I have a request. I am usually pretty good at researching and finding things on the Internet. I can't find any good dependable source to explain how much of the oil from the Gulf accident has reached the shores.

I know I saw Obama on the television yesterday talking about the seafood in the Gulf being safe to eat. And he said the beaches were safe and beautiful. Governors of Gulf states are saying their beaches are still beautiful. The tourism industry in Florida, said back in May, it needs more than $34.7 million from the state to prove Florida beaches are unsullied by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, where is the oil? If there isn't any oil, why aren't people fishing and why are other industries ruined? If there is oil, how can the beaches be okay and the seafood safe? Obama wants to take over BP's oil claims business??? Someone please help me understand this.

From a story dated May 12, BP had paid out $600,000 in claims to residents of Mobile, Alabama. That is one town a month ago. The state's Attorney General said "There are 100's of 1,000's of dollars that have been paid out and there are no claims that have been denied yet. There are some claims that are pending and holding for more information," said King.

"BP told Congress that the company will pay all "legitimate" claims; a use of legal jargon that doesn't fly with the attorney general.

" 'We expect claims that can be documented to be paid. If you're a fisherman and you know how much money you made last year and know how much money you're making this year, the difference is a legitimate claim. If you're a waitress and you know how much you made in tips last year and you know how much you made this year, that difference is a legitimate claim,' said King."

In a story from yesterday:

"President Barack Obama sought to reassure nervous diners during his trip to the coastal town of Theodore, Alabama Monday that seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is as tasty and safe as it ever was, despite the ever expanding oil spill blanketing the area.

“ 'I had some of that seafood for lunch, and it was delicious,' ” Obama said, 'We want to make sure that the food industry down here, as much as possible, is getting the protection and certification that they need to continue their businesses.'

"The president said that multiple agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association are stepping up their efforts to keep the food supply safe. State and federal agencies will be monitoring fish caught near restricted areas to ensure that they are safe to consume."

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...iref=allsearch



http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/...d-safe-to-eat/



http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/sto...need-money-now

Today is June 21. I started this thread June 15. I have not received one reply. This morning I looked at the state websites and tourism sites for the states of Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. All of the sites say their beaches are open, Gulf tourism opportunities abound. Florida is the only state that said there was any sign of oil on a beach, one beach, but stresses the beaches are opened.

Louisiana has a report on oil seen off-shore from protected marshes and wetlands.

I'm not saying there isn't oil coming from the ocean floor. I'm not saying there isn't going to be any environmental issues from the oil. I'm just asking the same questions I asked in my original post. In the mean time, residents in the state of Florida are suing BP for loss of value on their homes from the spill.

Here are some things said about the Gulf from other threads. It doesn't make sense to me. I am seriously asking for your help to understand this. When people use words like this, I suppose they have seen or read something I haven't. I'd like to see what they have seen and read what they have read.

"Comparing an accident from gross and willful negligence that results in an
environmental catastrophe and wipes out the living of an
entire region... "

"The fisherman will be long out of business and the lives ruined ."

"An entire way of life is at jeopardy. It's not just about jobs or animals,it's about a way of life."

"An oil rig owned and operated by BP blew up and is causing what may be the worst ecological disaster in American history.".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things here.

You asked where there was oil on the shore but then asked about fishermen. Those are two completely different aspects of the spill.

Any news organization has a plethora of pictures and video of the slick out at sea. This keeps the fishermen out of business. I *have* been reading stories about some tourism officials (especially in Florida) gnashing their teeth trying to get the word out that the Gulf currents have kept their beaches clean.

What we learn about the oil spill problem will depend on who controls the story.

When poiticians control the story what we learn will be based on a political agenda.

Obama is trying, maybe has already, taken control of the story. This means what we hear will be based on drilling rules, global warming taxes and various other progressive agenda requirements.

The story so far, as told by Obama is that BP is the baddie so we need to stop drilling, add new taxes, get cap and trade,etc. etc., etc. Obama organized a group of his cronies to study the situation. None of them know anything about the oils spill problems, but they are all very well informed on progressive politics.

Will we ever hear thr truth, probably not ever from a politician, probably never from anyone especially after the real culprits, whoever they are in this case, finish obscuring the true story.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Today is June 21. I started this thread June 15. I have not received one reply. This morning I looked at the state websites and tourism sites for the states of Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. All of the sites say their beaches are open, Gulf tourism opportunities abound. Florida is the only state that said there was any sign of oil on a beach, one beach, but stresses the beaches are opened.

Louisiana has a report on oil seen off-shore from protected marshes and wetlands.

I'm not saying there isn't oil coming from the ocean floor. I'm not saying there isn't going to be any environmental issues from the oil. I'm just asking the same questions I asked in my original post. In the mean time, residents in the state of Florida are suing BP for loss of value on their homes from the spill.

Here are some things said about the Gulf from other threads. It doesn't make sense to me. I am seriously asking for your help to understand this. When people use words like this, I suppose they have seen or read something I haven't. I'd like to see what they have seen and read what they have read.

"Comparing an accident from gross and willful negligence that results in an
environmental catastrophe and wipes out the living of an
entire region... "

"The fisherman will be long out of business and the lives ruined ."

"An entire way of life is at jeopardy. It's not just about jobs or animals,it's about a way of life."

"An oil rig owned and operated by BP blew up and is causing what may be the worst ecological disaster in American history.".

You raise an interesting point. It actually raises more questions than answers. I can't speak with any authority directly to your question, but permit me to cloud it further. I have fished the inshore and offshore waters of the New York Bight, the ocean from the Jersey coast East to the gulf stream and continental shelf and North to Long Island for many years. Over that period of time I have observed copious oil spills and heaven knows what other discharges from cargo ships, passenger ships, plane crashes, sinkings and yet to be determined human sources. For decades I have witnessed the occasional "tar balls" landing on our beautiful beaches and removed the tar from the souls of my feet while wishing ill upon the source that discharged the ingredients that made them. If you know the Jersey shore...you know what I'm talking about.

The attached link gives a modestly accurate assessment of what our oceans and sea life have been exposed to. The illegal discharge of oily ballast water, toxic exhaust fumes and oil spills have been continuous and unrelenting for years. What has been the net impact? One thing to keep in mind is that while we give oceans and vast bodies of water different names, they are all connected. Warm gulf stream waters from the Gulf of Mexico, meander around Florida, merge with the cool Atlantic waters, head North along the eastern seaboard to North Carolina, then, veer off the Northeast coast toward Europe. Fish usually found in gulf stream waters, ride the stream and current and can be caught with regularity in northern waters where the gulf stream is accessible. The IGFA has a fish tagging program. Fishermen tag and release their catch with the location of release. I am always amazed when fish caught in the coastal waters of one continent are recaptured and released off the shores of another. The point being....what happens in the Gulf of Mexico has worldwide implication. Very interesting link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_pollution

I hope the White House doesn't read this. I would not want to be a co-conspirator for giving them the opportunity to justify yet another takeover. This time....the shipping and cruise industries.

While the consequences of the BP spill are of epic proportions and can't be good for our oceans and the bountiful harvest they produce for man....the question remains of what the net impact will be given the sheer volume of ocean water this planet is comprised of. How big a drop in a bucket of water is the BP spill? Can the oceans dilute and disperse the volume of oil and reduce its harmful effects by its volume? If so, how long will it take? Will the threat remain unseen but lethal to marine life offshore or will it hit our shores, estuaries and contaminate food and water sources?

In assessing the impact of the spill, it is the matter of scale and degree that is to date....elusive.

Sorry BK...wish I had more answers than questions.

Thanks guys. It does really raise many questions in my mind. We were golfing the other day and got paired up with a couple of men. One of the guys mentioned the spill and what he said rings so true. He stressed that he wasn't a supporter of the global warming, cap and tax jargon. But he said regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this spill turns out to be, financially, environmentally, government policy, whatever, we have started expecting an awful lot of mother nature.

Why?

June 30, 2010: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) wanted to fly 10 lawmakers down to the Gulf of Mexico to see the damage caused by BP’s gigantic oil spill first hand.
House Democrats said no.






http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39225.html

I have thought of that too. More than that question, imagine what an earthquake would do to groundwater if it struck an area within the 165,000 miles o pipelines (which carry crude and refines products) in the US.

Under the Instate Commerce Act, oil pipelines provide transportation, temporary storage and logistics services; they do not own the product they transport. Most oil pipelines are “common carriers” under the Interstate Commerce Act. Wonder who would pay for that cleanup?

Also of interest comes from this website from the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. You don't hear much about these accidents:

"The pipeline industry takes its role to operate pipelines with the public's trust very seriously. With the implementation of an integrity management system for pipelines in 2001, the Department of Transportation specified how pipeline operators identify, prioritize, assess, evaluate, repair, and validate the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines that, in the event of a failure, could affect high consquence areas.

"Spills along the right-of-way have fallen from 2 incidents per thousand miles in 1999-2001 to 0.8 incidents per thousand miles in 2005-2007, a deline of 60%. The volume released along the right-of-way has fallen from just over 600 barrels per thousand miles (1999-2001) to 300 barrels per thousand miles (2005-2007), a decline of 25%. Spills along the right-of-way are where pipelines are most likely to have an impact on the public, and are most helpful in measuring progress.

"Several cause categories have been identified for onshore pipeline incidents, including corrosion, third party excavation damage, equipment and non-pipe failures, operator error, and pipe material failures. The number of incidents in each of these categories has fallen in the last period (2005-2007) over the previous period (1999-2001) anywhere from 20%-71%."



http://www.aopl.org/pipelineSafety/

Transparency? Scary stuff folks.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ring-oil-spill