OILPOCALYPSE!? (lets get real)

Originally posted by maybereal11
OK...Who is Roger Mitchell, VP at Earthsat?

Earthsat owned by and now re-named MDA...

MDA's Geospatial Services provides Earth observation data, information products and services from aerial platforms and the majority of commercially available radar and optical satellites. These products and services are used globally for resource mapping, environmental monitoring, offshore oil and gas exploration..

gs.mdacorporation.com...

Just saying...If one man/company makes a claim that seems unusual in it's spin content, it doesn't hurt to follow the money.

So now NASA funded satellite imaging companies are suspect? You bolded it as if they themselves do the oil "exploration" (as in drilling). They provide images for whre the oil is, based on satellite detectable oil seeps. And the article was more about global warming than it was oil pollution.

So following the assumption that he is a shill. Do you have better data to dispute his claim?

I just saw a Coast Guard factoid, but it doesn't say the rest of the sources, although it does confirm part of the pie graph as reported by the National Academy of Sciences:

Oil spills account for only about five percent of the oil entering the oceans. The Coast Guard estimates that for United States waters sewage treatment plants discharge twice as much oil each year as tanker spills.
seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 17-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Tar Balls Found Off Key West

www.huffingtonpost.com...

KEY WEST, Fla. — The U.S. Coast Guard says 20 tar balls have been found off Key West, Fla., but the agency stopped short of saying whether they came from a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Coast Guard says the Florida Park Service found the tar balls on Monday during a shoreline survey. The balls were 3-to-8 inches in diameter.

Coast Guard Lt. Anna K. Dixon said no one at the station in Key West was qualified to determine where the tar balls originated. They have been sent to a lab for analysis.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Sarkron]

reply to post by Sarkron


Interesting & spooky.

Do you only get your news from the Huff? You know, it usually contains spin (propaganda). I know I haven't seen a single Fox news article (on any topic) ever since this all started. They are equals. But please do keep things updated.

Anyways, supposedly the BLOB hasn't hit the loop yet. I've yet to see anything mention how fast it would make it that far when it does. The depth between the Keys and Cuba would also be useful info in trying to understand the way it will pan out.

Eventually, for Louisiana's sake, that oil is going to have to get sucked out of there.

It would be best under the following 2 scenario's (maybe some others):

1. Eventually half the 'oil' will evaporate. I don't know how long that takes, but however long it does take it can't be expected to be complete while the damn thing is still leaking. Hopefully it doesn't take long, no matter how it gets dispersed, as the solvents etc that do evaporate are the most acute deadly of the mix (short of getting covered and stucked up in sludge).

2. It doesn't get sucked into the loop until initiated by a huge storm (I already said until the leak is stopped). This will help break up the BLOB and get swept on out into the deep. Is my guess anyways.

Despite the thrashing I've received for not totally hysterically outcrying the ordeal, this thread isn't about lowballing the reality of the situation. It's about understanding it via history etc. Please anyone quote me to show otherwise. I never said there wouldn't be pain.

It'd be real nice if we had data that explain how fast the 49% of the mess evaporates.

The thing about those tarballs is it seems like they'd encounter other portions of the oil first, unless perhaps those parts are already broken down assuming the tarballs are from the leak.

I know 2 brothers that are older than me that both said that while surfing the east coast in the 70's one time their group came out of the water covered with globs of tar.

In any case, we can get an idea of how much tar the 'world' faces dealing with one way or another...

Asphalts account for 6% of your average crude. I spent a couple good hours earlier trying to get detailed percentage listings of average crude contents, to try to establish actual toxicity, but didn't get too far. A shame. You'd think this info would smack you in the face via Google.

Anyways, going by the highball leak estimate, 70,000 bpd (read the thread, I did admit that 60,000 bpd could be leaking by following a historical example accounting for increased pipe size), or 2,940,000 gallons per day, following the high estimate after 29 days, that puts us at 85,260,000 gallons of crude.

@ 6% tar, so far we face a high estimate of 5,115,600 of tar.
Going by the low end estimate of 5,000 bpd, we face 365,400 gallons fo tar, so far.
The truth usually falls somewhere in between.

Drug across a volume of water that holds about 100 trillion gallons of water is relevant perspective, although it won't quite dissolve like a better part of the rest of the crude.

Assuming the figure of the Gulf releasing 22 million gallons per year via seepage is remotely accurate, it already manages 1,320,000 gallons of tar per year. But of course that is spread out over the entire spanse of 642 trillions gallons plus cycling current of the Gulf.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Fluid dynamics mathematics aren't my scene. I'm more electronic engineering. But if you'd like to explain it in better detail for everyone that would be great.

Thought ya'll might be interested in this, I just heard about it on our local news. The University of Texas Energy Institute is hosting a webcast for the public going over all the aspects of the oil spill. It starts at 10:00 AM CST til 12:00 CST.

“Oil in Troubled Waters” Public Forum to Examine the Cause, Consequences and Cost of Spill in the Gulf

streamer.beg.utexas.edu...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Fluid dynamics mathematics aren't my scene. I'm more electronic engineering. But if you'd like to explain it in better detail for everyone that would be great.

Volumetric analysis requires looking at a number of variables: outflow diameeter; throat diameter (if flow cross-section is not constant; compressibility; viscosity; upstream and downstream pressures, temperature; whether flow is laminar or turbulent in the pipe. Many of the calculations are analogous to those used in measuring current through a conductor, although some of the relationships are inverted. Such as with temperature increase, which raises resistance and can reduce current flow but can affect viscosity and increase fluid flow.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There you go. When everyday you've turned on the radio in the past couple weeks and you hear the Florida commerce secretary make a press statement that our 1,200 miles of beaches are untouched, and you can still come visit Florida it says a lot about the national psyche. We have 1,200 miles of beaches. You can come on down to Florida.

Uhhh BP is PAYING Florida 25 mill to say everything is OK. Check your sources bro!

And those tarballs suck when you are trying to surf and hit one. Glad I've changed my plans to go to the keys. Las Vegas HERE I COME.

Hey IgnorIsBliss, I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I think you'll see if not already that you are wrong on this one will you fess up to this? man enough? you presented good points but the data is overwhelmingly against you

BP promises FLORIDA $25 million to promote state tourism


Coast Guard: Tar Balls Found Off Key West

There ya go, Fox News says its happening so it must be true.

No, I don't get all my news from Huff, which I know has a particular slant. But when the source of the article is the Associated Press, it gives it more creedence than the site which is re-reporting it.

reply to post by insideNSA


Are they paying them to say everything is ok, or are they paying for advertising spots? There is a difference. Considering the tar balls, nobody's keeping they mouth shut apparently so there goes your theory.

Besides I dont think the Keys is the place you go surfing to. Have you ever been there? There aren't even sandy beaches. In fact there are only a handful of 'beaches', that don't have sand. It's kind of cool actually, it's really fine crushed coral. You can buy stuff just like it at aquarium stores. It feels almost like powder. But there's only a handful of "beach" areas spread across the islands, and there wasn't much of waves the 2 times I've been there. It's been a awhile. There weren't much for waves whenever I've been there, much like people don't travel to Clearwater to go surfing, unless there's a hurricane storm surge. It's more for scenery, eating, fishing, scuba, and of course the bars in Key West if that's your scene. Never had the privilege to scuba, ever, a shame since that's been on my list since I moved here. To fly to the Keys odds are you'd come in thru Miami anyways, and they have sandy beaches. Decent waves I suppose, but you still probably want go go a little north for surfing would be my guess. But I'm betting you weren't planning on surfing anyways.

Hey IgnorIsBliss, I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong.

What am I wrong about? Quote me! Please, quote me!!!!! You have plenty to work with.

reply to post by Sarkron


The funny thing is I detest Murdoch and Fox News. Just because they're holding a candle under Omaba's izass now doesn't make up for all of the evil's they've perpetrated under Bush. They are the establishment, and so is CNN MSNBC and so on. So is Huff & Puff. Huff etc might criticize certain facets of the Establishment, but they also support the Establishment. They support Obama, Big Government, etc. Supporting Big Gov is supporting the Gov. And the Gov, Obama in particular, is owed and operated by Wall Street, the banking cartels, the military industrial complex, Big Pharm, Big Media, and yes Big Oil. If Huff doesn't go after all of these then they are still supporting it. Especially when they support or ignore half of it. Just like Fox News. And Fox irrationally and falsely amplifies fears of things like TERRORISM, identical to how environmentalist outfits do environmental issues. Look at my sig. It's Bush and Gore BOTH worshipping Gore's "Terror Factory" that has a H bomb mushroom cloud and hurricane swoosh coming out of it.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by Sarkron

 

The funny thing is I detest Murdoch and Fox News. Just because they're holding a candle under Omaba's izass now doesn't make up for all of the evil's they've perpetrated under Bush. They are the establishment, and so is CNN MSNBC and so on. So is Huff & Puff. Huff etc might criticize certain facets of the Establishment, but they also support the Establishment. They support Obama, Big Government, etc. Supporting Big Gov is supporting the Gov. And the Gov, Obama in particular, is owed and operated by Wall Street, the banking cartels, the military industrial complex, Big Pharm, Big Media, and yes Big Oil. If Huff doesn't go after all of these then they are still supporting it. Especially when they support or ignore half of it. Just like Fox News. And Fox irrationally and falsely amplifies fears of things like TERRORISM, identical to how environmentalist outfits do environmental issues. Look at my sig. It's Bush and Gore BOTH worshipping Gore's "Terror Factory" that has a H bomb mushroom cloud and hurricane swoosh coming out of it.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I made an assumption, based on the premise that listening to Brit Hume on Sunday morning, he was parroting almost exactly what you said in your original post. Initially discrediting the information because of the source of that information, not on the validity of it or where the original report came from which was the Associated Press.

I agree with you that both are sides of a spectrum, and are interested in their own agendas which may or may not coincide with what is in the best interests for the rest of us.

While looking further into Ixtoc I just noticed another piece of history: Most of the oil washed up on Texes shores, and right in the middle of it an oil tanker crashed and leaked another 2.6 million barrels of oil.

On November 1, 1979, the BURMAH AGATE collided with the freighter MIMOSA southeast of Galveston Entrance in the Gulf of Mexico. An estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil was released into the environment; another 7.8 million gallons was consumed by the fire onboard. This spill is currently #55 on the all-time list of largest oil spills.
capnscott.com...

Visit that page for more photos of the burning ship. Here's the beach:

It burned until Jan. 8, 1980.

Shoreline types inluded fine sand beaches, marshes.
www.incidentnews.gov...
www.incidentnews.gov...

On November 1, 1979, the M/V Burmah Agate collided with the freighter Mimosa southeast of Galveston Entrance in the Gulf of Mexico. The collision caused an explosion and fire on the Burmah Agate that burned until January 8, 1980. An estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil were spilled, and an estimated 7.8 million gallons were consumed by the fire. Oil traveled more than 200 miles, impacting Matagorda Peninsula and Padre Island. Marshes were not cleaned because response efforts could have caused more damage than the oil. deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov...

I noticed this history while reading the following government assessment:

www.gomr.mms.gov...
Economic Impact of Oil Spills on the Texas Coast, FY 1980
An exploratory oil well, the IXTOC I, blew out on June 3, 1979 in the Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico. The IXTOC I was the world's largest and probably most expensive oil spill. The oil released by the IXTOC I was carried by Gulf currents into American waters by August 1979. In addition to the oil from the IXTOC I, the Texas coast was affected by fresh unweathered oil from the sinking of the oil tanker BURMAH AGATE in November 1979. These events had multiple effects on local, State, Federal,
and international economies. As a result, an economic assessment of the spills on the Texas coastal region was initiated.
...
Nineteen counties along the Texas coast were selected for the three-
year (1979-1981) study. These counties were grouped into five subregions. The Texas coastal industries selected for study included: tourism, recreation, and commercial fishing.
...
SIGNIFICANT CONCLUSIONS: The results of the economic impact analyses
conducted following the IXTOC I and BURMAH AGATE oil spills indicated that: (1) the only significant decline in tourism within the 19-county region of the Texas coast was noted in the South Padre Island area; (2) there was no negative impact upon tourism from the BURMAH AGATE spill at the subregional level, while the IXTOC I spill was estimated to have decreased tourist activity by approximately four million dollars; this difference was attributed to the seasons during which the spills occurred; and (3) the estimated costs of the IXTOC I spill to industry and government made it one of the world's most expensive oil spills.
...
There was no negative impact upon tourism from the BURMAH AGATE spill identified at the subregional level. The overall indirect economic impacts of the spills related to tourism were quite small.
...
There were no significant direct or indirect economic effects of either oil spill on the commercial fishing industry measurable on either the regional or subregional levels.
...
Estimated costs of the IXTOC I oil spill to private industry and government bodies placed it as probably the world's most expensive oil spill. Costs of the estimated five million barrels of oil, the SEDCO-135 semi-submersible drilling platform, and the PEMEX capping and cleanup operations totaled approximately 498 million dollars. Damage claim suits that were pending in U.S. Courts total in excess of 400 million dollars. Expenses to the U.S. Government and the State of Texas were estimated at over 15.3 million dollars. Extensive media coverage devoted to the oil spills may have influenced the public's viewpoint of the Texas coastal region and economic loss to the tourism and recreational industries along the coastline may have resulted.
www.gomr.mms.gov...

Now of course that is economic impacts, not environmental.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by Sarkron


Here goes some data on how long it'll take to get to the Keys:

The behavior of the Loop Current varies at different depths. The top layer seems to moves faster than the lower layers. Based on the speed of the top layer, if oil enters the oil slick, it would take 8 to 10 days to travel to the Florida Keys. During this time, the oil would continue to evaporate and weather, reducing the amount of oil getting to Florida, and changing its nature.
www.theoildrum.com...

reply to post by maybereal11


Here goes an unmistakable natural seepage area:

Now, imagine 8 to 80 times the amount of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez accident.

According to new research by scientists from UC Santa Barbara and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), that's how much oil has made its way into sediments offshore from petroleum seeps near Coal Oil Point in the Santa Barbara Channel. Their research, reported in an article being published in the May 15 issue of Environmental Science & Technology, documents how the oil is released by the seeps, carried to the surface along a meandering plume, and then deposited on the ocean floor in sediments that stretch for miles northwest of Coal Oil Point.

In addition, the research reveals that the oil is so degraded by the time it gets buried in the sea bed that it's a mere shell of the petroleum that initially bubbles up from the seeps. "These were spectacular findings," said Christopher Reddy, a marine chemist at WHOI and one of the co-authors of the new paper.
...
In an earlier paper published in 2008, Valentine and Reddy documented how microbes devour many of the compounds in the oil emanating from the seeps. The new study examines the final step in the life cycle of the oil.

"One of the natural questions is: What happens to all of this oil?" Valentine said. "So much oil seeps up and floats on the sea surface. It's something we've long wondered. We know some of it will come ashore as tar balls, but it doesn't stick around. And then there are the massive slicks. You can see them, sometimes extending 20 miles from the seeps. But what is really the ultimate fate?"

Based on their previous research, Valentine and Reddy surmised that the oil was sinking "because this oil is heavy to begin with," Valentine said. "It's a good bet that it ends up in the sediments because it's not ending up on land. It's not dissolving in ocean water, so it's almost certain that it is ending up in the sediments."
...
This research proved to be an extension of the 2008 study by Valentine and Reddy: that the oil has indeed degraded, largely eaten away by microbes, before it settles back to the ocean floor and becomes buried.

"For all of these samples, the bacteria seem to hit a common wall, where they don't eat anymore," Valentine said. "In the previous study, we were looking at subsurface biodegradation where there is no oxygen. Now, you still have thousands of compounds in that oil, but now we're seeing all of the evaporation and dissolution that happens to the slick, and then the biodegradation happens in the slick with oxygen present, and then when it falls to the sea floor, it continues to be biodegraded. All the oil seems to be biodegraded to the same point and then it just stops."

"It's dramatic how much the oil loses in this life cycle," Reddy said. "It's almost like someone who has lost 400 pounds."

It's the amount of residual oil that made it to the ocean floor that surprised all of the researchers. "Based on what we found in the sample cores at our sites, we calculated the amount of hydrocarbon in the whole area," Valentine said. "We have to make assumptions about how deep the sediment is, so we assume a range of between 50 centimeters and 5 meters. We come out with 8 to 80 Exxon Valdezes worth of oil, just in this area."

"When we got reviews for the paper, one reviewer said it should actually be more, because of how much has been degraded out," Farwell said. "The amount that actually seeped out is more like 11 to 110 Exxon Valdezes, just in this area." www.sciencedaily.com...

Santa Barbara endures constant oil seepage.

If you want to show the negative environmental (animals, etc) then Santa Barbara is a key place for you to start. Let me know what you find, I might have to depend on seafood in an area I thought might be hit hard by the current oil leak.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Ok folks. If you want to understand what oil does to a place then it seems Galveston Bay is the place to focus on.

It has gotten a piece of FOUR different oil spills over the past 30 years, in addition to local effects to oil drilling & processing & shipping, natural oil seeps, plus local chemical plants & runoff from citizen activities, plus Mississippi runoff!

Surely we can't eat seafood from there???

It produces more seafood than any bay in the nation except the Chesapeake.[2] en.wikipedia.org...

The wikipedia pollution section offers more insight:

The Bay receives the fourth highest level of toxic chemicals in the state from bayside industrial discharge, in addition to pollutants washing in from the Houston Ship Channel.[37] Although contaminants from the major industrial complexes along the Bay contribute substantially to bay pollution, most is the result of storm run-off from various commercial, agricultural, and residential sources.[38] In recent decades, conservation efforts have been enacted which have substantially improved water quality in the Bay.[39] Though concerns have been raised about the safety of seafood obtained from the Bay the Texas Department of Health have stated that fish from the Bay is "safe for unlimited consumption."[40] Excessive ozone levels can occur due to of industrial activities; nearby Houston is ranked among the most ozone-polluted cities in the United States.[41] The industries located along the ship channel are a major cause of the pollution.[42]

The oil spills that Galveston has felt effects from (excluding Tampa):

Ixtoc
The largest oil spill in North America occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The 200-foot-deep exploratory well, Ixtoc I, blew out on June 3, 1979, in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico, releasing 10,000 - 30, 000 barrels (0.4 - 1.2 million gallons) per day for nine months. Nearly 500 dispersant air sorties were flown in Mexico. Manual cleanup in Texas was aided by storms. Though the blowout preventer (BOP, valve designed to seal off a wellhead) failed, injection of metal and concrete balls into the well slowed the release. By the time the well was brought under control in March 1980 by drilling two relief wells to relieve pressure, an estimated 113 million to over 300 million gallons of oil had spilled (10 times the amount of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez).
Oil travelled 800 miles to the north, oiling more than 150 miles of shoreline in Texas and unknown miles of shoreline in Mexico.

Hurricane Katrina
More than 250 oil-related pollution incidents were reported in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, releasing an estimated total of 8 million gallons of oil directly into inland waterways and wetlands. Because many spills went unreported and others were never attributed to a specific source, the actual amount of oil released into the environment will never be known. Shallow nearshore areas, coastal and inland wetlands, and sand beaches were among the numerous habitats impacted by these spills. A variety of cleanup methods were employed including in-situ burning, mechanical cleanup (heavy equipment, vacuuming, etc.), and manual recovery and removal of oil. However, many marsh areas were left to recover naturally because the impacts associated with cleanup of the oil would have exacerbated damage to these sensitive marsh environments.

Burmah Agate
On November 1, 1979, the M/V Burmah Agate collided with the freighter Mimosa southeast of Galveston Entrance in the Gulf of Mexico. The collision caused an explosion and fire on the Burmah Agate that burned until January 8, 1980. An estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil were spilled, and an estimated 7.8 million gallons were consumed by the fire. Oil traveled more than 200 miles, impacting Matagorda Peninsula and Padre Island. Marshes were not cleaned because response efforts could have caused more damage than the oil.

Megaborg
The Megaborg released 5.1 million gallons of oil as the result of a lightering accident and subsequent fire. The incident occurred 60 nautical miles south-southeast of Galveston, Texas on June 8, 1990. Most of the released oil burned during the initial response. Once the fire was controlled, an oil slick formed and began to spread to the north-northwest of the site. A cadre of volunteers was mobilized to help with cleanup efforts, but little shoreline oiling resulted from this spill. Calm seas and warm weather aided off-shore skimming activities and increased evaporative losses of the oil. A small portion of the slick was also effectively treated with dispersants. The oil slick weathered and degraded into tarballs. The fate of these tarballs is unknown, but they were not seen on beaches that were monitored.

Alvenus
On July 30, 1984, T/VAlvenus grounded in the Calcasieu River Bar Channel southeast of Cameron, Louisiana, spilling 65,500 barrels (2.7 million gallons) of Venuzuelan crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil travelled more than 100 miles to the west, where it came onshore on the Bolivar Peninsula and entered Galveston Bay. The oil smothered marine life attached to groins and sea walls, but despite the presence of thousands of birds on sand islands, few were injured. A large amount of oiled sand was removed.
deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov...

Other hurricanes such as Ike also add to it:

About half the crude oil was reported spilled at a facility operated by St. Mary Land and Exploration Co. on Goat Island, Texas, a spit of uninhabited land north of the heavily damaged Bolivar Peninsula. The surge from the storm flooded the plant, leveling its dirt containment wall and snapping off the pipes connecting its eight storage tanks, which held the oil and water produced from two wells in Galveston Bay. By the time the company reached the wreckage by boat more than 24 hours after Ike's landfall, the tanks were empty. Only a spattering of the roughly 266,000 gallons of oil spilled was left, and that is already cleaned up, according to Greg Leyendecker, the company's regional manager. The rest vanished, likely into the Gulf of Mexico.
www.ecoistabode.com...

More spills:

However, in the period from 1970 to 1990, there were five spills of more than 10,000 barrels in or near Galveston Bay. Three of these occurred in the Houston Ship Channel: the Bayou Lafourche in March 1973 spilled 10,000 barrels, the Chevron Hawaii in September 1979 spilled 20,000 barrels near Deer Park; and the Olympic Glory in January 1981 spilled 20,000 barrels. The most recent large spill occurred when several Apex barges ruptured in a collision in mid Galveston Bay and 16,476 barrels of oil escaped. The largest spill in the region occurred in November 1979 when the tanker Burmah Agate was involved in a collision that ruptured its tanks and 254,761 barrels of crude oil leaked in the Gulf at the entrance to the Galveston Jetties. Only a small amount of oil was transported into the bay and polluted the area around Smith Point (NOAA, 1992).
galvbaydata.org...

Small scale spills:

A total of 3,196 spills were reported in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed by the GLO during the period 1998-2007. galvbaydata.org...
...
Oil spills are classified according to three types of sources: facility, vessel, or unknown. Vessel spills accounted for 1,377 spills (43 percent) of total spills. 1,178 spills (37 percent) were reported as being of unknown origin 641 spills (20 percent) were attributed to facilities.
...
While analyzing the number of spills is one way to quantify oil spill data, it is also interesting to look at the nature of oil spills in the Galveston Bay system according to the volume of petroleum products spilled. For the period 1998-2007 a total of 383,897 gallons of petroleum products were reported by the GLO as spilled in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed. As seen below, Harris County and Galveston County had the largest reported spill volumes (224,311 gallons and 138,799 gallons, respectively).

News flash, despite all the propaganda efforts by busy little beavers....

You need to realize the LEAK ISN'T PLUGGED. All the discussion about other disasters are of no comparison here.

Video of well head above blowout preventer spewing, and pipe on sea floor spewing with little drinking straw pipe stuck into it:
nola.com and FL Sen. Bob Nelson provide video

Video of pipe with straw from nola.com


[edit on 18-5-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

For anyone still following this thread, I just started a couple new threads that focus specifically on a couple matters relevant herein:

True impact of Oil Spills?
Toxicitiy of crude oil, by percentage?

Thanks for reading.

IgnoranceIsBlissful you really are a busy little beaver. I can tell you are trying SO HARD to refute reality. lol. I will not change your mind but as the poster before me points out. This leak is ongoing and already more disasterous than most oil spills on record, THERE IS NO COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL DATA UNTIL THE LEAK IS PLUGGED.

Maybe you'll see reality when it washes up on your beaches in a week or two.

in the meantime keep convincing yourself of the fantasyland you are contructing for yourself.

if you close your eyes and believe real hard, it may come true... NOT