Comments

1
Sounds like it's about time to start dropping the nukes!
2
I'm curious about the effects, if any, in other parts of the Caribbean. US-produced maps always give the impression that other countries don't exist, but is there oil in the Bahamas? Bermuda? Cuba? Mexico? Our beaches got oil from the big '79-80 oil spill in Mexican waters; will they get any of ours? Or will the Gulf Stream take it all away?
3
@ Fnarf: The currents will probably spare the vast majority of the Caribbean. Cuba and Mexico will likely be affected. The Eastern seaboard of the US will be affected. Over time, an oily film is expected to cross the atlantic and reach europe.
4
Those fuckers.
5
BP better not escape full liability like Exxon did for the Valdez spill.
6
Someone please explain why the nukes option is not on the table. All I've heard/read is that it's just not an option, but not why. My guess is that BP doesn't want to destroy the possibility of milking that oil reserve dry. But y'know, fuck them. I look at that video showing the entire peninsula of Florida surrounded by oil, and think to myself that the Everglades are fucked for all time. Thanks, BP. Glad you know best about which options are available to fix this.
7
I don't understand the heavy emphasis on dispersants. Isn't that largely cosmetic? The dispersants don't magically make the oil disappear. It just breaks it up, then sinks below the surface. The oil is all still there, and still doing damage, right? The only difference is that all damage is now below the surface. Do dispersants do anything at all do reduce the damage to marine life below the surface?
8
@7 No, the dispersant just breaks the oil up into fish food sized bites, all the better for infiltrating the food chain.
9
@6 - No one even knows if it could be done or if it would work. No one knows the effects of setting off a nuke at that depth. There aren't any nukes currently that could even survive the pressure at that depth, so it would be necessary to customize one. That takes time. Right now we're waiting for a kill bore to be drilled. If one were to use a nuke, setting it off at the top of the hole would never work. So they would have to drill way down into the earth and then figure out a way to convey the drill down the hole. That takes time also.

By all accounts, the kill bore should work, once they actually successfully drill it, which is the tricky part. But there is no "nuclear option" that is ready to implement today, and even if there were, we have no fucking idea what would happen if we did it. It could make the problem several orders of magnitude worse.
10
Remember back when we thought we were going to slowly destroy the world via global warming?
11
why does Obama let BP keep pouring the Corexit in?
12
This isn't exactly breaking news (it's been going on for several weeks now), and it's not just killing plants, either - birds are dropping dead also. Fun and games.
13
@7 - It could be argued that the floating "mats" of oil are more dangerous to larger animals like pelicans and sea turtles, and that that danger is mitigated by dispersing the oil. However, that doesn't prevent them from being poisoned, either by the oil or the dispersant.
14
Well should humanity survive this era will be known for its unbelievable delusions that tried to destroy the world.
15
The most astounding part is that a large majority of the Louisiana people are pissed that Obama even instituted a drilling moratorium. These people have not learned anything from this disaster.
16
There's a reason this is all happening in the Southern US.

Thomas Malthus would be proud. Tell your family in Alabammy that you love them.
17
..so .... is the worst case scenario that gigantic tsunami causing methane bubble that threatens to destroy the ozone layer and fry us to a crisp ?
18
Suggested this link as a Slog tip two weeks ago:

Now toxic rain from BP's use of Corexit 9500?

http://tinyurl.com/36oyk5p
19
@17: The worst case scenario is something like this: the spill continues for 30-40 years, until the oil reservoir is empty
20
Sooo, Hot Doctor Golob, I have a question... some people use monomolecular oil films to prevent evaporation (like in swimming pools and stuff). If this slick extends across the whole Atlantic to Europe, is this going to essentially work the same way to cause a giant drought problem because not enough sea water is evaporating? Or is that limited to monomolecular surface films, rather than whatever the hell kind of oil sheen this is? Freaking nightmare.
21
I just read that the crop damage was caused by a Fed Ex jet dumping fuel for an emergency landing.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/07/j…
22
@19...and i had to ask...
23
Proper Science doesn't easily conclude there's "no other explanation". Science might also have noticed the unexplained effect was relatively localized ... distant (SW TN) from the Gulf ... and not replicated in locales at similar remove from the Gulf.

On the other hand, Science would have asked a few probing questions before blithely assuming that any good effect would ensue from adding mass quantities of dispersant to the original spill.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.