Oil Spill Sightings ?

[ude123]

I'm calling on all Gulf sailors to post their first hand sightings and/or pics of an oil slick. Last week I talked to a guy here in Kemah, TX that just sailed here(off shore to Sabine Pass) from Mississippi and said he saw no oil on the trip. Another guy came from St. Pete, Fl. to here and saw no oil. Has anyone seen any part of the 'oil slick the size of Vermont'? Is there really an oil slick out there? Why no aerial pics of this massive oil slick? Has anyone seen one that is from some altitude and shows at least a few miles long oil slick? It just looks like they are recovering thousands of gallons when this thing is spewing hundreds of millions of gallons.....so where is all the oil? SHOW ME THE PICTURES!!!!!!

[Pyxis156]

See NASA - NASA Imagery of Oil Spill for lots of satellite imagery and photography.

[AnchorageGuy]

Tons of first hand testimonials, maps and pretty much any information you want
Waterway Cruising Guide | Oil Spill Updates

[AnchorageGuy]

Here are your photos
http://tinyurl.com/28cz25h

This stuff is all over the internet.

[ude123]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I want to see some pictures of miles of an oil spill. Look at those pics on National Geographic. They don't show an area that big at all(in one you can use the ship for scale). This thing is billed as 'big as the state of Vermont' so we should see pics of miles and miles of oil. Look at those pics and tell me how much area they represent? Where are the 150 million gallons? Those pics could be like maybe a few hundred gallons. Google the Exxon Valdez and see what 11 million gallons look like(when spilled on surface, or close to it), now where's the oil that like 10 times that much so far? How many miles of beaches/marshlands have been covered in oil? Exxon Valdez BLACKENED over 800 miles of shores. We are on Day 62 and we sailors know currents so how far could this oil have gone by now? These are not pictures of miles and miles of oil like there should be(as we are being told). Just a question for the physics guys out there: How would oil surface from 5000'(under 3000 PSI)? Maybe just a small percentage is surfacing with the gas(as bubbles from the wellhead)? and maybe the rest(a big percentage of the spill) is staying down at the bottom(as the Titanic and everything else that has sunk)? Not trying to minimize but remember Tony Hayward's early statement that we're not going to see a very big environmental impact from this and the press jumped on him? Maybe he was telling the truth and we are only going to SEE a minimal impact(yet there will be a big impact at 5000'). SHOW ME A PICTURE OF A MILES LONG OIL SLICK!!!

[ude123]

And no more computer generated maps with an 'oil spill' overlay. I want to see real pics(not satellite pics either). People, we live in the YouTube era yet there are no pics of this giant oil slick? And I personally know 2 people that sailed through these areas in these maps and have seen no oil. Where's the Pics of the oil slick?

[Pyxis156]

Originally Posted by ude123

And no more computer generated maps with an 'oil spill' overlay. I want to see real pics(not satellite pics either). People, we live in the YouTube era yet there are no pics of this giant oil slick? And I personally know 2 people that sailed through these areas in these maps and have seen no oil. Where's the Pics of the oil slick?

You are asking the impossible... a typical aerial photograph (9" x 9" negative) taken with a wide angle (6" focal length) lens flown at 36,000' will only cover approximately 10 x 10 miles. Even if you took the shot from a spy plane flying at 72,000 feet, you are still only covering an area approximately 20 x 20 miles.

If you want to see a "giant oil slick" the size of Vermont, you have to go higher and that is called a "satellite pic". I don't understand your statement that you want to see "real pics(not satellite pics either)"... what isn't "real" about a satellite pic?

[GordMay]

➥ Heartwrenching Video of BP Oil Slick | UN Dispatch

[Hiracer]

I thought the vast majority of the oil is still mid-water column, not on top. My understanding is that divers and submarines are finding lots of oil subsurface.

It will take decades for the ocean currents to push this stuff uphill onto shorelines. Just give it time.

In any case, masssive use of dispersants have hidden some of the surface slick:

"Dispersants can be used to dissipate oil slicks.[3] They may rapidly disperse large amounts of certain oil types from the sea surface by transferring it into the sea water. They will cause the oil slick to break up and form water-soluble micelles that are rapidly diluted. The oil is then effectively spread throughout a larger area of water than the surface from whence the oil was dispersed. They can also delay the formation of persistent oil-in-water emulsions. However, laboratory experiments showed that dispersants increased toxic hydrocarbon levels in fish by a factor of up to 100 and may kill fish eggs.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersant#Oil_spill

Dispersants will cause the oil to be dissolved by the sea water, thereby hiding the surface slick.









Which means what you see on top is just the tip of the iceberg.

[ude123]

This has happened in 1979 in the Gulf. What happened then? How much oil came onto shore after 10 months flowing(in way shallower water. I beleive 265 ft). What about the fish counts in the following years. Check it out. They predicted a 'dead' gulf back then and they are doing it again. Check out the facts. How about a video of miles and miles of an oil slick? It doesn't have to be a still. Look at the Exxon Valdez pictures and then look at this spill pictures and even though this one is much bigger in terms of amount of oil, we are seeing much less than the Exxon Valdez and it's been 62 days, how long would it take to surface? Remember there was some oil that started on the surface on day 1. Where are the pictures of THOUSANDS of wildlife covered in oil. The most I've seen is maybe a few dozen here in the Gulf. I'm not trying to minimize the spill just trying to use some logic. Because of the shelf out there the oil will have to come to the surface to get to shore. Look at the behavior of natural seeps in the deep water of the Gulf. Google it. You will see how they behave. Why would this man made seep behave any different? Also, where's the armchair physicists out there? How would it surface anyway? It's under 3000 PSI down there pushing it down. It's also real cold water which would mean the oil will coagulate, making it even harder to surface. Again, Show me the Pictures(Video) of this giant oil slick!!! How come the president didn't do a flyover the oil slick on any of his visits? Don't presidents usually survey the 'damage' by air when he visits disaster areas? Why is the air space restricted in this area? Why are the BP workers under contract to BP not to talk to anybody about what is going on out on the water? Don't these things seem weird to anybody else?

[Jetexas]

I don't think you're getting how far this gusher is offshore and how many miles of ocean are out there. The Valdez happened near shore, so the oil immediately smothered everything. This oil spill is killing turtles and whales and whatnot offshore that are slowly washing in. In this case there was also time to deploy booms to stop a direct drenching of the beaches, but there is going to be an environmental impact for decades.

Personally, I'm not going to purposefully sail into an oil slick just to photograph the rainbowy water for you. I'm guessing most of the vessels working the spill had to sign non-disclosure agreements with BP, so they're not posting photos.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by ude123

How about a video of miles and miles of an oil slick?

One has already been posted in this thread and your inability to acknowledge it pretty much wipes out your credibility.

I believe the narrator talked about oil filling the foreground out to the horizon, probably the largest oil slick ever seen. They flew over it for miles and miles.

This is no Exxon Valdez oil spill. We could only wish that we were that lucky.



"Ixtoc . . . was the biggest oil disaster the world had ever seen. After the platform exploded June 3, 1979, in Mexico's Bay of Campeche, the 2-mile-deep well spewed for an astounding 293 days, pouring an estimated 140 million gallons of oil into the Gulf."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/7063165.html

The current Gulf of Mexico disaster is about as big so far as the Ixtoc 'incident.' Of course, this time it's much closer to home.

[ude123]

The DeepWater Horizon well is only 46 miles offshore, not hundreds of miles. In 62 days at even .5 knots of current it could travel over 800 miles. What video do you refer to, I did not see a link for a video, I would like to see it. Was the impact from the 1979 spill felt for decades? Why were fish totals the year after 1979 higher than the year before? Wouldn't that happen if you don't fish for a year, won't the totals likely be higher as nothing was taken the year before? I bet the same will happen here, the fish totals next year will be higher.

[ude123]

Hiracer, because I missed a link to a video I have no credibility. Boy that's open mindedness. Is this the only video there is in the world of this oil slick? 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?

[ude123]

BTW I do know how much water is out there. I live on the Gulf and have sailed across many times. Do you know how big it is? Do you know how big the state of Vermont(which this oil spill is supposed to be as big as) is?