- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Excerpted from “Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend” By Chris Baltimore, Reuters, Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:57pm EDT
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE] giant oil slick from a deadly offshore drilling rig explosion could hit the fragile U.S. Gulf Coast shoreline this weekend as the White House and Congress launched separate probes into the worst offshore incident in nearly a decade. …
Excerpted from “Concern Grows About Impact of Gulf Oil Spill” By LESLIE KAUFMAN, The New York Times, Published: April 27, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]ith a massive oil slick now within 20 miles of the ecologically fragile Louisiana coastline, Coast Guard officials said they were considering a “controlled burn” of the petroleum on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.
Rear Adm. Mary Landry, the federal on-scene coordinator for the spill, said Tuesday that the joint government and industry task force had been unable to stop crude from streaming out of a broken pipe attached to a well 5,000 feet below sea level. …
As long as it isn't near property or population centers yet it may be the best option available depending on wind and ocean currents. Because of the BTU rate it should burn out quickly. I don't think it's a great idea, but probably better than letting the slick hit maximum saturation.hey guys no problem the Coast Guard is thinking of burning the slick !!!
Wow that will be the biggest napalm demonstration since Khe San !!! I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THE VIDEO!!!!
So will the Palin Pukes chant BURN BABY BURN !!!!!!!! ?? ?
This disaster makes Exxon Valdez (which is still causing ecological problems in Alaska) look minor. I wonder who is responsible for the clean up?
I wonder if "Drill baby Drill" still resonates so with Palin supporters.
I knew that such things would be a problem, but I still supported drilling as the least of evils. This is in contrast with Palin's callous chant.
Conservatives give lip service to 'wise use', when really they haven't seen a resources project they didn't think was 'wise'. Liberals give lip service to 'wise use' when really most of us haven't seen a resources project we thought was 'wise'.
My position is closer to my fellow liberals, however. I think it is a good idea to count the cost, which they would agree with. But, I want to then weigh the options, and choose the prudent course. "Drill baby Drill" just ignores that whole process.
All things considered, I still want to drill, however. But, I also want that wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, maybe Nuclear, etc. We need to get out of the ME, and let the rest of the world bear the cost of ensuring it's energy supply. With the rise of China, and the demands it will place on world energy resources, cheap energy is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Getting out of the ME is my top priority. Let Europe, India and China battle for it.
“If this doesn't give somebody pause, there's something wrong.” — Florida Gov. Charlie Crist¹
“The explosion, ensuing fire, and continuing spill raise serious concerns about the industry's claims that their operations and technology are safe enough to put rigs in areas that are environmentally sensitive or are critical to tourism or fishing industries.” — statement signed by Senators Bill Nelson, Frank R. Lautenberg, Robert Menendez²
Well, that kind of sucks. To the East Coast, welcome to the shape of things to come.³
They better show that **** on TV, too. I wanna watch it burn. :rockTheir going to light the slick on fire.
Jerry said:Their going to light the slick on fire.
This will eliminate 98% of the spill.
Me said:Just heard on NPR that attempting a controlled burnoff would take care of 3% of the spill, max. So that's not really a solution. And the pipe hasn't even been closed off so it's still spewing oil.
The 98% figure is the amount of oil eliminated when it is burned; the issue with this spill is not how much burns when you ignite it but actually getting it ignited, and my figure of 3% (unfortunately I can't find a transcript) says that only about 3% of the spill is concentrated enough or has the potential to become concentrated enough to ignite.
Just heard on NPR that attempting a controlled burnoff would take care of 3% of the spill, max. So that's not really a solution. And the pipe hasn't even been closed off so it's still spewing oil.
The 98% figure is the amount of oil eliminated when it is burned; the issue with this spill is not how much burns when you ignite it but actually getting it ignited, and my figure of 3% (unfortunately I can't find a transcript) says that only about 3% of the spill is concentrated enough or has the potential to become concentrated enough to ignite.
Not 3%, 98% of all the oil. They've don this before and it's very effective.
Still, it's fun to watch all the Earth worshipers get their pink diapers in a knot about it all :mrgreen:
Their going to light the slick on fire.
This will eliminate 98% of the spill.
What you think they don't think **** through and make multiple contingency plans?
1: Continue work on oil cap.
2: Begin building secondary drill site 10 miles away, drill into original site from new location, apply cement, have a cigar.
3: Use common containment methods to control the spill.
4: Light the spill on fire and burn off 98% of it.
The situation's under control.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?