Disaster looms as oil slick reaches US coast
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
Well from what i learned about this place is that the loudest duck gets shot... 
Or in this case stuck in oil... hope they stop the leak soon shish
Or in this case stuck in oil... hope they stop the leak soon shish
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
^ stop your dick swinging please..i bet it is huge okay.....before this gets closed
I guess not... Good luck
I guess not... Good luck
I'm just saying that you'd feel more at home in the Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura forums, there's even more "evidence" there for you to find. Dude you're enthusiastic and emphatic, if I were running a political campaign I'd want you on my side, but just try to slow down and get one topic right before reverberating around the forum like a belch.
Last edited:
qwe
Bluelight Crew
that is how i am looking at it as well. hopefully
my heart really does go out...to.. well earth. i'm going to be a man, and admit i teared up at the sight. but if this is going to wake us up to our integral connection to our planet maybe it's something we need to learn
qwe
Bluelight Crew
i prefer to look at it as, palin is stupid for suggesting more offshore drilling, and obama is a republican in disguise for campaigning on liberal principles and then caving on every issue for apparently no reason when the republicans are acting, well, there's no freakin word for our congress
qwe
Bluelight Crew
any thoughts on the iran article? very ironic
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4577185267/sizes/o/
First signs of oil slick reaching Orange Beach , FL already reported....
First signs of oil slick reaching Orange Beach , FL already reported....
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
As the Gulf Coast braces for the environmental and economic damage that the current massive oil spill is predicted to cause, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) along with Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) today introduced legislation to ensure that oil companies are not allowed off the hook when it comes to paying for economic damages as a result of spills. Currently, the responsible party in an oil spill must cover all costs related to clean up; however, there is a $75 million cap on its liability for economic damages, such as lost business revenues from fishing and tourism, natural resources damages or lost local tax revenues. Menendez’s Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act would raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion.
Senator Menendez said: “The bottom line is that oil spills can leave massive holes in the economy. If you spill it, you should have to fill it. We’re glad that the costs for the oil clean up will be covered, but that’s little consolation to the small businesses, fisheries and local governments that will be left to clean up the economic mess that somebody else caused. We can’t let the burden fall on the taxpayers – we should ensure that those who cause the damage are fully responsible. There is no such thing as a ‘Too Big to Spill’ oil well, which is why we need this economic protection in place. With some predicting that this spill could potentially make its way up the eastern seaboard, and with future plans for drilling along the East Coast, I look at this bill as a safety net for our small businesses owners and fisheries on the Jersey Shore as well.”
Senator Lautenberg said: "Throughout my career, I have stood by a fundamental principle: that polluters—and not the taxpayer—should pay to clean up contamination. Oil spills should not be an exception to the rule. The oil companies must be held responsible for every cost related to an oil spill -- and that includes both the environmental and economic damages. The devastation in the Gulf provides further evidence why we must protect and preserve the Atlantic from expanded oil drilling. I remain dedicated to keeping the Jersey Shore clean and our fishing, shellfish, and tourism industries strong."
Sen. Bill Nelson said: “BP says it’ll pay for this mess. Baloney. They’re not going to want to pay any more than what the law says they have to, which is why we can’t let them off the hook.”
Once that responsible party liability cap is hit, people, businesses or governments can make claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Fund is funded by an 8 cent tax for every barrel produced or imported into the United States and is projected to have $1.6 billion in it by the end of FY10. However, there is a $1 billion per incident cap on payouts from the fund.
The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act would:
* Raise the liability cap for offshore oil well spills from $75 million to $10 billion.
* Eliminate the $1 billion per incident cap on claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and allow community responders to access the fund for preparation and mitigation up front, rather than waiting for reimbursement later.
* If damages claims exceed the amount in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (currently $1.6 billion), then claimants can collect from future revenues of the fund, with interest.
* Eliminate the $500 million cap on natural resources damages.
Source:
http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=c9ca441f-ddac-4ebb-ad3a-b044cb3c79f8
Cliff notes:
New jersey senator wants BP accountable for a lot more money currently the cap is 75 million.....he wants to change the Cap to 10 billion...and have them pay after the accident.... lets see what happens to this...
Senator Menendez said: “The bottom line is that oil spills can leave massive holes in the economy. If you spill it, you should have to fill it. We’re glad that the costs for the oil clean up will be covered, but that’s little consolation to the small businesses, fisheries and local governments that will be left to clean up the economic mess that somebody else caused. We can’t let the burden fall on the taxpayers – we should ensure that those who cause the damage are fully responsible. There is no such thing as a ‘Too Big to Spill’ oil well, which is why we need this economic protection in place. With some predicting that this spill could potentially make its way up the eastern seaboard, and with future plans for drilling along the East Coast, I look at this bill as a safety net for our small businesses owners and fisheries on the Jersey Shore as well.”
Senator Lautenberg said: "Throughout my career, I have stood by a fundamental principle: that polluters—and not the taxpayer—should pay to clean up contamination. Oil spills should not be an exception to the rule. The oil companies must be held responsible for every cost related to an oil spill -- and that includes both the environmental and economic damages. The devastation in the Gulf provides further evidence why we must protect and preserve the Atlantic from expanded oil drilling. I remain dedicated to keeping the Jersey Shore clean and our fishing, shellfish, and tourism industries strong."
Sen. Bill Nelson said: “BP says it’ll pay for this mess. Baloney. They’re not going to want to pay any more than what the law says they have to, which is why we can’t let them off the hook.”
Once that responsible party liability cap is hit, people, businesses or governments can make claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Fund is funded by an 8 cent tax for every barrel produced or imported into the United States and is projected to have $1.6 billion in it by the end of FY10. However, there is a $1 billion per incident cap on payouts from the fund.
The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act would:
* Raise the liability cap for offshore oil well spills from $75 million to $10 billion.
* Eliminate the $1 billion per incident cap on claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and allow community responders to access the fund for preparation and mitigation up front, rather than waiting for reimbursement later.
* If damages claims exceed the amount in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (currently $1.6 billion), then claimants can collect from future revenues of the fund, with interest.
* Eliminate the $500 million cap on natural resources damages.
Source:
http://menendez.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=c9ca441f-ddac-4ebb-ad3a-b044cb3c79f8
Cliff notes:
New jersey senator wants BP accountable for a lot more money currently the cap is 75 million.....he wants to change the Cap to 10 billion...and have them pay after the accident.... lets see what happens to this...
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
I smelled a bail out , as soon as i heard oil spill...
Which made my pockets hurt...
Which made my pockets hurt...
qwe
Bluelight Crew
but BP is british right?, and we're never in the business of bailing out small businesses.. who's getting bailed out?
edit: i thought the US gov only bailed out US corps. i'm so naive
edit: i thought the US gov only bailed out US corps. i'm so naive
Last edited:
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
BP queen of England
BP has gathered 1/3 of the worlds supply of chemical dispersants in attempts to break up the Gulf oil slick. They are injecting it directly into the giant underwater oil leak flowing from the wellhead. This method has never been used. Nor has this amount of dispersants, applied to one area, ever been used. The dispersants do not eliminate the oil, or eat it up. All it does is breaks the oil down into tiny droplets that either sink, or remain suspended in the water, under the surface. Agitation from waves speed up this process. Wave height have been 10-12 ft around the area of the spill all this past week. This brings up some issues for me.
Is this preventing us from actually knowing how much oil has been leaked? The clear answer is YES! Out of sight out of mind right? Is this being done for the benefit of the Gulf itself, or for the benefit of BP public relations?
What long term effect will this have on the life of the Gulf?
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430
Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns
The chemicals BP is now relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil from deep below the Gulf of Mexico could create a new set of environmental problems.
Even if the materials, called dispersants, are effective, BP has already bought up more than a third of the world’s supply. If the leak from 5,000 feet beneath the surface continues for weeks, or months, that stockpile could run out.
On Thursday BP began using the chemical compounds to dissolve the crude oil, both on the surface and deep below, deploying an estimated 100,000 gallons. Dispersing the oil is considered one of the best ways to protect birds and keep the slick from making landfall. But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.
The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.
“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade off – you’re damned if you do damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”
BP did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other additives that break up the surface tension of an oil slick and make oil more soluble in water, according to a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences. They are spread over or in the water in very low concentration – a single gallon may cover several acres.
Once they are dispersed, the tiny droplets of oil are more likely to sink or remain suspended in deep water rather than floating to the surface and collecting in a continuous slick. Dispersed oil can spread quickly in three directions instead of two and is more easily dissipated by waves and turbulence that break it up further and help many of its most toxic hydrocarbons evaporate.
But the dispersed oil can also collect on the seabed, where it becomes food for microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain and eventually winds up in shellfish and other organisms. The evaporation process can also concentrate the toxic compounds left behind, particularly oil-derived compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.
According to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, the dispersants and the oil they leave behind can kill fish eggs. A study of oil dispersal in Coos Bay, Ore. found that PAH accumulated in mussels, the Academy’s paper noted. Another study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 found that PAHs affected the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The research suggests the dispersal of the oil that’s leaking in the Gulf could affect the seafood industry there.
“One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resource managers face during a spill is evaluating the trade-offs associated with dispersant use,” said the Academy report, titled Oil Spill Dispersants, Efficacy and Effects. “There is insufficient understanding of the fate of dispersed oil in aquatic ecosystems.”
A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago.
“There is a certain amount of toxicity,” said Robin Rorick, director of marine and security operations at the American Petroleum Institute. “We view dispersant use as a tool in a toolbox. It’s a function of conducting a net environmental benefit analysis and determining the best bang for your buck.”
Charter, the marine expert, cautioned the dispersants should be carefully considered for the right reasons.
“Right now there is a headlong rush to get this oil out of sight out of mind,” Charter said. “You can throw every resource we have at this spill. You can call out the Marine Corps and the National Guard. This is so big that it is unlikely that any amount of response is going to make much of a dent in the impacts. It’s going to be mostly watching it happen.”
Engineers are working to inject dispersants at the oil’s source - 5000’ below the surface. If successful, it could reduce or prevent an oil plume from forming at the surface.
http://response.restoration.noaa.go...pic_topic)=2&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...tack-massive-gulf-mexico-oil-slick-dispersant
Huge C-130 aircraft from the U.S. Air Force Reserve have joined the fight against the Deepwater Horizon oil slick, which now threatens to ravage the local ecosystems and fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Each aerial tanker holds aerial spraying equipment that can help spray dispersant to break up the oil slick on the water, according to Ares Defense Blog.
Two of four modified C-130s have deployed to the Gulf of Mexico from the 757th Airlift Squadron at Youngstown ARS, Ohio. They typically spray pesticides or fire retardant using the Modular Aerial Spray System (MASS), although other Air National Guard units have the Modular Aerial Fire Fighting System (MAFFS). A newer MAFFS 2 version can dispense 30,000 pounds of retardant in just 3 to 5 seconds from one nozzle at almost 14,000 pounds of thrust. Last year, PopSci took a tour of a firefighting 747 that uses similar technology.
http://www.livescience.com/environm...nt-with-new-oil-cleanup-technique-100429.html
If approved, it will be the first time in U.S. history that oil dispersant has been applied at the subsea source of a spill.
BP has gathered 1/3 of the worlds supply of chemical dispersants in attempts to break up the Gulf oil slick. They are injecting it directly into the giant underwater oil leak flowing from the wellhead. This method has never been used. Nor has this amount of dispersants, applied to one area, ever been used. The dispersants do not eliminate the oil, or eat it up. All it does is breaks the oil down into tiny droplets that either sink, or remain suspended in the water, under the surface. Agitation from waves speed up this process. Wave height have been 10-12 ft around the area of the spill all this past week. This brings up some issues for me.
Is this preventing us from actually knowing how much oil has been leaked? The clear answer is YES! Out of sight out of mind right? Is this being done for the benefit of the Gulf itself, or for the benefit of BP public relations?
What long term effect will this have on the life of the Gulf?
http://www.propublica.org/article/bp-gulf-oil-spill-dispersants-0430
Chemicals Meant To Break Up BP Oil Spill Present New Environmental Concerns
The chemicals BP is now relying on to break up the steady flow of leaking oil from deep below the Gulf of Mexico could create a new set of environmental problems.
Even if the materials, called dispersants, are effective, BP has already bought up more than a third of the world’s supply. If the leak from 5,000 feet beneath the surface continues for weeks, or months, that stockpile could run out.
On Thursday BP began using the chemical compounds to dissolve the crude oil, both on the surface and deep below, deploying an estimated 100,000 gallons. Dispersing the oil is considered one of the best ways to protect birds and keep the slick from making landfall. But the dispersants contain harmful toxins of their own and can concentrate leftover oil toxins in the water, where they can kill fish and migrate great distances.
The exact makeup of the dispersants is kept secret under competitive trade laws, but a worker safety sheet for one product, called Corexit, says it includes 2-butoxyethanol, a compound associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems at high doses.
“There is a chemical toxicity to the dispersant compound that in many ways is worse than oil,” said Richard Charter, a foremost expert on marine biology and oil spills who is a senior policy advisor for Marine Programs for Defenders of Wildlife and is chairman of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council. “It’s a trade off – you’re damned if you do damned if you don’t -- of trying to minimize the damage coming to shore, but in so doing you may be more seriously damaging the ecosystem offshore.”
BP did not respond to requests for comment for this article.
Dispersants are mixtures of solvents, surfactants and other additives that break up the surface tension of an oil slick and make oil more soluble in water, according to a paper published by the National Academy of Sciences. They are spread over or in the water in very low concentration – a single gallon may cover several acres.
Once they are dispersed, the tiny droplets of oil are more likely to sink or remain suspended in deep water rather than floating to the surface and collecting in a continuous slick. Dispersed oil can spread quickly in three directions instead of two and is more easily dissipated by waves and turbulence that break it up further and help many of its most toxic hydrocarbons evaporate.
But the dispersed oil can also collect on the seabed, where it becomes food for microscopic organisms at the bottom of the food chain and eventually winds up in shellfish and other organisms. The evaporation process can also concentrate the toxic compounds left behind, particularly oil-derived compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.
According to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, the dispersants and the oil they leave behind can kill fish eggs. A study of oil dispersal in Coos Bay, Ore. found that PAH accumulated in mussels, the Academy’s paper noted. Another study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 found that PAHs affected the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The research suggests the dispersal of the oil that’s leaking in the Gulf could affect the seafood industry there.
“One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resource managers face during a spill is evaluating the trade-offs associated with dispersant use,” said the Academy report, titled Oil Spill Dispersants, Efficacy and Effects. “There is insufficient understanding of the fate of dispersed oil in aquatic ecosystems.”
A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago.
“There is a certain amount of toxicity,” said Robin Rorick, director of marine and security operations at the American Petroleum Institute. “We view dispersant use as a tool in a toolbox. It’s a function of conducting a net environmental benefit analysis and determining the best bang for your buck.”
Charter, the marine expert, cautioned the dispersants should be carefully considered for the right reasons.
“Right now there is a headlong rush to get this oil out of sight out of mind,” Charter said. “You can throw every resource we have at this spill. You can call out the Marine Corps and the National Guard. This is so big that it is unlikely that any amount of response is going to make much of a dent in the impacts. It’s going to be mostly watching it happen.”
Engineers are working to inject dispersants at the oil’s source - 5000’ below the surface. If successful, it could reduce or prevent an oil plume from forming at the surface.
http://response.restoration.noaa.go...pic_topic)=2&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=1
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...tack-massive-gulf-mexico-oil-slick-dispersant
Huge C-130 aircraft from the U.S. Air Force Reserve have joined the fight against the Deepwater Horizon oil slick, which now threatens to ravage the local ecosystems and fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Each aerial tanker holds aerial spraying equipment that can help spray dispersant to break up the oil slick on the water, according to Ares Defense Blog.
Two of four modified C-130s have deployed to the Gulf of Mexico from the 757th Airlift Squadron at Youngstown ARS, Ohio. They typically spray pesticides or fire retardant using the Modular Aerial Spray System (MASS), although other Air National Guard units have the Modular Aerial Fire Fighting System (MAFFS). A newer MAFFS 2 version can dispense 30,000 pounds of retardant in just 3 to 5 seconds from one nozzle at almost 14,000 pounds of thrust. Last year, PopSci took a tour of a firefighting 747 that uses similar technology.
http://www.livescience.com/environm...nt-with-new-oil-cleanup-technique-100429.html
If approved, it will be the first time in U.S. history that oil dispersant has been applied at the subsea source of a spill.
felix
Bluelight Crew
^ why did you title that 'BP queen of england'???
but regardless of where they are based, nobody should be bailing them out.
yes it's a british company (BP = british petroleum) and they are the 4th largest company in the world. lol @ small business. :D
but regardless of where they are based, nobody should be bailing them out.
the $10 billion cap isn't enough imo. There should be no cap at all. This event should mark the end of BP. All of its cash, properties, and other assets should be liquidized and handed over to pay for the clean up and ruined livelihoods in the south
Unbreakable
Bluelighter
Oil spill larger than Florida
"It is immediately apparent that the Gulf oil spill size is much larger than projected and way beyond that of official government reports or any news that the main stream media is reporting."
"Within hours of this post several oceanographer’s have stepped forward and admit that as the satellite images show, the Gulf Oil Spill is now in the Gulf Loop current, which has prompted the HUGE warning on the Huffington Post that the Gulf oil spill will hit Gulf Loop Current and then Florida Keys in 24 hours and hence the Gulf Stream.
Why are they hiding the truth?"
Just goes to show the MSM is actively doing its part in downplaying the situation.
Source:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...te-images-show-gulf-oil-spill-larger-florida/
This is truly a global catastrophe. Just consider the thermal image below of the Gulf Stream, whose path the Gulf Oil Spill will follow once hitting the Gulf Stream.
"It is immediately apparent that the Gulf oil spill size is much larger than projected and way beyond that of official government reports or any news that the main stream media is reporting."
"Within hours of this post several oceanographer’s have stepped forward and admit that as the satellite images show, the Gulf Oil Spill is now in the Gulf Loop current, which has prompted the HUGE warning on the Huffington Post that the Gulf oil spill will hit Gulf Loop Current and then Florida Keys in 24 hours and hence the Gulf Stream.
Why are they hiding the truth?"
Just goes to show the MSM is actively doing its part in downplaying the situation.
Source:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...te-images-show-gulf-oil-spill-larger-florida/
This is truly a global catastrophe. Just consider the thermal image below of the Gulf Stream, whose path the Gulf Oil Spill will follow once hitting the Gulf Stream.