Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
for so long.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

Sky > wrote:

>Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
>prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>for so long.

It truly is a disaster. And I'm not so sure the response
has been adequate, but it's difficult to second-guess these things.

Steve

Sky wrote:
>
> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
> for so long.

Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
to the shoreline.

This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.

Pete C. wrote:
>
> Sky wrote:
> >
> > Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
> > stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
> > if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
> > prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
> > mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
> > ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
> > for so long.
>
> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
> to the shoreline.
>
> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.

Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
time to remediate.

Sky, who voices an opinion

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On 2010-04-29 16:47:54 -0700, Pete C. said:

> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.

Oh that IS a relief. Okay, everybody back to bed!
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll

On 2010-04-29 17:31:28 -0700, Sky said:

> PThe evening national TV news (CBS)
> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> islands).

CBS?! That's all well and good, but what did Glen Beck say?
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

Sky wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > Sky wrote:
> > >
> > > Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
> > > stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
> > > if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
> > > prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
> > > mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
> > > ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
> > > for so long.
> >
> > Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
> > seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
> > to the shoreline.
> >
> > This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
> > were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
> > gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
> > and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
> > just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>
> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> islands).

The leading edge of the slick is just a light film, still miles out and
they've been preparing for days.

> The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
> negligent captain,

Ran aground, close to shore, with all heavy crude and no warning time
for containment, very different.

> but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped.

The sunken off-shore drill platform has a 700,000 gallon diesel fuel
tank that may leak, that is all.

The well head, 5,000' down and miles from shore is leaking, and they are
working to seal it off. They are also working on containing the oil
leaking from it.

> It's
> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
> time to remediate.

Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
volcano in Iceland.

Juan Anonly wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-29 17:31:28 -0700, Sky said:
>
> > PThe evening national TV news (CBS)
> > reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> > State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> > islands).
>
> CBS?! That's all well and good, but what did Glen Beck say?

Who the hell is Glen Beck?

On 4/29/2010 8:31 PM, Sky wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Sky wrote:
>>>
>>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts&
>>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>>> for so long.
>>
>> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
>> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
>> to the shoreline.
>>
>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>
> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
> time to remediate.

At that rate it will take six months to release as much oil as the Exxon
Valdez.

> Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
> remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
> inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
> volcano in Iceland.

You deserve an academy award for that bit of spin. The fact is this has the
potential to dwarf the Exxon Valdez incident. It could be 3-4 months before
that well is capped and it is leaking at least 200,000 gallons a day. That
little hole is 5000 feet down and there simply is no technology that is in
place to deal with this. As for a natural product, it will destroy every
living thing that it touches. In fact just the fumes are lethal to wildlife
and the oil contains any number of carcinogens that will render seafood
toxic for a very long time to come. And it will be decades before the
ecosystem will recover. The cost of this disaster will be factors above
the profits. This is what happens when voluntary controls are put in place.
This is what happens when greed rules. It was revealed today that no backup
systems were in place to prevent this, as used to be the case. Seems BP
decided it was just not needed.

So how's that drilley, baby thingy workin for ya?

Paul

"J. Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/29/2010 8:31 PM, Sky wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> Sky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>>>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>>>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts&
>>>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf,
>>>> too
>>>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>>>> for so long.
>>>
>>> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
>>> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
>>> to the shoreline.
>>>
>>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>>
>> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>> time to remediate.
>
> At that rate it will take six months to release as much oil as the Exxon
> Valdez.
>

It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original guestimate.
It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million gallons a month and
they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to cap.

Paul

Juan Anonly wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-29 17:31:28 -0700, Sky said:
>
> > The evening national TV news (CBS)
> > reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> > State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> > islands).
>
> CBS?! That's all well and good, but what did Glen Beck say?

Dunno I just like to cite my source(s) when needed.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
> for so long.
>
> Sky
>
> --
> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

Dude!

They opened the shrimp season early, and all the shrimpers reported to the
oil companies and volunteered their boats for containment. The shrimp are
not mature enough yet for harvesting. Learn what you are talking about
before putting that grey matter in gear.

The size and magnitude of this will only be known in a year. A plausible
reclamation idea of a bell over the wellhead with an airlift vacuum has been
proposed, which is exquisitely simple, and in my opinion will work.

But, that's just coming from someone who lived in Louisiana for eight years,
and knows the fishery, and not an informed individual such as
you............................

BTW, at any stage, less than a weeks inventory is kept by any supplier
because of spoilage, so the time to stock up was LAST week. But, again,
bowing to your superior intellect ..........

Steve

visit my site http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> > Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
> > remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
> > inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
> > volcano in Iceland.
>
> You deserve an academy award for that bit of spin. The fact is this has the
> potential to dwarf the Exxon Valdez incident. It could be 3-4 months before
> that well is capped and it is leaking at least 200,000 gallons a day. That
> little hole is 5000 feet down and there simply is no technology that is in
> place to deal with this. As for a natural product, it will destroy every
> living thing that it touches. In fact just the fumes are lethal to wildlife
> and the oil contains any number of carcinogens that will render seafood
> toxic for a very long time to come. And it will be decades before the
> ecosystem will recover. The cost of this disaster will be factors above
> the profits. This is what happens when voluntary controls are put in place.
> This is what happens when greed rules. It was revealed today that no backup
> systems were in place to prevent this, as used to be the case. Seems BP
> decided it was just not needed.
>
> So how's that drilley, baby thingy workin for ya?
>
> Paul

You would be one of those paranoid minds.

There is plenty of technology to deal with work 5,000' down. The issue
here is that it takes time to get to the site, miles out in the ocean.
Big ships that carry and support the equipment simply do not move that
fast, and last time I checked you couldn't land big cargo planes on
water to get the equipment there any faster. In this clueless disposable
instant gratification society, people forget that some things in the
real world simply don't move at Internet speed.

As for the drill baby thing, I'm not a big supporter of drilling, I've
long said we need a lot of new nuclear power plants and a lot of tidal
generator arrays. The nukes we can have up and running within 10 years
and eliminate every single coal and nat gas power plant entirely. The
tidal generation has far more potential than wind or solar, it
unobtrusive, low impact, reliable, consistent, and can gradually take
over as a new generation of nuke plants retires in 50 years.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
> guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
> gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to cap.

Just great. Another reason for gas prices to go up again.

Cheryl wrote:
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >
> > It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
> > guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
> > gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to cap.
>
> Just great. Another reason for gas prices to go up again.

Yeah, gas prices in my area went from about $2.63 to $2.85/gal today
Probably won't go back down either - more

Sky, who'll have to drive about 2500++ miles in the near future

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/29/2010 8:31 PM, Sky wrote:
>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before
>>>>> the
>>>>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>>>>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my
>>>>> thoughts&
>>>>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>>>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf,
>>>>> too
>>>>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>>>>> for so long.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
>>>> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of impact
>>>> to the shoreline.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>>>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>>>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>>>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>>>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>>>
>>> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>>> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>>> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>>> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>>> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>>> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>>> time to remediate.
>>
>> At that rate it will take six months to release as much oil as the Exxon
>> Valdez.
>>
>
> It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
> guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
> gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to cap.
>
> Paul

From my experience with offshore drilling, I would say 6-8 weeks is minimal.
Do the flow rate and the math. We're in for a major hit here.

They still haven't put out the fire. Have you ever tried to position a work
platform in a fire?

Steve

visit my site http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Steve B" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/29/2010 8:31 PM, Sky wrote:
>>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise
>>>>>> drastically -
>>>>>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my
>>>>>> thoughts&
>>>>>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>>>>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf,
>>>>>> too
>>>>>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>>>>>> for so long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
>>>>> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of
>>>>> impact
>>>>> to the shoreline.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>>>>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>>>>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>>>>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>>>>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>>>>
>>>> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>>>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>>>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>>>> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>>>> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>>>> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>>>> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>>>> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>>>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>>>> time to remediate.
>>>
>>> At that rate it will take six months to release as much oil as the Exxon
>>> Valdez.
>>>
>>
>> It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
>> guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
>> gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to
>> cap.
>>
>> Paul
>
> From my experience with offshore drilling, I would say 6-8 weeks is
> minimal. Do the flow rate and the math. We're in for a major hit here.

I heard it said that nobody has ever capped a well a mile underwater. BP is
downplaying the fact that they really don't know what to do. They may have
to drill 3 relief wells and that could take much longer than 4 months.

> They still haven't put out the fire. Have you ever tried to position a
> work platform in a fire?

The fire is out. The rig sank 3 days ago.

Paul

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>
>> It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
>> guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
>> gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to
>> cap.
>
> Just great. Another reason for gas prices to go up again.

Another excuse you mean. The amount of oil that will eventually spill is
about 2 tankers full. Not hardly a drop in the world supply for a day. The
tragedy here will be the massive damage to the ecosystem and the destruction
of a lucrative economy. This is *the* reason why offshore drilling is such
a bad idea. It only takes one accident.

Paul

Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
> The amount of oil that will eventually spill is
> about 2 tankers full. Not hardly a drop in the world supply for a day. The
> tragedy here will be the massive damage to the ecosystem and the destruction
> of a lucrative economy. This is *the* reason why offshore drilling is such
> a bad idea. It only takes one accident.
>
> Paul

Too true. Alas, the "collateral damage" will be horrendous (

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

In article <2010042917432270381-nobody@nowherecom>,
Juan Anonly > wrote:

> On 2010-04-29 17:31:28 -0700, Sky said:
>
> > PThe evening national TV news (CBS)
> > reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
> > State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
> > islands).
>
> CBS?! That's all well and good, but what did Glen Beck say?

Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2010-04-29 19:28:30 -0700, Pete C. said:

> You would be one of those paranoid minds.

Paranoia is an "unreasonable" fear. I don't think this is unreasonable
at all. It's not like this comparable to anything at all, ever.
--
If you limit your actions in life to things that nobody can possibly
find fault with, you will not do much. -- Lewis Carroll

Sky > wrote:

>Pete C. wrote:

>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to shore,
>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.

>Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>time to remediate.

Yes, this could easily end up a bigger spill than the Valdez,
because it could go on for months.

This is among the reasons why we should be conserving energy instead
of drilling for more oil.

Steve

Paul M. Cook > wrote:

>You deserve an academy award for that bit of spin. The fact is this has the
>potential to dwarf the Exxon Valdez incident. It could be 3-4 months before
>that well is capped and it is leaking at least 200,000 gallons a day. That
>little hole is 5000 feet down and there simply is no technology that is in
>place to deal with this. As for a natural product, it will destroy every
>living thing that it touches. In fact just the fumes are lethal to wildlife
>and the oil contains any number of carcinogens that will render seafood
>toxic for a very long time to come. And it will be decades before the
>ecosystem will recover. The cost of this disaster will be factors above
>the profits. This is what happens when voluntary controls are put in place.
>This is what happens when greed rules. It was revealed today that no backup
>systems were in place to prevent this, as used to be the case. Seems BP
>decided it was just not needed.

Yep, exactly.

Even teeny-tiny oil spills in the SF Bay in the past few years
have cause some fish populations to plummet to 20% of normal
with no sign of recovery. If significant oil from Deep Horizon
gets into inlets in the reserve you will see the same thing.
And the deep-ocean effects are largely unknown, but it's
probable the various huge oil spills are one of the things
killing off life in the oceans.

Of course the world's biggest most damaging spill was the one
Saddam engineered deliberately as a response to the first Bush's
Thyroid Storm.

Steve

Dan Abel > wrote:

>Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.

It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.


Steve

>On 2010-04-29 19:28:30 -0700, Pete C. said:
>
>>You would be one of those paranoid minds.
>
>Paranoia is an "unreasonable" fear. I don't think this is
>unreasonable at all. It's not like this comparable to anything at
>all, ever.

Even paranoids have real enemies. And those are the people they trust.

It's been said that the only man Stalin ever trusted was Hitler.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal dsgood.dreamwidth.org (livejournal.com, insanejournal.com)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:43:22 -0700, Juan Anonly wrote:

> On 2010-04-29 17:31:28 -0700, Sky said:
>
>> PThe evening national TV news (CBS)
>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>> islands).
>
> CBS?! That's all well and good, but what did Glen Beck say?

beck says obama did it because he hates white people.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:29:48 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Sky wrote:
>
>> It's
>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>> time to remediate.
>
> Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
> remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
> inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
> volcano in Iceland.

....and everyone knows the volcano in iceland turned out to be completely
harmless.

blake

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:00:58 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>
>It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>
What a slapdown. Just before EarthDay a drilling rig, not in
production, blows up and sinks. And now Axelrod decrees there will be
no further Gulf drilling until the investigation is "over". Funny how
it all works out *against* drilling. And what's this I hear about SWAT
team being sent to other oil rigs to "inspect".... for what, I wonder?
Faulty valves? IMHO, SWAT teams don't seem the right inspectors for
drilling hardware....

Smart money bet that renewed or expanded drilling was never going to
happen, despite the PrezBO's rhetoric. Now: Do Axelrod's words mean
that drilling for NatGas in the Green Canyon lease will be halted? BHP
Biliton and Rio Tinto have just initiated major NatGas efforts there.

Details at 10.

Enquiring minds and all that.

Alex

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -

I think we can write off the oyster harvest for the year. Maybe
longer. Isn't the summer when they spawn? THere may be no oyster crop
this fall at all.

Alex, thinking about canned smoked oysters for gumbo and jambalaya.

sometime in the recent past Chemiker posted this:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:00:58 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>> It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>> he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>>
> What a slapdown. Just before EarthDay a drilling rig, not in
> production, blows up and sinks. And now Axelrod decrees there will be
> no further Gulf drilling until the investigation is "over". Funny how
> it all works out *against* drilling. And what's this I hear about SWAT
> team being sent to other oil rigs to "inspect".... for what, I wonder?
> Faulty valves? IMHO, SWAT teams don't seem the right inspectors for
> drilling hardware....
>
> Smart money bet that renewed or expanded drilling was never going to
> happen, despite the PrezBO's rhetoric. Now: Do Axelrod's words mean
> that drilling for NatGas in the Green Canyon lease will be halted? BHP
> Biliton and Rio Tinto have just initiated major NatGas efforts there.
>
> Details at 10.
>
> Enquiring minds and all that.
>
> Alex
But we don't have to worry about drilling for oil now because it was
announced, also on Earth Day, that the U.S. will be signing an international
treaty to jump start whaling. What a beautiful sight it will be with all
those whales swimming around with little derricks sticking out of their fat
blubbery bodies? Let the overfed, overconsuming, overwhining *******s die a
quick death.

--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my thoughts &
>prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf, too
>( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so many
>for so long.
>
>Sky

This is what happens when the public allows drilling off their
coastlines. The Valdez, Alaska, spill still hasn't been completely
cleaned up.... after how many years?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve B" > wrote in message
> news
>>
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 4/29/2010 8:31 PM, Sky wrote:
>>>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise
>>>>>>> drastically -
>>>>>>> if not already - due to that oil drilling platform fiasco (my
>>>>>>> thoughts&
>>>>>>> prayers for the workers that died and were injured) there. Not to
>>>>>>> mention the horrible ecological impact to the US States on the Gulf,
>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>> ( What a horrible tragedy in so many ways that will impact so
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> for so long.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny, all reports have indicated minimal potential impact to gulf
>>>>>> seafood from the incident. Reports also indicate minimal risk of
>>>>>> impact
>>>>>> to the shoreline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't like the Exxon Valdeze, where millions of gallons of crude
>>>>>> were released close to shore with no warning, this is far out in the
>>>>>> gulf, with many days of warning and preparation time for containment,
>>>>>> and the heavy congealed oil doesn't seem to be getting close to
>>>>>> shore,
>>>>>> just the light sheen which evaporates and isn't a significant risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you want to bet on it ?? The evening national TV news (CBS)
>>>>> reported the leading edge of the oil slick (already larger than the
>>>>> State of Delaware) was just 3-miles off Louisiana's shore (barrier
>>>>> islands). The Exxon Valdeze had a limited number of "X" gallons of
>>>>> crude oil in its tanks when it went aground due to an inattentive and
>>>>> negligent captain, but this sunken off-shore drill platform has a well
>>>>> that's still spouting (so to speak) about 50,000 gallons of crude each
>>>>> and every day until British Petroleum gets that well capped. It's
>>>>> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
>>>>> time to remediate.
>>>>
>>>> At that rate it will take six months to release as much oil as the
>>>> Exxon Valdez.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was reported today, the actual amunt is 5 times the original
>>> guestimate. It is at least 200,000 gallons a day. That's 6 million
>>> gallons a month and they are saying the well could take 3-4 months to
>>> cap.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> From my experience with offshore drilling, I would say 6-8 weeks is
>> minimal. Do the flow rate and the math. We're in for a major hit here.
>
> I heard it said that nobody has ever capped a well a mile underwater. BP
> is downplaying the fact that they really don't know what to do. They may
> have to drill 3 relief wells and that could take much longer than 4
> months.
>
>> They still haven't put out the fire. Have you ever tried to position a
>> work platform in a fire?
>
> The fire is out. The rig sank 3 days ago.
>
> Paul

Last I saw, they set the slick on fire.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>
> It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
> he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>
>
> Steve

I understand Obama has dispatched SWAT teams to the area. Is this to deal
with the tea baggers?

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:00:58 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>>Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>>
>>It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>>he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>>
> What a slapdown. Just before EarthDay a drilling rig, not in
> production, blows up and sinks. And now Axelrod decrees there will be
> no further Gulf drilling until the investigation is "over". Funny how
> it all works out *against* drilling. And what's this I hear about SWAT
> team being sent to other oil rigs to "inspect".... for what, I wonder?
> Faulty valves? IMHO, SWAT teams don't seem the right inspectors for
> drilling hardware....
>
> Smart money bet that renewed or expanded drilling was never going to
> happen, despite the PrezBO's rhetoric. Now: Do Axelrod's words mean
> that drilling for NatGas in the Green Canyon lease will be halted? BHP
> Biliton and Rio Tinto have just initiated major NatGas efforts there.
>
> Details at 10.
>
> Enquiring minds and all that.
>
> Alex

Yeah. O's 180 degree swap in positions is interesting. I just heard that
The Sierra Club is now in favor of clear cut foresting ............

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

>>Paranoia is an "unreasonable" fear. I don't think this is
>>unreasonable at all. It's not like this comparable to anything at
>>all, ever.

It's not paranoia when they ARE actually out to get you. <g>

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:40 -0500, Sky >
> wrote:
>
>>Better get that Gulf of Mexico shrimp and other seafood fast before the
>>stocks at the stores are gone. Prices are bound to rise drastically -
>
> I think we can write off the oyster harvest for the year. Maybe
> longer. Isn't the summer when they spawn? THere may be no oyster crop
> this fall at all.
>
> Alex, thinking about canned smoked oysters for gumbo and jambalaya.

You can bet that oyster harvesting will take a hard hit. It may take years
to recover, if it does.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

On 2010-04-30 06:57:41 -0700, Chemiker said:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:00:58 +0000 (UTC),
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, this oil spill is Obama's fault.
>>
>> It does have the appearance of a sort of slapdown after
>> he just stood up and said he wanted to drill more.
>>
> What a slapdown. Just before EarthDay a drilling rig, not in
> production, blows up and sinks. And now Axelrod decrees there will be
> no further Gulf drilling until the investigation is "over". Funny how
> it all works out *against* drilling. And what's this I hear about SWAT
> team being sent to other oil rigs to "inspect".... for what, I wonder?
> Faulty valves? IMHO, SWAT teams don't seem the right inspectors for
> drilling hardware....
>
> Smart money bet that renewed or expanded drilling was never going to
> happen, despite the PrezBO's rhetoric. Now: Do Axelrod's words mean
> that drilling for NatGas in the Green Canyon lease will be halted? BHP
> Biliton and Rio Tinto have just initiated major NatGas efforts there.

I think you've got it figured: Either Obama did or didn't really plant
to drill, he either would or wouldn't have actually drilled, or he
either is or isn't planning on moving forward with the programs he did
or didn't really intend.

But no matter what happens it's bad for America!
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

Shrimp and seafood will be unavailable and gas prices will rise.

Oh, BOOHOO. It's "all about me", isn't it?

What about the widespread damage to the environment overall in general
and the loss of both life and oil. What about the obscene disregard
for safety shown by both BP and the drilling company? (BTW, the rumor
is that the drilling company is a subsidiary of Haliburton.)

Not wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I still wonder if the
accident wasn't sabotage geared to make Obama's offshore drilling plan
look bad.

gloria p

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:29:48 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Sky wrote:
> >
> >> It's
> >> gargantuan (sp?) disaster and its potential impacts will take a long
> >> time to remediate.
> >
> > Potential impacts in the minds of the paranoid. It is important to
> > remember that this is essentially a hole in the ground that is
> > inconveniently releasing a 100% natural product. It's not unlike that
> > volcano in Iceland.
>
> ...and everyone knows the volcano in iceland turned out to be completely
> harmless.

BS. Tell that to the airlines, travelers, damaged engines, etc.