[locktite]

Nice writeup on the spill here, with this graphic:

[Jack_be_nimble]

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

[Citizen Smith]

BP covering up MASSIVE HOLE miles away, cap test is "absurd"



http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Wouldnt believe the news.............. theyll be telling us there is weapons of mass destruction next :-)

[locktite]

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

[Jack_be_nimble]

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

Here's two, for starters.

http://www1.whdh.com/


http://www.foxnews.c...st-new-cap-oil/

[locktite]

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

Here's two, for starters.

http://www1.whdh.com/


http://www.foxnews.c...st-new-cap-oil/

"Up to" has a very specific meaning. Most sources estimate a significantly smaller number, less than half usually. In any case, far from "the worst oil spill since man started walking the earth", as one moron famously proclaimed.

[Jack_be_nimble]

and a few more....

http://www.news-press.com/

http://www2.tbo.com/...gulf-oil-spill/

[locktite]

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:30 AM, said:

and a few more....

http://www.news-press.com/

http://www2.tbo.com/...gulf-oil-spill/

Dude, they're obviously all from the same root source, they're all even phrased precisely the same. Time will tell.

EDIT:

Another graphic. Volume is represented in diameter.

This post has been edited by locktite: 16 July 2010 - 10:48 AM

[Jack_be_nimble]

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:38 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:30 AM, said:

and a few more....

http://www.news-press.com/

http://www2.tbo.com/...gulf-oil-spill/

Dude, they're obviously all from the same root source, they're all even phrased precisely the same. Time will tell.

EDIT:

Another graphic. Volume is represented in diameter.

I recall seeing this very same chart weeks ago. I believe your source is out-dated.

[locktite]

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:51 AM, said:

I recall seeing this very same chart weeks ago. I believe your source is out-dated.

I'm sure it is, a bit. Remember though that Ixtoc dumped oil at about the same rate (taking credible middle of the road estimates) as Deepwater did .... for most of a year. It's a big mess, but it's not unprecedented or even a contender for "biggest". Where was the crying about all those other spills?

It's a slow news month and BP had a eye catching underwater video feed, that's what is going on.

[Jack_be_nimble]

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:59 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:51 AM, said:

I recall seeing this very same chart weeks ago. I believe your source is out-dated.

I'm sure it is, a bit. Remember though that Ixtoc dumped oil at about the same rate (taking credible middle of the road estimates) as Deepwater did .... for most of a year. It's a big mess, but it's not unprecedented or even a contender for "biggest". Where was the crying about all those other spills?

It's a slow news month and BP had a eye catching underwater video feed, that's what is going on.

How about you and I fly down to the Gulf and count the gallons ourselves!!! The heck with the news reporting. I didn't want to go the work tomorrow anyway. I'll bring some beers.

[locktite]

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

How about you and I fly down to the Gulf and count the gallons ourselves!!! The heck with the news reporting. I didn't want to go the work tomorrow anyway. I'll bring some beers.

Wish I could, well, the beers at least. How about we just count the beers?

[Jack_be_nimble]

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 11:14 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 12:05 PM, said:

How about you and I fly down to the Gulf and count the gallons ourselves!!! The heck with the news reporting. I didn't want to go the work tomorrow anyway. I'll bring some beers.

Wish I could, well, the beers at least. How about we just count the beers?

OK. Two bottles. Three. Five. Eight. Wait, how many wuz that? Start over...

[booger10]

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:27 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

Here's two, for starters.

http://www1.whdh.com/


http://www.foxnews.c...st-new-cap-oil/

"Up to" has a very specific meaning. Most sources estimate a significantly smaller number, less than half usually. In any case, far from "the worst oil spill since man started walking the earth", as one moron famously proclaimed.

edited out
You know what, not worth the time and effort... if you want to quote someone, get it right...

This post has been edited by booger10: 16 July 2010 - 11:47 AM

[JohnFromTexas]

There was no outcry over those other big ones because we american's only bitch about what affects us personally usually (except for the ultralibs)

[Alan S]

Tex, on 16 July 2010 - 06:06 AM, said:

There was no outcry over those other big ones because we american's only bitch about what affects us personally usually (except for the ultralibs)

That is probably the truest statement on this board.
(Glad it was said by an American.)

[senseless]

Tex, on 16 July 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:

There was no outcry over those other big ones because we american's only bitch about what affects us personally usually (except for the ultralibs)

That's because we're supposed to be better than the rest of the world. The saviors from oppression and all that good stuff. I dont particularly like being compared to nigeria. "Oh look nigeria still spilled more oil than you see!!!". Ya that makes me feel real fucking great to be an american.

This post has been edited by senseless: 16 July 2010 - 04:56 PM

[eggnoggin]

got a little shack on mobile bay...and crab ...flounder with a gig and lantern...fish and throw a net for shrimp ...pull in by hand so i dont need a license...a good hurricane season will clean it up faster than a bleached out barfly can go through a stack of stolen retirement checks...god made it and hell fix it ....sure as ButtRock is a groaning harvard rump ranger bottom...

[richard90027]

Jack_be_nimble, on 15 July 2010 - 07:23 PM, said:

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

Here's two, for starters.

http://www1.whdh.com/ Twin toddler girls drown in Lynnfield family pool


http://www.foxnews.c...st-new-cap-oil/

Toddler girls???

[booger10]

richard90027, on 17 July 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 15 July 2010 - 07:23 PM, said:

locktite, on 15 July 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Jack_be_nimble, on 16 July 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

Just read on the news; BP has stopped the leak!!! Now it's wait and see for a few days.

If sucessful, that would place the total spill at approx 180 million gallons - surpassing the gulf area spill of 41 years ago.

Fingers crossed.

Your numbers seem way off from all other sources. Source please?

Here's two, for starters.

http://www1.whdh.com/ Twin toddler girls drown in Lynnfield family pool


http://www.foxnews.c...st-new-cap-oil/

Toddler girls???

yes! it seems they have stopped the leak. Now it is time to see what really has or will happen in these areas..

Scientists have found signs of an oil-and-dispersant mix under the shells of tiny blue crab larvae in the Gulf of Mexico, the first clear indication that the unprecedented use of dispersants in the BP oil spill has broken up the oil into toxic droplets so tiny that they can easily enter the foodchain.

Marine biologists started finding orange blobs under the translucent shells of crab larvae in May, and have continued to find them "in almost all" of the larvae they collect, all the way from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to Pensacola, Fla. -- more than 300 miles of coastline -- said Harriet Perry, a biologist with the University of Southern Mississippi's Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.

And now, a team of researchers from Tulane University using infrared spectrometry to determine the chemical makeup of the blobs has detected the signature for Corexit, the dispersant BP used so widely in the Deepwater Horizon

"It does appear that there is a Corexit sort of fingerprint in the blob samples that we ran," Erin Gray, a Tulane biologist, told the Huffington Post Thursday. Two independent tests are being run to confirm those findings, "so don't say that we're 100 percent sure yet," Gray said.

"The chemistry test is still not completely conclusive," said Tulane biology professor Caz Taylor, the team's leader. "But that seems the most likely thing."

With BP's well possibly capped for good, and the surface slick shrinking, some observers of the Gulf disaster are starting to let down their guard, with some journalists even asking: Where is the oil?

But the answer is clear: In part due to the1.8 million gallons of dispersant that BP used, a lot of the estimated 200 million or more gallons of oil that spewed out of the blown well remains under the surface of the Gulf in plumes of tiny toxic droplets. And it's short- and long-term effects could be profound.

BP sprayed dispersant onto the surface of the slick and into the jet of oil and gas as it erupted out of the wellhead a mile beneath the surface. As a result, less oil reached the surface and the Gulf's fragile coastline. But more remained under the surface.

Fish, shrimp and crab larvae, which float around in the open seas, are considered the most likely to die on account of exposure to the subsea oil plumes. There are fears, for instance, that an entire year's worth of bluefin tuna larvae may have perished.

But this latest discovery suggests that it's not just larvae at risk from the subsurface droplets. It's also the animals that feed on them.

"There are so many animals that eat those little larvae," said Robert J. Diaz, a marine scientist at the College of William and Mary.

Oil itself is of course toxic, especially over long exposure. But some scientists worry that the mixture of oil with dispersants will actually prove more toxic, in part because of the still not entirely understood ingredients of Corexit, and in part because of the reduction in droplet size.

"Corexit is in the water column, just as we thought, and it is entering the bodies of animals. And it's probably having a lethal impact there," said Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute. The dispersant, she said, is like " a delivery system" for the oil.

Although a large group of marine scientists meeting in late May reached a consensus that the application of dispersants was a legitimate element of the spill response, another group, organized by Shaw, more recently concluded "that Corexit dispersants, in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health and threaten to deplete critical niches in the Gulf food web that may never recover."

One particular concern: "The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it easier for them to move through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other structures."

Perry told the Huffington Post that the small size of the droplets was clearly a factor in how the oil made its way under the crab larvae shells. Perry said the oil droplets in the water "are just the right size that probably in the process of swimming or respiring, they're brought into that cavity."

That would not happen if the droplets were larger, she said.

The oil droplet washes off when the larvae molt, she said -- but that's assuming they live that long. Larvae are a major food source for fish and other blue crabs -- "their siblings are their favorite meal," Perry explained. Fish are generally able to excrete ingested oil, but inverterbrates such as crabs don't have that ability.

Perry said the discovery of the oil and dispersant blobs is very troubling -- but not, she made clear, because it has any impact on the safety of seafood in the short run. "Unlike heavy metals that biomagnify as they go up the foodchain, oil doesn't seem to do that," she said. Rather, she said, "we're looking at long-term ecological effects of having this oil in contact with marine organisms."

Diaz, the marine scientist from William and Mary, spoke at a lunchtime briefing about dispersants on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Dispersant, he explained, "doesn't make the oil go away, it just puts it from one part of the ecosystem into another."

In this case, he said, "the decision was to keep as much of the oil subsurface as possible." As a result, the immediate impact on coastal wildlife was mitigated. But the effects on ocean life, he said, are less clear -- in part because there's less known about ocean ecosystems than coastal ones.

"As we go further offshore, as the oil industry has gone offshore, we find that we know less," he said. "We haven't really been using oceanic species to assess the risks, and this is a key issue."

(Similar concerns have been expressed about the lack of important data that would allow scientists to accurately assess the effects of the spill on the Gulf's sea turtles, whose plight is emerging as particularly poignant.)

Diaz warned of the danger posed to bluefin tuna -- and also to "the signature resident species in the Gulf, the shrimp." He noted that all three species of Gulf shrimp spawn offshore before moving back into shallow estuaries.

Diaz also expressed concern that dispersed oil droplets could end up doing great damage to the Gulf's many undersea coral reefs. "If the droplets agglomerate with sediment," he said, "they could even settle to the bottom."

Nancy Kinner, co-director of the Coastal Response Center at the University of New Hampshire, said the use of dispersants in this spill raises many issues that scientists need to explore, starting with the effects of long-term exposure. She also noted that scientists have never studied the effects of dispersants when they're injected directly into the turbulence of the plume, as they were here, or at such depth, or at such low temperatures, or under such pressure.

She also said it will be essential for the federal government to accurately determine how much oil made it out of the blown well. A key data point for scientists is the ratio of dispersant to oil, she said, and "if you don't know the flow rate of the oil, you don't know what you dispersant to oil ratio is."

After a series of ludicrous estimates, the federal government settled last month on an official estimate of about 20,000 to 40,000 barrels a day, but BP is widely expected to contest that figure and some scientists think it is still a low-ball estimate.

There seems to be no doubt that history will record that the use of dispersants was good for BP, making it harder to tell how much oil was spilled, and reducing the short-term visible impact. But what's less clear is whether it will turn out to have been good for the Gulf.


*************************
Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

[RogerDuMond]

booger10, on 30 July 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

There seems to be no doubt that history will record that the use of dispersants was good for BP, making it harder to tell how much oil was spilled, and reducing the short-term visible impact. But what's less clear is whether it will turn out to have been good for the Gulf.

This article neglects to mention that it was the US government that insisted BP use the dispersant and refused to let BP stop using it when they wanted to.

[booger10]

RogerDuMond, on 30 July 2010 - 01:17 PM, said:

booger10, on 30 July 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

There seems to be no doubt that history will record that the use of dispersants was good for BP, making it harder to tell how much oil was spilled, and reducing the short-term visible impact. But what's less clear is whether it will turn out to have been good for the Gulf.

This article neglects to mention that it was the US government that insisted BP use the dispersant and refused to let BP stop using it when they wanted to.

seems we will all have to go back to hand fishing lines in freshwater, maybe, and having our own vegetable gardens if we can hide them from the new agricultural comission.

[Alan S]

The article is all doom and gloom, but that is what sells.

Right now, nobody and I repeat, nobody really knows what will happen in the future.
About the best guide we have is to look at previous spills and see what happened to them.

The trouble is that many were in colder water, and / or there were other major differences that makes comparison difficult.

Once the oil is coming out where you dont want it, the question of how to deal with it is a tricky one. Consult 10 experts and you will get 11 suggestions, but none will guarantee the results.
For BP or anyone else, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

My personaly opinion is that things will start to recover faster than most people expect. OK, it will take years before all is back to normal, but I doubt it will be as bad as the doomsayers are forecasting.

[RogerDuMond]

booger10, on 30 July 2010 - 02:53 PM, said:

seems we will all have to go back to hand fishing lines in freshwater, maybe, and having our own vegetable gardens if we can hide them from the new agricultural comission.

I have a better idea. You can just buy our house on the east coast as we are moving to Cebu. No oil over here.

This post has been edited by RogerDuMond: 31 July 2010 - 03:52 AM

[senseless]

Just to update, as of last night they were saying the total was 200 million gallons +/-. So this thread is pretty inaccurate.