Drill, baby, drill!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So Moonlit and Irvine, just to get this straight, you are satisfied with the way the Administration has handled this so far? You're happy that the Gov't allowed BP to underestimate the sheer volume of oil pouring into the Gulf? You guys were happy that although BP claimed that all of this will have a small impact on the marine life and that NOAA (another obviously bought off Gov't Admin.) defended these claims? And happy when the Parish Leaders on the ground in LA were begging to be allowed to construct "sand berms (sic?)" to deflect the oil from getting into the fragile wetlands which at this point Obama is "considering" but we all know it's too late because the oil is there? You guys are good with all of this? Then you REALLY must have been ecstatic with the prior failed administration.


i think you're really mad about how powerless the government is to regulate the oil companies. because that's much more the issue here rather than specific steps the federal government could have taken.

for that, you can thank Mr. Cheney.

i'm not good with any of this. but to pretend that Obama could have stopped the oil is like getting mad at your parents because it's raining.
 
So Moonlit and Irvine, just to get this straight, you are satisfied with the way the Administration has handled this so far? You're happy that the Gov't allowed BP to underestimate the sheer volume of oil pouring into the Gulf? You guys were happy that although BP claimed that all of this will have a small impact on the marine life and that NOAA (another obviously bought off Gov't Admin.) defended these claims? And happy when the Parish Leaders on the ground in LA were begging to be allowed to construct "sand berms (sic?)" to deflect the oil from getting into the fragile wetlands which at this point Obama is "considering" but we all know it's too late because the oil is there? You guys are good with all of this? Then you REALLY must have been ecstatic with the prior failed administration.

Errrrrrr...no. BP was allowed to do what they did because of lack of proper regulations, which was the fault of the previous administration. Obama could come in and demand all sorts of regulations he wants, but try getting Congress to agree on making new laws regarding that. You've seen how brilliantly they've handled so many other massive issues of late. Not to mention, the endless moronic stream of cries of "Socialist!" or "Communist!" or whatever that would put more of a road block into getting anything done.

Irvine hit the nail on the head, the oil companies are WAY too powerful, unfortunately. It'd take a miracle to knock their power down a few notches. Believe me, this whole thing pisses me off, too, but I'm mad at BP and the idiots who decided, "Regulations? We don't need no stinkin' regulations!" I certainly want Obama to do everything within his scope of power to help with this crisis, definitely, and hope he is trying every solution imaginable, but it seems this mess is really beyond ANYONE'S control now. And I think this was likely to happen whether we had Obama in the White House or not.

Angela
 
Errrrrrr...no. BP was allowed to do what they did because of lack of proper regulations, which was the fault of the previous administration. Obama could come in and demand all sorts of regulations he wants, but try getting Congress to agree on making new laws regarding that. You've seen how brilliantly they've handled so many other massive issues of late. Not to mention, the endless moronic stream of cries of "Socialist!" or "Communist!" or whatever that would put more of a road block into getting anything done.

Irvine hit the nail on the head, the oil companies are WAY too powerful, unfortunately. It'd take a miracle to knock their power down a few notches. Believe me, this whole thing pisses me off, too, but I'm mad at BP and the idiots who decided, "Regulations? We don't need no stinkin' regulations!" I certainly want Obama to do everything within his scope of power to help with this crisis, definitely, and hope he is trying every solution imaginable, but it seems this mess is really beyond ANYONE'S control now. And I think this was likely to happen whether we had Obama in the White House or not.

Angela

Really? I'm still waiting for the answer of my original question, are you satisfied with the Administration's response to all of this? Hey if your happy that's great! And to suggest that I believe Obama could have done anything to actually stop this is unfounded, look back at my original Post, no where did I even suggest that. I do disagree with the way he has handled this. Just my $.02.

Irvine is exactly right that I actually hate that Corporate America runs the show - they wield way too much power. The problem I stated is that going back to the beginning of this decade we have a leadership vacuum and it continues with this President. We are not electing true "Leaders" and it scares me to think that after all of this we may have a Sarah Palin or Rand Paul to deal with.
 
Really? I'm still waiting for the answer of my original question, are you satisfied with the Administration's response to all of this? Hey if your happy that's great! And to suggest that I believe Obama could have done anything to actually stop this is unfounded, look back at my original Post, no where did I even suggest that. I do disagree with the way he has handled this. Just my $.02.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I mentioned the people I know for sure I am mad at. I'd like to think Obama is trying to work something out, so I guess if I had to answer, I'd say I still remain hopeful that they'll be able to step in and do something. I'm not happy with Congress, I'm DEFINITELY not happy with BP, but I just can't really get mad at Obama yet. I dunno. Again, if someone could explain what exactly it is they want Obama himself to DO, that would help. I don't know what he really can do anymore. I suppose he could've tried to regulate the oil companies sooner...but no, wait, we had to get health care done first. And immigration. And end the wars overseas. And so on and so on. Keep in mind, he's got, like, 50,000 messes he has to clean up right now.

Irvine is exactly right that I actually hate that Corporate America runs the show - they wield way too much power. The problem I stated is that going back to the beginning of this decade we have a leadership vacuum and it continues with this President. We are not electing true "Leaders" and it scares me to think that after all of this we may have a Sarah Palin or Rand Paul to deal with.

Those are indeed terrifying thoughts, I fully agree with you there. But as for the leadership stuff, well, keep in mind, you can lead the charge all you want, you still have to have people willing to get behind what you want to do. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening much right now.

Angela
 
Poor guy, I just wanna give him lots o' hugs



BP CEO Tony Hayward blasted out a statement Wednesday in which he apologized for complaining over the weekend, "I'd like my life back."

Hayward said in Wednesday's statement that he was "appalled" to read his own statement, and singled out for apology the families of the 11 rig workers who died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The full statement appears below:

I made a hurtful and thoughtless comment on Sunday when I said that "I wanted my life back." When I read that recently, I was appalled. I apologize, especially to the families of the 11 men who lost their lives in this tragic accident. Those words don't represent how I feel about this tragedy, and certainly don't represent the hearts of the people of BP -- many of whom live and work in the Gulf -- who are doing everything they can to make things right. My first priority is doing all we can to restore the lives of the people of the Gulf region and their families -- to restore their lives, not mine.


YouTube - BP CEO Tony Hayward: 'I'd Like My Life Back'
 
Gee, yeah, ya think that was a pretty freakin' stupid thing to say there, Tony Hayward? Sheesh. When did people decide not to think before they opened their mouths?

By the way, YBORCITYOBL, I will grant you this: I was catching last night's "Daily Show" episode online, and Jon Stewart was going back and forth between clips of Obama talking about how important this problem was to him and clips of him attending basketball things and appreciation group things, and he definitely had a point there. I can't argue with him on that.

Angela
 
Gee, yeah, ya think that was a pretty freakin' stupid thing to say there, Tony Hayward? Sheesh. When did people decide not to think before they opened their mouths?

By the way, YBORCITYOBL, I will grant you this: I was catching last night's "Daily Show" episode online, and Jon Stewart was going back and forth between clips of Obama talking about how important this problem was to him and clips of him attending basketball things and appreciation group things, and he definitely had a point there. I can't argue with him on that.

Angela


Thanks for that Angela. I should have elaborated a bit more about the Leadership comment. I'm in that role of "Buck Stops Here", and all of the training, lectures and theories I've had to study over the years there are times when you must take decisive action. For example, weeks ago when Obama's administration was presented with the idea of building dunes off of the shore to deflect any oil coming into the fragile wetlands the ACoE discounted these ideas and the EPA wasn't going to allow this process. Now they are deciding it might be a great idea and the problem is now that the oil has already entered these areas - it's too late. Decisive Action especially when we have so much to lose.
 
Well Jim Joyce was just wiping away tears when Galarraga brought out the line up card. Jim Joyce pwns Tony Hayward. Now he's the best person of the week, I take that back. Galarraga too, he's so sweet and he never stops smiling. Sad that a situation like that was handled much better by the people involved than a catastrophic oil gusher was and still is. Jim Joyce admitted his mistake and went back out there today to face it all when MLB gave him the option not to. Tony Hayward just wants his life back-boo hoo.
 
I don't follow baseball, so no comment on that one :). But I'll wholeheartedly agree with the nomination for Mr. Hayward.

Thanks for that Angela. I should have elaborated a bit more about the Leadership comment. I'm in that role of "Buck Stops Here", and all of the training, lectures and theories I've had to study over the years there are times when you must take decisive action. For example, weeks ago when Obama's administration was presented with the idea of building dunes off of the shore to deflect any oil coming into the fragile wetlands the ACoE discounted these ideas and the EPA wasn't going to allow this process. Now they are deciding it might be a great idea and the problem is now that the oil has already entered these areas - it's too late. Decisive Action especially when we have so much to lose.

*Nods* Oh, yeah, hey, I totally understand your point. There are definitely measures that could've been taken preemptively to deal with this problem a little more. What the reason was for not doing them, I'm not sure. But I just think no matter what anyone did, this whole thing was a disaster in the making and it'll eventually be beyond anyone's control at all. Which is sad. The whole thing's just frustrating as hell, and I definitely don't blame you for your anger :hug:.

Angela
 
First he loses the Oscar to his ex, now this. That's ok Jim, your heart will go on. He knows people too, 3 reallies smart people.

PALOS VERDES, Calif (Reuters) – Film director and deep-sea explorer James Cameron said on Wednesday that BP Plc turned down his offer to help combat the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Over the last few weeks I've watched, as we all have, with growing horror and heartache, watching what's happening in the Gulf and thinking those morons don't know what they're doing," Cameron said at the All Things Digital technology conference.

Cameron, the director of "Avatar" and "Titanic," has worked extensively with robot submarines and is considered an expert in undersea filming. He did not say explicitly who he meant when he referred to "those morons."

His comments came a day after he participated in a meeting at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington to "brainstorm" solutions to the oil spill.

Cameron said he has offered to help the government and BP in dealing with the spill. He said he was "graciously" turned away by the British energy giant.

He said he has not spoken with the White House about his offer, and said that the outside experts who took part in the EPA meeting were now "writing it all up and putting in reports to the various agencies."

The film director has helped develop deep-sea submersible equipment and other underwater ocean technology for the making of documentaries exploring the wrecks of the ocean liner Titanic and the German battleship Bismarck some two miles below the surface.

'REALLY SMART PEOPLE'

Cameron suggested the U.S. government needed to take a more active role in monitoring the undersea gusher, which has become the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

"I know really, really, really smart people that work typically at depths much greater than what that well is at," Cameron said.
 
wtf. i can't believe they'd turn away any offers of assistance. i look at it this way: nothing they've tried so far has worked. why not try some massively insane stunt to see if it works? after all, if this were a james cameron movie, it would. :wink:
 
I would guess they'd see it as an embarrassment if their experts couldn't come up with a solution and then some Hollywood director comes and shows them how it goes. They're still more concerned about PR than anything, but it could of course backfire.
 
I would guess they'd see it as an embarrassment if their experts couldn't come up with a solution and then some Hollywood director comes and shows them how it goes. They're still more concerned about PR than anything, but it could of course backfire.

Yeah, I can see where they'd think that's good logic, because their current PR is so fantastic, right?

If somebody from Hollywood, or anywhere else, came in with a solution and actually made them look even worse, good. I think they could use the sufficient embarrassment. Maybe it'll knock some sense into them. On the news earlier this evening, I saw lovely images of another animal covered in oil and one on its back, legs kicking in the air, dying :|. So yeah, let BP turn a few shades of red. I really don't care.

Angela
 
I'll be curious to hear when more of the info comes out about how much of BP's early efforts were entirely to try and save the viability of the well vs. stopping the leak.

This will be so ugly for so many years both environmentally and legally.

Ugh. Sad.
 
this is an interesting twist:

Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Foreign Office fears BP spill may hit US relations
The Foreign Office is becoming increasingly concerned that criticism towards BP over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is threatening Anglo-US relations.

By Roland Gribben
Published: 6:17AM BST 07 Jun 2010


The scale and ferocity of the US attacks are said to have disturbed David Cameron, according to Whitehall sources.

Some American politicians have suggested that BP should be barred from future government contracts. The company is the biggest supplier of oil and gas to the US military with contracts worth $2 billion (£1.4billion) a year. Such a move would be likely to benefit US rivals such as ExxonMobil and Chevron.

With American midterm elections only five months away, Whitehall officials are understood to be concerned that the issue is becoming a political football in the States.

Tony Hayward, BP’s chief executive, was called “the most hated and clueless man in America” by the New York Daily News. Protesters, angered at BP’s failure to stem the flow of oil, have been photographed stamping on the Union Flag. Support for BP from rival oil groups is also weakening as the industry faces the prospect of a halt to the expansion of offshore drilling.

There are also fears that there are wider implications for British business interests in the US. One Whitehall insider remarked last night: “It’s not doing us any good.” Downing Street has declined to comment on whether the issue has been raised between Mr Cameron and President Barack Obama, but The Daily Telegraph understands that the disaster has come up in discussions between William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, and his US counterpart, Hillary Clinton.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, warned that the crisis was having “major indirect effects” on the British economy, hurting the value of pension funds because of the toll it has taken on FTSE shares.

Mr Obama has voiced his personal indignation at BP’s failure to stop the flow of oil more quickly.

Interviewed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning, Mr Hayward said the company had made an “absolute commitment” to clean up the oil and restore the Gulf coast.

He insisted that he had no plans to step down and said that despite seeing billions wiped off its stock market value, BP remained resilient.

Referring to the attacks against him, Mr Hayward said: “I think it is understandable when something of this scale occurs... that people are frustrated and emotional.”
 
Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse Than Hurricane Katrina; Most Americans Favor Pursuit of Criminal Charges According to ABC News and Washington Post Poll - ABC News

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support the pursuit of criminal charges in the nation's worst oil spill , with increasing numbers calling it a major environmental disaster. Eight in 10 criticize the way BP's handled it – and more people give the federal government's response a negative rating than did the response to Hurricane Katrina.

A month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively. That compares with a 62 negative rating for the response to Katrina two weeks after the August 2005 hurricane.
 
wow. well, here's a new one from the American right: be nice to BP or else we're going to lose in Afghanistan.

"Potential Casualty of Gulf Oil Rig Crisis: Our Most Critical Global Relationship"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:21 AM

The Monday morning column from Clark Judge:

Potential Casualty of Gulf Oil Rig Crisis: Our Most Critical Global Relationship
By Clark S. Judge, managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc. (WHWG | White House Writers Group <http://www.whwg.com> ) and chairman, Pacific Research Institute (PRI?•?Pacific Research Institute <http://www.pacificresearch.org> )

The biggest long-term casualty of the administration’s mishandling of the Gulf oil rig crisis may turn out to be our most critical global security relationship.

As Hugh has been on top of from the first hour, the administration has fumbled every aspect of the environmental disaster. The president took days to even seem to notice what had happened. Then he delayed and delayed on the one clearly constructive step he could take to stem the damage to shores and wetlands: a quick yes to Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s request for permission to build barrier dunes.

To compensate for their own ineptness, Mr. Obama and his colleagues have taken to bashing BP. There has been talk of prosecuting the company. Administration spokespeople have huffed and puffed with such pronouncements as, “We will keep our boot to their neck.” The president has vowed that he will make them pay every penny of the costs long after the company pledged to pay every penny of the costs.

In this fuming and fusing the mainstream media has been egging him on. As one network reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs last week (there are times you have to pity anyone who holds Gibbs’ job) if he had “really seen rage from the president.” Could he “describe it”?

In the years leading up to the disaster, the British Petroleum clearly made major mistakes, most damagingly, perhaps, allowing a fragmentation of the chain of command for operations such as Deepwater Horizon’s. No one was clearly in charge. Still, since the rig exploded and sank, it is hard to think what the oil giant could have done that it hasn’t done as quickly as it has done it. It has been days and weeks ahead of Team Obama at every turn.

But here is the problem. BP is not just any oil company. As reported in Sunday’s New York Post (Tiny URL - create a shorter link), “BP is Britain’s largest company and the biggest holding in most British pension funds.” It pays out one-seventh of the dividends paid in the FTSE 100, the UK’s equivalent of the Down Jones average. So large parts of the British population feel it personally when the administration listens to its left wing and major media friends and talks as if the company were a criminal conspirator.

Of the mood in London, The Post reports, that even The Independent, “a left-wing environmental newspaper,” has run nearly hysterical columns defending BP and worrying if it will survive. And at the conservative London Telegraph, another columnist has summed up that, “This crisis has injected an animus into transatlantic relations unseen since the days of George III.”

It has been clear for a long time that one thing Mr. Obama and those around him do not get is the centrality of the UK relationship to our nation’s effectiveness on the world stage. As British historian Andrew Roberts has written of the U.S. and U.K. in his magisterial A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900, it was not until that 1940s that:

“the realization finally dawned on both that they would be infinitely stronger together than the sum of their constituent parts…. [T]heir reverses – Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, Suez, and Vietnam among them – have come when they were divided form one another. By contrast, their many victories –the 1918 summer offensive, North Africa 1942, Italy, the liberation of Europe 1944-5, the Berlin airlift, the Korean War, the Falklands, the collapse of Soviet communism, the Gulf War, the liberation of Kosovo and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein – all came when they were united.”

As it happens, at the moment we have major, joint global security operation going: Afghanistan. And at just this moment – as a new government is taking office in London – the British are wondering if that operation is worth its price.

This past week European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and journalist Daniel Korski wrote in the British journal The Spectator:

Having returned from Washington DC, where I spoke to a range of senior policy-makers about Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am struck by how much confusion there is about what President Obama meant when he said that he wanted US combat troops to return home in 2011.

“What is Plan B”? Korski asked.

Vice President Joe Biden has said famously and wrongly that Iraq may prove one of the Obama Administration’s great achievements. But he would have been right to say it about Afghanistan –- achievements or failures. For the UK to abandon us in that effort would be, to use Andrew Roberts understated term, a “reverse”.

Less finger pointing, more diplomacy, greater competence – all of this from the White House would go a long way, both to dealing with the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis and to keeping relations with our most critical ally from deteriorating further.

HughHewitt.com Blog : Hugh Hewitt : "Potential Casualty of Gulf Oil Rig Crisis: Our Most Critical Global Relationship"
 
It's tough at the top. Would anyone seriously change places with Hayward right now, I certainly wouldn't.

And, honestly, I'm not English but to me, there is a trace of anti-English sentiment in some of the US media reportage. Not all of it, and certainly people have a right to be angry, but just a smidgeon of it.
 
I don't care what their accent is. If an American oil company did this, I'd be mad at them, too.

Yeah, that really sucks that some people are sneaking anti-English bias into their reporting. That's not right. I personally can say that this whole debacle in no way diminishes my view of the British. I still like you guys over there :). It's not your fault that BP screwed up.

Angela
 
I saw Kerry Kennedy on CNN last night, she's doing some work in the gulf region. She was talking about how toxic the dispersants are and she said that the average lifespan of cleanup workers at the Exxon Valdez site was 52. I don't know how accurate that is, but if it is that's shocking and this time will be even worse.
 
the possibilities are so mind-numblingly awful, that i don't even know what to think.

How bad could BP oil spill get for the Gulf and the nation?

So how bad could it get?

The numbers point to an unprecedented ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and possibly along the Eastern Seaboard.

A cap placed over the leaking BP well in the Gulf of Mexico last Thursday began to capture about half the estimated 25,000 barrels a day flowing into the Gulf by June 6. But that still leaves 10,000 barrels, or 420,000 gallons, flowing into the open water each day.

That amount may be reduced as engineers work to siphon off more oil via the cap. But relief wells that could ease the flow from the leaking line won't be finished for at least two months, meaning that roughly another 25 million gallons could be added to the 24 million to 38 million gallons already fouling water and beaches across thousands of miles of the coast in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

And relief wells won't be a sure thing: They are drilled through 2 miles of rock and sediment to find and tap into the Deepwater Horizon well bore, an oil pipeline measuring about 10 inches across. In the massive Ixtoc 1 spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 1979, it took several tries before the relief drill actually intercepted the original hole.

Today, drilling is more a science, but digging a relief well is still like finding needle in a haystack, even though "you have quite a good idea of where the needle is," says Arne Jernelöv, a U.N. expert on environmental catastrophe.

Now, 50 days after the BP rig in the gulf exploded, the range of scenarios for the toll of the environmental disaster are coming into focus:

The best case

Much of the oil that has floated to the surface now is caught in the Gulf of Mexico's Loop Current, which is pinched off into two large eddies, says Jeffrey Short, a former chemist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who is Pacific science director for the conservation group Oceana.

Because those loops are pinched off from the current, they just keep going around in a circle, not moving down the Florida Panhandle and around to the East Coast.

Oil that flows into the Loop Current eddies "is just going to float around in a big circle and not hit land," Short says. "That's a good thing. It will sit in the sun and be hit with wave action," which means the oil collects more water, increasing its viscosity and allowing it to congeal into larger masses, first as "real soft oil mousse and eventually as tar balls."

"The longer it spins around in the hot sun of the Gulf of Mexico, the closer it's going to get to tar balls," Short says.

The formation of tar balls may not sound like a best-case anything, but it would be.

"While they might be a hazard to things that eat them, they're pretty low impact" ecologically, Short says. They're relatively inert and not nearly as toxic as liquid crude, whose highly toxic volatile components will have evaporated.

"They're not biodegradable. They don't dissolve in water," Jernelöv says. "They're actually like asphalt." After the Ixtoc 1 spill, researchers found that by 1984, "the asphalt-like rocks had crabs crawling over them and oysters settling on them."

There is evidence that oil spill sites can recover, given time.

A study by Canadian researchers found that 24 years after the 1974 Metula oil spill in the Strait of Magellan in Chile, there was high degradation of oil hydrocarbons, leaving only asphalt-like pieces of weathered oil on the beaches and in the marshes. The spill does not appear to have had a significant effect on the coastal ecosystems, but it's difficult to say for sure because they were not studied significantly before the spill.

The fact that the Gulf oil spill is in a warm-water region is helpful because sun and higher temperatures help degrade the oil faster, Jernelöv says.

But one of the great unknowns of this spill is the amount of oil that's staying underwater and what it's doing there.

BP CEO Tony Hayward has tried to play down the underwater effect of the spill by saying that "oil floats." But it doesn't always.

In fact, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco said Tuesday that water tests have confirmed what scientist have reported — the existence of underwater oil plumes from the BP oil spill, though the concentrations are "very low."

Oil rising through extremely cold water, at high pressure, mixed with methane and at times with chemical dispersant, creates a "cloud" of millions of tiny oil droplets in the water, Jernelöv says.

For the subsurface plumes, the best-case scenario is that the oil droplets are eaten rapidly by oil-eating microbes without depressing the amount of oxygen in the water. How quickly this biological degradation takes place depends on the amount of oil, nutrients and microbes present.

"It gets chewed up pretty fast," Short says.

The worst case

The worst-case scenario is almost here for Florida beachgoers: The oil is fouling the Panhandle, the longest stretch of white-sand beach in the world, says Stephen Leatherman of Florida International University in University Park, Fla.

Known as "Dr. Beach" because of his expertise on America's beaches, Leatherman adds that if the oil gets caught up in the Gulf Stream and heads around the southern tip of Florida, the beaches of the East Coast — which have never had to endure such a nightmare scenario — could be next.

Computer models released last week by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) indicated that the oil could foul thousands of miles of the Atlantic Coast as early as this summer.

"Our best knowledge says the scope of this environmental disaster is likely to reach far beyond Florida," says NCAR scientist Synte Peacock, who worked on the study.

Peacock says that for those along portions of the Gulf Coast, including Texas, the worst-case scenario would be for the oil to not enter the Loop Current but to remain and foul the water and coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. For East Coasters, having the oil flow into the Loop Current and then the Gulf Stream would be disastrous.

NOAA officials have predicted an intense hurricane season for this year, saying that as many as 23 tropical storms and hurricanes could form in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

The worst-case scenario for oil and the weather would be a large, Katrina-like hurricane tracking north in the Gulf of Mexico, with its eye passing just west of the oil spill, says Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist at the Weather Channel.

This would bring the "right-front quadrant" of the hurricane directly over the oil. (The right front is the most destructive part of a hurricane, because the wind blows in the same direction as the storm's forward motion.)

"That's the worst-case scenario," Ostro says, "with the wind pushing it all on shore."

Once it got there, the real nightmare would begin: Oil swamping the coastal grass marshes that are nurseries for a large percentage of coastal marine life and mammals. There it would remain a sticky mousse and a contact hazard to anything that gets near it. It would damage water fowl, turtle and marine mammals and possibly the embryos and larvae of invertebrates and fish.

"A deformed fish larvae is a dead fish larvae," says Chris Mann, who directs the Campaign for Healthy Oceans of the Pew Environment Group.

For wildlife, the worst-case scenario already has begun, says Doug Inkley, senior scientist with the National Wildlife Federation.

"This is breeding season in the Gulf," Inkley says. "The oil spill couldn't be at a worse time."

The Gulf's vulnerable young birds, fish and turtles are coming into a polluted environment. "There will be direct effects on these species," he adds.

For sea turtles, for example, the spill is a threat to their existence in the Gulf. There were 225 strandings of sea turtles in the Gulf in May, up from the typical May average of 35. Of those 225, the vast majority were dead, he reports.

"Humpty Dumpty has already fallen," Inkley says. "I believe there will be impacts in the Gulf for decades to come."

Felicia Coleman, who directs the Florida State University Coastal and Marine Laboratory in St. Teresa, notes that the "big bend" of Florida from Panama City to Tampa is one of the largest stands of sea grass in the United States. Those grasses contain probably the largest hatcheries and nursery ground for fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, Coleman says.

"One of the last pristine, most biologically diverse coastal habitats in the country is about to get wiped out. And there's not much we can do about it," she says.

Once they're grown, fish and marine mammals, unlike plankton, have a highly developed sense of smell and the ability to swim away from oil in the water.

But they'll be fighting against their desire to go to long-established feeding and breeding grounds.

"To the animals that live there, the ocean is full of specific habitations," says Pew's Mann. Even dolphins and whales, which can swim long distances, could be affected. "They may not wash up dead on the beach, but they may fare very poorly when displaced from their habitats," he says.

The true extent of the deep-ocean oil plumes created by the spill is unknown. But they could be miles wide and dozens of feet deep. They would tend to stay in long, thin pancake spaces because they would be sandwiched between layers of water at different densities.

Far from being a homogenous column of water, the ocean exists in hundreds of different layers, at different temperatures, pressures and salinities. Each oil "cloud" could end up hanging between two layers of similar buoyancy, Short says.

In those depths, each of these clouds could become kill zones. The oil droplets, for example, could act like flypaper, trapping and killing plankton and other marine life, Jernelöv says.

"They've just got to be getting nuked by this," says Pew's Mann.

This "flypaper" layer can also attract fish, which come looking for the small crustaceans that are stuck in it. "The fish will eat them, and then they're breathing water, they get oil droplets stuck on their gill membranes, and if there's enough it can kill them," Jernelöv says.

Next, the creatures that feed on those plankton would be attracted to the mass of food all in one place, as well as some that could be attracted to the oil itself, which to some microbes is just another source of carbon, or food. But all those microbes in one place would deplete the oxygen in the area, creating an anoxic (no oxygen) space that would kill everything passing through.

This scenario is "very improbable, but that's the worst," Short says. "Nonetheless, the possibility of it demands that we at least find out how many of these plumes there are, how big and dense they are, and then keep an eye on them."

Long-term is really long

The full effects of the spill will hit long after the cleanup efforts are finished, the beaches no longer smell of petroleum and the hazy sheen of oil is gone from the water, experts say.

Fishermen are feeling it now with the fishing ground closures, but that won't be the worst of it, says Florida State's Coleman.

If you wipe out all the fish larvae in one year, "you're not going to know anything about that for three or four years before they're supposed to show up in fishermen's nets."

In the end, there's no way to know how bad this spill will be until about 10 years after the oil is shut off, and even that might be too soon, says Judy McDowell, biology department chair at the Woods Hole (Mass.) Oceanographic Institution. One of the best-documented spills of all time was a tiny 185,000-gallon spill off Massachusetts in 1969. Forty years later, "you can still find traces of hydrocarbons in the sediments," she says.

Oil, and the damage it can do, persists for a long time, she says: "It's still too early to make any kind of prediction as to how it will be."

How bad could BP oil spill get for the Gulf and the nation? - USATODAY.com



what was that i heard about warning us against overreaction, like Three Mile Island?
 
Anyone else thinking Tony Hayward just shouldn't talk anymore?

Oy vey...:crack: :sigh: :banghead: What a depressing article. I'll certainly be hoping for the "best case" scenario to play out-it's not perfect by any means, but what else can we hope for? I really don't want to see the effects of the worst case scenarios. I'll also definitely be hoping for the hurricane season predictions to be wrong and for the season to be very quiet.

Poor animals. Poor humans. Poor beaches. Poor water.

So are we fully convinced about getting off drilling altogether now?

Angela
 
So are we fully convinced about getting off drilling altogether now?

Angela

I know. People are pissed. If we don't decrease our use, oil will just come from somewhere else without us drilling offshore. But, I still don't see many people waking up to the reality of what using less oil really is:

Smaller cars. Fewer trucks.

Driving fewer miles.

Living closer to where you work.

Etc.

To say nothing of making sure your car is in good working order, keeping your tires inflated and not sitting with your car idling.

One thing I'd love to see is cheaper, less luxury-laden pick-up trucks and vans. There are so many people I know who say they need a truck/van for work. That's fine, but how about some demand for a cheap work truck, so that they can own a regular car to drive as well. One $30-$40,000 Ford F250 could be a cheap but safe utilitarian truck ($15K) and a normal, small family sedan ($18K). It's great to make trucks more fuel-efficient, but if the owner had the choice of leaving the truck at home and using a more fuel-efficient car for other trips (family, groceries,etc.), that would save even more gas.

Also, the car-sharing programs seem to be going well, but how about some truck or minivan sharing programs. My brother makes use of the Home Depot rental truck 2-3 times per year instead of owning anything big.
 
Back
Top Bottom