# What A Mess!



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

The oil rig that blew up off the Louisiana coast is really starting to wreak havoc. They say it's leaking 210,000 gallons of oil a day into the ocean!

Battle on to protect shore from massive oil spill - Yahoo! Canada News


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

sad, really. i'm not one of those eco-guys, but dam that just burns my biscuit you know?


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> sad, really. i'm not one of those eco-guys, but dam that just burns my biscuit you know?


Well if it saddens you and "burns your biscuit" (I only thought this could happen to Uncle Jesse from the "Dukes of Hazzard" or Flo from "Alice"), maybe your more of an *"eco -guy" *than you think.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i can't help laughing. every time you post something, i hear it in my head in a drunken nick nolte voice.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Oil addiction kills. Everything.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> i can't help laughing. every time you post something, i hear it in my head in a drunken nick nolte voice.


His role in* Tropic Thunder* brought tears to my eyes........the good kind.

Here's an interview from the set. One has to wonder how much "acting" Nick really _does_ anymore.


[[video=youtube;Rn_hU1gn7Cg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn_hU1gn7Cg[/video]

Shawn.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

this is realy awfull..but the Oil industry are VERY happy..another ****ing reason to raise the price of oil.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Louisiana is quickly turning into the Haiti of the United States.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Oil addiction kills. Everything.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


very good post- exactly my thinking. we dont really need oil. it just makes life easier, but at what cost? those of you reproducing, or who have reproduced, or are thinking of reproducing, need to start asking yourselves some questions.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

it cannot be eliminated without killing most of the people on the earth. without petroleum products, we could not farm in mass quantities, nor could we ship as quickly. the idea of eliminating it suddenly, is without merit. the idea that not having children will somehow fix it, is a little like the answer they got after asking ms. teen south carolina why 1/5 of americans can't find the U.S. on a world map. i don't mean to be rude, but i've seen you previously make well thought out and articulate posts. the above is ..... not one of those.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

fraser said:


> very good post- exactly my thinking. we dont really need oil. it just makes life easier, but at what cost? those of you reproducing, or who have reproduced, or are thinking of reproducing, need to start asking yourselves some questions.


I've "reproduced", do I still have to ask myself some questions? Is it still okay to call it "having kids"?

Shawn.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Of course we still need oil for many other things besides automobiles and such, what we don't need is off shore drilling.As for reproducing well sorry but already did that and I am not going to worry what its going to be like for them it wouldn't be very fair for us to assume ourselfs on them or their future.
I can't help but feel so awful for all those down that way and the hardships they are going through and will go through, but they do seem to be very resiliant folks down in the Louisianna area and here is hoping that it comes around for them a lot faster then Katrina did.Ship


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> I've "reproduced", do I still have to ask myself some questions? Is it still okay to call it "having kids"?
> 
> Shawn.


yup you can call it anything you like.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

fraser said:


> very good post- exactly my thinking. we dont really need oil. it just makes life easier, but at what cost? those of you reproducing, or who have reproduced, or are thinking of reproducing, need to start asking yourselves some questions.


I have a kid, and I think that the questions we need to ask are: what is my kid going to inherit and have to clean up? What will be there for him? Will he ever be able to catch a fish and eat it without getting cancer? 

Our science and intelligence is beyond our wisdom to use it. I'm not saying we have to completely stop using petrolium products, but this should be a good excuse/argument and reason to PUT A STOP TO ARCTIC DRILLING! Before we get stupid and spill a billion litres of oil over the arctic. Just put an end to it right now, shut up and don't mention it again. 

We need less of the Walmart mentality in everything we do.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Ship of fools said:


> Of course we still need oil for many other things besides automobiles and such, what we don't need is off shore drilling.As for reproducing well sorry but already did that and I am not going to worry what its going to be like for them it wouldn't be very fair for us to assume ourselfs on them or their future.
> I can't help but feel so awful for all those down that way and the hardships they are going through and will go through, but they do seem to be very resiliant folks down in the Louisianna area and here is hoping that it comes around for them a lot faster then Katrina did.Ship


land based drilling alone cant produce enough oil to meet our demands, thats the problem.

even if an offshore rig doesnt have a catastrophe- its still no damn good-
in the gulf of mexico, a rig dumps 90,000 tonnes of drilling fluid and metal waste, directly into the ocean during its lifetime.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

Gene Machine said:


> I have a kid, and I think that the questions we need to ask are: what is my kid going to inherit and have to clean up? What will be there for him? Will he ever be able to catch a fish and eat it without getting cancer?
> 
> Our science and intelligence is beyond our wisdom to use it. I'm not saying we have to completely stop using petrolium products, but this should be a good excuse/argument and reason to PUT A STOP TO ARCTIC DRILLING! Before we get stupid and spill a billion litres of oil over the arctic. Just put an end to it right now, shut up and don't mention it again.
> 
> We need less of the Walmart mentality in everything we do.


im with you.
when i was a kid, in the 70's, they told us the fish in lake ontario was not fit for consumption- and most of the time the beaches had warning signs on them.
that was 40 years ago-
trouble with messing up the oceans is, once we kill them, the planet dies. just like that. without the oceans nothing survives on earth. people will still be saying " ahh its only a bunch of fish" right up until the oxygen is gone lol. thats just how people are.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> it cannot be eliminated without killing most of the people on the earth. without petroleum products, we could not farm in mass quantities, nor could we ship as quickly. the idea of eliminating it suddenly, is without merit. the idea that not having children will somehow fix it, is a little like the answer they got after asking ms. teen south carolina why 1/5 of americans can't find the U.S. on a world map. i don't mean to be rude, but i've seen you previously make well thought out and articulate posts. the above is ..... not one of those.


what i mean, about having kids, is we are killing the planet those kids will inhabit. im all for kids, im not suggesting anyone refrain from reproducing. im saying that if folks do, then they should use a little common sense. 
no matter what the cost is, there are things which cant continue. 
dont worry about sounding rude bro, you didnt- i understand where youre coming from. sometimes i dont convey my thoughts precisely enough-
it leaves weird posts like that one lying around. but as ive said before, im an idiot, and im cool with it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Grow more hemp, it can do everything crude can and a lot more.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> Grow more hemp, it can do everything crude can and a lot more.


We already use 35% of the world's farmable land to feed the animals we eat. The dumbest thing anybody ever told struggling farmers to do was grow hemp. On paper it sounds great, but that fertile land would be wasted by growing hemp. Luckily hemp can grow well on land that's practically useless from a farmimg perspective. Still, growing crops for fuel is nifty, but from a supply perspective, again useless. Estimates vary , but if all the farmable land in the U.S. was devoted to fuel crops it wouldn't likely supply 10% of what's needed. As a substitute for wood pulp and animal feed however, it would be hard to beat.

Shawn.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

there is alot of cool stuff you can do with hemp. no argument about that, but rugburn is right - it's not the magic bullett. 
i don't think there actually is one. we do need to change how things are done, butno matter how we do it, the process will be like a root canal. slow and painful.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I should expand my point of view a bit

Hemp can grow just about anywhere, using food lands is ... dumb. Converting tobacco plantations to hemp, growing hemp on hills, growing hemp on fallow ground, many better choices where to place and farm hemp. It can produce the same wood pulp per acre per year that poplar trees produce per decade, I think there is definite value as a crop, and wood pulp is only one of thousands of uses.

Ok, maybe not enough to replace what is used by gas burning cars, but that is not the only industry that crude feeds. There are many from food to cosmetics to medicine that are users of crude oil. All of which could also use hemp. So, if we remove crude from the other equations, leaving behind only 1 aspect of use of crude, that being machines, we can then focus energies to reduce the need for crude to keep these going.

No magic bullets, it is a process, but it is one that can never happen if it never gets started.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

One of the things that disaster in Louisiana shows is that there are immediate dangers (11 were killed in the explosion) and there are long term dangers from the spill and from the pollution it puts in our atmosphere, water and land. We've know this for decades and the problem has only gotten worse. So let's not kid ourselves that there is an easy solution or there is a solution just around the corner. It would be nice but it's simple not reasonable.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I would not worry about British Petrolium rasing any prices, before this is said and done they will most likley be out of business. The clean-up alone should break them, if that does not the lawsuits over the next 20 years most certainly will. Things will only change when there is a absolute need and desire to do so. Survival is a very good motivator, the best really. Humans have achieved amazing things, usually because the need was there to do it or die. Even when there is not that fear of death we have managed to do some pretty amazing things. We could have cleared all the roads of gasoline powered engines years ago, the technolgy is there, it just needs to be perfected and it wont be if you have 30 guys around the world working on it on limited budgets. When the time comes that it absolutey has to be done, you will see it get done and fast. We are the species that created the atomic bomb "out of need?" They thought so at the time. We put men on the moon in the 60's for goodness sake, think about that, in the 60's

So when it has to be done it will be done, but unfortunately not until then, there is still way too much money to be made from the current process.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

the minute you eliminate travel using petroleum you kill the city. they are not sustainable otherwise. i find the concept of pulling a rabbitt out of the proverbial hat because we are neccessitated to do or die rather encouraging. i hope you're right about that. one cannot commute 60 miles one way without petroleum, unless there is some amazing technological breakthrough. with corporate attitudes being what they are, it's hard to imagine such technology being applied in such a way that it wouldn't redefine the economic structure back to the dark ages. just my opinion, i could be way off base


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Oh I don't think anyone is off base. I do think a re-think is needed.

Japan has very ... well, they have a way of moving people around using far less oil products than are use just about anywhere.

Many European cities the only way to get to them, or through them, is with public transportation. Many places in Europe leave even the best North American public system look like it is still in the dark ages.

Ok this is not elimination of need, but it is a good way for reducing need.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> the minute you eliminate travel using petroleum you kill the city. they are not sustainable otherwise. i find the concept of pulling a rabbitt out of the proverbial hat because we are neccessitated to do or die rather encouraging. i hope you're right about that. one cannot commute 60 miles one way without petroleum, unless there is some amazing technological breakthrough. with corporate attitudes being what they are, it's hard to imagine such technology being applied in such a way that it wouldn't redefine the economic structure back to the dark ages. just my opinion, i could be way off base


The need or the desire has yet to emerge. Lets say for example that for whatever reason we discovered that in 2015 there would be no more oil, or at least the oil that was remaining and projected into the future was required for uses other than transportation and it was critical that all remaining resources be conserved for those puproses. Then you have a need, becuase as you pointed out we cannot allow the wheels of motion to stop in all other facets of life as we know it. Then you would see the greatest minds available put together to solve the problem, with unlimited funds and resources. That need has yet to come, therefore you dont have the goverrment and cash support required to really do something about it. When they thought there was a need for the bomb, one of the most complex things man has ever acheived, they threw the best minds in the world into a room in the middle of a desert and told them not to call home until they had a functional product. They did that in less than a year based on nothing but theory. If someone is going to tell me that we cant transport people from one spot to another without the need for gasoline burning engines, I simply dont buy it. The only reason we dont have it, is becuase nobody has been forced to come up with the solution. When gas hits $5.00 a gallon, that may be a driving force, maybe.

I spent too many years in the auto biz to know better. Every new piece of emmisions technology that the car companies have ever added to a vehicle was developed long before it was ever implemented. Implementation was only ever carried out when the government dicated it. ULEV could have been put into production many years ago. California had them way before the rest of the world because they dictated it. So the car companies made those vehicles for that market and the rest of the world got the old technology. Why? becuase there was no need to supply the rest of the world with them, there was no law to say they had to. Make a law that says they cannot make a gasoline engine in 2015 you think they are goinf to say "Oh, we will just stop selling cars in 2015" Not a chance, you will damn well see some other powerplant in that vehicle in 2015. You wont see that law because the bulls that run the oil companies have to much at stake and they will not allow it, not yet

I hate wars, every sane person should. But wars and people getting blown to bits and the possibility that the people doing the blowing up might become your new master have spawned some of the greatest technological achievments mankind has ever produced. The threat of being blown up is a fabulous motivator. I have full fatih in mankind to find a solution. Its the timing of that solution that can be and should be debated


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

This is already a reality. Tesla Motors - Tesla Showroom 125 grand.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Too little, too late. Too few safeguards, too much entitlement, too much dependence. The warning signs have been ignored for generations, and now paying the piper won't fix anything because the environmental damage can't be repaired for generations.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

NASA - NASA Satellite Imagery Keeping Eye on the Gulf Oil Spill

NASA - Oil Slick Spreads off Gulf Coast


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Mooh said:


> Too little, too late. Too few safeguards, too much entitlement, too much dependence. The warning signs have been ignored for generations, and now paying the piper won't fix anything because the environmental damage can't be repaired for generations.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Right again, Mooh. Sad, but true. You, sir, go to the head of the class.


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> This is already a reality. Tesla Motors - Tesla Showroom 125 grand.


The tires, interior, and many engine parts as well as the roads to drive it on are all petroleum products. It also takes more energy to build a car than a car will use in its lifetime. Electric cars just delay the inevitable decision we have to make. We simply can't have all the things we used to have when we run out of oil, and we ARE running out. We need a total rethink of how we spend our days and nights.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Economy of scale.

There is new tire technology that is in the works now that makes far less use of oil products to make them. Most other car lubricants are only about 10% or less actual oil, the rest are chemical additives. Many aspects of car construction are plastics yes, but the tech for reusing those plastics is continually improving.

The difference between car on electricity and car on gas is that tank of gas a week. Spanned across the entire population, that is a HUGE reduction in the need/use of petrochems in a continual manner.

I have not offered solutions in an absolute sense. I think those are fairy tails that 20 somethings in first year University like to believe in. I think the solution will be a process of change. Improved use of public transportation, improved use of agriculture and switching to electricity will go a very great way to weening the population off gas and crude oil.

See, had it been me, here in Ontario, I would not have bothered with Drive Clean. I would have simply state that any vehical at 10 years old had to be re-certified, and any vehicle at 20 be plated as an antique with a 1000KM a year driving limitation and only following a full safety. The goal would become removing anything from the roads that is 10 years old or older. Cars have no value past 3 years these days anyways, they simply do not last that long. By making it impossible for vehicles to exist on the roads after 10 years, it makes it possible to mandate and rapidly bring in a change from pure gas/diesel/propane cars to hybrids and then to electrics.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The internal combustion engine is ancient technology. We have refined it to great heights but it is basically the same technology that has been in use since before all of us were born. New technology has never been seriously considered for many reasons. Greed being the biggest one. But things can happen fast when the right motivation is given. Oil, like many other major commodities carries with it great political influence. Those with the biggest pockets normally pull the strings. This is not new.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> See, had it been me, here in Ontario, I would not have bothered with Drive Clean. I would have simply state that any vehical at 10 years old had to be re-certified, and any vehicle at 20 be plated as an antique with a 1000KM a year driving limitation and only following a full safety. The goal would become removing anything from the roads that is 10 years old or older. Cars have no value past 3 years these days anyways, they simply do not last that long. By making it impossible for vehicles to exist on the roads after 10 years, it makes it possible to mandate and rapidly bring in a change from pure gas/diesel/propane cars to hybrids and then to electrics.


there you have the economic bullying going ito effect. there are alot of people who need cars yet can't afford ones that are as new as 3 years. it becomes cost prohibitive to own a car with your idea, and much of the car is not recycled. that makes the poor guy even poorer than before, and keeps him there. besides all that, there aren't that many 20 yr old cars on the road to even make a difference one way or the other. the difference in pollution and mileage between a 10 yr old car and a new car is minimal as well, if they are both running properly. 
you won't see a big difference. what you will see is alot of people making cars and using resources to do it. 
maybe i'm wrong but i don't see that idea as any kind of solution.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> there you have the economic bullying going ito effect. there are alot of people who need cars yet can't afford ones that are as new as 3 years. it becomes cost prohibitive to own a car with your idea, and much of the car is not recycled. that makes the poor guy even poorer than before, and keeps him there. besides all that, there aren't that many 20 yr old cars on the road to even make a difference one way or the other. the difference in pollution and mileage between a 10 yr old car and a new car is minimal as well, if they are both running properly.
> you won't see a big difference. what you will see is alot of people making cars and using resources to do it.
> maybe i'm wrong but i don't see that idea as any kind of solution.


I have to agree with you on that one Cheez, the cost of cars is already out of hand and then what do you do with all these vehicles coming off the road in relatively good condition? Probably not the best solution. Emmissions is no longer the big problem, they have gotten them down to very low levels now, at least in North America. Its the gasoline consumption that is the problem in my view.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

As long as people think they can keep them going, they keep their cars. What is needed is a means of getting cars that exist flushed out of the system, in order to bring in better cars. Manufacturers are not making long lasting vehicles either. Cars simply do not last. But as long as they move people will move them. Drive clean is a farce, used to make money off drivers, I think it should have been something that really took bad vehicles out of the system.

As to the poor, as anyone would say, driving is a privilege not a right, and you have to earn the privilege. I happen to be one of those poor that cannot afford to drive. Our current savings account has minus 1000 in it, we still have 9 more months to pay off our last debts through the credit agency, and very often dinner consists of 1/2 cup of rice and a fried egg cause thats all there is in the cupboard. The bigger costs that I cannot afford are not the car itself, I cannot afford the cost of gas and insurance to make even a free vehicle move.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

keeperofthegood said:


> As long as people think they can keep them going, they keep their cars. What is needed is a means of getting cars that exist flushed out of the system, in order to bring in better cars. Manufacturers are not making long lasting vehicles either. Cars simply do not last. But as long as they move people will move them. Drive clean is a farce, used to make money off drivers, I think it should have been something that really took bad vehicles out of the system.
> 
> As to the poor, as anyone would say, driving is a privilege not a right, and you have to earn the privilege. I happen to be one of those poor that cannot afford to drive. Our current savings account has minus 1000 in it, we still have 9 more months to pay off our last debts through the credit agency, and very often dinner consists of 1/2 cup of rice and a fried egg cause thats all there is in the cupboard. The bigger costs that I cannot afford are not the car itself, I cannot afford the cost of gas and insurance to make even a free vehicle move.


Thats a rotten situation to be in Keeps, you have a few young ones as well?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> As long as people think they can keep them going, they keep their cars. What is needed is a means of getting cars that exist flushed out of the system, in order to bring in better cars. Manufacturers are not making long lasting vehicles either. Cars simply do not last. But as long as they move people will move them. Drive clean is a farce, used to make money off drivers, I think it should have been something that really took bad vehicles out of the system.
> 
> As to the poor, as anyone would say, driving is a privilege not a right, and you have to earn the privilege. I happen to be one of those poor that cannot afford to drive. Our current savings account has minus 1000 in it, we still have 9 more months to pay off our last debts through the credit agency, and very often dinner consists of 1/2 cup of rice and a fried egg cause thats all there is in the cupboard. The bigger costs that I cannot afford are not the car itself, I cannot afford the cost of gas and insurance to make even a free vehicle move.


Keeper: I'm very sorry to hear of your situation. Is there light at the end of the tunnel for you?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats a rotten situation to be in Keeps, you have a few young ones as well?





FlipFlopFly said:


> Keeper: I'm very sorry to hear of your situation. Is there light at the end of the tunnel for you?


Thanks guys.

Where we had been was nearly 160,000 in the hole. About 150,000 of that had been mortgage and second mortgage. We cleared that 150 in the sale of the house, but that left us with no savings of any kind. Currently, after nearly 4 years of paying, we are down to the final thousand or so to pay off through the credit agency (100ish a month for 9ish months, it helps one creditor refused to accept our offers and one of the payday loans lost in court so we got debt forgiven there). Yes, some times life is really really tight on us. However, there is always things to look forward to. My kids get lots of love and affection and many good things too, and we do sacrifice comfort for their needs. We have moments where things are better, and moments where things are not as good. In the end, it all sorta evens out


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Well, I couldn't say there is much wrong with your attitude. You and your wife are to be commended.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...wouldn't it be great if this oil "spill" turned out to be a wake up call......oh....sorry...i must have been dreaming...


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

my goal in life is to use up all the oil before i leave.
then everyone will have to find a new energy supply
no you don't have to thank me, for my brilliant idea.
just doing what i can to help out.

as for things in the Gulf....look on the bright side-at least all your shrimp will come pre-oiled ready for the BBQ now.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Interesting statistics. The leak was supposed to be around 210,000 US gallons a day but experts says that is way too conservative and is likely over 1,000,000 US gallons a day. The cap they are using to try and contain two of the leaks will contain 75% of the leak they are saying. Seventy-five percent of 1,000,000 leaves 250,000 gallons a day still leaking.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...wouldn't it be great if this oil "spill" turned out to be a wake up call......oh....sorry...i must have been dreaming...


lol- DH, you made beer come out my nose man- and i dont think its the first time you did that.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

a single drop of rain does not believe it is responsible for a flood.


----------

