# the Oil Spill



## JennyG

I read today in the Daily Telegraph (generally a reputable organ) that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is dispersing much more quickly and with much less trauma than most experts predicted.
It's very good news if it's true. Is it true?


----------



## JoyFullMom

Well...I guess that is something that is *relative* to whom you are asking. Some expected great troubles and have seen none. Some, are totally devastated. And then there are those whose answer would be *relative* to which political party they hold. I am referring to the people who live and make their living by the Gulf.


----------



## LawrenceU

It is not as bad as some of the experts said it would be. It is becoming rather obvious that the little microbes got involved. At least that is the opinion of many. Of course in Louisiana there are some areas of marsh that took a beating, but the wide spread catastrophe that was a 'certainty' has not occurred. Well, let me temper that: the catastrophe that has occurred is the economic disaster that has occurred due to the feds and the media scaring everyone away from the Gulf during the highest part of the tourism season. That is the big disaster. That and closing areas to fishing that did not need to be closed so quickly. 

Yes, there are environmental impacts from the oil. However, this old ball was designed pretty well and it will heal itself rather quickly if allowed. One of the greatest potential environmental tragedies in this fiasco has been the dispersants used. They were not the normally used dispersants. Oh no. Those would never do. The environmentalists deemed them unsafe. So, a different type was used. These have never been used on this scale and apparently have created large mostly neutrally buoyant 'blobs' of goo that are shifting around subsurface. That may be the big ecological disaster if there is one. They can't track them well, they apparently are 'dead' meaning that they can't be digested by the little buggers that live in the ocean. This has never happened before so who knows. If BP, et al had been allowed to do what normally is done on a spill: burn booms, surface burn off, and normal surfactant dispersants, immediate skimming, and the like much of oil that has hit shore would never have gotten close, perhaps none. It would be extremely difficult to convince me that the meddling on the federal level was not intentional.


----------



## TimV

Crude oil is like a bunch of little black snakes of different lengths. Imagine carbon atoms linked together. 3 in a chain is propane, 4 is butane, 9,10 and 11 are gas for your car, 14,15 and 16 long is jet fuel, 19,20 and 21 is diesel, 25 long and more are various greases etc...

When the reach the top of the sea, and the sea is warm, and the air is hot, and there's lots of wind, well, imagine if you went outside your door to the street on a hot, windy day and poured a gallon of gas on the pavement. Where would it be the next day? Could you find it? Could you collect it back into the one gallon gas can? 

It's the same thing. Most of that oil is again part of the carbon cycle. Some you'll be eating, since fruits and veggies need it to make fat, starch, carbs, sugar and wood. Some you'll breath back out. Some will be taken in by alfalfa and be fed to cows and next year every hamburger everyone here reading this eats will contain a few atoms of those carbon molecules that blew into the sea.

Yawn. The biggest catastrophe in US history was, well, not that big a deal. As anyone with a basic understanding of science knew would be the case.


----------



## jwright82

I live on the east coast of Florida but the only impact we have is some raised prices on some seafood I think, like clams or something I heard. You know I know a familey that owns a bar/gril/restraunt here that serves lots of seafood I could ask them about there prices.


----------



## Montanablue

It would be interesting to hear from someone who lives in the affected area.


----------



## LawrenceU

Montanablue said:


> It would be interesting to hear from someone who lives in the affected area.


 
umm. . . I do.


----------



## Montanablue

Oh, my mistake! I always forget that Mobile is on the coast. Well, I'm glad you're not seeing any ill effects (environmentally that is - I know the economic situation is poor)


----------



## Romans922

It is interesting how God works and how pagan men respond:



> *Gulf Oil Vanishing, EPA Seeks Injunction Against Nature*
> 
> *by Scott Ott *
> 
> (2010-07-27) — The Obama administration today filed an injunction in federal court which would require an immediate halt to cleanup efforts in the Gulf of Mexico currently under way by the forces of nature.
> 
> 
> The move comes as analysts confessed they’re having difficulty finding the millions of gallons which have spilled into the Gulf from a BP Deepwater Horizon well during the past month and a half.
> 
> 
> Citing a variety of regulatory violations, including a failure to seek permits or to file paperwork in a timely manner, as well as use of non-approved cleanup techniques and biological dispersants, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked the federal judge to issue a cease-and-desist order until the government can complete a study of nature’s remediation efforts.
> 
> 
> The study, funded by economic stimulus money in order to create jobs, will determine whether nature’s methodology comports with thousands of pages of federal regulation designed to protect citizens and wildlife from the harm often caused by activities that lack federal government sanction.
> “If the oil continues to vanish at this rate without government approval,” said an unnamed EPA spokesman, “the American people face a threat worse than the initial spill: a crisis of confidence that could lead them to follow nature’s example, and to solve problems without waiting for action by the appropriate regulatory agency. I can assure you that nobody in Washington D.C. wants to see that happen.”


----------



## LawrenceU

Montanablue said:


> Oh, my mistake! I always forget that Mobile is on the coast. Well, I'm glad you're not seeing any ill effects (environmentally that is - I know the economic situation is poor)


 

 No biggie. I just thought your request was kind of funny.


----------



## JennyG

Thanks, everyone. When I read the article my first thought was "must run it by the PB" - though I didn't realise, any more than Kathleen, that you live right on the doorstep, Lawrence!
Things are never what they seem, especially when it comes to science.
How increasingly crazy does it seem to see mankind giving all its trust and reverence to the men in lab coats.


----------



## lynnie

Jenny- thank you for your concern.

It isn't over until it is over.

The Oil Drum | BP Macondo Blowout - Static Top Kill vs. Bottom Kill: Weighing the Risks

They expect to try to kill it in the next few days, but it might not work, so all prayers appreciated.


----------



## Edward

Louisiana has reopened a a good sized portion of water for fishing and shrimping. I understand that the oyster beds are still closed (not sure that they re-opened after Katrina) and crabbing is still banned for now. 

See map at link for areas reopened and those still closed. 
Producers hope Louisiana commercial fishing reopening calms seafood safety concerns | NOLA.com


----------



## Scott1

After a major news media campaign of fear, panic, a 30 billion dollar shakedown of private property, and bureaucrat takeover of same- the incredible crisis has mostly subsided. 

The oil returns or evaporates to the earth from which it came, leaving the media to prepare its next crisis and propaganda campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/science/earth/04oil.html?_r=1


----------



## baron

I saw a report on Fox News that seventy five percent of the oil is gone. Where has it gone to? But that is good news.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Most of it evaporated to seeped back into the ocean floor from what I read. What happened to the 25 year doomsday scenario for clean up?


----------



## JennyG

Chaplainintraining said:


> What happened to the 25 year doomsday scenario for clean up?


the same thing that happens to most doomsday scenarios, it seems. The world's movers and shakers should all be given _The Boy Who Cried Wolf_ as required reading


----------



## Notthemama1984

They wouldn't read a 15 page AZ law, so why would we think they would read that?


----------



## JennyG

Chaplainintraining said:


> They wouldn't read a 15 page AZ law, so why would we think they would read that?


haha, that's why I said _required_ reading... surely, one little law is all it would take


----------



## Notthemama1984

Aren't they above the law though?


----------



## JennyG

Chaplainintraining said:


> Aren't they above the law though?


Well, if you must know...I didn't really think it was going to happen


----------



## Scott1

Gulf marsh lands already "healing" themselves:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZ4brYL67KfzOPe-6Jx-gDt73h7QD9HHIJLG3


Will the 20 billion be returned to its owners?


----------



## Edward

Scott1 said:


> Gulf marsh lands already "healing" themselves:
> The Associated Press: In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes
> 
> 
> Will the 20 billion be returned to its owners?


 
There were real economic losses in the region -- mostly caused by media fueled panic.


----------



## LawrenceU

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gulf marsh lands already "healing" themselves:
> The Associated Press: In La., signs of regrowth seen in oiled marshes
> 
> 
> Will the 20 billion be returned to its owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were real economic losses in the region -- mostly caused by media fueled panic.
Click to expand...

 
Yep. It was bad. Really bad. And, almost none of it from oil, unless you want to count snake oil.


----------



## EverReforming

As unfortunate as the oil spill was, I think the biggest disaster was how it was handled. Between the media, the government, and BP, it's just been a series of blunders.

I saw one of those "De-Motivational" posters that said "Government - If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait till you see our solutions." Very fitting.


----------



## coramdeo

Economically , a disaster for many. Environmentally, not so much. This was "light crude" so it breaks up and evaporates quickly. To put in perspective I 've heard that *if the new Cowboy's Stadium was the Gulf of Mexico, all of the spilled oil would be a 24oz. cup of beer.*


----------



## Zenas

Spent a week in Florida and never saw a drop of oil- not on the beach and not in the water. I went deep sea fishing off the coast. No oil anywhere and plenty of fish. If you had banned me from the news from the past few months, you wouldn't be able to convince me that an oil spill had occurred in the Gulf that was purported to be the biggest catastrophe in U.S. history.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

I live on the beach in Destin, FL, and have seen only a single 2 inch tar ball - and that was in the beginning of July. Since then I haven't seen a trace of oil anywhere, on the water or on the sand, and our area was predicted to be hit pretty hard. The clean-up crew was stationed in the state park right next to my building. In 6 weeks I saw them do nothing other than stand around, eat lunch, and move the port-a-potties. They eventually left altogether a couple of weeks ago. It's a shame all the tourists were scared away...this area took a pretty big economic hit.


----------



## LawrenceU

Mason, I did not know you were in Destin now. Cool.


----------



## Zenas

I was in Ft. Walton a week ago, just west of Destin. I'm missing the Back Porch for dinner.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> I was in Ft. Walton a week ago, just west of Destin. I'm missing the Back Porch for dinner.


 
I live in the complex right next to the Back Porch - next time shoot me a message and we'll get together!


----------



## TexanRose

Wow, I'm surprised that the people who have responded here think (as far as I can tell) that the oil spill was no big deal. I mean surely no matter what your political stance and where you get your news, you can at least agree that the oil spill was a horrible waste of perfectly good oil, right?


----------



## Skyler

TexanRose said:


> Wow, I'm surprised that the people who have responded here think (as far as I can tell) that the oil spill was no big deal. I mean surely no matter what your political stance and where you get your news, you can at least agree that the oil spill was a horrible waste of perfectly good oil, right?


 
It was "no big deal" relative to the immense hype the media was making about it. Objectively, sure, it was a disaster--but compared to what they thought would happen, it was about as bad as a tanker truck tipping over on the highway.


----------



## Edward

TexanRose said:


> Wow, I'm surprised that the people who have responded here think (as far as I can tell) that the oil spill was no big deal. I mean surely no matter what your political stance and where you get your news, you can at least agree that the oil spill was a horrible waste of perfectly good oil, right?


 
About enough to keep the BP refinery outside Houston supplied for 10 days. (Generous estimate of oil lost, 5 million barrels, capacity of the Texas City refinery, 475,000 barrels a day).


----------



## Zenas

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in Ft. Walton a week ago, just west of Destin. I'm missing the Back Porch for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the complex right next to the Back Porch - next time shoot me a message and we'll get together!
Click to expand...

 
Well shoot. We ate there twice. Got the surf and turf. Surprisingly great steaks. Also hit that outlet mall a few miles down the road a couple of times. Really a great area. Going back with my parents before too long so my dad, little brother and I can go deep sea fishing.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Zenas said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in Ft. Walton a week ago, just west of Destin. I'm missing the Back Porch for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the complex right next to the Back Porch - next time shoot me a message and we'll get together!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well shoot. We ate there twice. Got the surf and turf. Surprisingly great steaks. Also hit that outlet mall a few miles down the road a couple of times. Really a great area. Going back with my parents before too long so my dad, little brother and I can go deep sea fishing.
Click to expand...

 
You should try the Fish Bar - just opened up 6 weeks ago. Really good food - try the shrimp and grits entree. Anyway, if you're interested in getting together shoot me a message...


----------



## Scott1

The British media does some real reporting on the context of this oil spill, its impact, cost, and cleanup:

BP oil spill: Why claims that Gulf of Mexico was history's worst oil spill may be the most cynical spin campaign ever | Mail Online

We live at a time in which we have no major media journalism anymore, we live in a time of major media propaganda, and we can no longer, in the main, count on it to provide us information about which to form opinions about our world. Not about the church, what's real, what's true, what's good, what's bad, not even what's accurate. (That is a greater disaster than what happened in the Gulf, really).


----------



## TexanRose

These guys say that 80% of the oil is still out there...just because we don't see it along the shores doesn't mean it's gone, I guess.

ISS - Almost 80 percent of BP's spilled oil still threatens Gulf, report finds


----------



## Edward

TexanRose said:


> These guys say that 80% of the oil is still out there...just because we don't see it along the shores doesn't mean it's gone, I guess.
> 
> ISS - Almost 80 percent of BP's spilled oil still threatens Gulf, report finds


 
I'd suggest clicking on their 'About' page before anyone jumps on their bandwagon.


----------



## LawrenceU

TexanRose said:


> These guys say that 80% of the oil is still out there...just because we don't see it along the shores doesn't mean it's gone, I guess.
> 
> ISS - Almost 80 percent of BP's spilled oil still threatens Gulf, report finds


 
Sharon, those folks, unless they have changed, are wack-jobs. Based upon what I know of them in the past if they told me the sun was hot I'd try to find another source before I believed it.


----------



## TexanRose

I heard about this on the radio, googled "80% of oil still in Gulf" and grabbed the first site that came up, not having time to research them all. But most of the major news outlets also reported on this--ABC, NBC, NPR, etc. You're welcome to google it yourself.

Or are you claiming that the oceanographers themselves are "wack jobs"?


----------



## LawrenceU

I heard the same sort of reports on the news. I also heard reports that these oceanographers are basing their ideas on spill histories involving heavy and/or sour crude, not the light crude that was in this spill. Those particular news outlets report the same thing almost all of the time. Often it is incorrect. For instance, yesterday they were all reporting that 'all' combat troops are now withdrawn from Iraq. That is a bald face inaccuracy. The US Army still has significant armed combat air troops in Iraq that are likely to be there until 31Dec2011. No report that I heard or read mentioned that the withdrawal of troops was only ground troops. 

No, I was not calling the oceanographers 'wack jobs'. I was called the organisation that owns that website that name.


----------



## lynnie

BP oil spill: US scientist retracts assurances over success of cleanup | Environment | The Guardian

Thia is an NOAA scientist. Not some whacko.

also.......

"experts from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute mapped a 22-mile plume of oil droplets from BP's well, providing the strongest evidence so far over the fate of the crude.

"These results indicate that efforts to book-keep where the oil went must now include this plume," said Christopher Reddy, one of the Woods Hole team. The report also said the plume was very slow to break down by natural forces.

"Many people speculated that subsurface oil droplets were being easily degraded," said Richard Camilli, the lead author of the paper. "Well, we didn't find that. We found it was still there."

The spill was not light crude, it was heavily asphalt. You can probably find more on that if you google it.


----------



## LawrenceU

Lynnie,

I never called the scientists whackos. I called the orgainisation who the link went to whack jobs and they are.

I have two very good friends who have been deeply involved in this spill. One is a very well respected petroleum field engineer with over thirty years of experience. The other is an engineer who specialises in spill clean up. He has been at it for more than three decades as well. They are both solid Christians and work as independents in their fields. They both say that the vast majority of the oil released was Louisiana Sweet Crude. There were some Asphaltene released but, minimal. If it were an Asphaltene release then the stuff would be all over the top and on the marshes and beaches. It would not have degraded.

I understand there is conflicting information out there. One really must consider the source. I used to have a great deal of respect for Woods Hole. I hoped to one day either work there or at Scripps. (God obviously had other plans.) Woods Hole is not the center of independent oceanography that it once used to be. It has become highly politicised. That is a cry shame. Science should be left free of politics, but it is no longer that way. NOAA has become an arm of the 'Save the World from Humans' crowd as well. They continually push the Global Warming agenda.


----------



## Edward

Update - all Louisiana waters are now open to recreational fin fishing; about 11% remain closed to shrimping and crabbing. Some areas remain closed to commercial fishing, the state is awaiting approvals from federal bureaucrats. Most beaches remain closed although they are clean and there is no new oil coming in. 

See the Baton Rouge Advocate for more info. 2theadvocate.com | News | Recreational fishing of finfish OK in state waters &mdash; Baton Rouge, LA

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> The spill was not light crude, it was heavily asphalt.


 
Do you have a source for that?


----------



## LawrenceU

lynnie said:


> The spill was not light crude, it was heavily asphalt.


 
Do you have a source for that?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what source she is citing, but a great deal was made of a couple of 'independent tests' in the news. They both were wailing about the 'heavy asphalt' of the spill. One test was done on tar balls. The only thing was is that the test was a test to determine the amount of volatiles in petroleum. Tar balls are what is left after volatiles have evaporated/dissipated. They will always be asphaltic. The other test was done on some oil found in Florida. The only problem with that sample was it was found to be from an offshore seep - off of the coast of Florida.

From what I have read from truly independent reputable sources the spill was light, 'Louisiana Sweet', crude. What has thrown some folks is that some of the material washing on shore was black and sticky, more 'asphalt like'. Well, that is what happens to light crude when the volatiles are gone. Before final decomposition it gets 'gunky'.

Remember, I live down here. I fish these bays, marshes, off shore rigs, and other sites. My livelihood, even as a pastor, is dependent upon a healthy fishery and tourism industry. All that to say, I have a dog in this hunt. I believe that we are much better off knowing what really happened rather than casting about in uncertainty, fear, and distrust. Saying that, I don't trust this administration in what they have said about this spill, how they have handled it, etc. I do have very good intel on what really took, is taking place, from both the industry and the USCG. I'd rather not go into detail on line about that. If you really want to know you can PM me.


----------



## lynnie

Hi Lawrence...

I did a lot of reading during the spill at the oil drum. They are technical ( often over my head) and seem reasonably objective, and have many oil guys posting there. I would say it is worse than the media is spinning now, but better than the doom scenarios. 

Re the asphalt, the gulf has asphalt volcanos in it, natural seeps/leaks that form asphalt domes on the sea floor. There were articles speculating that this had hit one of those reservoirs. I have no idea what I read where at this point, but I do take the time to see if a link is from a science site or an " I saw Elvis in a UFO" site. It may have been because of the extraordinarly high methane levels, If I recall correctly. 

Asphalt volcano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you know fine credible Christians who say it was light crude, I believe you, but frankly given the steps BP took to keep scientists and reporters away from independent verification of facts, it is no wonder so much conjecture abounded online. The coverups, evasions, and corruption from BP was over the top. I realize that political groups and environmental groups have their agenda, but so do huge and powerful corporations. 

There are videos online people are taking of their beaches, and you dig eight inches and the water is oily. Based on how long it took the Persian Gulf to recover from what Saddam did ( a huge spill, perhaps similar in amount and also in a warm gulf) it'll take a few years to get rid of the worst of it. It isn't the doomer end of the Atlantic, but neither is it almost over. 

I'd be interested to hear what you know from insiders if you do send out a PM. My dad sells a product somewhat similar to corexit but less toxic, and even that is not allowed in agriculture as it is taken into plants and then humans and does not break down for at least a couple months. Independent toxicologists are saying that dispersant plus oil can be absorbed through the skin ( human and seafood) and is deadly, it can cause internal bleeding. I fear it is far too early to allow fishing to resume. 

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## lynnie

I would strongly suspect the truth is close to this article. 

BP Oil Spill Update Is The Government Protecting BP? | Greg Hunter


----------



## lynnie

Lawrence- this source sounds credible. I'd be curious to know what your friends think of this. 

Guest Post: Top Oil Expert Says Geology is “Fractured”, Relief Wells May Fail and Oil May Leak for Years … BP is Using a “Cloak of Silence”, and Refusing to Share Even Basic Data with the Government « naked capitalism

Friday, August 20, 2010
Guest Post: Top Oil Expert Says Geology is “Fractured”, Relief Wells May Fail and Oil May Leak for Years … BP is Using a “Cloak of Silence”, and Refusing to Share Even Basic Data with the Government

→ Washington’s Blog

Few people in the world know more about oil drilling disasters than Dr. Robert Bea.

Bea teaches engineering at the University of California Berkeley, and has 55 years of experience in engineering and management of design, construction, maintenance, operation, and decommissioning of engineered systems including offshore platforms, pipelines and floating facilities. Bea has worked for many years in governmental and quasi-governmental roles, and has been a high-level governmental adviser concerning disasters. He worked for 16 years as a top mechanical engineer and manager for Shell Oil, and has worked with Bechtel and the Army Corps of Engineers. One of the world’s top experts in offshore drilling problems, Bea is a member of the Deepwater Horizon Study Group, and has been interviewed by news media around the world concerning the BP oil disaster.

Washington’s Blog spoke with Dr. Bea yesterday.


WB: Might there be problems with the relief wells? I know that it took a couple of relief wells to finally stop the Ixtoc leak, and it has taken as many as 5 relief wells to stop some blowouts.

Bea: Yes, it could take repeated attempts.

WB: Are there any conditions at BP’s well which might make killing the leak with relief wells more difficult than with the average deepwater oil spill?

Bea: That’s an interesting question. You have to ask why did this location blow out when nearby wells drilled in even deeper water didn’t blow out.

You have to look at the geology of the Macondo well. It is in a subsalt location, in a Sigsbee salt formation. [For background, see this and this]

The geology is fractured.

Usually, the deeper you drill, the more pressure it takes to fracture rock. This is called the “fracture gradient“.

But when BP was drilling this well, the fracture gradient reversed. Indeed, BP lost all pressure as it drilled into the formation.

WB: Is it possible that this fractured, subsea salt geology will make it difficult to permanently kill the oil leak using relief wells?

Bea: Yes, it could. The Santa Barbara channel seeps are still leaking, decades after the oil well was supposedly capped. This well could keep leaking for years.

Scripps mapped out seafloor seeps in the area of the well prior to the blowout. Some of the natural seeps penetrate 10,000 to 15,000 feet beneath the seafloor. The oil will follow lines of weakness in the geology. The leak can travel several horizontal miles from the location of the leak.

[In other words, the geology beneath the seafloor is so fractured, with soft and unstable salt formations, that we may never be able to fully kill the well even with relief wells. Instead, the loss of containment of the oil reservoir caused by the drilling accident could cause oil to leak out through seeps for years to come. See this and this for further background].

WB: I know that you’ve previously said that you’re concerned that there might be damage to the well bore, which could make it more difficult for the relief wells to succeed.

Bea: Yes, that’s still a concern.

WB: I have heard that BP is underestimating the size of the oil reservoir (and see this). Is it possible that the reservoir is bigger than BP is estimating, and so – if not completely killed – the leak could therefore go on for longer than most assume?

Bea: That’s plausible.

WB: The chief electronics technician on the Deepwater Horizon said that the Macondo well was originally drilled in another location, but that “going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools”, and that BP abandoned that well. You’ve spoken to that technician and looked into the incident, and concluded that “they damn near blew up the rig.” [See this and this].

Do you know where that abandoned well location is, and do you know if that well is still leaking?

Bea: The abandoned well is very close to the current well location. BP had to file reports showing the location of the abandoned well and the new well [with the Minerals Management Service], so the location of the abandoned well is known.

We don’t know if the abandoned well is leaking.

.........

And with the Bay Charman oil leak, more than 50% of the oil stayed below the surface of the ocean. [As I've previously pointed out, the US Minerals Management Service and a consortium of oil companies, including BP, found that as little as 2% of the oil which spill from deepwater wells ever makes it to the surface of the ocean. And the use of dispersant might decrease that number still further].


----------



## Scott1

Nature, and Nature's God, have produced an oil eating microbe in the Gulf:

Bacteria Have Eaten Giant Gulf Oil Plume, New Study Says | Popular Science

Oil is returning to the ground, and to the atmosphere, from which it came.


----------



## LawrenceU

Lynnie,

I can ask them. I do know that naked capitalism is not a trustworthy source of information. I don't know about Robert Bea's credentials as a geologist. I do know that he had a very liberal axe to grind after Katrina. He was a gadfly (not in the good sense) trying to push the blame for the disaster in New Orleans off of the liberal Democratic leadership and blame anything conservative.


----------



## lynnie

Lawrence, I can't think of a less credible source than BP.

We have interviews with highly trained toxicologists saying that the dispersant breaks the oil into microscopic particles which are ingested by seafood and cause internal hemmoraging and death. Chemists are testing water and finding toxic levels of corexit.


This is about little kids eating carcinogens. If you want to be optimistic about the oil degrading quickly, well, I sure hope so. But I would be very cautious about believing any BP or govt report at this time. I don't think any microbes eat corexit. It is too soon to say everything is fine and safe.


----------



## LawrenceU

If you will re-read my posts. I've never said to trust BP or the government. I have also pointed out that the dispersants used in this spill were of a different, supposedly safer, type that the econuts pushed into the situation. Had the econuts not gotten involved then this spill would have been burned off, skimmed off, and normal proven dispersants used. Very little if any would have entered the food chain or gotten to shore. You can lay a great deal of this at the feet of the current administration and its wonderful new crop of super-bureaucrats.


----------



## lynnie

Yup. Although the fine per barrel spilled is so big ( BPs fine will be billions at the higher estimate) that I don't doubt the cynics who think they used dispersant to cover up the real total. Money is the god of this world. Britain's economy is so dependent on BP for income that the USA probably helped cover up ...allies and all.

Hope your beach is OK, but take it easy on shrimp.....


----------



## LawrenceU

BTW, the dispersants used have proven to be much less safe that the standard dispersants. I should have stated that in my previous post.


----------

