Page 9 of 10 ... 78910
Results 81 to 90 of 97
  1. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-27-2010, 05:19 PM #81
    No my answer is a diversity of energy resources. It would involve oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. Over the long term we would transform the energy industry toward more and more solar, wind, and biomass with hybrid and electric cars and a new efficient energy grid. On top of that we are going to
    increase conservation and efficiency of appliances and LED (and OLED) lighting. Its actually what is going to happen because businesses are investing more and more billions into the alternative energy field but i think because of Obama its going to speed up even faster than otherwise.

    Very reasonable solution. Common sense.

  2. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 05:21 PM #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    The AP is not liberal.. Remember how during the 2008 election the head of the political division was a Bush supporter. I bet you forgot that now didnt you?

    But am happy that some of the oil is evaporating and that some of it is more gaseous than oil. Thats good news. Huge quantities are still washing ashore and hanging out underwater. Once again john i know it not something you are very good at but admit you were wrong and that there is more than one way the oil spill is damaging the fishing ecosystem.

    Scientists find evidence of large underwater oil underwater plume.
    By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, May 27, 2010; 2:49 PM
    Scientists have found evidence of a large underwater "plume" of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, adding to fears that much of the BP oil spill's impact is hidden beneath the surface.

    The scientists, aboard a University of South Florida research vessel, were testing the water in sites east and northeast of the leak's source. The university said they detected traces of dissolved oil as deep as 1,300 feet below the surface.

    That test seemed to confirm the fears of some scientists that -- because of the depth of the leak and the heavy use of chemical "dispersants" -- this spill was behaving differently than others. Instead of floating on top of the water, it may be moving beneath it.

    That would be troubling because it could mean the oil would slip past coastal defenses such as "containment booms" designed to stop it on the surface. Already, scientists and officials in Lousiana have reported finding thick oil washing ashore despite the presence of floating booms.

    It would also be a problem for hidden ecosystems deep under the gulf. There, scientists say, the oil could be absorbed by tiny animals and enter a food chain that builds to large, beloved sport-fish like red snapper. It might also glom on to deep-water coral formations, and cover the small animals that make up each piece of coral.

    "It kills them because it prevents them from feeding," said Professor James H. Cowan Jr., of Louisiana State University. "It could essentially starve them to death."

    The University of South Florida vessel, the Weatherbird II, used sonar and other devices to sample the water below it. Other scientists have said they have little of the equipment necessary to find oil under the water -- leading to debates about whether the underwater plumes were even there.



    This week, Mike Utsler, who helps oversee the spill response off the entire Louisiana coast as BP Houma incident commander, said he's only focused on taking oil off the surface. "We don't know there's oil underwater," he said.

    But others had seen worrisome evidence.

    Owen Morgan of Amira, a group that specializes in breaking apart spills with oil-eating microbes, found evidence of the oil plume off Venice when his team sampled water 75 feet beneath the service. Morgan -- who said his company is pulling out of Louisiana because of insufficient cooperation from state and federal authorities -- showed a thick, gooey sample consisting of 60 percent crude oil.

    "People don't realize how bad it is," Morgan said, dipping a fork in the sample to show the goo that hung in midair without sliding off. "This went on for three miles, of that consistency."
    Some of it it says 35% of it that is much more then some of it. Really "some of it".

  3. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-27-2010, 05:22 PM #83
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    and you must have somehow missed this from your buddies at the AP;


    "One of their tools, a program the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration uses to predict how oil spills on the surface of water may behave, suggests that more than a third of the oil may already be out of the water.

    About 35 percent of a spill the size of the one in the Gulf, consisting of the same light Louisiana crude, released in weather conditions and water temperatures similar to those found in the Gulf now would simply evaporate, according to data that The Associated Press entered into the program.

    The model also suggests that virtually all of the benzene — a highly toxic flammable organic chemical compound and one of the chief ingredients in oil — would be stripped off and quickly vaporize.

    The model was not designed for deepwater spills like the one at the Macondo well in the Mississippi Canyon now threatening the Gulf Coast. But experts said the analysis might give a close approximation of what is most likely happening where the oil plume is hitting the surface nearly 50 miles south of Louisiana."



    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...wPv9gD9FMHP000


    Humm I dont think you missed this but somehow felt it was not worth putting up!!!!! Maybe because it does not go along with your ideology.
    Nope that doesnt answer my article on the newly discovered huge oil plume underwater but its a good subterfuge. Damn are you easy. Where is your integrity? You said only oil hitting land is the issue.

    Do you want me to put it up again? Ok.

  4. candleman is offline
    Mentor
    candleman's Avatar
    Joined: Jul 2009 Location: Outer Banks of North Carolina Posts: 1,511
    05-27-2010, 05:27 PM #84
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Yet you say and think this:

    "Once again you are right Havakasha. That was very scary when the two oil men were in the White House and having secret meetings about oil. And it wasn't long after those meetings that the price of crude started climbing. Before it was over, oil had gotten to nearly 150 bucks a barrel. And gas was over 4 bucks a gallon. Those were the good old days when the oil companies owned the Presidency"


    That is as stupid as what I just put up about your thinking so whats the difference.
    The difference is I am right and you are wrong.

  5. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-27-2010, 05:30 PM #85
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Some of it it says 35% of it that is much more then some of it. Really "some of it".
    Yep that leaves almost 2/3's or many millions of gallons washing up on shore and hanging out underwater destroying our countries most lucrative and biggest fishing industry. What a damn shame.

    But again the point was that you said the issue was only that oil is hitting the shore. You do remember that you made that argument dont you? You are wrong and im sorry your pride wont let you admit that you dont know as much as some of the scientists who are on the scene and studying the situation.

  6. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 05:36 PM #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    The AP is not liberal.. Remember how during the 2008 election the head of the political division was a Bush supporter. I bet you forgot that now didnt you?

    Really you might want to inform the AP of that.

    "Liberal Editor Uses AP's Retracted Katrina Story: Bush a Liar and His Fans "Sociopaths""

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/4301#ixzz0pARbeoAA


    "Liberal Media Bias: AP's Alan Fram and Eileen Putman & ABC News"


    http://vocalminority.typepad.com/blo...en-putnam.html

    "Associated Press, MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias"


    You see candleman when I have to spend time proving something that is well know as this it ether says he is a dumb twit or as dishonest as they come and that gets you called a twit.




    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/content/pdf/4657

  7. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 05:52 PM #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    Nope that doesnt answer my article on the newly discovered huge oil plume underwater but its a good subterfuge. Damn are you easy. Where is your integrity? You said only oil hitting land is the issue.

    Do you want me to put it up again? Ok.

    And it is the only issue, you never once seen the out cry as load until it got this close to it hitting land that is a fact. It is also a fact that if it does not get worse then this will be forgotten as fast as it has become important.

    You also must not know that huge amounts of oil leak NATURALLY from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico more then this leak a day. You also dont seem to realize that when we drill for that oil and take it, it no longer leaks into the ocean NATURALLY from that area.

  8. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 05:56 PM #88
    Here I found a perfect article on the common sense and logical way to think about this.

    "Leave it to some political big mouth to knee jerk into stating there will be no more offshore drilling due to the BP Gulf rig explosion and oil leak. Such a pronouncement is a perfect
    example of such being the complete antithesis of ration, intelligence and sound policy. Way go Ahnold!

    How many folks know that the sea floor naturally leaks into the Gulf of Mexico an almost identical amount of crude as is currently leaking form the BP rig? Now clearly that is not a statement that the BP leak isn't a big deal because it is, but a little perspective fer Heaven sakes. What many in the green movement don't want to admit is that oil leaks up from the sea floor wherever there is offshore oil fields. Man's "exploiting" the resource has absolutely nothing - zip, zero, nada, to do with it. The Earth is a dynamic organism. Again, not claiming the BP rig isn't a major environmental incident, but let's be real.

    My point is the Earth will cleanse itself. Not a justification for the spill or any such, but the truth is the truth. How often does something like the BP rig explosion happen? How often do these rigs leak oil? Rarely. So, since cars sometimes cause folks to die, do we outlaw them? Ahnold's knee jerk is tantamount to the same principle. Anyone advocating Ahnold's thoughts is lacking wisdom, or is pushing their agenda.

    As I wrote the other day, it'll be oil for fuel or your young ass will ride a bike, walk or hitch up ol' Bessie and pull the buggy. It'll be coal or it'll be dark, cold in winter and miserably sufferable in summer. Is this what anyone thinks will be our near future?

    $5.00 a gallon gas? Exactly who is hurt the most by that? Ain't me Jack. But the working poor, the young family and basically anyone who has to drive for work. The cost of EVERY good and service here in the Big PX will skyrocket. What if $5.00 is just fiddle sticks and it goes to $8.00 or more per gallon? All the while there are umpteen billions of barrels of oil out there off our shores, and by the way, the REST OF THE WORLD WILL STILL BE DRILLING!"



    http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ore.html?cat=9

  9. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 06:02 PM #89
    Quote Originally Posted by candleman View Post
    The difference is I am right and you are wrong.

    There is no difference you twit, they are both far out conspiratorial theroies with no base in fact.

  10. john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    05-27-2010, 06:15 PM #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    No my answer is a diversity of energy resources. It would involve oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. Over the long term we would transform the energy industry toward more and more solar, wind, and biomass with hybrid and electric cars and a new efficient energy grid. On top of that we are going to
    increase conservation and efficiency of appliances and LED (and OLED) lighting. Its actually what is going to happen because businesses are investing more and more billions into the alternative energy field but i think because of Obama its going to speed up even faster than otherwise.

    Very reasonable solution. Common sense.

    I am for doing what ever works to and if they can ever get wind and solar to work without it costing an arm and a leg for it then great but until then we go after every bit of oil and coal that we can. There is no reason to force people to pay 15 and 20 times what they would othewise pay with caol and oil to satisfy your liberial agenda.


    As for Obama he better work faster because he only has 2 and a half years left. I bet the farm on that. 42% approval rating for Obama, boy it took Bush almost 6 years to get that low.

Page 9 of 10 ... 78910