Devastation is imminent/ or overblown and minimal effects???

i think there's alot to be said about the fact that this is a natural substance and not a highly refined crude oil like you're used to thinking of when regarding oil spills.

quote:

---

The latter for me. I believe the largest impact will be due to health concerns of eating contaiminated seafood rather than the utter devesation of the seafood. 2 year recovery at worst

---

i agree, but my biggest concern has always been damage to coastal wetlands more than it has the seafood industry.

oysters might get scarce, but finfish and shrimp will come back stronger than we give them credit for. if oil starts killing large patches of marsh grass, Louisiana has big problems.

i think one way or another, we are going to get substantial sums of money put toward coastal restoration out of this, whether we get Federal money, money from BP or bond it out depending on state litigation vs. BP

quote:

---

i think there's alot to be said about the fact that this is a natural substance and not a highly refined crude oil like you're used to thinking of when regarding oil spills.

---

There is no such thing as refined crude oil. Its a contradiction of terms.

And refining merely seperates components already prescent. Gasoline is in crude oil, but it is mixed with tar and asphalt too.

If there is a benefit from this being crude oil, is that there are fractions of the volume being vented that are self cleaning. Parts of it will evaporate, while others will automatically settle out in the water.

That is one benefit this spill has (other than a dramatically less volume in an open space as opposed to being in PWS), is the fact that Gulf oil is a lot "lighter" than Alaskan oil. That is, it has more of the volatile fractions that will just evaporate away.

quote:

---

nothing like the media makes it out to be

---

Have you read what any of the biologists are saying about it? Its not likely to be the one or two year hiccup some of y'all think its going to be.

quote:

---

If there is a benefit from this being crude oil, is that there are fractions of the volume being vented that are self cleaning. Parts of it will evaporate, while others will automatically settle out in the water.

That is one benefit this spill has (other than a dramatically less volume in an open space as opposed to being in PWS), is the fact that Gulf oil is a lot "lighter" than Alaskan oil. That is, it has more of the volatile fractions that will just evaporate away.

---

Good post!

The media (mostly national) has made this into a bigger deal than it really is, even though there is still leaks that need fixing it will not turn out to be like the spill in Alaska in 1989. The oil leaking is a sweet crude which is not as dense than places such as Alaska. There was a meeting today the coast guard held that my dad went to for business reasons (he is the head engineer for the work on the Heuy P. Long bridge), his acounts of the meeting sounded optimistic though the Coast Guard will definately be ready for a worse case scenario. People might not know but less oil has spilled so far than it did during Katrina, though that oil did not threaten our coastland but rather went into the Atlantic and the cleanup was not very bad. So far in the current situation chemical treatment towards the leaks and surface has helped to brake up oil, I believe it is one gallon of the chemical can help brake up 20 gallons of oil. There have also been 5 burnoffs that have been very successful and more could continue to help. I am by no means trying to say that this spill is not a bad thing and will be treated easy becuase it will take effort and time but it does seem overblown. One more thing is that fish have been caught where the slick is and cut open to test and they were considered alright for market.

I would guess it depends on how long this goes on. If it is actually 3 months then it could be the worst case scenario as described, if stopped soon, then bad, but not near what the news media is describing. They are all just guessing until its stopped.

quote:

---

I've noticed that media coverage of the oil and gas industry is often worse than almost any other subject with many wrong names, explanations, data, etc. included in articles and interviews

---

it makes you wonder if the coverage of other industries is any better?

quote:

---

it makes you wonder if the coverage of other industries is any better?

---

FWIW, my background is in biology and I cringe whenever something in the field makes MSM like this (swine flu being the last example).

I've developed a heathy cynicism regarding media coverage of science heavy events, and read closely for hints of what the reality is rather than what the author thinks the reality is.

quote:

---

I've noticed that media coverage of the oil and gas industry is often worse than almost any other subject with many wrong names, explanations, data, etc. included in articles and interviews.

---

If you've never worked in the industry then you wont understand what's it all about. Even the kids fresh out of college with engineering degree's that have never been offshore have trouble catching on. You have to be brought up in the industry or have been around it all your life to really have a handle on what goes on out there.