How has the Oil Spill affected your life?

[IDBillzFan]

Actually, I don't think the earth cares about us one way or the other. On a planetary scale, we're just fleas. The Gulf oil spill isn't destroying "the planet"...just our own ecosystem. On a planetary scale, it's not an issue.

Sounds a little bit like George Carlin.

 

(NSFW)

[RuntheDamnBall]

Actually, I don't think the earth cares about us one way or the other. On a planetary scale, we're just fleas. The Gulf oil spill isn't destroying "the planet"...just our own ecosystem. On a planetary scale, it's not an issue.

True - something I was trying to articulate earlier... I offered this thought more to counter the notion that one can "only be about the human race" and that somehow the environment humans live in matters little to human survival. This was before I remembered that stupidity wins every argument.

the good news is all that oil and dispersant mixed together came from the Earth.

[Bronc24]

Hey, there is an upside!

 

Might as well post this here.

 

Scientists: Gulf oil spill surpasses Exxon Valdez

 

 

But the good news is all that oil and dispersant mixed together came from the Earth.

 

The bad news is that it doesn't normally pour into a sensitive ecosystem at this alarming rate.

[John Adams]

The bad news is that it doesn't normally pour into a sensitive ecosystem at this alarming rate.

 

Big deal. Doesn't affect me.

 

/murra

[DC Tom]

The bad news is that it doesn't normally pour into a sensitive ecosystem at this alarming rate.

 

Such a !@#$ing waste of oil...

[murra]

Big deal. Doesn't affect me.

 

/murra

 

Please explain how these affected your life:

 

1. Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons

Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.

2. Mexico - 1980 - 100 million gallons

An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year.

3. Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million

During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo.

4. Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons

A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.

5. Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons

A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired.

6. South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons

A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay.

7. France - 1978 - 69 million gallons

A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel.

8. Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons

The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown

9. Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons

The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years.

10. Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons

700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.

(THIS IS ONLY THE TOP TEN)

[John Adams]

Please explain how these affected your life:

 

1. Kuwait

2. Mexico

3. Trinidad and Tobago

4. Russia

5. Persian Gulf

6. South Africa -

7. France

8. Angola

9. Italy

10. Odyssey Oil Spill

 

I edited your post. Maybe you get the point.

[Adam]

When we burn off the oil- and from what I understand it is when and not if......will the smoke plume affect flight patterns? Will that cause the costs of flight to increase? Will it cause the flight of shipping to increase?

 

Will that quantity of oil-based smoke cause any changes to the atmosphere (Don't confuse this with Global Warming)? It may affect a lot of things financially and otherwise. Will the smoke be extremely carcinogenic and how far will it travel?

[Booster4324]

When we burn off the oil- and from what I understand it is when and not if......will the smoke plume affect flight patterns? Will that cause the costs of flight to increase? Will it cause the flight of shipping to increase?

 

Will that quantity of oil-based smoke cause any changes to the atmosphere (Don't confuse this with Global Warming)? It may affect a lot of things financially and otherwise. Will the smoke be extremely carcinogenic and how far will it travel?

 

Pretty sure it is way too late to burn it off. Everything I read said we missed that chance early on. I suppose if the attempt to cap it fails, we could do all the new oil coming to the surface.

[Adam]

Pretty sure it is way too late to burn it off. Everything I read said we missed that chance early on. I suppose if the attempt to cap it fails, we could do all the new oil coming to the surface.

Either way- this will have some severe consequences. How the heck do you get rid of that much oil!

[IDBillzFan]

Either way- this will have some severe consequences. How the heck do you get rid of that much oil!

Not to mention the economic impact on the region, and how that will ultimately affect the rest of the country (unemployment, food prices, etc.).

[Adam]

Not to mention the economic impact on the region, and how that will ultimately affect the rest of the country (unemployment, food prices, etc.).

I have a lot of friends in the region. The stuff they are telling me just makes me sick. Personally, I would like BP out of our country, but that probably isn't feasible in the real world.

[murra]

I edited your post. Maybe you get the point.

 

That it's not apocalyptic at all, because its happened plenty of times throughout history, despite what CNN tells you?

 

And if you're so hung up on this being America's fault, why are you not bashing Obama the way you bashed Bush for Katrina (a NATURAL DISASTER)? Clearly this is being managed worse, right?

[John Adams]

That it's not apocalyptic at all, because its happened plenty of times throughout history, despite what CNN tells you?

 

Way to strawman. No one said apocalyptic. We'll all live. That's not the point.

 

And if you're so hung up on this being America's fault, why are you not bashing Obama the way you bashed Bush for Katrina (a NATURAL DISASTER)? Clearly this is being managed worse, right?

 

Got a link for that?

 

Edit: Nevermind, here's a link.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1290045

 

To blame [bush] for Katrina is the galling part. It took 2 days to get food and supplies to people spread over an entire coastline in an unprecedented disaster. Tens of thousands of people were rescued in the first week. Hundreds of thousands were provided for and eventually moved. What else you could have REASONABLY expected him to do? Only in America could people B word about the extraordinary rescue that took place in response to that disaster.

 

Wow, rarely have I pwned someone as easily as that. You are hereby declared Tool of the Month!

[Adam]

That it's not apocalyptic at all, because its happened plenty of times throughout history, despite what CNN tells you?

 

And if you're so hung up on this being America's fault, why are you not bashing Obama the way you bashed Bush for Katrina (a NATURAL DISASTER)? Clearly this is being managed worse, right?

I think he should be bashed for this- the Government should not be active in the actual clean up, but they should be bringing US Companies into the effort- I don't think the attitude that this is BP's mess and they have to clean it up or it won't get done works.

 

This might be a bit outside the box, but I can't help wondering if NASA would be of any assistance in this- they have the know-how to get things done in all times of hostile environments.

 

Its nice that Obama says "Plug the &&^%&*& hole", but that really doesn't do much as far as getting it done

[John Adams]

Its nice that Obama says "Plug the &&^%&*& hole", but that really doesn't do much as far as getting it done

 

That was one of his asshattiest moments in all this. No **** plug the hole. As if BP wants more oil to leak out, costing more $$ in cleanup and remuneration, not to mention $$ lost because the oil can't be collected.

 

Calling the oil companies to account for not having a better plan to deal with this--a predictable problem--is something he should be doing today, tomorrow, and for a while.

[Dan]

That it's not apocalyptic at all, because its happened plenty of times throughout history, despite what CNN tells you?

 

And if you're so hung up on this being America's fault, why are you not bashing Obama the way you bashed Bush for Katrina (a NATURAL DISASTER)? Clearly this is being managed worse, right?

First of all, if you're trying to pretend that this and all those other oil spills are perfectly harmless and nature just cleans itself up with no larger, long-term ramifications for the local and global ecosystems, as well the people in these areas; well... you're just deluding yourself.

 

Secondly, the comparisons to Katrina are spurious at best. No one blamed Bush for Katrina, they faulted Bush and Federal Government for thier response to Katrina. Not all of that criticism was fair, of course. But, the situation was vastly different in what was going on and how we should respond as a nation.

 

In this instance, it's an oil spill from a well that is owned and operated by a private company. It's their responsibilty to stop it and clean it up. There's a clear line of physical and monetary responsibilty here. There's absolutely no need for the federal government to kick out the clearly rewsponsible party and assume the financial burden of this mess. Their job is to send in the coast guard and work with BP to contain it. Now, should Obama (or someone relatively high up) have been more vocal about what's going on, since day one, and pretending to be in charge? Yes, imo. However, it's not his nor the federal government's place to take this over.

 

What I find most interesting is that the majority of the people calling for federal government involvment are the exact same people that are upset beccause of all the recent federal government involvment in the banking, health care, auto, etc. etc. industries.

 

I will say the same thing about this mess as I did Katrina (and I was involved in a small portion of the Katrina response); there's a lot more organization and work going on than 95% of the world knows or is being reported. But it's the nature of the beast. When we're not in it, all we see is what's on TV. Hence, the boring stuff like planning and organizing are not talked about. But perception is reality. So, yes, Bush should have been on the TV within a day of Katrina talking about what's being done; just as Obama should have been on TV a month ago. But, the fact that they weren't doesn't draw a line to their inaction.

 

Back to my original point though, this is a vastly different disaster than a hurricane. And therefore, calls for a vastly different response from the goverenment. In the event of a hurricane local resources are depleted or wiped out; so the federal government is called on to step in and help. In an oil spill, the company responible for the spill is responsible. They have the resources in hand and there's little need at all for government intervention. The governments typically get involved to recoup lost revenues and ensure compliance and all that crap.

 

But, I'm sure many will disagree. Because after years of people saying Bush is bad, they want their moment to say Obama is bad. I guess it's understandable but it doesn't really make anything better, does it?

[Adam]

First of all, if you're trying to pretend that this and all those other oil spills are perfectly harmless and nature just cleans itself up with no larger, long-term ramifications for the local and global ecosystems, as well the people in these areas; well... you're just deluding yourself.

 

Secondly, the comparisons to Katrina are spurious at best. No one blamed Bush for Katrina, they faulted Bush and Federal Government for thier response to Katrina. Not all of that criticism was fair, of course. But, the situation was vastly different in what was going on and how we should respond as a nation.

 

In this instance, it's an oil spill from a well that is owned and operated by a private company. It's their responsibilty to stop it and clean it up. There's a clear line of physical and monetary responsibilty here. There's absolutely no need for the federal government to kick out the clearly rewsponsible party and assume the financial burden of this mess. Their job is to send in the coast guard and work with BP to contain it. Now, should Obama (or someone relatively high up) have been more vocal about what's going on, since day one, and pretending to be in charge? Yes, imo. However, it's not his nor the federal government's place to take this over.

 

What I find most interesting is that the majority of the people calling for federal government involvment are the exact same people that are upset beccause of all the recent federal government involvment in the banking, health care, auto, etc. etc. industries.

 

I will say the same thing about this mess as I did Katrina (and I was involved in a small portion of the Katrina response); there's a lot more organization and work going on than 95% of the world knows or is being reported. But it's the nature of the beast. When we're not in it, all we see is what's on TV. Hence, the boring stuff like planning and organizing are not talked about. But perception is reality. So, yes, Bush should have been on the TV within a day of Katrina talking about what's being done; just as Obama should have been on TV a month ago. But, the fact that they weren't doesn't draw a line to their inaction.

 

Back to my original point though, this is a vastly different disaster than a hurricane. And therefore, calls for a vastly different response from the goverenment. In the event of a hurricane local resources are depleted or wiped out; so the federal government is called on to step in and help. In an oil spill, the company responible for the spill is responsible. They have the resources in hand and there's little need at all for government intervention. The governments typically get involved to recoup lost revenues and ensure compliance and all that crap.

 

But, I'm sure many will disagree. Because after years of people saying Bush is bad, they want their moment to say Obama is bad. I guess it's understandable but it doesn't really make anything better, does it?

Much of the financial burden should fall on BP, but to hang them out to dry and clean it up themselves is to cut off your nose to spite your face. It is in our best interest to get this cleaned up as quickly and efficiently as possible before more damage can be done. Government should be involved, private sector should be involved, if we can get anyone else involved we should. This needs to be fixed.

 

No- I don't blame Bush for the Katrina response- I blame the Democrats and Republicans. They are what is ruining this country and will end our run as a superpower. Neither cares about America, they just care about themselves.

 

Obama bad, Bush bad....grow up America, cause right now you suck.

[DC Tom]

I think he should be bashed for this- the Government should not be active in the actual clean up, but they should be bringing US Companies into the effort- I don't think the attitude that this is BP's mess and they have to clean it up or it won't get done works.

 

I can just about guarantee that there's not a resource the government could get involved that isn't already involved. No one with the necessary skills is sitting on their ass waiting to be offered a services contract by BP - in fact, they're probably gouging the hell out of BP, given that it's a buyers' market for these particular services right now.

 

This might be a bit outside the box, but I can't help wondering if NASA would be of any assistance in this- they have the know-how to get things done in all times of hostile environments.

 

Basically in one hostile environment: hard vacuum. 5000 feet under the ocean is well out of their purview.

[Dan]

Much of the financial burden should fall on BP, but to hang them out to dry and clean it up themselves is to cut off your nose to spite your face. It is in our best interest to get this cleaned up as quickly and efficiently as possible before more damage can be done. Government should be involved, private sector should be involved, if we can get anyone else involved we should. This needs to be fixed.

 

No- I don't blame Bush for the Katrina response- I blame the Democrats and Republicans. They are what is ruining this country and will end our run as a superpower. Neither cares about America, they just care about themselves.

 

Obama bad, Bush bad....grow up America, cause right now you suck.

But, that's essentially my point. The Governement, federal and local, IS ivolved and has been involved. So has the private sector. There have been massive efforts to contain this spill. Let me ask.. how much has been pointed out about the dispersants that are being used? Next to nothing. But, that's all private contractors and local aerial ag applicators making millions right now applying those dispersants. (It's probably doing more harm than good, but that's beside the point.)

 

We could go on, but the fact remains; there's been considerable involvment by lots of people. No one is just standing by watching this thing and waiting or BP to do somethng. Of course, that's the perception. But, it's just not reality.

 

The problem with fixing this, is it's a busted pipe 5,000 feet under water. That's not an easy thing to fix. The most telling point from Murra's post about the top 10 spills should be how long it took to get similar "spills" to stop flowing. So for any of us to think they could or should have stopped the flow of oil within a few days is being naive.

 

Believe me, I hate this. I fall squarley into the "this is a huge environmental disaster and just another reason why we should do all we can to find alternative energy" camp. However, as a realist, there's certain realities that are unavoidable. We are an oil dependent nation; therefore we must drill; therefore there will be spills and environmental damage. Furthermore when there is a spill; certain realities inevitably follow - just as we're seeing.

 

But, to pretend that anyone could be doing more than they are doing is largely reactionary and counter productive at this point. For example, Jindall wants to build a huge sand bar to shield the coast. Do you know the time and effort to do such a thing? To think that creating a sand bar of that scale within a coule of weeks is a viable solution is borderline insane. But, I guess its doing something.

 

Realistically, thing of it from a pure business perspective. How much money is BP losing because oil is being wasted, because they have to pay for this clean up, and because they'll have to pay restitution? There's not a company employee that's not doing everything they can to stop this leak. Hell there's probably a million dollar bonus to the engineer that figures out how to stop this. BP is motivated more than anyone to fix this. Now, that doens't mean that I think BP is great or anything. It just means that for the time-being; they are the best hope to getting this thing stopped. Now, come cleanup time... that may very well differ, depending on how much bad PR they're willing to endure.