Every time that I hear about the oil spill on the news I can't help but feel bad for the guys that hunt over there. I hope it doesn't hit the TX coast. Either way this thing is gonna be bad for wetlands and waterfowl wherever it hits.

Supposed to have "Tar Balls" here in the upper coast of Texas. Doesnt seem to look too good for duck season for me next year.

The potential impact that this size spill could have on a coastline is huge. Notice I said POTENTIAL. Every possible resource is being used to combat that impact from happening. Whether it is the hundreds of miles of boom being put out, the hundreds of thousands of gallons of dispersant being put out, the operations to control the well and activate the BOP onsite, to the hot weather that we should be praying for right about now. This effort by BP and the USCG is a tremendous joint attempt at minimizing the impact. I wouldn't start counting your chickens before they hatch. Have faith in the 2500+ folks that are helping in this cleanup. I know that if BP didn't need me here at the refinery, I would be there helping too.

Check out this website for some pretty good information.

http://www.d8externalaffairs.com/go/site/2931/#

It is VERY sad, but have hope that it gets under control VERY soon.

All of this is gonna hurt us in one way or another.

Seen a news story on sunday. They were already catching birds covered in oil and cleaning them. Several birds had already died.

Not saying that isn't true Teal, but you should be careful of what you believe when it is reported from the media.

Why is it hard to believe? There's a butt load of oil out there.

I heard a fisherman interviewed on WBAP this morning say the oil was still about 50+ miles off shore from New Orleans. He hadnt seen a drop yet....

Like I said Dub, I'm not saying that isn't true. It is my understanding that the oil is fairly close to the Chandeleur Islands so a few oily birds is very believeable. It is also my understanding that no oily birds have been found, but a few dead sea turtles have washed ashore, but they don't know if that is related to the spill. Considering my employer, I am fairly sure that I am getting the facts.

What I am saying is that the media has and still is reporting a lot of things that aren't true at all. They are saying that BP owns and operates the rig which is not true. Transocean is the owner/operator of the rig and is ultimately responsible for the rig. BP just leases the rig.

One thing to keep in mind, not many people know who Transocean is. The whole world knows who BP is and blaming BP gives the liberal left more ammo against big oil. This is why the liberal media will attach BP's name to any and all of this.

We (BP, yes I work for the oil giant) have accepted responsibility for the remediation and clean up, and my name like many of my colleagues, is on a list to respond when called upon.

As for the cause, I believe that should not be on us. We have a large number of resources in place and on standby to do whatever it takes to stop the leak and clean this up. That is A LOT more than most companies have done or ever will do when presented with a tragedy of this magnitude.

I just want people to remember to not always believe everything that the media reports.

How does the despersent work? Does it dissolve the oil or neutralize it or something?

from what I understand in neutralizes it so that natural organisms in the ocean can eat it up. Thats what I heard this morning on the radio.

Nevermind, I just read an article on the spill. The dispersants help break up the oil and cause it to sink. It seems like there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. The oil leaking from this well is a lighter grade of oil then what happened with the Exxon Valdez and according to the article evaporates more readily and is more easily burned off. I have faith in BP that they are doing what they can to fix all of this. With a little luck people along the Gulf Coast may get their lives back to normal before too long.

I hope so.

I would hope that the dispersants do neutralize the contaminats that are in oil, because if they do break it up and all that oil sinks to the bottom of the ocean, I would like to think that some kind of organism is going to eat it all up.

You are right Peter, this is very light, sweet crude. The evaporation rate is WAY higher than what was spilled in Alaska (yet another thing the media fails to report). If it was heavy, sour crude, my guess is that it would have already impacted the shorelines. Considering this, you probably aren't going to see any pictures of animals that look like tar balls like you did in the Valdez spill of 89. IF the oil does impact wildlife, it will more than likely be from inhalation or ingestion and not because they were restricted physically.

As for the dispersants, they do help break up the oil and it does sink to the Gulf floor.

Reguardless of what happens, there will be an environmental impact. To what magnitude still remains to be seen.

gdo7 - great posts and couldn't agree more. Especially your remarks on BP being exposed by the media and transocean not being mentioned at all, until yesterday when BP came out to express their disgust at being solely blamed for this. I have a very good friend thats a sub sea eng with BP and he is the only one I get my facts from and definitely NOT the media.

BP is the same group who are documented as tossing safety out the window and allowing their refinery workers to be injured

Their Texas City refinery is the one that blew up a couple years back (it's blown up more than once if I remember correctly)

I have a hard time having any sympathy for them as a company when they talk abou being environmentally responsible and safety conscious

As a company BP is all too aware of the impacts of these types of disasters. As you see only the media highlights of a company that has become quite the industry scapegoat for these types of things.

In my personal experience with the company they have been OVERLY adament about safety. To the point of ultimately limiting profits due to over compensating on every level for safety equipment and breifings. Now, that said, BP is obviously a very very large company and my view of their operations was a simple glimpse. So take it as you will.

gdo7
The story I saw showed a vet holding a oil covered bird, Most likley a gull of some kind. No harm ment, And I only believe what I read on THF.

gdo7 so are you saying transocean is to blame? Kind of sounds like me blaming a rental car company for a crash I got in. Did I crash because of operator error or was something wrong with the car. If it was the car then they would blame the car company who could then blame the tire manufacturer, etc. To me it seems like BP isnt playing the blame game though...which is good...they are being proactive.

I'm not a "big oil is evil" person.

I really hate that this happened for many reasons. Besides the enviromental impact now the left has more ammo as to why we should not expand drilling which will translate into me paying more.

Here are a couple of Q&A bullet points froma DU newsletter link that I got yesterday

Q. What's the best-case scenario?

That they get the well capped, and quickly, and that the oil itself stays offshore where it can be skimmed, cleaned or, if necessary, burned off. That has toxicological issues also, but it would prevent the oil from coming on shore. But the best-case scenario is pretty unlikely. The oil slick is growing so fast, and this time of year the prevailing winds down here are from the south and southeast.

Q. The worst case?

If it gets into the marshes in a paint-like consistency, the vegetation can be killed. Those plants serve a lot of functions. They hold the soil in place. If the vegetation dies, the root mass degenerates and the soil is exposed to wind and wave action, and eventually erodes. In that case, the marsh land and associated marsh ponds that support wintering waterfowl would be lost. Those kinds of losses are and were occurring at a rate of about 20,000 acres annually. The spill could accelerate those losses. DU

Your point is irrelevent in this case. If you had a wreck in a car you leased then it is your fault not because you leased it, but because you were OPERATING it. The rig was not, and I repeat WAS NOT operated by BP.

Let me give you a little better relation. If you are getting a new roof on your house and you pay a contractor for their services, you are essentially leasing their services. While they are working, one of the workers falls off of a ladder that was made by company XYZ because it was defective. Is it your fault because you were leasing his services and equipment, is it his employers fault because he wasn't using the equipment properly, or is it company XYZ's fault because they manufactured a faulty ladder? Ultimately, you will probably be sued because it is your house and that is one problem with this nation. The employer will be sued because they bought a faulty ladder, and company XYZ will be sued because they sold a faulty ladder. Of the 3, who shouldn't be responsible?

We (BP) were proactive because that is who we are as a company. No reason to start pointing fingers and say it is so and so's fault. All that does is waste time, time that is VERY precious in an event like this. All of the mess can be sorted out later through whatever means are necessary. I can tell you that without question, our CEO was on a plane from London to Venice, LA the very same day that this catastrophe happened. The only reason he arrived the next day was because iof the length of the flight from overseas.

For anyone that has questions about this stuff, feel free to ask me. I will tell you everything I can to help you understand what is going on or how things are done and work.