(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)
9 messages
Updated 11/3/2023 6:12:58 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,916 messages
Updated 9/8/2024 1:34:46 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,200 messages
Updated 8/23/2024 12:20:47 PM
(Bear Creek Reservoir Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,171 messages
Updated 6/27/2024 7:05:46 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,979 messages
Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 12:35:05 PM
|
This is not BP propaganda but comes directly from the Messiah's administration. Kind of supports my view about the long-term impact of the spill although who would have thought long-term might end being so short? Still a lot of work to do but more reasons to be optimistic. Maybe if the government media will get this message out to the public people will once again flock to the Gulf Coast beaches. By the way, my client is having a fabulous time at Orange Beach. No oil to speak of, swimming is allowed and unfortunately because of all the slanted press coverage the restaurants are not full. The U.S. government will release a report
that says scientists had determined that containment, burning, and
skimming measures worked in dealing with the oil spill, said Carol Browner, energy and climate change adviser to President Barack Obama.
"The good news is that the vast majority of
the oil appears to be gone," she said on ABC's "Good Morning America"
show. "That's what the initial assessment of our scientists is telling
us."
The scientists said about 25 percent of the
oil had not been captured or evaporated and there still would be some
tarballs washing up onshore but the government would make sure those
were cleaned up as quickly as possible, Browner said.
"We do feel like this is an important turning point," she said.
Browner's comments came as BP said it had
reached "a significant milestone" in its effort to permanently plug the
well, which has spewed millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. Crews pumped heavy drilling mud into the well and now will try to seal it with cement.
The New York Times said the government
report was expected to say that what is left of the oil is so diluted
that it does not seem to pose much additional risk.
Most is light sheen at the surface or
dispersed below the surface and federal scientists believe it is
breaking down rapidly, the newspaper reported.
The report on the spill, by federal scientists with outside help, is the result of an effort to determine the total volume of oil
released and to figure out where it went, the Times said. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was the lead agency on the
report, the newspaper said.
|
Name: |
Jim Dandy
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 1:28:30 PM
|
Of course, this will have no impact on the 6 month deep water drilling ban. Guess a few thousand more job losses won't be noticed.
|
Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 1:38:57 PM
|
More like 140,000 jobs and the attendant economic losses from their movement to the roles of unemployment. Just one more reason real unemployment is likely close to 20%.
|
Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 2:20:19 PM
|
Some on the forum will be glad you are finally seeing the light and putting some faith in Obama and the Messiah Administration. I still don;t trust him,
|
Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
Subject: |
The good news...
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 2:52:54 PM
|
I am confident that MM is not quite ready for that Rose Garden Reconciliation Tour yet... I wonder if Obama, Biden and Pelosi would like to spend some time on the lake - perhaps even doing some diving from what is left of Chimney Rock. ;-)
|
Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 5:36:34 PM
|
Now, now......even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. My faith in them is strictly limited to when they actually espouse or say something that is actually true and correct. On this very limited issue some in the administration have finally said what those of us in the know have been saying for a while.
Besides, it should give you more of a reason to be optimistic if those from opposite ends of the political spectrum are saying the same thing. Besides, the administration is only reporting what NOAA and their experts are telling them. Since all presumably have a political or ideological motivation to report the opposite it should actually increase your confidence that it is factually correct. The difference between them and me is I am happy to report this news while they report it grudgingly and likely always with the under-the-breath epithet "darn it". "Most of the oil has been cleaned up....darn it." "The dispersants are not any more of a risk to human or ecological receptors than the oil and have actually helped with the cleanup.....darn it"
So let's all be realistic about the short-term impact of this spill and lives adversely impacted while at the same time being optimistic about the long-term impact on the environment and those that depend on the Gulf for their livelihood.
|
Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
Subject: |
WH supports my views on oil spill
|
Date:
|
8/4/2010 9:36:03 PM
|
Short term v. Long Term
When do you anticipate that the Louisiana marshes will be cleaned up to Gov Jindal approval? When do you anticpate that the oil that is floating around the gulf will be picked up or natuarally disperse so that it will have not adverse affect on the environment, water purity, fish reproduction? Or do you not think it has any adverse affects? When will the oil that is on the bottom of the gulf cease affecting the oxygen level, and when will it not be a problem to the above? When do you anticipate that I can walk on the beaches of Gulf Shores and not see and step on tar balls? Are those a problem to you?
Sorry to deal with specifics, but I only know what I see, and am not privy to the details of the major cleanup process.
Do you see any adverse affects caused by the BP Oil spill? If so, when do you anticipate these to no longer be a problem?
|
Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
Subject: |
Dayum....
|
Date:
|
8/5/2010 8:29:17 AM
|
I just hate good news. What an awful start to the day. Was in Grayton Beach 2 weeks ago. A few tar balls washed up but, that's about it. People were swimming and I caught a few Flounder and a Pompano in the surf. I realize people's jobs and lives have been affected in the short term but, the future for the Gulf looks just a little bit brighter. I am happy about that...... not so sure about the MSM and administration.
|
Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
Subject: |
Answers as best I know them or not if I don't
|
Date:
|
8/5/2010 9:44:19 AM
|
When do you anticipate that the Louisiana marshes will be cleaned up to Gov Jindal approval? I am not sure what Gov. Jindal has established as an acceptable cleanup. The marshes are by far the most complex aspect of the cleanup because the cure is often worse than the disease. This is why the Federal Gov't's refusal to let them build the berms was so damaging. In order to physically remove the oil you end up doing a lot of damage to the biota (plants and animals). On the positive side, the oil that reached the marshes was heavily weathered and had very little if any chemical toxicity. It would have physical toxicity but once its bound up with the marsh grasses that is less of a concern. It also has the potential to biodegrade as this is a very active biological degradation zone. I think the short answer is the remnants of oil will likely remain in the marshes for some time but if left undisturbed would not be a big risk. This will obviously take some more study.
When
do you anticpate that the oil that is floating around the gulf will be
picked up or natuarally disperse so that it will have not adverse affect
on the environment, water purity, fish reproduction? Or do you not
think it has any adverse affects? If you read the accounts and remember our experience when we were sampling they are already having a hard time finding oil to recover by skimming. It is just no longer there due to the recovery efforts and the incredible ability of the Gulf to naturally degrade the oil as evidenced by its ability to degrade the 5,000 barrels per day that naturally flow into it with no impact. With the well being permanently plugged as we speak it will only accelerate. There have been no studies that I am aware of about fish reproduction. NOAA has focused almost exclusively on chemistry. Fish studies take years to complete and are complex. As I said earlier, most of the oil is naturally degraded by the time it reaches the surface and has lost most of its chemical toxicity. There will be detectable lingering effects for a year or two but after that you will not be able to find anything in the water.
When will the oil that is on the
bottom of the gulf cease affecting the oxygen level, and when will it
not be a problem to the above? As soon as the oil is naturally degraded it no longer has what is called biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) which is the demand of oxygen to fuel the degradation. When the remaining oil is through degrading the BOD will gradually return to normal levels. Not sure what that timeframe will be but it will be studied to death by NOAA and BP.
When do you anticipate that I can walk
on the beaches of Gulf Shores and not see and step on tar balls? Are
those a problem to you? It will probably be years to come but frankly I have seen tar balls every time I have been to the Gulf over the last 20+ years. They are not attractive but frankly never diminished my enjoyment of the beach. As I understand it there will be a long term program to remove the material from the beach so make a call and hopefully they will come get it.
Do you see any adverse affects caused by the BP Oil spill? If so, when do you anticipate these to no longer be a problem? In the next 3 to 5 years and likely less you will have to go searching for some evidence that the spill ever happened. By far the most egregious long term effects will be economic.
I know how much this spill has upset you but I think you should be optimistic about the long-term ramifications.
|
Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
Subject: |
Answers as best I know them or not if I don't
|
Date:
|
8/5/2010 10:07:26 AM (updated 8/5/2010 10:11:39 AM)
|
Thanks for your replies. Well said. I do love the gulf, the beach, the sand, the fresh air. I do think it has been harmed, as do you. Our difference is in definition of short term v long term. As your replies highlight, some items are complex and timeframes are not yet know. Just wanted to make sure you and I were on the same page there.
As for "can't find oil to skim" Mobile Press Register reports just yesterday flew with researchers and saw the sheens of oil. I have not flown over, I do not know.
I will be back at the gulf in a few weeks. I will enjoy it. I will enjoy the seafood, the sand (if not tar balls-----I have not seen tar balls for twenty years), the water, the view, the sea oats. I will hope that what I cannot see has not been damaged.
Over and out. You can resume your battles with 'hound.
|
Name: |
Lifer
-
|
|
Subject: |
A little perspective.
|
Date:
|
8/5/2010 2:10:29 PM
|
So far about 350 acres has been polutted by the spill. Thats three hudred fifty. LA loses 15,000 acres annually to natural erosion. Thats fifteen thousand.
Just saying.
I realize that if one of those acres were mine I would have a different perspective.
|
|
|