Drill baby.....drill!

[Cap'n Cat]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

Sorry clenz, but that is one of the most ASSININE arguments around. If that book is promoting it, the best use for it is toliet paper.

Yes, oil leaks naturally into the enviroment. The enviroment can handle small amounts dispersed over the entire planet.

But when you concentrate it all in ONE AREA, it is a FUCKING DISASTER.

Think of it this way - you can drink a beer. No problem. Every person in Iowa could drink a beer, no problem.

But if YOU tried to drink that much beer at once, you'd be DEAD. That is an oil spill.

[JohnStOnge]

I agree with JSO......let the oil do what it is going to do and F the Gulf states!

I didn't say not to try to do anything. It would be a whole lot better if what happened wouldn't have happened. And I am very concerned about the difficulty in getting the flow stopped. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's going to be the end of the world. I have been involved in estuarine environmental science for getting close to 27 years now. Over the years experience has led me to believe that the adverse effects of pollution events tend to be exaggerated; and especially that more than 99% of the time the impression created by the media as to the adverse consequences significantly exceeds the reality. Also, as noted, I've been through circumstances involving oil spills. I will admit that most of my time has been spent in the area of protecting human health and not in the area of how spills impact biological productivity. But I still have seen what happens over time. And I think the public perception of the impacts of oil spills is exaggerated because they are "ugly" events.

[JohnStOnge]

Really? You think they'll pay for the coast guard's involvement, the marine biologists assisting in the rescue of animals, the court costs involved with appealing the fines they are bound to receive? How long did it take Exxon to settle up over Valdez? Do you think they'll pay the interest?

Exxon Valdez was a $7 billion bill to clean up. That small amount just might eat a bite into the "countless billions" brought to the local economy.

Why should the companies that avoid a catastrophe like this be punished for their success?

I don't know if they'll pay for all of it. But I do know, for instance, that I talked to a Louisiana State staffer the other day who said that BP would be reimbursing them for lab costs (we were talking about pre-impact sampling they did in order to establish baseline information). I also know that a Mississippi staffer told me they had established a new project code to keep track of all the cost, time, etc. spent responding to this incident. My guess is that the reason for that is that BP is going to have to reimburse them. We'll see.

The offshore oil industry has been in place off the Louisiana coast for a long time. I think the first efforts were in the late 1930s. An awful lot of revenue has been generated over that time frame. It would take a lot of work to do it but I'm pretty confident that if you took the entire amount of revenue generated for the State in inflation adjusted dollars it would completely dwarf a figure like $7 billion. There is risk and at times risk will be realized. But to me you have to look at the long term equation. I don't think this event is going to create a situation in which the net economic effect of offshore drilling off Louisiana is negative.

[JohnStOnge]

The reason the warm estuary was able to handle this oil was due to the type of oil, from your article No. 6 Fuel, and the low toxicity of No.6 Fuel.

What I've been told is that it will be better in this circumstance if most of the area impacted is not impacted by heavier oils. A situation in which it is mostly light oils resulting in surface sheens is better and things will recover quickly.

The biggest thing to me is to find a way to shut the flow off. That's the thing that really worries me.

[JMU DJ]

The reason the warm estuary was able to handle this oil was due to the type of oil, from your article No. 6 Fuel, and the low toxicity of No.6 Fuel.

What I've been told is that it will be better in this circumstance if most of the area impacted is not impacted by heavier oils. A situation in which it is mostly light oils resulting in surface sheens is better and things will recover quickly.

The biggest thing to me is to find a way to shut the flow off. That's the thing that really worries me.

Stopping the flow, definitely should be the first priority.

For clean up purposes, yes, the lighter oils are easier to clean. They are also the most toxic and aromatic forms too. Remember, they didn't clean up the heavy oils in the Savannah estuary, they just let it sediment. How toxic will the light forms be when they reach shore? I don't know, depends on how volatile the light oil is and how quickly it breaks down in water/light. It's the aquatic life in the shore area is what you need to be most worried about, as life at sea will only be exposed to passing concentrations, while the oil will stay stagnant at the coast and build in concentration. You'll get a combo of light and heavy here with this spill, and probably have tar balls coming to shore for a long time after. I'd think most of the heavy won't make it to shore in one swoop though, I'd think it be more of a lingering effect... as the tides come in, storm systems stirring up the sea bed, etc.

[JohnStOnge]

For clean up purposes, yes, the lighter oils are easier to clean. They are also the most toxic and aromatic forms too.

One thing that's pretty clear...something you can basically get a read on by osmosis if you're in the middle of it or somewhat involved in it...is that there is more concern about how much "heavy" oil there is. For instance I heard a thing on the radio where it was reported that a researcher from UC Davis said that the situation is not so dire because this is light Louisiana crude in a warm environment. Then they interviewed a LSU researcher who said that he was feeling pretty good about that too but he came to feeling a feeling a lot more pessimistic because he'd gotten samples of the slick and it looked like there was a pretty substantial heavy oil component.

On the inside too in my little corner of the universe it's clear that there is more concern over the heavy oils. Take oysters, for instance. The belief is that as long as it's just light oils oysters will purge themselves of it within a few weeks after the event is over. But heavy oil will mean persistent contamination of the reefs so that for a very long time there can be no harvest because every time they would try to dredge they would re-suspend oil and re-contaminate the shellfish. Such reefs could be off limits for a very long time.

[travelinman67]

For clean up purposes, yes, the lighter oils are easier to clean. They are also the most toxic and aromatic forms too. Remember, they didn't clean up the heavy oils in the Savannah estuary, they just let it sediment. How toxic will the light forms be when they reach shore? I don't know, depends on how volatile the light oil is and how quickly it breaks down in water/light. It's the aquatic life in the shore area is what you need to be most worried about, as life at sea will only be exposed to passing concentrations, while the oil will stay stagnant at the coast and build in concentration. You'll get a combo of light and heavy here with this spill, and probably have tar balls coming to shore for a long time after. I'd think most of the heavy won't make it to shore in one swoop though, I'd think it be more of a lingering effect... as the tides come in, storm systems stirring up the sea bed, etc.

I've read the light oyls are easier for the skym'rs to pick up...

[D1B]

For clean up purposes, yes, the lighter oils are easier to clean. They are also the most toxic and aromatic forms too. Remember, they didn't clean up the heavy oils in the Savannah estuary, they just let it sediment. How toxic will the light forms be when they reach shore? I don't know, depends on how volatile the light oil is and how quickly it breaks down in water/light. It's the aquatic life in the shore area is what you need to be most worried about, as life at sea will only be exposed to passing concentrations, while the oil will stay stagnant at the coast and build in concentration. You'll get a combo of light and heavy here with this spill, and probably have tar balls coming to shore for a long time after. I'd think most of the heavy won't make it to shore in one swoop though, I'd think it be more of a lingering effect... as the tides come in, storm systems stirring up the sea bed, etc.

I've read the light oyls are easier for the skym'rs to pick up...

Hey Dipshit, whatchya think about the current environmental disaster? Mr. DrillBabyDrill!

You fucking conks crack me up. You're like 100% wrong, all the time.

[D1B]

For clean up purposes, yes, the lighter oils are easier to clean. They are also the most toxic and aromatic forms too.

One thing that's pretty clear...something you can basically get a read on by osmosis if you're in the middle of it or somewhat involved in it...is that there is more concern about how much "heavy" oil there is. For instance I heard a thing on the radio where it was reported that a researcher from UC Davis said that the situation is not so dire because this is light Louisiana crude in a warm environment. Then they interviewed a LSU researcher who said that he was feeling pretty good about that too but he came to feeling a feeling a lot more pessimistic because he'd gotten samples of the slick and it looked like there was a pretty substantial heavy oil component.

On the inside too in my little corner of the universe it's clear that there is more concern over the heavy oils. Take oysters, for instance. The belief is that as long as it's just light oils oysters will purge themselves of it within a few weeks after the event is over. But heavy oil will mean persistent contamination of the reefs so that for a very long time there can be no harvest because every time they would try to dredge they would re-suspend oil and re-contaminate the shellfish. Such reefs could be off limits for a very long time.

Hey Fuck Head, this disaster is a direct result of YOUR political and ethical viewpoint. Don't think we aint keeping score asshole. Same goes for the other shitheads: Tman, Z, Naive, Alphajizz, Clenz, DJH...

I hope this disaster completes fucks you over St. Wronge and further entrenches your state as the most polluted in the nation.

[JohnStOnge]

Hey **** Head, this disaster is a direct result of YOUR political and ethical viewpoint. Don't think we aint keeping score *******. Same goes for the other shitheads: Tman, Z, Naive, Alphajizz, Clenz, DJH...

I hope this disaster completes **** you over St. Wronge and further entrenches your state as the most polluted in the nation.

Are you suggesting there should be no off shore oil exploration and production? There are plusses and minuses to off shore oil production. One of the minuses is the risk of something like this happening. We knew that risk was present and is realized sometimes.

This does not change my attitude towards off shore exploration and production at all. As I said in an earlier posts, I think the positives continue to outweigh the negatives over time. If we stopped all off shore production tomorrow it'd be a much bigger disaster than this oil spill is.

It's like if you have motor vehicles there will be motor vehicle accidents. People will die in motor vehicle accidents. Pretty many in fact. That does not mean that if I see a motor vehicle accident I start thinking there shouldn't be any motor vehicles.

[JohnStOnge]

I hope this disaster completes **** you over

I will be fine. The only adverse consequence for me is that it looks like I'll have to go spend two weeks at an Incident Command Center because my organization decided I'd be the best one to go. I don't want to, really, and they're not forcing me. But I figure that if they think enough of me to send me to represent them I should go.

I like to fish and I still live in the State with the most productive fishery environment per unit area in the United States. And it'll remain that way in spite of this oil spill.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Pssstt!!!!!!!

Hey loser Dems..................


http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/08/19/ ... ntributor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now STFU, your boy is the one that wants to drill offshore just as much as we do......

[∞∞∞]

Haha, I love the lead of the CNN story on the front page right now:

It sounds like a Hollywood movie. An impending disaster -- think the disabled spacecraft in "Apollo 13" or the asteroid hurtling toward Earth in "Armageddon" -- prompts a daring intervention by engineers to save the day.

It's not like Apollo 13 was real and engineers actually did a daring intervention to save the day...

[SDHornet]

I hope Captain Ahab wasn't sailing in the Gulf when all this went down...

[griz37]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Pick up a copy of the book Degrees of Disaster and you'll see what I mean

Holy Shit you sound like a hardcore Christian saying something has to be true because "I read it in the Bible!"

[slycat]

Really? You think they'll pay for the coast guard's involvement, the marine biologists assisting in the rescue of animals, the court costs involved with appealing the fines they are bound to receive? How long did it take Exxon to settle up over Valdez? Do you think they'll pay the interest?

Exxon Valdez was a $7 billion bill to clean up. That small amount just might eat a bite into the "countless billions" brought to the local economy.

Why should the companies that avoid a catastrophe like this be punished for their success?

I don't know if they'll pay for all of it. But I do know, for instance, that I talked to a Louisiana State staffer the other day who said that BP would be reimbursing them for lab costs (we were talking about pre-impact sampling they did in order to establish baseline information). I also know that a Mississippi staffer told me they had established a new project code to keep track of all the cost, time, etc. spent responding to this incident. My guess is that the reason for that is that BP is going to have to reimburse them. We'll see.

The offshore oil industry has been in place off the Louisiana coast for a long time. I think the first efforts were in the late 1930s. An awful lot of revenue has been generated over that time frame. It would take a lot of work to do it but I'm pretty confident that if you took the entire amount of revenue generated for the State in inflation adjusted dollars it would completely dwarf a figure like $7 billion. There is risk and at times risk will be realized. But to me you have to look at the long term equation. I don't think this event is going to create a situation in which the net economic effect of offshore drilling off Louisiana is negative.

Like you said we will see. After Hurricane Ike I was involved in immediate response and cleanup, working for the State of Texas. All time, samples, and equipment used was tracked because FEMA was to pay for it. NOt sure how much FEMA paid out in the end but I do know they left some hanging. I'm sure it'll be the same here. The first bills will get paid by BP but as it drags on it'll be easier for them to avoid it.

[slycat]

I think any rational environmental scientist, chemist, and engineer (btw, I work for the EPA...dun dun dun) wouldn't tell people that we should halt drilling for oil and mining coal. Unless weened off, and by "weened off" I'm talkin' decades, our economy and the economy of many nations relying on us for oil and coal would be destroyed. However, we do have to start (and we have started) moving to other technologies and setting up the infrastructure for these technologies. The costs are still high now, but things like solar, tidal, and wind energy (wind being an admittadly limited technology) are cheaper in the long-run. However, small things like energy-star appliances, energy efficient windows, recyclable flooring, plants on roofs, recycling, rainwater wells, and geothermal heating (another limited technology) do help a lot. It's the small things that add-up. For example, gas lawnmowers 'cause something like 5% of air pollution in the US. If consumers opted for an electric or even solar one, they'd help the environment a whole bunch. That said, I don't know how cost-effective these lawnmowers are in the end for the consumer, and ultimately if we want to be truly environmentally friendly, it has to appeal to people's wallets, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sorry for the rant. The environment and the delicate balance between environmental health and money is something I've studied deeply in college and at the EPA. Gotta be good to the environment 'cause it does provide us with almost everything in life, but forcing environmental issues is something can't force on people, especially if it costs them something that they don't want to spend. Fortunately, technology is getting better in lowering these costs and giving more bang for the buck.

btw, if anyone just wants to get into this stuff, I highly recommend the Earth Policy Reader.

Very cool. I work for the TCEQ in Texas. Gone to the EPA Region 6 conferences the last three years. I have definitely considered working for the EPA.

[mrklean]

Pssstt!!!!!!!

Hey loser Dems..................


http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/08/19/ ... ntributor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Now STFU, your boy is the one that wants to drill offshore just as much as we do......

Typical Repuke

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If you mean 100% accurate.......................then yes it is.