Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dryflylarry, May 14, 2010.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
fb, you have to run his post through a pimp translator for it to make sense. :rofl:
also, mofo be chillin on this mutha fo free. Time ta' slap dat biach to da curb.. n'shit. Dats how a pimp gets paid.
That's a good suggestion -- or maybe a bubba translator.
This thread is proof that kids who weren't smart in school retain the same status in adulthood. It's impossible to be significantly upwardly mobile on IQ.
nah, it's easy man. I just added 15 to my IQ of 30. Now I have an IQ of 72.
FE427TP, your math may or may not be right about the cubic volume of the actual water involved with the oil. The problem with that failed logic is simple. If the surface is the area involved you can't use a two dimentional problem to translate into a three dimentional picutre. What I'm trying to say is if the bottom is covered with something you can fish all the area above and down to, but not including the bottom. This can be calculated in three dimensions to show the cubic area that you can work, play, fish, etc. When the surface is involved you have to consider, unless you have some secret submarine based fishing platform that I'd like to be a part of sometime, that you cannot use the two dimensional surface AND you cannot use the three dimensional area beneath that unusable surface. Manipulate the math, statistics and figures any way you wish to try to demonstrate your point. Your two dimensional perspective and calculations that make the area under the oil contaminated area seem to be fishable or useable area is just nonsense in my opinion. The 31% + of the fishing area closed is based on the surface area in which fishing vessels are not allowed to enter for fishing, and this area has been growing in percentage in the last month, not shrinking. I get that you think this is less of a problem than I, but I also get that you are not making nearly the valid points that you believe you are making. I think you are taking a minimizing approach, using statistics to show that is is not that bad and everyone is over reacting. I think you are so far off base it is laughable. The major damage to the Gulf, fishing industry, shorline, communities and the economic impact as a result of this accident cannot be denied.
So now that siphoning is being done to one of BP's surface ships, how much oil is coming up that siphon? There is still a lot leaking too, but maybe the oil taken on board will show a better idea of the rate at which the oil has been leaking. Will the profits made from this oil be turned over to the industries, states and communities negatively impacted? Will the profits made be put into the coffers of BP?
I also sent you a Private Message about Private Messages, just my two cents. Here is to more and rapid progress in the Gulf.
Awesome! I love calculus.
Ed, I am shocked that you would even consider that FU427BFD could be wrong.
I find it entertaining and disgusting to have an oil company shill trying to make this disaster in the gulf
"no big deal".
then you'll like this fractal stuff. It gets right to the heart of the matter:
Got your PM sir and replied. The math was simply a comparative exercise to show that the quote was correct that the volume of oil released is miniscule compared to the volume of water in the Gulf. Although the impact of the oil will be significantly more than the volume it occupies.
I can definitely drink to that.
Calculations of the volume of seawater in the gulf are a big waste of time. I'm not calling it a stupid waste of time, because I see it as part of a clever attempt for the oil industry apologists and their tools to redirect attention like a shill, or an illusionist with a card trick. Tony Hayward, Haley Barbour, Rush Limbaugh, , it has a powerful effect on weak minds. Assumptive reality.
Even weak minds should be able to figure this out: the problem with oil spills is that oil does not dissolve in water. It would be great if it did. But oil floats to the surface, then blows on shore. That's always the problem with oil spills. The seawater volume doesn't matter. The surface area might, the length of coastline might, the wind direction might. Get it? Floats to the surface, blows on shore.
On his June 1 program, El Rushbo was really proud of this chart "Oil Spills through the Years, put together by Dr. Ray Spencer, "The official climatologist of the EIB Network". Spencer is Rushbo's favorite scientist because he is basically a climate change denier.
Rush was tickled with this chart. He said that it shows Deep Horizon spill is not that serious, noting that DH is second to the last on the list. But Rush, this is a list of the worst oil spills.
Looking closer at the chart, however, and you begin to notice how Spencer has played fast and loose with the numbers. At the end of the Iraq War, oil was released at both onshore and offshore facilities. Much of it was set ablaze. It is difficult to tell how much ended up in the marine environment. None ended up in marine waters upon which our fisheries and tourism depends. But if you want to have the chart to have the desired impact, to minimize the impact of DH, it's great to combine all spills so you have one really big column.
The "average yearly spills" column really crazy. It's not hard to find sources from the shipping industryhttp://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/statistics/ that proudly proclaims their great safety record, especially in recent years. Do you think the shipping industry cleaned up its act due to market forces, or dare I suggest it was the result of tougher regulation and bigger fines for spills? Anyway, Spencer's estimate of 250 million gallons would be 902700 tonnes, way off the chart of ITOPF's figure 3. Either Spencer is using a longer term average for his 250 million gallon estimate, or he's pulling this one out of his ass.
Then there is Spencer's estimate for the DH "event". Call it "event", or "leak", because "spill" sounds bad. The most obvious problem is that this number is only through May. Another problem is that he is basing this on only 15000 barrels/day. But I'll concede that point to him. At least it's not the original 1000 barrels/day from BP or the 5000 barrels/day from NOAA. 15000 barrels/day is sort of low midrange of the estimates out there. But even using 15000 barrels/day, if you run this out for two more months until relief wells can possibly cap this, the total spill would be 62 million gallons, making the Deepwater Horizon spill worse than any other single event on this chart except IXTOC. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills for estimates that range from 72 to 600 million gallons.
So riddle me this:
A British company continues its trend of shitting in our waters, continuing their well-documented disregard and devastation of Americas natural landscape.
American "Patriots" are the first to jump up and down, raising their hand in order to voice their support and defense for said British company.
15,000 barrels of leaking oil per day is bullshit. That equates to 437.5 gallons per minute. That ain't shit. It's a lie. A 6" pipe can put out 1100 gallons per minute at up to 100 psi. This ain't no 6" frigging pipe! (I will clarify I am referring to water flow however, in a PVC pipe.) This lie continues to piss me off. It's too late anyway....
Hey, Brit Hume, Where's the oil? : http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/ Interesting presentation.
Some food for though as this terrible situation drags on.....
Just how cozy is BP with the current administration? Well, the Chief of Staff lived rent free with the creator of BP's ad campaign...
"Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.
Greenberg's consulting firm was a prime architect of BP's recent rebranding drive as a green petroleum company, down to green signs and the slogan "Beyond Petroleum."
Greenberg's company is also closely tied to a sister Democratic outfit -- GCS, named for the last initials of Greenberg, James Carville, another Clinton advisor, and Bob Shrum, John Kerry's 2004 campaign manager.
According to published reports, GCS received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political polling contracts in recent years from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Probably just a crazy coincidence. But you'll never guess who was the chairman of that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensing those huge polling contracts to his kindly rent-free landlord."
Quote from yesterdays LA Times. Not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh
From Greenbergs own website:http://www.greenbergresearch.com/index.php?ID=473
"Greenberg Quinlan Rosner helped BP assess and strengthen its reputation globally and in specific countries, including an intensive campaign to strengthen the company's profile in the US, culminating in BP rising to number 1 in the annual Fortune rankings for its sector."
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, nor is it a Democrat or Republican issue. The issue, in my opinion, is that it is in a companies best interest to effectively lobby all the politicians in power, and we, as citizens and voters, should look beyond the campaign promises and rhetoric to try to elect people that serve our interests regardless of party affiliation.
Now the problem is finding the right people to run. I nominate the ticket of Mumbles and OMJ in 2012, for the newly formed Holy Shit Look Out Party
They already talk more than any politician out there. So I say they have a good chance.
Check this out...in addition to the money they're dropping on search engines I'll bet they're also paying legions of hacks like
FE427TP to scrape sites like WFF and try to turn these threads into a liberal vs. conservative/tea partier flamewar...nothing like a little bait and switch. No doubt PR folks around the globe are watching this whole thing and taking notes on how to manage public opinion...
bawling: & :beathead: & :beer1:
Who is in charge of BP's ad campaign?
Day 49 and counting. I know that some leaks similar to this have lasted much longer. Technology advances should be shortening the repair curve. I've not seen anything indicating any significant improvements have been made in several days.