The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

SuperiorTackle.com
Go Back   The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum > REGIONAL BOATING & FISHING GROUPS > Gulf Coast
Search

Notices

Random Quote: Aye Johnny, have you ever been lost at sea? No Cap'n, but I've been blown ashore many atime!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-20-2010, 08:46 AM
  #61    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ga.
Posts: 207
Send a message via AIM to aquatherapy245
Default

I spent the last 2 weeks in Bayou La Batre, I was told that a local bandit boat was fishing an open area had gone out and came back empty handed because every deep drop they made their gear came up covered in oil. My first thought was if I had been on board I would have had Fox News waiting for me at the dock. The oil has to be there, The Corexit did exactly what it was intended to do. As said earlier out of sight out of mind. I also noticed that last week the decontamination station at the entrance to Bayou La Batre had been removed but it was set back up yesterday morning when I came home, that perked my curiosity
aquatherapy245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 08:51 AM
  #62    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: SE of Raleigh NC USSA
Posts: 524
Default

"we might lose species that we don't know now exist,"

Ya' gotta love "new science"...
beesouth is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 08-20-2010, 09:02 AM
  #63    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: South Georgia
Posts: 248
Default

It's at 3000 ft............
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...est=latestnews
__________________
"You Sir are Drunk"........."and you madam are ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning" - Winston Churchill
abaco24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 09:10 AM
  #64    
BannedCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abaco24 View Post
The team's observations were made during a June 19-28 scientific cruise aboard the National Science Foundation owned ship Endeavor. It was halted by the onset of hurricane Alex. Since measurements ended nearly two months ago, the scientists admit they are unsure what has happened to the plume.
"We don't know where these hydrocarbons are. We saw them in June," Reddy said.
eddy2419 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 09:38 AM
  #65    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: SE of Raleigh NC USSA
Posts: 524
Default

I sure would like to see pictures....nothing like pictures...at least until they invented photoshop....
beesouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 09:39 AM
  #66    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mobile, Al.
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Few Dollars View Post
22-mile-long oily plume mapped near BP well site

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38770508/?gt1=43001


Scientists on Thursday reported results from the first detailed study of a giant plume of oily water near the blown-out BP well stating that it measured at least 22 miles long, more than a mile wide and 650 feet tall.
While other scientists earlier found evidence of plumes in the area, the new data is the first peer-reviewed study about oil lurking in the water, in this case at some 3,000 feet below the surface.
The study this is talking about was done in June..While the oil was still flowing.

Again, I agree this has been awful for the GOM and the people who live here. No doubt.

But one thing I know for sure is, if there were "plumes of oil" to be seen, it would be all over you tube.. Every major news outlet would be playing it.. Nothing yet.. And don't tell me that they aren't trying to find it either. They are. There are BILLIONS in lawsuits riding on it...

Answer for me one question... Why print an article as if it fresh news today, when it contains "scientific studies" done in the middle of the oil release? When it was really spewing?

Every study that has been conducted today by real SCIENTIST say the oil is deteriorating.. But they are dismissed as being "paid for by BP."

Almost appears that there is an agenda... I don't know...
__________________
Mac
Hydra-Sport 212CC
macabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 09:42 AM
  #67    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mobile, Al.
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abaco24 View Post
Again, done in the middle of the spill.. June...

"The team's observations were made during a June 19-28 scientific cruise aboard the National Science Foundation owned ship Endeavor."

I would expect there to be oil during an oil release...

I will wait for these guys to return with current data.
__________________
Mac
Hydra-Sport 212CC
macabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 09:49 AM
  #68    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 165
Default

Is anyone really suprised there is subsurface oil. The same technology was applied to the well in Mexico 30 years ago only the corexit used on it was highly toxic. They have reformulated the corexit several times since then. I hate to inform you that I have personally caught a whole bunch of fish out of the Gulf after that incident in Mexico and will do the same after this one. Since the source has been removed nature will eventually do the rest. It is time for people to use a little common sense. It was not very long ago that ships were allowed to discharge overboard. Had a ton of oil in the water then too. Swam in it, ate fish from it and trust me ship oils at that time were full of PCBs and Solvents. It didn't kill the gulf, atlantic, pacific, anything. Oil, especially straight from the formation, is something that occurs and nature can handle it with time. Go catch some fish.
Greno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 11:33 AM
  #69    
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 53,980
Default

http://biggovernment.com/rbluey/2010...lf-oil-report/


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s controversial report on the Gulf oil spill was not finished when the White House chose to release it, a government scientist told congressional investigators.

The Obama administration hyped the estimates at an Aug. 4 press briefing with White House energy czar Carol Browner and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. The report immediately sparked controversy among scientists for the rosy projection that three-quarters of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico had disappeared.

Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA and an author of the report, told congressional investigators that data supporting the study is still unavailable and the peer review remains unfinished. Lehr also said the decision to release the report was made by the White House, not the government’s lead science agency for oil spills.

A spokesman for NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.

The government report instantly made headlines for the astonishing conclusion that approximately 75 percent of the oil had been collected, burned, skimmed or simply disappeared. Given the magnitude of the spill — the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history — some scientists concluded it was premature to draw such conclusions.
__________________
Question for brewhead
Realscreamer69
Which idiot told you that CO2 only makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere?
Brockville
AND .50 kwh IS A GOOD PRICE, BUT I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT
mronzo
Hey "Mr. Economist" These companies make BILLION$ and can certainly afford to pay workers more!
RedBank Steve
I'm anything but a racist. Why can't they hire a few AMERICANS here and there. Oh, that's right, they might have to pay them a living wage. Sorry about that.
Don't ask me how I know. I just do.
Colbachlaw
9 of the 10 hottest years for the entire planet have been in the last 10 years. Do the math, if you can.
A Few Dollars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 03:57 PM
  #70    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mobile, Al.
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Few Dollars View Post
http://biggovernment.com/rbluey/2010...lf-oil-report/


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s controversial report on the Gulf oil spill was not finished when the White House chose to release it, a government scientist told congressional investigators.

The Obama administration hyped the estimates at an Aug. 4 press briefing with White House energy czar Carol Browner and NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. The report immediately sparked controversy among scientists for the rosy projection that three-quarters of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico had disappeared.

Bill Lehr, a senior scientist at NOAA and an author of the report, told congressional investigators that data supporting the study is still unavailable and the peer review remains unfinished. Lehr also said the decision to release the report was made by the White House, not the government’s lead science agency for oil spills.

A spokesman for NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.

The government report instantly made headlines for the astonishing conclusion that approximately 75 percent of the oil had been collected, burned, skimmed or simply disappeared. Given the magnitude of the spill — the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history — some scientists concluded it was premature to draw such conclusions.
Again, conjecture. When there are actual test conducted and video of this submerged oil, I'll buy it. Right now you have some saying it's gone and some saying it's there.

I will stand in the corner of science. Science that is proven. What have we learned so far? The majority of the oil can't be found. If it could be, they would... Scientific testing has shown that the fish and shellfish are safe to eat. The fish tested showed no ill effects.. None. Water samples have been shown to be safe for people to be in. Again, scientific testing says it is okay.

What will it be like in a year? 2 years? 5 years? I don't know. But they will keep testing.

Again all of the things I mentioned above were settled through science. Actual testing. These guys that are saying were all doomed have ZERO evidence to back up their claim. ZERO. No pictures. No video.. No scientific experiments. Nothing. Just people being people. Trying to be smarter than the other guy.

Look, if it is there, it is there. It either is or it is not. Take a picture of it. Video it.

This is the crap that I just don't get. Some of these people have an agenda. They would love to see every oil rig in the GOM torn down. They would nothing more than to see the oil industry collapse. They wouldn't love it so much when gasoline cost's them 8 bucks a gallon.. Maybe they wouldn't care.. I don't know.
__________________
Mac
Hydra-Sport 212CC
macabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2010, 06:11 PM
  #71    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 1,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macabear View Post
Again, conjecture. When there are actual test conducted and video of this submerged oil, I'll buy it. Right now you have some saying it's gone and some saying it's there.

I will stand in the corner of science. Science that is proven. What have we learned so far? The majority of the oil can't be found. If it could be, they would... Scientific testing has shown that the fish and shellfish are safe to eat. The fish tested showed no ill effects.. None. Water samples have been shown to be safe for people to be in. Again, scientific testing says it is okay.

What will it be like in a year? 2 years? 5 years? I don't know. But they will keep testing.

Again all of the things I mentioned above were settled through science. Actual testing. These guys that are saying were all doomed have ZERO evidence to back up their claim. ZERO. No pictures. No video.. No scientific experiments. Nothing. Just people being people. Trying to be smarter than the other guy.

Look, if it is there, it is there. It either is or it is not. Take a picture of it. Video it.

This is the crap that I just don't get. Some of these people have an agenda. They would love to see every oil rig in the GOM torn down. They would nothing more than to see the oil industry collapse. They wouldn't love it so much when gasoline cost's them 8 bucks a gallon.. Maybe they wouldn't care.. I don't know.
luna sea II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 10:25 AM
  #72    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 325
Default

all i would like to know is ,if all is good and you can eat the fish and swim in the water ,why have they not opened all of the water to fishing ?
woolyt2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 02:40 PM
  #73    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 1,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woolyt2 View Post
all i would like to know is ,if all is good and you can eat the fish and swim in the water ,why have they not opened all of the water to fishing ?
the same reason we have a 53 day snapper season with a 2 fish limit when there are more snapper than there ever been in the history of the earth: the federal government is in charge...
luna sea II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 02:53 PM
  #74    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Metairie,LA
Posts: 2,968
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luna sea II View Post
the same reason we have a 53 day snapper season with a 2 fish limit when there are more snapper than there ever been in the history of the earth: the federal government is in charge...
And if they don't open our waters up for the upcoming Oct-Nov ... Texas will burn the quota up ... they're open. We need three different areas.
REDWEISER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 03:39 PM
  #75    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mobile, Al.
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by REDWEISER View Post
And if they don't open our waters up for the upcoming Oct-Nov ... Texas will burn the quota up ... they're open. We need three different areas.
Yep...
__________________
Mac
Hydra-Sport 212CC
macabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 04:14 PM
  #76    
Admirals Club Captains Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Pensacola Beach, FL
Posts: 388
Default

I'm just a country boy, so can someone help me out here?

[quote=aquatherapy245;3169429]I spent the last 2 weeks in Bayou La Batre, I was told that a local bandit boat was fishing an open area had gone out and came back empty handed because every deep drop they made their gear came up covered in oil. My first thought was if I had been on board I would have had Fox News waiting for me at the dock. The oil has to be there, The Corexit did exactly what it was intended to do./quote]

IF
the Corexit did its job, and
IF
it is covering the bottom
WHY
can't we see it on the underwater video from the rovers. It should be 5 feet deep next to the well head.
__________________
Home of the BackUp! Pulley System
See It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 05:19 PM
  #77    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Alabama Gulf Coast
Posts: 507
Default

[quote=See It;3171810]I'm just a country boy, so can someone help me out here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquatherapy245 View Post
I spent the last 2 weeks in Bayou La Batre, I was told that a local bandit boat was fishing an open area had gone out and came back empty handed because every deep drop they made their gear came up covered in oil. My first thought was if I had been on board I would have had Fox News waiting for me at the dock. The oil has to be there, The Corexit did exactly what it was intended to do./quote]

IF
the Corexit did its job, and
IF
it is covering the bottom
WHY
can't we see it on the underwater video from the rovers. It should be 5 feet deep next to the well head.
Well, I don't really know, but it would seem to me that if the oil is sinking that it would settle into the quiet places, areas that are lower than the surrounding bottom, holes, canyons, between ridges or reefs. It is looking more and more like this isn't going to be nearly as bad as many of us have feared and I am thrilled about that, but I don't believe that much oil just went away in a few weeks.

If the story about the deep drop lines is true then somebody needs to step forward with the pictures or video. That would be important information.
nscrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 06:24 PM
  #78    
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mobile, Al.
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nscrow View Post
If the story about the deep drop lines is true then somebody needs to step forward with the pictures or video. That would be important information.
Yep... They (media) haven't been shy in doing all they can to propagate rumors and at times, flat out misinformation...

So, yea... I say show me the proof.
__________________
Mac
Hydra-Sport 212CC
macabear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 08:59 PM
  #79    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pearlington, MS
Posts: 188
Default

Just got back yesterday from about 3 months in Alaska ......... apparently the Koolaide is still being passed and enjoyed by many........

Anyway the concensus was what 4.9 million barrels spilled total. So why in the world after just a few months does everyone believe a white house released report that is UNBACKED by any data at all that states all but about 26 % of the oil just suddenly went POOF I realize people want this to all go away asap but ummm shouldnt reality kick in somewhere .... 20 some odd yrs after the valdez spill which wasnt even close to this (11 million gallons only give or take) and its STILL there easily found yet ours is miraculously gone.......

course that what 2 million gals of dispersant (which btw purpose was to make the oil SINK etc) I am sure helped it to umm cough go poof not to mention the media and white house and of course the bp spin...

I will have to go locate the article and studies but didnt they JUST release this past week or so about the IONS being found in fish etc that are connected with the dispersants used?? Someone help me on this if you still have it ?? Brother sent it to me in email but it got deleted accidently...

Last edited by Jaglet; 08-21-2010 at 09:31 PM.
Jaglet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2010, 09:00 PM
  #80    
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pearlington, MS
Posts: 188
Default USF Scientists Detect Oil on Gulf Floor

USF Scientists Detect Oil on Gulf Floor
Researchers observe evidence oil has become toxic to critical marine life.

By Vickie Chachere
USF.edu News Manager



ST. PETERSBURG (Aug. 17, 2010) University of South Florida marine scientists conducting experiments in an area of the Gulf of Mexico where clouds of oil from the BP spill were found now have discovered what appears to be oil in sediments of a vital underwater canyon and observed evidence that the oil has become toxic to critical marine organisms.

In preliminary results, the scientists aboard the R/V Weatherbird II discovered that oil-droplets are distributed on the Gulf's marine sediments in the DeSoto Canyon. The canyon is a critical area that provides nutrient-rich waters that support the spawning grounds of commercially important fish species on the West Florida Shelf.

The preliminary findings may suggest that sub-surface oil is emerging onto the West Florida Shelf though the canyon, a geologic feature located east-northeast of the Deepwater Horizon well site. To date, this is the eastern-most location for the occurrence of sub-surface oils.

Meanwhile, laboratory tests conducted aboard the Weatherbird II on the effects of oil have found that phytoplankton the microscopic plants which make up the basis of the Gulf's food web and bacteria have been negatively impacted by surface and subsurface oil. These field-based results are consistent with shore-based laboratory studies that showed phytoplankton are more sensitive to chemical dispersants than the bacteria, which are more sensitive to oil.
The observations from the scientists are pending confirmation in further laboratory tests at USF's College of Marine Science. TheWeatherbird II carrying 14 researchers and six crew members returned to St. Petersburg Monday from a 10-day research venture.

The researchers found:

Water and sediment samples from east of the Deepwater Horizon wellhead (stations DSH 8, DSH9, DSH10) and at the edge of the DeSoto Canyon (station PCB-03) on the outer continental shelf are emitting visible fluorescence when examined under UV light, resulting in signals that match BP's MC252 oil.

Excitation Emission Matrix Fluorescence Spectroscopy (EEMS) of these water samples also indicated the presence of oil-like hydrocarbons. The UV-induced fluorescence, which has been digitally photographed, resembles a dense constellation of microscopic blue stars on the sediment surface and in the filter pads.

Fluorescence continued after five hours of freezing, suggesting that the fluorescence was not caused by living organisms. Minerals or other non-oil materials may also fluoresce in this manner, requiring the samples undergo further testing through molecular organic geochemical and compound-specific isotope analyses. Those tests will allow scientists to verify whether the fluorescence was due to the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons and whether the hydrocarbons are associated with BP's oil.

Biosensor assays indicate that marine organisms, phytoplankton and bacteria, express a strong toxic response in subsurface and surface waters that show positive indicators of petroleum hydrocarbons. Two toxicity tests were employed: the Microtox Assay (SDI) and the QwikLite 200 Biosensor System (Assure Controls, Inc.) Both assays detect a toxic response as suppression of bioluminescence induced by the sample.

For Gulf samples, the dinoflagellate (QwikLite) assay indicated that the subsurface samples (the DHS08 sample taken at 275 meters depth and the PCB03 sample taken at 50 meters depth) had the greatest toxic responses followed by samples from DHS08 at 215 meters depth, PCB03 at 35 meters depth, and DHS10 at 60 meters depth.

These samples have not yet been statistically verified, yet 39 percent of the samples tested showed some degree of toxicity. DCMU/fluorometry, an indicator of phytoplankton health, confirmed that phytoplankton photosynthesis was stressed at the same stations that were determined to be toxic.

The bacterial (Microtox) assay indicated that the samples of surface waters of DHS08, DHS09, and FT1 were toxic - or 3 of the 14 stations (21.4 percent) had positive results. These field-based results are consistent with shore-based laboratory studies that showed that the dinoflagellate assay was more sensitive to dispersant than the bacterial assay which was more sensitive to oil.

- These results indicate that a further, coordinated, comprehensive study and survey is needed to determine how extensive the contamination.

The August 6-16 Weatherbird II research cruise was funded by USF's Research Foundation and led by chemical oceanographer David Hollander, biological oceanographers John Paul and Kendra Daly and geological oceanographer David Naar.
Jaglet is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

 



©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0