Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 22-06-2010, 12:41   #46
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Yes.
What isnít outright wrong is misleading/misapplied.

That's a condemnation without any backup. You think that's really fair?
__________________

__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 12:55   #47
Registered User
 
Eleven's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southampton UK
Boat: Jaguar 22 mono called Arfur.
Posts: 1,220
Images: 3
I deeply regret the spill of oil into the oceans. Some of it is natural, some of it is by non-intentional accidents, some of it has been prevented by the authorities. UK monitors shipping, looking for evidence of tank flushing by the bulk carriers, and deploying patrol boats at terminals where careful monitoring leaves the Solent virtually free of tar and oil.
The US reaction to this spill is disproportionate and extreme. Exxon Valdiz and the previous Torrey Canyon, polluted UK shores, close in shore, and was dealt with. Damage was limited to maybe three or four years. US fisherman were destroying the sport fish, Marlin, Sun Fish, Tuna etc but now they can blame the oil and claim for that too.
We in the UK know that fish stocks are affected far more by overfishing than by oil spills. The current spill is a third of the comparatively instantaneous spill from the Torrey Canyon.
This week come reports that Indian Ministers have called for the extradition of Warren Anderson of Union Carbide, to face charges related to the Bhopal 'Incident'. 15,000 people died, depending how you count them.
The vitriol pouring out of america with regard to this regrettable incident is disproportionate. It was america that issued permits for the rig to operate, which itself ignored the requirement for an environmental impact statement. There were other operational issues that seem to have contributed, but to what extent we will never find out. That it was waiting to happen is well understood, that it was a BP rig (non-american) seems to suit the press and others. This incident was the result of a non-local registered operation, just like Torrey Canyon and Exxon Valdiz. There will be more while the national bodies are not allowed to impose standards of navigation and crews that really aught to be applied to sensitive areas, like the worlds oceans!
From cruising boat reports the shut down of all fishing and shrimping seems to be an over reaction but at least there will be compensation this time. The Scottish and Cornish fishermen got none.
Apologies to the Moderators.
__________________

__________________
Ex Prout 31 Sailor, Now it's a 22ft Jaguar called 'Arfur' here in sunny Southampton, UK.
A few places left in Quayside Marina and Kemps Marina.
Eleven is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 12:56   #48
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,580
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
That's a condemnation without any backup. You think that's really fair?
Yes, this seems to be a case of "he said, she said."
My unsubstantiated opinion of your unsupported 10 points will have to rest upon the merits of our respective reputations for factuality.
I’m satisfied for it to be so.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 13:02   #49
Registered User
 
Eleven's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southampton UK
Boat: Jaguar 22 mono called Arfur.
Posts: 1,220
Images: 3
PS. I'd be happy to see this thread back on the line of:-
'Where is it oil free to sail in the Gulf'.

Good luck to the Gulf's Fishermen, Shrimpers and Cruisers. Things may not be as bad as reported.
__________________
Ex Prout 31 Sailor, Now it's a 22ft Jaguar called 'Arfur' here in sunny Southampton, UK.
A few places left in Quayside Marina and Kemps Marina.
Eleven is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 13:08   #50
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Yes, this seems to be a case of "he said, she said."
My unsubstantiated opinion of your unsupported 10 points will have to rest upon the merits of our respective reputations for factuality.
I’m satisfied for it to be so.
Gord: Everything I've cited is in one of the many links on this thread. These are not my wild estimates/facts yet you seem to cite nothing to back up your point so no sir, this is not a 'he said she said' it is more like 'he said(citing various authorities), she said(because I say so)'. What facts do you believe to be inaccurate/misleading/misapplied? A person with your reputation on this board has a responsibility to not make blanket disparaging statements(about another member on this board) like yours without some sort of facts. That simply is not fair and an abuse of your power.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 13:33   #51
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post
I deeply regret the spill of oil into the oceans. Some of it is natural, some of it is by non-intentional accidents, some of it has been prevented by the authorities. UK monitors shipping, looking for evidence of tank flushing by the bulk carriers, and deploying patrol boats at terminals where careful monitoring leaves the Solent virtually free of tar and oil.
The US reaction to this spill is disproportionate and extreme. Exxon Valdiz and the previous Torrey Canyon, polluted UK shores, close in shore, and was dealt with. Damage was limited to maybe three or four years. US fisherman were destroying the sport fish, Marlin, Sun Fish, Tuna etc but now they can blame the oil and claim for that too.
We in the UK know that fish stocks are affected far more by overfishing than by oil spills. The current spill is a third of the comparatively instantaneous spill from the Torrey Canyon.
This week come reports that Indian Ministers have called for the extradition of Warren Anderson of Union Carbide, to face charges related to the Bhopal 'Incident'. 15,000 people died, depending how you count them.
The vitriol pouring out of america with regard to this regrettable incident is disproportionate. It was america that issued permits for the rig to operate, which itself ignored the requirement for an environmental impact statement. There were other operational issues that seem to have contributed, but to what extent we will never find out. That it was waiting to happen is well understood, that it was a BP rig (non-american) seems to suit the press and others. This incident was the result of a non-local registered operation, just like Torrey Canyon and Exxon Valdiz. There will be more while the national bodies are not allowed to impose standards of navigation and crews that really aught to be applied to sensitive areas, like the worlds oceans!
From cruising boat reports the shut down of all fishing and shrimping seems to be an over reaction but at least there will be compensation this time. The Scottish and Cornish fishermen got none.
Apologies to the Moderators.
Eleven, said very well!!! That's what I'm saying(The US reaction to this spill is disproportionate and extreme.). I'm American, true blue but maybe more of a realist than most. I hate the hype and the American press(and all press for that matter) has perfected it. There's a reason why the story of Chicken Little was written. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the spill just bring some level headed thinking to the hype.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 13:35   #52
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,580
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Gord: Everything I've cited is in one of the many links on this thread...
I don't see where you've cited any recognized authority, nor linked to any supporting evidence, for any of your statements, anywhere in this thread.

FWIW:
ude claims "5) Entire area where slick is purported to be is restricted (by air and sea)"

NOTAM FDC 0/5100 only restricts (except as noted) low level aircraft operations from the surface up to and including 3000 feet.
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_5100.html#areas

Vessels responding to the spill are surrounded by a 500 yard "standoff area" with restricted access.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=23033
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:01   #53
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Hey Gord, On the same page you cite(the official government statement) the following link tells a different story as to what's de facto happening.
firstamendmentcenter.org: news
When you put these two articles together(you provided link) it shows exactly what I'm saying. Thanks Gord!
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:04   #54
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Gord, I think you misunderstood me before. The things I cited before came from information gathered from previous links(provided by me and others) to published articles. The facts listed are from those published articles.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:07   #55
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Out cruising
Boat: Bruckmann 50
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
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).....
Is there anything incorrect in my 'reality of the situation' above?
Yes just about all off it.
1) You can see the pipe spilling on the internet. Do you doubt it is really going on? Are the pictures fake?
2) Estimates that some say are on the low end while BP says are a little high.
3 & 4) There are pictures everyday of the size of the spill and links to the satellite photos of the spill in this thread. Just because you choose not to believe they exist doesn't make them not exist.
5) I cannot find where travel is restricted but commercial fishing and taking of shellfish is from what I have heard. Did your friends go through that area? (see #10)
6) So you think that the cleanup workers are really not seeing any oil and just going home and pretending to see it? Don't you think there would be one guy who's aunt owned a hotel or something that would spill the beans to keep her from going broke?
7) I have no idea where you have that number since it seems to have little to do with reality. Beaches in FL, AL and MS have been affected at different times related to wind, tide, etc. The marshes off of LA were hit pretty hard in many area. see photos of all that here
374 pictures of the spill

8) millions of gallons of dispersal agent were used to try to dilute and keep the oil from rising to the surface in a "slick". Whether for good or bad is still to be determined but the thought was that the more the oil stayed underwater the more chance bacteria had to dissolve (eat) the oil with the hope that the more fragile marshland would be preserved. This appears to have created a large collection of oil dispersed in the deeper water that appears to be moving toward the so called "loop current" which could take it to the gulf stream. The concentration will be much smaller by the time it gets to the southern florida area and the hope is that less damage will be done then if they would have left the oil to all rise to the surface. Time will tell whether those decisions were correct ones. Scientists from NOAA have found some concentrations of oil at about 3000 feet far to the east of the well.
9) The Valdez spill was a much heavier oil then this one. Some of this oil is actually being evaporated when it gets to the surface so it will not cause the surface damage that it would have if it was a heavier crude. If you point is that this spill doesn't seem to be doing as much damage you may or may not be correct. The sheer size could eventually overcome the distance and start to create damage very similar to the more dramatic pictures of the Valdez. If you look at the link above you will see some pretty dramatic pictures in Barataria Bay that remind me a lot of the Alaska spill. 45 miles of distance is creating a little room for dilution in this spill so you are correct in saying that the results of the spill are not as apparent as they were in one close to the coast.
10) The gulf is a big body of water and at the most a sailor can see in all directions a few miles. He/she could detect oil only if in high concentrations in the surface water for a few hundred yards at most around the boat and then only during daylight hours. Is it really surprising that someone could sail in the general vicinity of a spill and not be affected by it directly. Even if they ran right through it during the evening/night hours if they had enough wave action later all signs of it might have been washed off the boat except for a light film and from what I understand that is not all that uncommon even without the spill just from all the oil wells and tanker activity in these area.

So yes, if this is your "reality" then you are quite incorrect. There are a lot of questions about the spill that have not been answered and may not be until we have years of data to look at. It may turn out to be better or worse then expected with all the hype. The notion that the oil is just not there is not really one of those questions that serious people are asking so pardon us if we expect a little more then your 3 sailor friends and some conspiracy themed innuendo to convince us it is all a lie.

Jim
__________________
jkleins is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:20   #56
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,580
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
... the following link tells a different story as to what's de facto happening....

That
ďNews organizations say they are being allowed only limited access to areas impacted by the Gulf oil spill ...Ē

is not even opinion; and certainly not fact - itís advocacy.
Opinions may be more right (such as mine), or more wrong (such as yours); but partisan statements are merely propaganda.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:24   #57
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkleins View Post
Yes just about all off it.
1) You can see the pipe spilling on the internet. Do you doubt it is really going on? Are the pictures fake?
2) Estimates that some say are on the low end while BP says are a little high.
3 & 4) There are pictures everyday of the size of the spill and links to the satellite photos of the spill in this thread. Just because you choose not to believe they exist doesn't make them not exist.
5) I cannot find where travel is restricted but commercial fishing and taking of shellfish is from what I have heard. Did your friends go through that area? (see #10)
6) So you think that the cleanup workers are really not seeing any oil and just going home and pretending to see it? Don't you think there would be one guy who's aunt owned a hotel or something that would spill the beans to keep her from going broke?
7) I have no idea where you have that number since it seems to have little to do with reality. Beaches in FL, AL and MS have been affected at different times related to wind, tide, etc. The marshes off of LA were hit pretty hard in many area. see photos of all that here
374 pictures of the spill

8) millions of gallons of dispersal agent were used to try to dilute and keep the oil from rising to the surface in a "slick". Whether for good or bad is still to be determined but the thought was that the more the oil stayed underwater the more chance bacteria had to dissolve (eat) the oil with the hope that the more fragile marshland would be preserved. This appears to have created a large collection of oil dispersed in the deeper water that appears to be moving toward the so called "loop current" which could take it to the gulf stream. The concentration will be much smaller by the time it gets to the southern florida area and the hope is that less damage will be done then if they would have left the oil to all rise to the surface. Time will tell whether those decisions were correct ones. Scientists from NOAA have found some concentrations of oil at about 3000 feet far to the east of the well.
9) The Valdez spill was a much heavier oil then this one. Some of this oil is actually being evaporated when it gets to the surface so it will not cause the surface damage that it would have if it was a heavier crude. If you point is that this spill doesn't seem to be doing as much damage you may or may not be correct. The sheer size could eventually overcome the distance and start to create damage very similar to the more dramatic pictures of the Valdez. If you look at the link above you will see some pretty dramatic pictures in Barataria Bay that remind me a lot of the Alaska spill. 45 miles of distance is creating a little room for dilution in this spill so you are correct in saying that the results of the spill are not as apparent as they were in one close to the coast.
10) The gulf is a big body of water and at the most a sailor can see in all directions a few miles. He/she could detect oil only if in high concentrations in the surface water for a few hundred yards at most around the boat and then only during daylight hours. Is it really surprising that someone could sail in the general vicinity of a spill and not be affected by it directly. Even if they ran right through it during the evening/night hours if they had enough wave action later all signs of it might have been washed off the boat except for a light film and from what I understand that is not all that uncommon even without the spill just from all the oil wells and tanker activity in these area.

So yes, if this is your "reality" then you are quite incorrect. There are a lot of questions about the spill that have not been answered and may not be until we have years of data to look at. It may turn out to be better or worse then expected with all the hype. The notion that the oil is just not there is not really one of those questions that serious people are asking so pardon us if we expect a little more then your 3 sailor friends and some conspiracy themed innuendo to convince us it is all a lie.

Jim
Jim, I am not disputing the oil spewing from the sea floor. Read my posts. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am saying the media and government is predicting blackened shorelines like Exxon Valdez and that doesn't seem to be what's happening here(or in other similar incidents or natural seepage). Where have I denied the oil spill? I am merely saying that if the oil is staying in the deep(and depositing on the sea floor similar to what a natural seepage does) we will not see the damage(I'm not even saying that damage of great propotions aren't happening as we speak and will for years to come in the great depths). They are booming miles and miles(and they should just in case) but the only PEOPLE this hype is hurting are the businesses in the Gulf region. Everyone I know that I have spoken to outside the Gulf region in the last couple of months have an idea that we are swimming in oil everywhere on the Gulf. Where did they get this idea? Maybe the over-hyped media? BP is paying the fisherman(and soon the other businesses that have been affected) so the only people that has been suffering economically is the tourism industry as people beleive they will be swimming in oil if they vacation on the Gulf. This makes all the businesses in the region suffer. The over-hype is directly to blame for this and soon those businesses/people will be compensated for the loss of business. The oil spill didn't create this economic problem in the tourism industry, the over-hype did. Jim, read my posts again, I am no Hemmingway with words but I think my point is clear.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:26   #58
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
Gord, I believe you are misrepresenting the article. The article sites specific complaints with regard to restricted access. Maybe you only read the title.
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 14:33   #59
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 226
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!!!
__________________
ude123 is offline  
Old 22-06-2010, 15:06   #60
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,580
Images: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ude123 View Post
Gord, I believe you are misrepresenting the article. The article s cites specific complaints with regard to restricted access. Maybe you only read the title.
Notwithstanding that complaints are not necessarily factual; please cite one that substantiates your thesis.
Then support it.
__________________

__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
oil, oil spill

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil Spill News waterworldly Off Topic Forum 32 14-06-2010 07:20
BP Oil Spill Measures svHyLyte Cruising News & Events 0 05-05-2010 17:26
Sightings: Crowther Passagemaker 48 knottybuoyz Powered Boats 10 30-06-2008 09:24
Oil Spill - Pro Mistake? Chuteman Off Topic Forum 23 23-04-2008 09:27



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.