Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Siara

Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

209 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Agent X

Compulsion to assign blame doesn't seem like anger though. Just an unwillingness to take responsibility for one's actions.

And this blame game is a very old game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeanine

WHAT!!!

You are not seriously going to try and reduce this global crisis to a political debate, and downsize the ramifications to a few welfare prone families in the gulf...are you?

How can you be so short sighted, and gripe about narrowmindedness at the same time?

Why don't we just go ahead and say that BP, aka Bildeburger Petroleum, intentionally created this crisis as just another step in its oath to depopulate this world. Put the pieces together. The resulting food crisis alone will be a good start.

This is the sound of your cosmic alarm clock. It's time to Wake up! Your Mother is bleeding to Death. Don't believe me. Watch this...as that crude rises...blood red.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qzXPD7ng

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qzXPD7ng

Be The Change you wish to see in the world.

Ghandi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

But this strikes me as more than an ordinary disaster.

I'm with ya on that one, this is a brutal disaster imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

I find the whole top kill thing pretty disturbing.

Top Kill Q&A

I think they started pumping about an hour ago, I guess we will know in a couple days if it works or not.

Why hasn't this even been mentioned before as an option? Even a not so good one. If this method is A standard one (implying more than one standard method)... Why does it not seem like there was a whole set of options presented earlier? Like a press release to all the media of the list of standard solutions from greater to lesser likely hood of success. It seems like they are pulling out one plan after another for over a month now like a magic scarf trick.

They have also gotten mass amounts of suggestions from the public- 10,000 ideas

Im frustrated too Siara, it is a horrific disaster that could have some global consequences before it is done. I can't put my finger on why, but something does not seem straight about this to me either. I think it might just be that the oil companies CMA is shabby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent X
You are not seriously going to try and reduce this global crisis to a political debate, and downsize the ramifications to a few welfare prone families in the gulf...are you?

You've never heard of Exxon Valdis have you? It'll end up just like that.

BP is already doing it. They aren't making any real efforts to stop and clean up the spill. If they're fined they'll fight the fine like Exxon did and probably succeed in reducing the fine to just a slap on the wrist. And it will play along political lines because the Republicans favor big business just like they favored Exxon Valdis. BP has billions of dollars to spend on lawyers to fight for them and can stretch this over years and years.

That's the reality of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

You've never heard of Exxon Valdis have you? It'll end up just like that.

BP is already doing it. They aren't making any real efforts to stop and clean up the spill. If they're fined they'll fight the fine like Exxon did and probably succeed in reducing the fine to just a slap on the wrist. And it will play along political lines because the Republicans favor big business just like they favored Exxon Valdis. BP has billions of dollars to spend on lawyers to fight for them and can stretch this over years and years.

That's the reality of the situation.

The exxon was in a remote area off of Alaska close to shore. I think the BP oil leak will make exxon look like a drop in the bucket personally. It doesn't matter how much money BP has the damage will be felt for many years to come. Is BP going to supplement all the states that lose billions in tourism, fishing, ecological damage years down the road? I doubt it.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keithisco

WHAT!!!

You are not seriously going to try and reduce this global crisis to a political debate,

Why don't we just go ahead and say that BP, aka Bildeburger Petroleum, intentionally created this crisis as just another step in its oath to depopulate this world. Put the pieces together. The resulting food crisis alone will be a good start.

This is the sound of your cosmic alarm clock. It's time to Wake up! Your Mother is bleeding to Death. Don't believe me. Watch this...as that crude rises...blood red.

Be The Change you wish to see in the world.

Ghandi

You are doing what you Rant against. Politicising!!

Now you claim BP are part of the Bilderburg connection?

This was never BP's fault in the first place, it was the dumb US Exploration company that screwed this up big time (a Halliburton subsidiary). The fact that BP are putting so much effort into trying to stem the oil from the well is credit to them.

An oil spill IS unpleasant, has disastrous short - term consequences for the local environment (Google Torrey Canyon, Exxon Valdez etc) but it sure as heck wont reduce the World's population to 500Million (alleged target for the NWO) !! That is just foolish sensationalism

For your info... my Mother is not "bleeding to death" she is enjoying a Gin and Tonic on the terrace w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
archernyc

At lunch with a friend and her husband recently we were discussing the situation. My friend asked, "but what can we, as individuals, do?" I told her that she needs to get rid of her car and she looked at me like I'm a lunatic. Seriously, if everyone got rid of their cars and used public transportation, i.e., get off your high horse and take the bus, the train, carpool, whatever, we could significantly reduce our dependence on oil. I haven't had a car for years and walk everywhere. For those of you that say "yeah, but you live in NYC" - guess what, I didn't have a car when I lived in Tampa, FL. I lived close to my place of work and rode my bike or took the bus. It CAN be done!

The oil companies think that they are omnipotent and they are, because we let them.

Edited by archernyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

You've never heard of Exxon Valdis have you? It'll end up just like that.

I suspect that it's a lot worse than the Exxon Valdis disaster. For one thing, that happened in a relatively remote location. Every ecosystem is fragile and complex but the one in the Gulf is especially unique and delicate. Things are going to be very different if that piece of our ecology is missing. Another thing-- this leak could get into the Gulf Stream which will make the consequences much less local.

Also, doesn't it seem like all this stuff that BP has been dumping in the water is basically just making the oil sink so we can't see it? It's like sweeping dirt under the carpet. You don't have to look at it but it's still in the room.

On a political level I think this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of America being a "super power". That's not necessarily bad, but it will be different. We'll always be a major power in one sense because we've got a lot of nukes (to put it bluntly). But now we are going to become a nuclear power that's poor with a much less stable government. Our economy is already in bad shape and now some of the really hard hit states are going to lose two major industries (fishing & tourism). That could be crippling.

I don't know. It just seems like it all could be a true history changer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent X

I suspect that it's a lot worse than the Exxon Valdis disaster. For one thing, that happened in a relatively remote location. Every ecosystem is fragile and complex but the one in the Gulf is especially unique and delicate. Things are going to be very different if that piece of our ecology is missing. Another thing-- this leak could get into the Gulf Stream which will make the consequences much less local.

Also, doesn't it seem like all this stuff that BP has been dumping in the water is basically just making the oil sink so we can't see it? It's like sweeping dirt under the carpet. You don't have to look at it but it's still in the room.

On a political level I think this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of America being a "super power". That's not necessarily bad, but it will be different. We'll always be a major power in one sense because we've got a lot of nukes (to put it bluntly). But now we are going to become a nuclear power that's poor with a much less stable government. Our economy is already in bad shape and now some of the really hard hit states are going to lose two major industries (fishing & tourism). That could be crippling.

I don't know. It just seems like it all could be a true history changer.

BP is a British company with its main headquarters in St James's, City of Westminster, London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

BP is a British company with its main headquarters in St James's, City of Westminster, London.

Yeah, but the coasts were all the animal life is gonna die are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

I suspect that it's a lot worse than the Exxon Valdis disaster. For one thing, that happened in a relatively remote location. Every ecosystem is fragile and complex but the one in the Gulf is especially unique and delicate.

You could be right, but there are other considerations.

The oil that spilled from the Exxon Valdez was different, heavier, than the light crude from the gulf.

This stuff contains far more volatile compounds, meaning much more of it will evaporate.

Of course, evaporate doesn't mean disappear. But it could mean less impact on the wetlands.

Both affected environments are damn fragile and complex. Both are even essential.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent X

Update:

Coast Guard Grounds Ships Involved in Spill Cleanup After 7 Fall Ill; BP Reportedly Preventing Fishermen from Wearing Respirators

At least seven fishermen involved in the cleanup of the BP oil spill were hospitalized on Wednesday after reporting nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains. The fishermen were likely exposed to both the leaked oil and chemical dispersants. As a precautionary measure, the Coast Guard has ordered all 125 commercial ships helping with the cleanup to return to land. For weeks, cleanup crews hired by BP have been reporting health issues, but their complaints have largely been ignored. We speak to Clint Guidry, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, and Albert Huang, an environmental justice attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

Of course, evaporate doesn't mean disappear. But it could mean less impact on the wetlands. Both affected environments are damn fragile and complex. Both are even essential.

The latest news is that the government estimates that the amount of oil that has been spilled so far is 3.5 times greater than that which was spilled by the Exxon Valdis. It is increasing at a rate of 12,000-25,000 barrels a day (BP's worst estimate was 5,000).

Edited by Siara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

the oil spill- a bi-partisan cluster*&%#.

(7/14/2008) Coverage of George Bush lifting the ban on off-shore drilling imposed by his father

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/national/main4257757.shtml

(4/2/2010) Obama announces that he's going to ease restrictions further

http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-ease-restrictions-offshore-drilling

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Mr. Bush's father - George H.W. Bush - to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

"This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee. "The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent X

Sigh. It just goes to show who really rules America. It's definitely NOT the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Buckle up on this one too...

June first marks the beginning of the hurricane season, and it's predicted to be an active season. NOAA outlook

The current outlook:

Across the entire Atlantic Basin for the six-month season, which begins June 1, NOAA is projecting a 70 percent probability of the following ranges:

14 to 23 Named Storms (top winds of 39 mph or higher), including:

8 to 14 Hurricanes (top winds of 74 mph or higher), of which:

3 to 7 could be Major Hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5; winds of at least 111 mph)

And right now, the gulf coast area is already dealing with storms and crappy weather. A hurricane would make the whole oil mess so much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

Well at least they've seemed to have finally stopped the leak. That's something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

the oil spill- a bi-partisan cluster*&%#.

(7/14/2008) Coverage of George Bush lifting the ban on off-shore drilling imposed by his father

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/14/national/main4257757.shtml

(4/2/2010) Obama announces that he's going to ease restrictions further

http://www.thenation.com/article/obama-ease-restrictions-offshore-drilling

[/b]

The current spill was not caused by G.W. Bush. The oil well was in place and working during the ban that W. lifted.

Besides, Obama just came out in favor of expanded drilling right before this accident happened. Talk about unfortunate timing!

But, if comparisons must be made, might I suggest we all examine the reaction of the press to the Exxon Valdez spill? Response to the spill was federalized within two weeks of the occurance. At the time, the press ran with headlines like "Feds come in - too little too late!"

Google it. You'll find all kinds of Democrats lambasting G H W Bush for dragging his feet. Why aren't they speaking up now?

The sorry federal response caused a cacophony of clamorous critiques throughout the press for months. Why aren't they speaking up now?

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

The current spill was not caused by G.W. Bush.

Er Harte... did you notice the size 4 font in my previous post? the oil spill- a bi-partisan cluster*&%#?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Er Harte... did you notice the size 4 font in my previous post? the oil spill- a bi-partisan cluster*&%#?

Sorry.

Maybe we should consider this: If the "Big Oil" situation is a bipartisan thing, what makes it bipartisan?

Could it be that anyone that spends a few moments thinking about it rationally realizes that petroleum and access to it is, really, more important in today's world than other considerations? Particularly political considerations?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent X

So, did anybody catch the special they had on the spill last night on the NGC channel?

Fairly interesting, but they concentrated on the rescue effort and spent little time on the actual clean up efforts. But they did show two things. One that they put up barriers to prevent the oil from reaching the coast, and they showed a Coast Guard cutter that was using a device (sorry can't remember the proper name for it) that essentially skimmed the slick and sucked the oil into a bag that could contain 25,000 tons of the stuff. Of course, I'm sure there are more than just the one making the effort to clean it up.

However, it is my hope that this disaster will go a long way to helping our political leaders realize that oil is just no good and shouldn't be relied on as a fuel source as well as weaning America off of foerign oil.

But I doubt it. people really hate change and will only change when there's incentive to or they absolutely have to. That means things will only change if oil runs out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jewish Heretic

This spill is WAY worse than the Valdez.....and we're looking at a well that if not capped or contained has the potential to gush at this rate for a year or more.....put this one in the category of "worse case scenario.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

However, it is my hope that this disaster will go a long way to helping our political leaders realize that oil is just no good and shouldn't be relied on as a fuel source as well as weaning America off of foerign oil.

But I doubt it. people really hate change and will only change when there's incentive to or they absolutely have to. That means things will only change if oil runs out.

Comments like that aren't going to help. The simple fact of the matter is that we are utterly dependant on oil, so to say that oil is no good takes away from the seriousness of your argument. It isn't like we are giving up a favorite dish at a local diner. Transitioning out of oil is going to be a major, major change, one so difficult to execute, heck, evne to contemplate, that yes, it would take a disaster on the level of having to absolutely change to bring it about entirely. You say that, but I'm not sure you realize the significance of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler

We've been through significantly worse--in the sense of an event that caused much more direct inconvenience and discomfort for more people--and didn't start (or at least didn't sustain) seriously looking for alternatives. Gotta feed the monkey, man.

In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar."[28] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[29] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[29] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[29]

In the U.S., odd-even rationing was implemented; drivers of vehicles with license plates having an odd number as the last digit (or a vanity license plate) were allowed to purchase gasoline for their cars only on odd-numbered days of the month, while drivers of vehicles with even-numbered license plates were allowed to purchase fuel only on even-numbered days.[30] The rule did not apply on the 31st day of those months containing 31 days, or on February 29 in leap years— the latter never came into play, since the restrictions had been abolished by 1976.

In some U.S. states, a three-color flag system was used to denote gasoline availability at service stations — a green flag denoted unrationed sale of gasoline, a yellow flag denoted restricted and rationed sales, and a red flag denoted that no gasoline was available but the service station was open for other services.[31] Additionally, coupons for gasoline rationing were ordered in 1974 and 1975 for Federal Energy Administration, but were never actually used for this crisis or the 1979 energy crisis.[32]

The rationing led to incidents of violence, after truck drivers nationwide chose to strike for two days in December 1973 because they objected to the supplies Simon had rationed for their industry.[29] In Pennsylvania and Ohio, non-striking truckers were shot at by striking truckers, and in Arkansas, trucks of non-strikers were attacked with bombs.[29]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.