BP Oil Disaster Photos. Not for animal lovers or bairns

[Dog-eared]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25926.htm

[_Ju_]

I disagree with the title you gave this thread, dog-eared.I will make sure my 8 year old sees this footage and will answer his questions as best I can. As an animal lover I will look at every picture of animals suffering, as should every animal/nature/ocean lover. Just maybe that way we can learn the cost of petrol even while it's price pinches our pockets.
What worries me is that while there is an ocean between here and there, with unimaginable volumes of sea water, the ammount of oil being spilled is huge and there is a super highway direct to europe from there: the gulf stream. Will it really be an "american disaster" or how soon will it become global?

[annthracks]

More thicko imbeciles calling it "BP's oil slick"

[Rheghead]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25926.htm

Thank you for highlighting such a horrible consequence of human behavior. It is far too easy for us to fill our cars with fuel without a care for the bigger picture. Put it simply, as accidents DO happen then there is 100% certainty that we will cause suffering to animals and damage to the environment by simply enjoying the freedom of a car. Society needs to change but changing as individuals is hard if not impossible.

I am just wondering if one of Caithness's petrol station owners will insist on Dog-eared's link removed?

[badger]

There's no doubting the size of the oil spill disaster but it seems a bigger one is being ignored in the US, at least according to this
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/08/opinion/la-oe-polakovic-20100708

and don't forget the plastic island
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

We have overfished the seas to such an extent that soon many will have no life.

Yet we go blithely on, destroying the earth.

[Dog-eared]

I wonder what could be done if the oil spill meets the Gulf Stream and starts heading for the West coast of Britain and elsewhere in the Atlantic .


http://s4.hubimg.com/u/156851_f260.jpg

[The Drunken Duck]

If people think the OP's thread is disturbing then frankly they have led sheltered lives. And quite frankly the hand wringing "We're killing the planet" hysteria is a bit over the top in my view. Mother Nature gave us the Bot Fly, Camel Spider, Box Jellyfish and the Ebola virus as well as many other nasties. She is hardly all cuddly panda's, birds of paradise and sweetness and light is she ??

And where do Greenpeace think the Diesel that powers their ships come from ?? ..thin air ??

[Rheghead]

And where do Greenpeace think the Diesel that powers their ships come from ?? ..thin air ??

It is sail powered for 90% of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2upN9aXnhY

[The Drunken Duck]

It is sail powered for 90% of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2upN9aXnhY

That one is. The one that shadowed a rig that I was on a few years back that was under tow wasn't. It was making a nice smoky plume.

Any Organisation that protests an activity that they use the products from are a bunch of hypocrites in my book, be that 1%, 10% or 100%.

Its like saying your Vegetarian. But only 90% of the time.

[Amy-Winehouse]

It is sail powered for 90% of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2upN9aXnhY


That ship is an exception, I dont particulary like any of those pictures & hopefully that never happens up here(the 50 gallon spill from Beatrice made a mess) So I could only imagine how horrific it is over there.

If only America was more into energy saving than it is at present.........

[Rheghead]

That one is. The one that shadowed a rig that I was on a few years back that was under tow wasn't. It was making a nice smoky plume.

Any Organisation that protests an activity that they use the products from are a bunch of hypocrites in my book, be that 1%, 10% or 100%.

Its like saying your Vegetarian. But only 90% of the time.

The two previous ships were built and acquired well before the growing body of evidence of climate change was gained and well before some of the most disastrous environmental disaters. Yes you can flippantly make the charge of hypocrisy but Greenpeace is a voluntary funded environment campaigning organisation which has been targeted by state-sponsored terrorism. And it isn't hypocritical to buy a ship that is one of the greenest operating ships on the seas. It would be silly to make the charge of hypocrisy to someone lobbying government for more green energy and less packaging when he has driven to Westminster and put the kettle on for his morning brew knowing that it is fuelled by coal and eaten a breakfast meal from a throwaway carton and being intent on changing one's lifestyle.

I also see no hypocrisy in cutting more meat out of one's diet for the sake of reducing one's impact on the environment regardless of how you want to label yourself.

[Dog-eared]

http://www.dump.com/wp-content/uploads/DO-NOT-PASTE-THIS-URL-ON-ANY-FORUM-BLOG-OR-WEBSITE--LINK-WILL-CEASE-TO-BE-FUNCTIONAL-SHORTLY--PLEASE-LINK-ONLY-TO-URLS-CONTAINED-IN-THE-ADDRESS-BAR--CODE-48918279417/logo-500x587.jpg

[The Drunken Duck]

The two previous ships were built and acquired well before the growing body of evidence of climate change was gained and well before some of the most disastrous environmental disaters. Yes you can flippantly make the charge of hypocrisy but Greenpeace is a voluntary funded environment campaigning organisation which has been targeted by state-sponsored terrorism. And it isn't hypocritical to buy a ship that is one of the greenest operating ships on the seas. It would be silly to make the charge of hypocrisy to someone lobbying government for more green energy and less packaging when he has driven to Westminster and put the kettle on for his morning brew knowing that it is fuelled by coal and eaten a breakfast meal from a throwaway carton and being intent on changing one's lifestyle.

I also see no hypocrisy in cutting more meat out of one's diet for the sake of reducing one's impact on the environment regardless of how you want to label yourself.

I never said it was hypocritical to buy a green ship. I said it was hypocritical to sail round the world using fuel that came from the very operation they are having a hissy fit about.

Greenpeace have been protesting drilling for years in ships powered by the very product of the activity they complain about, the knowledge or lack of, climate change at the time does not change the fact of that one whit. They campaign against drilling in vessels powered by the very product that they are against. And I am pretty sure they knew that when they bought them. Just like they knew that Drilling for Oil runs enviromental risks. It isnt flippant to point that out, but then your reaction to it just proves that a nerve has been struck. Struck a bit close to the nerve I reckon.

In our case they got on VHF Channel 16, which is a Marine Emergency channel, spouting drivel at me in the Radio Room. When told that if they wanted to talk to go to another channel of their choosing they refused. CH 16 can be used to make contact with a vessel (as we all monitor it) but it isnt for talking on unless in an Emergency. When given the cold shoulder they twice entered the standard 200m exclusion zone of a rig under tow and came close to getting between us and the tugs towing the rig and fouling the lines. Bunch of cowboys.

I actually used to support them as I was right behind a lot of their other causes but after those actions, and the abuse from the oxygen thief on the radio, I withdrew my support.

Anyway I am off now, said my piece and I dont believe in flogging a dead horse.

[Rheghead]

I never said it was hypocritical to buy a green ship. I said it was hypocritical to sail round the world using fuel that came from the very operation they are having a hissy fit about.

Greenpeace have been protesting drilling for years in ships powered by the very product of the activity they complain about, the knowledge or lack of, climate change at the time does not change the fact of that one whit. They campaign against drilling in vessels powered by the very product that they are against. And I am pretty sure they knew that when they bought them. Just like they knew that Drilling for Oil runs enviromental risks. It isnt flippant to point that out, but then your reaction to it just proves that a nerve has been struck. Struck a bit close to the nerve I reckon.

In our case they got on VHF Channel 16, which is a Marine Emergency channel, spouting drivel at me in the Radio Room. When told that if they wanted to talk to go to another channel of their choosing they refused. CH 16 can be used to make contact with a vessel (as we all monitor it) but it isnt for talking on unless in an Emergency. When given the cold shoulder they twice entered the standard 200m exclusion zone of a rig under tow and came close to getting between us and the tugs towing the rig and fouling the lines. Bunch of cowboys.

I actually used to support them as I was right behind a lot of their other causes but after those actions, and the abuse from the oxygen thief on the radio, I withdrew my support.

Anyway I am off now, said my piece and I dont believe in flogging a dead horse.

But then being a part of the industry which is responsible for oil spills then I'd expect you to take that tone. But thank you for giving us an account of the depth of conviction for environmental issues that Greenpeace has to make them go to such lengths to raise the profile of the environmental problems caused by drilling. I could not have put it better myself the shameless indifference and contempt that you and your employers have for the environment.

[Rheghead]

It looks like BP has been buying up the boffins to assist them in any legal wrangle.

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

[Mad1man]

This may be a strange question to some but It has been stuck in my mind for a while and the answers I've found are all suitably vague, but, who granted the license to BP to drill in the first place and which country was closest to hope for jobs and wealth creation from the drilling and possible bringing to shore of the product - Oh - Could it be that the USA was partly involved in all of this . As my granny would say, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap", or, "methinks the lady doth protest too much"

[onecalledk]

If only America was more into energy saving than it is at present.........[/quote]

America has no intention of being energy saving, the greed increases daily, americans as a whole consume more per head of population than any other country in the world. They are driven by greed and money.

Energy saving doesnt make money therefore will never happen. America is a like a huge out of control monster leaving desolation in its wake. The oil spill is just one example. The consequences of this oil spill will go on for decades. It cant NOT affect the rest of the world. When you start killing off the mammals in the ocean you disturb the ecology of the entire planet.

The pollution in the water will not be confined to just off the coastline of america, the ocean knows no boundaries, water doesnt just stop and say ok thats the altantic , i am the pacific so I wont move forward, the ocean covers the entire planet!

We eat fish for example, how do we know its not contaminated ? we cant know that , for the very reason above........

America= money, greed, destruction .....

This is far far wider than just the petrol you put in your car ........

K

[oldmarine]

The USA is paying the price for their greed for oil. It will get much worse before it gets better. Ever since the end of WW2 the US of A has tried to fight other country's battles. I have began to believe like some of my compatriots: pull our troops back from all over the world and defend our own borders. Quit trying to defend other country's borders. It has become too costly and has alienated the world against the US of A.