Pensacola Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Never thought I'd see the day, when a democratic president gets turned on by the scientific community, and the New York Times, no less. His own party will be next, and if there has been a concerted effort by his administration to cover this up, then it will be the beginning of the end for him politically.

One thing is for sure, and based on Adm. Thad Allen's statements, more than likely a much largerofficial governmentassesment of how much oil has been spilled and is currently spilling is likely to be released and I think the public is going to be horrified. Just goes to prove there is just so long anyone can hide a body until people smell it.

"NYT: Scientists accuse Obama over oil spill

Expert claims NOAA is guilty of a 'catastrophic failure'By Justin GillisThe New York Times<span id=udtD>updated <span class=time>3:34 a.m. CT, <span class=date>Thurs., May 20, 2010<p class=textBodyBlack>Tensions between the Obama administration and the scientific community over the gulf oil spill are escalating, with prominent oceanographers accusing the government of failing to conduct an adequate scientific analysis of the damage and of allowing BP to obscure the spill?s true scope. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The scientists assert that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies have been slow to investigate the magnitude of the spill and the damage it is causing in the deep ocean.</p><p class=textBodyBlack>They are especially concerned about getting a better handle on problems that may be occurring from large plumes of oil droplets that appear to be spreading beneath the ocean surface. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The scientists point out that in the month since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the government has failed to make public a single test result on water from the deep ocean. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>And the scientists say the administration has been too reluctant to demand an accurate analysis of how many gallons of oil are flowing into the sea from the gushing oil well. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>?It seems baffling that we don?t know how much oil is being spilled,? Sylvia Earle, a famed oceanographer, said Wednesday on Capitol Hill. ?It seems baffling that we don?t know where the oil is in the water column.? </p><p class=textBodyBlack>'Early stages'
The administration acknowledges that its scientific resources are stretched by the disaster, but contends that it is moving to get better information, including a more complete picture of the underwater plumes. </p><p class=textBodyBlack><p class=textBodyBlack>?We?re in the early stages of doing that, and we do not have a comprehensive understanding as of yet of where that oil is,? Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, told Congress on Wednesday. ?But we are devoting all possible resources to understanding where the oil is and what its impact might be.? </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The administration has mounted a huge response to the spill, deploying 1,105 vessels to try to skim oil, burn it and block it from shorelines. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>As part of the effort, the federal government and the Gulf Coast states have begun an extensive effort to catalog any environmental damage to the coast. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The Environmental Protection Agency is releasing results from water sampling near shore. In most places, save for parts of Louisiana, the contamination appears modest so far. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The big scientific question now is what is happening in deeper water. While it is clear that water samples have been taken, the results have not been made public. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Lisa P. Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, told Congress on Wednesday that she was pressing for the release of additional test results, including some samples taken by boats under contract to BP. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Deep ocean
While the total number of boats involved in the response is high, relatively few are involved in scientific assessment of the deep ocean. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Of the 19 research vessels owned by NOAA, 5 are in the Gulf of Mexico and available for work on the spill, Dr. Lubchenco said, counting a newly commissioned boat. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The flagship of the NOAA fleet, the research vessel Ronald H. Brown, was off the coast of Africa when the spill occurred on April 20, and according to NOAA tracking logs, it was not redirected until about May 11, three weeks after the disaster began. It is sailing toward the gulf.</p><p class=textBodyBlack><p class=textBodyBlack>At least one vessel under contract to BP has collected samples from deep water, and so have a handful of university ships. NOAA is dropping instruments into the sea that should help give a better picture of conditions. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>On May 6, NOAA called attention to its role in financing the work of a small research ship called the Pelican, owned by a university consortium in Louisiana. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>But when scientists aboard that vessel reported over the weekend that they had discovered large plumes undersea that appeared to be made of oil droplets, NOAA criticized the results as premature and requiring further analysis. </p><p class=textBodyBlack><p class=textBodyBlack>Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and a veteran of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, assailed NOAA in an interview, declaring that it had been derelict in analyzing conditions beneath the sea. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Mr. Steiner said the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade, and confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>An extensive sampling program to map and characterize those plumes should have been put in place from the first days of the spill, he said. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>?A vast ecosystem is being exposed to contaminants right now, and nobody?s watching it,? Mr. Steiner said. ?That seems to me like a catastrophic failure on the part of NOAA.? </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Mr. Steiner, long critical of offshore drilling, has fought past battles involving NOAA, including one in which he was stripped of a small university grant financed by the agency. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>He later resigned from the University of Alaska at Anchorage and now consults worldwide on oil-spill prevention and response. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>'Hide the body'
Oceanographers have also criticized the Obama administration over its reluctance to force BP, the oil company responsible for the spill, to permit an accurate calculation of the flow rate from the undersea well. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>The company has refused to permit scientists to send equipment to the ocean floor that would establish the rate with high accuracy. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Ian MacDonald of Florida State University, an oceanographer who was among the first to question the official estimate of 210,000 gallons a day, said he had come to the conclusion that the oil company was bent on obstructing any accurate calculation. ?They want to hide the body,? he said. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Andrew Gowers, a spokesman for BP, said this was not correct. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Given the complex operations going on at the sea floor to try to stop the flow, ?introducing more equipment into the immediate vicinity would represent an unacceptable risk,? he said. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Thad W. Allen, the Coast Guard admiral in charge of the response to the spill, said Wednesday evening that the government had decided to try to put equipment on the ocean floor to take accurate measurements. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>A technical team is at work devising a method, he said. ?We are shoving pizzas under the door, and they are not coming out until they give us the answer,? he said. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Scientists have long theorized that a shallow spill and a spill in the deep ocean ? this one is a mile down ? would behave quite differently. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>A 2003 report by the National Research Council predicted that the oil could break into fine droplets, forming plumes of oil mixed with water that would not quickly rise to the surface. </p><p class=textBodyBlack><p class=textBodyBlack>That prediction appeared to be confirmed Saturday when the researchers aboard the Pelican reported that they had detected immense plumes that they believed were made of oil particles.</p><p class=textBodyBlack>The results were not final, and came as a surprise to the government. They raise a major concern, that sea life in concentrated areas could be exposed to a heavy load of toxic materials as the plumes drift through the sea. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Under scrutiny from NOAA, the researchers have retreated to their laboratories to finish their analysis. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>In an interview, Dr. Lubchenco said she was mobilizing every possible NOAA asset to get a more accurate picture of the environmental damage, and was even in the process of hiring fishing vessels to do some scientific work. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>?Our intention is to deploy every single thing we?ve got,? Dr. Lubchenco said. ?If it?s not in the region, we?re bringing it there.? </p><p class=textBodyBlack>Robert Gebeloff, Andrew W. Lehren, Campbell Robertson and Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting. </p><p class=textBodyBlack>This story, headlined "Scientists Fault U.S. Response in Assessing Gulf Oil Spill," first appeared in The New York Times.</p><p class=textBodyBlack>Copyright © 2010 The New York Times URL: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37248587/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times//">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37248587/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times//</a>"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
What a non story. Those scientists areupset because BP told them to get lost. The same thing any of us would do if we were tring to solve a dissaster in our respective field of work and some annoying on looker wanted to get in the way. Here they are trying to cap/plug/seal the pipe and some scientists wants to get int the way to measure the flow.

One question: Does it matter ifthey quanitfy how much is escaping? BP has one concern, fixing the leak and cleaning up the mess. Wether it's 1 gallon or 10 million gallons is probably of little concern tothem today. Will that change the method of cleanup? No.

Nerds don't get to play with their toys so they are pissed. Who cares.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Does it matter ifthey quanitfy how much is escaping?

Only and IDIOT would say that. It matters because it documents for the next time which there will be. This thing will be studied for many years, and solutions developed of which at this juncture is nothing but BP trial and error. What a DILLWEED In cased you missed it:

Rick Jervis of USA today has a documet as follows,---there is a 582 page document titled Regional Oil Spill Response Plan, Gulf of Mexico, was approved in June by the fedreal Minerals Management Service(DIRECTOR FIRED BECAUSE OF LACKS DUE TO LOBBING PRESSURE). It offers technical details on how to use chemical dispersants (NOWSWITCHED BECAUSE OF TOXICITY BIT STILL TOXIC) and provides instructions on <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">what to say to the news media, but does not mention how to react if a deep-water well spews oil uncontrollab
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
It's like BPare firemenfighting a fire, trying to put it out, andsome government org comes along and says stop, we need to see how hot it is!!

Who cares, just put it out...then take all the test you want!

Does any one know the bouyancy of light crude oil in salt water?? Is 80% on the surface, or is it like an iceberg and only 10% showing???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
I would agree to tell them to stay the hell out of the way if BP were actually doing something but as it stands I think someone should force them to post every ounce of video footage there is and let anyone that wants to see it look. Then they should be forced to take any and all ideas to stop this disaster and they should be forced to refute viable ideas before discarding them. There is no doubt in my mind that BP is pulling out every tool they have to stop this thing. The problem is the tool may not be in the toolbox.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,922 Posts
jigslinger (20/05/2010)When all else fails, BLAME OBAMA.
In this case, with the disaster being as large as it is and being located in fed waters this is most definitely under Obama's control and while on his watch. IMO he is not doing enough to take control of this situation. BP should be taken out of the loop, the CG should be completely in charge and BP should be made into an adviser. Then, everyone who can be involved should be involved and ideas to stop it should be considered even if they come from a sophomore at MIT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
What's really strange to me is why a democratic administration is covering up something like an oil spill????? Unless of course it's because the oil spill is so bad that the entire American public is going to be horrified by the size and and consequences of that oil spill for generations to come... i.e maybe the answer is that there's very little chance of stopping this and the whole damn oil field is going to empty into the Gulf of Mexico and poison it forever. That's what I'm worried about. If that Top Kill plan to plug this doesn't work, and then we get a storm in the GOM, (any storm) in June or July, then it's game over. Right now their target date to drill the relief well I belief is 14 Aug. and if it's really gushing lets say half of what some experts think which is 70,000 barrels daily then that would be (35.000 barrels x 42) = 1,470,000 gallons daily x 115 days = 169,050,000 gallons or 40,025,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Of course this would exceed Mexico 1980, but fall below Kuwait 1991. But then again I am only using a figure of 35,000 barrels which is half of what some people are estimating based on published videos of flow rates from the site itself.

Mexico - 1980
- 100 million gallons. An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year.

Below is a picture of the South Texas beaches due to that oil spill.

If this is what we may face in Florida, then that would really suck.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,033 Posts
The fact that Obama received more money for his campaign than any other presidential candidate to date from BP could not POSSIBLY have anything to do with the cover up......

We are basically dealing with corruption at its finest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Working for a government agency for the last 19 years I am wise enough to know not to believe anything you read in the news or see on TV on one of the newscasts. Most folks are so anxious to get the scoop that the story is only a half truth at best. Just like on the battlefield the first report is usually an incorrect report.

That being said I find it pretty rediculous to be blaming any President for something like this. Only BP can stop the leak, there is nothing that the U.S. government can do to stop the leak. Cleanup yes, stopping a leak a mile down, no.

I didnt vote for Obama and I equally thought it rediculous to blame Bush for Katrina. Folks dont realize how long it takes to get the federal machine in gear to respond to anything. Nothing happens overnight.

Now, has there been some shadiness going on? Lets think about it, there is money involved so the answer is most likely yes to some extent.

I bet they are going for the junk shot due to the fact that hurricane season is right around the corner. They know that if any tropical system blows through the spill that it would basically spread it from LA to FL pretty quick, a PR nightmare. I see the junk shot as a hail mary at this point.

They say that they are sucking 5000 barrels a day up now and the leak still looks similar to the first video. I would say the estimates are off one way or the other. But right now I think the big deal is to stop the leak no matter how much is coming out.

Anyways, just my 2 cents, I dont know a thing about drilling oil other than watching Beverly Hillbillies as a kid. Been through a few cases of shotgun shells and am still poor, maybe one day I will get lucky like Jed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
<span id=ctl00_ctlContentPlaceHolder_ctl00_ctlTopic_ctlPanelBar_ctlTopicsRepeater_ctl07_lblFullMessage>It's like BPare firemenfighting a fire, trying to put it out, andsome government org comes along and says stop, we need to see how hot it is!! Who cares, just put it out...then take all the test you want!

Listen, when you fight a fire there is a team off to the side directing the actions of those in the fight. If your in the the fight your big picture situational awareness is not on que. Your to busy. You must know the scale of the thing in order to properly combat the problem. If the big picture focus is lost then as you fight one spot the fire will get out of control in another area. pretty soon the team is enveloped in flames. BP is running a very bad Central Control. They have their heads up thier ass and as expected they push everyone away because they want to continue to say,,,backoff I got it. They don't and haven't from day one. The thing has gone on way to long. When POTUS said he want a commision to look at it, that is the begining of the process for indictments. Somebodies gotta burn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
sammy925 (20/05/2010)Does it matter ifthey quanitfy how much is escaping?

Only and IDIOT would say that. It matters because it documents for the next time which there will be. This thing will be studied for many years, and solutions developed of which at this juncture is nothing but BP trial and error. What a DILLWEED In cased you missed it:

Rick Jervis of USA today has a documet as follows,---there is a 582 page document titled Regional Oil Spill Response Plan, Gulf of Mexico, was approved in June by the fedreal Minerals Management Service(DIRECTOR FIRED BECAUSE OF LACKS DUE TO LOBBING PRESSURE). It offers technical details on how to use chemical dispersants (NOWSWITCHED BECAUSE OF TOXICITY BIT STILL TOXIC) and provides instructions on <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">what to say to the news media, but does not mention how to react if a deep-water well spews oil uncontrollab
It's been my experience on message boards that people who resort to name calling (idiot, dillweed, etc.) are usually the dillweeds and idiots of the board. Yeah, that's still the case.

Instead of name calling and whining, maybe you can tell us why it is so important that the scientists have an exact amount of flow recorded rather than an educated estimation.
 

·
Jiggin Finatic
Joined
·
8,550 Posts
Your dang tootin he is hiding something. It fits right into his tree huggin ultra leftist agenda, right along with global warming cap and scam tax. He had to save face with the left at all costs when he signed the bill to allow Florida to drill. You betcha he owns this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
WW2 (20/05/2010)
jigslinger (20/05/2010)When all else fails, BLAME OBAMA.
In this case, with the disaster being as large as it is and being located in fed waters this is most definitely under Obama's control and while on his watch. IMO he is not doing enough to take control of this situation. BP should be taken out of the loop, the CG should be completely in charge and BP should be made into an adviser. Then, everyone who can be involved should be involved and ideas to stop it should be considered even if they come from a sophomore at MIT.
What the hell are you talking about? BP has more oil clean-up experts and have a better idea of actions to take than the Coast Guard. Utilize the Coast Guard's resources (vessels) and allow BP's experts to call the shots. Although BP hasn't fixed the problem, there's no one else that can. Take off the Red shaded glasses bro. Obama wouldn't be able to do anything outside of funding. This is not on his watch. This is on BP's watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Is BP to blame here? You bet.

But, This individual got elected on Hope and Change. On environmental issues he was touted as at least as green as Al Gore. I didn't like him, didn't vote for him. But I did hope he would not be as bad as I feared. My fears have proven to have merit.

He takes over Automobile Companies and gives them to the Unions. They now want to unconditionally bailout the union pension funds which will ultimately allow the union leaders to rob tax dollars and divert them directly to democrat campaign coffers. The unions strong arm the general population at every turn. They accted as his boots on the ground during the campaign. Before 2008 how had heard of SEIU?

Why turn his back on this gulf spill? BP gave him more in campaign contributions than any other company.

The money/power here does not come from the general population of LA, MS, AL, and FL. It didn't matter to Andy Stern and BP wanted the government out of it's way.

His power will be derived from killing off all the life in the Gulf so he can decide who gets the catch allocation from the rest of the fisheries.

He like Al Gore could care less about environmental issues unless it comes with cash and power.

Remember, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Think about that mentality for a minute or a few days.

Like it or not, it happened on his watch and they didn't do anything. Not for days or weeks but for a month. The carry blame. All the blame, no but blame none the less.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top