Oil Spill Sightings ?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by ude123

Natural Petroleum Seeps Release Equivalent Of Up To 80 Exxon Valdez Oil Spills

Interesting.

Here is hoping the "bugs" eat a lot of it for us.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ude123

I find it typical on this board that there are all these posters on here attacking my views/thoughts on the spill and yet no one has given any of their creditials/expertise, nor asked for my creditials/expertise on any of these subjects yet feel comfortable enough to tell me I'm full of it. I'm laughing to myself every time I get one of these armchair scientists telling me I'm full of it!!!

Glenn Beck has suggested that the oil spill may be the work of illegal immigrants from Arizona, intending to unfairly discredit offshore drilling.

Rush Limbaugh said that it was probably "environmentalist wackos" who sabotaged the oil rig. You know because environmentalists want to dump oil in the ocean. That makes much more sense than BP & Hailburton cutting corners to save money.

* “Where is my evidence?” scoffed Beck. “It doesn’t take a genius to put this one together – and obviously I’m not one. The big reveal is this: It’s a known fact that illegal immigrants are not welcome in industries such as oil and petroleum extraction, for the simple reason that these are Patriotic and Christian corporations that care about the welfare of America.

“But – now think about this – if offshore drilling were restricted by the socialist Obama administration in order to choke off America’s supply of clean, inexpensive gasoline, who would benefit? Now do you see where this is going? It is a well known fact that the wind turbine and solar panel industries – which are ineffective and require taxpayer support to be viable – employ many of the undocumented workers in this country. The illegals who are not working in fast food, picking crops or working in slaughter houses are deeply embedded in the alternative energy conspiracy. And the mainstream new media won’t tell you this.”

“If these illegal aliens can create a situation that gives the liberals an excuse to shutdown offshore drilling, who benefits?” Mr. Beck asked rhetorically. “They do.”

[jkleins]

I guess it because what you say is so confusing. You say "where is the oil" and we show you the oil and you say "well I never denied it existed I just don't see it washing up on shore." Look at the pictures of the wash up on shore. There is one where the reporter estimated it to be about 4 inches thick in places. Some show a black rim around the entire marsh.

You are right that there doesn't seem to be as much damage as done in Alaska, "so far." If you are going to take one "official" who predicted something dire in one place and it didn't happen there yet and call all the estimates "over-hype" because it didn't happen everywhere they predicted "yet" you are mistaken.

I will take your word that you are not a conspiracy theorist but it would help if you didn't use things like a perceived "restriction of access" as a call to doubt what is really before your very eyes.

Jim

[GordMay]

Well said, Jim.

[jkleins]

Gord, That Beck quote is too funny.

[ude123]

Beck, Hannity, and the like are extremists(I use these two only because you used Beck quotes, all these so called pundit extremist from every network is there to further a political agenda). It's the moderates on both sides that don't have a say(at least as far as the coverage of the oil spill goes). Again, let me clarify, I believe there is an extreme amount of oil dumping into the Gulf but I don't believe we will see very much of it(relative to the amount deposited) and this goes against the media's prediction of doom for the entire Gulf. How much damage was done in the very same waters in 1979? What were the fish counts the following years? They are saying there won't be fishing in the Gulf for years to come. I'm saying that the oil doesn't seem to be killing too many fish as of day 62 and if the oil stays down deep then it won't affect them as they swim much closer to the surface. What we may even see next year is that the fish counts are higher where this may be due to no fishing this year. Extremists in anything is dangerous. It's the extemists on both sides hyping this up for their own political gain.

[FrankZ]

The focus of this thread was supposed to be showing pictures of the slick but it has gotten side tracked onto a political agenda. We don't do politics here. This is the one warning the thread gets.

Thank you for your understanding.

[ude123]

Who got political?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ude123

Who got political?

I suppose that may have been I.
I apologise.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by ude123

Skipmac: Reality of the situation:
1) 10" pipe spewing oil uncontrolled into the Gulf for 62 days
2) Estimates of 150 million gallons deposited so far
3) reports saying there is an oil slick the size of Vermont lurking off the coast(presumably waiting for a surprise attack on the shores)
4) No pictures or videos of ANY oil spill near the size of 150 million gallons(nor reporters from onboard boats out in the giant oil slick cleaning up)
5) Entire area where slick is purported to be is restricted(by air and sea)
6) All cleanup workers under strict contract not letting them talk to anybody
7) appox 46 miles of coast affected so far(affected meaning any amount of oil discovered, even a quarter size piece)
8) recovered approx 24 million gallons of oil/water mix so far(meaning lots of water in this number)(using this recovered number, where is the other 126 million gallons of oil.)
9) Historical pictures/data from an oil spill of 11 million gallons on surface(Exxon Valdez) showing thousands and thousands of sea/bird life covered in oil, also showing over 800 miles of coastline BLACKENED within days(as far as 350 miles away from spill)
10) I have spoken with 3 different sailors(two that sailed from Miss.(2 separate boats) to Houston-offshore(look at a map and compare this route to where this oil slick is suppose to be), and one from St. Pete-offshore) and neither saw a drop of oil.(I'm near Houston)

I have never claimed this oil spill is a hoax or anything of the sort. I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in what has been widely reported versus what logic says. Don't you people think this spill should act as past spills have(or how natural seeps behave)? Look at the 1979 Mexico blow out. Shouldn't we see about the same thing? Look at the stats. Compare them to Exxon Valdez. They are reporting this to be like(or way worse) than Exxon Valdez. My beleif is that it is much worse than Exxon Valdez only this time we(humans on the surface) will not be seeing the enviromental damage as it will be at the depths where the damage occurs. If the American public don't see blackened shorelines then they will forget this accident very soon. That's the problem with the way it's being reported. Here is an interesting article on natural seeps in the Gulf:
Natural Petroleum Seeps Release Equivalent Of Up To 80 Exxon Valdez Oil Spills
It was written a year ago. Look at the diagram and see how much of the natural seeps end up on the sea floor. What is the difference between a natural seep and the 'seeping' coming out of the end of the 10" pipe? Thank you Skipmac for your scientific declaration that my opinions are not scientifically correct. Do you have some sort of degree or title(say PHD?) that would give you the license to make this declaration? Is there anything incorrect in my 'reality of the situation' above?

The majority of the questions you keep asking have been answered, straightforward, logically and from posters that obviously know their stuff.

Obviously you don't want to hear.

Responding is a waste of time and I am unsubscribing from the thread. Have fun.

Definition:

troll someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I suppose that may have been I.
I apologise.

Me too, my bad. But it was really funny. :-)

Jim

[ude123]

Skipmac, do you really think it is appropriate to call someone a troll? If I didn't want to 'hear' I wouldn't be posting these questions. I think they are legitimate questions. If people don't question things how do you get answers(or understanding)? How is it obvious that the responding posters know their stuff? No one has given any credentials or an expertise resume on this subject. Are you just assuming that since these responses parallel your own thoughts you have determined them to know their stuff? Because if you have parallel thoughts to these posters and you didn't defend them with such vigor you would be saying that you don't know your stuff. And anyone who has read your posts knows that you know your stuff. Is there some sort of problem with a lively debate on a subject(oil spill) without people taking their ball and going home? I may not agree with some on this board but I certainly respect their opinions or I wouldn't have asked. I've never called anyone names or been disrespectful(and if any posts were misconstrued, I apologize they were not intended to be disrespectful).

[Bash]

Originally Posted by skipmac

troll someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

...I just had to see it get posted again.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by ude123

Are you one of those PNW eco-maniacs that also believe in man made global warming? Aren't the polar caps suppose to be melted my now?

I may not agree with some on this board but I certainly respect their opinions or I wouldn't have asked. I've never called anyone names or been disrespectful(and if any posts were misconstrued, I apologize they were not intended to be disrespectful).

ude, maybe it isn't so? Don't call people names and then whine when you think you have been wronged.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

ude, maybe it isn't so? Don't call people names and then whine when you think you have been wronged.

DeepFrz: that was a question not calling anyone names. There is a difference.