• BullionStar
    05/30/2016 - 21:24
    The US Gold Market is best known as the home of gold futures trading on the COMEX in New York. The COMEX has a literal monopoly on gold futures trading volumes worldwide, but very little physical...

The Government is Dealing with the Oil Spill Like the Soviets Dealt with Chernobyl

George Washington's picture

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 18:45 | 513842 Fishhawk
Fishhawk's picture

Please note that we will not be 'dealing with' the other 80% of the oil.  It is dispersed enough that we have no way of recovering it.  Nature will deal with it, through normal boidegradation processes, but not until ocean currents bring it nearer the surface.  There is little danger to Gulf shore residents from the remaining oil.  The concentrations of crude components and Corexit components are now too low for immediate toxic effects; the long term impact will express in bioaccumulation, toxicity to eggs and larvae stages of the reproductive cycle.  The  longer the plume of dispersed oil stays far offshore and deep, the less biological effect it will have.  But wherever it goes next, the only effective treatment left for it is biodegradation, which will occur quite quickly in warm, shallow, re-aerated water.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 21:00 | 514189 VWbug
VWbug's picture

does anyone see the damage the doomsters caused to the real story here, like how much dispersant was used, and what effect it will have?

By promoting and focusing on outrageous theories such as lakes of oil etc etc, they have discredited all of the legitmate complaints.

If they even noticed, I bet the BP execs were thrilled to see the story sidetracked to all the nonsensical possible disaster scenarios and away from the realistic ones.

makes me wonder if the real BP shills aren't GW and his cohorts...hey now there's a theory    : )

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 21:36 | 514240 George Washington
George Washington's picture

I wrote these two essays to try to re-focus away from wild theories and onto facts:

I have also have written a tremendous amount about dispersants, so your dichotomy is false.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 21:33 | 514236 George Washington
George Washington's picture

[Deleted, duplicate.]

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:41 | 513532 tahoebumsmith
tahoebumsmith's picture

Amazing how the shill roaches come running back out of their cracks everytime GW turns the light back on? Hey ROACHES..you're supposed to hate the light so beat it!!! Time will prove GW is correct once again because the amount of oil we have dealt with thus far is probably only around 20%!! YUP 20% ...Great Job GW!

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:18 | 514342 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Who is paying you now that Matt Simmons is deceased?  I suppose the estate is still interested in profits from the shorts.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:12 | 513461 AR15AU
AR15AU's picture

George Washington beating a dead horse like a 9/11 truther...

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:22 | 513492 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

So you just walk away, questions unanswered, lessons not learned?

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:16 | 514337 Augustus
Augustus's picture

So far YOU are the only one who has suggested just walking away.  Which government agency did you find that is advocating that?

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 23:20 | 514438 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Actually "walking away" is implied with "[...] beating a dead horse like a 9/11 truther...". Nor is there any mention of a gov't agency, but I guess that could be inferred since there is, after all, an "official" government approved explanation of 9/11.

Maybe it is just short-attention-span theater. Nothing to see here, move along.


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:41 | 513375 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

1 each - Floyd, Pink - "Wish You Were Here"

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?
Blue skies from pain?
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cold breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl
Year after year
Running over the same old ground
What have we found?
The same old fears
Wish you were here


Ain't reality a bitch?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick

"The Kurtz character construct was way ahead of the reality curve - we're just waiting for the options to run out." UR

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:37 | 513366 Fishhawk
Fishhawk's picture

In the 60's Rudy Woerner patented a 'Complete Mixed Extended Aeration' process for treating toxic organics by biodegradation.  The plant he built biodegraded 20,000 pounds per day of formaldehyde, which is quite toxic (the poison found in all the temporary housing provided by FEMA after the katrina disaster; used in preserving biological specimens, etc).  The key was to immediately dilute the poison to final treatment levels, and provide enough oxygen for the aerobic bacteria.  The process required some 2000 horsepower of mechanical aerators, but it works very well.  

The problem with the 'dispersed' crude oil is that it is not dispersed for biodegradation purposes, and there is no mechanical process for re-aeration, so biodegradation is not occurring at a significant rate for the deep-dispersed oil: it is still out there, wandering around in a huge cloud/current, and will drift/settle for years, as the biological processes are very slow in the cold deep. 

As to the 'it evaporated' story, all crude oil has a boiling point curve, but for even the lightest crudes, less than 25% is subject to evaporation at environmental conditions.  The heavier components, paraffins, asphaltines, and larger polycyclenes, must be broken down to lighter components before they can be evaporated (or metabolized).  So the crude did not evaporate.

The government propaganda is exactly what you would expect: 'you don't see it, therefore it is gone, move along sheeple, there is nothing to see here.'  There is no question that had all this oil washed up on the Gulf shores, BP would have suffered immensely more for the public outrage and obvious damage, expressed in huge fines and vast physical cleanup costs.  Whether the Gulf suffers more from dispersed oil is a question that will not be answered for several years, during which time the sheeple can be distracted by more pressing social issues.  So using dispersant was a clear win for the government (and BP), but was a toss-up in terms of damage to the Gulf ecosystem.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:14 | 514332 Augustus
Augustus's picture

You started out on the right track.

Then you leap to a claim of poison.  There is some oil component that occurs naturally in the waters of the GoM.  After dilution, the oil from the BP leak will not make much difference in the normal background level.  If it does triple it will still not be at a dangerous level for humans.  To the extent that the asphalt components disperse and settle on the bottom of the deep GoM they will have very little effect on anything as they will soon become a part of the silt and be buried.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:34 | 513511 VWbug
VWbug's picture

during which time the sheeple can be distracted by more pressing social issues

yes, when what we should all be doing is evacuating the gulf!

'I recommend you panic'- (love that line!)


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:55 | 513413 Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Excellent post Fishhawk. Thanks for the friendly sciencing. ;)

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:30 | 513343 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Is anyone really surprised at this?



[crickets chirping]



Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:26 | 513330 pizzgums
pizzgums's picture

yes there are lies.  GW tells most of them.

Anyone want to take a crack at the amount of annual natural seepage in the GoM?

Nah, didn't think so.


How about the annual dead zone in the GoM from farm runoff, every year and larger than the spill? Right now it's the size of Connecticut, this very second. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? George?


Nah, didn't think so.


Being a little selective in hyping our choices of disasters are we, GW ?


GW = Great Whiner

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:21 | 513483 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

amount of annual natural seepage in the GoM?

annual dead zone in the GoM from farm runoff, every year and larger than the spill?

There's this technology called 'hyperlinks' that you should investigate. 

If you can sort that out without assistance, please continue your research further into the matter of 'redundant hard carriage returns.'

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:34 | 513355 George Washington
George Washington's picture

A 20-year petroleum geologist - with 13 years spent in offshore exploration in the Gulf of Mexico - "gasmiinder" noted:

Mapping of natural methane seeps is required as part of the process of obtaining a drilling permit in the Gulf of Mexico. This is required because the "methane seep communities" are considered environmental "havens" as it were - you have to demonstrate you're not disturbing the critters. [My comment: There are ecosystems which can thrive around small natural seeps. But huge gushers like the BP blow out can kill everything in sight, especially given the large amounts of methane which have spewed from BP's well]. The process does not measure the rate of seepage but you would have some guess based on the areal extent of the communities. This report is filed with the MMS and should be available. I'm surprised and enterprising reporter hasn't requested a copy from the MMS. (Of course enterprising reporter might be an oxymoron in the modern era)


I attended a scientific talk about 20 years ago where the study results estimated about 1 million barrels of oil a year seep into the Gulf from natural seeps. Of course that is spread over a huge area on an entire year.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 17:44 | 513705 pizzgums
pizzgums's picture

There's more than methane seeping, lots of good old petroleum comes up in copious quantities quite naturally.  That normal seepage, reported by a fisherman whose nets were being fouled (that's a lot of oil naturally seeping) is how Pemex figured out the Bay of Campeche was an elephant field.


So natural seepage of hydrocarbons in all forms is a steady and normal occurance in the GoM.  What isn't natural and is far larger and far more destructive is the farm runoff that comes down the Mississippi and into the GoM.


Every summer, a dead zone LARGER than the BP spill forms up.


Every Summer, a real dead zone. This is known by the gummint and anyone who knows about the GoM.


Do I hear anyone issuing dire consequences for fish and game from a completely un-natural occurence killing thousands of square miles -every year- ? Nah, it's not evil oil companies and pictures of birdies. It's agriculture hundreds of miles removed from the Gulf using it as their sewer. There's nothing to take pictures of, nothing visibile on a beach.

Just a huge area of oxygen deprived water that supports no life at all.

Every year.  This year it's the size of Connecticut.


Do we hear anything about this real ongoing disaster? Nope.

It doesn't have spectacular visuals so it's not important.


GW, where are you on this disaster that is orders of magnitudes larger than the BP spill?

Macondo is nothing compared to this. Nothing. Try letting Macondo run for 20 years and you might start to get close.

And what do we hear from our self-appointed guardians of all things right and good?

{crickets and light breeze ruffling the leaves, that's all}


Play to your adoring crowd, you're just part of the distracting bread and circuses too, GW.

With your end of the world scenarios that don't play out in reality, you've been suckered too.  Too bad...

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:41 | 513372 VWbug
VWbug's picture

george, listen to me buddy!  I'm tellin ya, if you want a dream disaster scenario to 'discuss', look into the volcano under yellowstone.

seriously, it's there and it's massive.

I just read about it in Bill Bryson's brief History of Nearly Everything (great book BTW).

makes oil spills look like picnics.

get on it man.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:07 | 514325 Augustus
Augustus's picture


should I be more concerned about Yellowstone,

or the gamma ray flare from the sun?

I cannot aford to prepare for both of them.  Which one will occur first?  Will Geo Wash do a good job on making the tests necessary to tell me which one will come first?  Anything about it on God Like Productions?

Wed, 08/11/2010 - 01:00 | 514585 VWbug
VWbug's picture

I dunno Augie so my plan is to live it up in the meantime.

(do I need to use the sarcasm on and off stuff since I am new here, i thought i was being pretty obvious?)

I've heard about godlike productions on TOD, i have no desire to check it out, i can only imagine ...life's too short.


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 14:32 | 513099 spekulatn
spekulatn's picture

I'm still trying to figure out why the name Obama Admin. is not mentioned once in GW's long ass cut/pastee here. 

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 12:42 | 512843 Windemup
Windemup's picture


Where has all the Oil gone?
Long time passing
Where has all the Oil gone?
Long time ago
Where has all the Oil gone?
Dump Corexit all a long
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Moved to Memphis every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone to beaches clean up crews every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the sea birds gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the sea birds gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the sea birds gone?
Dead and gone every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to BP's beck and call
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Covered with Oil every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 12:09 | 512771 Grand Supercycle
Grand Supercycle's picture

SP500 important chart update :


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 12:05 | 512756 Ripped Chunk
Ripped Chunk's picture

Cover it up. Deny benefits to the dead, sick & ruined. SOP.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 10:19 | 512483 digalert
digalert's picture

Why do you think Obama's science czar John Holdren, a population control advocate is in the White House? hmmm


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 14:40 | 513138 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

gasmiinder is reading but not posting on a topic where he has nothing of value to offer.  If this is a request for an opinion I'll reiterate my oft stated concern that the REAL concern was ALWAYS what's going on at depth with the application of dispersant in ways we've never done and where that oil is going.  I still believe that and I've seen nothing in the gov't releases that suggests they are trying to determine it before declaring the "all clear".

I will take this opportunity however to point out that at this point everything I DID say with carefully laid out technical reasons would appear to have been correct while GW's and your fear-mongering hysteria was not.  No methane clouds, no volcanoes, no 100,000 psi pressures, no leaks in the wellbore, no tsunamis, no magically disappearing casing and no secret well blow-out miles away.  It was all bullshit - and EVERY post I made was an attempt to share actual TECHNICAL FACTS about why those fears were overblown.  I defy you to find ONE post that could credibly be called a defense of BP - I know I know that is just evidence in your universe that I was defending them, can't argue with that logic.  

Knowledge is power dude - fear is the mind killer.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:25 | 513328 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Hi gasmiinder,

I have never endorsed any theories of methane clouds, volcanoes, 100,000 psi, or tsunamis.

I have always been agnostic about well blow-out miles away (I have always said I have no idea whether this is true; and recently posted that I haven't seen any evidence at all for that theory).

As to leaks in the wellbore, here's recent news:


On August 6th, BP's Kent Wells was asked at a briefing how much cement was pumped into the well as part of the static kill process. wells responded:

Kent Wells: We pumped just a little over 500 barrels of cement down the casing. We talked — I think it was roughly about 200 barrels into the formation and the rest remained in the casing.

(audio here.)

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:03 | 514315 Augustus
Augustus's picture

There have to be leaks in the well bore.  That is how the oil gets into it.  And the oil and mud and cement went back into those "leaks" that were producing the oil.  I don't understand how they know exactly where the mud or cement went when they just pumped it into the top of the BOP.  But that is the story.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:39 | 513369 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

GW - see above.  You will note that I did not SPECIFICALLY accuse YOU of having endorsed those theories - for the reasons I state above.   That doesn't mean the threads of the last few months were not wrapped up in that crap.  Further your posts were, as I said, echo chamber masterpieces - "here let me just tell you what THE EXPERTS are saying" but I don't have an opinion..........

It's disingenuous at best.  And for the commentors I replied to above to pretend that the threads of the last few months where I spent significant effort explaining the SCIENCE of why the fear-mongering was absurd, only to be attacked for being a shill (for not defending BP), were not pushing that irrational bullshit is absurd.

Also (back to what I prefer THE SCIENCE) - the Kent Wells comment does not mean there was a wellbore leak, you would pump cement in to the formation.  That's what you're trying to plug after all, there is nothing in the comment you quote to suggest otherwise - I don't have time now to listen to the audio but unless something more specific was said I would not interpret that to mean there was an uphole leak.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 23:18 | 514430 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

How about some examples:


 "I am not saying that the well has been gushing oil since February (although oil industry expert Matthew Simmons says that the amount of oil leaking from the riser and blowout preventer since April 20th does not account for the massive oil plumes observed in the Gulf).  What I am saying is that the well may have lost structural integrity and stability as early as February."

"Oil industry expert Matthew Simmons also puts the number above one billion barrels (see this Bloomberg interview, for example, where he says that - unless stopped - 120,000 barrels a day will leak for 25-30 years; that adds up to 1,095,000,000 to 1,314,000,000 barrels)."

"Moreover, higher volumes of oil and gas might change the pressure of materials gushing out of the leaking well."

"Tremendous quantities of methane are being emitted by the Gulf oil spill.

The methane could kill all life in large areas of the Gulf."

"There is speculation on the Web that the methane being released from the oil spill will cause a tsunami or a firestorm.

It is true that one scientist speculates  that methane bubbles released from the seafloor have caused extinction-level events in the past."

"Moreover,  former President Bill Clinton told CNN on Sunday (starting 3:13 into video) that he has looked into the issue, and that a nuke is not needed. He said the Navy can use conventional explosives to seal the well. As the former commander-in-chief, Clinton is probably getting such information from someone high up in the Navy."

"numerous industry experts have warned that there is no upside to temporarily capping the well as part of the well integrity test, and that it might actually cause the well to blow out"

"Score one for Mr. Rockford!  I retract and apologize:

Corexit was used in the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

Note: Kerry Kennedy claimed on CNN that almost all of the cleanup crew working on the Exxon Valdez oil spill are now dead, and that the average life expectancy for an Exxon Valdez oil spill worker is around 51 years, 26.9 fewer years than the average American.

I wrote to Dr. Ricki Ott - marine toxicologist who has repeatedly spoken out for the health of gulf cleanup workers and wildlife - to ask whether Kennedy's statement was correct.

I received the following reply from Dr. Ott's personal assistant:

Ms. Kennedy was mistaken." NOTE THAT after this comment GW took the opportunity to REPOST the same unsubstantiated accusations later with ANOTHER equivocation about their validity.....


Now before you (or GW) go to the trouble to research all those quotes I will STIPULATE that most of them are from posts which also contained "weasel" statements up to and including complete disavowals at some point in the post.  But the memes were being pushed and the follow on discussions were pushing them aggressively.  My opinions re: GW's approach were described early on here #450622, my posts have ALL been about TECHNICAL FACTS and example of which is #458425.  Yet long after that post GW & others continued to push the utterly impossible nonsense debunked there.  Not once have you or Cognitive Dissonance or Tree of Liberty or Gecko argued with any of those facts or shown that they were distorted to make a political point or that they were in any way a defense of BP.  In fact GW has been quite happy to use my posts as technical evidence.

No your arguments have been ad hominem attack and accusations about being in the pay of BP.  Let's review your stated rationale for assuming someone is an unethical liar:

1) they post facts

2) they are articulate

3) they do not feel the need to pontificate on items of which they know nothing.

4) they aggressively criticize BP

According to Wang 1-3 are FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH THE ZH EXPERIENCE and 4 is somehow evidence that one is employed by BP.



Tue, 08/10/2010 - 23:02 | 514408 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

Yes Wang - you are beginning to get it.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:35 | 513361 VWbug
VWbug's picture

I dunno about you gasminder but I take it as a huge win for the rational thinkers here that wang, ms creant, cog diss and even GW are now as critical of Simmons' wacky theories as we always were.

no sense pointing to posts that clearly show otherwise, they are surely all 'misinformation' planted by, well,  you know who...

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:28 | 513339 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

Please Wang.  Are you going to maintain that GW was not pumping the incredible fear-mongering?  That you and others were not screaming that anyone who pointed out that these things were not rational fears were shills and BP defenders?  What GW did was to cut and paste the wildest, most irrational accusations and then basically say "I dunno - just saying, Matt Simmons oil industry expert must be credible"  Then watch while the comment strings ran around in gibbering fear attacking any rational voice as "shills".  That's what occurred.  If you are going to maintain that he was not pushing that crap I don't know what you were reading the last few months.  He is quite astute at the echo-chamber game - put it out there while carefully parsing his statements so he can claim "I never said that".  It's a pathetically low level of integrity to pretend now that his posts weren't pushing those memes.


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 22:16 | 514331 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

Wang - bs flag buddy.  I did not accuse GW of supporting those accusation.  Reread the post.  What I did was associate you and GW with those accusations in EXACTLY the style you are defending when practiced by GW.  Further there was absolutely nothing angry about the post.  Finally - the GW approach on this topic has been the echo-chamber as I have repeatedly stated - he has posted a huge number of cut-n-pastes that push these concepts aggressively with one or two lines of equivocations so crawfishing is an option.

  Please try to be articulate, I know you feel it is unbecoming in a ZH thread but it will help with the communication.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:13 | 513463 MayIMommaDogFac...
MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

He is quite astute at the echo-chamber game - put it out there while carefully parsing his statements so he can claim "I never said that".

Your cover is SO BLOWN.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:46 | 513374 George Washington
George Washington's picture

Here's the first time I mentioned Simmons' claim:

I have no idea whether or not Simmons is right. The government should immediately either debunk or admit his claim.

That's from this article:

Prominent Oil Industry Insider: "There's Another Leak, Much Bigger, 5 to 6 Miles Away"

Do you consider that "pushing that crap"? The scientific method is to either confirm or deny a hypothesis through experimentation.  But the government never said "we've piloted ROVs all over the area, there's no second leak, here's the video ... look for yourself". 

Instead, it's been cover up, cover up, cover up...


Tue, 08/10/2010 - 20:22 | 514100 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Yeah, I consider it "pushing that crap."

There was no leak seven miles away to cover up.

The BOP did not blow off of the well so there was no method of covering that up.

There was no methane bubble so they did not cover that up.

There was no crack in the granite in the GoM so they did not have to cover that up.

There are countless oil seeps in the GoM and they TOLD you that.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:28 | 513499 VWbug
VWbug's picture

even the government has better things to do than waste time shooting down straw men set up by morons

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 11:34 | 512687 aheady
aheady's picture

Their work is finished apparently.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 11:48 | 512720 VWbug
VWbug's picture

i'd like to reply but I'm off to cash my shill check from my employer the Corporation for Intelligent Analysis (bolding for the slower types)

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 12:45 | 512849 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture


Doesn't even measure up to the low life expectations demanded of a shill. Is that a compliment or a diss? :>)

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 13:42 | 512950 VWbug
VWbug's picture

sorry, i'd really like to post long tracts of meaningless drivel regarding my personal problems and inane theories, hoping to get approval from anonymous internet boards, but there seems to be a lot of that here already

: )

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 13:52 | 512967 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

OK, OK. You've just been upgraded to shill. Satisfied?

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 14:30 | 513088 gasmiinder
gasmiinder's picture

Wang and Cog Diss are the official ZH sanctioneers of shill VW so you can now be happy.  Keep in mind their definition - speaking facts, articulate posts and failing to post drivel on topics where you have no expertise are the three critical elements for a definition of shill.  Wear the badge with pride.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 15:43 | 513383 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

You know, the idea that non-experts are incapable of rational thought is pretty insulting when you think about it. I don't have any degrees in anything. However, I do understand what evaporation is. So maybe you can fill me in. When oil evaporates, what happens to it? Does it leave a little tar residue, or does it condense and precipitate? What of the chemical cocktail? The MSM would have us believe that this disappeared from the universe. This clearly isn't the case. Please, what happens to oil when it evaporates?

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:07 | 513455 VWbug
VWbug's picture

I have no freakin idea what happens, and I have no idea how much, if any, evaporated. I'm a stock trader not a smart engineer type.

What I do know is a lot of zh'rs were playing up (and dare I say drooling over) (both here and on TOD) the idea that this spill would be some monumental disaster.

On TOD some incredibly patient (man those guys should get medals) knowledgeable people explained over and over again how the second leak, the oil lake, the methane bubble, the tsunami etc were not just unlikely but completely impossible.

Now these same disaster loving doomsters are scrambling to cover their asses and claim they never believed any of that nonsense, so they can pretend to have credibility when the next looney scenario presents itself.

It's fun to watch, lol.

I do find watching the doomster mind at work fascinating (and I am a long term bear).

I really think the joy of dreaming about disasters must come from the hatred of success and happiness that others have and that they lack.

Since they will never enjoy success or happiness, the dream is to bring everyone down to their nasty level of miserableness.

makes them not just sad but evil people in my mind.

But that's just my psych 101 analysis, looking forward to observing more.

Tue, 08/10/2010 - 16:41 | 513529 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

Fair enough. One last thing: Within your psych analysis, I would ask that you leave a little room for the justifiable general ill-will out there that has resulted from the overarching trend towards lower standards of living for the average human as wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few. Having said that, I'll accept what you're saying.


Last, last thing, (i promise): We're all doomed. We are all going to die. We will never survive this life or achieve immortality. We're a shit smear on unwritten books of history. Doomsters and shills alike. I just hope that y'all live well and don't hurt too many people in the process. That's what i'm shooting for. GL everybody, peace, love, harmony, yada yada...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!