Why oil spills are no big deal

So let's say the equivilent of an Exxon Valdez is spilling into the gulf from the BP well every 4 days. That means that every 8 days what is comming from the BP well equals what occurs naturally in the gulf every year. It's just the fact that the oil is comming from a singular souce and at such a rapid rate that is causing alarm.

"Twice an Exxon Valdez spill worth of oil seeps into the Gulf of Mexico every year...

Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas."

www.sciencedaily.com...

Really given enough time, like in a 100 years or so, the gulf will return to it's natural state. That is unless the spill is allowed to continue for an extended length of time.



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

Whew, I guess everyone was worried over nothing then.

Are you a spokesperson for BP?

reply to post by Shine71


Accusing people of being paid by BP simply because they are not jumping on your bandwagon is juvenile. But OP saying the gulf will be ok in a hundred years so it's cool isn't a vote of confidence imo.

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]

Originally posted by Freedom or Death

Really given enough time, like in a 100 years or so, the gulf will return to it's natural state. That is unless the spill is allowed to continue for an extended length of time.

If you take a broad enough view of things, your individual life is meaningless too. Does this mean you think people should be allowed to kill you? If you stand far enough back, the existence of whole groups of humans are also meaningless, so should we allow genocide as well as murder?

The point being, the spill matters because INDIVIDUAL animals and people are currently suffering because of it. There will be many individual lives cut short, (animals) and many individual human lives will feel the impact financially and perhaps in long term health concerns as well.

In the long view of things, the existence of Earth itself is probably meaningless. But we dont consider things that way, now do we? Nothing is a tragedy in the longest view, but in our own short, limited and self interested views we do recognize tragedy, and in that view, this spill IS a tragedy.

reply to post by Shine71


I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be. In the end the spill may turn out to be benificial. There are areas where sea creatures thrive near oil and methane seeps.

Bizarre deep-sea creatures imaged off New Zealand methane vents

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by Freedom or Death


Humans need a certain amount of potassium each day. However if I were to inject you with 2 weeks worth of potassium at once you would be dead in a matter of minutes.

See the analogy here?

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]

And by the way...that analogy to the Exxon Valdez is based on the insanely small estimates that the Coast Guard and BP have decided is coming out. It is actually way larger than that......

Originally posted by webpirate
And by the way...that analogy to the Exxon Valdez is based on the insanely small estimates that the Coast Guard and BP have decided is coming out. It is actually way larger than that......

The East Timor oil spill in 2009 was supposed to be pretty bad as well.

Look at how the event was covered by Al Jazeera. They made a big deal of the visible oil slicks as well. You never hear about this being a problem today.

Al Jazeera interviews WWF on Timor oil spill - 24 Oct 09



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

Just Wondering,

But did you check out this thread first?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

you guys should get together and chat.

Baka.

reply to post by Solomons


Where did I accuse anyone of being paid by BP? Where? Next time, try to read things correctly before responding with pointless irrelevant questions to avoid wasting peoples time reading and answering your posting. I asked if he was a spokesperson for BP. So where did I accuse the poster of being paid by BP as you claim?

Looks like you should pay better attention next time before coming up with silly assumptions. Doing so will keep you from looking foolish as is the case here.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Shine71]

No matter what the truth is, this thread is gov op run thread to through everyone off.

Just cover all your lies, and let everyone be told how camera crews are not allowed to film by bp, lol.

The gov it seems do not care about stopping this, just want to protect the image of the oil industry, lol.

reply to post by andy1033


Sounds VERY much to be true here to be honest with you. VERY TRUE. And I never suspect such things. But this completely rings true to your assumption. I agree 100% andy1033.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Shine71]

Originally posted by webpirate
And by the way...that analogy to the Exxon Valdez is based on the insanely small estimates that the Coast Guard and BP have decided is coming out. It is actually way larger than that......

I believe my calculations are correct.

60,000 barrels a day = 1 exxon valdez (250,000 barrels) every 4 days.

Do you think it's more than 60,000 barrels a day?

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day.

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days.

www.nytimes.com...

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

Originally posted by Freedom or Death
[
Look at how the event was covered by Al Jazeera. They made a big deal of the visible oil slicks as well. You never hear about this being a problem today.

So basically, your line of reasoning is that if it doesnt get a lot of press coverage it isnt important?

So, because we dont hear a lot on the news about oh, the Rwandan genocide anymore, it really wasnt a big deal? Or does the lack of continued reporting about issues say NOTHING about the relative importance in human or environmental terms and say everything about the economic concerns of the media outlets themselves?

Face it, what we see on television is reflective of what media outlets think viewers want to see, (so they can compete for advertising dollars) minus those issues that the media outlets think will damage their own economic concerns. Nothing in that formula indicates that media coverage has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not an issue is of great importance to human beings, human life, or environmental concerns in general.

reply to post by Freedom or Death

Really given enough time, like in a 100 years or so, the gulf will return to it's natural state. That is unless the spill is allowed to continue for an extended length of time.

At first I though "sarcasm". But upon viewing your further responses, it seems you are simply trolling, or worse....

well i live in panama city, fl and the lively hood of the whole town is at stake, as their is 3 major incomes here, and its the papermill, the bwach (tourism), and fishing.Now we have lost 2 of our major incomes, panama is already paying for it, as my family sales cars and now their isnt fishermen or hotel workers or owners who are making enough to buy cars, so it isnt ok.

not only that but the everglades will suffer also, and our swamps will die, possibly the oil could cause more heat, thus worser hurricanes and then the coast wont have any protection, due to no swamps, and even possibly the oil could get into the rain......

[edit on 23-5-2010 by skischoow]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

So basically, your line of reasoning is that if it doesnt get a lot of press coverage it isnt important?

So, because we dont hear a lot on the news about oh, the Rwandan genocide anymore, it really wasnt a big deal? Or does the lack of continued reporting about issues say NOTHING about the relative importance in human or environmental terms and say everything about the economic concerns of the media outlets themselves?

It's not that an issue is not important, it's just that it's important for people to NOT know that an issue is important. See the distinction?

reply to post by Freedom or Death


Hey F or D,

Got any inside information on the chances of success of your company's top kill attempt next week? I see that it might actually make things worse. Oh wait, that would mean it's better, as life just loves oil according to your propaganda. Thanks for everything!

Best,
SN