- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Oil companies reduce the amount of oil leaked into the ocean
Posted on 5/10/10 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 5/10/10 at 3:45 pm
For those of you who didn't know, oil naturally seeps into the oceans from the ocean floors. The same thing used to occur on land, but oil companies have already solved the problem of this "contamination" by drilling and removing virtually all "natural oil spills".
A study conducted in 2001 estimated that 21,000,000 gallons of oil naturally seeped into the GOM every year. The generally accepted estimate for the oil spill is 21,000 gallons per day.
However, without the actions of oil companies, the amount of "toxic crude oil" leaked into the gulf every year would be higher. Take for example the coast of California right off of Santa Barbera. According to NOAA:
LINK
Given, this is a smaller number than the oil spill, it is also a much smaller area to be dispersed over because it is so close to the shore.
I've never heard anyone talk about the horrors the oil has caused to the ecosystem in Santa Barbera, but you know, I could be wrong. Maybe this is what the worst natural disaster in the history of America looks like.
A study conducted in 2001 estimated that 21,000,000 gallons of oil naturally seeped into the GOM every year. The generally accepted estimate for the oil spill is 21,000 gallons per day.
However, without the actions of oil companies, the amount of "toxic crude oil" leaked into the gulf every year would be higher. Take for example the coast of California right off of Santa Barbera. According to NOAA:
quote:
An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of crude oil is released naturally from the ocean bottom every day just a few miles offshore from this beach".
LINK
Given, this is a smaller number than the oil spill, it is also a much smaller area to be dispersed over because it is so close to the shore.
I've never heard anyone talk about the horrors the oil has caused to the ecosystem in Santa Barbera, but you know, I could be wrong. Maybe this is what the worst natural disaster in the history of America looks like.
4
Posted on 5/10/10 at 3:49 pm to TheHiddenFlask
I think you are right. I have seen you posting this argument before. This oil slick the size of Jamaica probably isn't anything to worry about because this kind of thing happens naturally all the time. I wonder why we haven't seen any negative effects before?
Posted on 5/10/10 at 3:55 pm to TheHiddenFlask
oh nice, we should just go ahead and call off all the efforts to stop the leak.
After all:
You see images like this coming from California all the time
ETA: sorry bout the pic size
After all:
You see images like this coming from California all the time
ETA: sorry bout the pic size
This post was edited on 5/10/10 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:01 pm to MC123
quote:
oh nice, we should just go ahead and call off all the efforts to stop the leak
Yeah, because that's exactly what he said.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:05 pm to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:
Yeah, because that's exactly what he said.
Well, what is he saying? I mean this kind of leak happens naturally every year; so, what is the big deal?
I know Flask didn't ask for the efforts to stop, I just don't understand the point of his argument. Is this a disaster, or is it not that big of a deal?
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:10 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Well, what is he saying? I mean this kind of leak happens naturally every year; so, what is the big deal?
What I'm saying is that all of the clowns claiming this is the biggest natural disaster since the meteor that killed the dinosaurs need to cool it.
quote:
I know Flask didn't ask for the efforts to stop, I just don't understand the point of his argument. Is this a disaster, or is it not that big of a deal?
It is a disaster, but not nearly as big of one as it's being made out to be. The other day, I heard someone, in conversation, say that it will take hundreds, if not thousands of years for this to be reversed.
My point is that while this might be bad, crude is constantly hitting our shoreline and has been for thousands of years. One of the most beautiful beaches in the world is just miles from an oil spill that has been going for centuries.
I want someone to tell me why this is so much different. It's obviously more than normal, but why is this going to cause the end of the world, other than it making a good news story and a reason to bash big oil?
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:16 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
It can be both Archie.
The disaster is what happened. The explosion, the loss of lives, the rig sinking. Also, the impact to the environment. I'm not going to speak for him, but I can assume that he's not discounting the potential impact that this has on the environment.
The oil is ugly and can cause damage.
But it's also a natural occurring event, where mother nature sorts of takes care of it.
I've worked in Bakersfield where I've seen oil running out of the earth (not on a worksite, just in nature). I've worked on clean up sites offshore before, where we were called out for a slick nowhere near an oil rig.
The media is what the big deal is. The politicians who view this as a platform for their personal political gains are the problem.
Don't misread my words. Just how bad this is, or can get, won't be seen yet. This is just as likely to cause an environmental disaster that impacts us for decades to come, as it is likely to not leave any long term ill effects 3 months after the other wells are drilled.
The disaster is what happened. The explosion, the loss of lives, the rig sinking. Also, the impact to the environment. I'm not going to speak for him, but I can assume that he's not discounting the potential impact that this has on the environment.
The oil is ugly and can cause damage.
But it's also a natural occurring event, where mother nature sorts of takes care of it.
I've worked in Bakersfield where I've seen oil running out of the earth (not on a worksite, just in nature). I've worked on clean up sites offshore before, where we were called out for a slick nowhere near an oil rig.
The media is what the big deal is. The politicians who view this as a platform for their personal political gains are the problem.
Don't misread my words. Just how bad this is, or can get, won't be seen yet. This is just as likely to cause an environmental disaster that impacts us for decades to come, as it is likely to not leave any long term ill effects 3 months after the other wells are drilled.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:18 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
It is a disaster, but not nearly as big of one as it's being made out to be.
No one knows yet how big of an enviromental impact this oil spill will cause...NO ONE. It is all speculation at this point.
I also question the disaster level that is being portrayed; but, I find comparing it to what happens off the coast of California to be completely misleading, and quite absurd.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:24 pm to MC123
quote:
comparing it to what happens off the coast of California to be completely misleading, and quite absurd.
This was from the OP:
21,000,000 gallons of oil naturally seeped into the GOM every year
He included California because naturally occurring oil leaks happen over there also, not compared to.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:28 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
It is a disaster, but not nearly as big of one as it's being made out to be. The other day, I heard someone, in conversation, say that it will take hundreds, if not thousands of years for this to be reversed.
I'll agree with that. Some are definitely blowing things out of proportion. I guess my question is, if this is happening naturally all the time (which I believe to be true/ not arguing that it isn't)... why don't we see the negative effects that everyone is predicting from this leak?
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:32 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
Proximity to land, much larger area where the oil is released naturally, and the fact that nobody is out there actually looking for oil leaks that occur naturally.
Mostly this. Nature has a way of righting itself, but not necessarily the things that mankind does.
quote:
why don't we see the negative effects that everyone is predicting from this leak?
Mostly this. Nature has a way of righting itself, but not necessarily the things that mankind does.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:35 pm to BROffshoreTigerFan
Also from the OP:
I am not getting in a pissing match. The OP contained several relevant truths, but was spun to a ridiculous degree. (See aforementioned quote & pic)
quote:
Maybe this is what the worst natural disaster in the history of America looks like.
I am not getting in a pissing match. The OP contained several relevant truths, but was spun to a ridiculous degree. (See aforementioned quote & pic)
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:40 pm to MC123
Nobody is getting into a pissing match. The picture was a way to say that this sort of thing happens all over the world, and that many of the nicest beaches are in close proximity to areas that are known to leak.
It did have a flair of spin to it, but I welcome that kind of spin over this kind:
It did have a flair of spin to it, but I welcome that kind of spin over this kind:
quote:
This will have monumental impacts on the whole world and all the oceans for centuries to come.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:41 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
I want someone to tell me why this is so much different. It's obviously more than normal, but why is this going to cause the end of the world, other than it making a good news story and a reason to bash big oil?
It's not the end of the world and the final outcome remains unknown. However, this natural seepage talking point that has leaked out into the talk/blog -sphere is a lame arse attempt at deflection. What relation does natural seepage have to oil gushing out of a well at the guesstimated rate of 5000 bbls/day??? Absolutely fricking nothing. Don't fight chicken little idiocy with your own "natural" idiocy.
ETA: And someone shrink or delete the giant sized pick that is making this thread nearly impossible to read. frick.
This post was edited on 5/10/10 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:42 pm to MC123
Light after dinner reading so we can all understand the "worst ecological disaster in history"
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:44 pm to mguari2
Either your link is broken or requires registration access.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:44 pm to BROffshoreTigerFan
quote:
I guess my question is, if this is happening naturally all the time (which I believe to be true/ not arguing that it isn't)... why don't we see the negative effects that everyone is predicting from this leak?
Biggest factor:
quote:
much larger area where the oil is released naturally
There are always slicks of oil in the gulf. Just not ones as large and perpetual as this.
secondly,
quote:
Proximity to land
Even though it's not really close to land, it's not in the center of the GOM, so if the winds are coming out of the south, there's a chance that some of the oil can hit the shoreline. All reports of this will be blown way the shite out of proportion. 6 balls of tar hit Duaphin Island and people are going ape shite. Those tar balls hit Santa Barbera's coast line all the time.
Most of all, because this is a chance for the liberal media to bash the big oil companies. They love to do that. They also love to show how bad humans are and how much we destroy the environment. I cancelled my cable a few months back and I am a much more rational and intelligent person for it.
quote:
Nature has a way of righting itself, but not necessarily the things that mankind does.
Very true.
At the end of the day, this spill will have pumped out an amount of oil that is in excess of what is natural and there will be some side effects. The coast line will not be a barren wasteland for the next 100 years, but there may be some fish and wildlife that die. Fish and wildlife have been dying for a lot longer than humans have been around and they haven't gone extinct yet. They will recover and be find in a few years.
For comparison, several years ago, Calcasieu lake (Big Lake) had an oil spill in it that polluted the lake closed the entire lake to fishing. 2 years later, I went back and could not tell any difference. At the time, the media was talking about it being a catastrophe of epic proportions and how fish may never be able to live in the lake again.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 4:49 pm to MC123
Dilution is the solution to polution. The problem with the incident currently happening is the concentration of the oil. If the 21M barrel figure is accurate it is undoubtedly spread across the entire GOM. Although natural oil seeps do occur, they do not generally occur with the magnitude and duration of this blowout.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:00 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
Fish and wildlife have been dying for a lot longer than humans have been around and they haven't gone extinct yet. They will recover and be find in a few years.
Overall I don't disagree with you but you're digging some holes and making ill conceived arguments. Sure all natural fauna have not gone extinct but I think on the order of 99% of all species of living things have gone extinct over the life of this planet. Some directly at the hands of man.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:15 pm to TheHiddenFlask
So how many of those natural oil seeps spew out 5,000 barrels a day in one location?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News