BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Bobc8]

Do you think that BP should drill for oil offshore for more oil? They have already made a big enough spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Why make it worse?

[Firefox]

Unfortunately since this world is dependant on oil, the drilling will never stop.

They really need to work and allow people to use alternative fuels.....

[Bobc8]

Unfortunately since this world is dependant on oil, the drilling will never stop.

They really need to work and allow people to use alternative fuels.....

Yes I agree. I wonder if they are ever going to make a car that runs on water. If they do that would be great! But I still think they would still drill for more oil.

[Wide_Glide]

H2O Car - Water Powered Car

[DarkSnakeKobra]

No oil = No Beverly Hillbillies and spills. Alternative fuel would be awesome.

[Wide_Glide]

As long as the common denominator is

Nothing in this old world will ever change

[ShyWriter]

It's been 50 years since we put a man on the moon with just the computing power of today's-era CASIO watch...

By now, North America should be 99.9% powered by solar, hydro, wind, bio and nuclear devices. The 0.1% of the oil we then still need for uses that can't be fulfilled by the previous 5 alternatives should be coming from the Canadian Oil Shale/Sands.. And the oil producing nations that raped us for every barrel of oil we used should be choking on it while they try to eat sand.

IMHO, OC..

Moi... *bitter*?? Nah!

~Shy

[goldhound]

I worked in the processing plant at the very beginning of the Oilsands project near Ft McMurray Alberta in 1965-66. The company that began it all was "Great Canadian Oil Sands" aka "GCOS". Regardless of the name it was owned by Sun Oil, now Sunoco.

Beside the camp we were in was the Athabasca river and also nearby was a tributary, the MacKay river. We tried to swim in it once and had to dodge gobs of tar! The sandy banks of the river were full of tar also. The fishing was awesome! It had been that way for thousands of years and the environment had adapted.

Do NOT believe all you hear about how evil and dirty that project is, the reclamation they do is wonderful, leaving the area better than it was. The company is being sued by greepeace types because some ducks landed in the tailsponds and died, 1600 of them over a period of years.......at the same time the farmers in Alberta had to get special permits to shoot Ducks and Geese prior to the regular season or lose their crops to MILLIONS of Ducks and Geese.

[ShyWriter]

I worked in the processing plant at the very beginning of the Oilsands project near Ft McMurray Alberta in 1965-66. The company that began it all was "Great Canadian Oil Sands" aka "GCOS". Regardless of the name it was owned by Sun Oil, now Sunoco.

Beside the camp we were in was the Athabasca river and also nearby was a tributary, the MacKay river. We tried to swim in it once and had to dodge gobs of tar! The sandy banks of the river were full of tar also. The fishing was awesome! It had been that way for thousands of years and the environment had adapted.

Do NOT believe all you hear about how evil and dirty that project is, the reclamation they do is wonderful, leaving the area better than it was. The company is being sued by greepeace types because some ducks landed in the tailsponds and died, 1600 of them over a period of years.......at the same time the farmers in Alberta had to get special permits to shoot Ducks and Geese prior to the regular season or lose their crops to MILLIONS of Ducks and Geese.

Hi Bud,

I saw a special on one of the Discovery Channels that dealt with the Canadian Oil sands - it was said that Canadian sands/shale alone could meet the oil needs of USA and Canada for the next 200 years at the present rate of use as long as oil cost $40US or better. It's a nice backup solution but I'd still like to see my five alternatives become numbers 1-5 in solutions and use.

~Steve

[goldhound]

Hi Bud,

I saw a special on one of the Discovery Channels that dealt with the Canadian Oil sands - it was said that Canadian sands/shale alone could meet the oil needs of USA and Canada for the next 200 years at the present rate of use as long as oil cost $40US or better. It's a nice backup solution but I'd still like to see my five alternatives become numbers 1-5 in solutions and use.

~Steve

Agree totally Steve! Nothing would make me happier than to dump the total oil dependence we suffer with. BTW, there is no shale there to speak of, just tarsand. I seem to remember the oil shale being in Colorado.

Ok nuff of this thread hijack, :P

Wayne

[ShyWriter]

As long as the common denominator is

Nothing in this old world will ever change

Randy,

You might want add in small writing on the front of that $100 bill, Value Guaranteed by the People's National Bank of China! (Since they own so much of our debt )

~Steve

[Wide_Glide]

[ShyWriter]

:) :)

~Shy

PS: You do good work.. and FAST too!

[Bobc11]

I cant believe how bp wants to evacuate walruses in their disaster response plan for the gulf, but did not mention tropical weather. This is just sadness.

[ShyWriter]

More disaster in Gulf just waiting to happen.. Follow along in this topic by going to:

Gulf Awash in 27, 000 Abandoned Wells

~Shy (and minutes ago BONNIE updated to Tropical Storm...)

[Couposn]

That Gulf is a disaster They say there going to nuke it to seal it

[Bobc11]

That Gulf is a disaster They say there going to nuke it to seal it

Sure, that will only make it worse. BP= Bad people or big problem

[Wide_Glide]

Absolutely NOTHING has been stated about Nuking the Oil leak. Lets stick to the facts

WG

[Trav]

Go Go Mass Reply

As long as the common denominator is

Nothing in this old world will ever change :)

I disagree, change is one of the few constants in the world. Plus I don't really see how money is necessarily so disruptive. Yes it is a common denominator, but would we rather revert back to no longer having a common denominator and being forced to barter for goods?

Additional Musing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY

It's been 50 years since we put a man on the moon with just the computing power of today's-era CASIO watch...

By now, North America should be 99.9% powered by solar, hydro, wind, bio and nuclear devices. ...

~Shy

I'm curious what leads you to that conclusion. Why should North America be powered by such a high degree by solar, hydro, wind, and bio / nuclear devices at this point? What major advancements in the field have lead to such a static of what should be?

That Gulf is a disaster They say there going to nuke it to seal it

Not exactly. At present I have seen no records on file indicating the U.S. has any intentions of nuking anything. That was an idea suggested by Russia some time ago, but I think we rejected it. It's actually really intriguing just how they make that stuff work in Russia.

Articles On Russia's Suggestion:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010...e-oil-well.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20004828-501465.html

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/11/nuke-the-oil-well/

Breakdown of How Russia Has Resolved Some Spills With Nukes In The Past

Absolutely NOTHING has been stated about Nuking the Oil leak. Lets stick to the facts

WG

Once again, not exactly. See links and comments provided above.

[ShyWriter]

EXCERPTs from The Christian Science Monitor:

By Jeremy Hsu, LiveScience Senior Writer / May 13, 2010

Using a nuclear explosion to try to plug the gushing oil well in the Gulf of Mexico might sound like overkill, but a Russian newspaper has suggested just that based on past Soviet successes. Even so, there are crucial differences between the lessons of the past and the current disaster unfolding

The Russians previously used nukes at least five times to seal off gas well fires. A targeted nuclear explosion might similarly help seal off the oil well channel that has leaked oil unchecked since the sinking of a BP oil rig on April 22, according to a translation of the account in the daily newspaper Komsomoloskaya Pravda by Julia Ioffe of the news website True/Slant.

Weapons labs in the former Soviet Union developed special nukes for use to help pinch off the gas wells. They believed that the force from a nuclear explosion could squeeze shut any hole within 82 to 164 feet (25 to 50 meters), depending on the explosion's power. That required drilling holes to place the nuclear device close to the target wells.

A first test in the fall of 1966 proved successful in sealing up an underground gas well in southern Uzbekistan, and so the Russians used nukes four more times for capping runaway wells.

"The second 'success' gave Soviet scientists great confidence in the use of this new technique for rapidly and effectively controlling ran away gas and oil wells," according to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report on the Soviet Union's peaceful uses of nuclear explosions.

A last attempt took place in 1981, but failed perhaps because of poor positioning, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda suggested that the United States might as well take a chance with a nuke, based on the historical 20-percent failure rate. Still, the Soviet experience with nuking underground gas wells could prove easier in retrospect than trying to seal the Gulf of Mexico

[ShyWriter]

I'm curious what leads you to that conclusion. Why should North America be powered by such a high degree by solar, hydro, wind, and bio / nuclear devices at this point? What major advancements in the field have lead to such a static of what should be?

You miss the point, as well as what was implied.

If we could go to the moon in the 60's, accomplished, mind you, with the meager technology we had at that time, we should have been able to accomplish what I said in the 50 years that followed.

President Kennedy set an impossible goal - and we accomplished it in seven(?) years. IF SUCH A GOAL, "North America should be 99.9% powered by solar, hydro, wind, bio and nuclear devices. ..." by the year 2000, had been set in 1970, and funded like the space program was, we just might have achieved it.

~Shy

These sets of message forums are monitored to be ANTI-TROLL forums - trolling can, and probably will be, dealt with harshly.

[Trav]

Did the article provide any sources for its information?

Could you toss a link to it here?

[ShyWriter]

@Trav

Wasn't sure which of us you wanted a link from so here is the link to mine:

Christian Science Monitor Article

~Shy

[Trav]

You miss the point, as well as what was implied.

If we could go to the moon in the 60's, accomplished, mind you, with the meager technology we had at that time, we should have been able to accomplish what I said in the 50 years that followed.

This is where I disagree. Even the machinery of that day required gasoline to operate. Beyond that it should be noted that it isn't as if we hadn't been examining such sources of energy for use, scientists have been playing with this sort of thing for some time. The big issue however is that solar and wind energy are both inconsistent in terms of energy levels provided. Aside this point though solar power would be inappropriate for use outside of space missions and other such endeavors, it does seem that wind energy has some merits in terms of usefulness.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/solar.html

Hydrolic power and nuclear power are pretty much the only two sources of the ones you listed that have been confirmed to yield stable energy output. Both Hydrolic and nuclear energy seem to have the grave potential to be harmful to the surrounding ecosystems however.

http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/types/...o/problems.html

President Kennedy set an impossible goal - and we accomplished it in seven(?) years. IF SUCH A GOAL, "North America should be 99.9% powered by solar, hydro, wind, bio and nuclear devices. ..." by the year 2000, had been set in 1970, and funded like the space program was, we just might have achieved it.

Sure we might have, but there is no real way of knowing. I was just curious how you came to the specific stat that North America's energy needs should have been 99.9% powered by solar, hydro, wind, and bio / nuclear systems, nothing more.

~Shy

These sets of message forums are monitored to be ANTI-TROLL forums - trolling can, and probably will be, dealt with harshly.

My sincerest apologies if you have detected some level of inflammatory intent in my posts, that was hardly the purpose for which they were penned. I merely wished to analyze some of the statements in the talk thread in an effort to better assess the validness of assertions. If any staff member indicates that I am in fact trolling I shall cease and desist effective immediately.

Also, thank you for the link to the article I requested.

[IDKWatMNShouldBe]

Yes I agree. I wonder if they are ever going to make a car that runs on water. If they do that would be great! But I still think they would still drill for more oil.

Theres already cars that run on hydro, vegetable oil, solar power, electricity, and mabe more....