It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why oil spills are no big deal

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
That's interesting.

I wondered about underwater oil seepage since it is a naturally occurring substance and it's likely to seep out into the water in some measurable amount each year.

Chances are it's more pronounced than even the article suggests.

I do not discount that there will be residual effects but to hear the news reports it makes it seem like they are pouring unnatural substances into the water.

Honestly, I don't know the ins and outs of the relationship between the rig company and BP and how much BP is really responsible. They are being crucified before we really know who's fault it is or if it is really anyone's fault.

Sometimes, especially when dealing with nature, things can go very wrong.

Meh, but it's how the US media (and people) tend to do things these days. I'm not sure anyone really knows much of anything about this whole situation.

Anyway, interesting article. It certainly is food for thought.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Let's assume you're right - that naturally, ocean bedrock seeps out as much oil in one year as this gusher does in eight days. You are seriously looking at this and saying it's no big deal, even though as of tomorrow this disaster will have saturated the Gulf with three years worth of oil in 24 days? Really? C'mon man, you have to be brighter than this...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legion2112
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Let's assume you're right - that naturally, ocean bedrock seeps out as much oil in one year as this gusher does in eight days. You are seriously looking at this and saying it's no big deal, even though as of tomorrow this disaster will have saturated the Gulf with three years worth of oil in 24 days? Really? C'mon man, you have to be brighter than this...


I believe that I did qualify my statement. The leak should be dealt with and not allowed to run for an extended length of time.


Originally posted by Freedom or Death

That is unless the spill is allowed to continue for an extended length of time.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Not to nitpick or anything... but it already has been allowed to run for an extended period of time. Even if the well is suddenly capped in the next two and a half minutes, the environmental damage is done - irreversibly, catastrophically done.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Double Post...

My bad

[edit on 23-5-2010 by KrazyJethro]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Testimony to Congress last week was that the spill was around 100,000 barrels per day.
Source Story

It isn't just oil. There is also a huge amount of methane coming out of the well. There is way more methane than oil in terms of volume.
Please see my thread on this here.

The methane is way worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It also is already replacing the oxygen levels in the Gulf as we speak.

Furthermore, there is also the addition of dispersant that BP is flooding the Gulf with. On Thursday the EPA gave BP 72 hours to change dispersant because of unknown risks with that large amount of dispersant. It is being used on the top as well as under the surface.
BP has so far refused to comply with this order by the EPA.
More source material

The oil is already on shore across a large chunk of the gulf coast. The damage to the wildlife in these areas might well be unprecedented.
Some of the marshes in Louisiana and Mississippi are very delicate eco-systems. They will be destroyed by this.

Should I even start on the impact to the Florida Keys? Have you ever been here? The shrimping and fishing in this area is already hugely impacted.
Fishermen are loosing money and jobs already because they are no longer allowed to fish here.

I would continue to rebut your claims that this is not a big deal, but I honestly feel I would just be wasting my time...

Judging by your 3 and only posts ever on this site and all today, you sir, are either a full blown troll just looking to start an argument, or are a paid employee of BP or some subsidiary of said company like the United States Government.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by webpirate]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

... before we really know who's fault it is or if it is really anyone's fault.


It could turn out to be a completely natural event that caused the rig explosion. I wonder if the information about the blowout preventer having multiple failures is actually a smokescreen to hide the truth.

Reguardless, when the government nukes the hole, the entire matter will likely be classified and the area cordoned off to investigation for decades to come.

There was a thread ealier about they may have actually tapped into a volcano. Doubtful, but an interesting theory none the less. There is much about the earth and the oceans that are unknown.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

... we really know who's fault it is or if it is really anyone's fault.


There is much about the earth and the oceans that are unknown.


I thought all possible outcomes had been completely studied and verified as safe. I thought Big Oil repeatedly and unabashadly attacked anyone that questioned their claims of safety in the least.

If only the 'drill baby drill' government propagandists and company paid scientists had been so honest before this calamity....

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/23/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by Ahmose
OP..
maybe you did not get the memo..
but
the motto here is
"deny ignorance"
not
"embrace ignorance".


You Fail.
and your "logic" sucks.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by Ahmose]


Perhaps you would like to talk about facts instead of making unfounded accusations?

Naturally occuring oil seepage into the ocean and it's benifits to undersea life is well documented.

NASA Satellites Help Track Natural Oil Slicks as Potential GHG Sources
www.treehugger.com...

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]


or perhaps I would rather not discuss much of anything with someone who uses your "logic".
Ive learned over the years.. it's just not worth the effort. lol

but to humor us all...
Your argument is~ little organisms can thrive in toxicity~
wonderful~

now what about the "larger than tiny" organisms that it kills?

So, by using your "logic"...

Because certain fungi/organisms can grow inside a nuclear reactor...

that means we should all be exposed to nuclear waste, right?

Because fungi can benefit from it.


Brilliant.


Whatever you need to do/say
to make yourself feel better about being/acting so intelligent, mate.

Cheers!

Toxicity for all! (because some creatures can handle it/thrive in it!)
There ya go!


[edit on 23-5-2010 by Ahmose]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Yes but it will not return to its previous state in most of our lifetimes. Small businesses will go under. The ecology will be ruined.

Not much to worry about really. If you don't give a damn.





[edit on 23-5-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Tiger5]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahmose

Your argument is~ little organisms can thrive in toxicity~
wonderful~

now what about the "larger than tiny" organisms that it kills?


It's called the cycle of life or evolution.

We are witnessing a large scale die off of existing sea life, not just in the gulf but everywhere in the world.

What cannot adapt to chages in it's natural enviornment will be replaced by what can.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


No it is called human stupidity.

another huge fail.
Astounding.


Exactly what I meant by "not worth the effort"
Some just will not see, even with perfectly good eyes.
it's a shame.

I am done here.
Thanks for the 'intelligent' dialogue.


pakistaniat.com...




[edit on 23-5-2010 by Ahmose]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Originally posted by Ahmose

Your argument is~ little organisms can thrive in toxicity~
wonderful~

now what about the "larger than tiny" organisms that it kills?


It's called the cycle of life or evolution.

We are witnessing a large scale die off of existing sea life, not just in the gulf but everywhere in the world.

What cannot adapt to chages in it's natural enviornment will be replaced by what can.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]


What nihilistic tripe.

BP and big oil is what needs to go extinct. If the earth had an immune system, it would kill them itself.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/23/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiger5

... it will not return to its previous state in most of our lifetimes.


To be more truthful it will likely be multiple generations before there is a return to what was before.

Although that may not be entirely accurate either.

Life is slowly returning to the pacific islands where the US government tested nuclear weapons in the 40's - 60's. So recovery may be possible within 2 or fewer generations.

That is depending on how long the leak goes on.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The OP contends that, in effect, a fast leak happening now equals a slow leak happening for a hundred years, which is controlled by bacteria as it happens.

This leak is not being controlled by bacteria as it happens, and there is no proof that it will be in a hundred years time either. This leak is affecting the environment in a way no slow leak does, and it is spreading around the world via the gulf stream. before long it will be killing European marine life too.

Sorry fella, but even if you produced verifiable figures on the leakages you are comparing, a small amount over a long time is in no way equivalent to a large amount over a small time.

The human liver handles a certain amount of oxalic acid, (found in spinach) with no problems. But if you feed people a year's intake of oxalic acid in a day, they are not going to be here in a year to recover.

Similarly, the ocean's mechanisms for handling oil may be destroyed by this gusher.



Re the methane, last I read 300 times as much methane as oil is being released, ...

Methane combines with seawater and dissolved oxygen, eliminating the oxygen on which most marine life depends, and producing carbon dioxide.

A few creatures have evolved to survive around methane vents, but it is a lie to suggest that means vast amounts of methane added to oceans will be good for marine life. Added methane in these quantities exterminates marine life.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, 10 times worse than carbon dioxide.
Such a huge release could help trigger changes which will lead to polar melting and sea warming, which would cause more release of methane, and could result in a run-away chain reaction.



I believe what America and BP have done, through this disaster, will slow the gulf stream and hasten global warming, ensuring the freezing of Europe. As TPTB may want this result, the incident and the lack of muscle put into any repair could signify the disaster was intentionally created to bolster America's power.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

The OP contends that, in effect, a fast leak happening now equals a slow leak happening for a hundred years, which is controlled by bacteria as it happens.


Actually to be more accurate the fast leak is the equivilent of a slow leak happening every 8 days.

So for the fast leak to equal the slow leakage for 100 years it would have to run for 800+ days or a little over 2 years.

What I said is it may take 100 years or more for the enviornment to recover depending on how long the leak is allowed to continue.

If it is allowed to run for 2 years then you haven't seen anything yet.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom or Death
Perhaps you would like to talk about facts instead of making unfounded accusations?

Naturally occuring oil seepage into the ocean and it's benifits to undersea life is well documented.

NASA Satellites Help Track Natural Oil Slicks as Potential GHG Sources
www.treehugger.com...


Interesting article you posted.

It explains one of the problems with oil seepages in the ocean. NASA Satellites are tracking them because they are GHG (greenhouse gas) sources, emitting carbon dioxide.

Despite your implication this article does not document any benefit of oil to undersea life.


Thanks for pointing out the oil fountain is even more environmentally damaging than we realised.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

It explains one of the problems with oil seepages in the ocean. NASA Satellites are tracking them because they are GHG (greenhouse gas) sources, emitting carbon dioxide.


If that's true then we have more to fear from mother nature than we do mankind.

Chart showing oil souces in the waterways.



tomnelson.blogspot.com...

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Does your pie chart include the gulf spill???

Besides, your conflating of the oil spill w/ 'normal' seepage and exposure of marine environments to hydro-carbons has already been thoroughly and unceremoniously debunked.

Best,
SN

P.S. Gotta love that your pie-chart comes from a blog entitled 'No Excuse Not to Dill Here,' which contains this nugget that would be good for all to remember:



Earlier this month President Bush removed the Executive ban on offshore oil drilling and urged the Congress to follow suit. Congress will have to act one way or the other as the congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires on September 30.

Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid (or is it the other way around?) have dug in their heels and refused to allow new drilling to take place offshore, or anywhere else for that matter.


And then this (after extensively quoting the renowned expert that is Sarah Palin):



...Oil exploration, transportation and use in this country has become remarkably safe. Especially when compared to the rest of the world.


[edit on 5/23/2010 by skunknuts]

[edit on 5/23/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


reply to post by Freedom or Death
 


Let me get this straight,
You registered on 5/21/2010

You got your minimum 20 posts:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And your first thread posted is this:
Earthquakes in the Gulf?

Pretty fancy post for someone new here. Proper use of quotes, uploaded images and a diversionary tactic pushing to earthquakes as a cause with an open ended question to try to draw people into a wild goose chase.

Hope your getting paid to sell out.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join