Gulf of Mexico oil spill - Page 91 - SailNet Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #901 of 1010 Old 07-17-2010
Senior Member
 
kd3pc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Callao, VA
Posts: 1,389
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
K1 and the group,

so if I understand correctly the Environmental Protection Agency...EPA - does NOTHING to test the dispersant/surfectant list for harm/toxicity to the environment?

Then why are the various media outlets, not being honest? We (I) continue to urge BP and the Fed to be helpful, but when various media state with great authority these things....how does one verify or research their veracity...

since early on, all media at one time or the other "reported" tar balls from this well on southern FL, the FL Keys (the ones on the SE side, that most of us relate to when someone says the FL Keys), and will be on the Mid-atlantic by Sept..

Similarly they reported that the EPA "approved" the dispersants used by BP, until "someone" pointed out their toxicity, after which they were "banned" no mention of the coasties even being involved in that conversation.

I guess for me, the sad part is that there is absolutely NO TRUTH to anything any of these organizations say, broadcast or promote Gov or Media or University or ??

Were it you or I or some individual or small business partaking in this charade - presenting speculations, assumptions, as fact verified, we would be fried by this same administration.

I am weary of the misinformation, deliberate or otherwise that flows from this event. There is absolutely no way for the common, well read man to separate the horse pucky from the spit...

And it continues today with "pressures" again early on in the free flow, pressures were often stated by BP, CG, local University Geologists as being in the 11,000 PSI range..

Tomorrow will bring a review of this fact and so it continues on...
kd3pc is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #902 of 1010 Old 07-17-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 15
 
I can only tell you what I know to be true. What the media says is sometimes out of misunderstanding, ignorance, hype or intent - pick one...

EPA does in fact not test toxicity of dispersants as a normal practice.
k1vsk is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #903 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,192
Thanks: 50
Thanked 38 Times in 37 Posts
Rep Power: 15
     
Note the date.


BP ordered to stop using toxic dispersant in Gulf oil clean-up - NatGeo News Watch

Posted on May 20, 2010 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reported today.

BP Refuses to Comply with EPA Demand to Stop Use of Corexit Dispersant - Truth is Treason

The EPA now believes that Corexit is highly toxic, so BP was given 24 hours to find a new, less harmful solution. BP responded by saying that Corexit isnít as toxic as they think, and after giving a vague explanation told the EPA that they were just going to keep on using it because itís working fine.

I don't know whose worse. BP or the EPA. Or maybe that other guy. What happened to all that ass kicking we heard about?
knothead is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #904 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,192
Thanks: 50
Thanked 38 Times in 37 Posts
Rep Power: 15
     
Stay out of the water!


knothead is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #905 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 15
 
guess it is worth reiterating that not everything the media reports is totally objective, precise or reality...
Quote:
Originally Posted by knothead View Post
Note the date.


BP ordered to stop using toxic dispersant in Gulf oil clean-up - NatGeo News Watch

Posted on May 20, 2010 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency informed BP officials late Wednesday that the company has 24 hours to choose a less toxic form of chemical dispersants to break up its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post reported today.

BP Refuses to Comply with EPA Demand to Stop Use of Corexit Dispersant - Truth is Treason

The EPA now believes that Corexit is highly toxic, so BP was given 24 hours to find a new, less harmful solution. BP responded by saying that Corexit isnít as toxic as they think, and after giving a vague explanation told the EPA that they were just going to keep on using it because itís working fine.

I don't know whose worse. BP or the EPA. Or maybe that other guy. What happened to all that ass kicking we heard about?
k1vsk is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #906 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Boasun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,070
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 10
   
Because of Obama's Mordant Anti-oil stance. Jobs here in the south land are drying up. I've seen several small businesses already closed down. It isn't just the Oil field workers, but a ripple effect that is spreading across the southland. He (the President) claims that he is working to increase jobs. But every step he has taken has been causing job lose here in the Southland.
And his commission on the oil spill are all socialists who have no oil field experience at all and from their glorified heights of Acadamia are enspousing Socialist attitudes and have no real solutions...

1600 Ton Master, 2nd Mate Unlimited Tonnage

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Maritime Instructor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/V Rapture
Boasun is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #907 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
kd3pc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Callao, VA
Posts: 1,389
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
K1 wrote "guess it is worth reiterating that not everything the media reports is totally objective, precise or reality..."

are you saying that NatGeo was/is irresponsible in reporting this...or that the EPA does NOT test for toxicity, or that ...

we will never know whether the dispersant was used at all, used to the tune of millions of gallons - then stopped, or used to the tune of millions of gallons and is still being used.

I heard from a ham radio list, ham aboard the NOAA ship, that they were "escorted" off several water column plumes and spills affecting several thousand feet of water column, while taking water samples to test for toxicity of the dispersants and what was in the plumes/water column....

once again, we the people are fed another line of BS by this president and his suite of incompetents on the scene....

btw, NO ONE has said much about the initial PSI of over 11K PSI, while the well was free flowing and the current 6-7K PSI...what happened to the other pressure, that they experts were so positive of, back then...it seems that everyone is now nodding in agreement that 6,500 PSI is a GOOD thing...

This report was one of the many during that timeframe, that caused me to post my last message about what does the EPA actually DO....

now I am more confused than ever...as I thought NatGeo of all, may actually have some truth to their reports..
kd3pc is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #908 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 15
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kd3pc View Post
K1 wrote "guess it is worth reiterating that not everything the media reports is totally objective, precise or reality..."

are you saying that NatGeo was/is irresponsible in reporting this...or that the EPA does NOT test for toxicity, or that ...

.
Let me restate it as clearly as I can -

EPA requires (as opposed to conducts) toxicology tests and reports for all dispersants that are included on the (NCP) Product Schedule, the list of candidate dispersants. All determinations regarding the specific application or use of a dispersant are made by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator in charge of the response, the USCG.

On May 26th, EPA and the Coast Guard issued a directive to BP requiring them to decrease (as opposed to halt) overall volume of dispersant by 75 percent and to cease use of dispersant on the surface of the water altogether unless provided prior written authorization from the Coast Guard. EPA/CG continues to allow BP to use undersea dispersant but only at a maximum of 15,000 gallons per day.

If you would prefer to read specifics:

Dispersants | EPA Response to BP Spill in the Gulf of Mexico | US EPA
k1vsk is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #909 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
kd3pc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Callao, VA
Posts: 1,389
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Rep Power: 9
 
K1

again thanks, for being patient and very responsive at the same time...
kd3pc is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #910 of 1010 Old 07-18-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,192
Thanks: 50
Thanked 38 Times in 37 Posts
Rep Power: 15
     
The bottom line is that BP was directed by the EPA to find (identify) a alternative dispersant withing 24 hours. BP responded by claiming that only Corexit was in adequate supply and basically thumbed their noses at the directive because they knew that they could.
Corexit is on the list of approved dispersants and the EPA can only prohibit it's use if they take the steps to unapprove it. Which obviously takes an act of congress. Not that the EPA wanted to stop the use anyway. If they did, they wouldn't have come up with such a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed directive in the first place.
The use of Corexit has been banned in Britian. But that's only because it has been proven to wipe out those pesky snails and crustaceans. Who needs em anyway?

BP doesn't want to spend the money to switch to a less harmful dispersant until they have used up the stuff that they have already stockpiled and have on hand. Their bottom line is way more important to them than the welfare of the Gulf.
I guess if I were a stockholder I would be happy.
knothead is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oil Change experience - Lessons Learned kmeeks Gear & Maintenance 33 04-16-2010 08:55 AM
Teen drowns in Gulf of Mexico near Bradenton - Bradenton Herald NewsReader News Feeds 0 10-03-2006 01:19 PM
Changing Engine Oil Tom Wood Gear and Maintenance Articles 0 10-02-2002 08:00 PM
An Island in the Stream John Kretschmer Seamanship Articles 0 02-22-2001 07:00 PM
An Island in the Stream John Kretschmer Cruising Articles 0 02-22-2001 07:00 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome