Oil Spill Sightings ? (Re-Visited)

[ude123]

For some reason my previous thread(Oil Spill Sightings?) is closed to new posts so I started this one.
It looks like this well may be capped(SWEET!!!!). We've seen little oil(relative to the total amount of oil spilled) so far. Where's the oil? Was Tony Hayward correct in his initial statement that "we wouldn't see much impact from this spill" correct?(remember how he got torched in the media for saying this?) I'm not saying there isn't an impact but we haven't SEEN that much relative to the spill size. Go back and read the original thread "Oil Spill Sightings". Anybody want to change their original opinions? Who's gonna come out now and take credit for saving the world? The real economic damage has been done by the media(remember BP is paying all the fisherman) in over-hyping the spill and creating a sort of panic whereas people canceled vacations because they didn't want to swim in oil when nearly ALL the beaches are untouched by oil. I think there should be a class action law suit against the media for the damages to the areas that were not affected by oil but were economically damaged by the over-hype. Why should BP be held responsible for that damage??? In 1979 it took over 10 months to cap a well in 260 ft of water. It's like day 84 now(?) and they may have it capped in over 5000 ft of water. I'd say we have learned quite a bit about capping 'broken' wells since 1979. We learn these things from failures, not successes. Just like in aviation, the space program, etc. The next well blow out(and there will be another one as nothing is perfect) will be capped even faster. If this well is capped as it appears may be the case I think a huge THANK YOU needs to go out to ALL the people who have worked so hard for the past 84 days to achieve this. And they worked hard and came up with a solution while at the same time as they were being defamed everyday in the media. So maybe the next time the media says the sky is falling maybe some people will actually look up in the sky to verify for themselves that, in fact, it is not.

[marc2012]

The enviromental impact caused by this is quite real.Many beaches have been affected,in someplaces the sand was simply turned over to hide the oil.Tons of dispersant with unknown effects have been used to HIDE THE OIL.Many here on the coast have no place to go.marc

[ude123]

In LA there is the only real damage, the marshes(and this damage is relatively small in comparison to the entire spill). I have heard these unsubstantiated reports of 'hiding' the oil and still can't find any verification of this. Again, please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying this isn't a bad oil spill, I am merely saying that the impact is not even close to the hype by the media. If you are in LA I'm sure you have a different perspective as there are areas that are affected in your back yard. But this has been reported from day 1 by the media as the 'death' of the Gulf of Mexico as we know it and that simply is not even close to being accurate. It's funny that if you talk to anyone that has ever been personally involved in a news story they will tell you how inaccurate the media are and most people that have experienced this 'inaccuracy' problem the media will never trust news stories again. Just because they are all saying the same thing doesn't make it true or accurate. Fear sells and they are in business to sell so fear is good business. What happens if next year the fish totals are way higher than normal due to NOT fishing this year? What if there could be a positive in this. What if the schools of fish actually increase for long term due to this non fishing year?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ude123

... We've seen little oil(relative to the total amount of oil spilled) so far. Where's the oil ...

Ude hasn’t seen much oil because he doesn’t know where to look, and probably wouldn’t recognize it if he did see it.

Much of the oil is suspended (dispersed) throughout the water column.

From ➥ Undersea oil plumes mean slow-motion death in Gulf: experts

“... At least four research groups from different US universities have reported finding massive plumes deep beneath the surface of the Gulf.

Researchers from the University of South Florida*1 reported that they found "a wide area with elevated levels of dissolved hydrocarbons throughout the water column, possibly indicating that a limb of an undersea oil plume has spread northeast toward the continental shelf."

University of Georgia*2 marine scientists reported two weeks ago finding deepwater plumes thousands of feet below the surface in the Gulf of Mexico.

The other two universities that have reported finding plumes are Louisiana State University and the University of Southern Mississippi.

But after the scientists went public with what they have found under the sea, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said that studies carried out by the British oil company found "no evidence" of underwater plumes of oil.

BP has sprayed nearly one million gallons of dispersant on the spill, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said Thursday.

Steven Pedigo, head of Oil Spill Eater International, which manufactures a product that has been used to clean up thousands of oil spills in 20 countries, without dispersing the oil, told AFP that dispersants "sink the oil into the water column."

"Saying there is no evidence of plumes when you're using dispersant is disingenuous," Pedigo said ...”

*1 USF ➥ Current News - University of South Florida

*2 UGA ➥ Gulf Oil Blog | Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico, Oil Spill Research

There’s little doubt that many (so called) news organizations think that they are in the entertainment business*3, and trend to hype the news. This doesn’t suggest that the underlying facts of the (reported) news are untrue.

Nor is this is an excuse to substitute a psychological unreadiness to accept reality (denialism) in place of well-informed scepticism.

Denialism is not founded on critical analysis. True scepticism is characterised by a willingness to examine evidence.

Our OP seems to be indulging more in uninformed denialism, than in healthy scepticism.

*3 Committee of Concerned Journalists ➥ News as Entertainment and Entertainment as News - Forum Summary | Committee of Concerned Journalists

[TexSail]

I saw my old drinking buddy Sunday who has fished out of Venice, Lousiana for years. He said Venice was a hell of a mess and thinks the fishing there will be adversely affected for a decade and is looking for a new spot in the Port Aransas, Texas area. The Mississippi delta was one of the best fishing spots in the country (not to mention the oyster beds) prior to the spill.

We all certainly hope that some hurricane can miraculously clean the Louisiana marshes the way it happened in South Padre Island, Texas after the Ixtoc spill back in the 1970s but there has never been a spill of this magnitude in the marshes and I don't think anyone really knows the long term score at this point.

JMHO.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Ude hasn’t seen much oil because he doesn’t know where to look, and probably wouldn’t recognize it if he did see it.

Much of the oil is suspended (dispersed) throughout the water column.

From ➥ Undersea oil plumes mean slow-motion death in Gulf: experts

“... At least four research groups from different US universities have reported finding massive plumes deep beneath the surface of the Gulf.

Researchers from the University of South Florida*1 reported that they found "a wide area with elevated levels of dissolved hydrocarbons throughout the water column, possibly indicating that a limb of an undersea oil plume has spread northeast toward the continental shelf."

University of Georgia*2 marine scientists reported two weeks ago finding deepwater plumes thousands of feet below the surface in the Gulf of Mexico.

The other two universities that have reported finding plumes are Louisiana State University and the University of Southern Mississippi.

But after the scientists went public with what they have found under the sea, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said that studies carried out by the British oil company found "no evidence" of underwater plumes of oil.

BP has sprayed nearly one million gallons of dispersant on the spill, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said Thursday.

Steven Pedigo, head of Oil Spill Eater International, which manufactures a product that has been used to clean up thousands of oil spills in 20 countries, without dispersing the oil, told AFP that dispersants "sink the oil into the water column."

"Saying there is no evidence of plumes when you're using dispersant is disingenuous," Pedigo said ...”

*1 USF ➥ Current News - University of South Florida

*2 UGA ➥ Gulf Oil Blog | Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico, Oil Spill Research

There’s little doubt that many (so called) news organizations think that they are in the entertainment business*3, and trend to hype the news. This doesn’t suggest that the underlying facts of the (reported) news are untrue.

Nor is this is an excuse to substitute a psychological unreadiness to accept reality (denialism) in place of well-informed scepticism.

Denialism is not founded on critical analysis. True scepticism is characterised by a willingness to examine evidence.

Our OP seems to be indulging more in uninformed denialism, than in healthy scepticism.

*3 Committee of Concerned Journalists ➥ News as Entertainment and Entertainment as News - Forum Summary | Committee of Concerned Journalists

Hey Gord, Can you see oil up there in the dirt in Canada? Maybe if you get closer to the water?(this is a 'cruisers forum' not a dirt dweller forum). Look at my location. I have been over to LA, MS, AL, FL 3 times since 20 April to look for myself, have you? or anyone else? There are some areas pretty bad but those are isolated areas(relative to the overall area) overall it's nothing close to what's being reported. Gord, what's your expertise in this field?(the ability to cut and paste links? and try to disparage posters that have differing opinions than your own?) It's funny how many 'armchair experts' there are on this forum that will disparage others posts without even knowing the expertise of the poster. This really shows these are no experts at all. Why were the fish counts in 1980(the year after the Mexico blow out) higher than in 1978??? We do have historical data to use to estimate the future impact and the 'chicken little' followers seem to disregard this historical data. This spill has the extra 'benefit'(for lack of a better term) that the 1979 spill did not, the MISSISSPI RIVER! The river's water flow into the gulf is tremendously helping in 'cleaning'(diluting) the oil that the 1979 oil spill did not have. There are many 'scientific' studies being published these days about the spill. Many of the 'researchers' have a distinctive agenda(think 'Global Warming' emails). Remember, these studies conclusions are 'opinions' of the writers based on their interpretation of THEIR OWN data(and we all know that you can interpret data many different ways). They are not fact. We do have facts from the 1979 spill. These carry more weight than any opinion. Why would the Gulf treat this oil spill any different than the one in 1979(or the many other smaller ones since, or the natural seepage that occurs)? So you can listen to these 'chicken little' reports and think the Gulf is dying if you'd like but all you do is put yourself in the dark, blinded from reality.

[Ex-Calif]

The moderators are discussing this thread in the back room. We are not sure it is related to sailing per se. Although a significant environmental issue that does affect cruisers, this is not a cruising topic.

It has great potential to go political and has already gone personal.

One gentle reminder to tie this to boating somehow and if the personal barbs start we will have to close this thread.

[GordMay]

Ude:

One of my competencies is to find, assimilate, and share relevant information.

You seem to be asking a lot of (rhetorical, I suppose) questions.
I am providing a few select answers.

Perhaps you would enlighten us, by providing supported answers to some of your own questions.

What do the 'Global Warming' emails suggest to you?

CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data' ➥ http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...tml#post481376

See ➥ BBC News - CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data'

Independent Climate Change Email Review found nothing in the e-mails to undermine Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

This is the third and most comprehensive review into the CRU issue, and has reached similar conclusions to the previous two.

Dutch review backs UN climate panel report
➥ BBC News - Dutch review backs UN climate panel report

A review commissioned by the Dutch government into the IPCC's projections of climate impacts found "no errors that would undermine the main conclusions" - that man-made climate change poses a significant threat in many regions of the world.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by ude123

BTW this thread is about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and it's impact on the environment, media vs. reality so sailors(people that actually care because we actually sail in these waters) know the reality of the situation.

Well, I'm certainly no expert, but I find the out of sight/out of mind argument kind of facile. Obviously, the vast bulk of the oil being released is dispersed somewhere below the surface of the Gulf. Intuitively, I find that disturbing. But lacking expertise and authoritative sources, I do not know the likely short or long term effects. I also do not know the likely life span of this thread.

Most of what I find online seems to contradict your characterization of the Ixtoc spill, but I have not actually read any of the studies. BTW, the outflow from the Mississippi may have some kind of cleansing effect, but it also causes annual dead zones.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by slomotion

Well, I'm certainly no expert, but I find the out of sight/out of mind argument kind of facile. Obviously, the vast bulk of the oil being released is dispersed somewhere below the surface of the Gulf. Intuitively, I find that disturbing. But lacking expertise and authoritative sources, I do not know the likely short or long term effects. I also do not know the likely life span of this thread.

Most of what I find online seems to contradict your characterization of the Ixtoc spill, but I have not actually read any of the studies. BTW, the outflow from the Mississippi may have some kind of cleansing effect, but it also causes annual dead zones.

Slo,
I'm not arguing out of sight out of mind, I'm saying there is no reason to panic people into not coming down to the Gulf when the oil spill is doing it's damage out at sea. That panic has caused the economic damage to the region which directly affects us sailors also. From the natural seepage to other spills, the oil doesn't have a great affect on the marine life(as a whole). Any kind of overfishing or overharvesting can and will and does do more damage to the marine eco system than all the oil spills do and those are intentional acts and not an accident(as the oil spills are). And I beleive you are correct about the existence of 'dead zones'. The oil didn't create those either and yet they are there year in and year out. and regarding the long term affect, what is the long term affect from the Mexico blow out 30 years ago? What has the fishing in the Gulf been like the past 30 years?

[ude123]

RIGZONE - Analysis: Media, Political Rhetoric Ignores Potential Lesson of Ixtoc Spill
http://www2.uel.br/grupo-pesquisa/me...tigos/0014.pdf


For all those that think I'm crazy and there will be long term damage to the Gulf please read the above links.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ude123

Slo,
1. I'm not arguing out of sight out of mind, I'm saying there is no reason to panic people into not coming down to the Gulf when the oil spill is doing it's damage out at sea...
2 ... From the natural seepage to other spills, the oil doesn't have a great affect on the marine life(as a whole). Any kind of overfishing or overharvesting can and will and does do more damage to the marine eco system than all the oil spills do and those are intentional acts and not an accident(as the oil spills are)...

1. This is the first time I've understood this to be your prime thesis. I don't disagree.

2. I’d be interested in any substantiation you have for this opinion. I do disagree.

[ude123]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. This is the first time I've understood this to be your prime thesis. I don't disagree.

2. I’d be interested in any substantiation you have for this opinion. I do disagree.

Gord, I've stated from the start I am not denying the existence of the oil spill only that it will not adversely affect the coastlines like the Exxon Valdez(Read first thread) or 'Kill' the Gulf. Read the above posted links for substantiation on my opinion(and maybe my personal observation of the Gulf as I live on it is part substantiation). I opinined from the start of this 'discussion' that the oil will stay at sea and not impact the coastlines like ALL the media had been telling the American public(who beleive everything they see on TV) which is causing the real economic damage to the region. I'm wondering how BP is responsible for these (hopefully) unintended consequences to the media's over hype of this situation? IMHO the media is responsible for their irresponsible reporting(over hype to sell sell sell) of this spill. When are they(the media) going to be held accountable for their actions and not be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment? Can you say 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater???

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by ude123

I'm wondering how BP is responsible for these (hopefully) unintended consequences to the media's over hype of this situation?

Some of the consequences are truly bizarre. I was watching a ballgame on TV the other night with a friend who happens to be a Florida state employee. He had just had some of his benefits cut because the state is bankrupt. Of course, you can't watch TV in Florida for more than an hour without seeing an ad telling you how clean our beaches are.

My friend joked that he should file a claim against BP because his life insurance premiums were being spent on ads telling people to go to the beach. Of course, the kicker was that he had received an email from the local Republican club telling him not to go to the beach because it would make Obama look good.

[dmcnsm]

" remember ,BP is paying all the fisherman "
Your kidding right ? I personally know of over a hundred locally still not working. They are on the "list" waiting to be called.
$ 2500 -$5000 is what some of these boats made a day ,which is around what BP's compensation has been .
[I know what they make ,I used to own/run a charter boat on the gulf.]

If you have not seen any oil in the gulf or on the beaches around here, it's because you have not been here.
Our barrier islands and beaches are getting covered up with oil and cleaned on a daily basis.
Including dozens and dozens of dolphin and sea turtle carcasses .

A good friend and long time [25 yrs] charter boat owner, put a 38 special in his mouth over what HE had seen in the gulf ,while working on the clean-up .
HYPE ? ....