Posted on 07/21/2010 10:50:55 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Some 750 boats drafted in to scoop up oil from the Gulf of Mexico are having "trouble" finding any crude in the sea, a top US official said Wednesday, almost a week after a busted well was capped.
"We are starting to have trouble finding oil," US pointman Admiral Thad Allen, who is in charge of handling the government's response, told reporters.
The boats, which have been drafted in to skim oil off the surface of the Gulf, are "really having to search for the oil in some cases" around the area of the capped well, he added.
According to official US government figures, more than 270,000 barrels of oil (11.3 million gallons) have been burned in controlled operations since the start of the spill in April.
That is more than all the crude that spilled into the seas off Alaska in the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Cool, enough room for seven more states.
I guess Obama was right after all, we will have 57 states.
“talked to one guy who was on a business trip to the MS/AL area last week saying the beaches he saw and heard of are clean and free of oil.”
That has been the story for a few weeks. Even the locals are having trouble finding something to complain about. I have found to be rather strange.
But, that’s just me.
We will need a Homestead act for our current illegals.
>>In asn article on the CNBC website on Monday they had a graphic showing that if the Gulf of Mexico was the equivalent in volume to the Cowboy’s new Texas Stadium the amout of oil spilled would equal a 24 oz. can of beer. Between burn-off and evaporation much of the original leak will never be accounted for.<<
And about as serious as the spilled can of beer?
Never let a crisis go to waste!
That’s all folks!
FUBO!!!
It’s all over the Gulf, below the surface, due to the Corexit. It’s there, it’s just not on the surface where they can collect it. They sunk it. Make no mistake about it, it is there. The question is, now what happens?
Links and post from TOD.
Are you trying to imply that there will be no ill effects of this spill? I find that very hard to believe.
From the Exxon Valdez, which was a far smaller spill:
“Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively.[21] Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.[7][22] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years afterwards. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[23] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[24]
Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.[23] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.[7] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[24] However, a study from scientists from the NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the “wilderness character” of the area.[19]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
You seem inclined to minimize the potential effects of this disaster. You’re not on the BP payroll, are you? I’ve heard they’ve been hiring scientists left and right...
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/06/exxon.valdez.alaska/index.html
http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/smithrd/PR/Exxon.htm
http://health.blogs.foxnews.com/tag/exxon-valdez-spill/
WRT effects of methane in the atmosphere:
“Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas. Compared with carbon dioxide, it has a high global warming potential of 72 (calculated over a period of 20 years) or 25 (for a time period of 100 years).[2] Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years[citation needed].”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html
Changes to the food web:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJwXzrq3lD7vHJJH4DU8uN...
WRT the holes in plants in the gulf region - an example of anecdotal reports:
http://atomicnewsreview.org/2010/07/05/is-rain-damage-to-plants-a-result...
The effect of the oil spill in hurricanes:
http://earthsky.org/water/jeff-masters-on-what-happens-when-a-hurricane-...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/...
http://www.air-worldwide.com/PublicationsItem.aspx?id=19249
Note that most of this is unknown because a spill of this magnitude has never occurred in a region subject to many hurricanes.
Other:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175275/tomgram%3A_ellen_cantarow%2C_blow...
http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/07/epa-whistleblower-bp-dispersants
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/16/97702/despite-gulf-cleanup-efforts...
http://gulfspillnews.org/
Note that the EPA whistleblower who is talking about the negative effects of dispersants is the same guy who disclosed the health effects of the toxic offgassing at the World Trade Center after 9/11 - now proven after years of denial.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_o...
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6762
BP Escrow impact on US Treasury?
It seems like a miracle that our beloved leader was able to convince BP to establish a $20 billion slush fund (oops, escrow) to compensate those hurt by the ongoing oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico . After all, he had no constitutional power to force them to do so; so he had to resort to Chicago-style negotiating.
But, let us take a closer look at the effect on BP’s finances:
1. BP will establish a $20 billion fund, but will pay only $7 billion into it during 2010.
2. BP is a British corporation, but has a very large operating entity in the US .
3. By Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAP), BP must book the entire $20 billion expense in the year accrued. Therefore, they will book a $20 billion expense in 2010, reducing their US tax liability by $7 billion.
4. Our dear leader also convinced this massive corporation to show their concern for the “small people” by withholding dividends to their shareholders for the last 3 quarters of 2010. This reduces their outward cash flow by about $7.5 billion, including approximately 40% of that amount to US citizens. Assuming that the Bush tax cuts will survive through 2010, the US Treasury will lose another $450 million in taxes on that amount. We won’t even discuss the effect on the US economy.
Let us put the results into a table easily understood by the small people:
• BP Cash Flow:
O Escrow funding ($7 billion)
o Dividend saving $7.5 billion
o Tax savings $7 billion
o Net favorable cash flow : $7.5 billion
• US Treasury Tax Receipts:
o BP Corporate income tax ($7.5 billion)
o BP Shareholders ($0.45 billion)
o Net unfavorable tax receipts ($7.95 billion)
Question: Did the US Taxpayers just fund the first 1/3 of the BP Escrow commitment?
No, I’m just posting a piece off the wire.. the long term effects are unknown. the exact costs still unknown as well. none are rosy.
Thanks for the links!
Wow, glad that you know that. How do you know that. It is good news indeed.
How much of it is under water and has been carried someplace else by the gulf current?
You got that right. my FRiend.
Right... It's... the... Atttack of the Tarballs! Run for your lives!
Well, y'know what, it's their Gulf. If they don't feel the need to clean it up, fine. No skin off my nose.
Well, y'know what, it's their Gulf. If they don't feel the need to clean it up, fine. No skin off my nose.
They keep saying this, but out of all the live shots, I have yet to see any breasts on that BOP.
Then NOAA is doin some hanky panky with their satellite imagery and trajectory.
Want to know how much oil was spilled compared to the size of the the Gulf?
Fill a bath tub full of water then take a pin and dip it into a drop of oil and swish it around in the tub.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.