Who's gonna save us from this monster?!? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill
Prior to this point, I had a reasonable amount of internal assurance that they would get the hole plugged without "too" much damage. Now, I'm left wondering if this will end up being one of the greatest catastrophes man has ever known.
It's a very sad time as this will have an effect on the eco system of a major part of the earth for decades. BTW, anyone holding stock in BP oil should sell while the selling's good. Lastly, notice that when anything happens worldwide, like a poor apricot season in Uruguay..., they raise the price of gas as it somehow effects oil? Well, I note that those SOB oil companies aren't singing that tune right now- and they had better not start.
Yea now there saying till august we "may" be able to stop it! WTF!!! Im surprised there is not more public outcry over this because this is huge. Its killing jobs, animals, our water, they will raise oil prices because of this, and all the ceo of BP can say is "We could have been more prepared"...Ya Think! I love the other oil CEO's already getting worried this may cut into there profits by them getting cut off from drilling. Spill shouldn't halt drilling, Chevron CEO says
Sadly, the administration is still handing out new permits for off shore drilling despite their apparent lie about a moratorium on it. I think it was kind of clear to start that all these ideas would be good if they work, but you'll note they always prefaced them with "never been tried at this depth before". If there is some kind of hope, it would be from maybe the navy. And no offense, but I doubt they are that much more skilled/knowledgeable than private industry on this subject.
anyone else not really give a shit about this oil spill? ???? i mean, it sucked it happens...just seems not that major..even though people are saying it is. who knows...maybe because there's no tanker, its just a hole in the ocean floor....seems kind of wack.
it's not that I don't give a shit, but I find it odd that people are making this sound like the worst thing that's ever happened. Some are reporting that the amount of oil spilled is reaching Exxon Valdez proportions--which sucks. But the Valdez was the 35th-worst spill since 1967 worldwide...about 1/10th the size of the top few. So it's not like Earth has been trashed like this only once before and we need to regulate and shut down an energy industry b/c of this. (Haven't we learned our lessons from the nuclear industry?!?) http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/statistics/ Please, let's get this cleaned up as soon as possible. Please, let's levy fines/penalties against people and companies who neglect their jobs and cause damage to the environment. Don't knee-jerk this and say that "drilling is bad" or that "we have to stop using oil...for the Earth's Sake!" b/c much, much worse spills have happened and the earth's survived so far.
The Exxon Valdez was carrying a fixed amount of oil. This is approaching the scope of the Valdez....and is still growing. When a disaster has already attained Valdez status and still has a ton of upside, it's a contender for the Hall of Fame of disasters, even if it likely won't reach GOAT status.
Current estimates are 2-3 times larger than Valdez, to date. And projected to go on flowing for another couple of months. From your link: I'm not sure I buy the 'no evironmental damage' angle - even the deep ocean has critters living in it - but it is certainly true that dumping oil in shallow water near the coast is a lot more harmful than dumping it in deep water. It matters a lot where you spill it - it isn't just the amount. And of course, it is perfectly natural for Americans to care more about what happens off their coast than what happens off the coast of Angola. So let's not minimize it, or pretend like this isn't an industry that just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it needs more regulation. barfo
If it looks like I'm minimizing it, it's only b/c it seems as if those talking about this in the government, media and on here ARE (in Minstrel's terms) assigning GOAT status to this. ONCE AGAIN, I'm not saying this isn't bad, and I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be regulation. What I'm saying is that it doesn't need the type of knee-jerk regulation that the nuclear industry went through after 3-Mile Island, which crippled an energy sector that didn't have to be crippled and led in a small way to our reliance on oil today, fueled by hyperbole (GOAT! ) Dead Shrimp! It's perfectly hypocritical for Americans to not care about this until the oil hits their beaches, cuz Fuck Angola, right?
Sorry but your nuke stuff is BS. No nuke plant in the USA has ever made a profit. The designs of those plants were not good, not efficient and not safe. Hell we still don't know what to do with the waste. Nuke power is very different today. The pellet design of plant is far superior. Combining a modern design nuclear plant with a coal liquefaction plant would be better yet. While building nuke plants today makes a lot of sense the nuke industry of yesteryear didn't crap out because of too much regulation. It just sucked ass.
We have plenty of options for the waste. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the same government you want to regulate oil drilling and the like, the best options have all been disregarded not b/c of engineering trade studies or ground effects or anything technical, but b/c of stupidity of politicians and their constituents. So forgive me if I don't think. And I hate to tell you this, but the Navy has somewhere on the order of 80 nuclear plants running pretty damn safely today. And has had them for 50 years. Tell me why we haven't built a modern nuclear design plant (combined with coal liquefication or not) in 30 years, if not for regulation at the local, state and federal levels barring plants being built since 1977 and canceling the ones on order? If the nuke plants of yesteryear sucked ass so badly, how come we're still using the same 104 authorized before 1977 to fuel 20% of the nation's power? Answer...the designs were ok, but the maintenance wasn't keeping them running. Improved maintenance standards changed that in the 80's. Did they switch from operating at a loss to all of a sudden being profitable? Well, yes...amazingly enough after deregulation (again with that government intervention stuff!) nuclear power companies starting purchasing plants left and right from utilities, and reducing operational cost to the point that nuclear power is 32% cheaper than coal and 75% cheaper than gas. All on 40-year-old "suck ass" reactors. But maybe that's just BS.
