Started By
Message
locked post

Is this Officially the Worst Oil Spill Disaster in World History?

Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:03 pm
Posted by TenTex
Member since Jan 2008
15949 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:03 pm
I predicted in week one that this was the worst Oil Spill/Leak in World History because if was obvious the Oil Company's in charge had no idea how to stop the leak. Please vote:

A) Worst Oil Spill/Leak Disaster of the world.
B) There are other Oil Spills that are worse.
C) BP has it under control and it will be cleaned up quickly.

LINK
This post was edited on 5/17/10 at 6:06 pm
Posted by baytiger
Boston
Member since Dec 2007
46978 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:08 pm to
it's not even close to ixtoc i yet as far as volume goes
Posted by TenTex
Member since Jan 2008
15949 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 6:58 pm to
It will cause unparrelled damage to the gulf coast and east coast during the next 5 months. Hurricanes that track over the oil will rain oil on the land at least 25 miles inland during this Hirricane season.
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 7:43 pm to
quote:

It will cause unparrelled damage to the gulf coast and east coast during the next 5 months. Hurricanes that track over the oil will rain oil on the land at least 25 miles inland during this Hirricane season.


:OMG:

ONOZ IT'S GOING TO RAIN OIL!!!!!!!!!

Is that even a serious comment?

This still isn't as bad as the Exxon Valdez

1) because the volume spilled, most likely, has not matched the EV
2) because the time period that it is being spilled over allows for greater dilution
3) Because it's not as close to the shoreline as the EV was

quote:

TenTex


Please don't bring fear mongering and trolling to this board. I don't know you that well, but I've noticed you enough on the poli board to know that you are in the same league as Afreaux and Rex, when it comes to sensationalism in order to promote fear for the benefit of your agenda.

ETA: Good job on the anchor admins.
This post was edited on 5/17/10 at 7:49 pm
Posted by windriver
West Monroe/San Diego
Member since Mar 2006
8656 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 8:16 pm to
quote:

This still isn't as bad as the Exxon Valdez

1) because the volume spilled, most likely, has not matched the EV
2) because the time period that it is being spilled over allows for greater dilution
3) Because it's not as close to the shoreline as the EV was



Give it time and you will be proven wrong. come back and eat your crow when you take your green & yellow glasses off.
Posted by the LSUSaint
Member since Nov 2009
15444 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 8:27 pm to
quote:

1) because the volume spilled, most likely, has not matched the EV
2) because the time period that it is being spilled over allows for greater dilution
3) Because it's not as close to the shoreline as the EV was


What the FK are you thinking. It is as big or bigger in volume already. It will have 50 times the economic impact than a spill in an unpopulated region for the most part. It will have a much much greater acological impact and spread up the east coact as well.

ANd can you really be serious about #2? What in the FKNG hell can you be thinking? It's not a slow leak. If it goes a longer period of time, it spills a Valdez about every ten days or so. It is spilling wya more than 5000 b/day.

I don't mean to hate on you, but that is seriously the least thought out post that I've heard. THis will make the Valdez look like a Jiffy Lube fire if you even try to compared the financial, ecological, environmaental etc impact of the two.
This post was edited on 5/17/10 at 8:35 pm
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
28249 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 8:59 pm to
C
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 9:36 pm to
It will probably be top 10 but nowhere near the worst. Apparently somebody is completely unaware of the fact that the massive spill after the Persian Gulf War is not just #1, but #2 (Ixtoc) isn't anywhere even remotely close. But news services weren't covering ecological losses in Kuwaiti desert.
Posted by windriver
West Monroe/San Diego
Member since Mar 2006
8656 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 9:53 pm to
quote:

But news services weren't covering ecological losses in Kuwaiti desert.



apples & oranges by any stretch of the imagination
Posted by Walt OReilly
Poplarville, MS
Member since Oct 2005
124694 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 11:45 pm to
quote:

C


quote:

C



I see what you did there
Posted by foshizzle
Washington DC metro
Member since Mar 2008
40599 posts
Posted on 5/17/10 at 11:59 pm to
quote:

quote:


But news services weren't covering ecological losses in Kuwaiti desert.





apples & oranges by any stretch of the imagination


No different from the fear of spills in ANWAR.

And Ixtoc I is pretty much apples to apples btw.
Posted by TenTex
Member since Jan 2008
15949 posts
Posted on 5/18/10 at 12:37 am to
Okay, so play it down like BP is doing and see where it all lands. That's really a great plan. I would much rather paint a worst case senario then sit back and say it's not so bad. Isn't that how people die in Hurricanes??? They don't think it will be so bad and then they stay and die. Fear Mongering?
Posted by CharlesLSU
Member since Jan 2007
33653 posts
Posted on 5/18/10 at 7:56 am to
...it is not going to rain oil.....seriously.
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
53467 posts
Posted on 5/18/10 at 10:13 am to
TBH, I suspect it would be actually beneficial for a hurricane to pass through.

Especially if it passes right after they clamp the well shut.
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
53467 posts
Posted on 5/18/10 at 10:17 am to
quote:

Hurricanes that track over the oil will rain oil on the land


This may be sig worthy
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 5/18/10 at 12:37 pm to
quote:

It is as big or bigger in volume already.


So you are a top scientist working in the field I see.

quote:

It will have 50 times the economic impact than a spill in an unpopulated region for the most part.


And an economic scholar, trained in geographical information systems.

quote:

It will have a much much greater acological impact and spread up the east coact as well.


And a pioneer in the field of acology?

quote:

ANd can you really be serious about #2? What in the FKNG hell can you be thinking?


But your ability to detect seriousness is lacking.

quote:

If it goes a longer period of time, it spills a Valdez about every ten days or so.


So you are saying it has already leaked 750,000 barrels (31.5 million gallons) of oil and virtually none of it has hit shore? Good guess Einstein.Truth is, no one knows, but assholes like you going around and spewing lies aren't making the situation any better. 5000 barrels a day is the official estimate, talking about possible amounts is worthless. It could also be 2000 barrels a day, I don't want to discuss that either.

quote:

I don't mean to hate on you, but that is seriously the least thought out post that I've heard.


What?

quote:

THis will make the Valdez look like a Jiffy Lube fire if you even try to compared the financial, ecological, environmaental etc impact of the two.


Hyperbole much? That's the problem with you naysayers. You were saying the same thing when Calcasieu Lake was "infected" by an oil spill a few years back. Why don't you go out there and point me to the crippling ecological (or acological, as you would say) effects of that spill.

If you guys want to talk about me coming back to eat my crow, then you should eat crow for that, right here and now.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram