Monstrous underwater oil plumes found in US Gulf Coast

[DVTimes]

Scientists have found vast underwater plumes of oil, one 10 miles (16km) long and a mile wide, in the Gulf of Mexico, following last month's rig disaster.

A Georgia University expert warned oxygen levels had fallen 30% in some areas of the sea, and it could take decades to repair the damage.

BP is still trying to insert a tube into the gushing well to siphon the crude to a ship on the surface.

The US government has demanded BP make clear its commitment to pay damages.

Researchers from the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology say they have detected several sprawling oil slicks lurking just beneath the surface of the sea and at depths of 4,000ft (1,200m).

Dead zones

The find suggests the scale of the potential environmental disaster is much worse than previously feared since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig blew up on 20 April, killing 11 workers.


We've never seen anything like this before - it's impossible to fathom the impact

Professor Samantha Joye
University of Georgia


Obama: No more cosying up to oil
Samantha Joye, a marine science professor at the University of Georgia, said: "It could take years, possibly decades, for the system to recover from an infusion of this quantity of oil and gas.

"We've never seen anything like this before. It's impossible to fathom the impact."

The experts say the oxygen depletion is likely to continue, endangering sea life and raising the prospect of underwater dead zones.

The scientists said the chemical dispersants BP has been dumping underwater may be preventing the oil from rising to the top of the ocean.

Official estimates doubted

The oil giant has said the chemicals, which it began deploying on Friday, have already resulted in less oil surfacing.


BP's battle with oil leak continues
Some scientists cast doubt on official estimates of the oil flow rate, saying the widely repeated figure of 5,000 barrels per day dramatically understates the real amount.

BP has failed in its latest attempts, begun on Friday, to thread a 6in-wide (15cm) tube into a damaged oil pipe a mile beneath the surface.

Like a long straw, it is intended to slurp oil to a ship on the surface, and a stopper surrounding it would stem the leaking crude.

The tube could capture more than three-quarters of the leak; BP must also contain a smaller spill on the seabed nearby.

A week ago, BP tried to cap the well with a 100-tonne box, but gave up after it became encrusted with ice crystals.

On Saturday, the Obama administration demanded immediate clarification from BP over its commitment to pay damages for the spill.

Officials said they wanted to be sure BP would honour commitments not to limit costs to a US statutory cap of $75m (£50m).

It is not clear what prompted the letter as BP said last week the cap was irrelevant and it would settle all costs.

Mississippi has become the third US state to have oil wash up on its coast, along with Louisiana and Alabama.

The spill is threatening to eclipse the 1989 Exxon Valdez leak off Alaska as America's worst environmental disaster.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8685368.stm

[Jman]

Makes me sick to my stomach

[epitome]

So much for the oil rises to the surface theory.

This is going to cause damage to sea life far beyond what we can imagine.

[PurrrsianPussyKat]

I have no words to describe how this disaster makes me feel.

Someone needs to be held accountable, and sadly I know that will never happen.

[seeandsee]

free oil

[Hank_Heartland]

Did anyone really think we would get a clear picture of the disaster from BP

[LoveSandra]

Originally Posted by Jean-Francois

Makes me sick to my stomach

[bronco67]

We'll still have a few boneheads popping into this thread to say this it's no big deal.

[dyna mo]

call me a bonehead but i'm choosing to wait & see what the consequences are instead of jumping to conclusions.

fact is, a lot of natural seepage of oil from seabeds is common and the sea still functions.

that being said, it's more than ludicrous to allow BP to be in charge of the mess and the dispersants they are using might be of more consequence than the actual oil.

[dav3]

I like that BP is more concerned with trying to pump the escaping oil to a fucking ship, instead of trying to ensure the environment isn't being fucked up beyond repair. Fuck, it's like they think they live on a different planet or something. And how about all the fisherman and shrimpers whose livelihoods they are fucking up?

[fatfoo]

This environmental disaster is of great impact. Government is making BP pay for damages.

[dyna mo]

Here are some petro factoids that might offer some perspective - at least to non-dogmatic Environmentalists.

‘’Natural seepage of crude oil from the sea floor into the marine environment of North America exceed 47 million gallons and 180 million gallons globally.

“Activities associated with extraction and production introduce an average of 880 thousand gallons in North American waters and 11 million gallons worldwide.”

Source, “Oil in the Sea III” Committee on Oil in the Sea - National Research Council.

“Natural seeps from the earth’s undersea strata introduce about 1700 barrels of oil a day in U.S. marine waters, which is approximately 150 times the amount from offshore oil and gas activities.”

Source, “National Academy of Sciences 2003-2004.

“Natural seepage introduces 160 kilotons into North American Waters annually. Total from exploration, extraction, transportation and refining is approximately 12 kilotons.”

Source, “U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Minerals Management Service 2004.

“Activities associated with exploration and production account for 3 - 5% of all releases due to anthropogenic activity.”

Source, “Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs and Effects - National Research Council - National Academy of Science 2003”

Here are some more fun factoids.

1. More oil was spilled into the sea from shipping losses every 6 weeks of W.W.II than in the entire 65 years since the war’s end. The oceans survived.

2. The “hopane marker” of petro -chemical pollution in the sea reached it’s maximum in 1946 and has been in decline ever since.

3. In 1792-6, George Vancouver, Captain Cooke’s famous navigator made notes in his log regarding numerous, vast oil slicks off the Pacific Coast of North America. Around the middle of the 16th century Juan Cabrillo sailed through oil slicks that stretched for many miles along the California coast. Mountains of tar glistened along the shore line.

4. Over the past 20,000 years sea levels have risen more than 300 feet and the erosion caused by rising levels has increased “natural seepage.”

5.University of Ca. Santa Barbara researchers (Hardly a neo-con group) find that off shore drilling reduces natural seepage of crude oil by more than 50%.

6. 20-30 tons of oil leak from southern California fissures every day!.

7. More than 70% of anthropogenic petro/chem pollution in the sea comes from storm drains - urban run off from; parking lots, roads, asphalt roofs and millions of miles of emulsifying asphalt roads around the world.

[dav3]

You're right, so it's no big deal. Business as usual!

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Here are some petro factoids that might offer some perspective - at least to non-dogmatic Environmentalists.

??Natural seepage of crude oil from the sea floor into the marine environment of North America exceed 47 million gallons and 180 million gallons globally.

?Activities associated with extraction and production introduce an average of 880 thousand gallons in North American waters and 11 million gallons worldwide.?

Source, ?Oil in the Sea III? Committee on Oil in the Sea - National Research Council.

?Natural seeps from the earth?s undersea strata introduce about 1700 barrels of oil a day in U.S. marine waters, which is approximately 150 times the amount from offshore oil and gas activities.?

Source, ?National Academy of Sciences 2003-2004.

?Natural seepage introduces 160 kilotons into North American Waters annually. Total from exploration, extraction, transportation and refining is approximately 12 kilotons.?

Source, ?U.S. Dept. of the Interior - Minerals Management Service 2004.

?Activities associated with exploration and production account for 3 - 5% of all releases due to anthropogenic activity.?

Source, ?Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs and Effects - National Research Council - National Academy of Science 2003?

Here are some more fun factoids.

1. More oil was spilled into the sea from shipping losses every 6 weeks of W.W.II than in the entire 65 years since the war?s end. The oceans survived.

2. The ?hopane marker? of petro -chemical pollution in the sea reached it?s maximum in 1946 and has been in decline ever since.

3. In 1792-6, George Vancouver, Captain Cooke?s famous navigator made notes in his log regarding numerous, vast oil slicks off the Pacific Coast of North America. Around the middle of the 16th century Juan Cabrillo sailed through oil slicks that stretched for many miles along the California coast. Mountains of tar glistened along the shore line.

4. Over the past 20,000 years sea levels have risen more than 300 feet and the erosion caused by rising levels has increased ?natural seepage.?

5.University of Ca. Santa Barbara researchers (Hardly a neo-con group) find that off shore drilling reduces natural seepage of crude oil by more than 50%.

6. 20-30 tons of oil leak from southern California fissures every day!.

7. More than 70% of anthropogenic petro/chem pollution in the sea comes from storm drains - urban run off from; parking lots, roads, asphalt roofs and millions of miles of emulsifying asphalt roads around the world.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by dav3

You're right, so it's no big deal. Business as usual!

i'm right about what?

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by dav3

You're right, so it's no big deal. Business as usual!

It's a big deal because it's 50 miles off shore, spewing out at a crazy rate.. however you don't have to fear the World ending as it's also a natural event that happens at extreme amounts every day already.

So when the hype comes to start buying carbon footprint things, you will know it's bullshit. But this time it's going to be hard as hell to argue.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

fact is, a lot of natural seepage of oil from seabeds is common and the sea still functions.
.

You have got to be kidding.

[2MuchMark]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/...386f246c63.jpg

Palin = IDIOT

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

You have got to be kidding.

no, it's a fact.

i trust that fact much more at this point in time than i do the media.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/...386f246c63.jpg

Palin = IDIOT

there is more oil leaked into the oceans via shipping oil on oil tankers than otherwise. it would take ~200 tankers traveling across 2 oceans to make up for that oil. that's going to release more oil into the oceans than otherwise.

fact is, it was failed government policy (or lack thereof) that allowed this accident to happen.

[2MuchMark]

Found this:
Deepwater Horizon Response: Official Site of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command.
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response:
http://www.d8externalaffairs.com/go/site/2931/

[dyna mo]

[2MuchMark]

So exactly what is your point? That this oil leak is no big deal? You think the worst thing that will happen is that you'll be a little pissed off not being able to swim in the ocean at Internext Miami this summer?

Dude. That the fact that it's dumping the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez tanker every 4 days, and the fact that BP estimates it will take at least 75 Days to drill a relief well, is a major major thing to worry about. I have friends in Florida who say they can smell oil in the air now. I'll bet you that we haven't even begun to see what kind of disaster this really is. It will kill all of the life in the Gulf for STARTERS...

This is much much worse than any "natural" oil spill my friend..

[2MuchMark]

[2MuchMark]

Checkout this high res image taken April 29th by Terra satellite's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...010119_lrg.jpg

Now do you still think this shit "isn't so bad?"

[dav3]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

fact is, it was failed government policy (or lack thereof) that allowed this accident to happen.

Didn't BP pay off the government to relax the policy that would require that blow-out safety valve which would have most likely have prevented this disaster from happening?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

So exactly what is your point? That this oil leak is no big deal? You think the worst thing that will happen is that you'll be a little pissed off not being able to swim in the ocean at Internext Miami this summer?

Dude. That the fact that it's dumping the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez tanker every 4 days, and the fact that BP estimates it will take at least 75 Days to drill a relief well, is a major major thing to worry about. I have friends in Florida who say they can smell oil in the air now. I'll bet you that we haven't even begun to see what kind of disaster this really is. It will kill all of the life in the Gulf for STARTERS...

This is much much worse than any "natural" oil spill my friend..

gear down, big rig. you're so agitated you missed my post stating i am going to wait for facts.

i certainly will not rely on sensationalized media and certainly not on GFY news.

[2MuchMark]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...l-debunked.php

<i>"Natural" doesn't always mean good, despite what the marketing people would like you to believe. Arsenic, lead and mercury are as natural as can be, but you wouldn't want them in your food or your living room. Well, crude oil is also natural, but it's toxic to most living organisms (exceptions are rare, mostly bacteria), and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico are the living room and fridge of countless species.

These ecosystems haven't evolved in contact with oil, in the same way that most of the heavy metals found deep in the Earth's crust are toxic to us because over evolutionary time we haven't been exposed to them much. It's the same basic principle that explains why oxygen is toxic to certain microorganisms because they evolved in places where there's little or no O2.

Second Level
And while the oil itself might be "natural", the spill itself certainly isn't. That oil was sequestered deep underground and has been there for millions of years. It very probably wasn't going anywhere until we drilled there. In that regard, it's 100% a human-made disaster.
</i>

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by dav3

Didn't BP pay off the government to relax the policy that would require that blow-out safety valve which would have most likely have prevented this disaster from happening?

that's correct. they were also not required to follow environmental impact regulations prior to obtaining the lease.

[Deej]

Originally Posted by dav3

I like that BP is more concerned with trying to pump the escaping oil to a fucking ship, instead of trying to ensure the environment isn't being fucked up beyond repair. Fuck, it's like they think they live on a different planet or something. And how about all the fisherman and shrimpers whose livelihoods they are fucking up?

You dont think capping the still flowing oil up and keeping it from pouring out more and more isnt protecting the environment?

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

gear down, big rig. you're so agitated you missed my post stating i am going to wait for facts.

i certainly will not rely on sensationalized media and certainly not on GFY news.

Hahaha... yeah, ok, I'll gear down.. Sorry dude, but this oil spill really has me pissed off. Of course everyones going to try to fix it and save all the cutsey animals and fishies, but.. 75 days? It just freaks me out.

It also kills me that the world still relies so heavily on oil. Oil and coal kill tens of thousands of people every year (war, pollution, disasters, etc). It's time to take another look at Nuclear power and to start taxing gas-powered cars and giving tax breaks to Plug-in Electric cars.

Grrrrrrrr..

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...l-debunked.php

<i>"Natural" doesn't always mean good, despite what the marketing people would like you to believe. Arsenic, lead and mercury are as natural as can be, but you wouldn't want them in your food or your living room. Well, crude oil is also natural, but it's toxic to most living organisms (exceptions are rare, mostly bacteria), and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico are the living room and fridge of countless species.

These ecosystems haven't evolved in contact with oil, in the same way that most of the heavy metals found deep in the Earth's crust are toxic to us because over evolutionary time we haven't been exposed to them much. It's the same basic principle that explains why oxygen is toxic to certain microorganisms because they evolved in places where there's little or no O2.

Second Level
And while the oil itself might be "natural", the spill itself certainly isn't. That oil was sequestered deep underground and has been there for millions of years. It very probably wasn't going anywhere until we drilled there. In that regard, it's 100% a human-made disaster.
</i>

much misinformation in this post.

[dyna mo]

More oil was spilled into the sea from shipping losses every 6 weeks of W.W.II than in the entire 65 years since the war’s end. The oceans survived.

[dav3]

Originally Posted by Deej

You dont think capping the still flowing oil up and keeping it from pouring out more and more isnt protecting the environment?

If that was the case yea. But, they didn't cap it. They are siphoning it. Which means oil is still pouring into the ocean.

[Deej]

Originally Posted by dav3

If that was the case yea. But, they didn't cap it. They are siphoning it. Which means oil is still pouring into the ocean.

Dude... youre really arguing this point? They are getting what they can to stop flowing free into the water system. From what I read they put a tube in and cap the break off around the tube... sure ill bet some still barely leaks... but it is way better than just free flowing and it IS a method that BP is taking to help minimize the impact on the wildlife. Sure it also looks like they are trying to keep what oil they can to profit off of instead of letting it flow out in the ocean...

It really depends on how you look at your half full/empty glass... but my point is... what they are doing is in fact helping save what wildlife they can.

Now after all that... id like to say... FUCK BP and the nations dependency on oil...

Happy now?

[dyna mo]

more info re: the plumes:::

While they have detected the plumes and their effects with several types of instruments, the researchers are still not sure about their density, nor do they have a very good fix on the dimensions.

Given their size, the plumes cannot possibly be made of pure oil, but more likely consist of fine droplets of oil suspended in a far greater quantity of water, Dr. Joye said. She added that in places, at least, the plumes might be the consistency of a thin salad dressing.

Dr. Joye is serving as a coordinator of the mission from her laboratory in Athens, Ga. Researchers from the University of Mississippi and the University of Southern Mississippi are aboard the boat taking samples and running instruments.

Dr. Joye said the findings about declining oxygen levels were especially worrisome, since oxygen is so slow to move from the surface of the ocean to the bottom. She suspects that oil-eating bacteria are consuming the oxygen at a feverish clip as they work to break down the plumes.

While the oxygen depletion so far is not enough to kill off sea life, the possibility looms that oxygen levels could fall so low as to create large dead zones, especially at the seafloor. “That’s the big worry,” said Ray Highsmith, head of the Mississippi center that sponsored the mission, known as the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology.

[dav3]

Originally Posted by Deej

Happy now?

No.

[Agent 488]

fuck them and their archaic system.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by dav3

No.

the current news suggests that those turtles that they found washed up on shore died as a result of fishermen adjusting their nets beyond legal limits to catch more fish ASAP in reaction to the oil spill.

i am not saying that is fact, but the fact is there is a lot we do not know and the media, as usual, is not to be trusted.

[Davy]

Yeah. Who needs oceans, anyway!

[Deej]

Originally Posted by dav3

No.

Im not justifying their actions or methods... All i was doing was pointing out that you were being a little biased in thinking they are only siphoning their oil out of the ocean for profit and profit alone...

I am disgusted too... But being disgusted dosnt help that pelican and turtle now does it...

Back to my pixels...

[Deej]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the current news suggests that those turtles that they found washed up on shore died as a result of fishermen adjusting their nets beyond legal limits to catch more fish ASAP in reaction to the oil spill.

i am not saying that is fact, but the fact is there is a lot we do not know and the media, as usual, is not to be trusted.

Just saying

regardless of those pictures even being involved in this incident or not... We all know that thousands if not millions of animals (not fish, fuck fish, far more fish will die) will be effected if not killed off.

I hate you all...!

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the current news suggests that those turtles that they found washed up on shore died as a result of fishermen adjusting their nets beyond legal limits to catch more fish ASAP in reaction to the oil spill.

i am not saying that is fact, but the fact is there is a lot we do not know and the media, as usual, is not to be trusted.

you live in a right extremist world of denial .... waiting for facts ... did you favor waiting for facts before attacking Iraq ?

[directfiesta]

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Deej

Just saying

regardless of those pictures even being involved in this incident or not... We all know that thousands if not millions of animals (not fish, fuck fish, far more fish will die) will be effected if not killed off.

I hate you all...!

The 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico can be placed into context of other major oil-well blowouts. Three large spills include (Schenkman, 2010):

1. IXTOC 1. It was the biggest spill witha daily outflow of 30,000 barrels per day initially, dropping to 10,000 barrels per day. The flow was stopped after eight months and 3.5 million barrels were released into the Gulf of Mexico about 80 km offshore of Yucatan, Mexico in 1979.
2. Ekofisk. It released 202,000 barrels of oil about 250 km off the coast on Norway in the North Sea in 1977.
3. Santa Barbara. This relatively small spill released 100,000 barrels of oil into the Santa Barbara Channel offshore of Santa Barbara, California in 1969, resulting in widespread efforts to ban drilling offshore of California and other coasts of the US.

Cleaning Up After Oil Spills

No two oil spills are the same because of the variation in oil types, locations and weather conditions involved. However, broadly speaking, there are four main methods of response.

1. Leave the oil alone so that it breaks down by natural means.
2. Contain the spill with booms and collect it from the water surface using skimmer equipment.
3. Use dispersants to break up the oil and speed its natural biodegradation.
4. Introduce biological agents to the spill to hasten biodegradation.



Oil spill have an immediate effect on marine life, and a longer term effect.

Effects of Oil Spills include:

1. Biological, including physical effects such as smothering and the influence of toxic chemicals.

The animals and plants most at risk are those that could come into contact with a contaminated sea surface. Marine mammals and reptiles; birds that feed by diving or form flocks on the sea; marine life on shorelines; and animals and plants in mariculture facilities.

The most toxic components in oil tend to be those lost rapidly through evaporation when oil is spilt. Because of this, lethal concentrations of toxic components leading to large scale mortalities of marine life are relatively rare, localized and short-lived.

Sub-lethal effects that impair the ability of individual marine organisms to reproduce, grow, feed or perform other functions can be caused by prolonged exposure to a concentration of oil or oil components far lower than will cause death. Sedentary animals in shallow waters such as oysters, mussels and clams that routinely filter large volumes of seawater to extract food are especially likely to accumulate oil components. Whilst these components may not cause any immediate harm, their presence may render such animals unpalatable if they are consumed by man, due to the presence of an oily taste or smell.


This is a temporary problem since the components causing the taint are lost (depurated) when normal conditions are restored.


Processes influencing weathering of oil in the sea.
From Behavior of Oil at Sea.

2. Destruction of coastal habitats.
3. Damage to boats and gear used for fishing, and loss of market for fish if buyers suspect the fish may be contaminated by the oil spill.

The long-term damages are more benign.

1. Smaller, more volatile molecules in oil quickly evaporate or oxidize. These molecules are the most toxic to life.
2. Larger, less volatile molecules are not toxic. We put asphalt, which is mostly the larger oil molecules, on roads and driveways and grass grows through the cracks in the asphalt. And, the asphalt quickly oxidizes. Few roads are useful after a decade because the asphalt oxidizes, hardens, and breaks up. The asphalt must be replaced.
3. Tar has been used for many purposes for centuries with little ill effect.

Lessons Learned

We have learned much from previous oils spills. What can we do to minimize environmental damage? Sometimes the clean up is worse than the spill. The NOAA has been monitoring Prince William Sound, the location of the spill, and they have amassed information on Results, Lessons Learned, and Implications.


High-pressure, hot-water cleaning causes short-term and long-term damage.
3. Stating that cleanup does "more harm than good" while to some extent true, is a bit of an oversimplification. Still, we have learned that:
1. The use of detergents, which are toxic to marine life, to disperse the oil.
2. The use of steam and hot water to clean rocks, which kills all organisms on the rocks.

Current evidence implies that oiled and hot-water washed sites initially suffered more severe declines in population abundance than oiled and not-washed sites.


4. Any cleanup that changes the physical makeup of the area delays recovery. In particular, Large scale excavation of gravel beaches, which delays recovery for many years.
5. Oil that penetrates deeply into sand or sediments can stay fresh for years and be released slowly back into the water. Cleanup is difficult because it disrupts the physical state of the area. Recovery is delayed many years.
6. Using water to flush away oil may remove fine sediment needed by organisms.

[mayabong]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

more info re: the plumes:::

While they have detected the plumes and their effects with several types of instruments, the researchers are still not sure about their density, nor do they have a very good fix on the dimensions.

Given their size, the plumes cannot possibly be made of pure oil, but more likely consist of fine droplets of oil suspended in a far greater quantity of water, Dr. Joye said. She added that in places, at least, the plumes might be the consistency of a thin salad dressing.

Dr. Joye is serving as a coordinator of the mission from her laboratory in Athens, Ga. Researchers from the University of Mississippi and the University of Southern Mississippi are aboard the boat taking samples and running instruments.

Dr. Joye said the findings about declining oxygen levels were especially worrisome, since oxygen is so slow to move from the surface of the ocean to the bottom. She suspects that oil-eating bacteria are consuming the oxygen at a feverish clip as they work to break down the plumes.

While the oxygen depletion so far is not enough to kill off sea life, the possibility looms that oxygen levels could fall so low as to create large dead zones, especially at the seafloor. ?That?s the big worry,? said Ray Highsmith, head of the Mississippi center that sponsored the mission, known as the National Institute for Undersea Science and Technology.

Thermite blew up the rig.

[directfiesta]

lol .... Dyna Mo source ...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

you live in a right extremist world of denial .... waiting for facts ... did you favor waiting for facts before attacking Iraq ?

you can make this personal all you want and point your finger at me with your comments but it has no basis in fact and is not really called for. my comments in this thread have been respectful and while this is gfy, i don't see why you cannot be as well.

either way, i don't care if that is what you think. simply because i choose to not get caught up in the current media hype does not mean you know me and what world i live in.

moreover, your attack iraq comment makes no sense and also shows your lack of understanding of who i am and what my values are.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

lol .... Dyna Mo source ...

no, my source is Oil in the Sea III, THE study on issues such as this. i like to read and try and do research on such topics, not rely on news or gfy.

but do carry on making this about me. it really says more about you than me.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by mayabong

Thermite blew up the rig.

does north korea have access to that compound? you know they sabotaged that rig, right?

[dyna mo]

if anyone is interested in learning more, here is a link to the pdf version of oil in the sea III

http://books.nap.edu/html/oil_in_the...eportbrief.pdf