The Earth Is Bleeding...

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

  1. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    FE427TP---

    I don't think mankind will survive with your kind of thinking. Too bad. That's why this earth is so fucked up today. Sorry pal.
     
  2. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    http://www.wdsu.com/news/23652243/detail.html Louisiana Gulf Shellfishing area closed. Obviously unaffected by the BP fiasco.
    Precautionary closure or not, harvesting in these affected seven or eight shellfishing zones is closed. Closed business means no business.

    Last week there was a closure of 19-20% of the Gulf of Mexico's fisheries according to CNN reports. Maybe those reports were fabricated, but if not there is now and has been an impact to fisheries. As for the rest of the story, well, we get more information on that every day. Those daily reports now include an oil leak puking 10,000 to 200,000 barrels of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico with no clear end in sight. Today I read that the "relief valve well" being drilled by BP will be done sometime in August. I'm sure that no affect to the fisheries will be felt between now and then.
     
  3. Go Fish

    Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Having read all the links before I posted I was compelled
    to make fun of anyone saying that this is a
    1) minor problem
    2) will not affect fishing
    3) will not affect habitat
    4) will not destroy business
    5) will not ruin lives

    I, along with most people, will just watch with disgust and anger.

    Dave
     
  4. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Dave, I hope you realize I was being very sarcastic in saying that there will be on affect to the fisheries between now and the projected completion in August of that pressure relief well. I'm sure that each of your points 1-5 above have already happened, or will happen even if by some miracle this leak is stopped today. It pains me to read that BP says "no one is more devastated by this incident than those of us at BP". That is the bullshit line of the century. Tell that to the gulf coast fishermen who hover at or just above the poverty line with a good fishing season. There are so many incredible species of fish in the gulf, I wonder how many will be devastated, not to mention the shorelines that have begun to see this crap come ashore.
     
  5. Go Fish

    Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Ed, having met you once and read your posts
    I knew where you were being sarcastic (at a 4th grade level, of course).

    Dave
     
  6. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Amen Larry.
    FE427TP, here is a question for you since you seem to be both a math wiz and historian. If WWII saw 95 million gallons (that is 95,000,000 right?) of oil spilled (during the entire period, not all at one time of course) how will that compare to the high end estimates by experts not associated with BP? They are claiming as many as 200,000 barrels of oil per day are being pumped out of the bottom of the gulf. 1 barrel = 42 gallons = 8,400,000 gallons daily. We are in day 32 of the spill = 268,800,000 gallons, isn't that 262.8 million?

    No, I'm sure you are right, the environment is prepared to deal with this new and destructive force that man has unleashed on the gulf of mexico.

    By the way, if August 1st brings the BP miracle of relief well completion and they suck the source dry and 100% of oil leaking stops we will be more than 64 days from now, tripling the above esitmates from my limited math skills which is equal to 806,400,000. I'm sure not liking the odds of mother nature working her magic on over 800 million gallons of oil and I'm damn sure not expecting that much marine life can survive it either. I'm no biologist, apologist or math wizard. I am family and friend to many who are already feeling the impact in one of our more economically depressed parts of the country (before this global contribution by BP). You may think my opinion smells, as I do yours.
     
  7. smc

    smc Active Member

    Amen Mumbles.

    That link FE427TP supplied when referencing the 95,000,000 gallons shows the 17 tankers sunk over an 8 month period, in the Gulf of Mexico. No reference to any gallonage or specific geographic area. One also has to wonder, since those tankers were sunk by torpedo, how much oil was burned off? How much still sits, slowly leaking out of the holds on the botom of the ocean? The reference to natural oil seepage and comparing it to the magnitude of this tragedy is beyond silly.

    Not that any of this matters. It's just such a damned shame and it irks the hell out of me that anyone would attempt to rationalize or diminish the extent of this ecological bombshell.
     
  8. Lugan

    Lugan Joe Streamer

    Beyond actual gallons/barrels of oil and actual environmental damage, there's a massive matter of principle violated here: One large corporate entity in one industry has fouled the environment and with it the livelihoods of people working in many other industries, and many companies large and small. Further, human health may be affected. The air stinks, and I don't have time to imagine what other bad effects this incident will thrust upon people living near the Gulf coast.

    Basically, this single organization through irresponsible and incompetent behavior violated the rights of millions of people, and that's what pisses me off.

    FE427TP, if you're truly a conservative, I'm not sure how you can reconcile this in your mind and leap to the defense of BP.
     
  9. FE427TP

    FE427TP The Great Sage

    Do I need to start using smaller words? At no point have I said this will not have a negative effect on the environment, fish, the fishing industry, the earth, jobs, or anything else. It is bad, I've already agreed to that. I just feel that this is not the end of the world and the total impact is not going to be this sky is falling approach so many others here seem to think it is. If you feel otherwise PROVE IT my posts are there for the quoting. If the words you want to put in my mouth existed quote them!! The pictures we see of people cleaning birds or turtles is little more than feel good efforts which will be used for political grandstanding when the resources could have been spent better in other ways. In the Exxon Valdez disaster only 1% of the birds that got cleaned survived long term. Is it better to spend money on that or on fuel for boats running containment booms? Why isn't BP contracting the shrimping boats to run containment booms? As I've said in previous posts I'm not against containing the oil, or efforts to control the spread of the slick. But I am against taking a gung ho we must clean it all up approach that will do more damage in the process of cleaning than letting nature take it's course and clean itself like it did throughout history before we started drilling for it.

    SMC go to the link again, click "Ships" then click "tankers built during WWII" http://www.usmm.org/tankers.html
    I used the smallest tankers capacity as it had entered production by 1939 but was not the most common tanker, I also didn't include the other ships sank which would have had fuel oil for their boilers or diesel for their generators either, both for the tankers or for other ships that sank. I didn't even try to guess or include the amount that would have leaked out from a ship that had been hit by a torpedo or shelled and damaged enough to rupture and leak but not sink.

    Mumbles, I've seen you be open enough in this discussion and others to know you're able to be reasoned with. You chose to side step and ignore the question I asked, and go straight for the worst case scenario. So I'm asking it again... How many fishing jobs were lost and how much worse was the fishing in the gulf with ZERO effort made to clean it up after those ships sank from WW2? If there was no discernable impact from that then it is not unreasonable that the earth will be able to clean itself from this in. This does not mean we shouldn't to what we can to contain and stop the leak but oil is not a alien substance to this planet. As an example, what jackrabbits have a boom year what happens the same year and following year? Predator breeding and offspring survival increases and consumes the extra population to bring things back into balance. When plants are exposed to above average doses of CO2 what do they do? They grow faster and stronger than a control plant not exposed to the same dose removing more CO2 from the atmosphere and restoring balance. This part of the earth is rich in oil, the creatures that consume oil are already there and when exposed to an abundant food supply they will reproduce at an increased rate and bring balance back. This has always happened and it will happen again here. Will there be damage? Absolutely! fish WILL die, fishing will suffer, birds will die etc... but we will also be surprised at how quickly things get back to being productive.
     
  10. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    FE427TP, I could give two craps about then and now. This is not about then. This is about now and attempting to draw parallels to the two scenarios is not portraying your obvious intellect. No matter the type of vessels sunk during WWII they carried no more than a finite amount of oil products. Based on your estimate that total pales in comparison to the potential oil release because of this event. Just like the oil spilling scenarios are different between the WWII era and today, so too are the fishing industries of 1944 and 2010. The economies are different too, post war boom versus a significant lull in today's economy. Not to mention the technology available today versus 55 years ago. If we have the superior technology, a more delicate ecosystem (partially due to overfishing and under regulation) and a greater potential impacting scenario I think you should be taking this much more seriously, not less.

    The resilience of the ecosystem and of capitalism is not in question in my mind. What is in question in my mind is when faced with such a catastrophic event why would anyone take a optimistic approach? If 20% of the fishery is already closed that means there is 20% less area for those that make their living on the water netting their catch to do their work. Why on earth would anyone belittle their meager existence in the face of a multi billion dollar industry and their superior existence? I'm not buying that for a moment and don't think you've not tried, intentionally or not, to sell it.

    As for the creatures able to tolerate exposure to these harsh compounds? Perhaps in light exposure they can survive with little to no affect, nature is amazing. This is not normal exposure. Downplaying the environmental impact does little to convince me that you are thinking rationally. Clearly I took the worst case scenario numbers, but deny that my figures, provided by experts in their field on this particular spill scenario, are any less accurate than your low end numbers. I believe that catastrophic planning, preparation and practice leads you to handle the catastrophic better and the not so impressive without missing a beat. No one was prepared to take on this humongous cache of oil beneath the gulf floor. No catastrophic plans were ready for this scenario. Weeks have been lost to position and attempt failed means that were "hoped" to be effective.

    When elephants fight it is the ants that perish. I say that lack of federal oversight and BP are the elephants. Everyone on the beach, on the water or anything in the water are the ants, each is subject to unnecessary exposure because of the inability to regulate or the inability to know one's limitations.

    I've tried not to make this too personal but I have an uncle and cousin that have made their living on the gulf for decades each. In the past two weeks and a couple of days their boats have been idle. They are making nothing. I'm sure they would be more than happy to be scooping up oil soaked hay under contract for BP...so far that call has not been made. My relatives are sitting by the phone.

    Everyone and everything loses. How much is yet to be known. Best to you.
     
  11. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    FE427TP---

    Balance? What balance are you referring to? Geezus Khrist. You need to go back to 101 Biology. There won’t be anything returning to balance. It will all be frigging dead! You need to come to terms with what is known as “life” on planet earth. Let’s take this slowly for you. I'll use small words for you. First the oil settles to the bottom. Bacteria, “your” tiny bottom feeding creatures, plankton eat your oil. Then the little fishys will eat those creatures that ate the oil and so will the crabs and shrimp. Then these guys will be eaten by the bigger fish (following this so far?). Also the cod, red snapper, dolphins, oysters, or whatever other mammals will eat them. The oil that concentrates in the creatures could kill them or at least make them unsafe to eat. Yeah, that’s real balance of nature… oh, by the way, oil kills coral. That’s the same thing as being dead. You will be long dead before any kind of recovery from this incident begins. I guess you are just having fun peddling your crap here. Good luck on earth. You'll need it.
     
  12. smc

    smc Active Member

    FE427TP, the amount of crude gallons sunk in WW11, even if it was twice what you state, has little to no relevance to this spill. It was widely dispersed over a long period of time. Of more relevance might be the Ixtoc 1 spill in 1979. 140 million gallons in the gulf, with low environmental impact.

    Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think we're going to see a low environmental impact here. It's early yet but time will tell. Even a year or two of lost fishing ground productivity and tourism will be devastating to the gulf states economy, with waves rippling throughout the country. The gulf coast is much more vulnerable now than it was in WW11, or 1979, with so much of the wetlands lost in the last decade. Times have changed, the gulf coast environment is more vulnerable now to a spill of this nature than it has ever been.

    I'm glad you can take the longer view. You can probably look a shrimp fisherman right in the eye and tell him all about jack rabbits and WW11 and how BP is not responsible for this. You call BS? I'll raise you that BS with a double dollop of specious.

    I almost wonder if you're a paid shill for big oil, or maybe you've just got a bad case of tea bagger tourrettes.
     
  13. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    So the fishing industry has not been impacted? Shorelines are not affected? Sorry for the battery commercial leading to this short CNN story, it is one of many that could be linked here to show that all is not roses in Louisiana. When is the latest experimental method of capping this leak taking place? Twelve hours to test this land based application to see if they can pull it off 5,000 feet beneath the surface. Their own leadership gives this a 60-70% chance of success. I'm sure a lot of folks are hoping that it works. Meanwhile there are a lot of people wondering why there are not more diverse efforts being undertaken such as on water deployment of absorbant or adherent materials or sand bag barriers on shore. Clean up is tougher and more disruptive once landfall is made.

    Fishing Industry Shut Down
     
  14. Gary Thompson

    Gary Thompson dirty dog

    I'm just going to take the red fishing trip to the Louisiana gulf coast off my "bucket list"
    I was really looking forward to my retirement years spending my winters hunting for reds, snook, sea trout, etc.
    Mighty damn sad.
    A guy can't put enough Vaseline on to stop the pain of this ass f--king.
     
  15. Go Fish

    Go Fish Language, its a virus

    To quote FE427 "but we will also be surprised at how quickly things get back to being productive".

    The sage has spoken again!

    We can all relax now...nothing to look at....just move on folks.
    This is just like what happened 68 years ago and that turned out OK.
    I know BP will do the right thing (for the bottom line of profits).

    Dave
     
  16. Jim Wallace

    Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Concerning the latest news out about the cozy relationship between the staff of the U.S. Minerals Management Service and the Oil Industry, I can with a clear conscience, place much of the blame on the former presidency, the Bush administration, for encouraging such things, as well as smirking about it. Go ahead and flame me. This is a direct result of staffing govt. watchdog agencies with industry insiders. "Fox guarding the henhouse" scenarios.
    Heads must roll.
    Go ahead and flame me. I don't care. I stand by the above statements. I'm not a big fan of Obama, either, but like everbody else, I didn't really have much choice in the last election.
     
  17. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    What are the names of the industry insiders staffed by the last administration that have not been replaced by the current administration?
     
  18. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    MAY 25, 2010
    Experts Propose Plugging Oil Leak with BP Executives
    Submerging Execs Could Be 'Win-Win'


    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – At a conference of oil leak experts in Washington today, attendees proposed plugging the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico with executives of BP, the company responsible for the catastrophic spill.

    “We’ve tried containment domes, rubber tires, and even golf balls,” said William Cathermeyer of the National Oil Leakage Institute, a leading consultancy in the field of oil leaks. “Now it’s time to shove some BP executives down there and hope for the best.”

    Submerging the oil company executives thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface could be a “win-win” situation, Mr. Cathermeyer said.

    “Best-case scenario, they plug the leak,” he said. “And at the very least, they’ll shut the f**k up.”

    But even as the oil leak experts proposed their unorthodox solution, environmental expert Marilyn Sufranski warned of the possible negative consequences of plugging the oil leak with BP executives.

    “The Gulf of Mexico is slimy enough already,” she said.
     
  19. Jim Wallace

    Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    I'll have to research that. I think each and every govt. "watchdog agency" should be thoroughly investigated for any evidence of "cozy relationships" between an agency and the industry it oversees. Probably doesn't matter who appointed the agency heads. Bottom line is that there's no room for complacency here. Watchdog agencies should be like Pit Bulls and Blue Heelers. We gotta get rid of all the lap dogs.
     
  20. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    My guess is you are right. I think Obama should probably just "fire" them all. I didn't like it when Reagan fired all of the Air Traffic Controllers, however, maybe this should be done, especially if they are left overs from the last administration.