- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Oil companies reduce the amount of oil leaked into the ocean
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:21 pm to cwill
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:21 pm to cwill
quote:
The OP contained several relevant truths, but was spun to a ridiculous degree. (See aforementioned quote & pic)
Definitely spin put on that post. I don't care that much and I'm pretty upset about the possible ramifications, I'm just playing Devil's advocate because the other side is ridiculous.
While I admit to spin in my post, it comes nowhere near what the other side is doing.
quote:
What relation does natural seepage have to oil gushing out of a well at the guesstimated rate of 5000 bbls/day???
So your question is: "What does natural seepage of 1,400 barrels a day have to do with 5,000 barrels a day"?
I would say, about a 1:3 ratio.
0
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:22 pm to TheHiddenFlask
The big difference between this one and the California one is that the oil is dispersed prior to venting.
here it is spewed together, and therefore stays clumped.
This is mostly an counterargument against those who think that successful dispersement is still a shite ton of contamination
here it is spewed together, and therefore stays clumped.
This is mostly an counterargument against those who think that successful dispersement is still a shite ton of contamination
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:23 pm to Alatgr
quote:
So how many of those natural oil seeps spew out 5,000 barrels a day in one location?
Depends on your definition of location. If the location is the GOM, then 1.
I've acknowledged that concentration is one of the factors that makes this a problem. What's your point?
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:36 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
What's your point?
My point is comparing this leak of at least 5000 barrels a day, to a natural seep of a little over 70 barrels a day, and saying "yeah, a few fish and birds will die" is about as ridiculous as saying it will be the end of life on earth as we know it for hundreds of years.
Is the media sensationalizing it? Sure. That's what they do. But to say its not going to be that big a deal because oil is naturally occurring (so is uranium) and it will only take a few years to get back to normal is kind of absurd at this point. If the flow gets stopped NOW, you may be right. But if they can't get the damn thing capped for 3 months-yikes. The bottom line is no one knows the amount of damage this thing will ultimately cause, and know one will know until years later. That's what is so scary about it.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 5:43 pm to Alatgr
quote:
My point is comparing this leak of at least 5000 barrels a day, to a natural seep of a little over 70 barrels a day
Your math is as shitty as your logic. 500,000/365 = 1,370 barrels per day.
quote:
"yeah, a few fish and birds will die" is about as ridiculous as saying it will be the end of life on earth as we know it for hundreds of years.
See my comparison with the Calcasieu lake "disaster". I bet you were one of those people getting on your horse about the sea turtles, weren't you.
quote:
But if they can't get the damn thing capped for 3 months
Then this will have leaked less than the ocean floor has in the past year.
quote:
The bottom line is no one knows the amount of damage this thing will ultimately cause, and know one will know until years later. That's what is so scary about it.
That's what makes this a good news story.
Remember I'm not here trying to say it's no big deal. I've admitted that this is a disaster. I don't know why people aren't getting this.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 6:00 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
Remember I'm not here trying to say it's no big deal.
There is no other way to take what you're saying. Natural seeps are irrelevant to this event. If you want to say the effects are at this point unknown and are being overplayed by the anti-oil crowd, fine - that makes sense. We don't know what's going to happen. Leave it at that.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 6:19 pm to cwill
quote:
There is no other way to take what you're saying.
Yes, there is. This can be proven by the people who have taken what I have said in the correct manner.
quote:
Natural seeps are irrelevant to this event.
How in the world can you say that natural seeps are irrelevant when everyone is talking about crude oil like it is nuclear waste? My entire point is not to say that an oil spill isn't bad, it is to show that crude oil is a natural substance that is constantly being pumped into our oceans and has been for centuries. This is like saying that water is toxic to humans because someone drowned in it or drank too much of it and died from hyper hydration.
quote:
If you want to say the effects are at this point unknown and are being overplayed by the anti-oil crowd, fine - that makes sense.
That's what I'm trying to do.
quote:
We don't know what's going to happen. Leave it at that.
So, I have to "leave it at that" and everyone with a doomsday theory can keep running their mouthes, what is this, communist Russia?
No, I don't know what will happen, but I know what won't happen and that's an apocalyptic blow to our ecosystem. I am going to keep fighting this stupidity until the bitter end.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 7:00 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Fires naturally occur. Male animals naturally rape the females in lots of species. So, when someone burns down your house and rapes your wife dont get pissed.... by this i mean your an idiot and by an idiot i mean you are stupid. Every educated person in the field of marine biology that has spoken on the topic has said this is very likeily going to be devastating marine life... But you probable right. Oil seeps into the ocean and gulf everyday naturally and nothing happens ,so the people with doctrines are probable lying because the deep pocketed anti-oil hippies paid them off to do so.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 7:48 pm to umpa23
quote:
Fires naturally occur.
And I don't get in a big fuss about forest fires either. Despite people freaking out over them they are good for the ecosystem.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying this is good for the ecosystem.
quote:
Male animals naturally rape the females in lots of species. So, when someone burns down your house and rapes your wife dont get pissed....
To everyone talking about how natural seepage is not relevant, this is an excellent example of something that is not relevant to the situation.
quote:
by this i mean your an idiot
Refer to my hypo about making arguments with environmentalist hacks.
quote:
and by an idiot i mean you are stupid
Thanks for clarifying captain redundancy.
quote:
Every educated person in the field of marine biology that has spoken on the topic has said this is very likeily going to be devastating marine life...
One, excellent reference of your knowledge of the thoughts of every single marine biologist. I would like to read your dissertation on the matter. Could you link it?
Also, notice your use of the word "likely". Even a hack who is amid a ridiculous statement doesn't use absolute terminology.
Define devastating grand master of marine biology. If by devastating, you mean a lot of marine life will die, then yes, this is likely going to be devastating. If by devastating you mean that the effects are going to be felt 5 years from now in the form of the eradication of thousands of species, once again, please link your dissertation on the matter and tell me which species will be affected the most. BTW, "fish" are not a species.
quote:
so the people with doctrines are probable lying because the deep pocketed anti-oil hippies paid them off to do so.
Like the Monroe Doctrine? I would much rather listen to people with doctorates (as I already do). Thank you for illustrating the mental caliber of people who make these half cocked arguments.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 9:26 pm to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of crude oil
3000/42= 71.4
Posted on 5/10/10 at 10:59 pm to MC123
quote:
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.
For one thing, it is losing about 10x the number you stated in your earlier post. But, you're right, this happens allday every day all over the world naturally and everything is fine. Govt has and will continue to make this a much more catastrophic effect to the environment. To me, the 11 lives lost is much more devastating than the effects of the spill and that seems to be an afterthought at this point.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 11:21 pm to Alatgr
quote:
3000/42= 71.4
So, it's your reading skills that are lacking. That was about Santa Barbera, not the gulf.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 11:24 pm to sabanisarustedspoke
quote:
For one thing, it is losing about 10x the number you stated in your earlier post.
5000 barrels a day is the generally accepted estimate. I'm assuming you are referring to the stat from SB beach.
quote:
But, you're right, this happens allday every day all over the world naturally and everything is fine.
Didn't say that. Just said it's not an ecological catastrophe. There are hundreds of things that will happen to the environment in the next ten years that will be worse than this.
quote:
To me, the 11 lives lost is much more devastating than the effects of the spill and that seems to be an afterthought at this point.
Agreed. Treehuggers that don't value human life blow my mind.
Posted on 5/10/10 at 11:32 pm to umpa23
quote:
Fires naturally occur. Male animals naturally rape the females in lots of species. So, when someone burns down your house and rapes your wife dont get pissed
This is brutal.
Posted on 5/11/10 at 7:53 am to TheHiddenFlask
quote:
So, it's your reading skills that are lacking
Not really. You were trying to make the point that oil is no harm at all to Santa Barbara. Whether its 70'ish barrels a day off Santa Barbara, or 1370 spread out over the entire Gulf, its a pretty ridiculous comparison to 5000 barrels a day spewing from one point on the seafloor.
I hope like hell you turn out to be right, though, and look forward to more personal attacks in your response.
Posted on 5/11/10 at 7:53 am to Things and stuff
and retarded at the same time.
Posted on 5/11/10 at 2:55 pm to lsugradman
HiddenFlask,
For many people, perception is reality. There have been and will be more people who will cancel trips to new Orleans, gulf coast beaches, fishing trips, etc based on their perception that the water is oily and the fish is poisoned. The real effects of eating the fish or swimming in the water is UNDETERMINED at this time and most people will play it safe. Also, the disaster isn't over yet, which is the scary part. They are apparently nowhere near being able to contain the spill so there's a lot of anxiety associated with that. Also, I don't think people trust the "5,000 barrells per day estimate because it's such a nice round number and I think most people realize that means that they can't accurately calculate that estimate and it could be WAY off.
Your argument about the GOM being one location is silly...in that case we should just call all ocean waters one body of water and analyze it that way. The concentration of this spill has an absolute impact on the "severity" of this diaster and you have to know that.
For many people, perception is reality. There have been and will be more people who will cancel trips to new Orleans, gulf coast beaches, fishing trips, etc based on their perception that the water is oily and the fish is poisoned. The real effects of eating the fish or swimming in the water is UNDETERMINED at this time and most people will play it safe. Also, the disaster isn't over yet, which is the scary part. They are apparently nowhere near being able to contain the spill so there's a lot of anxiety associated with that. Also, I don't think people trust the "5,000 barrells per day estimate because it's such a nice round number and I think most people realize that means that they can't accurately calculate that estimate and it could be WAY off.
Your argument about the GOM being one location is silly...in that case we should just call all ocean waters one body of water and analyze it that way. The concentration of this spill has an absolute impact on the "severity" of this diaster and you have to know that.
This post was edited on 5/11/10 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 5/11/10 at 8:38 pm to Big L
quote:
For many people, perception is reality. There have been and will be more people who will cancel trips to new Orleans, gulf coast beaches, fishing trips, etc based on their perception that the water is oily and the fish is poisoned. The real effects of eating the fish or swimming in the water is UNDETERMINED at this time and most people will play it safe. Also, the disaster isn't over yet, which is the scary part. They are apparently nowhere near being able to contain the spill so there's a lot of anxiety associated with that. Also, I don't think people trust the "5,000 barrells per day estimate because it's such a nice round number and I think most people realize that means that they can't accurately calculate that estimate and it could be WAY off.
I 100% agree. Great analysis.
quote:
Your argument about the GOM being one location is silly...in that case we should just call all ocean waters one body of water and analyze it that way.
That was a tongue in cheek comment. Not meant to be taken so literally. I was pointing out the flaw in the arguments that the other poster was making.
quote:
The concentration of this spill has an absolute impact on the "severity" of this diaster and you have to know that.
100%. I have acknowledged that this is the biggest factor. That is kind of the whole point of this thread. That crude oil in the gulf isn't toxic, but it's concentration is.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply.
Posted on 5/11/10 at 10:24 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Please do not compare th ebeaches of the Gulf Coast to the beaches of Central/Southern California. Also please refrain from posting color enhanced pictures of Beaches here in California. As some one who walked on the Beaches between Malibu and Santa Barbara yesterday, and whose home is on the Beach in Orange Beach there is no comparison. Regardless of what is naturally occurring, I never had oil on my feet after a walk on the beach in Bama, you cant put foot in sand here without having a tarry mess to clean up. I am not arguing the merits of your argument I am simply telling you that Santa Barbara is a piss poor example. (Not too mention they are still suffering from their own spill in 69)
Posted on 5/11/10 at 10:59 pm to eye65
Actual un-enhanced picture of Santa Barbara Beach...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News