Oil Spill In The Gulf – Why don’t they just blow the well up?

Almost everyone in the US has seen the John Wayne movie Hellfighters about Red Adair, well capper extraordinaire.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063060/

His big gig was capping out of control wells…some of them burning. He usually deployed explosives to help control the old gushers. Now admittedly that was to blow out the fire…BUT I believe that destroying the well head and burying it in ruble would stop the leak. The US Navy could accomplish this easily with a submarine and a torpedo. I bet there is even one in the Gulf. While I can’t confirm it with a link the web chatter has it that the submarine USS Alaska has been reserved for the crisis, though I can’t say it is on station. There is a deep irony there. In addition it might set the oil release on fire. While this would create mess. It would be less of a mess than we have now.

Anyway this is the latest from the people on the frontline:

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana  Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
May 2, 2010
Gulf Fishermen Win First Legal Battle Against BP
As BP began accepting volunteer help from Louisiana fishermen to aid in the cleanup of oil that continues to leak from the Deepwater Horizon disaster BP was also making those fishermen sign agreements which “seriously compromised the existing and future rights and potential legal claims of these volunteers,” said Stuart Smith, an attorney for the fishermen.

Some fisheries were closed on Friday April 30, 2010 and more extensive fisheries closures were implemented today. NOAA is restricting fishing for a minimum of ten days in federal waters most affected by the BP oil spill, largely between Louisiana state waters at the mouth of the Mississippi River to waters off Florida’s Pensacola Bay (click here for map).  The closure is effective immediately.  Details can be found here: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/.

Many Louisiana fisherman feel a deep vested interest in protecting the marine resources that provide them their livelihood and the heart of their culture. They are also desperate to make a living in the face of the fisheries closures and the likelihood
that shrimp and oyster harvests in the affected areas will be shut down for at least this upcoming season.

The offer of paid volunteer work helping to clean up the spill was welcomed but the restrictive agreements that BP was asking them to sign was making the fishermen feel that they were being taken advantage of.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was opened this afternoon by Judge Ginger Berrigan to receive petition of Louisiana commercial fisherman to nullify and strike the offensive language in the British Petroleum volunteer fisherman charter contract.

Download a copy of the Master Charter Agreements which British Petroleum was asking fisherman to sign at http://www.kreweoftruth.com
District Judge Berrigan, after hearing from counsel for the fisherman and BP, indicated the language in question in the MCA was overbroad. Legal counsel for BP agreed to enter into a stipulated judgment holding that the offensive provisions are without effect.
“This is an amazing example of how well our civil justice system works for the hard-working people of America, such as Louisiana fisherman who most need it right now,” said Attorney Smith.
Commercial fisherman George Barasich stepped forward asking for emergency relief from the federal court to stop British Petroleum from forcing the volunteer corps of oil-spill responders to enter into agreements which seriously compromised the existing and future rights and potential legal claims of these volunteers.
Attorney Smith said especially egregious provisions within the Agreement were:
  • BP, which is mandated to take 100 percent responsibility for the oil clean-up, is demanding that the volunteers IMDEMNIFY IT for any accidents that might occur from the volunteers’ efforts (Art. 13(F));
  • BP demands that the volunteers WAIVE their First Amendment  constitutional free speech rights about the volunteer’s participation in the clean-up efforts of the disaster; for example, if a commercial fisherman signed this agreement he or she could not then speak to anyone about the disaster or clean-up efforts until BP first “approves” of what the volunteer wants to say (Art. 22);
  • BP demands a FREE-RIDE on the volunteers’ insurance policies so that if there is damage to a volunteer’s vessel or other injuries, such as to a crew member, BP will be an “additional insured” and the financial responsibility for the damage will rest on the volunteer’s insurance carrier, NOT BP; quite obviously, the volunteers paid good money for this insurance and BP should not be allowed after-the-fact to worm their way into that contract so that it can attempt to avoid further legal responsibility for the very volunteers it is asking for aid and assistance; (Art. 13(A)); and
  • BP demands 30 days of notice before any volunteer is allowed to pursue legal claims against BP, and there are no exceptions made for emergencies (Art. 13(I) [sic (G]).
We are happy to see the swift action of the civil justice system to protect citizens rights.

If you see anything fishy happening on your waterways don’t hesitate to call the Lower Mississippi Riverkeerp hotline at 1-866-MSRIVER


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

It could get much worse:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/05/oil-spill-how-bad.html

CNN quotes the lead government official responding to the spill – the commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad Allen – as stating:

If we lost a total well head, it could be 100,000 barrels or more a day.

Indeed, an environmental document filed by the company running the oil drilling rig – BP – estimates the maximum as 162,000 barrels a day:

In an exploration plan and environmental impact analysis filed with the federal government in February 2009, BP said it had the capability to handle a “worst-case scenario” at the Deepwater Horizon site, which the document described as a leak of 162,000 barrels per day from an uncontrolled blowout — 6.8 million gallons each day.

:}

Oil Spill In The Gulf – The tragedy continues

It is Jam Band Friday – but I am too sad for it today…:+{

I continue to support our sister group LEAN. According to the news the oil has reached the S. Louisiana Coast and the seas have kicked up making containment impossible. The Gulf is doomed.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana  Environmental Action NetworkLMRK logoLouisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
APRIL 29, 2010
Oil may already be impacting the Louisiana shoreline
Forecast location for oil for 6:00 p.m. on April 29, 2010
Forecast location for oil

From the Unified Command:

Forecast is for increasing SE winds today and then strong, persistant SE winds of 15-25 kts from tonight through saturday night. These winds will continue to bring the oil towards the shoreline. Satellite imagery from this morning indicates the western edge of the oil is 7-8 miles from the delta, but oil was observed during overflights yesterday afternoon several miles off SE pass in the Mississippi River Convergence – This could be the leading edge of the tarballs becoming concentrated in this region. Shoreline impacts could hence occur as early as this morning, if the onshore winds are strong enough for the oil to escape the convergence zone, Shoreline impacts become increasingly likely later in the day and into Friday with the strengthening onshore winds. Morning overflight observations will be critical in assessing the strength of the convergence zone.

A flyover on Wednesday, April 28 at 2:00 p.m. (CDT), continued to show a large, rainbow sheen with areas of emulsified crude, approximately 16 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

On April 28 at approximately 4:45 p.m. (CDT), the response team conducted a successful controlled burn and is evaluating conducting additional burns.

More than 174,060 feet of boom (barrier) has been assigned to contain the spill.  An additional 243,260 feet is available and 265,460 feet has been ordered.

To date, the oil spill response team has recovered 18,180 barrels (763,560 gallons) of an oil-water mix. Vessels are in place and continuing recovery operations.
76 response vessels are being used including skimmers, tugs, barges and recovery vessels.

98,361 gallons of dispersant have been deployed and an additional 75,000 gallons are available.

Five staging areas are in place and ready to protect sensitive shorelines.  These areas include:
Biloxi, Miss., Pensacola, Fla. Venice, La., Pascagoula, Miss., and Theodore, Ala.

Weather conditions for April 29 – Winds from the southeast at 5-15 mph, choppy rough seas.

To report oiled or injured wildlife, please call 1-800-557-1401.
To discuss spill related damage claims, please call 1-800-440-0858.
To report oil on land, or for general Community and Volunteer Information, please call 1-866-448-5816.


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

The Oil Spill In The Gulf – It could become the U.S’s biggest natural disaster

That’s right. As big as the Love Canal. As Big as 3 Mile Island. As big as the Exxon Valdez. I shudder to think what this could do to the entire Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269440/Visible-space-giant-oil-slick-oozing-Americas-Gulf-Coast.html

Visible from space, the giant oil slick oozing towards America’s Gulf Coast

By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 3:06 PM on 28th April 2010

Creeping just 20 miles from America’s Gulf Coast, this is the mammoth oil slick threatening to become an environmental disaster in a satellite image taken from space.

The spectacle – caught on Nasa’s Aqua satellite using its Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instrument – is remarkable as oil slicks are usually notoriously difficult to spot using such equipment.

Yet in these images, the spill’s mirror-like reflection as the sun glints off the water is clearly visible.

Enlarge   mout of mississippi Snapshot of disaster: Four hundred miles out in space, Nasa’s Aqua satellite has taken pictures of the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.  In this image from Sunday, the centre of it is about even with the mouth of the Mississippi River
The mirror-like sheen of the oil slick is seen in this image taken  from space by NASA's Aquatic satellite The mirror-like sheen of the oil slick is seen in this image taken from space by NASA’s Aquatic satellite

The enormous spill, which was caused by the April 20 explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, is now around 48 miles long and 80 miles wide. It is believed to be around 600 miles in circumference.

Hundreds of hotel owners, fishermen and restaurateurs are fearing for their livelihoods as the slick edges ever closer to the American Gulf Coast.

Forecasters say the spill could wash ashore within days near delicate wetlands, oyster beds and pristine white beaches.

:}

Please read the entire article. It is really really scary.

And This from LEAN

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

The Unified Command (U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Minerals Management Service, BP and Transocean) had released this statement earlier today:

Responders have scheduled a controlled, on-location burn to begin at approximately 11 a.m. CDT today (April 28, 2010)…. today’s controlled burn will remove oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and marine and other wildlife.
Workboats will consolidate oil into a fire resistant boom approximately 500 feet long. This oil will then be towed to a more remote area, where it will be ignited and burned in a controlled manner. The plan calls for small, controlled burns of several thousand gallons of oil lasting approximately one hour each.

The Unified Command has also made such statements as:

(The burning is) a strategy designed to minimize environmental risks by removing large quantities of oil…

…there are no anticipated impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles.

The vast majority of this slick will be addressed through natural means and through use of chemical dispersants. Today’s burn will not affect other ongoing response activities, such as on-water skimming, dispersant application, and subsurface wellhead intervention operations. Preparations are also underway in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida and Alabama to set up a protective boom to minimize shoreline impact.

We believe that releases of information from the Unified Command are glossing over the environmental aspects of this oil spill and failing in their duty to provide the public with accurate and unbiased information. From our experience and the experience of all of our colleagues in dealing with oil spills, once the oil is in the water it is impossible to eliminate all environmental impact. We believe that the government agencies in charge must make a full and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of this spill.

“The vast majority of this slick will be addressed through natural means.” This sounds an awful lot like: The vast majority of the oil slick will be left in the environment. What impact will this have to the Gulf environment?

The chemical dispersants are essentially a soap like material that emulsifies the oil and causes it to sink into the water column and to the sea floor. What impact will this sub-surface oil have on marine life, on the oyster beds and benthic organisms?

Oil booms proved to be pretty ineffective during the fuel-oil barge spill in the Mississippi River in 2008. How effective will booms be in rough seas?

We do agree that burning the slick is preferable to the surface oil coming on to shore but we also ask that the Agencies involved make a full and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of the burning of the surface oil.

We simply ask that an honest and accurate assessment of the full environmental impacts of this spill be conducted by the relevant government agencies and then released to the public.

To report affected wildlife, call 1-866-557-1401.

For more information regarding the Deepwater Horizon incident, contact the joint information center at (985) 902-5231 or (985) 902-5240.

You can contact us at 1-866-msriver.

:}

God I hate this.

:}

They Are Going To Light The Gulf On Fire – This may be one of the most radical

things I have ever heard. It generates nothing but questions. What about the wild life. What about the ocean animals and plants. What about the air quality. How do you contain it. However, considering the effects they still suffer in Alaska and the lawsuits it does make a modicum of sense.

I was a founding member of this group and their report marks the first time I have posted them I think.

http://leanweb.org/donate/donate/donate-join.html

Louisiana Environmental Action Network
&
Lower Mississippi RIVERKEEPER©

Helping to Make Louisiana Safe for Future Generations

E-ALERT
APRIL 27, 2010
Update On The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

First we would like to express our condolences to the families who have lost loved ones on the rig and to the injured; our thoughts and prayers are with you.

We at LEAN and Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper are bracing ourselves for what appears to be developing into an ecological tragedy.

Graphic showing location of oil slick on April 27, 2010
Map Of Oil Slick April 27, 2010

As of 10:40 a.m. the oil slick was just 21 miles South East of the mouth of the Mississippi River. Government agencies have been requesting oil booms to deploy around Delta National Wildlife Refuge (which already experienced a spill of 18,000 gallons of crude oil earlier this month). Delta National Wildlife Refuge is in the extreme south-eastern end of the Mississippi River Delta.

NASA satellite photo of the oil slick on April 25
NASA satellite photo of slick

Efforts to stop the flow using the blowout preventer have not been successful and oil continues to leak from at least two locations on the well pipe.

What was originally considered “plan c,” the drilling of a relief well, currently appears to be the main plan to stop the leaking. Transocean’s drilling platform Development Driller III will be used to drill the relief well. It is hoped that the relief well will be able to bypass the leaking well and thereby stop the flow from the damaged well.

However, it could take up to three months to drill the relief well and if some other method of shutting down the leaking well is not figured out in the meantime then it has been estimated that 100,000 barrels, or 4,200,000 gallons, of oil could be released into the Gulf before the relief well is operational.

“If we don’t secure this well, this could be one of the most significant oil spills in U.S. history,” Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said.

Skimmer boats and the spraying of dispersant have been the primary means of dealing with the spilled oil so far but weather conditions are making things very difficult for responders. We understand that the responders will likely begin using control burning of the oil slicks if possible.

If you encounter oil from this spill or to report oiled or injured wildlife you can contact the oil spill Unified Command at 1-800-557-1401. You can also contact us at 1-866-msriver.

We will continue to monitor the situation and will keep everyone updated. We value the work that all of our partners are doing on this issue and we will continue to work with our partners throughout the Gulf region.


Support this vital work today!

Yes! I want to help make Louisiana safe for us and for future generations!

LEAN is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Organization Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) is a non-profit organization working to foster communication and cooperation among citizens and groups to address Louisiana’s environmental problems.

For More About LEAN:

:}

It is pray and hold your breath time

:}

Global Warming Critics Are Being Paid – That’s why there always is an angry post

any time anybody mentions Global Warming in a supportive way. For a long time I was puzzled by how fast and how consistently the Global Warming nay sayers put comments up on articles or blogs or whatever source and how angry they were. After I read the Reuters article  below it suddenly dawned on me that they are being paid to do it. Such prompt and vicious attacks must be a FULL TIME JOB.

Now before you get all back about it. First, there is a right wing conspiracy. The Koch Bros and Massey to name a few billionaires certainly have staff members dedicated to Climate Deniers. But that could only account for say what 30 or 40 people doing it. That is a lot. But consider another supplemental alternative. Exxon Mobile at best guestamate (and they don’t even know really) employs 90,000 people and BP employs another 85,000. Just those 2 companies employ enough people to account for every man, woman and child in Springfield Il. and the surrounding area. What if they let it be known that for a half-hour a day, or like when you have some downtime, it is OK to use company computers to harass climate scientists, journalist who right articles supportive of Climate Change and environmental organizations? Just in one week they could contribute 90,000 hours of cruising the net time and attacks. Anyway this is part of the article that I found at PEAKOIL:

http://peakoil.com/?p=53923

But came from here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P00A20100426

Climate debate gets ugly as world moves to curb CO2

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April  23, 2010. REUTERS/Mukesh Gupta

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor.

Science |  Green Business |  COP15

Climate scientists, used to dealing with skeptics, are under siege like never before, targeted by hate emails brimming with abuse and accusations of fabricating global warming data. Some emails contain thinly veiled death threats.

Across the Internet, climate blogs are no less venomous, underscoring the surge in abuse over the past six months triggered by purported evidence that global warming is either a hoax or the threat from a warmer world is grossly overstated.

A major source of the anger is from companies with a vested interest in fighting green legislation that might curtail their activities or make their operations more costly.

“The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, from Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

“The evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change gets stronger with each additional year,” Mann told Reuters in emailed responses to questions.

Greenpeace and other groups say that some energy companies are giving millions to groups that oppose climate change science because of concerns about the multi-billion dollar costs associated with carbon trading schemes and clean energy policies.

For example, rich nations including the United States, Japan and Australia, are looking to introduce emissions caps and a regulated market for trading those emissions.

More broadly, the United Nations is trying to seal a tougher climate accord to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation blamed for heating up the planet.

Other opponents are drawn into the debate by deep concerns that governments will trample on freedoms or expand their powers as they try to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of higher temperatures.

“There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks.

“And then you have the ideologues who have a deep hatred of government involvement,” said Schneider, a veteran climate scientist and author of the book “Science as a contact sport”.

:}

“THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT”

Scientists and conservationists say some anti-climate change lobbyists are funded by energy giants such as ExxonMobil, which has a long history of donating money to interest groups that challenge climate science.

According to a Greenpeace report released last month, ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008.

The report, using mandatory SEC reporting on charitable contributions, also shows that foundations linked to Kansas-based Koch Industries, a privately owned petrochemical and chemicals giant, gave nearly $25 million.

Koch said the Greenpeace report mischaracterized the company’s efforts. “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” the company said in a note on its website.

ExxonMobil makes no secret of funding a range of groups, but says it has also discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups.

:}

“We’ve never experienced this sort of thing before,” he said of the intense challenges to climate science and the level of email and Internet traffic.

All the climate change scientists with whom Reuters spoke said they were determined to continue their research despite the barrage of nasty emails and threats. Some expressed concern the argument could turn violent.

“My wife has made it very clear, if the threats become personalized, I cease to interact with the media. We have kids,” said one scientist who did not want to be identified.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Megan Goldin)

:}

Please see the entire article. It is amazing in its even handedness but here is the kicker for me. 2 hours later at 9:58 this comment pops up:

where is the proof? how can you prove that carbon dioxide making up 2% of the warming gasses is responsible for 100% of the temperature change? You can’t. there is no way you can show that evil industrialism is hurting the precious gaia. but you can move to a north korean work camp and unplug from modern industrialist society. Get a new guilt free life in a NPRK work camp! get close to nature under a steel ball tipped leather whip!

boomba Report As Abusive

:}

So A Volcano And An Oil Rig Blew Up – So what it was Earth Week

It is true, a Volcano blew up and I did not say a word:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/iceland.volcano.evacuation/index.html

800 evacuated as Iceland volcano erupts

By the CNN Wire Staff
April 14, 2010 12:38 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — Icelandic authorities evacuated about 800 people early Wednesday when a volcano erupted beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, an emergency spokesman said.

The first evacuations began at 2 a.m. (10 p.m. ET Tuesday), according to Rognvaldur Olafsson, chief inspector at Iceland’s Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management. He said everyone in the area was safe.

“We have located the fissure that is erupting under the glacier,” Olafsson told CNN. He said scientists are currently doing aerial reconnaissance of the area and that officials would know more when they return.

So far, he said, the eruption has created a large hole in the glacier. Lava is not a big concern but flooding is, he said.

iReport: Are you there? Send your images, videos

Map: Eyjafjallajokull glacier

RELATED TOPICS
  • Iceland

“The volcano is under the glacier, and it’s melting parts of the glacier,” Olafsson said. “The rivers will rise and potentially make some damage.”

iReporter captures footage of eruption

Rivers closest to the glacier have already started rising, he added.

The glacier is the sixth-biggest in Iceland, just to the west of the bigger glacier, Myrdalsjokull. It is about 100 miles (160 km) east of the capital, Reykjavik.

:}

So will it effect the environment. Yes. Anything that disrupts air travel is a good thing because air travel is one of the largest causes of global warming. Will it cool the planet any. Probably not but if Kitra goes off it could be a major event and the last three times “Eyja” went off Kitra did too. So keep on watching folks. Air travel here was disrupted too so it was nice to sit on my swing out back and look at the stars with no blinking jet lights.

:}

And yes, an Oil Rig blew up and sank. What, that doesn’t happen everyday? I guess the gulf needs 42,000 gallons of oil spilled in it every day for God knows how long.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/26/national/main6433600.shtml

NEW ORLEANS, April 26, 2010

Oil Spill Continues; Will Robot Fix Leak?

Officials Wait to See if Unmanned Submarines Can Activate Cut-Off Valves a Mile Below Gulf of Mexico Surface

(CBS/AP)

Authorities continue to monitor the size and direction of a Gulf of Mexico oil sheen by air, while using robotic underwater equipment to try to shut off its source at a wrecked deepwater drilling platform.

The Coast Guard and the companies that owned an operated the rig plan a Monday afternoon news conference in Robert, La., the site of a command center established over the weekend to deal with the crisis.

The oil has been leaking at a rate estimated at 42,000 gallons a day. Workers are trying to make sure the oil doesn’t reach the Gulf Coast’s fragile ecosystem.

An explosion on the floating deep water rig last Tuesday night led to a huge fire and the eventual sinking of the rig. The search for 11 missing workers was called off on Friday.

Crews began using a robot submarine Sunday to try to the leak nearly a mile below the surface, but said it would take at least another day before they knew whether the job was completed.

The Coast Guard said the oil spill was expected to stay 30 miles off the coast for the next several days.

The robot submarines are trying to activate valves at the well head. If that doesn’t work, crews are also planning to drill a relief well to cut off the flow – which could take several months.

What appeared to a manageable spill a couple of days ago after an oil rig exploded and sank off the Louisiana coast Tuesday, has now turned into a more serious environmental problem. The new leak was discovered Saturday, and as much as 1,000 barrels – or 42,000 gallons – of oil is leaking each day, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said.

:}

This is what they want in the artic? If they drill off Virginia, is this what they want coming up Chesapeake Bay?

:}

My Dad Owned 3 Dodge Desotos – In the early and mids 60s

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdMDexoMSlc

What a difference 50 years make. My dad loved these cars. They weighed a ton, had huge engines and got 10 miles to the gallon when gas was 15 cents a gallon. Now we are switching to electricity. What a world we live in.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CmEpXnjJj0 )


1958 Dodge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeSoto_%28automobile%29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

1952 DeSoto DeLuxe hood ornament.

The DeSoto (sometimes De Soto) was a brand of automobile based in the United States, manufactured and marketed by the Chrysler Corporation from 1928 to 1961. The DeSoto logo featured a stylized image of Hernando de Soto. The De Soto marque was officially dropped 30 November 1960, with a bit over two million built since 1928.[1]

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sN-srcAgH8 )

The DeSoto make was founded by Walter Chrysler on August 4, 1928, and introduced for the 1929 model year. It was named after the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto. Chrysler wanted to enter the brand in competition with its arch-rivals General Motors, Studebaker, and Willys-Knight, in the mid-price class.

Shortly after DeSoto was introduced, however, Chrysler completed its purchase of the Dodge Brothers, giving the company two mid-priced makes. Had the transaction been completed sooner, DeSoto never would have been introduced.

Initially, the two-make strategy was relatively successful, with DeSoto priced below Dodge models. Despite the economic times, DeSoto sales were relatively healthy, pacing Dodge at around 25,000 units in 1932. However, in 1933, Chrysler reversed the market positions of the two marques in hopes of boosting Dodge sales. By elevating DeSoto, it received Chrysler’s streamlined 1934 Airflow bodies. But, on the shorter DeSoto wheelbase, the design was a disaster and was unpopular with consumers. Unlike Chrysler, which still had more traditional models to fall back on, DeSoto was hobbled by the Airflow design until the 1935 Airstream arrived.

Aside from its Airflow models, DeSoto’s 1942 model is probably its second most memorable model from the pre-war years, when the cars were fitted with powered pop-up headlights, a first for a North American mass-production vehicle. DeSoto marketed the feature as “Air-Foil” lights “Out of Sight Except at Night”.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGBKy5iMRBw )

After wartime restrictions on automotive production were ended, DeSoto returned to civilian car production when it reissued its 1942 models as 1946 models, but without the hidden-headlight feature, and with fender lines extending into the doors, like other Chrysler products of the immediate postwar period.

Until 1952, DeSoto used the Deluxe and Custom model designations. However, in 1953, DeSoto dropped the Deluxe and Custom names and designated its six-cylinder cars the Powermaster and its V8 car the Firedome.

At its height, DeSoto’s more popular models included the Firedome, Firesweep, and Fireflite. The DeSoto Adventurer, introduced for 1956 as a high-performance hard-top coupe (similar to Chrysler’s 300), became a full-range model in 1960.

DeSotos sold well through the 1956 model year. That year, for the first, and only, time in the marque’s history, it served as Pace Car at the Indianapolis 500.[2] In 1955,[3] along with all Chrysler models, De Sotos were redesigned with Virgil Exner‘s “Forward Look”. Exner gave the DeSoto soaring tailfins fitted with triple taillights, and consumers responded by buying record numbers. The 1957 had a well integrated design, with two variations: the smaller Firesweep, based on the concurrent Dodge; and the Firedome and Fireflite (and its halo model Adventurer sub-series), based on the larger Chrysler body. As was conventional in the era, subsequent years within the typical three year model block were distinguished by trim, bumper, and other low cost modifications, typically by adding bulk to bumpers and grilles, taillight changes, color choices, instrumentation and interior design changes and often additional external trim.

The 1958 economic downturn hurt sales of mid-priced makes across the board, and DeSoto sales were 60 percent lower than those of 1957 in what would be DeSoto’s worst year since 1938. The sales slide continued for 1959 and 1960 (down 40 percent from the already low 1959 figures), and rumors began to circulate DeSoto was going to be discontinued

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY6vxrs_S_o )

By the time the 1961 DeSoto was introduced in the fall of 1960, rumors were widespread that Chrysler was moving towards terminating the brand, fueled by a reduction in model offerings for the 1960 model year.

For 1961, DeSoto lost its series designations entirely, in a move reminiscent of Packard’s final lineup. And, like the final Packards, the final DeSoto was of questionable design merit. Again, based on the shorter Chrysler Windsor wheelbase, the DeSoto featured a two-tiered grille (each tier with a different texture) and revised taillights. Only a two-door hardtop and a four-door hardtop were offered. The cars were trimmed similarly to the 1960 Fireflite.

The final decision to discontinue DeSoto was announced on November 30, 1960, just forty-seven days after the 1961 models were introduced. At the time, Chrysler warehouses contained several million dollars in 1961 DeSoto parts, so the company ramped up production in order to use up the stock. Chrysler and Plymouth dealers, which had been forced to take possession of DeSotos under the terms of their franchise agreements, received no compensation from Chrysler for their unsold DeSotos at the time of the formal announcement. Making matters worse, Chrysler kept shipping the cars through December, many of which were sold at a loss by dealers eager to be rid of them. After the parts stock was exhausted, a few outstanding customer orders were filled with Chrysler Windsors.

:}

Have a good weekend.

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

:}

Global Warming Is Not A Crisis – According to the New York Times

I keep wanting to make the point that medicine is one of our biggest energy wasters but the world keeps yanking my chain like this:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/on-the-energy-gap-and-climate-crisis/

The one I’d choose is much like the one stated by  Richard Somerville of the University of California, San Diego, during a climate debate several years ago over the proposition that “ Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”

:}

But then little things like this pop up the same day:

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/2010/04/08/global-warming-is-still-an-issue-two-glaciers-disappear/

Global Warming is Still an Issue, Two Glaciers Disappear

Posted by Staff on Apr 8th, 2010 /

Two more glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park. There are 25 glaciers left and scientists believe they will be gone by the end of the decade. This brings the problem of Global Warming back into the news after the recent email scandals, that implied that many in the Global Warming movement were manipulating statistics.

The loss of the glaciers in the northwestern Montana park is attributed to warmer temperatures. These 2 glaciers fell below the measure used by scientists to determine if they can be called glaciers. This number is 25 acres. When the glacier falls below this number, it is no longer considered a glacier. The largest glacier in the park, called the “Harrison Glacier” covers 465 acres.

The decrease of glaciers means there is less water in the rivers of the area. Less water also contributes to an increase in fires and a decrease in fish. It is not certain what is causing the rise in temperatures causing the shrinking of the glaciers. 90% of glaciers worldwide are now said to be shrinking. Alaska, the Alps and the Andes are leading the world in the loss of glaciers. Scientist have toyed with the idea of covering glaciers in plastic sheeting to keep them cooler.

:}

Isn’t life pathetic sometimes…

:}

Scientists Are Such Wimps – No guns blazing here

This is a pretty simple (dare I say it) observation. Instead of scaring the crap out of people and tagging the polluters as the killers that they are, scientist must haggle over DATA. That’s the way to get the high school graduates all excited. Even college graduates in say, Education, Physical Ed., Social Work and other softer occupations at the college level don’t believe in something directly observable like evolution, let alone something arcane as climate destabilization. Don’t even get me started about all those people who get a “religious education”.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235084

Sharon Begley

Their Own Worst Enemies

Why scientists are losing the PR wars.

Published Mar 18, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 29, 2010

It’s a safe bet that the millions of Americans who have recently changed their minds about global warming—deciding it isn’t happening, or isn’t due to human activities such as burning coal and oil, or isn’t a serious threat—didn’t just spend an intense few days poring over climate-change studies and decide, holy cow, the discretization of continuous equations in general circulation models is completely wrong! Instead, the backlash (an 18-point rise since 2006 in the percentage who say the risk of climate change is exaggerated, Gallup found this month) has been stoked by scientists’ abysmal communication skills, plus some peculiarly American attitudes, both brought into play now by how critics have spun the “Climategate” e-mails to make it seem as if scientists have pulled a fast one.

Scientists are lousy communicators. They appeal to people’s heads, not their hearts or guts, argues Randy Olson, who left a professorship in marine biology to make science films. “Scientists think of themselves as guardians of truth,” he says. “Once they have spewed it out, they feel the burden is on the audience to understand it” and agree.

That may work if the topic is something with no emotional content, such as how black holes form, but since climate change and how to address it make people feel threatened, that arrogance is a disaster. Yet just as smarter-than-thou condescension happens time after time in debates between evolutionary biologists and proponents of intelligent design (the latter almost always win), now it’s happening with climate change. In his 2009 book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, Olson recounts a 2007 debate where a scientist contending that global warming is a crisis said his opponents failed to argue in a way “that the people here will understand.” His sophisticated, educated Manhattan audience groaned and, thoroughly insulted, voted that the “not a crisis” side won.

Like evolutionary biologists before them, climate scientists also have failed to master “truthiness” (thank you, Stephen Colbert), which their opponents—climate deniers and creationists—wield like a shiv. They say the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political, not a scientific, organization; a climate mafia (like evolutionary biologists) keeps contrarian papers out of the top journals; Washington got two feet of snow, and you say the world is warming?

There is less backlash against climate science in Europe and Japan, and the U.S. is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who agree that species, including humans, evolved. That suggests there is something peculiarly American about the rejection of science. Charles Harper, a devout Christian who for years ran the program bridging science and faith at the Templeton Foundation and who has had more than his share of arguments with people who view science as the Devil’s spawn, has some hypotheses about why that is. “In America, people do not bow to authority the way they do in England,” he says. “When the lumpenproletariat are told they have to think in a certain way, there is a backlash,” as with climate science now and, never-endingly, with evolution. (Harper, who studied planetary atmospheres before leaving science, calls climate scientists “a smug community of true believers.”)

:}

Joe Barton – Not only a climate killer but an energy profiteer

I was going to go back to the residential market today or maybe do another post on green cars. But I saw this in the Dallas Morning Star and I just had to say that these folks are so brazen and shameless that there is no stopping them short of jail. Which leads me to ask what ever happened to Tom Delay?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6848980.html

Barton bought stake in gas wells from lobbyist

© 2010 The Associated Press

Feb. 3, 2010, 11:50AM

DALLAS — U.S. Rep. Joe Barton has earned nearly $100,000 from an interest in natural gas wells purchased from a campaign donor who advised the congressman on energy policy, according to interviews and records.

The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday that land records show the Republican from Arlington bought his interest from Walter G. Mize, a Cleburne businessman who donated more than $30,000 to Barton’s campaigns.

Barton said at a hearing last month of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that he was “a small, small partner in a natural gas well in Johnson County in the Barnett Shale.” He later told a reporter that he couldn’t remember exactly how he obtained the interest.

Mize, who died in 2008, had urged Barton to create a federal oil and gas research program that was included in a 2005 energy law Barton wrote when he chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mize doesn’t appear to have ever directly benefited from the program’s funding.

An expert says lawmakers aren’t prohibited from going into business with campaign donors, but Barton’s interest could become controversial at a time when Congress is considering energy legislation that would boost the demand for natural gas.

Barton, a longtime proponent of domestic oil and natural gas production, said his investment is legal and was publicly reported in accordance with federal law and ethics rules. Barton, who remains the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s top Republican, told the newspaper his investment doesn’t conflict with his legislative responsibilities.

“I don’t think my position on any pending issue is going to be affected by me investing in an oil and gas opportunity as long as it’s done straight up and reported with my own money at risk,” Barton said.

Congressional experts say such deals raise ethical questions for lawmakers, who are expected by the public to separate their personal finances and official duties.

“If you are elected as a public servant to try to do what is right for the public generally and then you use that position to help bring in material wealth, I think it’s unethical,” said James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University.

Barton said he paid a fair price for his interest in the wells, but his exact costs aren’t documented by a 2008 House financial disclosure report. On that form, he listed that he purchased his interest from gas producer EOG Resources Inc.

His office issued a statement saying Barton “bought in at the same rate and assumed the same amount of risk as every other partner in the well” before drilling began. According to his disclosure report, Barton said he paid between $15,000 and $50,000 for his interest in the wells. The report only requires that lawmakers report a range of values.

:}

We are doomed.

:}