Boat accident. And a lot of oil

[ginnyfizz]

I doubt that any species of marine life will go extinct because of this. I do not dismiss how serious the situation is or underrate the damage that is being done, but on past form, the marine life will recover. I am an old enough fart to remember the wrecking of the oil tankers Torrey Canyon and Exxon Valdez. Not on the same scale as this, but the effects on the wildlife were of the same nature. The Torrey Canyon having been wrecked on the Seven Stones between Cornwall and the Isles Of Scilly, I saw the effects first hand during some of my childhood holidays, and it was horrific to see. That part of the British coastline was rich in wildlife...and it still is. Numbers recovered. You can still catch anything from a shrimp to a mackerel to a mako shark off the coast of Devon and Cornwall, or have porpoises and dolphins leaping out of the water at the side of your boat, or watch the seabirds wheeling and diving. What HAS affected stocks of certain fish to danger levels, in British waters at least,are not the oil spills (which are more regular than you would imagine and not all are accidental, since it has been known for tanks to be flushed at sea) so much as...ahermm...small mesh fishing nets and drift nets.

 

Also not all so-called "green" forms of energy are really wildlife friendly at all. Tidal barrages can wreck habitats. Wind turbines eat up land/seabed and are not bird friendly (and larger animals aren't keen either).

[species5478]

@ginnyfizz

 

You make valid points. I'm not a marine biologist, so I'm sure about whether or not all of the aquatic species will recover. I do know however, that there are animals which are exclusive to the gulf. And us Americans have a habit of bringing animals to extinction. Just ask the Dodo bird. Yet now, we're talking about a foreign company who has only a financial stake in our coastal region, and nothing more. But you may be right. Maybe the effects will be nominal. Maybe will spill will pass, and all effects will subside after a number of years. But considering how British Petroleum hasn't sealed the leak after nearly two months...that possibility isn't on the table yet. I'm calculating effects based on the current situation. And right now, we are talking about a massive dead in what was once, a fertile region. If BP can close that leak soon, my calculations will of course change.

 

And if green energy is as bad as you say, then what are the implications? Are you saying most forms of energy will destroy the earth, or simply have the potential to do so? Right now, between nuclear energy, coal, and oil, our planet is destined to be a wasteland. But in my opinion, there is absolutely no comparing energy garnered from a solar panels, wind turbines, oceanic turbines, dams, and that of oil or nuclear power. And in the case of oil, draining trillions of gallons of lubricating fluid from the earth's crust can't be good for the planet. I'm willing to bet, that oil acts as a natural barrier between layers of earth. (Just as it lubricates car components) By removing it, we're probably aggravating plate tectonic friction, and increasing the magnitude, and duration of earthquakes.

[Mr Ham]

And in the case of oil, draining trillions of gallons of lubricating fluid from the earth's crust can't be good for the planet. I'm willing to bet, that oil acts as a natural barrier between layers of earth. (Just as it lubricates car components) By removing it, we're probably aggravating plate tectonic friction, and increasing the magnitude, and duration of earthquakes.

Plate tectonics happen below the crust in the mantle. Thus whatever effect oil has on plate tectonics is negligible, if not infinitesimal.

[species5478]

I was corrected by Aurielius, who rightly mentioned the fact that the dodo bird was not an animal native to America. To better illustrate my point, I've included a more accurate list. And Puerto Rico, is obviously not an official part of the U.S. But since they're allowed to vote, I've included their species as well. Obviously, not all of these extinctions stem directly from oil prospecting, but the results of toxic oil can have similar results.

• Puerto Rican Shrew Nesophontes edithae
• Puerto Rican Long-nosed Bat
• Puerto Rican Long-tongued Bat
• Lesser Puerto Rican Ground Sloth,
• Sherman's Pocket Gopher
• Goff's Pocket Gopher Geomys pinetis goffi
• Tacoma Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama tacomensis
• Chadwick Beach Cotton Mouse
• Giant Deer Mouse
• Pallid Beach Mouse Peromyscus polionotus decoloratus
• Gull Island Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus nesophilus
• Louisiana Vole
• Puerto Rican Hutia
• Puerto Rican Paca
• Lesser Puerto Rican Agouti
• Greater Puerto Rican Agouti
• Sea Mink Mustela macrodon
• Caribbean Monk Seal
• Steller's Sea Cow
• Badlands Bighorn Sheep
• Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit
• Arizona Wapiti
• Eastern Woodland Bison
• Colorado Hog-nosed Skunk
• Smith Island Cottontail
• Allen's Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel
• Banks Island Wolf Canis lupus bernardi, 1920
• Cascade Mountains Wolf Canis lupus fuscus, 1940
• Antillean Giant Rice Rat
• Eastern Elk
• Arizona Jaguar Panthera onca arizonensis
• Tule Shrew Sorex ornatus juncensis

@ Mr Ham

 

You're stating the location of plate tectonics as truth. Since nobody has every been to the mantle, you're only proposing supposition. Nobody knows what the earth consists of. All ideas pertaining to the layers within our earth are based on scientific hypotheses, not fact. That's why I said in my previous post, I'm willing to bet...such and such, such and such...But even if the educated guess about plate tectonics holds true, I'm still not convinced that removing oil from the earth, has little to no effect. The Trillions of gallons of oil have a definitive, measurable weight of god knows how many millions, if not billions of tons. (possibly more, but I'll try to be conservative) We drill every year in weight, three times the size of Mt. Everest in oil. Surely the pressure that provides on your mantle must amount to something. But regardless of what's occurring within the earth; our air and oceans are being polluted by this product. What will take for us to realize the necessity for change? It seems that, unless oil actually rains on our heads, nobody will care...and with all the money we give to countries like Saudi Arabia, America could free itself of dept, pay to put every child in school, give universal healthcare, and wage unabated wars. (not that I would condone such behavior)

[Mr Ham]

@ Mr Ham

 

You're stating the location of plate tectonics as truth. Since nobody has every been to the mantle, you're only proposing supposition. Nobody knows what the earth consists of. All ideas pertaining to the layers within our earth are based on scientific hypotheses, not fact. That's why I said in my previous post, I'm willing to bet...such and such, such and such...But even if the educated guess about plate tectonics holds true, I'm still not convinced that removing oil from the earth, has little to no effect. The Trillions of gallons of oil have a definitive, measurable weight of god knows how many millions, if not billions of tons. (possibly more, but I'll try to be conservative) We drill every year in weight, three times the size of Mt. Everest in oil. Surely the pressure that provides on your mantle must amount to something.

Well its hard to argue with you if you don't believe in plate tectonics. Can you honestly argue against plate tectonics?

Are you denying that convection cells in the mantle drive plate tectonics? If we're not drawing oil from the crust where are we drawing it from? The mantle? Surely, you jest.

Even so, the ore and minerals being mined every second far outweighs the mass of oil and gas being pumped out anyway. You're not against mining too are you?

[species5478]

@ Mr Ham

 

You're stating the location of plate tectonics as truth. Since nobody has every been to the mantle, you're only proposing supposition. Nobody knows what the earth consists of. All ideas pertaining to the layers within our earth are based on scientific hypotheses, not fact. That's why I said in my previous post, I'm willing to bet...such and such, such and such...But even if the educated guess about plate tectonics holds true, I'm still not convinced that removing oil from the earth, has little to no effect. The Trillions of gallons of oil have a definitive, measurable weight of god knows how many millions, if not billions of tons. (possibly more, but I'll try to be conservative) We drill every year in weight, three times the size of Mt. Everest in oil. Surely the pressure that provides on your mantle must amount to something.

Well its hard to argue with you if you don't believe in plate tectonics. Can you honestly argue against plate tectonics?

Are you denying that convection cells in the mantle drive plate tectonics? If we're not drawing oil from the crust where are we drawing it from? The mantle? Surely, you jest.

Even so, the ore and minerals being mined every second far outweighs the mass of oil and gas being pumped out anyway. You're not against mining too are you?

 

I cannot agree wholeheartedly in something that is not fact. I will not deny however, that current data does indeed, support the ideas of plate tectonics, the existence of a mantel, core, etc. But again, this is not factual science. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop people from believing in these things as if they were factual. Yet, when scientists point to actual factual data that supports the idea of greenhouse gases altering our environment, many people dismiss this as some kind of lie, or hoax. Oil seems to do no wrong in some people's eyes. So what is the value of science, if facts are false, and opinions are facts? This reminds me of something from Pascal...

 

The sensibility of man to trifles, and his insensibility to great things, indicates a strange inversion.

Blaise Pascal

 

I'm not sure if you're one of these individuals, so are you? Do you believe that emissions from using oil damage our environment as the scientists say? Or do you think global warming, by way of consuming petroleum, is a hoax? My expression of the possible effects of removing oil from the earth was only meant to illustrate a picture of the possible circumstances from draining "fossil fuels". Nothing more. I don't want that idea to detract from my main point though; that we need to purge ourselves from oil dependency. If you don't think drilling oil damages the environment, that's fine. What about paying Billions to Saudi Arabia? Annually? That's can't be a good idea, right?

 

And what type of mining projects are you talking about? If we're talking about mining for oil, or coal, or iridium, then I'd say we should stop. All of these are hazardous materials. Have we already forgotten the miner who have died in West Virgina? Or the men who died on the oil rig? But I gather from your plan, that you want us to keep digging...but to what end? What exactly, is the plan? Do we mine every single ounce of oil and coal? Then what?

[Mr Ham]

I cannot agree wholeheartedly in something that is not fact. I will not deny however, that current data does indeed, support the ideas of plate tectonics, the existence of a mantel, core, etc. But again, this is not factual science. We simply do not know. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop people from believing in these things as if they were factual.

You can't just disregard science just because we haven't physically observed it. Yes, I understand you don't want to accept something that isn't solid fact but that's the way science is. Current plate tectonic theories aren't certain but they are highly, highly probable. Just like quantum physics, elementary chemistry, molecular biology, materials science, etc. Ignoring science for lack of absolutes would be the end of science in general (and I think Heisenburg might have something to say about that).

 

Yet, when scientists point to actual factual data that supports the idea of greenhouse gases altering our environment, many people dismiss this as some kind of lie, or hoax. Oil seems to do no wrong in some people's eyes. So what is the value of science, if facts are false, and opinions are facts?

What factual data? In what way is 'data' about climate change any more credible than geophysics?

 

Do you believe that emissions from using oil damage our environment as the scientists say? Or do you think global warming, by way of consuming petroleum, is a hoax? My expression of the possible effects of removing oil from the earth was only meant to illustrate a picture of the possible circumstances from draining "fossil fuels". Nothing more. I don't want that idea to detract from my main point though; that we need to purge ourselves from oil dependency. If you don't think drilling oil damages the environment, that's fine. What about paying Billions to Saudi Arabia? Annually? That's can't be a good idea, right?

Global Warming (at least whatever contribution man has made to it) is still little more than a myth. Yes we have rising concentrations of 'Greenhouse Gases'. But correlation doesn't imply causation. Whatever data we have on the actual change in temperatures is obscure and confounding at best. The Hadley Institute affair was a great consciousness raiser for the merit of scientific 'fact'. And yet we still have people with vested interests exploiting the concern of the general population.

 

Yes we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels but we need to be mindful of the limits of renewable energy. People are so concerned for the need for alternative energies that they're willing to disregard the costs and potentials of the technologies still in their infancies. The last thing we need is blind investments in under-developed technologies which could themselves be just as damaging as the technologies they are superceding. Rather, we need sensible discussion and execution of a long-term plan to adapt to, not control our changing environment. It is not the strongest of the species that survives nor the most intelligent but the one most willing to adapt.

 

And what type of mining projects are you talking about? If we're talking about mining for oil, or coal, or iridium, then I'd say we should stop. All of these are hazardous materials. Have we already forgotten the miner who have died in West Virgina? Or the men who died on the oil rig? But I gather from your plan, that you want us to keep digging...but to what end? What exactly, is the plan? Do we mine every single ounce of oil and coal? Then what?

Have you forgotten about iron ores? Copper? Tin? Aluminium? We kind of need those...

[ginnyfizz]

BP has not been called British Petroleum for years, since it is now an international company, nominally domiciled in the UK. Well, it hadn't until President Obama started grandstanding, anyway. Oh keep it up, Mr President, the shares fell another 25% on the day. (I'm being sarcastic). And he is being a bit naive if he thinks only British pension funds will be hit, since I understand a lot of US pension funds are heavily invested in BP as well. So there's that factor if BP crashes, as well as the fact it's better to keep them running so that a proportion of their profits can be seized on an ongoing basis to pay compensation.

 

ALL mining is hazardous, no matter what you are mining for. I come from a part of the English Midlands where coal really was king in my youth. The pits are long gone now (going on strike for a year at a time when there was cheap Polish coal on offer was NOT the smartest move the mineworkers union ever made), but there were always accidents. It doesn't matter what you're mining for, you can come across fire damp (methane) or black damp (carbon monoxide). The Davy lamp was developed originally for use in the metal mines of Cornwall, due to the previous use of candles causing explosions.

 

Yes, green energy can be hazardous to life (and I don't just mean the fact that one of those wretched wind turbines made my horse go scatty and put me in hospital once). Tidal barrages are probably the worst for habitat wrecking ( the Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds went nuts over the Cardiff Bay barrage proposals), interfering with bird life and marine life as they do. Wind turbines are ugly, inefficient, noisy and take vast amounts of space. And aren't bird friendly. Oddly enough, you really would not think this could happen in the UK, the best example of a renewable energy scheme I have ever seen in action is a solar panel system. It's fitted to the roof of a very large and beautiful medieval church in Lincolnshire, and you would not know by looking that it is there. Yet so efficient is it at heating this church, that the church makes money by selling their surplus electricity to the National Grid. We must have more sun in the UK than we realise.

[species5478]

Messed up the post...

[species5478]

Oops again...