Gulf Oil Spill Hoax Argument VINDICATED

Doc, you've not addressed any of the issues people have raised about your original post.

Is this thread going to turn into a stream of insults or are we going to debate your original point?

I took your argument apart section by section, but you've not replied. The only replies you have made were to argue 'character' points with other members. For someone that's apparently so intelligent you're not doing much to defend your theory.

I'll ask you again...

Do you accept that there's a huge difference between the surface spill with the Valdez, vs the underwater spill + dispersant seen in the GoM?

Would you agree that it's plausible and possible that there are underwater plumes that were created by the use of dispersant? ie do you accept that the 'missing oil' could be floating underwater?

Edited to add the questions...

[edit on 29-7-2010 by eightfold]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
the rate of seepage is low enough for microbial breakdown to take place.
HOWEVER, in the case of the BP oil spill, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ocean to absorb such a high rate and volume of oil.

REALLY...

Let's take a look at another story buried deeply in the MSM, from the Washington Post of June 24, a story that was published during the Deepwater Horizon incident...

Beyond the BP OIl Spill: A Case of CHRONIC Oil Pollution

According to government estimates, as of yesterday anywhere from 39 million to 111 million gallons of crude oil has gushed into the Gulf of Mexico (that excludes captured oil). Most officials lean toward the higher totals while noting up to 2.5 million gallons more continue to spill each day -- that's an Exxon Valdez spill (nearly 11 million gallons total) about every four days.

Yet, while this oil spill and others before it have dominated the news, according to a 2003 National Research Council (NRC) report, at least 375 million gallons of oil end up in the world's oceans virtually unnoticed every year from natural sources and from human activities associated with the extraction, transportation and use of oil. Should the current

rate of uncaptured oil discharged from the BP well continue, the spill will equal the yearly amount of oil entering the world's oceans sometime in August. Which is just about the time relief wells will, supposedly, completely plug the Deepwater Horizon gusher.

Unfortunately, no such end is in sight for the apparently massive background level of oil pollution.

So, as far back as 2003, the National Research Council was reporting that 375 million gallons of oil was entering the world's oceans EVERY YEAR — that's like 1.5 Deepwater Horizon events EVERY YEAR, dating far enough back that the National Research Council could call it an annual occurrence.

Yet, you say the oceans CAN'T HANDLE a single Deepwater Horizon incident. Your words:

it is IMPOSSIBLE for the ocean to absorb such a high rate and volume of oil.

IMPOSSIBLE. And, yet, the National Research Council was reporting much more vast oil pollution over 7 years ago, dating back years earlier than that.

Hm.

So, the ocean was already resorbing an impossible amount of oil, long before the Deepwater Horizon became a poster child for oil spillage.

I think I'll stick with the National Research Council reports. Uninformed rumor-milling just doesn't satisfy my appetite for the FACTS.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Why is this troll-fest allowed to continue? This isn't the ATS I come for for education and debate, it feels more like a teenage chatroom

Honestly Doc, a thread who's sole purpose is to try and gloat? How much lamer can it get? Visitors might stumble into ATS, and this trash will do nothing to bring them back. Just retarded, not ecotarded, not trolltarded. Just retarded.

You owe me 10 minutes of my life.

reply to post by Doc Velocity

What, do you think it's a REQUIREMENT of being mature and educated that I stand aside as the uninformed and uneducated spread their unsubstantiated rumors and false suspicions? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my knowledge and my disdain for IGNORANCE dictate that I speak out and, yes, knock down the whackos every chance I get.

You don't come across as very educated and mature if you have to resort to petty name calling and generalisations.

It seems that you consider your own view as gospel, and expect people to fall in line.

Btw, if I would type the things you did in this thread, my posts would get removed within 15 mins.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
"...SHOW ME where I ever said Deepwater Horizon was "staged"... You can't."

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
"...For my troubles, the envirotards came out of the woodwork to flame me and anyone else who DARED to call the "environmental catastrophe" what it actually WAS — a gigantic HOAX..."

OK, I misquoted you, my mistake...but did I misunderstand you?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
"...Today I provided a story from Time/CNN that vindicates my position — that the reports of environmental catastrophe and of damage to the ecosystem were grossly EXAGGERATED."

OK, I think most news storied are exaggerated; either hyped or downplayed.
So are you saying that based on these news sources, you're completely convinced?
Come on man, you're smarter than that aren't you?

It doesn't matter as much to me what you think as it did an hour ago when I posted, I was having a reaction to what I considered and ignorant and stupid position to this situation that is still unfolding.

In my estimation, the probability is much higher that the hoax is BP, EPA, MSM, etc) whitewashing the gravity of the situation by pushing the addle-headed reasoning, "look there's no oil to be found, it's not be so bad after all."

The problem is there's no mechanism in place to investigate what's really going on;
the oil is reported to be suspended in miles long plumes at depths over 1000ft,
the oil is reported to have gushed out in quantities measuring in the millions of gallons, corexit is reported to have been deployed in quantities of millions of gallons,
microbes have reportedly consumed and processed all of this oil and corexit in the last 90 days.

...see what's happening here? Hyped stories attract and propagate doom and gloom scenarios, the downplayed stories attract and propagate platitudes of denial and ignorance.

How can anyone declare case closed at this early point in time?

Best I can tell, we will have to wait and see what happens to Gulf inhabitants, the fishing industry, water tables, sea floor, water conditions, sea life populations, etc.

If you're finding VINDICATION in these shabby little news stories 11 days into the most recent attempt to stop the flow, I respectfully declare you're deluding yourself,and attempting to pass out the kool-aid to all of us.

Not having it.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Honestly Doc, a thread who's sole purpose is to try and gloat?

How much LAMER is it that so many ATS members — who profess their DENIAL of ignorance — are so PROUDLY IGNORANT of the story that I posted in the OP?

Which is what this thread is about. It's about the Time/CNN story and other recent news stories vindicating what I've been saying since last May, amid a hailstorm of blatant IGNORANCE and INTOLERANCE here on ATS.

What do you think makes a worse impression on ATS first-timers? My holding up news stories proving that my position is at least valid, or the outpouring of ignorance and intolerance on the part of many ATS members attacking my position and slinging mud?

I rest my case.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Zot Twady
So are you saying that based on these news sources, you're completely convinced?

Honey, I was convinced that I was right BEFORE this was turned into a circus sideshow, I was convinced I was right BEFORE there were any news stories out there vindicating my position.

I was convinced because, as I have made abundantly clear, I grew up on the Gulf Coast, at ground zero of the offshore oil industry, and I knew that the entire story of longtime background oil pollution wasn't being reported. I know that crude oil is organic, and I know that the ocean resorbs it. I tried to share that knowledge, and I started way back on May 3, 2010, about ten days after the leak began.

Was I heard? By some, to be sure. Did I care? Not really, not until the nutty-nutjobs came down on me with their ignorant and uninformed eco-gibberish.



— Doc Velocity




[edit on 7/29/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity

How much LAMER is it that so many ATS members — who profess their DENIAL of ignorance — are so PROUDLY IGNORANT of the story that I posted in the OP?

Time/Newsweek/CNN your sources was also sure there were weapons of mass destruction.

They based that on 'select' 'experts' too, only a fool, or someone with an agenda would be rendering a judgement on a situation that will take years to know the full impact in such absolutes.

The Jury will be out for a long long time on this event.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I am not gonna post again in here after this, but suffice to say Doc, lots of us posted documents and news stories that were legit regarding the DWH spill, not just you. I can hear in your post some frustration about how you were treated by people who disagreed, and I agree that rudeness in previous threads wasn't called for either.

Two wrongs don't make a right!

. ~Mom

My post was a reality check that really this is a non-thread. It is doing nothing to further anyone's theories, and probably is doing harm to ATS as a whole in some way. I think you could have vindicated yourself in another way that didn't just reflect back the negativity you feel was heaped on you.

Much Love
BTG

[edit on 29-7-2010 by blamethegreys]

Newbe here, this topic is a great one to read. My own opinion is that this earth wiil surive anything we throw at it and will be here long after we leave or destroy all humans by some unknown reason. The earth constantly cleans itself every day no matter what we do to it. When you think about this as a living entity it will win every time. Good job Doc for the true reality of this world.

I can see the future, and it's 'trash can' shaped. This doesn't appear to be a thread for evidence based debate.

Doc Velocity
Honey, I was convinced that I was right BEFORE this was turned into a circus sideshow, I was convinced I was right BEFORE there were any news stories out there vindicating my position.

I was convinced because, as I have made abundantly clear, I grew up on the Gulf Coast.

First, it's a shame you can't cite sources. It appears you think you don't need them because you grew up in on the Gulf Coast? I grew up in Scotland & later the Middle East, but unfortunately that doesn't mean I can play golf, nor would I ever use it as justification for my comments on oil, gas and dispersants in DWH related threads. That'd be ridiculous.

I'd argue there's a difference between an evenly spread ooze vs opening a huge tap. If you understood that vast quantities of dispersant have been used you'd also realise that most of the oil is likely being held in suspension underwater. You seem to completely refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I suggest that instead of repeating yourself (by your own admission you've been at it since May 3rd) you should spend some time researching the dispersant and what it does.

Incidently, I'm not an 'envirotard' - I believe this place is a lot more resilient than we think, and I don't buy the man-made climate change arguments either. But, clearly, pissing oil into the Gulf en-masse is not a good thing. Surely we can at least agree on that?

*ALERT* Senior EPA Analyst: Feds think public can’t HANDLE THE TRUTH about toxic dispersants (VIDEO)

www.floridaoilspilllaw.com...

Fo everyones sake I hope the OP is right, because if the envirotards are right this is going to get very bad before it gets better.

Here is another one I suggest Doc view and LISTEN to.

On July 28, 2010, NBC reporter Lisa Myers locates significant amount of oil on and below surface heading towards land with no response vessels in sight.

www.floridaoilspilllaw.com... deo


Now I realize I am may be cutting off my nose to spite my face here and that the Administration may very well hate my guts for bringing this kind of information forward to the forum, but to me it is what ATs is all about, looking at every issue and conspiracy from every angle.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by antar]

Nothing in the OP says the oil spill is a hoax.

Since there was indeed an oil spill, how has OP proven the hoax aspect of the claims put forward in OP?

Does OP take into account the to this day ongoing dispersant use in the gulf?

I do not think they are using corexit on the naturally occuring oil leakage.

The use of derogatory name calling by OP weakens the argument from the get go. I cannot take someone seriously who has to use the word "tard" in any argument, that is Fail.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by hotbakedtater]

This is very scary stuff, no hoax or conspiracy in that millions, millions of gallons of the toxic dispersants have been let loose into our Gulf and as much as it would please me to eat my hat, the facts speak for themself.

Edit to add, NOthing has been vindicated other than ignorance and wishful thinking.



[edit on 29-7-2010 by antar]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Hey Doc. I heard some ideas as to why the oil in the gulf is not as bad as Exon Valdez, not too up on the chemistry though. They say the gulf oil is light cude and gas mostly, the Valdez was heavy cude. Alaska's waters are cold so it's not as easy to break it up. The gulf is alot warmer and being light crude sunlight and water temperature have a greater effect on it, not to mention the microbes. Still could be some underwater plumes though. Whats your opinion?

Originally posted by eightfold
I took your argument apart section by section, but you've not replied. The only replies you have made were to argue 'character' points with other members.

I REPLIED to character assassination leveled at myself. It keeps me busy these days. Frankly, I haven't seen you or anybody else "take apart" anything I've said.

Originally posted by eightfold
Do you accept that there's a huge difference between the surface spill with the Valdez, vs the underwater spill + dispersant seen in the GoM?

And I'll answer your incisive queries as I've answered the same incisive questions repeatedly.

Do I "accept" that Exxon Valdez was a different type of spill? Of course. The Valdez ran aground in shallow water. The entire Prince William Sound is SHALLOW — a puddle, really — compared to the Deepwater Horizon site. Beyond that, the Prince William Sound is full of barrier islands that served to contain and concentrate the Valdez spillage. Of course the Valdez was a different situation, but the oil wasn't, in an of itself, any more toxic than the Deepwater Horizon spillage. No more so than, say, 11 million gallons of pure molasses poured into a confined marine environment. The Exxon Valdez incident was a highly visible mess, mainly, but the environment returned to normal all by itself and in spite of the highly-publicized and futile attempt to clean it up with toothbruses.

Originally posted by eightfold
Would you agree that it's plausible and possible that there are underwater plumes that were created by the use of dispersant? ie do you accept that the 'missing oil' could be floating underwater?

No, I do not agree that underwater "plumes" were created by the Corexit dispersant. That is a rumor. I have not seen any scientific evidence anywhere that the "plumes" even exist.

This is what I KNOW about the Deepwater Horizon incident, and I've posted this before — apparently you haven't taken the time to read my full position, or else you would know this...

The type of crude oil released at the Deepwater Horizon site was a Class C heavy crude — it's very dense and is accompanied by dense stuff such as asphalt. You may think that a "heavy crude" is more toxic or threatening to the environment than "light crude," but you would be wrong.

Light crude, being less dense than seawater (or water in general), is far more toxic than other varieties, as it heads straight to the surface and rides on top of the water, where it is easily spread out by wind and current.

Heavy crude, as with the Deepwater Horizon release, is about the same density as seawater — meaning that it emulsifies in the seawater, blends with it almost immediately. Very little heavy crude goes to the surface.

The offshore oil-drilling industry has been well aware of this for many, many decades.

Type C heavy crude is one of the least toxic types of crude oil... In fact only Type D crude oil is less toxic. In fact, Type D can hardly be called toxic at all, and it degrades rapidly. Type C NATURALLY emulsifies in seawater and is easily dispersed in the marine environment, where it degrades a bit more slowly than Type D, but it still degrades to non-toxic levels in a relatively short period of time.

The greatest danger of heavy crude oil, because it emulsifies so easily in seawater, is that it depletes the Oxygen levels in seawater.

Now, let's go back to the location of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak — approximately 5000 feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico. What do we know about the deep ocean in that region? Well, for starters, it's damned cold down there — about 29° F.

"Oh, oh, oh!" The peanut gallery is all excited now. "But water FREEZES at 32° F" they chant, very pleased with themselves for such an astute observation.

But no gold star this time, kids.

At a depth of 5000 feet, under the pressure of a one-mile water column, seawater does not freeze. In fact, OTHER chemicals will freeze at that depth before the seawater does. And it's those other chemicals — such as oil dispersants — that must be heated before they're injected into a deepwater oil leak.

So we know it's DAMNED COLD down there.

What else do we know about the deep ocean? Any hands?

There's NOT MUCH OXYGEN down there, people. The Oxygen content of seawater at 5000 feet is extraordinarily low, compared to the shallow coastal waters, where wave action aerates the seawater continuously. There's not a lot of marine life down there, except for a thin population of very, very hearty deep-sea denizens. It's basically devoid of life, compared to the upper water column.

So... Let's put all this together. Again.

Type C crude is a heavy, dense type of crude oil that is not particularly toxic, it emulsifies easily in seawater, and it depletes the Oxygen content of seawater. But, at 5000 feet deep and deeper, there's NOT MUCH OXYGEN ANYWAY, and there's not a dense population of marine life down there.

In short, if the Deepwater Horizon leak produced "plumes" — and I have seen no concrete scientific evidence of that contention aside from the words spewing from the mouths of talking heads on television — then these plumes are probably not spreading very far before being completely emulsified in seawater a mile under the surface, where the issue of Oxygen depletion is not an environmental catastrophe, anyway.

Now. Have I answered your incisive questions? As I mentioned, if you had actually studied my previous threads before posing your incisive questions, then you would know my argument before you challenged it.

That seems to be a major problem here on ATS. And everywhere else in the world, apparently.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88ed44aaabd8.gif[/atsimg]
(The Creature of the Black Lagoon is deployed at the Deepwater Horizon leak to lend credibility to the story.)



— Doc Velocity

Doc, not starting an arguement, gonna try to post a link here goeswww.economist.com....

[edit on 29-7-2010 by JMech]