The Earth Is Bleeding...

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dryflylarry, May 14, 2010.

  1. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0

    I don't recall mentioning the natives in this discussion, but yes they are Kockknobs as well. I am also not making ignorant attacks against the oil industry. I am giving credit where credit is due. They knew that drilling here was dangerous and beyond our current technical capabilities. That is why we couldn't drill it ourselvs and BP had to go through the Transcorp backdoorto get the job going. You may remember G Dub foaming at the mouth around 10 years ago about reducing regulations so we could drill into this stash and the other big daddy in Alaska. You may also note that Transcorp moved to Switzerland to avoid paying taxes. An xtra billion would be nice right about now, wouldn't it. You can take your 401K statement, roll it up and wipe your arse with it. That is all it will be worth if the worst case plays out here. They deserve nothing from me other than utter contempt and mistrust.
  2. Split Bamboo Member

    Posts: 648
    Tacoma, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I never said you were.
  3. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    Right on, I may have misread. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I'm slightly miffed about the very real possibility of my carribean island retirement plans going up in a cloud of smoke (oil). Well maybe smoke, not sure how flamable that stuff is when it hits the beaches.

    Also, you forgot to add mullets and monster truck shows to the list of disasters created by PBR Tallboys. :D
  4. Rialto Member

    Posts: 230
    Seattle, Washington, USA.
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    The 210,000 gallon estimate is based on the 21-inch diameter. The piping, however, is tapered with the outlet end 21 inches but the inlet end only six inches.

    As far as what caused the blowout, The Seattle Times ran an article a couple of Sundays ago that was echoed in a 60 Minutes report this past Sunday. The drilling was completed and they were in the process of developing the well for later production. The well was filled with drilling fluid or mud, which is pumped into the well during drilling to remove the cuttings. The weight of the drilling fluid keeps the methane from rising through the well. SOP is to place a cement plug at the bottom of the well and then remove the drilling fluid. BP, over the objections of both Transocean (the rig owner) and Halliburton, decided to removed the drilling fluid before the cement plug was in place. The blowout occurred during the removal of the drilling fluid. Compounding the problem was that a seal at the top end of the well that was to contain a blowout, was damaged a month earlier and not fixed. The seal was Transocean’s responsibility.
  5. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,104
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +570 / 0
    Thanks Rialto.

    Interesting. Hard to believe they only use a 6" pipe. So maybe I'll reduce my estimate to 1700 gallons per minute instead.....that takes it to only 2.5 million gallons per day! I'm starting to see this as an underwater volcano that can't be stopped.... damn. Send the big "pinchers" down there and pinch that puppy off now!! Maybe the damn thing is leaking "around" the pipe.... now that's even worse! Fish.... nothing but DEAD fish.... and everything else. Cry Baby, Cry...

    And Be Jofus G, good post! Amen...
  6. robspe7370 Member

    Posts: 53
    Poquoson, VA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I am surprised nobody has brought up the question of what is going to happen with these oil laden waters when a not so distant hurricane season blows up. I do not think it is likely that they will have removed much of it by then. It makes me shiver to think of the devestation that will occur when an oil laden storm surge blows this stuff ashore....
  7. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,104
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +570 / 0
    Yeah. An "entire" southern USA shoreline covered in goo and maybe onto the streets.... what a happy thought .... Don't another person even think of posting empathy for the oil companies... Geesus!
  8. FE427TP The Great Sage

    Posts: 48
    Southwest WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Interesting editorial here especially when the indications are that more damage than good came from the Exxon Valdez cleanup.



    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...e_shouldnt_clean_up_the_oil_spill.html?page=1

    Maybe we shouldn't clean up the oil spill

    S.E. Cupp
    Wednesday, May 19th 2010, 9:13 AM
    As we all well know, the cost of doing nothing is steep. That's why the phrase, "cost of doing nothing" exists, presumably.

    So whenever some crisis arises, no one wants to be perceived as insensitive to the high price of inaction by suggesting that we wait and see, slow down or let things play out. Instead, we're all very quick to say, in desperate but authoritative voices, "Well, we have to do something."

    After the 2008 financial collapse "the cost of doing nothing" was all anyone wanted to talk about.

    We didn't know exactly what to do, but we knew that doing nothing wasn't an option. So in the end, we decided to throw a catastrophic amount of money at the problem. And good thing, too - otherwise, I'm told, unemployment might have surpassed 8%.

    When it comes to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it seems that doing nothing is even farther outside the parameters of politically acceptable suggestions.

    But since I don't have a re-election to worry about, I'm happy to go out on a ledge and be the one to say it, terrible as it sounds: Let's leave the oil right where it is.

    Before you send Al Gore's minions out to arrest me, you should know that this seemingly cavalier suggestion isn't borne out of apathy or indifference, but out of pragmatism and, yes, compassion. And though I'm no oil or environmental expert, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that attempting to clean up the Deepwater Horizon spill that dumped around 95,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf will be costly and ineffective, and might even be more harmful to the natural habitat than the oil itself.

    So I did a little probing - or drilling, as it were - into the consequences of doing nothing. Here's what I found:
    Decades after the Exxon Valdez spill, the technology used to clean up spills is virtually unchanged: barges, booms, burning, dispersing, scrubbing.

    "The basic tool kit hasn't changed dramatically, or at all," said Jeff Short, a scientist with the environmental group Oceana.

    The problem with that is, these methods weren't effective then, and they aren't now. Dispersants, for one, transfer oil particles from the sea surface to the sea water in an effort to save shorelines from oil build-up. In theory, anyway.

    It only works if there's significant wave energy, and even in that case, the oil that's transferred to the water column is hazardous to hundreds of other organisms.

    Cornell University biologist Robert Howarth told me that dispersants should be used very sparingly, and that there are better, less toxic alternatives to the 250,000 gallons of Corexit that BP has already released into the Gulf.

    But other chemicals used to "clean" the spill can wreak even more havoc on an already weakened ecosystem. Terry Hazen, an ecologist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division, pointed out that oil is, in fact, a biological product that naturally degrades over time: "Some of the detergents that are typically used to clean-up spill sites are more toxic than the oil itself, in which case it would be better to leave the site alone and allow microbes to do what they do best."

    Cleaning off oil-slicked birds may sound warm and fuzzy, but it isn't. In fact, German biologist Silvia Gaus, of the Wattenmeer National Park, is one of a number of experts who say that putting the birds down would be more humane.

    "Kill, don't clean," she says. "According to serious studies, the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1%. We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds."

    Then, of course, there's the crass subject of money, which no one likes to talk about unless of course it concerns the "cost of doing nothing." But the fact is, BP has already spent $625 million on spill response, and experts suggest the spill could cost them as much as $14 billion.

    While some of that is going toward containment efforts - stopping the spill from getting worse, which is critical - wouldn't it be something if the money BP was dumping into cleanup efforts was directed instead to Louisiana's ailing fishing industry, which is going to lose $2.5 billion?

    Or to Florida's hemorrhaging tourism industry, which will be drained of $3 billion?

    BP has, thus far, given Florida a mere $25 million, and $15 million each to Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi for recovery efforts.

    In this economy, that's a drop in the bucket.

    So if cleanup is costly, ineffective and potentially harmful, then aren't we just doing it for appearances? (And not actual appearances, but, worse, political appearances?) Indeed, if we can just get over the way it sounds, "the cost of doing nothing" might actually be far less than the cost of doing something.
  9. PT Physhicist

    Posts: 3,593
    Edmonds, WA
    Ratings: +752 / 2
    :thumb:

    I have a referance too which says the amount of oil spilled during Katrina is still more than what has come out of this catastrophe. Not sure where it is but I'll find it.

    One thing I know is that when BP hits about $35 per share I'm putting a few grand into their stock.:ray1:
  10. Kim Hampton Not Politically Correct

    Posts: 276
    Tacoma, Wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Here's an interesting factoid regarding oil spills in the region. After hearing/reading reports that more damage was done "in some cases" during the Alaska clean up I've wondered what happened to all of the oil spilled during World War Two when the U-boats were sinking so much shipping. No clean up efforts were done then. It was all nature doing the clean up.

    --The Gulf of Mexico campaign began May 4, 1942. In a little over a month they (German U-boats) had sunk oil cargoes of over 600,000 barrels (one barrel equals 42 gallons), and by December 1943 when they sank the last ship in the Gulf, nearly 900,000 barrels of oil and oil products had been left in Gulf waters. 900,000 barrels equates to 37,800,000 gallons of oil.
    --I haven't been able to find yet estimates of oil spilled by the German U-boat campaigns in the Atlantic. They did for a time raise hell with all the shipping that went to England so I'm sure there were many tons of oil spilled. I haven't found any information what the impact on the environment was from all of this was. Mother Earth must of corrected in this case anyway.

    I don't like the idea of chemicals to disperse the oil or at least sinking it. I'd rather see it on the surface and then cleaned up from there is at all possible. Having the oil on the bottom especially when it reaches say 250 fathom or shallower just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Maybe at the depth the oil well is at is ok but not in shallower water. I'm sure the shrimping industry will be destroyed if the oil is sunk to the bottom with chemicals.

    Number 1 they need to get the damn leak stopped. After that I would hope the clean up is a mop up, soak up, skim it up type of clean. Leave the pressure washers off the beach as I've read more damage was done in Alaska than if they would have left it alone. Let nature break it down from there.
  11. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,104
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +570 / 0
    I'm not so sure "doing nothing" is the answer. It reminds me of the, you know, "Party of No"... The conservative record, at least for the previous 8 years is dismal, to say the least, regarding the environment. Yes, sad to say politics plays a role in your fishing. This is just a reminder of where we have been the last 8 years on the environment. Some interesting reading. If it's too "political" for you, then stop here. Better yet, stop the leak... I'm just gonna go cry in my beer now.

    http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/bush_record.html
  12. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,663
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +544 / 0
    Kim, I think you are right about using dispersants. the chemical dispersant that BP has been using, Corexit, is a proven carcinogenic, a mutagenic, and is highly toxic. According to some scientists, there are more powerful and less toxic dispersants that should be used instead of Corexit. Corexit was probably chosen by BP because the manufacturer, Nalco Holdings, has a former BP exec on its Board of Directors.

    And I thought I was being paranoid in the extreme when I had the thought of the Gulf of Mexico sea floor collapsing...sure hope that's still the case...me being paranoid!
  13. Greg Armstrong Active Member

    Posts: 1,061
    Pugetropolis
    Ratings: +359 / 0
    Thanks, Bob. This is one of the best posts on this thread. The one thing we can ALL do is alter our habits. ALL of us are capable of having less of an impact by being individually more responsible, consuming less, especially by using less petroleum - think about it and then do something about it...to have an impact and actually make a difference.

    We can all bitch and moan and argue with one another all day long, but until we are willing to individually change the way we do things on a daily basis, not too much is gonna' happen.
  14. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,138
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,228 / 0
    I couldn't agree more. Sadly, it's easier to point the finger of blame at someone else instead of to stand in front of the mirror and admit that in Pogo's famous words: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

    K
  15. Greg Armstrong Active Member

    Posts: 1,061
    Pugetropolis
    Ratings: +359 / 0
    Kent, I agree. That's why I wrote "ALL of us" inclusive of myself and all the rest of us as well. Mirrors seldom lie.
  16. Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Posts: 5,663
    Somewhere on the Coast
    Ratings: +544 / 0
  17. Stewart Skunk Happens

    Posts: 951
    Spokane
    Ratings: +48 / 0
    If the intention of your statement is to have us withhold judgment on the oil companies. that is laughable. They have a really dirty history. Beginning with the Sherman Anit-Trust Act and continuing into today. They have worked long and hard to EARN their greedy, profit-driven reputation. :rofl:
  18. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    Bullsheit. The enemy is the arsehats that used legal loopholes to get to oil that the american public, congress, and the president of the united states deemed unsafe to drill. I look in the mirror and say, I used all of my powers as an american to vote against politicans who wated to drill this oil. And by that I mean this specific deposit and the deposit in Anwr AK that has been SPECIFICALLY a topic of conversation for all of the federal elections since I became old enough to vote. Maybe you feel guilty. Maybe rightfully so. And don't pin that, "you use oil so it's your fault" BS on me. I have no qualms with picking up an m-203 or 16 and heading off to Iraq or to Afghanastan and taking those basterds oil to put in my tank.
  19. Split Bamboo Member

    Posts: 648
    Tacoma, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Absolutely not my intention, a number of times in this thread I mentioned they warrant criticism. I wanted to point out that there is very valid criticism vs ignorant attacks. Making ignorant attacks is not as effective, and should be avoided.
  20. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,138
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,228 / 0
    I'm not an apologist for the excesses and shortcomings of the oil industry. But to insist that the current problem is entirely their fault is asinine. We can argue (as you seem disposed to do) whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first ad nauseum. The plain fact is that oil companies would not exist (nor would industry watchdogs be inclined to look the other way) were it not for our ever-increasing demand for their products and the huge sums we're willing to pay to get them.

    Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing us to drive 25,000 miles a year in a gas-hog SUV that gets 9mpg so we can tow our drift boats over the pass at 80mph. There are choices in life which clearly you and others here would prefer not to have to make.

    Bullshit back at ya.

    K