| Author | Message | ||
     Ourdee |
MK99 Betty. Could have closed it already. | ||
| Hex |
I recommend the W54. | ||
| Drfudd |
Sifo, you are correct, it is only in the millions, I thought I remember seeing a headline in the billions, my mistake, but i still believe the ocean(s) currently can't take this sudden influx of oil all at once without suffering masssively, the oceans are already at their peak of CO2 absorbtion we can't ask them to absorb this as well. | ||
| Aesquire |
Heating a beverage reduces how much CO2 it can hold, but increases how much sugar it can hold. Not the same thing. Oil isn't CO2. But, you grasp that raises in CO2 is a byproduct of solar induced heating, not the cause. Don't believe everything you read in the papers. Fix problem, THEN place blame. You Know, the opposite of current policy. | ||
| Firebolt32 |
I'm not convinced that the sky is falling yet. The sea life may have a different opinion of that. | ||
| Sifo |
Drfudd, I don't know where you got the info that the oceans have absorbed all the CO2 that they can. It just isn't true. Way off topic though because as Aesquire pointed out it has nothing to do with an oil spill. As for the "Is the sky falling" question... there is no doubt that it's a serious problem that demands immediate attention. They are saying the relief wells should hit their mark around August. I know that sounds real bad, but it would be far from the worst spills in history, even in the Gulf of Mexico. I don't want to make too much of predictions, good or bad. I am much more interested in what is being done to minimize the impact and solving the root problem. I have seen nothing to make me believe that BP isn't addressing the root problem. They started drilling relief wells right away, which is a proven method of solving the leak. They have also tried numerous stop gap measures with various levels of success/failure. It would have been great if one of these attempts had plugged the leak, but short cuts often don't work. It's like fixing your bike with duct tape. It might get you home, but it's not meant to be a permanent fix. I'm not convinced that BP is doing all that can be done to contain and clean the results of the spill. I'm also not convinced that BP has the resources to do all of this. This is an area where government is far more equipped to do the job. There does need to be coordination between BP and government efforts though. This doesn't mean "keeping the boot on the throat of BP" however. It does mean not standing in the way of things like building sand berms to keep the oil off the shores. Unfortunately what I see is halfhearted efforts by crews hired by BP cleaning the beaches and less effort produced by our government. While our government isn't directly the responsible for the spill, we certainly have a vested interest in minimizing the impact, but I see it being used as a political football to stop offshore drilling and promote Cap & Trade legislation. This is where I have to wonder if BO is happy to let it be as bad as it can to best take advantage in pushing his political agenda. What is magical about a six month moratorium? Is it likely to have another spill like this in the next six months? That certainly isn't supported by past history over past decades. Will we come up with better safeguards in six months? A better question is will safeguards be enforced six months from now. Here's my problem with all of this, the government can start enforcing the safeguards anytime they please. It sounds like non-enforcement of current safeguards is likely a big contributing factor in this spill. What will happen is during the six month moratorium is that oil workers will be unemployed. The mobile rigs will get relocated to where they can be used to drill for oil. Perhaps in Brazil where BO has for some crazy reason provided financial aid to enable offshore drilling. So at the end of the six month moratorium will the rigs come flocking back to the Gulf? I doubt it. First they will no doubt be involved in on going projects, and secondly they will look for opportunities closer to where the rigs wind up located. Just as a bit of background on oil spills, here's a list of the 10 largest in history. The Valdez which we look at as a huge spill doesn't even make the list.
| ||
| Sifo |
One more result of a six month moratorium that is as sure as the sun rising in the morning is that we will be buying more oil from foreign sources. | ||
| Badlionsfan |
Yup, a lil nuke coulda stopped it the week it happened. Accidents happen, mechanical safe guards fail. The negligence is that our government has the ability to stop it, but choses to argue and point fingers. Why the government hasn't, well that's a can of worms that I can't open, it's my bed time. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Obama knew about the spill in advance. In fact, he planned the whole thing with the help of Bill Ayres. Yes, that's right... it's all part of the Illuminati conspiracy to bring about the New World Order through global economic collapse and the creation of a cashless society. Just like Bush planted the explosives in the trade centers, and the CIA created a mass hallucination by spraying LSD all over the place so people would think that airliners actually crashed into the buildings. Film at 11. | ||
| Hex |
Since when does an Admiral in the USCG represent BP? "The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) "Section 4201 of OPA 90 provides, (c) FEDERAL REMOVAL AUTHORITY (1)(A) The President shall, in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and any appropriate Area Contingency Plan, ensure effective and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance: (i) into or on the navigable waters; (ii) on the adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters; (iii) into or on the waters of the exclusive economic zone; or (iv) that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States. (B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may: (i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time; (ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge; and (iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available. Section 4201 of OPA 90 further provides, (2) DISCHARGE POSING SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR WELFARE (A) If a discharge, or a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance from a vessel, offshore facility, or onshore facility is of such a size or character as to be a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States (including but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, other natural resources, and the public and private beaches and shorelines of the United States), the President shall direct all Federal, State, and private actions to remove the discharge or to mitigate or prevent the threat of the discharge. (B) In carrying out this paragraph, the President may, without regard to any other provision of law governing contracting procedures or employment of personnel by the Federal Government: (i) remove or arrange for the removal of the discharge, or mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge; and (ii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threatening to discharge, by whatever means are available. http://donovanlawgroup.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/th e-oil-pollution-act-provides-for-the-federalizatio n-of-the-bp-oil-spill/ | ||
| Hex |
A little nuke may be the only thing that can stop this release, a week after it happened and now. Simmons also thinks that perhaps the only way to seal the gush of oil is by doing what the Soviet Union did decades ago -- setting off a bomb deep underground so that the fiery blast will melt the surrounding rock and shut off the spill. http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/09/news/companies/sim mons_gulf_oil_spill.fortune/ | ||
| Sifo |
Well Matt Simmons appears to be a banker. I would be more inclined to take the advice of a specialist in the field of oil or nuclear explosives. So you provided information detailing what BO should be doing, but isn't. What you don't provide is anything that would allow the USCG to represent a foreign owned company. Looks like a fail for you and BO. | ||
| Cowboy |
Sifo--- Dont you know by now that riding a BUELL will make you a nuke specialist. My guess is is from the old tubers with nuke blue frames. | ||
| Froggy |
 | ||
| Sifo |
It does scare me that EnviroNuts wouldn't allow us to drill on land. The solution was drilling in the water. The ENs wouldn't let us drill in shallow water near land. The solution was drilling in deep water. Now that we have a spill from drilling in deep water the solution from the ENs is to use nuclear explosives. Wasn't there a fable about the lady that swallowed the fly? I guess she's going to die! | ||
| Nukeblue |
did somebody mention me? | ||
| Sifo |
Finally, an expert!  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So what is the gulf absorption rate for nuclear radiation vs. crude oil? | ||
| Sifo |
Just imagine the gigantic crawdads! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I've seen Godzilla movies. Honest question, though. | ||
| Glitch |
 | ||
| Aeholton |
I really don't think radiation would be a factor, if they bury it deep enough. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What exactly is "deep enough" for water? | ||
| Sifo |
Honest answer... I really have no idea. I know we have done nukes in the ocean in the past. I don't know of oceans dieing from the exposure. It does seem unnecessary though given that the relief wells are a proven method of stopping the leak, and the nuke option doesn't bypass the time needed to drill a new hole. Also the 1980 leak in the gulf didn't seem to kill of the Gulf of Mexico either. Honestly, until just recently I didn't even know that it had happened even though it was the second biggest spill in history. | ||
| Sifo |
Deep enough would be well into the bed rock. There is also the possibility of fracturing the rock causing even more oil to be released. Then you WOULD have a leak that can't be stopped. | ||
| Court |
Percussion fishing to the max dude! And to think of all the time I wasted with DuPont 80% Hy-Drive in Waubaunsee County farm ponds. Let me know when you shoot it . . I'd like to harvest some tuna. | ||
| Sifo |
What if Arnold double crosses BO and prevent him from being born instead?  | ||
| Road_thing |
Percussion fishing is so 19th century. For a silent fish stunner, AC voltage is the modern answer. If you use a hand-cranked alternator, the game wardens can't hear you... rt ...never mind how I know this... | ||
| Hootowl |
We have done shallow water nukes near bikini atoll, never one a mile down. A deep explosion would likely set off a Tsunami which would inundate NO in a way katrina never though of. I think a nuke would be akin to killing the patient to stop the disease. | ||
| Aesquire |
4. Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired. Now, we have had oil pipeline leaks in America. For some odd reason, when a few thousand gallons leaks here, someone usually notices, and things get fixed. The motive may be fear of punishment, ( the only motivation in russia for the narod? )but most likely basic desire to maximize profit. Oil spilled is oil not sold. In Russia, Oil spills you. For all the Progressive & socialist dupes, take a good look at the former Soviet Bloc. Pollution that rivals anything in the west, and we've caught rivers on fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea Note especially Vozrozhdeniya Island. I still think we should try my idea first. Since you have to drill the hole anyway, and they already are drilling for a relief well, there is no way to nuke the well more than days before the relief wells are done. You want to fix it fast, start stuffing Congress in the pipe. Be "fair" and non partisan. Do it like we do at work, by seniority, longest time in service first, continue till you run out. |
