The Earth Is Bleeding...

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dryflylarry, May 14, 2010.

  1. KerryS Ignored Member

    Posts: 6,710
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1,749 / 0
    Pretty obvious from up here in skidrow. BP sucks big time. The government’s response sucks big time. Anyone attempting to down play this catastrophe sucks big time. The whole fucking mess and everyone connected to it sucks. Sure glad I live in woolley where there is no oil. And I almost had no green checks on the main page except for this thread which also sucks.
  2. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,383
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +763 / 2
  3. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,400
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,357 / 9
    More negligence perhaps? I'm sure that will be investigated, Congress loves to get into that stuff.
    I've not seen any updates on spread of fishery closures, anyone got that info that they can post? I've been distracted with trip planning and packing. It seems I might actually go fishing somewhere that I never knew existed. (Do houses have doorbells in Dillon MT, or will I be knocking on the door?)
  4. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0
    BP announced today they are "capturing" 15,000 barrels a day. That is 630,000 gallons. That figures to 437.5 Gallons Per Minute. And there is STILL a hell of a lot of oil that is still flowing around the well head. I told everyone BP was lying in the 1st place. This continues to be a gusher. What a shame. I expect the numbers to easily double...
  5. FE427TP The Great Sage

    Posts: 48
    Southwest WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Turns out three days after the leak started the Dutch government offered equipment that would have cleaned 80,000lbs of oil from 20,000,000 gallons of sea water a day and to start building 60 miles of dike to protect the Louisiana coast BP accepted the equipment and was going to pay to have it brought over immediately and the Dutch were going to let the use be free but our President Obama turned them down then 6 and a half weeks later, or as Larry calls it over 28,350,000 gallons of oil later, President "plug the damn hole" Obama decides to go ahead and accept it. Let me guess you guys are going to say this is Bush and BP's fault that Obama was too conceited to accept the aid? The problem with getting this fixed isn't BP but the Obama administration failing to act, sticking it's nose in, letting "experts" that don't know the industry interfere with those that do, or not allowing actions that would help to proceed. And now here two months later even though he says he's taken charge since day one he's still looking for and having to bring in experts to find "who's ass to kick". What a joke of a leader.
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7043272.html



    So we know that the administration will take advantage of a crisis to do things that it was restrained from doing without a crisis, but exactly what things that they couldn't do before will this crisis allow? Other than turning down foreign aid and preventing action that would reduce damage to the environment while putting up a smoke screen to make it look like the corporation they are holding back is failing to act in an effort to seize and nationalize a section of the oil industry?



    In the private sector the president of a company with a spill like this would not turn down help from another company(as evidenced by BP being prevented from accepting help by the Obama administration) to clean up the mess, especially when they can have the equipment for free. This is the kind of inept leadership that happens when liberals elect a president that has zero business experience, and no experience making any business other than one that gives away other peoples money work to a position of leadership. Absolute failure, while passing the blame.
  6. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0
    Things smart guys like you don’t think or know much about are the other long term environmental consequences of such action such as altering the fragile Gulf of Mexico ecosystem, causing more coastal erosion. Do you know what 60 miles of “bulldozed” beach is gonna look like or do? Obviously, you don’t know shit about environmental science. Such an action should be given some evaluation before just plopping a bulldozer on a beach regardless of what’s happening. Oh yeah, it’s all Obama’s fault... The regulations for the oil industry along the Gulf Coast have been lax for years. We wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for that. Go watch your Fox News Channel. What a joke.
  7. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,280
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    Shill

    a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing
    praise upon mediocre offerings, or acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.
    In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly
    because their income is tied to its prosperity.
  8. mr. bad example Member

    Posts: 222
    poulsbo
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Wow ! We finally have somebody posting here thats so shamelessly wacky that they make the Bush administration look like truth tellers.
  9. Kim Hampton Not Politically Correct

    Posts: 276
    Tacoma, Wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Politics aside Larry. Seems like people are letting their politics cloud the issues. I could give a crap about right or left on this issue but FE427TP comments might have some merit if you take all of the politics out of what he is saying. I haven't a clue what 60 miles of dike would do to the environment but it might do less damage than letting the oil into the marshes. Think about it what is 60 miles compared to all the jetties, seawalls and whatever else that man does to our coast lines. Ever been out SRC fishing in the Sound in a boat? Take a look at all the walls, bulkheads, lawn drain pipes etcetera affecting the Sound. Is that ok? Of course a hurricane would probably take care of the dike anyway. What really interests me if correct is the equipment the Dutch offered that supposedly can remove the oil out of seawater. I would imagine it is some sort of centrifuge system. On the boat that I run we have a centrifuge that removes water from the diesel and also cleans the diesel somewhat so the technology is there. Actually it's an old technology. Now the big question is...if true why wasn't this allowed? Why weren't they cleaning from day one?

    Being a commercial fisherman this type of thing would be devastating to us. You can't haul your gear through this crap without contaminating the catch. I would imagine this is why there are a lot of closed areas to fishing in the Gulf now. Too dangerous of a possibility of contaminated fish reaching the public. But as bad as it would affect me...I also realize this country lives and needs oil. I still support "Drill baby Drill". Just need to do it in places and with methods to where this won't happen.

    There was a shit load of money made on the Alaska clean up. I'm sure some of the boat owners (fishermen) will probably make more money than they would fishing the next couple of years with their boats. Hopefully the will have something to go back to after the clean is over. Of course this doesn't help all the other industries that the spill affects. Big time sad.

    I still disagree with the chemicals they are using to disperse the oil. I would rather have that crap on the surface as quick as possible so they can get at it to clean.

    Side note. One of the two NMFS fishery observers I have aboard is from the East coast of Florida (not the Gulf side). Interesting comment he made yesterday. He said several months before this whole thing started the tar balls or whatever hits the beaches started to increase quite a bit. I wonder where that is coming from.
  10. Split Bamboo Member

    Posts: 648
    Tacoma, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Kim, one reason the Dutch did not get involved was the formal diplomatic offer they made was rejected. One problem that exists is US Maritime Law restricts the use of non-US flagged vessels from transporting material between two US ports. However, I would think this provision of the law could have been overridden by Executive Order. Heck, the Administration could have just said OK, and I am sure under the extraordinary circumstances no one in Congress would have objected.

    Some of the skimmer equipment has been airlifted from the Netherlands and is being fitted on US flagged ships.

    Oh and FE427TP misquoted the figures on the skimmers effectiveness, the report says they can remove 80,000 tons of oil per day, significantly more than the 80,000 gallons FE427T mentioned.

    Regarding the centrifuge concepts, believe it or not, Kevin "WaterWorld" Costner, invested millions of his own money into that technology after Valdez. He testified before Congress yesterday. BP has purchased 32 of his machines.
  11. tythetier Fish Slayer

    Posts: 1,535
    WASHOUGAL, WA
    Ratings: +40 / 0
    OOOOOOhhhhhh, can i guess what will happen next????? BP stock will fall through the floor, they will go bankrupt, and get out of paying for the mess!!! Not that I want that to happen, but just thinking what I would do if I was a big oil exec with out a soul....

    Also, we have synthetic oil we run in our cars... Why cant we make that the standard oil we use for everything???
  12. Kim Hampton Not Politically Correct

    Posts: 276
    Tacoma, Wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Regarding BP and what they pay. I haven't a clue how they are set up to do this but...I understand Lloyds of London who will insure just about anything had sever problems after the Exon spill. Many people like you and me who invested in Lloyds lost their shirts during this time. If I remember correctly between the payouts from the Exon spill and also Asbestos claims back then really damaged them. Sooo I would imagine it kind of depends on how BP and other parties were insured. Wouldn't that be the shits...the investors at Lloyds being handed the bill.
  13. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    It doesn't matter, any one who pays taxes or buys fuel will end up paying for it. BP is simply the middle man. They'll just jack up the price of European refined unleaded gasoline that we trade US refined diesel for.

    Just wait until one of BP's genetic engineering or particle collision projects go tits up like this. Then you'll find out exactly what "expensive" really is. I hope they have better people running those programs. They've already figured out how to create new forms of bacteria using artificial DNA. Kinda concerning considering those assholes can't dig a hole and stick a straw in it without f-ing up.



    This is not Obama's fault. It does confirm everyones assumption that he had no crisis management skillset tho. No suprise there. A village in Kenya called. They want their idiot back.
  14. KerryS Ignored Member

    Posts: 6,710
    Sedro Woolley, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +1,749 / 0
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061003683.html?hpid=topnews

    More estimates on the amount of oil released by the well.........................................................

    I think one of the reasons the Dutch process was not used is the fact that the oil removed with their process is un-usable. Not sure why the Obama admin cares but could see where BP might object.

    Using one of Obama's favorite sayings; "It is a complicated issue, lets not rush to conclusions." Ok then.
  15. FE427TP The Great Sage

    Posts: 48
    Southwest WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Dryflylarry, the thing you choose to ignore is the reason they are drilling out there in deep water in the first place. Instead of lax regulations, increasingly strict regulations on being able to drill on land, or in shallow water by liberal environmentalists pushed them out to to the deep sea where it'd be harder to drill and exponentially harder to contain a leak. Had this happened in shallow water where you didn't need ROV's working a mile underwater, and could potentially get divers to the source of the problem, or on soil where berms could be built to contain and if need be burn the oil this catastrophe could have been much more easily contained and stopped. The joke is on your own shortsightedness and lack of understanding on the nature of the situation.

    Causing more coastal erosion by putting a berm in front of the coast? Really? You are that naive? Or are you that uneducated about the process that you resort a kneejerk disagreement out of hate of any opinion that doesn't agree with yours? It wouldn't be built by "bulldozer on the beach" and had you read the article instead of ignoring it to begin your closed minded tirade of hate you could have educated yourself on a subject you proved you have no expertise in. I have yet to see you say anything that shows an expertise in environmental science so while you are pointing your finger at me you're showing your own hypocrisy. You complain extensively about the damage done by this but what have you done before this to stop commercial fishing in the gulf which has done MORE damage to their local environment already? But sadly my wall shows no degree in environmental science so I must be wrong :rolleyes:

    Split Bamboo, thanks for catching that I had used gallons instead of tons, the correct number is closer to 960,000,000 gallons of oil that could have potentially been captured already had Obama not turned them away.

    Kim did you see the article about another rig the Ocean Saratoga near the Deepwater Horizon that has been leaking since late april? http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/another_gulf_oil_spill_well_ne.html

    mrbadexample, it's their own words on the subject, if you're blind to that you need to put the liberal koolaid blinders down and actually look at what is going on in this administration, the Progressive's assault on America was going on in the last one too :thumb:

    tythetier, the BP CEO has very little effect on the stock prices in this situation as the drop in stock prices will be lead by investors trying to dump a stock that will not be able to return the dividends they are expecting. Then you will see a further drop by other people trying to dump it to buy other stocks before it has devalued further. If you assumed that they would be paying for it in the first place reconsider your viewpoint on economics. Any increase in a companies expenses is eventually passed onto the consumer. They would turn to their insurance to pay for this accident. This will mean a raise in insurance rates to cover the cost to all oil companies which eventually means a raise of cost in the price of refined oil products to everyone. We at the lowest end of the economic food chain will ultimately be the ones paying for it.
    The next point being synthetic oil. Synthetic oil for cars comes two ways, totally synthetic which is the really expensive stuff few people use; and partial synthetic which is cracked and reformulated from a crude oil base with a small part (less than 30%) full synthetic added in which is the primarily used "synthetic" You ask why full synthetic oils aren't in use and the answer is two part, until the free market can bring the cost in line with or close to that of natural oil it is not economically viable and won't be accepted. It's like asking why people shop at Walmart when they could buy something better at Macy's, not everyone needs or can afford to. The second part being the fossil fuels and pollution that go into creating a gallon of synthetic fuel/oil which is mostly made from alcohol (look into the pollution that comes from ethanol. It creates less pollution where it is burned primarily in high population density areas, but creates more pollution overall in the manufacturing process from the fertilizers and pesticides used to grow the corn, the energy consumed to make those pesticides and fertilizers and the environmental damage from them; to the fuel consumed in planting, harvesting and shipping for processing which consumes electricity) and esters, think polyester which is an ester product also. The simple fact of the matter is that until the free market can make an energy supply that is as cheap and easily stored and transportable as crude oil there will be negative economic repercussions from not using crude while it's here. Our economy is dependent on cheap plentiful energy, and "green" energy is highly dependent on taxing other things to give incentives back to people trying to use "green" energy. In other words, oil, income and sales tax money makes solar panels for example that would normally be too expensive, become economically viable through tax rebates or cash incentives to be installed on homes, the panels still cost the same, but money is taken from somewhere or someone else to make it appear cheaper. If everyone had to install solar panels, or wind turbines on their house or business to generate all their electricity next year the system for it would collapse and it'd go to true market value eliminating most peoples ability to pay for them.
  16. dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    Posts: 4,097
    Near the Fjord
    Ratings: +563 / 0
    Geesus, is there something wrong with evaluating the situation before acting and putting bulldozers all over the beach or whatever?! Just because some politician stands on the beach with whatever news channel (oh, by the way FE, Fox is not a news channel) and wants to build a berm to protect his beach doesn't mean he knows wtf he's talking about.

    Kim, I agree with you regarding the beaches of Puget Sound being littered with rock bulkheads everywhere. I understand perfectly the problem. Back in my previous life before retiring (landscape architect), I designed a beach restoration project at Salsbury Point Park in Kitsap County. We removed 350' or so of a huge rock bulkhead with rocks as tall as you, excavated the beach, replace gravels, shoreline vegetation recontoured all to a natural beach. It has held up now to storms, tides, for about 15+ years now. It was a model project at the time for beach restoration in Puget Sound. Too bad more people don't study doing that. To give you an idea of how much 60 miles of waterfront is, is, if you are familiar with Kitsap County, that would pretty much equal 1/2 of all the shoreline in the county.
  17. FE427TP The Great Sage

    Posts: 48
    Southwest WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    No sir, I agree with you it is prudent to evaluate the situation before as you say "putting bulldozers all over the beach" (again, not what had you read it, the article said they wanted to do) but that does not make it prudent to reject even getting the freely offered resources on the way to the same continent in case they end up needing them R.F.N.

    Your "non news channel" has a higher viewership than the other non news channels. I agree it's primarily a news related talk show channel, but Glenn Beck while being a a bit loony has lost 30% of his viewers and still has more people getting their 5:00 news from him than the Commie News Network, MSDNC, and HLN combined...
  18. Paul Huffman Lagging economic indicator

    Posts: 1,419
    Yakima, WA.
    Ratings: +132 / 0
    BP spills coffee:
  19. Paul Huffman Lagging economic indicator

    Posts: 1,419
    Yakima, WA.
    Ratings: +132 / 0
    I haven't heard of Davis Fleetwood before. Scary idea. Tony Haywood can say "BP will pay all legitimate claims", but what if BP is carved up, and those liabilities are separated from the assets? http://www.youtube.com/user/davisfleetwood or if bumped off today's video :
  20. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,445
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,622 / 2
    That's because most Americans are ignorant to facts, and just want sensationalism. All of the major TV news networks have lost all credibility, Fox just moreso than the others.

    And ratings do not equal quality.