Gulf of Mexico clean-up makes 2010 spill 52-times more toxic

Nov 30, 2012
rotifers

(Phys.org)—If the 4.9 million barrels of oil that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico during the 2010 Deep Water Horizon spill was a ecological disaster, the two million gallons of dispersant used to clean it up apparently made it even worse – 52-times more toxic. That's according to new research from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Universidad Autonoma de Aguascalientes (UAA), Mexico.

The study found that mixing the dispersant with oil increased toxicity of the mixture up to 52-fold over the oil alone. In toxicity tests in the lab, the mixture's effects increased mortality of rotifers, a microscopic grazing animal at the base of the Gulf's . The findings are published online by the journal and will appear in the February 2013 print edition.

Using oil from the Deep Water Horizon spill and Corexit, the dispersant required by the for clean up, the researchers tested toxicity of oil, dispersant and mixtures on five strains of rotifers. Rotifers have long been used by ecotoxicologists to assess toxicity in marine waters because of their fast response time, ease of use in tests and sensitivity to toxicants. In addition to causing mortality in adult rotifers, as little as 2.6 percent of the oil-dispersant mixture inhibited rotifer egg hatching by 50 percent. Inhibition of rotifer egg hatching from the sediments is important because these eggs hatch into rotifers each spring, reproduce in the , and provide food for , shrimp and crabs in estuaries.

" are preapproved to help clean up oil spills and are widely used during disasters," said UAA's Roberto-Rico Martinez, who led the study. "But we have a poor understanding of their toxicity. Our study indicates the increase in toxicity may have been greatly underestimated following the Macondo well explosion."

Martinez performed the research while he was a Fulbright Fellow at Georgia Tech in the lab of School of Biology Professor Terry Snell. They hope that the study will encourage more scientists to investigate how oil and dispersants impact marine food webs and lead to improved management of future oil spills.

"What remains to be determined is whether the benefits of dispersing the oil by using Corexit are outweighed by the substantial increase in toxicity of the mixture," said Snell, chair of the School of Biology. "Perhaps we should allow the oil to naturally disperse. It might take longer, but it would have less toxic impact on marine ecosystems."

Explore further: Dam hard: Water storage is a historic headache for Australia

Related Stories

Recommended for you

TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

2 hours ago

TransCanada on Thursday filed for regulatory approval of a proposed Can$12 billion (US$10.7 billion) pipeline to carry western Canadian oil to Atlantic coast refineries and terminals, for shipping overseas.

Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

5 hours ago

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today in the journal ...

Reef-builders with a sense of harmony

7 hours ago

Cold-water corals of the species Lophelia pertusa are able to fuse skeletons of genetically distinct individuals. On dives with JAGO, a research submersible stationed at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, scientists ...

User comments : 92

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arcbird
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 30, 2012
Would'nt surprise me a bit if it was intentional. There are lots of technologies that could have stoppped this ages ago.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.7 / 5 (24) Nov 30, 2012
The reason corexit os used to cover up the spill is because the abrasive legal system in america punishes corporations for openly admitting guilt in an effort to correct mistakes.

The high cost of confession drives corporations to take expensive yet highly destructive measures to hide their mess, rather than clean it up.
MP3Car
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2012
I am not trying to defend BP, but they aren't saying 2.6% oil/dispersant dilution in water causes problems, are they?

Sure, maybe 2.6% does cause a problem. But that is MUCH higher than would ever be seen in the open ocean. Just one square mile of ocean that's only one mile deep has over 1 trillion gallons of water.
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (28) Nov 30, 2012
So BP can be fined $1000 per barrel of oil spilled. Does this mean they can be fined $52,000 for every barrel of dispersant?

Legislate BP out of existence. We need to show 'conservative' fascists that there are consequences to unrestrained greed.

Jeddy: Actually BP used corexit because they own the company that manufactures it. There are better alternatives but it would have cost them more. Oh wait... turns out their greed cost them quite a bit. Maybe you corporate-c**ksuckers should take a hint.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) Nov 30, 2012
If anything we should take this as a hint that we suck at (foreseeing the ramifications of) geoengineering.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (50) Nov 30, 2012
Legislate BP out of existence. We need to show 'conservative' fascists that there are consequences to unrestrained greed.


That's not going to happen. Be realistic and not such a bed wetter. Everyone who uses oil is responsible for potential accidents in drilling for it. It's a condition of humanity that we need oil right now. Grow up, conservatives are not fascists, nor is it their fault that even tree-huggers drive cars.

Oil already comes from the ground naturally. This is what happens when ding-bat environmentalists over pressure clean ups. Liberals are experts in ideas that "sound good", but also experts in unintended consequences.
randith
4 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2012
FrankHerbert: Maybe I missed something, but according to the article, the EPA *required* BP to use that dispersant:
Corexit, the dispersant required by the Environmental Protection Agency for clean up

So it was the EPA's fault for not having enough foresight. Not that I blame them too much--after all, hindsight is 20/20--but what I really want to know is, why didn't the EPA run this test as soon as they heard about the oil spill?!
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (21) Nov 30, 2012
Let's get some real use out of the navy and round up all of BP's assets in international waters. Hell, I'm sure the Enterprise has enough fuel left to complete this mission.

We could even paint on the side of it "this machine kills fascists."
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.9 / 5 (30) Nov 30, 2012
Id legislate hippies into prisons before id legislate bp ' out of existence'
FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (23) Nov 30, 2012
Jeddy, how fascist of you.
Noumenal
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 30, 2012
Everyone who uses oil is responsible for potential accidents in drilling for it. It's a condition of humanity that we need oil right now.


how does this follow? There are a number of possible practices that would substantially reduce the risks of drilling for oil - these, in this instance, were not sufficient and BP and other corporations that say 'pooee' to them need to be punished, potentially, out of existence. Secondly, there are ways of engaging with oil such that we use the resource to overcome our 'human need' for it, i.e., to fulfil that need with other means of production. Currently, mainly, we use it in a way that could be considered 'greedy', there are those within society that would like to see a change of attitude. Their attitude could even go so far as limiting their responsibility, in so far as, outside of disagreement with dangerous and unnecessary practices, they would, given their ideal, employ the oil that is gained in a safe manner to ends its use entirely.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2012
Id legislate hippies into prisons before id legislate bp ' out of existence'

Define hippy please.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (39) Nov 30, 2012
Everyone who uses oil is responsible for potential accidents in drilling for it. It's a condition of humanity that we need oil right now.
how does this follow? There are a number of possible practices that would substantially reduce the risks of drilling for oil - these, in this instance, were not sufficient and BP and other corporations that say 'pooee' to them need to be punished, potentially, out of existence


That is wrong. A) That rig received high marks from government inspectors prior to the Accident. B) BP is one of the most technologically advanced deep drillers on the planet. C) Overall the oil drilling industry has a remarkable good accident record. D) Such Industrial accidents are an inevitability by virtue of using oil, as auto accidents are an inevitability by virtue of driving. E) You stole my screen name. F) My posts are above existent reality, not about idealism. Yes, of course an alternative to dirty oil is better.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (38) Nov 30, 2012
FrankHerbert: Maybe I missed something, but according to the article, the EPA *required* BP to use that dispersant:
Corexit, the dispersant required by the Environmental Protection Agency for clean up

So it was the EPA's fault for not having enough foresight. Not that I blame them too much--after all, hindsight is 20/20--but what I really want to know is, why didn't the EPA run this test as soon as they heard about the oil spill?!


The Huffington Post told FrankHubris that the oil industry is run exclusivity by conservatives, who are "obviously" evil fascists. Fact's don't matter to a liberal bed wetter either.

I wonder, now that FH has learned that it was the "do-gooder" EPA's screw up, will he want the EPA to fine itself out of existence,.. LOL.
DarkWingDuck
1.7 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2012
Hold the EPA liable.
Noumenal
2.6 / 5 (17) Nov 30, 2012
That is wrong. A) That rig received high marks from government inspectors prior to the Accident. B) BP is one of the most technologically advanced deep drillers on the planet. C) Overall the oil drilling industry has a remarkable good accident record. D) Such Industrial accidents are an inevitability by virtue of using oil, as auto accidents are an inevitability by virtue of driving. E) You stole my screen name. F) My posts are above existent reality, not about idealism. Yes, of course an alternative to dirty oil is better.


1. Nope, they don't in principle need to drill in deep oceans. 2. Sometimes the risks, outweigh the economic benefits. 3. Yes, I too am happy about this - however, see the above little mishap. 4. false equivalence - refer to the (1). 5. phenomenal 6. So are mine, if we actually thought about how best to structure society in a sustainable manner, the fantasy most of the western world exists in now can be prevented from introducing huge and unnecessary risk.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (39) Nov 30, 2012
1) What does that mean? Wouldn't it be easier to drill on land or close to shore? Evidently they decided to drill off shore, and received license to do so. Who gave them that license?

3) The industry has a good record, period, inclusive to the above accident,... given the volume of oil extracted.

4) No, dead on analogy. We MUST drill for oil, we MUST drive cars. In both cases the risks are intrinsic by virtue of those necessities, thus it is pointless to attack the industry once the predictable occurs.

5) It means the opposite of phenomenal,.. it is, reality as it exists in itself, unconceptualized Reality.

6) You can't "structure society". You can't plan out society ahead of time. The Gov can't even stay within a budget. A free society must evolve in response to forces. If use of oil is unsustainable, then by definition, it is unsustainable. It will become more expensive eventually, at which time alternatives will be able to compete.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (38) Nov 30, 2012
I kind of garbled point F above. I meant that I post about existent reality, not idealistic non-sense.

if we actually thought about how best to structure society in a sustainable manner


This is idealistic fantasy.

the fantasy most of the western world exists in now


If the western world exists in a given state now, by definition, it is not fantasy, but existent reality.

can be prevented from introducing huge and unnecessary risk.


Again, fantasy. The government can't even control its spending to maintain a rational budget, etc, etc. The gov was already responsible to over see and ensure those oil rigs were safe, and to orchestrate clean up. You see how the gov is incompetent, without the motive of competition and profit, so why do you expect such miracles as a "gov planned society".

Society is strongest when it evolves according to natural processes and economic forces.
Caliban
3.1 / 5 (21) Nov 30, 2012
The EPA didn't "order" the use of Corexit. In Fact, they ordered the use of a less toxic dispersant, but BP DID NOT COMPLY with that order. In strict terms, the EPA didn't order the use of dispersant at all.

And, contrary to the spectacularly false claims of nonoUnme, jeddy, et al, above:

the DOI inspectors that ok'd the licensing, inspection, safety and contingency readiness plans, etc were also investigated and charged with fraud and negligence in relation to to this fiasco.

the petroleum industry DOES NOT, AND NEVER HAS HAD a record of good safety or environmental responsibility, from its first beginnings, all the way to the present.

discharges, spills, and the production and release of toxic byproducts occur everywhere along the process of location, extraction and refining of petrochemicals.

BP used the dispersant primarily in an attempt to obscure the true extent of this epochal environmental catastrophe. This is part of the reason that BP was judged CRIMINALLY negligent.
Solon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2012
I said from the start that the use of Corexit was in order for BP to rid themselves of millions of gallons of toxic waste from the refining process. Before the advent of the gasoline powered automobile, gasoline was also a waste product from the production of home heating oil, and was dumped into the rivers that lead into the Gulf. The methane and oil that seep from the hundreds of natural seeps in the Gulf pose no problem to nature, in fact the organisms that are at the base of the marine food chain in the Gulf happily eat the stuff, and it may be that hydrocarbons were what gave rise to complex life on earth. They should have just left nature to look after it.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (35) Nov 30, 2012
The EPA didn't "order" the use of Corexit. In Fact, they ordered the use of a less toxic dispersant, but BP DID NOT COMPLY with that order.


The EPA had approved of Corexit use. It was on their list of approved dispersants. The EPA was well aware of its toxicity all along, and only released the list of ingredients under public pressure. Only then did the EPA ask BP to use an alternative. BP did not "fail to comply" with that order, as they were GIVEN an alternative option to explain why alternatives weren't practical. BP legally took that option.

the DOI inspectors that ok'd the licensing, inspection, safety and contingency readiness plans, etc were also investigated and charged with fraud and negligence in relation to to this fiasco.


Likewise individuals in BP were charged with negligence as they acted in rouge fashion against BP policies, but you want to burn the entire BP company,.... but do not advocate like reaction toward the EPA & gov, generally.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (36) Nov 30, 2012
the petroleum industry DOES NOT, AND NEVER HAS HAD a record of good safety or environmental responsibility, from its first beginnings, all the way to the present. discharges, spills, and the production and release of toxic byproducts occur everywhere along the process of location, extraction and refining of petrochemicals.


This is factually incorrect. In modern times the oil drilling industry has an impressive record to any rationally minded person,.... which excludes wack-job extreme environmentalists.

By virtue of the necessity of using oil, just through the act of extracting it, there is going to be some reasonable expectation of spills. Just as there is a expectation of 40.000 deaths per year in the USA by virtue of the act of driving cars. So you can't count every drop of spilled oil.
Infinum
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2012
What is the _definition_ of 'clean' in when used in 'cleaning up an oil spill'?

Is it 'clean' as in 'make it not visible to human eyes' or as in 'minimize long-term interaction with the environment'?

Unfortunately, it seems it is the former when it really should to be the latter.
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 01, 2012

This is factually incorrect. In modern times the oil drilling industry has an impressive record to any rationally minded person,.... which excludes wack-job extreme environmentalists.


No it is not factually incorrect. You are indulging, again, in wishful thinking.

If it is your desire to act as an apologist for Big Carbon, then go right ahead.

This does not, however, excuse you from misrepresenting the facts,regardless of whether you are in possession of them or not.
extinct
2 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
humans are stupid. you can try to put lipstick on that pig, but it's still a glaring, undeniable fact. and the U.S. is slated to become the world's #1 oil producer and consumer next year, surpassing anyone in the Middle East, etc. humans are stupid. they have free energy at their disposal and they hide it from themselves so they'll forget a while longer.
extinct
1.2 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
it's like if you spill some wine on your carpet, the logical thing to do is go to your local paving company and buy some hot tar and come back and clean up the wine by washing it out of the carpet with hot tar. that is approximately the competence level of the EPA, BP, and all fascists. competence is not in their favor. when you can generate the problem *and* the non-solution, you're golden
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (35) Dec 01, 2012
@Taliban,

"Nearly 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of petroleum that enter North American ocean waters each year as a result of HUMAN ACTIVITIES comes from land-based runoff, polluted rivers, airplanes, and small boats and jet skis, while less than 8 percent comes from tanker or pipeline spills."

Natural seeps of oil in the ocean dwarfs that from extraction.

The off shore drilling industry has a 99% safty record. These are facts.

It's about as clean an industry as can be reasonably expected, given its necessitated volume of use. The far left are emotionally driven, not fact based. Proof of this is that you are so emotionally affected by the dramatic event that is a off shore oil disaster, that you want to destroy the entire company, yet ignore the fact that such extraction spills are small comparison to general use,... which proves the problem is in use, not extraction, as was my original point.

QED
IronhorseA
3 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
Hold the EPA liable.


Unfortunately all government agencies are subject to the political influence of elected politicians. One party puts in regulations to do something then the other party, when it is in position to do so, undermines those regulations either directly by law, or indirectly by under funding the the agency.

Ask which set of politicians insisted, at the request of the petroleum industry, that the EPA change its rules for offshore drilling.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (33) Dec 01, 2012
Ask which set of politicians insisted, at the request of the petroleum industry, that the EPA change its rules for offshore drilling.


Why did the EPA supposedly change those rules then, when its entire purpose is to protect the environment?

As I pointed out above the vast majority of oil leaks into the oceans are not caused by the Drilling of oil. What conspiracy theory will cover that much-larger failure of the government?

Whenever big government ideology fails, the left trot out the conspiracy theories. The gov's failure in preventing the much vaster quantity of non-drilling related oil that gets into the ocean, is a far more a problem than an rig accident, and should correspondingly evoke a like reaction in the pinheads who want to destroy BP.
bhiestand
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2012
Your other lies have already been exposed, so I just want to point out:
The off shore drilling industry has a 99% safty record. These are facts.

If you had a 99% safe driving record, you would be one of the worst drivers the insurance industry has ever seen. Assuming you only drive twice per day M-F, that's an accident every 2.3 months.

It's about as clean an industry as can be reasonably expected, given its necessitated volume of use.

Any reasonable person would look at the damage caused by oil spills and demand increased safety. The petroleum industry is extraordinarily profitable, but its entire business model relies on externalizing many costs. If the industry were smart, it would put an extra $0.10/barrel into safety before the greens actually get the power to legislate them out of existence.

As for BP, they were criminally negligent. Quit trying to apologize for them--even they admit it, ffs.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (33) Dec 01, 2012
If you had a 99% safe driving record, you would be one of the worst drivers the insurance industry has ever seen. Assuming you only drive twice per day M-F, that's an accident every 2.3 months.


Your analogy doesn't make sense. You arbitrarily equated "each time I drove" with one "barrel of oil" to design a way of exagerating.

The way that off shore http://www.manhat...yth8.htm was determined was the ratio of amount spilled to amount produced.

would put an extra $0.10/barrel into safety before the greens actually get the power to legislate them out of existence.


The "greens" will never gain such control, because to do so is defacto to change to form of government to socialism,.. and to crash economies, because the blood that flows through the veins of economies is oil, like it or not.

I never said that spilling oil is not a problem,... i'm just reacting to dimwits who want to illegally destroy a valid company.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2012
The off shore drilling industry has a 99% safty record. These are facts.
It's about as clean an industry as can be reasonably expected, given its necessitated volume of use. The far left are emotionally driven, not fact based.


So now, it's "as clean as can be reasonably expected". Brilliant analysis.

The rough average annual share by the Industry is better than 15% of total marine spillage, combine that with land spills and it easily doubles.

http://oils.gpa.u...rces.htm

http://www.pewenv...%201.pdf

http://www.enviro...per4.pdf

http://www.boem.g...ills.pdf

This has detailed info for terrestrial and marine spills:

http://www.aseane...4601.pdf
Caliban
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2012
This has already been addressed and is irrelevant to the matter at hand, nor does "natural" necessarily equate with benign:

http://www.manhat...8_t1.gif

The fact that most petro spillage arises from various modes of consumer use is also beside the point, and is only RELATIVELY true, anyway, since all of the statistics available are based upon REPORTED spillage which only accounts for a fraction of the total, since plenty isn't reported, or isn't accurately quantified, such as the Chevron/Texaco Amazon mess, and Shell, et al's Niger Delta nightmare -to name just a couple currently in the news.

Any way you slice it, and regardless of how many ways you attempt to misrepresent the facts by introducing multiple scales of- and vectors for- it, Big Oil is directly responible for about a third of the petro pollution discharged into the environment annually.

IronhorseA
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2012
Ask which set of politicians insisted, at the request of the petroleum industry, that the EPA change its rules for offshore drilling.


Why did the EPA supposedly change those rules then, when its entire purpose is to protect the environment?



For the same reason every government agency changes rules when there is a regime change in the front office: heads of agencies are political appointees, not regular employees. And heads of agencies initiate rule changes.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2012
Hats off to Jeddy...

The reason corexit os used to cover up the spill is because the abrasive legal system in america punishes corporations for openly admitting guilt in an effort to correct mistakes.

The high cost of confession drives corporations to take expensive yet highly destructive measures to hide their mess, rather than clean it up.


Stupidity at this level deserves a gold-star =^-^=
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (32) Dec 02, 2012
Any way you slice it, and regardless of how many ways you attempt to misrepresent the facts by introducing multiple scales of- and vectors for- it, Big Oil is directly responible for about a third of the petro pollution discharged into the environment annually.


I'm not "misrepresenting" facts, I'm stating them plainly for you, for a specific point.

About half of oil that seeps into U.S. oceans is due to natural causes. Of the remaining half, 85% of that is NOT due to the oil extraction industry, but instead due to general human use.

The point of stating this is in support of my contention that the environmental issue wrt oil contamination is not generally the FAULT of oil companies, but instead by virtue of the USE of that oil by humanity, in general.

Why did I make this point? Becuase several dingbat posters above what to punish BP "out of existance". BP's entire existance is premised upon DEMAND. Thus, all those using oil are complicit in the risk of drilling for it.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (32) Dec 02, 2012
,... I've also pointed out that the government failed as well, both in their safety inspections and in initially approving a potential toxic dispersant mix, [which they knew about and only reacted to under public pressure],.. by then too late and impractical for BP to change course. And you admitted to potential corruption of the EPA.

The point is that if your savior, the government, ...the proverbial "we should....",... also is able to fail, then since there is NO OTHER INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY, ...perhaps generally speaking, it is an inevitability that accidents will occur (and humans will react poorly and make bad decisions), simply by virtue of the volume of oil used.

The point i'm making is to contrast the unreasonableness of reactionary environmental activists, in desiring or using a particular accident, to permanently damage the oil industry. It was an accident,... the reaction was criminal negligence.

The extraction industries saftey record IS good, given the volume and risk.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (32) Dec 02, 2012
,... this is not to suggest that its ok that BP spills oil. They will lose $30 billion over this, they don't need hysterical and emotionally driven activitis, telling them to improve their saftey standards, nor evidently the gvernment either.

The oil industry will NOT be artificially driven out of existance, by naive leftist know-nothings. We are using oil at full bore right now, and ONLY a natural increase in its commodity price will allow alternatives to offer a profit motive sufficient for investment and mass use. This is a fact of reality. Activists live in idealism.
djustinblake
5 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2012
@ Jeddy
I completely agree with your statement. it is rather unamerican to take responsibility for ones actions. in both regards to an individual and a corporation. this is unfortunate as the only to way to improve is to make a mistake, admit it and correct it. it is anti productive to dance around responsibility when it comes to major disasters.
unconvinced
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2012
My memory says BP defied the EPA request re what ingredients were in their dispersant and didn't tell till near the very end of using dispersant. And that that's when the EPA found out it had Corexit in it. You can search the archives at theoildrum.com to verify that.

Sound rather like what the fracking companies do - only report ingredients after their drilling is done? :>)
Lex Talonis
1.7 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2012
If Jesus was drilling me, I'd be wanting oil too.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2012
I'm not "misrepresenting" facts, I'm stating them plainly for you, for a specific point.

About half of oil that seeps into U.S. oceans is due to natural causes. Of the remaining half, 85% of that is NOT due to the oil extraction industry, but instead due to general human use.


That's right, you aren't misrepresenting them, now.

Now you are outright lying.

When the facts don't back up your assertions, you apparently feel free to create your own fantasy narrative in support. But you've failed to take into account one very crucial aspect of reality.

This forum is not FUXNews, and you will --and have been-- called out for telling lies.

Pull your head out.


Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2012
I'm not "misrepresenting" facts, I'm stating them plainly for you, for a specific point.


earlier:

"Nearly 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of petroleum that enter North American ocean waters each year as a result of HUMAN ACTIVITIES comes from land-based runoff, polluted rivers, airplanes, and small boats and jet skis, while less than 8 percent comes from tanker or pipeline spills."

Natural seeps of oil in the ocean dwarfs that from extraction.


Playing off the BP spill as part of the 8% is a bit misleading, but that's ok, anyone paying attention has noticed you like to ignore the inconvenient facts in order to maintain your bubble of reality.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (30) Dec 03, 2012
That's right, you aren't misrepresenting them, now. Now you are outright lying. When the facts don't back up your assertions, you apparently feel free to create your own fantasy narrative in support. [...] This forum is not FUXNews, and you will --and have been-- called out for telling lies.


Just saying that I'm lying or misrepresenting facts is not an argument. I've provided links.

I've noticed that is your tactic in debates,.. you just attempt to give the 'impression' that the other poster is lying, or "was called out" without any bases in fact at all.

The salient point here as I outlined clearly above, is that the vast majority of oil that leaks into the ocean, is due NOT to extraction, but to general use. That FACT, is all I need to make the point I've outlined above. Whether it's 8%, 3%, or 15% has little bearing.

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (30) Dec 03, 2012
Anyone can look up the facts themselves. They will discover two things, a) the vast majority of oil leaking into oceans is do to general use, NOT off shore drilling,.. and b) Caliban is incredibly dishonest with meaningless ad-hominem attacks.

Here are some more sources. Do you think maybe NASA got their data from Fox News?

http://www.nasa.g...Oil.html

http://oils.gpa.u...rces.htm

http://oceanworld...ills.htm

http://seawifs.gs...ion.html

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (29) Dec 03, 2012
BP defied the EPA request re what ingredients were in their dispersant and didn't tell till near the very end of using dispersant. And that that's when the EPA found out it had Corexit in it.


According to wiki and another source that I don't recall now,... your above statement is factually incorrect.

The EPA had http://en.wikiped...exit#Use both forms of Corexit for use in clean ups. Only, a month into the BP accident did the EPA reverse it's approval of that dispersant, requesting that BP to use an alternative, OR, if there was no practical replacement in enough quantity, to provide a report to the EPA. BP fulfilled it's obligations to the EPA wrt dispersant, by taking the 2nd option, granted by the EPA.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (29) Dec 03, 2012
EDIT:

The EPA had approved both forms of Corexit for use in clean ups. Only, a month into the BP accident did the EPA reverse it's approval of that dispersant, requesting that BP to use an alternative, OR, if there was no practical replacement in enough quantity, to provide a report to the EPA. BP fulfilled it's obligations to the EPA wrt dispersant, by taking the 2nd option, given by the EPA.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2012
Just saying that I'm lying or misrepresenting facts is not an argument. I've provided links.


I've provided links, as well.

I've noticed that is your tactic in debates,.. you just attempt to give the 'impression' that the other poster is lying, or "was called out" without any bases in fact at all.


I've noticed that when you get caught lying, you start whining. The truth hurts. Especially with links in support.

The salient point here as I outlined clearly above, is that the vast majority of oil that leaks into the ocean, is due NOT to extraction, but to general use. That FACT, is all I need to make the point I've outlined above. Whether it's 8%, 3%, or 15% has little bearing.


The salient point is that you are wrong, and that, since you persist in making a false claim, that you are, therefore, lying.
If a third or more of the discharge of petro pollution is a direct consequence of it's exploitation and refinement, then that is no insignificant outcome.

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (30) Dec 03, 2012
If a third or more of the discharge of petro pollution is a direct consequence of it's exploitation and refinement, then that is no insignificant outcome.


Do you have reading comprehension problems? I've stated above that in fact FAR MORE THAN 1/3 of the oil contamination in the oceans is due to human use. In fact it is a little more than half of that pollution!

That fact is the basis of my point made over and over again by me, because you dishonestly refuse to capitulate on it,...i.e. by far most of the pollution is due to GENERAL USE, and NOT due to spills from off shore drilling.

It's the USE of oil by humanity that is the relative problem wrt pollution, NOT drilling accidents. I provided a link to a NASA site that states this explicitly.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2012
If a third or more of the discharge of petro pollution is a direct consequence of it's exploitation and refinement, then that is no insignificant outcome.


Do you have reading comprehension problems?

It's the USE of oil by humanity that is the relative problem wrt pollution, NOT drilling accidents. I provided a link to a NASA site that states this explicitly.


Are you drinking? I just said "it's exploitation and refinement", ie, exploration, drilling, transport, refining, and distribution. This is separate from end-user consumption. Releases during these processes are responsible for roughly 30% of total human-caused discharge into the environment.

NOT particularly clean, NOT particularly safe.

Again, Your artificial division of sources doesn't alter that fact. BP's (for instance) oil isn't located, drilled, transported, refined and distributed AT THE RIG ITSELF, you moron.

Discharge occurs at every step of the process, land and sea both --about 1/3 of the total.

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (30) Dec 03, 2012
"exploitation"? I took this to mean "USE".

ex·ploi·ta·tion
[ek-sploi-tey-shuh n]
noun
1. Use or utilization, especially for profit: the exploitation of newly discovered oil fields.
2. selfish utilization: He got ahead through the exploitation of his friends.
3. the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

-------------------------------------------------------

The discussion is about Off Shore Drilling's safety record, and BP's accident.

"About half of all oil that enters Earth's oceans comes from human activity - from mining, transporting, and using petroleum products. Overwhelmingly, the largest runoff of human-generated oil into oceans comes from the consumption of petroleum. Nearly 70 percent of global oil release from human sources and 85 percent of North American release arises from oil use, such as from car engines." - NASA.gov

This leaves 15% for tankers and drilling.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2012

That is wrong. A) That rig received high marks from government inspectors prior to the Accident. B) BP is one of the most technologically advanced deep drillers on the planet. C) Overall the oil drilling industry has a remarkable good accident record. D) Such Industrial accidents are an inevitability by virtue of using oil, as auto accidents are an inevitability by virtue of driving.


nonoUNme,

Go piss up a rope, LIAR.

Out of your own mouth.

Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 04, 2012
So, in summary, links provided within a misleading narrative by their nature of being factual as individual components cancels out the falsehood of the form in which they are presented, check; eleven deaths and 87 days to cap a well that spilled 206 million gallons released into the gulf is perfectly fine because BP is still able to pull a profit on the oil they don't spill, check; facts in counter arguments containing ad hominems spurred by ad hominems within the lies being called out may be dismissed, check; Caliban, he's not drunk, the man is simply trying to maintain the bubble of comfort that sheilds him from reality.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (31) Dec 04, 2012

That is wrong. A) That rig received high marks from government inspectors prior to the Accident. B) BP is one of the most technologically advanced deep drillers on the planet. C) Overall the oil drilling industry has a remarkable good accident record. D) Such Industrial accidents are an inevitability by virtue of using oil, as auto accidents are an inevitability by virtue of driving.


nonoUNme,

Go piss up a rope, LIAR.

Out of your own mouth.



What specifically I'm I supposedly "lying" about in that quote. You conveniently left that out, and are being purposely vague.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2012
C) Overall the oil drilling industry has a remarkable good accident record. D) Such Industrial accidents are an inevitability by virtue of using oil, as auto accidents are an inevitability by virtue of driving.

nonoUNme,

Go piss up a rope, LIAR.

Out of your own mouth.

What specifically I'm I supposedly "lying" about in that quote. You conveniently left that out, and are being purposely vague.


We'll focus on the two remaining statements then. Annually, the extraction and ship-to shore or pipeline to shore portions of the industry account for upwards of 10% of spills. This is not a remarkably good accident record --even less so historically. Add to that the land-based drilling, processing, and transport of the petro and that total contribution jumps to about 1/3 of the total. Inevitability has exactly zero to do with the harm caused directly by the industry, which you insinuate here and elsewhere is so slight as to be insignificant.

This makes you a LIAR.

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Dec 04, 2012
My assertion is that the oil drilling industry has a remarkably good record. I have qualified this statement by saying, 'given the volume of oil extracted'. The point of this qualification is in what is reasonable to expect as a physical possibility. I will show this as follows,...

Since ~1970 the world has consumed ~923 billion barrels of oil. (1), (2)

Since ~1970 the world has spilled ~46 billion barrels of oil. (3)

cont,...
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Dec 04, 2012
Most oil spills, in fact 85%, are less than 50 barrels, and so are not accurately reported or not reported at all. So, I will overly exaggerate this missing amount by doubling the above spill amount to 90 million barrels of oil.

I am justified in calling this "overly exaggerated", because the 'contribution of such small spills to the cumulative amount of pollution in the year is relatively low compared to a major event'. (4)

The industry then has a 99.99% success record, meaning they spill less than one hundredths of one percent of the oil they handle.

If you expect them to spill zero, you are irrational. There is a reasonable expectation involved in the handling of such a volume of liquid.

For example, if you pour 8 ounces of milk every day for a year, the above success rate equates to spilling less than 1/3 of an ounce per year. Of course it's far easier to handle milk.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (30) Dec 04, 2012
Since ~1970 the world has spilled ~46 billion barrels of oil.


EDIT; I meant 46 million above, obviously.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (33) Dec 04, 2012
Inevitability has exactly zero to do with the harm caused directly by the industry, which you insinuate here and elsewhere is so slight as to be insignificant.


Inevitability has to do with reasonable expectation of spills given the volume of oil handled.

I did NOT say that damage done to the environment is insignificant. You just made that up.

I said that, (evidently since we are still using oil), ...that it is an acceptable risk,.. as driving is an acceptable risk, even though 40,000 die every year just in the USA.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2012
Beginning with fig. 22:

http://www.enviro...per4.pdf

and taking into account that we know global consumption has risen sharply since the new millenium, if we extrapolate beyond 1999, a pretty safe figure for total worldwide spillage from 1970-2012 is easily 5Bgals, roughly = 119Mbbls. This derives from all non end-user consumption.

Dr Etkin agrees that these figures have to deliberately estimated on the low end, since reporting requirements in the rest of the world --where they are followed-- are woefully inaccurate/underreported. with this in mind, I propose that we apply the same logic as you did, and "overly exaggerate" the under- or non-, reported spills by doubling the figure, which produces an estimated total global spillage of 238Mbbls.

This means your calculation is off by a factor of 5, and I personally think that MY figure is likely off by a factor of 5 again.
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 05, 2012
More likely still --10.

My logic for this conclusion is --and you will understand why, if you did your homework-- that, while there is more or less general agreement regarding the percentage contributions from various spill vectors, there is EXTREME range in estimates of annual input totals, with differences of whole orders of magnitude between low end and high end estimates of total annual spillage.

You have continuously labored to downplay the magnitude of the problem, the negative impact it has on human and environmental health, and, indeed, that it is an "acceptable risk" --which, alone-- makes it clear that you have no idea of the true toxicity of oil in relation to that health.

And, since you insist upon deliberately and repeatedly searching out and utilizing the sources that also minimize, in every way, the extent of spillage --even knowing that these estimates are certainly wrong-- this makes you a LIAR.

Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Dec 05, 2012
My numbers already include spill figures to the present time. There is no need to extrapolate from 1999.

I doubt that these numbers are much underreported given global regulations and global environmental watch-dogs (if they're doing their job), and the fact that major leaks are listed at wiki, an open site. I even used the "Maximum" estimate.

You're are basing your numbers on subjective speculation, while I'm basing mine on available facts, and then Doubling them to cover tree-hugger exaggerations,... But lets use YOUR own numbers anyway,...

First learn to do math, 238 million barrels does not equate to me being off by a factor of 5,.... more like 2.6.

Second, even given you're groundless quadrupling of available data (my doubling of listed actual facts, was more than sufficient), ,... still represents a saftey record of 99.975%, that they spill less than three hundreths of one pecent of the oil they handle. You must have forgotten to finish this calculation above. \\rolleyes
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Dec 05, 2012
I took YOUR data from graph 22, and added the amounts up from 1968 to 1999 and got 81,667,000 barrels.

I then added the amounts from Wiki list of spills from 2000 to 2012, and got 7,650,000 barrels.

The total is now 89,300,000. I'll except this even though the amounts are not itemized.

I've already shown there is no need to more than double this figure, as dong so is ALREADY an exageration. See the supplied link.

This still leaves my original contention intact. Less than two hundreths of one percent of the oil drilled and transported, has been spilled; 0.0019%. A reasonable expectation.

You're extrapolations are wrong and quadrupling is unjustified, based on facts, but even still doesn't effect my point much at all.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (32) Dec 05, 2012
I find it reasonable to expect that the wiki list of major spills is reasonably complete given all the environmentalists who can edit it freely.

Further, your graph 22 source suspiciously contains no itemized list, while mine does.

No, matter, if you are honest, you will admit that not only was I not "lying", as i've included sources for my numbers, but that YOUR own data supports my original contention.

But you will never capitulate, because your type doesn't have the intellectual integrity to do so.

Btw, my above revised estimate actually quadruples the documneted spills, because your data likely already took into consideration unknowns, which is why it was already double the Wiki list. But no matter.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (31) Dec 05, 2012
Your data originally came from the Environmental Research Consulting Database for graph #22. These people get paid to accurately estimate oil spills,.. so there is NO reason to double their numbers.

All you have managed to do is to provide verification that my original estimate of doubling Wiki's list of oil spills, was very close to the truth, rather than an exageration, ... according to your source.

If I double Wiki's 2000 to 2012 numbers of 7.5 million and add that to your source estimates for 1968 to 1999, we get -97 million. Reasonably close to my original 90 million.

Now bow down to me, and capitulate, then retract all of your previous posts calling me a liar, or I shall smite you with a 1 rating.
TypicallyClueless
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2012
It has been truly entertaining to see Noumenon wiping the floor with Caliban for the last several pages. Caliban is simply outmatched, in over his head. This must be devastating to his ego.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 05, 2012
I took YOUR data from graph 22, and added the amounts up from 1968 to 1999 and got 81,667,000 barrels.

I then added the amounts from Wiki list of spills from 2000 to 2012, and got 7,650,000 barrels.

[.............]



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Your mind is so scrambled by your own lies that you can't even think straight --even if you wanted to-- which is doubtful, since you insist, again, upon LYING.

The only thing that you've managed to prove --actually, illustrate-- is that you are handy at cherrypicking.

Go ahead and smite with 1-ratings and unilaterally proclaim yourself the winner all you want, it doesn't improve your math skills or magically transmute your whole cloth lies into the gold of truth, LIAR.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (30) Dec 05, 2012
I was trying to make use of your data, in an attempt to patronize you. I was quit satisfied with my first calculation.

Well, ...since that's as close to a full capitulation and acknowledgement of a superior argument that I can expect from a tree-hugging liberal,... I'll take it.

Speaking of water and oil,... did you know that if you throw a bunch of liberals into a tank full of logic, that no matter how much you mix, they float to the top? True.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (30) Dec 05, 2012
The only thing that you've managed to prove --actually, illustrate-- is that you are handy at cherrypicking.


All my numbers come from reasonable sources, not to mention I was obviously willing to use your own sources. It is comical that you should suggest I cherrypicked data, when you were willing of pull a factor of 10 straight out of your ass,...

I personally think that MY figure is likely off by a factor of 5 again... more likely still --10.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
I was trying to make use of your data, in an attempt to patronize you. I was quit satisfied with my first calculation.


And I see you are quit satisfied by yourself. Finished stroking, yet? You need a little oil to slick the old Conservative?

ell, ...since that's as close to a full capitulation and acknowledgement of a superior argument that I can expect from a tree-hugging liberal,... I'll take it.


Try looking up the definition of "capitulation". Since you didn't obtain it, you'll have to take what you got, and lie about it.

Speaking of water and oil,... did you know that if you throw a bunch of liberals into a tank full of logic, that no matter how much you mix, they float to the top? True.


Wow --no, I didn't know that. But I did know that if you throw a liar into a barrel of snake oil and stir it, it smells like shit. I've heard some say that it smells like nonoUNme --can you believe that?!?!?!

Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
The only thing that you've managed to prove --actually, illustrate-- is that you are handy at cherrypicking.


All my numbers come from reasonable sources, not to mention I was obviously willing to use your own sources. It is comical that you should suggest I cherrypicked data, when you were willing of pull a factor of 10 straight out of your ass,...


I will grant you that wikipedia is useful in many ways as a source of at least general information on a very wide variety of subjects, but it fails the test of authority when it comes to detailed, worldwide documentation in an area as notoriously UNDER-and NON- REPORTED as the incidence and extent of petrospills.

Therefore, you will acknowledge that my source was superior in terms of data vs your wiki citation. And my source(s) report much higher totals in terms of global spillage than your wiki article.

Therefore:

I personally think that MY figure is likely off by a factor of 5 again... more likely still --10.

Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 11, 2012
If you are unable --or refuse-- to understand that many sources --which you did a fine job locating-- can be understood to derive some kind of advantage from making use of the shoddiest of data sets to arrive at a total of global petrospillage --over ANY time frame-- I of course understand that, and, indeed, pretty much expect it from you.

This understanding does not, however, prevent me providing superior-quality information.

It is relevant to point out that there is much left to be desired in terms of the quantity/quality of data regarding spills.

This is why I go to the trouble of finding a source which makes use of all of the available data, rather than just a truncated subset of it --which would include your wikipedia article.

Given the very natural disinclination of anyone --much less a huge, multinational corporation-- to willingly incriminate themselves with regard to a spill --accidental or otherwise-- we can be certain that the actual total is far more than reported.

Caliban
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2012
And now this --just to underscore my point about deliberate underreporting:

http://www.dailym...ter.html

I know it's the Mail, but I didn't feel like wasting time locating the wire service version.

Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (29) Dec 16, 2012
you will acknowledge that my source was superior in terms of data vs your wiki citation. And my source(s) report much higher totals in terms of global spillage than your wiki article. Therefore:
I personally think that MY figure is likely off by a factor of 5 again... more likely still --10.


I had already doubled the wiki max estimate, which then brought my 90 mb close to your sources 97 mb before you even posted your source. Thus my original estimate was fair for the sake of discussion.

Your source is in the businesses of ascertaining an accurate estimate of oil spills, therefore it is baseless to multiply their estimate by a factor of 5 or 10, or to even double it. You just pulled that out of your ass with zero factual justification.

That wiki article includes all major spills,.. it is unreasonable to suppose that a major spill is not listed there. I provided an independent link indicating that the smaller oils spills do not substantially add up to the major ones.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (28) Dec 16, 2012
Given the very natural disinclination of anyone --much less a huge, multinational corporation-- to willingly incriminate themselves with regard to a spill --accidental or otherwise-- we can be certain that the actual total is far more than reported


That is baseless non-sense, as far as major spills are concerned. Each rig and ship is regulated and watched. Like a typical liberal, if the facts don't exist you want to invent them.

Based on the facts available, in fact, even based on YOUR source, I have proven to you that the oil industry spills only a few hundredths of one percent of the oil they handle. This is a reasonable physical expectation, given the inherent risk of extracting and moving such a volume of oil. My analysis is fair and made use of NASA information.

QED.
Caliban
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
I had already doubled the wiki max estimate, which then brought my 90 mb close to your sources 97 mb before you even posted your source. Thus my original estimate was fair for the sake of discussion.

....blah, blah, blah...

That wiki article includes all major spills, it is unreasonable to suppose that a major spill is not listed there. I provided an independent link indicating that the smaller oils spills do not substantially add up to the major


Stop whining, you little squint.

Your claptrap house of bullshit collapsed, so deal with it. Wiki is NOT the final word in facts. E.g., check the entries for the exhaustively researched and documented spills in the Niger Delta and the Amazon --if a goddam oil company reports the size of an oil spill ouside the borders of a First World nation, it is automatically guaranteed to be underreported, IF IT IS EVER REPORTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And THAT is the FACT regarding both your- and wiki's- last-word authority in this matter.

QEFD.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (28) Dec 17, 2012
I used YOUR source, who is in the BUSINESS of acertaining accurate estimates, and defeated you. I had already doubled the wiki estimate, which was then validated by YOUR own source.

Your only retort is to interject speculative and unsubstantiated claims that a significant amount of major spills are not reported, and so without any foundation in fact wish to multiple existing estimates by factors of 5 or 10. That is FAR less accurate than an open source top five most used website. Again, I have justified no more than doubling wiki's numbers,... you have not justified your factors of five or ten, thus I reject them.

I have demonstrated all of this with valid linked facts and reasoning several pages ago, yet you continue to flail about in your struggle with logic, like an oily fish out of water.

So in summary,... The oil industry is not a vilan. They maintain a good low spill record as can be reasonably expected by virtue of physically moving the volume of oil demanded of them.

QED.
Caliban
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2012
.....Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

So in summary,... The oil industry is not a vilan. They maintain a good low spill record as can be reasonably expected by virtue of physically moving the volume of oil demanded of them.


You used WIKI to arrive at your ever-so-generous estimate, you moron --just as I pointed out above. And the best that wiki can do is to provide hi/lo ESTIMATES or list as "UNKNOWN" the amount of spillage, in many cases. Combining this lack of definitive information with the well known, industry-wide phenomenon of underreporting or nonreporting of spills, and it becomes as obvious as runaway fission in your pocket that the frequency and extent of petro spills, globally, historically, and even into the modern era of double-hulled tankers has and continues to be massively underestimated.

No amount of whinging by suinty little nonoUNme is going to change that fact, so you can get off your backpedalcycle right now and shut your piehole.

Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (29) Dec 18, 2012
You don't understand the difference between facts and speculation. Why do you keep mentioning Wiki, when my use of it (in doubling their numbers) brought my estimate close to YOUR sources, thus validating my original number?

That oil spills are "massively underestimated" is your invented conspiracy which you need as duck tape to maintain you fragile house of cards. I agree with the NASA site that the vast majority of oil spills are from general use, not oil industry accidents. That fact is all I need to back up my original posts in this thread,.... while you need facts which don't exist, so you claim that non-existent data is real even though it doesn't exist.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2012
His lack of education betrays him daily.

His crutches are Google and Wikipedia.
-Estevan57 posted this in another topic. He's Noumenon's well known sockpuppet.

A little hypocritical, eh? Guess your use of wikipedia betrays your lake of education like you said.
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (30) Dec 18, 2012
His lack of education betrays him daily.

His crutches are Google and Wikipedia.
-Estevan57 posted this in another topic. He's Noumenon's well known sockpuppet.

A little hypocritical, eh? Guess your use of wikipedia betrays your lake of education like you said.


"lake of education"? Sounds like a lot.

I have no relation whatsoever with Esteven57, nor telekinetic, nor obama_socks. We're all anonymous here, so does it really make any sense accusing one screen name as being operated another?
Estevan57
2.9 / 5 (35) Dec 18, 2012
You know very well I am not Noum., our speech (typing) patterns are not even close, and our politics are VERY different.

Accusing others is a typical Otto BS. Can you not believe that so many people think you're a shit? Be scientific about it - with so much evidence supporting the fact that people think you are a shit - can they all be wrong? Nope.

Your lack of discernment between the different people posting on this site is probably a result of your childhood spent between religious education and masturbation.

FrankHermit much? Yes? Take your meds and be a happier person.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Dec 18, 2012
You know very well I am not Noum., our speech (typing) patterns are not even close, and our politics are VERY different.

Accusing others is a typical Otto BS. Can you not believe that so many people think you're a shit? Be scientific about it - with so much evidence supporting the fact that people think you are a shit - can they all be wrong? Nope.

Your lack of discernment between the different people posting on this site is probably a result of your childhood spent between religious education and masturbation.

FrankHermit much? Yes? Take your meds and be a happier person.
You know esai I've been reading your posts and I see there is nothing BUT trollshit there. Do you have anything meaningful and relevant (and honest) to say or are you nothing BUT a troll then?

Please do check my profile page for a reminder of the type of lying stalking corrupter of underage relatives you are.
Caliban
2 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2012
You don't understand the difference between facts and speculation. Why do you keep mentioning Wiki, when my use of it (in doubling their numbers) brought my estimate close to YOUR sources, thus validating my original number?

That oil spills are "massively underestimated" is your invented conspiracy which you need as duck tape to maintain you fragile house of cards. I agree with the NASA site that the vast majority of oil spills are from general use, not oil industry accidents. That fact is all I need to back up my original posts in this thread,.... while you need facts which don't exist, so you claim that non-existent data is real even though it doesn't exist.


What I understand about you, nonoUNme, is that you are only too happy to agree with any and all sources that might be of use to you in support of your entirely predictable claims.

You are stepping all over yourself trying to talk your way out of your insupportable position.

Now, STFU already, you mingy little squint.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2012
What I understand about you, nonoUNme, is that you are only too happy to agree with any and all sources that might be of use to you in support of your entirely predictable claims.


Taliban, YOUR OWN source agrees with MY original estimate. Is this hard to understand, or are you deliberately being obtuse?

Btw, I don't know what "nonoUNme" is supposed to mean.

Do you have any dignity left? Just bow your head in shame and wonder off already,.. you have been defeated resoundingly.
Caliban
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2012
What I understand about you, nonoUNme, is that you are only too happy to agree with any and all sources that might be of use to you in support of your entirely predictable claims.


Taliban, YOUR OWN source agrees with MY original estimate. Is this hard to understand, or are you deliberately being obtuse?

Btw, I don't know what "nonoUNme" is supposed to mean.

Do you have any dignity left? Just bow your head in shame and wonder off already,.. you have been defeated resoundingly.


Oh, for Crissakes --is there no end to your maunderings?

Give it up, nonoUNme, your desperate wrigglings become more and more and more incomprehensibly fantastic. Pretty soon you'll be claiming some wierd shit like the oil spillage has primarily occurred upon the dark side of the Moon or in the orbit of Venus or something equally and outrageously untrue.

STFU already.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Now, you're just being ridiculous,.. venus?, really?,... there is evidence that more oil exists in the orbit of mercury than is caused by oil rigs on earth, yes obviously, but not venus!

Besides, you just need to learn how to appreciate and enjoy the beautiful and colourful oil slicks that nature, by way of man, has given you. Admit it, they're like a wet aurora borealis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 19, 2012
Pretty soon you'll be claiming some wierd shit like the oil spillage has primarily occurred upon the dark side of the Moon or in the orbit of Venus or something equally and outrageously untrue.
As we are discovering that hydrocarbons are common throughout the solar system, we should expect to find them on the moon and even in the vicinity of venus.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 19, 2012
Yep, space dinosaurs.
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2012
Besides, you just need to learn how to appreciate and enjoy the beautiful and colourful oil slicks that nature, by way of man, has given you. Admit it, they're like a wet aurora borealis.


Yeah, like this:
http://www.google...;dur=174

or this: http://www.huffin...re220276

Yeah, nonoUnme --just like a fucking wet aurora boroilias or even maybe a shitbow? Probably a good preview of what your head will look like if --or when-- you pull it out.

You are quite the card, moron.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 19, 2012
Those pictures weren't taken at the right angle.
Caliban
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2012
Those pictures weren't taken at the right angle.


Nah --that's just you viewing them through rectum-tinted glasses.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.