Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gulf Oil Spill Another Extinction-Level HOAX?

page: 1
57
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+25 more 
posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Gulf Oil Spill Another

Extinction-Level HOAX?


I was born in Texas in 1959 and lived on the Texas Gulf Coast for about 30 years. Waay back in the 1960s, I remember wandering along the beach at Galveston, collecting shells and shark teeth, and often stepping into globs of sticky tar, which would stain my skin brown for days afterwards. When we went swimming in the surf, we'd come back with brown globs on our skin and swim trunks — and that stuff did not wash out of fabric.

When we went crabbing along the Gulf Coast, we'd bring back hundreds of big, male Blue Crabs in our massive cooler, which we filled with seawater to keep the crustaceans alive as long as possible. As the crabs glowered up at us through the water, we could see that they were exhaling thick, brown globs that would rise up and spread out in a rainbow on the surface.

I asked my Dad what the hell this stuff was, and he'd tell me it was crude oil. Pointing out to the horizon, he brought my attention to the various oil rigs that were barely visible in the Gulf of Mexico, and he explained that there were hundreds of those rigs out there, many miles off the Texas and Louisiana coast, and that they leaked crude oil like a sieve.

All the time.

He knew. He had fished the oil rigs, went right out there and tied off to them and watched the oil bubbling up, spreading out in millions of blobs, and creating a rainbow sheen across the surface of the deep blue water.

This was back in the 1960s.

As an adult on the Gulf Coast, I fished the surf and offshore myself, and saw the same exact crude oil slicks, the never-ending tide of brown blobs and the petroleum sheen. This was in the 70s, the 80s and 90s. The leakage was ONGOING, those rigs had been leaking for my entire life.

Check this out:



That's a satellite shot of the Gulf of Mexico off the Texas and Louisiana coast. You're probably looking at an area of 100 miles across, depicting a considerable number of offshore oil rigs (and gas rigs). Each of the dark trails you see stretching for tens of miles across the surface is an oil slick generated by each rig.

That's just normal spillage that occurs every minute of every day, year-in, year-out, for decades. Unchecked and unreported (to the public). But anybody who lives on the Gulf KNOWS the truth of the matter.

Offshore oil rigs EACH leak HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF CRUDE OIL into the Gulf of Mexico every year, for as long as I can remember. That's millions of gallons annually. You've been living with it and swimming in it and eating it all your lives.

And that's why it's my firm opinion that this "catastrophic" oil leak in the Gulf is a bunch of hogwash. Another environmental hoax being perpetrated in order to advance the Green Agenda — The Global Warming Hoax has fallen through, it failed to touch the heart of the public, so now they're going to hit you where it hurts — they're going to USE THIS "catastrophic" leak to drive up your gas prices, drive up your seafood prices and everything else.

Gee, I wonder why Obama's FEMA team isn't jumping all over this to head off the "potential catastrophe"? Why haven't they tried burning off the oil slick as they vowed to do several days ago?

It's because crude oil floating around in the Gulf doesn't burn. If there was any chance of an oil slick in the Gulf catching fire, it would have burned out the offshore oil industry decades ago. Look at the picture above and tell me that wouldn't be a catastrophe IF IT WAS POSSIBLE for a crude oil slick to catch fire.

They're offering SNIP solutions for a SNIP emergency, because the public doesn't know the difference. And Obama's Emergency Management team isn't mobilized because they KNOW there's no emergency.

— Doc Velocity

 


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by AshleyD]




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Excellent post!

I have been on rescue missions into the Gulf, in the 1980s and 1990s. I have seen these same things myself. I imagine that it must be only when a huge oil spill would be reported. However, with all of these reporters in the area, why aren't they talking about these other "spills."



+23 more 
posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Interesting write up, but I think you are underestimating the size of this spill.

Your talking about 100,000's thousands of gallons. They're talking about 100,000 barrels a day! Multiply that times 42 to get gallons. And for how long?

And, it's pretty close to shore. And, it's almost hurricane season. And, they are spraying and pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant, which contains who knows what chemicals.

This is definitely a catastrophic event, in my opinion.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
thanks for posting s and f's

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by semperfortis]


+17 more 
posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Respectfully....Are you kidding me?
A quarter of a million gallons of crude is being pumped into the Gulf right now. Don't even try to discount the severity of this issue...the results are going to be catastrophic. How many times in the 60's were beaches shut down from contamination?? How about the fishing industry??
Good luck trying to convince the masses that this bull# that you're spouting is fact. It's like trying to compare a firecracker to a hydrogen bomb.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
I imagine that it must be only when a huge oil spill would be reported.

Crude oil naturally disperses in seawater, given enough time. Crude oil is organic, and it does get eaten up by various microbes (and fish, and people). Which is why the many decades of oil leakage is no big concern.

The only time we hear of crude oil slick warnings is when a big slick is quickly carried in to shore by wind and currents before it has time to naturally disperse. So you'll hear about 20 mile slicks and 40 mile crude slicks coming ashore on the Gulf Coast, which is more of a nuisance to tourism than it is an ecological threat.

It's when we refine crude oil and distill it that it becomes a toxic menace. The real threat is when a tanker loses a few thousand barrels of kerosene or something like that, a synthesized petroleum product — this has happened many times in the Gulf, as well, without causing an ecological disaster.

— Doc Velocity


+6 more 
posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Your basic tenants are probably correct, Doc, but the scale is waaay off. Here on this sleepy little Caribbean island, the south side of our dinky island is pretty much permanently dotted by black tar -- old crude, sunbaked; probably as a result of passing tankers -- we also get a crapload of plastic oil containers and other plastic wash up. That's the "new normal", as the "norm" was when you were a kid thrashing it the waves with oil all about.

This spill is exponentially larger than the usual spill, let alone larger than the ambient amount of crude that has always washed up since the invention of offshore oil platforms.

If allowed uncheck, it will KILL, and not just the crabs. Crabs, incidentally, are somewhat resistant. The real death is in the disruption to the primary branch of the food chain. This is pretty serious, bud.

I worked a spill more than 20 years ago that with quick response, burning (flashing, really), cool waters (which tend to coagulate crude) and tons of shore response, still took more than 10 years to be pretty much "mitigated". That was a nosebleed compared to the size of this spill. Exxon-Valdez was a flesh wound.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Truth1000
I imagine that it must be only when a huge oil spill would be reported.

Crude oil naturally disperses in seawater, given enough time. Crude oil is organic, and it does get eaten up by various microbes (and fish, and people). Which is why the many decades of oil leakage is no big concern.

The only time we hear of crude oil slick warnings is when a big slick is quickly carried in to shore by wind and currents before it has time to naturally disperse. So you'll hear about 20 mile slicks and 40 mile crude slicks coming ashore on the Gulf Coast, which is more of a nuisance to tourism than it is an ecological threat.

It's when we refine crude oil and distill it that it becomes a toxic menace. The real threat is when a tanker loses a few thousand barrels of kerosene or something like that, a synthesized petroleum product — this has happened many times in the Gulf, as well, without causing an ecological disaster.

— Doc Velocity


Thank you for the insight, so we may have a small light at the end of the tunnel is what you're saying?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
link

i suppose this might help on the 'toxicity' of crude oil...



The petroleum industry often characterizes crude oils according to their geographical source, e.g., Alaska North Slope Crude. Oils from different geographical areas have unique properties; they can vary in consistency from a light volatile fluid to a semi-solid. Classification of crude oil types by geographical source is generally not a useful classification scheme for response personnel because they offer little information about general toxicity, physical state, and changes that occur with time and weathering. These characteristics are primary considerations in oil spill response. The classification scheme provided below is more useful in a response scenario.

Class A: Light, Volatile Oils. These oils are highly fluid, often clear, spread rapidly on solid or water surfaces, have a strong odor, a high evaporation rate, and are usually flammable. They penetrate porous surfaces such as dirt and sand, and may be persistent in such a matrix. They do not tend to adhere to surfaces; flushing with water generally removes them. Class A oils may be highly toxic to humans, fish, and other biota. Most refined products and many of the highest quality light crudes can be included in this class.

Class B: Non-Sticky Oils. These oils have a waxy or oily feel. Class B oils are less toxic and adhere more firmly to surfaces than Class A oils, although they can be removed from surfaces by vigorous flushing. As temperatures rise, their tendency to penetrate porous substrates increases and they can be persistent. Evaporation of volatiles may lead to a Class C or D residue. Medium to heavy paraffin-based oils fall into this class.

Class C: Heavy, Sticky Oils. Class C oils are characteristically viscous, sticky or tarry, and brown or black. Flushing with water will not readily remove this material from surfaces, but the oil does not readily penetrate porous surfaces. The density of Class C oils may be near that of water and they often sink. Weathering or evaporation of volatiles may produce solid or tarry Class D oil. Toxicity is low, but wildlife can be smothered or drowned when contaminated. This class includes residual fuel oils and medium to heavy crudes.

Class D: Nonfluid Oils. Class D oils are relatively non-toxic, do not penetrate porous substrates, and are usually black or dark brown in color. When heated, Class D oils may melt and coat surfaces making cleanup very difficult. Residual oils, heavy crude oils, some high paraffin oils, and some weathered oils fall into this class.

These classifications are dynamic for spilled oils; weather conditions and water temperature greatly influence the behavior of oil and refined petroleum products in the environment. For example, as volatiles evaporate from a Class B oil, it may become a Class C oil. If a significant temperature drop occurs (e.g., at night), a Class C oil may solidify and resemble a Class D oil. Upon warming, the Class D oil may revert back to a Class C oil.



[edit on 5/3/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by discl0sur3
Respectfully....Are you kidding me?
A quarter of a million gallons of crude is being pumped into the Gulf right now. Don't even try to discount the severity of this issue...the results are going to be catastrophic.

Respectfully, you don't know how much crude oil is being "pumped into" the Gulf. All you know is the triple-distilled propaganda coming to you via the mainstream media. The same media that has been trying to fill your head with manmade global warming propaganda.

I'm fairly sure that this "catastrophic spill" is no more and no less severe than any other crude oil spill, but it's being hyped in preparation for jacking up gas and seafood prices, in order to convince the public that we need to abandon crude oil as a fuel source.

Whaddaya wanna bet?

— Doc Velocity



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I think, more than anything, you have merely provided one more nail in the coffin of 'drill baby drill'. The contamination you have shown to be an everyday occurrence, if common knowledge would put a big dent in the support for off-shore drilling. While you were perhaps happy to get covered in crude oil while swimming on the texas coast and were also apparently happy to eat sea-food contaminated with crude oil, my best guess is you are one of the VERY few who holds such a sentiment.

Oil is nasty but useful. Far too useful and precious to be simply burned with no real regard for its value.

The current paradigm is broken and is slowly coming to a grinding halt.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by discl0sur3
Good luck trying to convince the masses that this bull# that you're spouting is fact. It's like trying to compare a firecracker to a hydrogen bomb.

As I very plainly announced in the OP, this is my firm opinion, as a longtime resident of the upper Texas Gulf Coast, and an up-close observer on many, many crude oil slicks in the Gulf.

Is there a "light at the end of the tunnel"? In my opinion, there's no tunnel. Only propaganda.

— Doc Velocity



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
even though if it's toxicity is low, and it already has been leaking into the gulf for such a long time, does not really mean it won't have negative effects

water is essential to life, yet a human can die from drinking too much water (eventually the lungs will flood) it doesn't have to be toxic to kill

if there is enough of the oil sludge out there, birds can become weighed down and not be able to fly, smaller animals might not even be able to Move in the sludge, animals with feathers and fur have been known to suffer hypothermia because oil can render their fur encapable of retaining heat

there are so many ways that just the sheer amount of this un natural 'medium' to end most organisms natural functioning abilities..

and we know that the ecosystem has a fragile web and food chain.. small changes can begat radical and large scale effects.. this oil spill is not small though, it's size means that even without toxicity it has the potential to nutrualize alot of different species or organisms, big and small, and all of those changes made in the webs and chains of the natural order of things will have even Larger effects in the near future

hmmm



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
i suppose this might help on the 'toxicity' of crude oil...

Thanks, that's a very educational bit of info for those out there who haven't lived with the oil industry their entire lives.

— Doc Velocity


+7 more 
posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Wait.

So this happens all the time according to you. Ok.

Why do I smell it in the air, compared to all the time when it's naturally happening. Is this the first time the wind has ever blown from that direction in 27 years?

Why have I seen the dead animals on the shore with oil, compared to never seeing that in my lifetime?

Why are my friends in tears knowing that they are out of work as they are part of the shipping industry that ends, well... tomorrow?

Do you really think that all of that would be happening if this was completely common? Your logic is so flawed on this, it is similar to the theory of holographic planes hitting the Twin Towers.

It's all triple-distilled media regurgitation, right?


Nobody tells me what I suddenly start smelling in the air, when it is me that suddenly smells it permeating the air and I know it smells like benzene.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by discl0sur3
Respectfully....Are you kidding me?
A quarter of a million gallons of crude is being pumped into the Gulf right now. Don't even try to discount the severity of this issue...the results are going to be catastrophic.

Respectfully, you don't know how much crude oil is being "pumped into" the Gulf. All you know is the triple-distilled propaganda coming to you via the mainstream media.



we may not know the exact amount, but we have seen the space images, is that not alarming enough?

just playing the 'advocate' game, not intentionally pushing arguement against anyone

[edit on 5/3/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
I think, more than anything, you have merely provided one more nail in the coffin of 'drill baby drill'. The contamination you have shown to be an everyday occurrence, if common knowledge would put a big dent in the support for off-shore drilling.

Well, yeah, exactly, but the fact is that this daily spillage has been going on for many decades and has survived every ecological campaign that has ever come down the pike.

In my opinion, that's because more people prefer driving their cars and jet-setting (including all the Green advocates) and they don't want to think about nonstop crude oil spillage. The petroleum industry hears that message, and they keep pumping.

— Doc Velocity



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by indigothefish
we may not know the exact amount, but we have seen the space images, is that not alarming enough?

Not necessarily.

Now, if they showed space-based images of the normal amount of crude oil spilling into the Gulf every moment of every day for the last 50 years, THAT might be alarming.

But, as I've said, this is all about creating panic after 50 years of silence. So, naturally, they've gotta make this spill sound and appear bigger than anything that has gone before.

Which is, I think, a hoax.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 5/3/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Since you are neglecting to respond. Why am I seeing it? I grew up swimming and fishing with having a camp in and near the gulf, respectively?

It's not a hoax, this is truly on par with saying that there were no planes involved in 9/11.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Doc is right... those saying this is an ELE Extinction level event are just more doomsayers...
Real case study on major spills
I'm not saying this one isn't bad
just no where near ELE bad





new topics

top topics



 
57
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join