daily instead of decreasing (the flow under pressure is carrying sand and rock from the formation which acts as a sandblaster to the orifices from which the oil is seeping)... this is a disaster of a magnitude never seen before.
When the fisheries are destroyed and the beaches in Miami are fouled with sludge... I don't think you'll see these fellows sitting around smiling and saying they're doing their best and it's going to be difficult.
BP has a long history of ducking regulations and paying the minimal fines for their many violations. There should be serious jail time for all who had a part in allowing this to happen as lives (as well as the marine environment) will suffer for a generation or more.
It would seem logical that damage control for a worst case scenario would be in place given the cost of such an event to the environment as well as those who depend on a "clean gulf" for their livelihood. Such is not the case.
BP has understated the severity of the spill by a factor of 20X, if current estimates are correct. This has the potential to foul beaches, marshes (in short the entire coastline) from Louisiana to Florida and up the Atlantic coast. No oil spill cleanup has ever resulted in recovery exceeding 15% to date, so if you consider that the flow is increasing daily instead of decreasing (the flow under pressure is carrying sand and rock from the formation which acts as a sandblaster to the orifices from which the oil is seeping)... this is a disaster of a magnitude never seen before.
When the fisheries are destroyed and the beaches in Miami are fouled with sludge... I don't think you'll see these fellows sitting around smiling and saying they're doing their best and it's going to be difficult.
BP has a long history of ducking regulations and paying the minimal fines for their many violations. There should be serious jail time for all who had a part in allowing this to happen as lives (as well as the marine environment) will suffer for a generation or more.
Lars
Active member
Lawrence, not arguing against you here. Except on one point.
Sending execs to jail won't fix the underlying problem - short-sighted greed. To send a strong signal to the oil industry, shareholders must take the real hit.
(Not saying I don't believe in greed as a good driving force behind free market. Just saying that there are consequences.)
Sending execs to jail won't fix the underlying problem - short-sighted greed. To send a strong signal to the oil industry, shareholders must take the real hit.
(Not saying I don't believe in greed as a good driving force behind free market. Just saying that there are consequences.)
apocolibri
Member
Lars,
We're in agreement on the shareholder issue. I still feel that there has to be some serious disincentive to failing to enact redundancy measures that will prevent this sort of accident. Given the tragic outcome, the penalty has to be so severe that everything humanly possible is done not only to prevent such accidents but to make double sure that there are measures onsite to deal with such accidents. These events only get worse with the passage of time and damage control is too little too late.
And the argument that some use to justify sloppy precautionary measures (ie: the cost of prevention would result in much higher fuel prices) are nonsense in light of the 6+ billion in quarterly after tax profits BP is making.
If this sort of catastrophic event is always a possibility in deep water drilling... it shouldn't be done. The cost, as all can see, goes far beyond that of extraction.
We're in agreement on the shareholder issue. I still feel that there has to be some serious disincentive to failing to enact redundancy measures that will prevent this sort of accident. Given the tragic outcome, the penalty has to be so severe that everything humanly possible is done not only to prevent such accidents but to make double sure that there are measures onsite to deal with such accidents. These events only get worse with the passage of time and damage control is too little too late.
And the argument that some use to justify sloppy precautionary measures (ie: the cost of prevention would result in much higher fuel prices) are nonsense in light of the 6+ billion in quarterly after tax profits BP is making.
If this sort of catastrophic event is always a possibility in deep water drilling... it shouldn't be done. The cost, as all can see, goes far beyond that of extraction.
V
Vivek
Guest
If the shareholders have any brain cells, they would pull out of BP.
6+ billions in last year's profit? That is peanuts compared to what they are going to pay for the mess they have created.
Where would BP's shares then?
Sure, there will be another company doing this "cost cutting" and the money will migrate there UNLESS no one is able to commit such atrocities in the future.
6+ billions in last year's profit? That is peanuts compared to what they are going to pay for the mess they have created.
Where would BP's shares then?
Sure, there will be another company doing this "cost cutting" and the money will migrate there UNLESS no one is able to commit such atrocities in the future.
Lars
Active member
We had a discussion at a dinner tonight about Svanberg's appearance linked to above, and his silence in general since the spill. A possibility that was discussed is that Svanberg is simply trying to distance himself from the whole mess, to induce BP shareholders to replace him. Just a thought.
- Status